I read this a long time ago. Isn’t this kind of Dostoevsky’s testimony to the joys of misanthropy?
Archilochus said “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” According to Isaiah Berlin, Tolstoy was a fox who wanted to be a hedgehog. War and Peace was Tolstoy’s foxy masterpiece.
That’s actually a pretty good insight. You can sense that in a big way throughout.
Don’t tell him that. Though I got the sense that even he isn’t quite convinced that he’s achieving ‘‘hedgehog status’’ when he writes.
The Antichrist
I want to read poetics
I’ve read volume 2 and am reading volume 3
I’m reading national geographic all the time, the newspaper, and c.l. Lewis books… uh some other ones but can’t think of them right now.
I’m reading Reverence by Paul Woodruff
cceia.org/resources/publicat … d/205.html
An excerpt:
"…My footnote was on Thuscydides, the most thoughtful of the ancient Greek historians. Writing in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, Thuscydides adopted the humanist position that gods do not interview in human affairs. He believed that purely human currents in history would bring about most of the results that traditional thinkers expected from the gods: If a tyrant rises too far and too fast, or if he exercises his power with too much arrogance, other people will fear him and hate him, and they – not the gods – will unite to bring him down. But if the gods never punish human beings, why bother with reverence?
I used to think that it was only fear of the gods that made the ancient Greeks reverent. Thucydides does not seem to fear the gods, but he fears human arrogance, and therefore he cares a great deal about reverence, which he trears as a cardinal virtue. Some scholars argue, in spite of appearances, that he does believe the gods punish human beings when they violate reverence. But then why doesn’t he say so. That was the puzzle I took on in my footnote.
Currently reading:
Deadhouse Gates - Steven Erikson
The second gigantic novel in the ten-part fantasy series Malazan Book of the Fallen. I can really, seriously recommend it to anyone who enjoys complex storylines and well thought-out fantasy. His works are simply superb, rivalling Tolkien’s for their breadth and detail.
Infinity and the Mind: The Science and Philosophy of the Infinite - Rudy Rucker
An excursion into mathematical infinity, the mind’s structure as a computer, and how such a computer is limited in the way it can understand the physical and mathematical universe. Very interesting and compelling, especially for the more mathematically inclined amongst you.
Irrationality - N.S. Sutherland
A good, hard look at, and analysis of, humans and their decisions (both individually and collectively); concluding in a scarily large number of cases that said decisions are made irrationally (scary because one then notices most of these traits in oneself!).
Recently finished:
The Emperor’s New Mind - Sir Roger Penrose
Roger takes you on a fascinating journey, from computing and algorithms to fractals and infinity; from quantum weirdness to his own wacky (but extraordinary) ideas of what makes our mind and consciousness tick, and what will always distinguish them from any designed robot/computer. Read with a pinch of salt, but don’t be put off by the occasional mathematics and formal logic - just hop on to the next chapter!
The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins
I don’t think this needs much explanation. 
Soon to start reading:
I intend to get into Bertrand Russell’s Principia Mathematica at some point in the next year. I also want to re-attempt Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, and George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm. (The latter was one I read when I was much younger, and clearly didn’t fully comprehend its actual message - farm animals talking to each other was enough to keep me interested!)
These are not books that you have to attempt. They either take you in completely or they don’t. As for me, from the first page I was wholly absorbed and captivated.
My earlier attempts at To Kill a Mockingbird and Nineteen Eighty-Four were thwarted by me being distracted from them by such things as extensive revision for exams, and later spending lots of time in the park with mates in the fine weather earlier this British summer. I lost track of the story-lines, but that doesn’t imply I wasn’t enjoying them. I want to try them again, hopefully with more free time to spare for them.
You should be able to read To Kill A Mockingbird in one sitting. I think it took me somewhere between five and seven hours, but I’m not sure. All I know for sure is that I didn’t sleep that night and I was wrecked for work the next day. 1984 takes a bit more time, or at least, I took more time with it. Happy reading
1984
Do you remember the last line written? Pop Quiz: What did Orwell end with?
A History of India John Keay
“A Reasonable Life” by Ferenc Mate.
Urm…“He loved Big Brother.”
“You win!”
“The prize . . . {curtains draw open] . . . A brand new wearable camera with head mounted display, perfect for capturing every moment, both big and small, of your entire life!”
I’ve been reading the instruction manual to a video game–mainly what buttons to push.
I’ve also been reading the descriptions of books on the best seller list. The words killer, detective, love, and vampire appear often and give my vocab a boost.
I just read Kierkegaard on boredom (from Either/Or) on the internet. Great stuff.
I’m interested in boredom, seriously. Is that text available online?
I would check myself but I’m also interested in laziness.
Kierkegaard wrote: “Boredom is the root of all evil - the despairing refusal to be oneself.” I wonder how that logic works. If I refuse to be myself out of despair, that is boredom and the root of all evil, or that is boredom which is the root of all evil? It was much simpler thinking of greed as the root of all evil, but I suppose that would be more boring than thinking of my existential identity disorder as the root of all evil and essentially boring, likely because of the vacuum it creates between me and not me. Maybe.