This blog needs a reboot. That much is clear.
For a long time now, I have been reading more than I've ever read before, yet I have not written about these eclectic and brilliant texts on this blog. This is because I was writing about them during lectures and seminars, and in essays.
Now I have the time to read for pleasure, so I am returning to this memory-tool. (Theuth called writing a potion for extending memory).
This blog is in disrepair. The posts were not of a quality I am happy with. There are many drafts of potential posts - notes and scribblings describing ideas and opinions I no longer believe. These have been purged. Posts below this one reflect an old version of me. Above this post is another version: the me of 'now'.
Catch-up of the last few years:
I've read the occasional book for pleasure. One's that stand out include Neil Gaiman's The Ocean At The End Of The Lane, Ray Bradbury's Something Wicked This Way Comes, John Green's The Fault In Our Stars, and more. All great.
During these few years I have studied Shakespeare, popular Victorian literature, contemporary and 20th Century American Literature, Science-Fiction and Fantasy, a little bit of poetry (Ginsberg, Baudelaire) as well as many areas of philosophy (a particular interest in political philosophy has developed, which was always bubbling under the surface).
From here on in, I present a diary of The Things I'm Reading, and maybe some other collected thoughts. I hope I can keep it up.
21 July 2015
23 March 2013
The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Stephen Chbosky
I just read the last third of this book in under 2 hours. Compared to the 2 months it took to read the first two thirds, this is testament to the fact that once you really get into a book this good, you just can't put it down.
When I started reading Perks, I thought I was going to dislike it for the same reason I disliked The Catcher in the Rye: its about a teenager moaning endlessly about his problems that aren't really problems and not getting over himself. However, I was proved wrong. The protagonist Charlie has mature, real reactions to what happens to him. He even addresses towards the end of the book that some of his problems are insignificant compared to that of others (ironically, this happens when we discover some genuinely terrible truths about his past), and says that he understands this, but that it is okay to feel sad even when others are worse off. There's nothing wrong with feeling. Whilst it is filled with a lot of sadness, it's an incredibly life-affirming novel. Like The Fault in Our Stars, which I will have to write something on, it manages to be sad, funny, and optimistic all at the same time.
The concept of having the novel written in a series of letters was interesting. You really feel like Charlie is genuinely opening up to someone, even though you know that both him and the reader of the letter are fictional. An interesting concept, which I initially thought was a gimmick but became quite poignant.
I think this says something about how positive reading a boo like this can be:
When I started my marathon of reading the last third of the novel, I had just seen that outside it was snowing in late March. I was annoyed. That shouldn't be a thing. When I finished the novel, I looked outside, and perhaps I had just gotten used to the idea of snow in March, but this time it looked really beautiful. It became a positive thing, and the only thing that changed was that I had read this incredibly positive and profoundly optimistic novel about how its okay to feel things and live in the moment and feel infinite.
No, it's not high literature. It's teen fiction. I don't know whether it will find it's way into the canon of literature eventually, but I enjoyed it much more than other 'better' works about alienated teenagers like The Catcher in the Rye or The Buddha of Suburbia. Perks made me feel so much more than they did, and that's surely what it's all about?
Note. I wrote this in virtually one go, an hour after finishing reading, and I feel it has the honesty of Charlie in Perks. Even my writing style has been influenced by this novel
When I started reading Perks, I thought I was going to dislike it for the same reason I disliked The Catcher in the Rye: its about a teenager moaning endlessly about his problems that aren't really problems and not getting over himself. However, I was proved wrong. The protagonist Charlie has mature, real reactions to what happens to him. He even addresses towards the end of the book that some of his problems are insignificant compared to that of others (ironically, this happens when we discover some genuinely terrible truths about his past), and says that he understands this, but that it is okay to feel sad even when others are worse off. There's nothing wrong with feeling. Whilst it is filled with a lot of sadness, it's an incredibly life-affirming novel. Like The Fault in Our Stars, which I will have to write something on, it manages to be sad, funny, and optimistic all at the same time.
The concept of having the novel written in a series of letters was interesting. You really feel like Charlie is genuinely opening up to someone, even though you know that both him and the reader of the letter are fictional. An interesting concept, which I initially thought was a gimmick but became quite poignant.
I think this says something about how positive reading a boo like this can be:
When I started my marathon of reading the last third of the novel, I had just seen that outside it was snowing in late March. I was annoyed. That shouldn't be a thing. When I finished the novel, I looked outside, and perhaps I had just gotten used to the idea of snow in March, but this time it looked really beautiful. It became a positive thing, and the only thing that changed was that I had read this incredibly positive and profoundly optimistic novel about how its okay to feel things and live in the moment and feel infinite.
No, it's not high literature. It's teen fiction. I don't know whether it will find it's way into the canon of literature eventually, but I enjoyed it much more than other 'better' works about alienated teenagers like The Catcher in the Rye or The Buddha of Suburbia. Perks made me feel so much more than they did, and that's surely what it's all about?
Note. I wrote this in virtually one go, an hour after finishing reading, and I feel it has the honesty of Charlie in Perks. Even my writing style has been influenced by this novel
17 February 2013
EU - David Cameron's speech - Thoughts
When reasonably impressed with David Cameron's latest speech on the EU, I made notes about it which I am later turning into this blog post:
Cameron's astute analysis of the political and historical situation that he finds himself has been greatly to his advantage. His description of British mentality was seemingly accurate: the focus on pragmatism; the paradox between isolationist geography and mentality against openness and multiculturalism. Cameron clearly has a strong understanding of history, which can only be a good thing, rooting the debate in its past.
The speech itself was notably pro-Britain and aiming to improve our role in Europe. He is very much a Tory, and not a liberal idealist striving for the good of all.
It seems that the main question to ask about Europe and the EU is how attached Britain should be to the rest of the continent.
One way of looking at this is to say that it is necessary to be part of Europe as a political entity in order to remain relevant. The story of Britain over the last century is one of a diminishment in influence. Attaching to Europe might be one way of preventing this. Cameron says that we have more global influence due to our EU connection. On the other hand, the last century is also the story of the collapse of Europe. Europe is failing, and so gluing ourselves to it might actually be a killing stroke. The failing of Europe is the one historical point he does not acknowledge.
I like his focus on the importance of democracy in the EU. This is what we are exporting all over the world (for better or worse), so we must have it ourselves. The purpose of the EU (and UN etc.) is to make nations responsible for their actions, and to create a system of leadership that controls those at the top. The problem of history has always been that nations have had no laws to prevent them acting as they please on the global scale. If we are to have a system that prevents this (as well we should), it must be democratic in style.
In particular, his discussion about letting heretical views be heard and never denouncing new thoughts is crucial. This is one of the most important ideas in today's society, and boils down to the importance of free speech. Cameron was able to discuss these issues in an intelligent, rather than simply rhetorical way, like we often get from Obama. Diversity of thought amongst nations is good, like he says, as long as this does not take the form of acceptance of all ideas. It should be in the form of ideas competing with each other, for progress.
I was glad to hear him state strongly that we're not joining the Euro. There would be serious problems there and its fortunate that there's no chance that'll happen.
Cameron did make an assumption of the importance of capitalism as an economic structure, discussing ideas such as the single market and competitiveness without much question. This was weaker intellectually than his talk on democracy, but actually he is probably correct in his conclusion, despite it being arrived at from an assumption. Competition fuels progress and encourages economic growth across the board.
Co-operation, alongside competition of argument and economics seems like a reasonable vision. However, is Europe the right force to join with, or are we strapping ourselves to a nation free-falling into chaos and collapse?
It is also in doubt as to whether a true and complete union with Europe is possible, since us Brits will always be somewhat separate and isolated in our geography and mentality.
Cameron made a bold move, stating that there will, in the future, be an in-out referendum. I think he is right to not do this straight away, but it is important to educate the people about the issues involved. This will be fascinating to watch (assuming a Labour government isn't voted in next time!)
Cameron's astute analysis of the political and historical situation that he finds himself has been greatly to his advantage. His description of British mentality was seemingly accurate: the focus on pragmatism; the paradox between isolationist geography and mentality against openness and multiculturalism. Cameron clearly has a strong understanding of history, which can only be a good thing, rooting the debate in its past.
The speech itself was notably pro-Britain and aiming to improve our role in Europe. He is very much a Tory, and not a liberal idealist striving for the good of all.
It seems that the main question to ask about Europe and the EU is how attached Britain should be to the rest of the continent.
One way of looking at this is to say that it is necessary to be part of Europe as a political entity in order to remain relevant. The story of Britain over the last century is one of a diminishment in influence. Attaching to Europe might be one way of preventing this. Cameron says that we have more global influence due to our EU connection. On the other hand, the last century is also the story of the collapse of Europe. Europe is failing, and so gluing ourselves to it might actually be a killing stroke. The failing of Europe is the one historical point he does not acknowledge.
I like his focus on the importance of democracy in the EU. This is what we are exporting all over the world (for better or worse), so we must have it ourselves. The purpose of the EU (and UN etc.) is to make nations responsible for their actions, and to create a system of leadership that controls those at the top. The problem of history has always been that nations have had no laws to prevent them acting as they please on the global scale. If we are to have a system that prevents this (as well we should), it must be democratic in style.
In particular, his discussion about letting heretical views be heard and never denouncing new thoughts is crucial. This is one of the most important ideas in today's society, and boils down to the importance of free speech. Cameron was able to discuss these issues in an intelligent, rather than simply rhetorical way, like we often get from Obama. Diversity of thought amongst nations is good, like he says, as long as this does not take the form of acceptance of all ideas. It should be in the form of ideas competing with each other, for progress.
I was glad to hear him state strongly that we're not joining the Euro. There would be serious problems there and its fortunate that there's no chance that'll happen.
Cameron did make an assumption of the importance of capitalism as an economic structure, discussing ideas such as the single market and competitiveness without much question. This was weaker intellectually than his talk on democracy, but actually he is probably correct in his conclusion, despite it being arrived at from an assumption. Competition fuels progress and encourages economic growth across the board.
Co-operation, alongside competition of argument and economics seems like a reasonable vision. However, is Europe the right force to join with, or are we strapping ourselves to a nation free-falling into chaos and collapse?
It is also in doubt as to whether a true and complete union with Europe is possible, since us Brits will always be somewhat separate and isolated in our geography and mentality.
Cameron made a bold move, stating that there will, in the future, be an in-out referendum. I think he is right to not do this straight away, but it is important to educate the people about the issues involved. This will be fascinating to watch (assuming a Labour government isn't voted in next time!)
Yann Martel
Life of Pi
This novel had a massive impact on me. I absolutely loved it when I first read it. I was surprised to find that I hadn't written a piece on it before now. I love the use of language, and its apparent simplicity despite deep complexity in themes. I remember being totally gripped when I neared the end of the novel and was presented with the alternative story, forced to reconsider everything I had read until that point. Second and third readings become totally different once you know the ending, and have to grapple with the two-story concept.
This was recently adapted into a wonderful movie. Surprisingly, I was largely optimistic about this, despite it being considered un-filmable by many and always dangerous to adapt great works. This turned out to be one of the best films I have seen in a long time. (Note, whilst 3D has improved as a technology, it is not necessary.)
The film made some of the themes a bit more obvious and directly apparent, as opposed to the more nuanced novel, but this was largely to its advantage
In the movie, it is difficult to believe the animal story once you have heard the second human story. The performance of the actor playing Pi really dove into the character's psyche and forced us to realise that in reality, the wonderful adventure was not everything it seemed to be. The only way one could conceivably continue to believe the first story is through having faith. This, unfortunately, is not something I am programmed to do.
The religious themes were apparent, clearly arguing for any type of religious faith, almost saying that it is OK to believe whatever you want if it makes life happier and more interesting.
The main principle is that faith is a good thing, even if it is faith in something that is untrue. Only one with unprecedented faith could believe the wonderful story of Pi's life with Richard Parker.
The problem is, I do not believe any type of faith is a good thing.
I somehow have found a way to love the book without agreeing with any of its messages. I'm not even a vegetarian, which Life of Pi clearly advocates. How can this be?
The only answers I can think are these:
1) Even if I do not agree with the viewpoints, I am interested in the themes in general. Religion is one of my favourite topics, and when tackled through fiction is all the more interesting. Furthermore, I have always sought a rational explanation for meat-eating, without finding one I am truly happy with.
2) The language. The novel is expertly put together.
This second idea is backed up by the fact that I thoroughly enjoyed another of Yann Martel's novels:
Beatrice and Virgil
Martel's obsession with animals continues, and rather than tackling questions of religion, he decides to tackle the Holocaust.
What is the perspective on the Holocaust that is being presented?
There is some sympathy for the ex-Nazi character, despite the protagonist's disgust. The reader spends a lot of time with this supporting character without discovering his horrible past, thus making it difficult for the reader to abandon previous sympathies in exchange for hatred. Martel seems to be opening up the discussion, asking questions, as opposed to quite strongly presenting a world-view like he did in Life of Pi.
This novel had a massive impact on me. I absolutely loved it when I first read it. I was surprised to find that I hadn't written a piece on it before now. I love the use of language, and its apparent simplicity despite deep complexity in themes. I remember being totally gripped when I neared the end of the novel and was presented with the alternative story, forced to reconsider everything I had read until that point. Second and third readings become totally different once you know the ending, and have to grapple with the two-story concept.
This was recently adapted into a wonderful movie. Surprisingly, I was largely optimistic about this, despite it being considered un-filmable by many and always dangerous to adapt great works. This turned out to be one of the best films I have seen in a long time. (Note, whilst 3D has improved as a technology, it is not necessary.)
The film made some of the themes a bit more obvious and directly apparent, as opposed to the more nuanced novel, but this was largely to its advantage
In the movie, it is difficult to believe the animal story once you have heard the second human story. The performance of the actor playing Pi really dove into the character's psyche and forced us to realise that in reality, the wonderful adventure was not everything it seemed to be. The only way one could conceivably continue to believe the first story is through having faith. This, unfortunately, is not something I am programmed to do.
The religious themes were apparent, clearly arguing for any type of religious faith, almost saying that it is OK to believe whatever you want if it makes life happier and more interesting.
The main principle is that faith is a good thing, even if it is faith in something that is untrue. Only one with unprecedented faith could believe the wonderful story of Pi's life with Richard Parker.
The problem is, I do not believe any type of faith is a good thing.
I somehow have found a way to love the book without agreeing with any of its messages. I'm not even a vegetarian, which Life of Pi clearly advocates. How can this be?
The only answers I can think are these:
1) Even if I do not agree with the viewpoints, I am interested in the themes in general. Religion is one of my favourite topics, and when tackled through fiction is all the more interesting. Furthermore, I have always sought a rational explanation for meat-eating, without finding one I am truly happy with.
2) The language. The novel is expertly put together.
This second idea is backed up by the fact that I thoroughly enjoyed another of Yann Martel's novels:
Beatrice and Virgil
Martel's obsession with animals continues, and rather than tackling questions of religion, he decides to tackle the Holocaust.
What is the perspective on the Holocaust that is being presented?
There is some sympathy for the ex-Nazi character, despite the protagonist's disgust. The reader spends a lot of time with this supporting character without discovering his horrible past, thus making it difficult for the reader to abandon previous sympathies in exchange for hatred. Martel seems to be opening up the discussion, asking questions, as opposed to quite strongly presenting a world-view like he did in Life of Pi.
31 January 2013
The Magic Toyshop - Angela Carter
Sorry Angela Carter, I just couldn't convince myself that I enjoyed your novel. I just didn't.
I'm not sure I know why. It's packed full of analysable literary stuff, and is nice and straight-forward to read. All good right? Seemingly not.
Was it just too feminine for my tastes? I'm in no way anti-feminism. The Magic Toyshop is largely a feminist book with a female protagonist, but am I really so prejudice that this should put me off? I liked The Hunger Games, and that had a female protagonist. Although, that was less about gender-roles, and more about a strong, independent female character. Furthermore, the character Finn in The Magic Toyshop goes through more character development than Melanie and is very likeable. Why couldn't I get interested?
Perhaps I'll never know.
Again, sorry Angela Carter. I'm sure you're a good righter and all that, but I just couldn't get you.
I didn't like the semi-Freudian psycho-analytic feminists either. Sigh.
I'm not sure I know why. It's packed full of analysable literary stuff, and is nice and straight-forward to read. All good right? Seemingly not.
Was it just too feminine for my tastes? I'm in no way anti-feminism. The Magic Toyshop is largely a feminist book with a female protagonist, but am I really so prejudice that this should put me off? I liked The Hunger Games, and that had a female protagonist. Although, that was less about gender-roles, and more about a strong, independent female character. Furthermore, the character Finn in The Magic Toyshop goes through more character development than Melanie and is very likeable. Why couldn't I get interested?
Perhaps I'll never know.
Again, sorry Angela Carter. I'm sure you're a good righter and all that, but I just couldn't get you.
I didn't like the semi-Freudian psycho-analytic feminists either. Sigh.
Philosophy: My Spectrum/Continuum Theory
An uncontroversial theory of mine that many agree with but I thought was worth spelling out clearly.
Academics often use the phrase continuum. I use it interchangeably with spectrum.
Much of the world is made up of spectra. Most categories are arbitrary human distinction where there are scales of change with no definitive categories between similar things
The obvious example is colour. This is a scientific example that shows that there is no point at which you go from blue to yellow. You have to go through green. Before that you have to go through turquoise etc.
The same is true of more than you might think
Academics often use the phrase continuum. I use it interchangeably with spectrum.
Much of the world is made up of spectra. Most categories are arbitrary human distinction where there are scales of change with no definitive categories between similar things
The obvious example is colour. This is a scientific example that shows that there is no point at which you go from blue to yellow. You have to go through green. Before that you have to go through turquoise etc.
The same is true of more than you might think
For example:
- The development from a foetus to a person. There is no definitive moment where a foetus becomes a person: it is a gradual process. Perhaps the true spectrum here is non-person to person with foetus, child, comatose person and normal adult etc all a points on this scale, with many factors contributing
- The difference between philosophy and science.
Phil. - Ethics - Aesthetics - Free will - Conscience - 0 - Neurosci. - Cosmology - Quantum phy. - Science
- The difference between a religion and a cult.
- The difference between heroism and cowardice
Phil. - Ethics - Aesthetics - Free will - Conscience - 0 - Neurosci. - Cosmology - Quantum phy. - Science
- The difference between a religion and a cult.
- The difference between heroism and cowardice
- The difference between healthy and sick.
If you apply this to morality, which I believe we must, there are some serious repercussions.
Since morality derives from the maximisation of human flourishing, moral and immoral actions are just different points on a spectrum of morality (the scale being net well-being). There isn't a clear split between good deeds and sin. The religious stance that divides sin and good deeds with harsh lines with no crossover is non-maintainable.
Unless, they say that sins are deeds which have negative well-being and moral action are deeds on the positive end of the spectrum. However, this is not how the religious mind works. Because evil is specified by what God says (coveting your neighbour's goods is put on the same level as murder, along with keeping the Sabbath), then there is split that is not consequential. The religious stance is a Venn diagram with no cross-over area. However, in my world-view, these sins all have different degrees of wickedness, occupying different points on the scale.
There is therefore a point at which the categories can be separated (0 on the scale) but not everything in each category is therefore the same. There are degrees of morality.
You could say the same of the healthy/sick distinction. The scale is net healthiness, with negative and positive aspects being weighed up. A person can be healthy in many ways, but they shift onto the negative end of the spectrum because of a disease that has symptoms bad enough to make net healthiness negative. But not everyone that is unhealthy has the same amount of unhealthiness.
The point is, think of spectra wherever they apply and there may be consequences necessary to think about. It is necessary to consider what decides where things go on the scale. For example, when trying to work out what is a religion and what is a cult, first we must decide what goes on the scale. Here they may be lots of factors and the model becomes complex (size of the group, practises, methods of recruitment, absurdity of belief etc). It is then important to notice that actually no group can be asserted as either cult or religion. They are just at different points on a scale with cult at one end and religion at the other.
You will never find something that goes right on the end of a scale so that it is entirely one thing and not the other. Everything is useful and harmful. Every discipline in philosophy or science has aspects of both. If these things are subject to a scale, they cannot be all the way at one end.
If you apply this to morality, which I believe we must, there are some serious repercussions.
Since morality derives from the maximisation of human flourishing, moral and immoral actions are just different points on a spectrum of morality (the scale being net well-being). There isn't a clear split between good deeds and sin. The religious stance that divides sin and good deeds with harsh lines with no crossover is non-maintainable.
Unless, they say that sins are deeds which have negative well-being and moral action are deeds on the positive end of the spectrum. However, this is not how the religious mind works. Because evil is specified by what God says (coveting your neighbour's goods is put on the same level as murder, along with keeping the Sabbath), then there is split that is not consequential. The religious stance is a Venn diagram with no cross-over area. However, in my world-view, these sins all have different degrees of wickedness, occupying different points on the scale.
There is therefore a point at which the categories can be separated (0 on the scale) but not everything in each category is therefore the same. There are degrees of morality.
You could say the same of the healthy/sick distinction. The scale is net healthiness, with negative and positive aspects being weighed up. A person can be healthy in many ways, but they shift onto the negative end of the spectrum because of a disease that has symptoms bad enough to make net healthiness negative. But not everyone that is unhealthy has the same amount of unhealthiness.
The point is, think of spectra wherever they apply and there may be consequences necessary to think about. It is necessary to consider what decides where things go on the scale. For example, when trying to work out what is a religion and what is a cult, first we must decide what goes on the scale. Here they may be lots of factors and the model becomes complex (size of the group, practises, methods of recruitment, absurdity of belief etc). It is then important to notice that actually no group can be asserted as either cult or religion. They are just at different points on a scale with cult at one end and religion at the other.
You will never find something that goes right on the end of a scale so that it is entirely one thing and not the other. Everything is useful and harmful. Every discipline in philosophy or science has aspects of both. If these things are subject to a scale, they cannot be all the way at one end.
Freedom - quick thought
In studying my module Ideas of Freedom, this thought occurred to me in regards to the nature of freedom
Freedom is not just being able to do what you want: it is about having options available to you.
Even if the one option open to you is what you desire, that is not freedom. That is akin to a benevolent dictatorship
It is important that we are free to behave irrationally, immorally and even against our own will, even though we never would follow those paths.
E.g.
You want chocolate ice cream
You are force fed chocolate ice cream
= not free
You want chocolate ice cream
There is a choice between chocolate and vanilla
You eat the chocolate
= free
Note:
To read:
'Freedom' Tim Grey - 2 chap. online
Addition:
We are now studying Free Will, and it seems that everything we do has a cause. However, this seems fine to me, as long as the cause comes from ourselves. Perhaps determinism is true, but the type of freedom we need for our lives to have meaning is not incompatible with this. The importance of options is even more important, because we are freer to pursue whatever desires we please.
Freedom is not just being able to do what you want: it is about having options available to you.
Even if the one option open to you is what you desire, that is not freedom. That is akin to a benevolent dictatorship
It is important that we are free to behave irrationally, immorally and even against our own will, even though we never would follow those paths.
E.g.
You want chocolate ice cream
You are force fed chocolate ice cream
= not free
You want chocolate ice cream
There is a choice between chocolate and vanilla
You eat the chocolate
= free
Note:
To read:
'Freedom' Tim Grey - 2 chap. online
Addition:
We are now studying Free Will, and it seems that everything we do has a cause. However, this seems fine to me, as long as the cause comes from ourselves. Perhaps determinism is true, but the type of freedom we need for our lives to have meaning is not incompatible with this. The importance of options is even more important, because we are freer to pursue whatever desires we please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)