Mark > Recent Status Updates

Still reading the introduction of this book. I was surprised that he originally intended this book to be read by adult learners when it seems intended for high school English

I guessed that the Akkadian Empire marked the beginning of Mesopotamian society being more patriarchal, so it’s reassuring to see that Podany confirms it in this book

It’s intriguing though not surprising that Mesopotamian letters would be brief and impersonal. No doubt having to write on clay tablets had a part to play in it, although Podany doesn’t mention this. Instead, she claims it’s because letters were only sent for important matters and that senders and recipients might be illiterate, meaning their private letters would be read by scribes or interpreters

I find it fascinating how complex the tax scheme in the Third Dynasty of Ur was. It’s interesting that one province every month would pay tax to the king, and wealthier provinces would do so more than once a year. I also think it’s interesting that the king would pay back the provinces in livestock for their services to the state

Again, Mesopotamia provides insights into how our modern institutions were formed. Podany discuses the theories to how Sumerian city-states got their first kings. Either they were military leaders who remained in power after war or they were selected by elders to balance out the power of the priests. In either case, it seems his subjects respected his power because he provided for them

The first real chapter dives into Uruk culture in the late 4th millennium BC. Uruk was a city in Sumer. What’s interesting about Uruk is that it provides insights into how our earliest cultural and political institutions were formed. For example, Uruk didn’t have kings to begin with, only priests ruled (we think). Also, language began as was to record transactions and the number of goods owned

The introductory chapter feels a bit disjointed. It’s divided into three parts: a brief blurb on archeology, an overview of near east geography, and a short outline of the rest of the book. Everything is treated very superficially but that’s to be expected of a book of this kind. Podany’s writing is clear and concise. To me, the lack of information helps me to see the bigger picture

Read the books that grow with your mind. In other words, the books that you can return to time and time again because as you grow smarter and more knowledgeable, you understand more of the book and have more to gain from it

The social sciences are difficult to read because authors usually don’t define their terms and they change throughout the text. They also use different methodologies in their work. The social sciences need to be read syntopically. To read syntopically, you must create a bibliography of books with a common theme. Then you must read all of the books inspectionally to determine which books deserve analytical reading.

Philosophy tries to answer almost child-like fundamental questions about the universe. These are first order questions. Second order questions are questions that these first order questions raise. Second order questions are the focus of most modern philosophy

Classical works of science should be read as a study of the history of science and its methods

History is fiction in the sense that the author needs to invent, to some extent, the pattern that historical events share or the motivations behind the actions of the characters, since neither of these things exist in the historical record

Nonfiction comments on the experiences in our lives. Fiction is itself the experience and we gain insight from analyzing this experience. The text itself does not analyze the experience

With practical books, we are chiefly concerned with the means and the ends

I read the chapter about references. The central argument is that you should only use references when you have attempted to understand the book by yourself but are still perplexed. I found his observation that encyclopedias are essentially dictionaries, but instead of words they list facts. I also found his comment that you should read the scholarly introduction of a book LAST to be disappointing but sensical

If the author’s analysis is incomplete but their reasoning and evidence is otherwise sound, you cannot disagree with the author but only withhold your judgment, according to Adler. Not sure I agree with this since having an incomplete analysis speaks poorly of the author and their book. Adler also argues that to be well read means to read a book well, not read many books

Readers disagree with authors on 4 different grounds: they are uninformed, misinformed, illogical, or they didn’t finish their reasoning. I have read the section about the first 3 reasons, next is the fourth. Adler claims these 4 reasons encompass all criticisms of a book, which I’m not sure about

Disagreements can be remediated if the disagreement lies on not mere opinion but on differences in knowledge. Knowledge is defendable and based on evidence and truths