readme.txt

just google one of a billion must read lists and save this thread

Before I Die - Jenny Downham

The Game...

can't read

rofl@Nietzsche, why anyone would recommend anything by Nietzsche is beyond me.

1984 by George Orwell is probably the only book that I can think of that is a MUST read. Other than that, depends on the person's taste.

you fail at books

Sure, whatever you say, boss.

whats wrong in Nietzsche ?

german + ugly mustache

He's the original EMO. All his writings pretty much express how much of an outcast he felt and how fucken weird he was. And also, it's ironic how he's supposedly so anti-Plato yet Thus Spake Zarathustra is drenched in with the same intellectual arrogance that Plato expressed in "The Cave".

EDIT: Also want to add that I think this whole "epiphany" type declarations that people make into huge grandeur are nothing except self-worship... if Nietzsche lived today, he'd be an emo blogger who would write long rants about nothing and each time thinking it was ultimate discovery of human intellect of all time.

Nietzsche is one of the greatest writers ever.


and you sure dont even know what emo is.

Maybe he's good reading in the original German, like Kafka, and I'll admit I only got thru 80% of Thus Spake before I gave up on it (maybe he had a super awesome finale to finish off the weirdness).

The order of things (courtesy of Dr. Robins, Prof of CompSci at UVA)...

"Attention to health is life's greatest hindrance."
- Plato (427-347 B.C.)

"Plato was a bore."
- Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)

"Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal."
- Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910)

"I'm not going to get into the ring with Tolstoy."
- Ernest Hemingway (1899-1961)

"Hemingway was a jerk."
- Harold Robbins

Maybe he's good reading in the original German, like Kafka

You can read in German?

I cannot, but I've heard that Kafka has a very unique style if read in the original text. I don't think it translates well to English perhaps because you can't use verbs/adjectives at the end of a sentence (German speakers, correct me if I'm wrong) like you can in German.

You just made a huge ass of yourself.

But then again, everyone who thinks opposite must be an emo. In the lame vampire movie thread the same people were internet tough guys, weird. American link?

(I still don't know what an emo is and don't tell me :P)

Uh, okay, I guess you didn't know that Nietzsche like abandoned all his friends and hugged horses and cried a lot in public areas with everyone watching him.

What vampire thread?

And I'll tell you what I think emo is. Emo is someone who doesn't know how to be an adult and deal with their emotions internally. They would rather cry and complain about the world around them thinking they're the only ones with any problems. A good example of what emo is: a girl.

I cry more than my girl.

Does that make me:
[ ]Emo
[ ]A girl
[ ]A girly emo
[ ]An emo girl
[ ]All of the above

and what does that make her?
[ ]Emo
[ ]A man
[ ]A manly emo
[ ]An emo man
[ ]All of the above

Cry more, such a public shame, gotta be emo, keep it


in the headlines, statement yeah :E

What vampire thread?

The one where link was trying to make matters of taste universal statement. This is rather pointless.

*hits the peace pipe*

okay, fair enough. We'll have to agree to disagree on Nietzsche. I'll give that book that Mkeiy suggested a shot.

wow, that was stupid

I knew I'd get a bunch of responses from people who don't study/care/read philosophy.

Well buddymate youre an economist, so no respect there?

You've figured that out from this sentence? Impressive.

What you're essentially saying is that people who disagree with the notion that Nietzsche was an 'emo' don't 'care/read philosophy' or are fanboys.
You might wanna reconsider that for a second.

No need to be so sensitive...

I think you need to read Nietzsche some more. Given the context he was writting in, his politcal and social commentary of the 19th century is very accurate, regardless of whether you buy into the themes he presents it in. Nietzsche is like the guilty pleasure of philosophy, he's dead right on some things, and wickedly so. Yet he can be abit off in other areas, as occurs with every philosopher.

Irrespective of what your opinion on his work his, I believe that Nietzsche is just as important in social philosophy as Marx, Weber or Foucualt were. I would suggest you read On the Genealogy of Morality.

Thanks for the well-said response to my comments instead of the brain dead fanboys like above.

Alright, I will try Nietzsche out again! But if you're wrong I'm gonna hunt you down!

excuse my ignorance of Nietzsche (since I've only read Beyond Good and Evil) but i think of Nietzsche as a philosophical rambler, whereas Marx was part economist, part sociologist with a focused ideology. Gimme some examples of topics that caught both men's attention

The Genealogy on Morality is the only work of his that I've read, and I read it was part of my sociology degree. Part of it is his analyse of the modern morality that exist, and how perverted it is.

I agree about Nietzsche.

i absolutely agree, though i'm not sure whether you're just trolling the ignorant nietzsche fans. they all seem to detest the emotions they feel, but those emotions become a crutch and blind when they're assaulted by anybody with contrary opinions. you seem to be absolutely correct with the 'emo' label, and at first i thought you were being a bit negative, but then i realized that you were just being plain spoken and the negativity itself is projected by me; it's relative to my understanding of the subject matter.

they should read the trial...

I guess I could have been a bit more reserved in the way I expressed my opinions (that wouldn't be ESR though if I was!). But anyone who knows Nietzsche's work probably has strong opinions either way. Either you love him or you hate him.

or you...don't understand him?

You're absolutely right! Gee, why could I think of that? Man, I dunno how I made it this far!!!!... just luckskill I guess.... ='(

According to Oscar Wilde:
-great artists never understand each other. Extraordinary people, those which understand one or another at some point will have think by preformed patterns. At some point they won't be able to stop comparing what they read now, with other books and ideas. As for most of the people, which understand all writers, they doesn't understand anything, below an easy level. The true (in his opinion) is it doesn't have anything to do with the experience and knowledge (how many books and phylosophers may we reading and knowing about), when talking about understanding. Writing is all about style and imagination, and not logics and common sense, he says.

As for me, I just think he might be right. Because dunno why, the idea that you have read a lot of books and did understand them all doesn't fit my expectations. The conclusion coming from this is really ironically: you don't like it because you did not understand it, which is just an undesired form of apology to his name, coming from you. Nice try with the drawings, though.

(as a side note I don't like Nietzsche that much, either, but I don't name him a cheap writer, because this)

Hmm, that quote, which I doubt is actually direct because of grammatical errors, makes Oscar Wilde out to be pretty superficial. However, Oscar Wilde was an author and playwright, not a philosopher. I hope most people would agree with me that philosopher is NOT an art because it isn't meant to be creative but rather the quest for truth through reasoning. Nietzsche is a philosopher who used aphorisms, metaphors to express his ideas -- this is unlike Locke and most other classical philosophers who used controverts (which is clear and concise language to REASON a perspective),

It's ironic that you say I don't understand by you completely mistaken what Oscar Wilde was commenting on. And we could probably argue all day that great writers (James Joyce, Tolstoy, Kafka) are philosophers since there stories can be analyzed for their underlying perspectives on life and existence.

I'm not saying that I think philosophers shouldn't be picturesque in their reasoning, and that's not the reason why I don't like Nietzsche. I appreciate you trying to help me by saying that I didn't understand what he was saying. So maybe YOU can help me. I've grabbed my Penguin Classics version, so I'm sure our translations might be different, but here's a quote and you tell me what I'm getting wrong...

Behold, I teach you the Superman.
The Superman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The Superman shall be the meaning of the earth!
I entreat you, my brothers, remain true to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of superterrestrial hopes! They are poisoners, whether they know it or not.
They are despisers of life, atrophying and self-poisoned men, of whom the earth is weary so let them be gone!
Once blasphemy against God was the greatest blasphemy, but God died, and thereupon these blasphemers died too. To blaspheme the earth is now the most dreadful offence, and to esteem the bowels of the Inscrutable more highly than the meaning of the earth.

Blah blah blah, and so on. He repeats these same words, I'm pretty sure, several times because it's supposed to be a point that the word is "eternally recurring" each time Zarathustra comes out of hiding to lament the same things to all who will listen. The content, in my opinion, of what he has said there is...

Superman -- the enlightened man who doesn't need religion for his morals and is smarter than the most wizened man of earth (who he says is of hybrid of ghosts and plants = dead and long gone). This is where I get the impression of that same Platonian intellectual arrogance I mentioned in my first couple posts where I spoke of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. I would bet that Nietzsche thought himself one of these supremely enlightened Superman. And he saw himself as speaking through Zarathustra, trying to get his word out about morality (that we don't need the Church to teach us morals). Superterrestial hopes -- heaven and an afterlife of great things and great promises for following their morals.

And see, this is where it gets into our own personal philosophies and why I think Nietzsche is weird. Nietzsche, like I said in my previous posts, is concerned with what has influenced him. This isn't reasoning some great idea that our lives would be more complete without morals but he's rather attacking the establishment of the Church. In questing to find a reason to exist and how to be happy, personally I think we shouldn't divert our attentions outward but rather inward. When Locke argued against innate principles and ideas (which is extremely against the Church of that day since a child was believed to be imbued with what is right and wrong), but Locke never ONCE refers or attacks the Church for this. This is why I think Nietzsche is weird and emo, because he's trying to polarize himself from a specific idea. You can never achieve free-thought if you find something, acknowledge and then take the opposite stance.

Personally, I'm an atheist. HOWEVER, I can see why people believe in God and go to Church. It gives them something that they need to survive and be happy. I couldn't care less what they choose to do to their minds or bodies. I guess that makes me apathetic. That's probably why I don't like Nietzsche, because he's consumed with attacking the morality of the Church (which, I guess the idea of tithing and giving to your church as a moral code is pretty fucken hilarious), but I honestly don't see what's wrong with a the general moral codes that religions all across the world have established. These were developed/evolved, in my opinion, as underlying social concerns. It's in The Bible that incest is not acceptable. Even when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found containing the Book of Enoch (which was reviewed for submission to the Christian cannon) and contained acts of incest -- the Church understood this was a societal issue (not just a moral issue) and did not add the book.

Okay, okay, one last thing. Religion has a function, and the world is a place for freedom and thought. Who are we to impose on people's choices for their thought? Perhaps Nietzsche felt oppressed to think freely while there were Churches around spreading their moralities upon the people. But then again, maybe he shouldn't constantly whined about it ceaselessly in Thus Spake Zarathustra.

Sorry for the rant.

Okay, an addendum, when i said religion has a function, I meant that some people struggle with moral codes. The difference between an atheist like myself and someone who consciously attends church is that my moral code is something I adhere to voluntarily rather than feel some kind of deep menace and guilt if I have broken that code. And I've met lots of people in my life who I can honestly say probably could not voluntarily adhere to a moral code like mine where I don't have some God to fear. So that's what I meant by function. Some people NEED structure in their lives... I don't, you might not either. Who knows?

I've been up for far to long to get into a really deep debate with you but I'll just say a few things. I think you need to stop getting so hung up on his attitudes toward the church. Yes, it's very plain and obvious but you're letting it blind you from the real truth of his writing.

As I understood Nietzsche (And anyone more learned in the topic can correct me) he was not only just attacking the church, rather he was making a point of singling out those 'weak and sick' people who needed to lay upon the crutch of religion. Nietzsche is making a case for those people who don't need that crutch, he is also one of the few philosophers to come out and say gtfo to religion, in the most bluntest of ways.

As I said before give the Geneaology of Morality a go, I think you might enjoy that.

If you want to read something even better then pick up Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault, fantastic book.

My response wasn't for you. Sorry you haven't noticed, but several people are responding to my comments and so I thought each deserved a response in turn. I'll read Genealogy Of Morality when I'm done with my current selection and if something that interests me more doesn't come along in the meanwhile.

Btw, I don't think you actually ready my post. I quoted a bit from Thus Spake Zarathustra which I think is was a decent quote, and gave my interpretation. Nietzsche was attacking religion, it's pretty plain and simple, in that particular quote. Like I said before, my response was NOT directed at you, but rather another user here on ESR. He said that I can't really grasp what Nietzsche was writing, I wanted him to show me what I was misunderstanding.

As I understood Nietzsche (And anyone more learned in the topic can correct me) he was not only just attacking the church, rather he was making a point of singling out those 'weak and sick' people who needed to lay upon the crutch of religion.

Pretty much what I say in my comment, if you had read, but I don't blame you. I guess you've been up too long. Like I said, that's the main difference between me and Nietzsche and is probably one of the reasons I don't care at all for him. I'm more than comfortable with everyone in the world adopting a religion that leaves them mentaly feeble or even using it to help them rationalize all the terrible or great things that have happened in their lives. And to me this ends up making Nietzsche look more like a social critic than a true philosopher (at least in Thus Spake Zarathustra, since I haven't read any of his other work). I'm not sure I can help you understand my point of view unless you're willing to fully read my comments.... (read: http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1646512#pid1646521)

Still, Nietzsche doesn't interest me at all.

You got it wrong, once again
As I said before, it's not about logical understanding, but understanding the style, which you prove once again u got it wrong, when u do complain about the fact that he repeat his antireligion shit over the entire book. I am pretty tired now, tried for five hours to fix some computers, I'll read all your arguments tommorrow more carefully.
Anyway if you wanna understand better what I was saying about Oscar Wilde ideas, I suggest u go and read The Decay Of Lying (I said about this title somewhere around here, recently)

Ahahha, wtf was that about? No one actually reads anyone else comments on ESR it seems. Nietzsche isn't a writer, he's a philosopher. His style of writing, aphorisms, and specifically Thus Spake Zarathustra is written in some kinda pseudo-Biblical way which is fun but like that really has to do with what he's trying to say? He's just flamboyant in his expression.

Also, I couldn't care less what he repeats. That wasn't the point of my response. Please get some sleep and then give me a full response when you're well rested and have the opportunity to write back.

According to ESR Policy and Procedures, your response has to be AT LEAST four times in length to win this argument.

=)

"I hope most people would agree with me that philosopher is NOT an art because it isn't meant to be creative but rather the quest for truth through reasoning"
If philosophy is the art of questioning things, then a good philosopher must be an artist.

----------
You can't separate Nietzsche from the writers just because he was writing philosophy. It's like removing the term "book". As long as he was writing his ideas, he was a writer. Doesn't matter what he was mambling about.
There is not a clear mark between genres, and you may find a lot of transcended writings.
Also you may see in his words, he was combining philosophy with imagination, only the maniacs* of logics may feel deceived on this matter.
"Oscar Wilde was an author and playwright, not a philosopher" still he was talking about Shakespeare as about philosophers in his studies, and whether he was referring to their ideas or to their writing style, he was thinking about them as artists, nevertheless.

*like those two german idiots on this forum, mash and ignicock, for which if anything doesn't prove to be 100% correct, it's a blasphemy


-----------------------------
"Nietzsche is a philosopher who used aphorisms, metaphors to express his ideas -- this is unlike Locke and most other classical philosophers who used controverts (which is clear and concise language to REASON a perspective)"
That's because he was a dreamer in the first place, and are part of his style. You shouldn't even try to put logics in what he said. It is a confession of the mind.


------------------------------
"we could probably argue all day that great writers (James Joyce, Tolstoy, Kafka) are philosophers since there stories can be analyzed for their underlying perspectives on life and existence."
It doesn't matter the proportions which define a style, as long as our view is not on these writers. This don't reduce artists to only narrative writers.


-------------------------------
Also for the rest of your reply, you attend on 10 pages the religion matter, which is not at great concern for me, too. As someone said here, it is pretty evident that Nietzsche did not struggle against church only, and the quantity of attacks against religion just reveals the quantity of religion of his times. This deosn't mean he made up a different attidude, just for the sake of it (be the anti-x-factor, because my daughter is in love with a pedophile priest (where x=the (so called by him) disease of his century)).


------------------------------
The whole point which made us argue on the matter is this: you said Nietzsche should not have credit, because his ideas are narrow, repetitive and out of originality, as artistic expression. And you are wrong by this simple cause: Nietzsche is appreciated for his relatively avant-garde ideas at his times, as well as for his writing skills. If he would have write his ideas in execrable language (and by this result is a totally different style, beginning with the form of writing and ending with the narative form he was putting his words into), there is a high probability he would have not succeed (I am thinking for the worst, giving these extreme examples, like writing awfully, for a better difference in comparing the things). Writing good was first step. Second was this out of reality, so called Superman. On the other hand, if he would have write different stories, even sustaining religious thoughs, things are not 100% sure he would have not succeed, because his first step (good writing skills). My personal point of view is Nietzsche was, first of all, a very persuasive man, with a fascinating (how else?) and very substantial quantity of fantasy on his mind. Maybe he would adapt religion and God to his fantasy. The fact that he was adopting one religion or another doesn't matter for me, but it proves anyway that he was in love with imagination, because you can't read Nietzsche and not have the sense of hindu philosophy influences here. And talking about fantasy, Asia is by far much superior to Europe on this matter. All this point to his style as writer and him living in a fantasy world.

If philosophy is the art of questioning things, then a good philosopher must be an artist.

I couldn't disagree more here. Language is often the most difficult barrier to overcome when expressing ideas to others. I would say that aphorisms/metaphors are a good way of *teaching* but not reasoning.

You can't separate Nietzsche from the writers just because he was writing philosophy. It's like removing the term "book". As long as he was writing his ideas, he was a writer. Doesn't matter what he was mambling about.
There is not a clear mark between genres, and you may find a lot of transcended writings.

I absolutely separate other philosophers from writers. We get two extremely different end results -- one is entertainment and another is ideas of how the human brain interprets the reality we live in. Saying that "writing" anything makes you a "writer" seems like you're confusing words that are meant in different ways. A programmer "writes" code, but does that mean he should use elegant and creative language to get the most of of the code?

That's because he was a dreamer in the first place, and are part of his style. You shouldn't even try to put logics in what he said. It is a confession of the mind.

First of all, as far as I know, Thus Spake Zarathustra is the only philosophical work he did that was as flamboyant as this. He wasn't a dreamer. He was part of German group of philosophers who regularly traveled around to give talks on philosophy. He very much saw himself as a philosopher in the traditional sense of someone who openly discourses on ideas and life and so on. You talk about him like he was the Jesus of Philosophy, sent to Earth to expand our feeble little minds. Put logics in what he said? What, about him attacking the Church? (He was. He was very publicly open about his atheism and his malevolence towards the Church.) Or about him being full of himself? (He was. He declared Thus Spake Zarathustra the "deepest" philosophical work EVER.) I don't know what you mean about "confession of the mind" -- are you saying that I'm revealing something of myself by expressing my opinions on Nietzsche?

It doesn't matter the proportions which define a style, as long as our view is not on these writers. This don't reduce artists to only narrative writers.

Proportions? You mean one part philosophy, twenty parts writing? If that's what you're saying Nietzsche is, I'd probably agree with you... AHAHAHA. Of course, there are many different types of artists. This is really hard to argue with you against because you obviously think there is more worth is someone who can use words creatively than someone who can sit down and use sterile words and discourse on many great topics of life, morality, and so.

Also for the rest of your reply, you attend on 10 pages the religion matter, which is not at great concern for me, too. As someone said here, it is pretty evident that Nietzsche did not struggle against church only, and the quantity of attacks against religion just reveals the quantity of religion of his times. This deosn't mean he made up a different attidude, just for the sake of it (be the anti-x-factor, because my daughter is in love with a pedophile priest (where x=the (so called by him) disease of his century)).

My expansion of what I thought of religion was a way to explain WHY I DON'T CARE FOR NIETZSCHE. He attacks religion and the church and I'm more of the type to really not care. That's why I think he's a whiner and emo. He doesn't know how to not whine about this stuff. I mentioned John Locke's work on innate principles, and you would understand what I meant if you had read this, that John Locke never attacked the Church even though what he was writing about goes directly against it's doctrine. Also, sorry to hear about your daughter!

The whole point which made us argue on the matter is this: you said Nietzsche should not have credit, because his ideas are narrow, repetitive and out of originality, as artistic expression.

I did not say any of this. I said he's emo, a whiner, and I don't like him. Rofl @ why anyone would recommend to read him as a "MUST READ BEFORE YOU DIE" book. Certainly not, in my opinion. And by the way, you do Nietzsche an EXTREME DISSERVICE by calling him an artist. I think he would very much disagree with you that he is NOT an artist. An artist is someone who creates something that can be MANY THINGS to MANY PEOPLE. But Nietzsche was very specific in what his message was. VERY specific. So specific in fact that he wrote many papers on the same topic. Thus Spake Zarathustra was his long winded rant written in a perversely ironic way.

there is a high probability he would have not succeed

He didn't. All his of writings sold lousily. In his time, he was very much ignored and disregarded (I will admit it is a shame because he obviously has an effect on some people -- like yourself and others).

All this point to ... him living in a fantasy world.

I AGREE!

"I will admit it is a shame because he obviously has an effect on some people -- like yourself and others"
Wrong. I have just read his Zarathustra code a long time ago and it did not affect me too much.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the rest of the stuff, are you trying to imply Nietzsche is not a celebrity? Knowing about his books influences over some generations and over some of the most powerfull leaders in za human history, is not a must for a guy with proper education?

I like how you replied to my comment that it's a shame he wasn't a success in his own day since he's obviously had some lasting appeal... but then you ask me the same question to which you just quoted me on. LOL?

one thing's for sure, attitude matters: http://www.blogcadre.com/files/images/segal.preview.jpg

act

Let's just wait 'till link comes in here and tells us what his choice is, after that it's settled. Everyone who opposes his belief of what is good or not is an internet tough guy.

He's the ESR decider.

Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler

bah, i read it a couple of years ago, it's boring as hell!

Yeah, it is really boring, never read it till the end.

Still it was quite amazing to get a grip about his future plans on getting "Lebensraum" for Germans, listing all the whys and nots, and the policy he will have, in ONE PAGE of the book. He even managed to mention the 'Jewish question' on the same page.

twilight and da vinca code

yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Dan Brown über alles!

BOOKS YOU REALLY SHOULD READ BEFORE YOU DIE (OR DO ANYTHING ELSE):

The Tanakh
The Bible
The Qur'an

the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster > those craps.

Yeah but you'll burn in hell forever mate.

how?

Absalom Absalom and The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
Beloved by Toni Morrison
The Great Gatsby by F Scott Fitzgerald

As far as poetry goes...Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman, anything by Ezra Pound, Emily Dickinson, and Poe...I've always liked American literature, dunno, guess I'm biased eh

I had to read Of Mice and Men for highschool, really enjoyed it.

tends teh rabbitz?

Hagakure
The book of five rings
The Silmarillion
The sea of fertility quadrilogy (Runaway horses is best, imo)

And Lovecraft ofc :D

For poetry I'm quite limited/cliched, Leino, Baudelaire, Mustapää, etc...

Read good books, don't go for the bad ones. eod

How to get a comfy coffin - Count Dracula

read
"the book of pook"

and you will see the matrix ...

i tried reading simulation and simulacra

just didn't happen

apparently thats what the matrix was based on....

hmm how about NO

some reasons why these books are good please

stick to comics, mong

In stark contrast to books you can read after you have died, mind you.

Best book of the year for me: 'The Feast of the Goat:' by Llosa. It's about Rafael Trujillo, who was an evil person ruling over the Dominican Republic. So the novel is what literature is about: Turning reality into stories.

Biggest let down: Night train to Lisbon by Pascal Mercier. An entire biography gone awry: I should've known better: Mercier is also a Swiss (!) professor of philosophy. The style of this book is so bloated, reading it sends you right to hell, because dying of boredom is a sin. The Henning Mankell of 'serious novels'. Surviving this book feels like being transformed into a pillow in a TV room of a home for the elderly. Being sat , farted on for 30 years by people who have started falling apart.

Cooller School

hahah you know why ownage?

He said books, not pizza boxes.

LOL

don't read that much but Crime & Punishment is the only book that comes into this category for me and its easily the best novel i've ever read

everything i've read since seems tame in comparison

Why? Seemed to me the whole thing could be condensed into one page. Don't get me wrong, his state of mind at the end is powerful, as he began to really own his life. Was a beautifully contorted manifestation of strength, since his body is imprisoned, yet his mind liberated and resolute; but everything before that was standard cat & mouse fare interspersed with some mental masturbation. Almost wasn't worth getting to the end

Its probably what you call the mental masturbation aspect that is the best/most important aspect of it.

I just found it an absolute mind fuck being inside Raskolnikov's head with his total detachment from society and with his values/morality that was so out of step with the rest of the world. Yet you could very much relate to his thoughts from your own darkest days (no im not a psycho and would never harm anyone, In fact I think its normal to think in this way at times).

The fact he was in this fucked up state of mind but also was very intelligent and gave his brutal actions his own moral rationality (to an extent) just made it a really interesting dark place that Dostoevsky explores intricately and yea his evolution of self empowerment was amazing but only because of the build up.

Each to their own, but I'll explain better why I didn't enjoy it. His rationale merely justified his own selfish acts, and truthfully it didn't run deeper than simple self preservation. I was hoping to have my own beliefs shaken, rather than be presented with a mere delusion that's later shaken off by the same character who concocted it. Some of Raskolnikov's ideas were simply and easily arrived at e.g. that nobody would miss an old woman; that he in fact was doing society a favour by disposing of a pawn broker; that only a "wolf" is capable of murder (lol). The final act wasn't a complete evolution, because before and after his delusion his mind was resolute. Granted, the change of perspective did interest me, but too bad it was right at the end. Speaking of mind fucks, 1984 is far and away superior to this imo

ok, I didn't like the 1984 film, but I'll give the book a try, loved animal farm

it's amazing, not as lightweight and funny as animal farm especially as it's much longer, but a scary world with scary thoughts

yeah

really good book. loved it :D

a bit sad tho :((

cruel world we live in m8 ;[

1984 is one of those books that I can't stop thinking about. It's been 5 years since I first read it and I still think about it on a daily basis.

that feels almost a bit over the top but it is definitely a really controversial and moving book :D

I would agree, 1984 was gripping. I was so passionate throughout that book because Winston is realizing how fake his world is, and is working toward creating for himself a life that is truly his own. Only at the end to be totally destroyed.

There is, I doubt, not a more profound book which deals with power, and what its true and unfettered form would take.

read kallocain? It might not be 1984 but it was pretty awesome. it was written by a swedish lez in the 40s which makes it even more awesome.

Or some of Franz Kafka's work

Maldoror by Lautréamont
a Season in hell by Rimbaud
Finnegans wake by James Joyce
anyhting by Willian Faulkner

Sergey Lukjanenko - The labyrinth of reflections :]

Harry Potter :D ez

get some :P

-Camus - "Camus' first significant contribution to philosophy was his idea of the absurd, the result of our desire for clarity and meaning within a world and condition that offers neither, which he explained in The Myth of Sisyphus" , also The Stranger

-Oscar Wilde, an interesting and also different point of view on arts "The Decay Of Lying (First published in 1889, republished in Intentions 1891)"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhartha_(novel)
(have the rtf somewhere around here)

-Pierre Rousseau -The limits of science

Plus 'The Stranger' is around 100 pages so it's probably the quickest book someone can read out of this thread. My English version was called 'The Outsider' in case anyone gets confused by that.

Books for the competitive gamer:(I have only read the first 3)
Playing to Win by David Sirlin(Free online!)
Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
The Art of War by Sun Tzu
The Tao of Jeet Kune Do by Bruce Lee
The Art of Learning by Josh Waitzkin
The Kyokushin Way by Sosai Masutatsu Oyama

Right I want to be flamed after you read this.

Right Im an avid reader of books of where you'll learn factual stuff such as c++ programming books, starting your own business books, poker books and marketing books at uni etc etc but I have always said to myself why bother wasting your time of life reading fictional books when you can just watch a movie or even waste your time reading other peoples biographies, though possible it could teach you a thing or two. So basically guys common try and persuade me to read fictional books and autobiographies.


P.S. for you sarcastic people it is not wasting your time of life trying to persuade me to read these books.

one of the anchors of good fiction is familiarity. one of the most important aspects of speculative fiction is where the familiar things could lead inviduals, cells, bands, communities, societies, civilizations, and species...es.

i read fiction because i enjoy it. it is thoroughly enjoyable to me, you might say. i think reading fantasy with the approach of finding useful or insightful information would be about as much fun as reading a c++ reference looking for a plot.

my attractions to science fiction relate to these aspects:

1. speculation on various topics, from scientific advance, technology, psychology, to whatever else
2. interesting characters with believable personalities who act consistently in character
3. creative or inventive cleverness, such as total nonsense
4. humor and satire well defined by intelligent language that causes me to stop and think it out, or to think about something i've experienced that is analogous or in which the idea applies

5. information. fiction != utter falsity. as i stated before, fiction relies on the familiar to anchor the alien to a height at which we can even begin to comprehend it. many of the books i read are written by recognizably intelligent authors who have experienced more in a single life than i could probably even try if i started over again at 5 years old.

i don't want to say 'reading fiction is just something you do,' but if you are intelligent enough to enjoy technical books (i'm not) and you haven't ever picked up a speculative fiction (like walden two by b.f. skinner or island by aldous huxley) novel and gotten completely attached, you've either not tried reading, have read the wrong thing, lack a visual imagination, or you just don't like fiction. i don't think it's something you have to reason yourself into doing or enjoying.

From your reply you seem intelligent enough to read technical books, I suppose its just down to your preference. The Sci-Fi part you mentioned will possibly appeal to me because Im into science in general and if the fiction within the book, strengthens my (factual) knowledge of current technology, culture, psychology and every other angle I have not mentioned, then I may try to find a good Sci-Fi book. I mean the other night I watched the outer limits, and it was basically about a court case of were a robot murdered its master and that expanded my thinking and viewpoint of many matters being shaded in grey rather then black or white. So generally it made me think about not rushing into decisions and possible future problems that could arise with new technology. But I still feel I may learn more from reading an autobiography of someone I perceived to have achieved something with thier lives, whether its thier attitude, personality or work ethic, as its more factual and real.

I agree on everything you've said about how you relate to science fiction, but when you say technical books, do you mean, say, a philosophical text, or a book on economic theory, or just as you said, a C++ text book?

I have found myself over the past year reading books on topics I don't even study at uni. Such as economics and demographies, I don't understand all of it but I have found myself coming to terms with it rather easily given my lack of background education in the subject.

I think reading requires effort, which is why you find alot of people don't want to read. And by effort I mean some form of mental stimulus going on, not just scanning lines :X

saying that with the effort I agree to an extent, because while doing my university reports, assignments and essays I often relied mainly on online journals for my references due of thier ease to find and ability to do searches for specific lines of text, relative to my work. I did read a lot of books mainly down to more necessity and the requirement of showing further reading.

try reading a great fiction book and find out for yourself, maybe you won't find it such a waste of time

Reading fiction widens your imagination.

A wide imagination will probably get you attention of the opposite sex.
I'll continue this even further, because your imagination is probably sloppy.

Attention of the opposite sex, combined with some sense of relationship between people is a perfect ground for manipulation, and a thought-out manipulation is like getting rid of three long weeks before you get laid
:)

from my experience girls either want people that talk shite and make them laugh, or realists, im both so im assuming I have an imagination but am also very realistic about life?

Hmm, then I guess you could refer what I said to the first kind of girls. I've yet to meet a hard realist-liking one.

And i stated that having a wide imagination only shortens the time required to get laid. It's not a prerequisite for relationship in general, ofc.

Great Thread, would read again.

AAAAAAA++++++++

Tada!

is that a good book then?

anything written by Bukowski.

anything.

Hamsun? I'm not into Nazi litterature, sorry.

"the will to power" isn't even a proper book or written by nietzsche and this is what great hamsun had to say when hitler died: "He was a warrior, a warrior for mankind, and a prophet of the gospel of justice for all nations."

yea great choices...

Well I guess Hamsun was just a percursor to Savitri Devi, not that they were truthful to begin with i.e the "Hitler as Kalki" stuff was neo-nazi shit :/ ergo, after wwII did we see the end of the Kali Yuga, nope :D

In the end it doesn't take anything away from Hamsun's earlier prose imo.

Non-ideolocial prose stands or falls on it's own merits imo.

*ninja edit* spelling mistakes, cba :E

cloclwork orange nice nice...
but im recommended George Martin " The Song of Ice and Fire " best fantasy cycle now or Glen Cook "Chronicles of the Black Company" or "Passage at Arms"... in last the best what i read were Ted Chiang "understand" - amazing sience fiction...

some great russian books i can to recommend but dont know about trunslate..

read Ernst Jünger "In Stahlgewittern "
Lotar-Hunter bukhaim "das boot"
Alistair MacLean "HMS Ulysses"
Herbert A. Werner "Iron Coffins"

i like books about world war 2

Yeah, books from MacLean seem to be quite good :) (I've read only two so far - The Guns of Navarone and Where Eagles Dare) :)

catch-22

'Real' books

'Cosmic Trigger' by Robert Anton Wilson
Immensely entertaining autobiography if you have any interest in counterculture authors, mysticism or psychedelics.

'Hackers' by Steven Levy
If you're at all interested in the history of programming/programmers this is like the finest pornography.

'Food of the Gods' by Terence Mckenna
Are you interested in drugs and different cultures relationships with them throughout history? Get this then.

'God Emperor of Dune' by Frank Herbert
You really need to have read the books before it to appreciate it but this is the one that really stands out from the pack for me. Takes the scale and scope of the universe and characters in it to another level and some of the quotes from different orders/manuscripts with wisdoms etc are so fuckin good if this wasn't sci-fi I could believe it was a real historical piece. So good I read it during the worst period of my entire life and it's awesomeness was not at all reduced.

'VALIS' by Philip K Dick
Not even sure I'd class this as a super entertaining story or anything, it's just so fuckin wierd and that keeps you reading it to find out what is happening. Even more bizarre if you already know/look up the history of the author and how much of this was essentially him and his life.

'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln.
Like a really engrossing detective/conspiracy story that weaves itself across hundreds and hundreds of years connecting to all kinds of famous names. Who knows or gives a fuck if any of it is factual/reasonable, enjoyed the fuck out of it when I read it.

Graphic Novels

Watchmen' by Alan Moore
Best graphic novel ever as far as I'm concerned. Have read it at least 10 times in the last 8 years and each rereading never seems to lose any level of enjoyment. Also contains so many 'fuck yes' type borderline book orgasm moments. Borders on perfection in every aspect.

'V for Vendetta' by Alan Moore
Helps if you haven't seen the film since that kind of waters down the story. Basically a cool as fuck anti-hero and an interesting dystopia dissected.

'From Hell' by Alan Moore
Only read this if you've read and liked the other two since it's really long and the art may be more difficult for a non-comics reader to enjoy.

'Kingdom Come' by Mark Waid and Alex Ross
Amazing imaginary DC story (yeah yeah I know they're all imaginary) which pulls in every character imaginable and has the feel of an enormous epic movie the likes of which will never be made.

'Earth X' by Jim Krueger and Alex Ross
Basically the Marvel version of Kingdom Come, don't read this unless you liked it. Not as good as the aforementioned but I dunno if I've ever recovered from the black bolt storyline, total 'fuck yes' moment.

'The Invisibles' by Grant Morrison
Counterculture, drugs, anti-establishment thinking, time travel, blending of religious concepts. This series has it all so if any of that catches your fancy I find it hard to imagine you won't enjoy it.

'The Filth' by Grant Morrison
Morrison is famous for being full of ideas but often having difficulty pulling them together neatly and executing every element to its potential without moving on. This is a huge exception, amazing piece of story telling if you like any of his work. Wierd as fuck but highly enjoyable and one of those pieces which seems to gain momentum as it goes until you're going full blast.

'Transmetropolitan' by Warren Ellis
If you have any interest in politics and journalism and can stand to read a comic then this shit is for you. Really enjoyable romp which really starts to fly after the 2nd trade and though it loses a little of its steam at the very end it is still fun throughout.

'The Dark Knight Returns' by Frank Miller
Much as I think Frank Miller is a cunt of a human being this really is a brilliant Batman story.

Some of those graphic novels are entire series but this is the 'before you die OMFG DIS WUN IS DA MOST IMPORTANT OF THE 2 N A HALF BOOKZ IZ READ GAIZ SO U GOTTA READ IT 2!' thread so I tried to go just for authors I really like. If you enjoy those they all have a bunch more stuff you can find though most will be less epic and more fun on a different level, think the drop between a huge movie and a TV series.

I'd also love not to give a bunch of super well known books for the graphic novels but they're genuinely that good. They're like 'The Godfather 2', 'Citizen Kane' and 'Stalker' - even though they're so well known its not even a cliche to cite them, they're that good.

I thoroughly enjoyed the whole DUNE series, although I would say the first two books were my favorite (Dune and Dune Messiah). Also, VALIS is really, really tough for noobs to Philip K. Dick although I would agree that VALIS is a great book. I'd recommend they read Ubik or Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sleep before they get into VALIS (very tough stuff to follow).

Also, Watchmen (graphic novel) is a MUST READ before the movie comes else. Probably will ruin the graphic novel for people if they see the movie first and then read the novel. =)

Graphic novel? What's a graphic novel? That is nonsense.

The Catcher in the Rye you noob faggots.

:D

Prolly the most overrated book in the history of human civilisation.

I'll share my two cents so people can have a shot at my tastes. Here's a short list of some goodies I would recommend to fans of sci-fi/satire/psychology/strangeness/sociology/sociopolitical-criticisms.

Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe (four book series)
American Psycho by Brett Easton Ellis
Neuromancer by William Gibson
Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson
American Gods by Neil Gaiman
The Road by Cormac McCarthy (I just read this, please read *asap* before movie comes out)
VALIS by Philip K. Dick
Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin
Paradise Lost by John Milton

Kinda mix in there. SciFi, Satire, Biblical fiction/political criticisms....

i did read... Dune Neuromancer American gods some of Philip dick and Le Guin... but are you really dont read George Martin?
David zindell "requiem for Homo Sapiens" - very sci-fi too...
some of Silverberg and Saimak im recommend for sure...

I've read a bit of Silverberg, but he's quite pulpy. Very, very scifi. I liked Tower of Glass by Robert Silverberg and some of his short stories, but other than that, it's too SciFi for me. I can only handle SciFi that has a purpose or point, but when it gets to be the central theme of a story, it kinda bores me.

Haven't read any of those other names (Martin, Saimak or Zindell)... will check them out.

A clockwork orrange.

Lord of the rings(+ the hobbit)

harry potter!

When I was younger I enjoyed reading 'Nobody's boy'.
In dutch, ofcourse(alleen op de wereld).
Originaly from france: Sans Familie.

Hamsun, Nietzsche, Twain. The combination! Skip those and proceed to Rowling right away.

rofl

The Invisibles.

Quake Bible by Dennis Fong

Aniara by Harry Martinson. i highly doubt its translated to english tho

'OMG! I'm Spraying Cum Everywhere!' by UnnamedPlayer

'99 Easy Ways To Be a Rail Monster' by Cypher

but no one worked =)...

Just read. Anything. Makes for a good perspective on life.