|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 019872134X
| 9780198721345
| 3.81
| 1,753
| -458
| Aug 11, 1988
|
it was amazing
| The Course of The Curse In The Choephori, the bloodshed begun in the first play is continued (see Agamemnon for details, and for a discussion on transl The Course of The Curse In The Choephori, the bloodshed begun in the first play is continued (see Agamemnon for details, and for a discussion on translations). The theme of revenge and blood-curse continues to haunt the House of Atreus. At first glance it might seem as if there is indeed no end to this recurring tragedy that has been playing itself out in these intrigue-filled halls, but despite all the mirroring Aeschylus effects between the first and second plays (both have legitimate avenging missions, both weave a web of deceit, both murders the unsuspecting, both murderers are accompanied by unidimensional accomplices, both murders leave everlasting stains, both think that the buck will stop with them) that is supposed to show the inevitability of this tragic course/curse with no scope for a resolution, there are significant differences: 1. Clytaemestra acted alone, under her own sense of right and wrong; Orestes acts under the express direction and protection of Apollo himself. 2. Clytaemestra makes a token gesture of atonement by promising to give up her wealth but instead establishes a tyranny; Orestes is racked by guilt and renounces his position and wealth to atone for his crime. (I wonder who ruled the kingdom in his absence...) 3. Clytaemestra defends her actions and takes no steps to alleviate them by rituals, etc. until a nasty dream shakes her up; Orestes accepts his guilt immediately and takes protection under Apollo and does all the ritual cleansing and prostrations required. 4. Clytaemestra is probably egged on by Aegisthus's greed and allows him to benefit by her actions. Orestes turns to Pylades just once who only repeats Apollo's words and has no personal stake in the business. (though could it be that he becomes the regent in Orestes absence?) 5. Clytaemestra never hesitates in her deed of revenge and as an add-on murders an innocent (?) Cassandra too; Orestes shows his reluctance till he very last moment and had to be driven to his deed. He murders only the expressly guilty. (One has to wonder if Apollo was in fact avenging Cassandra and not Agamemnon!) 6. Most importantly Clytaemestra thinks she can be the final arbiter while Orestes is willing to allow himself to be judged by greater powers, be it the Gods, or the Law. All this allows for hope that the ending of this second installment, of Orestes' story, and the punishment for his crime need not be externally imposed but might in fact be sanctioned by this modern man himself. How exactly this will play out Aeschylus leaves for his climactic play, but the Greeks of his time would have been in no doubt as to where it was all leading and would have been eagerly awaiting the mythical re-imagination/show-down it would entail. Society is progressing, and like in Hegel it was all going to culminate in the Perfection of the Present! ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
Feb 08, 2015
|
Apr 22, 2015
|
Apr 21, 2015
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0198721307
| 9780198721307
| 3.83
| 13,442
| -458
| Oct 08, 1987
|
it was amazing
| The First Strike Each of the plays that make up The Oresteia tetralogy are supposed to be stand alone pieces as well as perfect complements to each oth The First Strike Each of the plays that make up The Oresteia tetralogy are supposed to be stand alone pieces as well as perfect complements to each other. All the themes that The Oresteia is to explore later are planted and ready for internal development at the end of Agamemnon. Aeschylus works magic with the triadic structure of the plays and of greek rituals (the fourth was probably a conventional satyr play and is lost to us) by going for a feeling of tit-for-tat of conventional revenge stories in the first two and a ‘third and final’ resolution in the third (though I feel game-theory wise a tit-for-two-tats additional play would have made for a good thought experiment!). So in Agamemnon we are presented with the first strike -- and the tit-for-tat is ready, prophesied and waiting inevitably for the reader/viewer in the next part. It is the bleakest and most ominous ending to a play that I have witnessed because unlike a Hamlet, here there is no cosmic meaning to give us solace either. Agamemnon ends ominously and without significance-in-itself, leaving us with the feeling that the tragedy has just begun and there is a long road yet to be traversed before we can glimpse any possibility of a resolution. A Note on the Translations I have over the past several months read the whole play (only Agamemnon) in multiple translations. A few thoughts on each: The Richmond Lattimore Translation: is sonorous and grand — quite impressive. You feel like you are really reading an ancient master, unlike in the Fagles version. However, it uses complex structures and hence the reading is not quite smooth. With Fagles you can just read on and on and never stop due to a complex phrasing or unclear meaning, but with lattimore you have to pause and rewind often to catch the exact drift. The Robert Fagles Translation: is immediate and easy on the ear. It is also quite easy to grasp as the words do not form confusing structures as it does in the Lattimore translation. However I felt a certain something missing and couldn’t put my finger on it. I prefer the Lattimore version. E.D.A Morshead Translation: Rhythmic but compromises on ease of reading to achieve the metric scheme. Could hardly grasp a thing on first reading of most verses. Has the advantage that it demarcates the Strophe, Antistrophe & Epode of each choral ode and that helps the reader visualize better. None of the other translations do this and I felt it was very useful. The Alan Shapiro Translation: Written in beautiful blank verse, this is probably the best placed to merit first rank as a poetic work. Shapiro injects new power into the verse by his poetic take and provides a fresh perspective on almost all important scenes and imagery. But needs to be a supplementary read since it departs often from the other translations in sometimes subtle and sometimes significant ways. It tries to be an improvement on the Lattimore version but in my opinion it can at best be read as an additional indulgence by the reader already well acquainted with Lattimore. The Headlam Translation: is bilingual and gives the Greek text on the facing page. This is useful in clarifying doubts arising from conflicting translations or interpretations. The translation itself is slightly long winded and pompous and does not strike the fine balance that Lattimore strikes between majesty and simplicity. Does provide the most elaborate stage directions and that is a plus as an aid to accurate visualization (which in my opinion can make or break your reading of almost-exotic plays). The Denniston Commentary, the edition under which this review appears: is one which I have not read (and do not have access to) and in the interests of neutrality I have selected it — since it has no translation and is in fact the Greek text itself with english commentary, which seems to be widely accepted as some of the best scholastic commentary on the play. I will add notes on other translations if and when I track them down. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
Jan 05, 2015
|
Apr 20, 2015
|
Apr 20, 2015
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0520082060
| 9780520082069
| 3.30
| 10
| 1993
| Sep 03, 1993
|
liked it
| System in Philosophy Modern philosophy since descartes is increasingly concerned with system. Hegel is reputed to be the most systematic of philosopher System in Philosophy Modern philosophy since descartes is increasingly concerned with system. Hegel is reputed to be the most systematic of philosophers. It is Hegel who finally presents the system on which Kant insists, but which is absent in the Critique of Pure Reason, and whose absence determines the entire discussion following the appearance of this work. This is the author’s central thesis. The book is an attempt to establish this — as well as is possible, considering the arena in which the author finds himself! Rockmore explains that he is going to limit the scope of his discussion to a crucial aspect of the pre- and post-Hegelian arguments: The requirement and nature of a System to underlie any philosophic argument. This is based on Descartes, who claimed that a proper philosophic approach cannot begin without a first principle upon which to construct it — it depends on a solid foundation. Once the first principle/foundation is established, all that is needed is sound water tight reasoning - in short anything can be constructed once the foundation is irrefutable. This would go contrary to Kant’s view that there are upper limits to possible metaphysical derivations too, but that was a later revolution! Once we come to Kant, Rockmore seems to indicate that Kant accepted the need for a foundation and a system even while maintaining that despite a rock-solid foundation, the structure would/should have other constraints on how high it can grow. And the author lets us know that in his view (as in Hegel’s) Kant only put upper limits to all possible structures, but did not build a solid enough foundation for his own system and hence the whole thing is suspect. In short he imposed a new limitation on the construction projects, but did not honor an existing one. But a side-effect of this was that the need for a foundation, stablished seemingly irrefutably by descartes, was itself now called into question. Perhaps, since there are limits, there can be no completely secure foundation to build any system on either? In any case, this new found freedom allowed the next generation of philosophers such as Fichte and Schelling to expire alternate ways to building a system, with/without the foundation-problem sabotaging their attempts. This atmosphere allowed Hegel the freedom to take a leap and decide that a foundation-in-itself is not necessary after all. Instead he proposes a circular system that will loop back and prop itself up, making it stronger in every iteration. So the argumentative system itself becomes its own foundational principle. And this also means that philosophy could now start from anywhere and not only from the so-called first principles, or so Hegel claimed. With this much established, Rockmore takes his chance to elaborate on Hegel’s own system and prove that his is a much less ambiguous system than Kant’s. Hegel is shown to be completing the great project begun by Kant but in the process setting it right. But though Hegel establishes his claim to having founded the final system from which all further thought has to emanate, the system was again found to be not entirely convincing, or all together lacking, by later thinkers. Hence the quest continues and we are given brief glimpses of how different thinkers engage with the Hegelian system — Kierkegaard rejecting, Marx modifying and Nietzsche ignoring — until with the rise of Empiricism, Pragmaticism, etc, system-building itself drops out of fashion. But not Hegel himself. He stays relevant. Whether one accepts or rejects him, and even irrespective of one bothers to study him or just ignores him. Hegel’s wake, just like Kant’s and Plato’s are broad enough to encompass large swathes of time. ...more | Notes are private!
| 1
|
Mar 04, 2015
|
Mar 06, 2015
|
Mar 04, 2015
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0802130313
| 9780802130310
| 4.20
| 7,467
| 1959
| Jan 11, 1994
|
really liked it
| Invitation Complications or Who is the Best Spokesperson for a Religion? Who can write about a religion best? An insider or an outsider? Obviously it t Invitation Complications or Who is the Best Spokesperson for a Religion? Who can write about a religion best? An insider or an outsider? Obviously it takes a lifetime’s learning to understand the religion, just to get a ‘feel’ for it. It might even need a lifetime's ‘practice’, and it could very well be that the first innocent impulses can only be absorbed at a very young age — like a language, a religion is also a mode of expression. Then surely the insider is the one best placed to introduce others to this sacred mystery? Rahula has tried in this little book to address himself to the general reader interested in knowing what the Buddha ‘actually’ taught. This is done by adhering to a faithful and accurate presentation of the actual words used by the Buddha as they are to be found in the original Pali texts of the Tipitaka, universally accepted by scholars as the earliest extant records of the teachings of the Buddha. Almost all the material Rahula commands so effortlessly are taken directly from these originals. That way it must be admitted that only a scholar of his stature could have brought us so close to the original teachings. However, Rahula’s book comes off as slightly evangelizing and despite all the cool wisdom as occasionally irritating in its complete confidence and conviction that Buddhism is the best in the world A non-evangelical introduction/invitation should only be an invitation to come visit and appreciate the ancient house, not to come and reside. In that case, the real purpose of such a book would have to be to show the relevance of one religion to another, to the modern world and to show how its philosophy can make a difference to the visitor’s life even if he exits the next day not entirely convinced of the package deal. He/She should still be able to carry something away. What that something is has to be judged by the author. That is the only question in such an introductory/welcoming sermon. The rest can be kept for later, if the guest decides to stay awhile. Now to return to our problem. Can an insider do this? After all, the insider is as much an alien to other religions as the visitor is to his own. So how can he write for the visitor? How can he inhabit his viewpoint and judge what would suit him best? Could it be that the one best placed to understand the house is not so well suited to understand the visitor? So a Christian reader would need a christian author to interpret Buddhism for him? A 21st century reader would need a 21st century guide? Who else can understand the reader as well? And in any case, since we are going down this road, who can understand both - the ancient house and the modern visitor? I think the best compromise would be to allow the welcome sermon to be delivered by a scholar outside the tradition, but steeped in it. One who has stayed in the house long enough to feel at home there. This is why every age needs to reinterpret its holy texts and greatest works. Every age and culture needs its own representatives to walk into those monuments, spend a while there and then walk out with a welcome sermon, which in turn would be relevant enough to his own culture’s or age’s readers. Only then would they take the trouble to go visit too. And maybe stay awhile. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
Feb 27, 2015
|
Feb 28, 2015
|
Feb 27, 2015
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0195398912
| 9780195398915
| 3.83
| 115
| Jan 01, 2014
| Aug 26, 2014
|
really liked it
| The Adaptive Disciples Robert Bellah has said that "every religion tries to remake the world in its own image, but is always to some extent remade in The Adaptive Disciples Robert Bellah has said that "every religion tries to remake the world in its own image, but is always to some extent remade in the image of the world." This is true of most religions, but how they are remade reflects also the extent to which, and the manner in which, they themselves actually try to remake the world. In this VSI, Gardner takes us through the beginnings of the Confucian movement where we see Confucius transmit an idealized sociopolitical vision from the early Zhou past to a select group of followers, who then keep the light alive even though the Master did not get much popular acclaim in his own day. Then we follow along as the faithful followers and their disciples, over the centuries, elaborate on this vision, some emphasizing one aspect, others another, such as Mencius and Xunzi — sometimes even managing to take a common tradition in entirely opposite directions. Later we encounter the Neo-Confucian movement, now almost a millennium after the Master’s time, reacting to new developments by interpreting his core ideas from the stand point of new metaphysical concepts (such as qi, li, yin and yang, among others) — converting the original practical vision into a universal vision that is meant to explain the how and why of the original thoughts… and to explain everything else too since they are at it, all with the help of philosophical terms and concepts that would have meant little to Confucius himself. Gardner maintains a firm focus on this realm of ideas, showing us how the original vision of the Master has been adapted into such a variety of interpretative shapes over the centuries. And this adaptability is the primary reason why confucianism has managed to stay relevant for such an astoundingly long time. It is a religious/philosophical tradition that has managed to continuously adapt and remain relevant over time. And I would venture that while Confucius himself deserves our respect for creating a philosophy with such an encompassing vision so suited to his people, no small credit is due to the fact that the keepers of the tradition were the very top brass of this wide country -- and it was their capacity for innovation and creative adaption that has allowed the tradition to reinvent itself so elegantly and relevantly every time. They have shown a unique capacity to hold fast to tradition without slipping into a dogmatic slumber that would let modernity pass them by, and even if they did occasionally they have been alert enough to pick up on it and take positive action in defense of their philosophy, shaping its message to address the pressing issues of the day. If only every religious and philosophical tradition was in such capable hands, we would have fewer dogmatic religions and more enlightened ones. And a less dangerous world. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
Feb 22, 2015
|
Feb 23, 2015
|
Feb 23, 2015
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0521535352
| 9780521535359
| 3.91
| 7,605
| 1783
| Apr 01, 2004
|
it was amazing
| Hieroglyphics: A Reluctant Translation The Prolegomena is valuable as a summarization that is intended to be less obscure and suited for popular cons Hieroglyphics: A Reluctant Translation The Prolegomena is valuable as a summarization that is intended to be less obscure and suited for popular consumption. It tries to compress Kant’s criticism of (all) previous work in metaphysics and the theory of knowledge -- first propounded in the Critique of Pure Reason, which provided a comprehensive response to early modern philosophy and a starting point for most subsequent work in philosophy. A note on the Edition: This is a wonderful edition to approach the Prolegomena with -- meticulous introductory essay and copious notes. Plus it comes with a summary outline of all the sections! A summary of a summary. What more could you want? Summing up the Beast As is well known The Critique of Pure Reason is a notoriously difficult work. When first published, the early readers were not very different from modern readers — they found it incomprehensible! Kant was a poor popularizer of his own work and when it was finally published in the spring of 1781 (with Kant nearing 57), after almost ten years of preparation and work, Kant had expected that the evident originality of the thoughts would attract immediate attention, at least among philosophers. He was… well… to be disappointed — for the first year or two he received from those whom he most expected to give his book a sympathetic hearing only a cool and uncomprehending, if not bewildered, silence. What else would you expect for such wild intentions: My intention is to convince all of those who find it worthwhile to occupy themselves with metaphysics that it is unavoidably necessary to suspend their work for the present, to consider all that has happened until now as if it had not happened, and before all else to pose the question: “whether such a thing as metaphysics is even possible at all.” He had proposed a “Copernican Revolution” in thinking. He should have known that such stuff cannot come without a user manual. Soon Kant caught on to this, and started having some misgivings about the fact that he was clearly not getting the reception he had expected for his masterpiece: Kant is known to have written to Herz expressing his discomfort in learning that the eminent philosopher Moses Mendelssohn had “laid my book aside,” since he felt that Mendelssohn was “the most important of all the people who could explain this theory to the world.” As a reaction to this lack of public appreciation for such a vital work that was to have "brought about a complete change of thinking," a great deal of Kant's effort during the decade of the 1780s had diverted away from further development of his system and towards the unforeseen task of clarifying the critical foundations of his system of philosophy that he thought he had completed in May 1781. This work took a number of different forms: the publication of a brief defense and attempted popularization of the Critique in 1783 until, finally, Kant came to think that an overview would be of great value to aid the reading public in comprehending the implications of the Critique. The Prolegomena was the result. We can only guess what more productive use could have been made of this period! It is sometimes obvious in this work that Kant was pained by the need to summarize his great work (and with the necessity of expending valuable time on it). Only someone who has written an elaborate masterpiece would know how difficult it must be to write a summary of it. And Kant lets it slip often enough (one might even think deliberately) that he is not too amused by having to do so: But although a mere plan that might precede the Critique of Pure Reason would be unintelligible, undependable, and useless, it is by contrast all the more useful if it comes after. For one will thereby be put in the position to survey the whole, to test one by one the main points at issue in this science, and to arrange many things in the exposition better than could be done in the first execution of the work. Kant hoped to hit more than one bird with the Prolegomena: It was meant to offer “preparatory exercises” to the Critique of Pure Reason — not meant to replace the Critique, but as “preparatory exercises” they were intended to be read prior to the longer work. It was also meant to give an overview of that work, in which the structure and plan of the whole work could be more starkly put across — offered “as a general synopsis, with which the work itself could then be compared on occasion”. The Prolegomena are to be taken as a plan, synopsis, and guide for the Critique of Pure Reason. He also wanted to walk his readers through the major arguments following the “analytic” method of exposition (as opposed to the “synthetic” method of the Critique): a method that starts from some given proposition or body of cognition and seeks principles from which it might be derived, as opposed to a method that first seeks to prove the principles and then to derive other propositions from them (pp. 13, 25–6). What this means is that Kant realized that most of the readers were dazed by his daring to start the Critique from a scary emptiness of knowledge from which he set out to construct the very foundations on which any possible structure of knowledge can stand, and also the possibility of such a foundation i.e metaphysics. There he proceeds from these first (newly derived) principles of the theory of knowledge to examine the propositions that might be derived from it that are adaptable to a useful metaphysics. In the Prolegomena, Kant reverses this and takes the propositions (i.e structure) as a given and then seeks to expose the required foundations that are needed to support such a construction. This he feels is less scary for the uninitiated reader. It is true. The abyss is not so stark when viewed through this approach, and we can ease into our fall! Kant’s work is easy to summarize (well, not really — but enough work has been put into it that at there least it is easy to get good summaries) but is infinitely rich with potential for the inquisitive reader. This reviewer has no intention of summarizing and thus reducing a method/system to its mere conclusions. And to summarize the method would be to recreate it in full detail! Instead the only advice tendered would be to explore Kant’s work in depth and not rest content with a superficial understanding of only the conclusions. That is precisely what Kant criticizes (in the appendix to the Prolegomena) his reviewers of doing back in the day. We should know better by now. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
Feb 18, 2015
|
Feb 20, 2015
|
Feb 18, 2015
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0375705554
| 9780375705557
| 4.12
| 47,269
| -400
| Apr 25, 2000
|
it was amazing
| How to Read The Ancient Texts To know how we should approach the great Classical works of antiquity, we can look to Ben Jonson’s formulation in "Discov How to Read The Ancient Texts To know how we should approach the great Classical works of antiquity, we can look to Ben Jonson’s formulation in "Discoveries": "I know nothing can conduce more to letters, than to examine the writings of the ancients, and not to rest in their sole authority, or take all upon trust from them; provided the plagues of judging, and pronouncing against them, be away; such as are envy, bitterness, precipitation, impudence, and scurrile scoffing....more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
not set
|
not set
|
Jan 15, 2015
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0062218336
| 9780062218339
| 3.85
| 39,771
| May 12, 2014
| May 12, 2014
|
it was ok
| Not Very Freaky A very ordinary effort. Levitt & Dubner tells us the recipe to “Think Like a Freak”. Most of the ingredients are quite ordinary and Not Very Freaky A very ordinary effort. Levitt & Dubner tells us the recipe to “Think Like a Freak”. Most of the ingredients are quite ordinary and almost all are trodden territory. A wholly unnecessary book. 1. That all the Big Problems of the world are too tough to solve for ordinary people like us and that we should nibble at the edges. - A bit about game theory and about how most problems arise due to private vs public conflicts and how we need learn to realign incentives to solve small problems. Keep nudging the incentives and solving small incentive-problems. The very soul of Freakonomics. 2. That we should learn - to say “I don’t know” more often, especially the experts. A few stories thrown in about how stupid people who try to predict the future are. - Also, don’t bring your moral compass into your predictions/decisions. And always look for feedback if you want to keep improving. 3. That we have to learn - to ask the Right Question. Reframe the question to get ahead. - Endlessly experiment to get the right feedback on the reframed problem. The ‘abortion & crime’ story is repeated. AGAIN! 4. That we should - Think like a Child: Have fun. Don’t ignore the obvious. Think small. 5. That we should obsess over - Incentives, Again: Understand contexts; Reframe contexts. Use appropriate incentives. NEVER mix your incentives! 6. That we can win arguments: How to win an Argument: Don’t pretend your argument is perfect. Acknowledge their viewpoint and... meh. 7. That we might want to think of - When to Quit: Avoid the sunk cost fallacy. BTW, this chapter is for us too — We (Levitt & Dubner) just might quit writing this stuff! In short, nothing really exciting, nothing novel. Nothing that fires the imagination. I am not at all freaked out by the ideas & stories presented here. They can still spin a good yarn, but that gets old fast without the essential ingredient - radical ideas. If indeed the freakish duo decides to call it quits, it would be a pity that this was added to their otherwise magnificent legacy. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
Sep 23, 2014
|
Sep 24, 2014
|
Sep 23, 2014
| Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0977476073
| 9780977476077
| 3.15
| 28,479
| Jul 18, 1925
| Jul 14, 2009
|
did not like it
| Mein Kampf or My Struggle: Five Hundred and Sixty Pages of Struggle against Lies, Stupidity, Irrationality and Sheer Prolixity Understanding Hitler’s p Mein Kampf or My Struggle: Five Hundred and Sixty Pages of Struggle against Lies, Stupidity, Irrationality and Sheer Prolixity Understanding Hitler’s political methods, rhetorical techniques and organizational skills is often cited as the best reason to read this book in the modern age, since many dictators still use it as a handbook. Understanding their guidebook might be the best way to beat them at their own game. Many readers today avoid the book to avoid the taint of being seen reading it and also out of fear of perhaps falling under its influence. That is considered to be playing into the hands of the ones who are willing to use he powerful methods present therein. If the book was indeed a powerfully reasoned piece of work this would have held true. Instead it turned out to be a pathetic work, which only showcases the workings of a weak mind that constructed all its arguments from pre-conceived notions and never examined the basis of its arguments. It is clear that Hitler never bothered to understand the core ideas behind evolution, species selection, etc. Darwin had been pretty clear about all this, writing half a century or more before Hitler came up with his tripe. Instead he just assumes that a race came perfect unto this world and the world is beholden to “preserve” it… I mean, that is not evolution, that is just a naturalistic version of creationism and a variation of the “chosen people’ concept - he cannot even even be given points for being imaginative! So instead of being outraged by the dangerous and enticing nature of a charismatic leader’s arguments, I found myself just plain disappointed by their weak and leaky nature. And it s not because of hasty constructions. Hitler takes all the time n the world and spends most of his book rehashing the same ideas in the same ways again and again. It is an insufferable drag. And even when he departs from his obsession with race purity and talks of geopolitics and grand strategy, he again jumps to conclusions about Britain, France and Russia that clearly proved to be wrong within his lifetime. Most of his ideas had to be abandoned in the course of the war. I am sure he came up with great explanations whenever this happened. That is the thing with this kind of 'method'. There is just no being wrong in it. The real question then is not whether we would buy his arguments but why anyone did. It is not about reading Hitler to understand how modern Dictators might use the same tactics, but understanding the conditions that allow these pretty rudimentary tactics to succeed and to avoid those conditions. The answers are in the society itself and not in Hitler’s work. The same applies for modern dictators’ who use his book as a guide - the answer is in a society that allows such extreme paranoid ideas to be propagated. It requires a grave threat and an almost pathological need to surrender once reason to a raving lunatic, who is willing to be a Führer. The best way yo have a world which rejects its Hitlers is to have a world that is not scared enough to accept without question essentially baseless fascist arguments. Hitler provides a good litmus test - wherever we see such ideas are getting currency, it might be time to examine what is causing the society to suspend common sense. Unfortunately, we might not have to look far to see test cases. ++++ I am not attempting a dissection of Hitler’s many pet theories (hobby horses?) here. I just can’t spare the time and I have wasted enough on reading this already. Many unsupported rants pepper the book, repeated ad nauseam. A sample: Austria: Everything about it is bad, except the Germans. Should be brought into the fold, but carefully. Germany/Germans: The perfect race, the one to be preserved. So perfect that they are under threat from the worst/weakest race (I mean, how does THAT work?). Has to be expanded. World, including Britain, should make sure Germany expands if they don’t want this magnificent race to disappear from the face of the earth, leaving it poorer forever more. Germany has been greatly discriminated against after the First World War (okay, have to concede this, but it doesn't take a genius to figure that. Probably just echoing Keynes in any case). German people have suffered enough. It is time for a Great Leader to arise again. No prizes for guessing who that is! Jews: Always vaguely and conveniently defined. But incontrovertibly the scum of humanity. To be eliminated. However “jews” are clearly shown to be a broader term, to include all traitors against the German people. Thus the word comes across mostly as a class badge in hitler’s writings. Democracy: How can the masses ever rule? Democracy is only an excuse for rulers to pass on responsibility and avoid taking tough decisions. What a country under there needs is a strong leader who canned do what needs to be done. To be avoided at all costs. The Masses: The mindless lot. Manipulated and brain washed by the Jews. They have to be emancipated by effective and complete control, by a leader. They have to be reeducated and freed of the influence of the Jews - by “propaganda”. Trade & Business: The purview of the Jews. Only the weak and the leach-like attempt these activities. The German people to abjure them and take to manly activities that does not suck the life blood of the country and the race. The Market: Sheer anarchy! Not to be allowed. State has to control production to avoid wastage. Monarchy: Well, not in name, but we need a leader who can recreate the grand Reich of old. Who cares if it looks exactly like a kingship? Marxism: The scourge of this earth! The tool of the Jews! Initiated by a Jew, what more proof do you need? Exists only to corrupt the masses. Has to be used only to reach the masses. Should be superseded forthwith after that. The Press: Has to be controlled so that only the state views are set forth. Otherwise the Jews and the Marxists will take it over and corrupt the public even more. The Races: Have to be preserved and kept apart to prevent dilution, especially the Germanic race of the Aryans. Don’t question my assumptions here! My Way or The Highway! Got it? ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
Aug 08, 2014
|
Sep 18, 2014
|
Aug 08, 2014
| Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0470621664
| 9780470621660
| 3.68
| 836
| Aug 26, 2010
| Sep 07, 2010
|
really liked it
|
The Little Review of Economics Usually when an Economics book claims to condense core ideas into a short frame, it is best for the reader to be on th The Little Review of Economics Usually when an Economics book claims to condense core ideas into a short frame, it is best for the reader to be on the lookout for ideological biases. It is hard to boil down the opposing ideas that make up Economics into any simple framework without committing many sins of omission. As all such books do, Ip too starts with the set formula of Economics text books: first give a brief on how economics is perceived as such a hard and complex discipline and then assure the reader that in this book it is presented in a simple and concise manner. What is left out in such introduction is the fact that the book hardly ever even attempts to address the whole field. Contrary to most such books, Ip manages to steer clear of obvious bias and also manages to keep the explanations simple enough for the lay reader (though he uses sections called "into the weeds" to explain more complex concepts) In all, this is a cute little book to have and it can serve as a useful introduction. Ip never goes beyond the most basic of concepts and never ventures into the really controversial areas - that is how he keeps it simple and bias-free. This reduces the usefulness somewhat, but on the other other hand, it makes it a book that can be recommended to a novice student without fear of early distortion. Which was my purpose in reading this one. 1. A Recipe for Economic Growth Why do some countries grow and some stagnate? In a nutshell, growth rests on two building blocks: population and productivity. 1. Population determines how many workers a country will have. 2. Productivity, or output per worker, determines how much each worker earns. Thus we arrive at the following recipe: a. Take a Growing Population b. Add Capital c. Season well with Ideas. d. Stir with a good dose of Human Capital, Rule of Law & Well-functioning Markets e. Serve and monitor step d for deviations. In Short: • Long-term economic growth depends on population and productivity. A growing population is the source of future workers, and the more productive those workers are, the richer they become. It takes investment in both capital and ideas to raise productivity. • Ideas enable us to recombine the workers and the capital we already have in new ways to produce brand-new products or old products at a lower price. Competition forces countries and companies to copy each other’s ideas and constantly come up with new ones. • Both investment and ideas must be nurtured. Honest government and trustworthy laws encourage investors and innovators to take risks in hopes of reaping the rewards. Investment in education enables workers to take advantage of the latest ideas. And free markets ensure that dying, unproductive industries are culled so that growing industries can attract capital and workers. 2. Business Cycles, Recessions, and Depressions Every business expansion eventually dies. Only the cause of death changes. Economists often miss fatal imbalances because they’re looking in the wrong place. Having vaccinated everyone against whatever killed the last business cycle, they fail to spot the virus that infects the current one. Depressions occur when the economy’s normal recuperative mechanism fails to engage. • Ultimately, long-run growth drives our standard of living. In the short run, the economy goes through regular cycles of expansion and recession. These cycles are driven by how much consumers and businesses spend, which in turn depends a lot on their view of the future. • Bullish expectations boost investment, stock prices, and lending, all of which feed back to the economy. Eventually, though, expectations get ahead of fundamentals, creating imbalances. These imbalances come undone, usually with a nudge from the Federal Reserve, producing recessions. • Recessions create pent-up demand. Lower interest rates eventually release that demand, bringing the recession to a close. Sometimes, though, this natural restorative process fails, because a broken financial system dams the flow of credit. Then, a recession may become a depression. 3. Tracking and Forecasting the Business Cycle ( from Takeoff to Landing) The Four Engines of the Economy have to be running smoothly for it to operate well. These are the ones we should monitor (in the order given) to be able to predict (with reasonable confidence) where the Flight is headed: 1) Consumer spending and housing: 66% to 76% of GDP 2) Business investment in buildings, equipment, and inventories: 8% to 13% of GDP 3) Government spending: 18% to 20% of GDP 4) Exports: 8% to 12% of GDP Consumer spending is the economy’s ballast: though large, it doesn’t fluctuate much from quarter to quarter, except for big-ticket purchases like houses and cars. Housing though a form of consumer spending, behaves differently from the rest of this category - it is a highly volatile component, one of the most volatile things in the economy. • Movements in GDP are dominated by such "most volatile" categories of spending: housing, business inventories, and big-ticket consumer purchases, like cars. • Forecasting the business cycle is risky business; you have to carefully monitor a continuous blizzard of data which, though faithfully gathered, may be out of date and inaccurate. Stock prices, the yield curve, and commodity prices are all useful leading indicators but send a lot of error signals. 4. Employment, Unemployment, and Wages • In the short run, the number of jobs rises and falls with the business cycle. In the long run, though, the growth in jobs usually tracks almost perfectly the growth in the number of people who want jobs. • The unemployment rate is the single best signpost of the economy’s health. When the economy reaches full strength, the unemployment reaches its so-called natural rate. • Pay usually tracks productivity, which is why, over the years, workers have gotten richer. In recent decades, however, the best-paid workers have seen their salaries grow much more rapidly than the rest of the work force has, because of the premium on skills, weaker unions, and superstar salaries, whether for lawyers or for athletes. 5. Inflation and Deflation There are two competing schools of thought on the causes inflation: a) Monetarism - blames inflation on too much money chasing too few goods. This makes great sense in theory but is less obvious in real life. This is because the central bank doesn’t control the entire money supply, only a narrow portion of it: specifically, the notes, coins, and reserves it supplies to commercial banks. For money to cause inflation, it must be lent and spent. Banks lend more only when they have healthy balance sheets and a lot of eager, creditworthy customers. Consumers spend when they feel confident about their jobs and salaries - both these things are not controlled by the Central Bank's actions directly. Monetarists claim that growth in the money supply leads to more spending and more inflation. Actually, it’s the other way around. Every dollar consumers borrow or spend returns to the banking system and shows up in someone else’s checking or savings deposit or money market mutual fund, which are all part of the broader money supply (which has labels like M1, M2, and M3). For this reason, the Fed doesn’t target the money supply. It uses its control of reserves only to ensure banks have enough cash to keep their ATMs full, and to control short-term interest rates. Therefore, its influence over the broad money supply is indirect. If it raises interest rates, it will dampen spending and, eventually, the money supply. If, however, the economy is truly moribund, because no one wants to lend or borrow, the Fed can drive interest rates to zero and print gobs of money without causing broader measures of money and credit to grow. b) So save some trouble and don’t preoccupy yourself with the money supply. For a more realistic picture of inflation— look at the neo-Keynesian picture. • The money supply is a lousy guide to where inflation is going. Better, instead, to monitor how far the economy is operating from its capacity. For example, if unemployment is 5 percent, it doesn’t have much spare capacity left. Wages are the best evidence of an economy running out of capacity. If wages aren’t rising, a wage-price spiral can’t happen. • Inflation is more likely to rise if people expect it to, because they’ll adjust their wage and price behavior accordingly. Stable inflation expectations are a bulwark against both inflation and deflation. 6. Globalization • Falling trade barriers, rising affluence, and the plunging cost of selling things across borders have fueled globalization. Able to buy from and sell to the entire world, even small countries can achieve exceptional levels of wealth. • Trade makes the United States a whole richer. But the benefits are not shared equally. Especially as services trade grows, the biggest gainers will be the highest skilled workers while those with the least skills will see their wages eroded. • Free trade is not politically popular and every country routinely indulges its protectionist impulses. Yet free trade survives because countries have also agreed to subject their actions to the rules of the World Trade Organization which keeps trade spats from becoming trade wars. 7. The International Market • Global capital markets let investors diversify their portfolios and borrowers choose from different sources of capital. There’s a downside, though: Investors’ savings may be battered by events in far off countries, while companies and countries can abruptly have their access to capital cut off. • Currencies over time reflect their purchasing power and thus countries’ inflation. But in the short run, economic growth, interest rates, and current and capital account balances drive currencies, sometimes violently. • The United States borrows cheaply abroad in great part because foreign central banks like to hold dollars: they’re safe, easy to convert to other currencies, and backed by a strong, stable country. 8. Controlling the Economy (or die trying!) • Governments don’t control the economy but they sure try. A government’s economic agenda is dictated by ideology, but how it is implemented depends on the circle of economic advisers in the various high profile Economic bodies. • The governement also exercises a lot of influence through his appointments to dozens of federal regulatory agencies. The bank regulators, for example, influence who gets credit and under what terms while the Justice Department and the Trade dept set the ground rules for business conduct and competition. 9. The Central Bank/Reserve • The Fed stands alone in its economic sway and its independence. It can print and destroy money at will to protect the financial system from panics and to manage the business cycle. • The Fed is a compromise between political accountability and private independence. Its politically appointed governors and privately appointed reserve bank presidents make up the Federal Open Market Committee, which sets monetary policy at meetings eight times a year. 10. Monetary Policy • When setting interest rates, the Fed weighs how far the economy is from its potential, and how far inflation is likely to be from 2 percent. This is harder than it sounds because the economy responds unpredictably and with lags. • At meetings, Fed officials listen and debate the best path for monetary policy. A few dissent but the chairman always carries the day. The Fed gives out so much information that the result is seldom a surprise but it still moves markets. • The Fed carries out monetary policy by using open market operations to move the Federal Funds rate, charged on loans between banks, up or down. • When the Funds rate fell to zero in 2008 the Fed turned to quantitative easing: buying up bonds to push down long-term interest rates. Quantitative easing has unpredictable political and economic consequences. 11. Lender of Last Resort & Crisis Manager • The Federal Reserve has made its name managing the economy through monetary policy, but its parents had a different career in mind: to act as lender of last resort when banks ran out of cash. The Fed is uniquely suited to the job because it can simply create whatever money it needs to lend, primarily through loans from its discount window, and withdraw the money from existence when the loans are repaid. • During the financial crisis the Fed dusted off a loophole to lend not just to banks but to a wide assortment of companies. In so doing it may have saved the country from another Depression, but it also awakened politicians to its formidable power. 12. Fiscal Policy • The federal government is a gigantic player in the economy and it will get bigger in coming years as government services expand, the population ages, and interest on the national debt mounts. • Federal spending comes in three varieties: 1. Interest on the debt. 2. Discretionary spending. 3. Mandatory spending. • Tax revenue comes mainly from personal and corporate income and payroll taxes. Compared to other countries, the United States relies relatively little on consumption taxes such as on gasoline or a value-added tax. • Every year the president proposes a budget; Congress accepts some of it but ignores a lot as it passes the appropriations, tax, and mandatory program laws. • Unlike the federal government, states must balance their budgets each year, which makes for profligacy in good times and wrenching austerity in bad times. 13. The Debt in the Machine • Chronic deficits compete with private borrowers for limited savings driving up interest rates, retarding investment, and impairing future economic growth. Interest on the national debt starves other government programs. • Budget deficits can be good. During recessions, tax revenues fall and spending on the poor and unemployed rises, softening the sting. There’s less competition with private borrowing. • Governments sometimes use fiscal stimulus—that is, a deliberate increase in the deficit—to boost a weak economy. This is usually unnecessary, unless the Fed is unable to do the job because it has already cut interest rates to zero. • A breaking point can come when debt is so high that investors suspect governments will try to renege either by defaulting, or through inflation. • The United States’ long history of fiscal probity, favorable long-term growth outlook and control of the world’s reserve currency, suggest it has a long way to go before it faces a crisis, but the risk can’t be rule out. 14. The Financial Markets - Stocks are simple and glamorous. Credit is complicated and dull. Yet it matters more to the economy. - Mortgage-backed securities are a great idea that Wall Street, as is its habit, took to excess. Years ago you would put your money in a bank and the bank would grant a mortgage to your neighbor. Now, you: • Put your money in a pension fund • Which is a partner in a hedge fund • Which buys a collateralized debt obligation • Which holds a mortgage-backed security • That a bank put together • Out of mortgages it acquired from a mortgage broker • Who made the original loan to your neighbor Did you get all that? Anyway, • You don’t have to hug your banker, but what he does is essential to economic growth. Banks and capital markets match savers with those who need capital. • Over the years, banks have been joined by shadow banks that, like banks, made loans but don’t take deposits and aren’t as tightly regulated. All these institutions need capital to protect against losses and liquidity to repay lenders. Too much of either, and profits suffer. Too little, and the institution could fail. • Equities get all the attention in the capital markets but the economy relies more on a healthy market for debt securities, such as money market paper, bonds, and asset-backed securities. 15. The Multiple, Recurring Causes of Financial Crises - Almost by definition, crises are unexpected because they involve collective errors of judgment. Condition 1: Afloat on a Bubble (But, not all bubbles lead to crises. To produce a crisis requires leverage.) Condition 2: Leverage, the Prime Suspect Condition 3: Mismatches, the First Coconspirator (Rising dependence on short-term borrowing is often a telltale sign of trouble -- Mismatch = borrowing short-term to make long-term investments.) Condition 4: Contagion Condition 5: Elections (Crises often come in election years. They are often a result of economic stresses that can only be fixed with painful remedies that politicians running for election don’t want to administer.) So, • Every crisis is different but they share certain traits. An asset price that deviates from historical fundamentals may signal a bubble, but not when or how the bubble will burst. • Debt is a prime suspect in every crisis. Currency and interest rate mismatches, reliance on short-term debt, and moral hazard are all coconspirators. • Crises are spread through contagion: Investors burned on one company or country flee others that look like it. A failing bank pulls down others with whom it trades or has other relationships. Because of contagion, companies or countries that were merely illiquid become insolvent and collapse. • Highly Leveraged bubbles + impending Elections = WATCH OUT! Anything familiar? ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
Jul 14, 2014
|
Jul 17, 2014
|
Jul 16, 2014
| Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0521520908
| 9780521520904
| 3.50
| 10
| Dec 11, 1998
| Mar 25, 2008
|
really liked it
| A Demonstrable Problem Philip Hans Franses takes the reader through the most elementary concepts of econometrics, or as much as is possible in such a s A Demonstrable Problem Philip Hans Franses takes the reader through the most elementary concepts of econometrics, or as much as is possible in such a short book. This is well supplemented by a series of practical research questions in various economic disciplines, which are then ‘demonstrated’ for the reader by showing how they can be answered using econometric methods and models. This makes the book a good introduction to the empirical practices of the ‘real’ econometric world, which, as the author takes pains to emphasize is slightly different from the typical text book assumed world where the data is reliable, the questions are already framed and the variables are not suspect, with only the modeling (even the models are often taken for granted in standard textbooks!) and the statistical tools occupying center stage. This format of a typical econometrics textbook has its origin in a traditional view of econometrics, where the econometricians were supposed to match (mainly macro-) economic theories to data, often with an explicit goal to substantiate the theory. In the unlucky event that the econometric model failed to provide evidence in favor of the theory, it was usually perceived that perhaps the data were wrong or the estimation method was incorrect, implying that the econometrician could start all over again. This view assumed that most aspects of a model, like the relevant variables, the way they are measured, the data themselves, and the functional form, are already available to the econometrician, and the only thing s/he needs to do is to fit the model to the data. The model components are usually assumed to originate from an (often macro-) economic theory, and there is great confidence in its validity. A consequence of this confidence is that if the data cannot be summarized by this model, the econometric textbook first advises us to consider alternative estimation techniques. Finally, and conditional upon a successful result, the resultant empirical econometric model is used to confirm (and perhaps in some cases, to disconfirm) the thoughts summarized in the economic theory. The author instead realizes that the most common refrain from newbie researches out in the field is “where do I start?” and takes his discussion forward from there. With this introduction that shows the process of econometric research in simplistic but essential detail, Franses makes sure that the student will be less clueless when confronting a possible opportunity to pose a useful question. The most valuable chapter in the book (Chapter 4) addresses this problem even more directly and contains step-by-step discussion of sample research case studies. These are meant to indicate that the main ideas in the book shine through present-day applied econometrics. These illustrations suggest that there is a straight line from understanding how to handle the basic regression model to handling regime-switching models and a multinomial probit model, for example. To conclude, I quote the concluding paragraph from the introduction, which I simply loved. It is a valuable economic exercise to indulge in, to strengthen the analytic muscles or even just to pass time! Finally, as a way of examining whether a reader has appreciated the content of this book, one might think about the following exercise. Take a newspaper or a news magazine and look for articles on economic issues. In many articles are reports on decisions which have been made, forecasts that have been generated, and questions that have been answered. Take one of these articles, and then ask whether these decisions, forecasts, and answers could have been based on the outcomes of an econometric model. What kind of data could one have used? What could the model have looked like? Would one have great confidence in these outcomes, and how does this extend to the reported decisions, forecasts, and answers?...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
Jun 17, 2014
|
Jun 17, 2014
|
Jun 17, 2014
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0553585800
| 9780553585803
| 3.54
| 3,314
| Jan 05, 2004
| Jul 26, 2005
|
liked it
| Glimpses Of An Ordinary Future How would it be to live in the very near future? What will happen once we cross the rubicon, the point beyond which cl Glimpses Of An Ordinary Future How would it be to live in the very near future? What will happen once we cross the rubicon, the point beyond which climate change overwhelms the Anthropocene and humans are no longer in charge of their surroundings? We should expect high human drama under such extreme duress, right? Wrong. Daily life will carry on. That is what will happen. So What’s New in The Very Near Future? Extinction Rate in Oceans Now Faster Than on Land. Coral Reef Collapses Leading to Mass Extinctions; Thirty Percent of Warm-water Species Estimated Gone. Fishing Stocks Depleted, UN Declares Scaleback Necessary or Commercial Species Will Crash. Topsoil Loss Nears a Million Acres a Year. Deforestation now faster in temperate than tropical forests. Only 35% of tropical forests left. The average Indian consumes 200 kilograms of grain a year; the average American, 800 kilograms; the average Italian, 400 kilograms. The Italian diet was rated best in the world for heart disease. 300 Tons of Weapons-grade Uranium and Plutonium Unaccounted For. High Mutation Rate of Microorganisms Near Radioactive Waste-treatment Sites. Antibiotics in Animal Feed Reduce Medical Effectiveness of Antibiotics for Humans. Environmental estrogens suspected in lowest-ever human sperm counts. The Antarctic ice has started to break up as early as May every year. The El Nino cycle has accelerated so much that it is now called The Hyper Nino. The Gulf Stream has begun to shut down and the water no longer sinks due to the influx of fresh water from glaciers. Europe faces a complete ice age. Two Billion Tons of Carbon Added to the Atmosphere This Year. One of the five hottest years on record. The Fed Hopes U.S. Economy Will Grow by Four Percent in the Final Quarter. The Day After Tomorrow I was constantly reminded of the movie The Day after Tomorrow when I read this. But unlike DAT, 40 Signs is not designed as a disaster story, but as a ‘domestic comedy’, to use KSR’s own phrase. It is not meant to shock and awe the audience; or to use the disaster potential of sudden climate change to produce high drama. Instead it is a very subtly constructed future, achieved by sketching ordinary people from specifically selected walks of life that the audience knows are bound to be affected, and thus pays attention for tiny hints on how they have been in fact affected even as they go about their daily lives. We soon notice that the plot advancing moments have a tendency to be connected to the changed world they live in. For example, the elevator scene shows how life, or at least the perception of daily life, has changed radically from our’s when flooding of the subway system is par for the course and does not even make the list of things to be discussed over dinner. And thus it turns out that their lives have been altered immensely by the gathering doom -- it is just that they are now used to every incremental change and walks, almost casually, into the gathering ‘whimper’ that awaits them at the end. The Theaters of the Future There is not much here plot wise or excitement wise compared to a the dense action of Red Mars, but as always KSR makes up for it by the wealth of ideas and thoughts provoked. The plot operates mostly in what KSR clearly considers to be the Theaters of the Future - Science & Politics. In fact, a core sub-plots of the book, and one of the key ideas in it, is about the Paradigm Shift (yup, Kuhn again) that has to occur in the field of science to make the scientists aware of their political responsibility. He says that an unfortunate repercussion of the World Wars' political promotion of science was that this overt politicization of Science led to an almost knee-jerk reaction -- the scientific community withdrew almost entirely from politics and took a much more ’neutral’ role. This meant that they no longer get directly involved in important political questions and so a vital and authoritative voice that can save humanity is lost to us. This has to change. A Disaster Too Slow Of course, most of the characters are scientists or politicians, and all of them have adequate information, theories and concerns, and fully appreciates the threat that global warming poses, but they just can't seem to awaken a Day After Tomorrow sort of urgency in their lives. No matter how fast climate change occurs, it is not fast enough to not let us say ‘let us get used to this’, and to postpone decisive action for later. The disasters just cannot strike fast enough for them to really act! The most environmentally aware and empathetic politician in the book has this to say even as world falls apart around him: Then the words burst out of Charlie: “So Phil! Are you going to do something about global warming now?” Phil grinned his beautiful grin. “I’ll see what I can do!” ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
Apr 29, 2014
|
Jun 02, 2014
|
Jun 02, 2014
| Mass Market Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0192853856
| 9780192853851
| 3.58
| 783
| 1995
| Jun 15, 2000
|
really liked it
| Golden Oldies – Always The Latest Craze ‘This is no potted history of Greece and Rome, but a brilliant demonstration that the continual re-excavation Golden Oldies – Always The Latest Craze ‘This is no potted history of Greece and Rome, but a brilliant demonstration that the continual re-excavation of our classical past is vital if the modern world is to rise to the challenge inscribed on the temple of Apollo at Delphi to “Know yourself”.’ ~ Robin Osborne This VSI, one of the best among those I have read, is an eloquent and captivating journey into the world of the Classics. Rather than running through the Peloponnesian Wars, Greeks and Persians, Athens as the birthplace of democracy, Rome as the birthplace of plumbing, the Conquest of Britain, and other landmarks of the subject as it used to be taught in the school room, Classics focuses on one particular artifact — a spectacle that is familiar, but, at the same time, puzzling and strange: dismembered fragments of an ancient Greek temple put on show in the heart of modern London (the friezes from the Temple of Apollo at Bassae in Arcadia), using them as the starting point of a wide-ranging exploration of issues that are of current concern in the professional study of the Ancient World and of changing attitudes to the classical past. The core idea explored is that the Classics is a subject that exists in that gap between us and the world of the Greeks and Romans. The questions raised by Classics are the questions raised by our distance from ‘their’ world, and at the same time by our closeness to it, and by its familiarity to us. In our museums, in our literature, languages, culture, and ways of thinking. The aim of Classics is not only to discover or uncover the ancient world (though that is part of it, as the rediscovery of Bassae, or the excavation of the furthest outposts of the Roman empire on the Scottish borders, shows). Its aim is also to define and debate our relationship to that world, which is taken as the first step towards any such education. The questions raised by Bassae is thus used as a model for understanding Classics in its widest sense, and the essential issues that are at stake — questions about how we are to read literature which has a history of more than 2,000 years, written in a society very distant and different from our own. We are told that we are obliged to find a way of dealing with that clash between our imaginary vision of Greece and what we actually see when we get there, or when we actually read the classics first hand, instead of going by hearsay — this is bound to always involve confronting different and competing visions of Classics and the classical world. Always Back with a Bang The Classics are to be always discovered anew and yet to be always known only in the light of the discovery of the past generations — which only serves to make our own discovery even more exciting, richer, deeper and stronger. It is precisely when a generation skips on the classics or on a classical education that they come back with even more of a bang. This gives me pause and makes me think of the sudden craze of classical based (at leas mythological) fiction in India. I can only hope that the next step in that craze would involve going beyond the familiar myths into the vast body of Sanskrit literature as well. All this makes the book more about the discovery of the classical world, about the motivations that inspired that discovery, and in the end about the relation of the modern world to the classical world, and how it was all imagined into existence — each begetting the other. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
May 23, 2014
|
May 25, 2014
|
May 25, 2014
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1426206070
| 9781426206078
| 3.42
| 606
| Jan 01, 2010
| Feb 16, 2010
|
it was ok
| Takeaway tidbit: The vampire’s very existence was an infernal parody of the resurrection, and its chief means of sustenance was a diabolical twist on C Takeaway tidbit: The vampire’s very existence was an infernal parody of the resurrection, and its chief means of sustenance was a diabolical twist on Christ’s words: “Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.” As that shows, the book is a mostly western exploration (except for a very small section that mention other myths in passing) and fails to take into consideration that vampire myths predate christian perversions and even gothic folklore, and probably originated in Africa for all we know. I need to get a proper scholarly book to clear up the mess this book has made for me. I picked it up thinking it will allow me to reel off some high-brow vampire trivia the next time someone talks of a popular vampire based book/movie/tv show. Turns out the book was capable of boring me even more than what I was counting on inflicting upon my would-be listener. Serves me right. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
May 22, 2014
|
May 23, 2014
|
May 22, 2014
| Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0199238510
| 9780199238514
| 4.30
| 23
| Dec 15, 2005
| May 01, 2008
|
really liked it
| Book 3: The Basic Instruments Of Philosophy ‘Doubt Truth to Be a Liar’, ostensibly the book being reviewed here, is a championing of the ideas of di Book 3: The Basic Instruments Of Philosophy ‘Doubt Truth to Be a Liar’, ostensibly the book being reviewed here, is a championing of the ideas of dialetheism , which argues that some contradictions can indeed be true. Priest mounts an effective challenge against Aristotle’s fundamental Law of Non-Contradiction (as we will see, it is the heart of Book 3), and against the many philosophies and arguments that have grown up around Aristotle’s First Principle. This book is much more than a discussion on this particular book of the Metaphysics and touches on a variety of other Aristotelean works. But since I want to have something on each book of my Metaphysics reading up (so that I am forced to move to the next book only after I organize and summarize my notes of the former and because this book was a fascinating and well-argued counter to Aristotle’s flat-out assertion, and especially since the Symposium Aristotelicum is not available for this particular book) I have chosen this review as a place to primarily discuss Book 3 -- This is a disservice to Priest’s book which is wonderful reading if you want to explore further the role that contradiction plays in our thinking and logical maneuvering. Do check out other reviewers for more on the book. To read about other Books of The Metaphysics, see here: Book 1: A Preliminary Outline of Philosophy & here: Book 2: An Introduction to Philosophical Problems. I am using my parallel readings on Aristotle & Metaphysics to keep my notes/understanding of each book in separate pockets before bringing them together in a final review, if that is possible. Book Gamma: Going Further After the historical surveys and problems discussed in the first two books, Aristotle is now in a position to give his famous assertion on what is presumably his definitive statement of what philosophy and especially metaphysics is — It is the study of "being qua being". That is, while other sciences investigate limited aspects of being, metaphysics investigates being itself. This study of being qua being amounts to be the same thing as the study of the primary causes and principles, which has previously been said to be the task of philosophy, because the primary causes and principles are the causes and principles of being qua being. This is because Being itself is primarily identified with the idea of substance, and also with unity, plurality (as we are later told, philosophy will interest itself in plurality, the contrary of unity, since all sciences study contraries, and so consider difference, dissimilarity, etc.), and a variety of other related concepts. Aristotle implies that he will be investigating these soon. But before he sets out on the investigation, Aristotle needs to make his readers familiar with the basic tools of argumentation since proper, rigorous philosophy is also concerned with logic and the principles of demonstration, which are also very general, and hence concerned with being itself — In making this addition, he is resolving the dilemma posed by puzzle 2 of book Beta. Ideally, Aristotle seems to be saying, the reader should already be familiar with the Organon’s arguments before he/she goes further than this book. The bulk of the rest of book Gamma is, accordingly, devoted to the defense of the fundamental principles of demonstration/logic. Aristotle evidently feels that it will not be possible to be certain about the conclusions later to be drawn about substance, unless the principles of demonstration itself have first been vindicated. The most fundamental principle according to Aristotle, the only thing he is prepared to elevate to the level of an axiom, is the principle of noncontradiction: nothing can both be something and not be that same something. To Aristotle, this is the First Principle of logical demonstration, which though not of course deducible, is the ultimate principle governing all being and all knowledge. Aristotle defends this principle exhaustively by arguing that it is impossible to contradict it coherently. Aristotle also presents in this connection the principle of non-contradiction is the Principle of the Excluded Middle, which states that there is no logical middle position possible between two contradictory positions. That is, a thing is either x or not-x, and there is no third possibility in-between those two positions. Back on The Attack Book Gamma concludes by looking back at Books 1 & 2 and uses the new principles the readers have now been made familiar with to launch another attack on, and reject, the several general claims of earlier philosophers: that everything is true, that everything is false, that everything is at rest, and that everything is in motion. Aristotle proves that these claims amount to a rejection of the principle of non-contradiction. First, he deals with those who claim either that everything is true or that everything is false. Each of these claims is in fact self-destructive: if everything is true, then so is the denial that everything is true, and if everything is false, then so is the claim that everything is false. Secondly, he also refutes those who claim either that everything is at rest or that everything is in motion. That everything is not at rest is shown by the fact that the very proponent of the claim himself came into existence at some time in the past. That everything is not in motion is shown by the fact that for anything to be in motion there must be something which is not in motion and also by the fact that there are some things that are eternal. The question of Motion, whether there is something permanently in motion and whether there is primary cause of motion which is itself permanently unmoving, is to be explored at greater length in book Lambda. In this book Aristotle expertly connects this fundamental exploration of metaphysics to the mistakes of his predecessors by subjecting them to the scrutiny of, according to him, the most basic techniques of demonstrative philosophy. After Book 2’s seemingly ‘unsolvable’ puzzles, if any reader felt that they might be in for a shaky and doubtful ride, this book shows that Aristotle is completely in control of the voyage and knows exactly where he is sailing. No worries. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
May 15, 2014
|
May 19, 2014
|
May 19, 2014
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0199546770
| 9780199546770
| 5.00
| 1
| May 21, 2009
| Jul 01, 2009
|
it was amazing
| Book 2: An Introduction to Philosophical Problems -- The 16th Symposium Aristotelicum, dedicated to Book Beta of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, organized b Book 2: An Introduction to Philosophical Problems -- The 16th Symposium Aristotelicum, dedicated to Book Beta of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, organized by Michel Crubellier and Andre Laks, was held in Lille from 20 to 24 August, 2002, in the premises of the Ecole Superieure de Commerce de Lille. -- For more on the series and to read about Book 1 of The Metaphysics, see here: Book 1: A Preliminary Outline of Philosophy I am using my parallel reading of Symposium Aristotelicum (SA) to keep my notes/understanding of each book in separate pockets before bringing them together in a final review, if that is possible. This was a wonderful book to have a Symposium on since Aristotle poses the 14+1 questions and leaves them open ended. So it is good to discuss them further and in detail by ourselves before going on to see how Aristotle resolves them indirectly. Each of the Aporia are tackled in turn (starting from Zero!) in this SA. Fifteen Metaphysical Puzzles The Book Beta consists of a series of fifteen metaphysical puzzles (also called Aporia, since they are left unresolved) on the nature of first principles, substance, and other fundamental concepts. In each case, Aristotle presents a thesis and a contradicting antithesis, both of which could be taken as possible answers to the puzzle. Here are the puzzles, in summary form: (i) Can one science treat of all the four causes? (ii) Are the primary axioms treated of by the science of substance, and if not, by what science? (iii) Can one science treat of all substances? (iv) Does the science of substance treat also of its attributes? (v) Are there any non-sensible substances, and if so, of how many kinds? (vi) Are the genera, or the constituent parts, of things their first principles? (vii) If the genera, is it the highest genera or the lowest? (viii) Is there anything apart from individual things? (ix) Is each of the first principles one in kind, or in number? (x) Are the principles of perishable and of imperishable things the same? (xi) Are being and unity substances or attributes? (xii) Are the objects of mathematics substances? (xiii) Do Ideas exist, as well as sensible things and the objects of mathematics? (xiv) Do the first principles exist potentially or actually? (xv) Are the first principles universal or individual? The characteristic structure of these problems is that of a plausible seeming thesis and an equally plausible but contradictory antithesis — well defined questions announced in the form of an alternative: ‘Is it ___ , or rather ___ ?’ The care with which the contrasting arguments are balanced and the constant repetition of the same procedure for each of the fifteen aporiai give the appearance of a practice governed by strict rules. One might well think that such presentation of the question in a standard form, which would require perhaps certain methodological rules and criteria of success for its development and resolution, would constitute part of dialectic, in the Aristotelian sense of the term, that is to say, the technique of discussion. Usually, the thesis and antithesis are taken one from the extreme naturalists or Atomists, the other from the Idealists, Pythagoreans and Platonists. The purpose of the whole exercise is to illustrate the poverty of both these extreme positions, so as to prepare the way for the exposition of Aristotle’s own solution throughout the rest of the Metaphysics, which will in many respects be a compromise between materialism and idealism. Thus we could consider them as the statement of Thesis & Antithesis of each of these positions and we can assume the rest of Metaphysics as a mediation, i.e., as a Synthesis. Aporia as a Dialectical Instrument In the brief introduction before plunging us into the puzzles, Aristotle gives a quick explanation for the employment of this method: We must, with a view to the science which we are seeking, first recount the subjects that should be first discussed. These include both the other opinions that some have held on the first principles, and any point besides these that happens to have been overlooked. This excerpt (slightly modified for brevity) shows clearly that Aristotle sees the Aporia as a the logical next step after the Book 1, which was a literature survey, or a ‘doxographical’ survey. Doxography and Aporia are two means of beginning a philosophical inquiry, ones which can be rivals, but which can also be employed together. In particular, aporia presupposes, to a certain extent at any rate, the existence and the consideration of opinions on the question, but it is not reducible to this. Doxography is oriented toward the past, while Aporia anticipates the pursuit of inquiry — The former is to know what others have thought, to try to under stand what they have wished to say and even, to a certain point, to sort out what is true and what false in this, while the latter is to methodically to construct a philosophical problem in the belief that this represents a step in the apprehension of a matter that is difficult to comprehend. Book Beta and The Project of Wisdom The principal presupposition, which is found in the background of all the books of the Metaphysics is of a programmatic nature: This is the grand project/quest — of a knowledge called ‘wisdom’, or ‘Primary Knowledge.’ We can call this The Project of Wisdom as short for “The Project of a Primary Knowledge.” Or we can just call it Metaphysics, even though Aristotle never called it that! Thus this ‘Project of Wisdom’, or 'Metaphysics', mobilizes philosophical material that had been progressively developed, beginning with Plato, right down to Aristotle himself in Book Alpha. And this is why, despite the difference of form, Book Beta is in a sense the proper continuation of Book Alpha. It takes up the story where the other left it off, since the sequence covered by the Aporia of Beta proceeded from Thales to Plato — proving clearly that Aristotle was continuing his presentation in this book. Aristotelian doxography of Book Alpha presents us the views of his predecessors, even if in a slightly sarcastic and personal way — Aristotle must have realized that his listeners might be tempted to take sides in such a presentation, even (occasionally) against his own very strong position. At least, this reader was! But the Aristotelian Aporia of Book 2 submits the contents of their statements (of the predecessors’) to the test of argumentation and to a standard that requires rational coherence. When the aporia is presented as a contradiction, the tension is maximal — Here the serious reader will have to let go of any last whimsical fancies and biases; and one finds oneself in definite impasses, where the choice between two given theoretical positions presents itself as being at once necessary — and yet impossible. Aristotle audaciously assures us, though, that the formal structure of the difficulty, once well understood, can teach us something about the nature of the object that has given birth to the difficulty, and that if we move forward with him, we will reach satisfactory resolutions. This is an assurance that is hard to believe easily after this harrowing Book, but Aristotle now has our undivided attention! And that was the whole point. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
May 10, 2014
|
May 13, 2014
|
May 13, 2014
| Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| B007Y5OWCG
| 3.97
| 265,739
| -500
| Apr 17, 2012
|
did not like it
| Quick Demo: On Ruining a Classic Text Kaufman (author more than translator, I feel) boasts: In this work you will learn how people are to be treated an Quick Demo: On Ruining a Classic Text Kaufman (author more than translator, I feel) boasts: In this work you will learn how people are to be treated and dealt with. The work was written for men in command and leaders of states. It is for the ambitious and strong spirited; do not seek morality lessons here. Sun Tzu has been translated and interpreted countless times by people with little knowledge of true combat reality on either the physical or mental level. Most of the available translations and interpretations maintain a poetic approach that really doesn’t pertain to the times we are living in. There is a tendency to maintain a “mystique” regarding ancient knowledge. This is quaint, relative to today’s aggressive personality. We are living in a global network and must think in decisive terms if we are to succeed. He also chooses to leave out the valuable commentaries, which are supposed to be as much a part of the work as the original. He says: In reality, who cares what Ch’en Fu thinks about Sun Tzu’s hidden meaning about the jade stalk in the midst of the enemy’s goldfish pond? We are grown-up and intelligent enough to develop our own understanding without the need for quaint allegories. There is nothing sacred here. I find that approach unnecessary, limiting, and a waste of time to the educated reader. And here is a fun fact: As an acknowledged and world-recognized martial arts master, a Hanshi (which is the highest rank attainable), I am thoroughly aware of my responsibility for the interpretation of this doctrine, and I have made it incumbent upon myself to explain Sun Tzu’s tenets as I perceive them in a definitive manner. — Must have recently taken a crash course on how to prepare a CV! Well, the book is a bore and a complete failure. It does no justice to Sun Tzu’s masterpiece and is worse than the regular self-help fare because it has only pretentiousness (of being tough, goal-oriented, warlord-like, if you please) and no real intention of even trying to 'help' any non-delusional executive. There is a reason why The Art of War is always presented poetically — it is so that the metaphors can be interpreted by the reader and applied as they want, so that they can understand the spirit of planned and prepared combat/conduct and apply that in life. That is why Art of war is an enduring and much loved classic. The author obviously has no clue about all this. He thinks it is a good idea to just present the text as-is, without ornamentation, without poetry, without any hints at broader applications beyond the battleground — Because the global corporation IS a battleground! Hello! Not realizing that once you strip away the poetry, you also strip the power of metaphor and what you have left is a dated txt that talks of war and claims to be for managers. It makes no sense to be told in plain prose to poison your enemy and insult his wife. Idiotic, without even being entertaining. Takes all the fun out of reading a bad book. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
May 11, 2014
|
May 12, 2014
|
May 11, 2014
| Kindle Edition
| |||||||||||||||
| 0199639981
| 9780199639984
| 5.00
| 1
| Sep 15, 2012
| Sep 01, 2012
|
it was amazing
| Book 1: A Preliminary Outline of Philosophy The Symposium Aristotelicum series is a splendid companion to have while reading Aristotle. This volume o Book 1: A Preliminary Outline of Philosophy The Symposium Aristotelicum series is a splendid companion to have while reading Aristotle. This volume offers a chapter-by-chapter commentary on Alpha, the first book of the Metaphysics, along with comprehensive essays on various topics. It is important to understand Alpha well. Here Aristotle presents what he means by philosophy and what is involved in the search for truth. Aristotle opens the book by broaching a topic which is to be of recurring concern throughout the work -- What is the nature of philosophy? Aristotle tells us that we can tackle this tricky question by first exploring a few by-ways. He does this by inviting us to first figuring out what should be the proper object of philosophical interest. The simple answer is: Wisdom. But that only leads us to more question: What is wisdom? How can we reach it with our limited human capabilities? Can we? What is wisdom? Aristotle tries to answer this by listing out the characteristics of ‘wisdom’ (philosophy) -- he claims that wisdom is a process with many constituent steps: we reach it by advancing from 1) sensation (or, sense-perception) through 2) memory to 3) experience, and 4) art, to 5) theoretical knowledge. Once we are capable of applying this experience/knowledge of the particular to the universal, then we approach Wisdom. But it is not just any knowledge that is enough. Aristotle also ranks types of wisdom/knowledge. The that knowledge of universals is somehow higher or more valuable than that of particular things, and that kind of universal knowledge is the Highest, which tries helps to understand the fundamental causes and principles of all things. This is the Highest Science and since Philosophy is study of the Highest Science, it is thus proved that this is the True Domain of the True Philosopher. True Philosophy is thus the search for the most fundamental causes and principles of the most general aspects of the world. And a true philosopher will demonstrate his wisdom by being able to teach and impart his knowledge to others. That is the final test, which apparently A was passing in flying colors even as he was delivering this very lecture! The Doxographical K.O.! Before he embarks on this himself, he catalogues and examines the paths taken by earlier philosophers, and surveys these previous philosophies,from Thales to Plato, especially their treatment of causes --There are four kinds of cause, or rather kinds of explanation, for how things are: (1) the material cause, which explains what a thing is made of; (2) the formal cause, which explains the form a thing assumes; (3) the efficient cause, which explains the process by which it came into being; and (4) the final cause, which explains the end or purpose it serves. In this ‘doxographical’ survey, Aristotle condescends that the explanations of earlier philosophers have conformed to these four causes but not as coherently and systematically as Aristotle’s formulation. Aristotle acknowledges that Plato’s Theory of Forms gives a strong account of the formal cause, but it fails to prove that Forms exist and to explain how objects in the physical world participate in Forms. It is only fair to say that he takes them apart mercilessly. Conclusion? Most tried to search for material causes, a few searched for efficient causes and a select few stumbled close to searching for the formal causes, but all of them without any systematic understanding about the objectives of philosophy, all of them stumbling in the dark... they were either naive, wrong or obscure in their formulations. To be of any use, they have to be integrated into Aristotle's system of thought. Thus he draws his survey of earlier thought to a triumphant conclusion, vindicating his claim that every serious attempt at explanation of the world must fit into one of his four approved styles. It is just that they did not know it yet! By laying out the historical path/development of Philosophical thought in an organized way, Aristotle also pioneers a 'sense of development', as if whole of philosophy was developing, even if unaware of it, towards his grand synthesis. This conception (or conceit?) of science and knowledge is something that we moderns love to embrace with elation. A Personal Note To me Alpha was a fun read, to have demonstrated by the "Master' himself how it is done -- to challenge openly and without question all established doctrines, no matter how prestigious. Though the effect is spoiled a bit by Aristotle’s evident hostility towards anything remotely tending towards poor Pythagoras. It is a miracle that he still has a decent reputation. But it also showed me an important contrast between Plato/Socrates and Aristotle. Plato shows a more lenient, accepting way of challenging conventional wisdom, while Aristotle prefers to tackle and reject, almost heedlessly. Current scholarly opinion seems to be of the view that Aristotle was slightly on the reckless side, perhaps reducing the arguments he was challenging into straw-men that he could easily knock down without acknowledging fully their importance or contributions to his own thought. In any case, it is great that Metaphysics opens on such an entertaining and personal note. It makes the first acquaintance less intimidating than would have been expected. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
May 05, 2014
|
May 11, 2014
|
May 11, 2014
| Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 4.30
| 10
| 1945
| 1945
|
it was amazing
| ARISTOTLE’S PLATO Cherniss’ book is a compilation of lectures focused on the conflict arising from the existence of a clear and fundamental discrepan ARISTOTLE’S PLATO Cherniss’ book is a compilation of lectures focused on the conflict arising from the existence of a clear and fundamental discrepancy, between the theory of ideas as it appears in Plato's Dialogues and what Aristotle represents as being Plato's theory of ideas. Cherniss uses his investigation into this discrepancy to shed new light on the nature and working of the early Academy. He says that Aristotle’s representations, such as the identification of the ideas with ‘nonmathematical’ numbers, and the derivation of these idea-numbers from two ultimate principles, (the One and the dyad of the great and the small), which principles are at the same time the causes of good and of evil respectively — of all this there is not a word in the Platonic dialogues Cherniss’ lectures are not merely attacks on Aristotle’s misrepresentation of Plato however. He also shows that much of the fault lies in modern commentators for one is likely to find it stated in modern treatises that Aristotle "constantly" attributes the doctrine of idea numbers to Plato and even that he knows of but one Platonic philosophy, that which identifies the ideas with numbers. This, he says, is clearly an exaggeration and is does no justice to the complexity of the Aristotelian evidence. But despite this concession, we have to accept that Aristotle does in fact ascribe to Plato the doctrine of idea-numbers. This disconnect between Plato and Aristotle forces the scholars into uncomfortable arguments. Two options stand open to them: 1. They can allow the dialogues to stand as expressions of Plato's own thought and admit that the theory of ideas in the dialogues is Plato's own doctrine — thus reject Aristotle’s testimony on Plato. This would imply that: a. Aristotle either deliberately misrepresented Plato or b. Did not understand Plato Clearly both of these were anathema to scholars for much of modern history. Thus they chose the second argument. 2. Accepting Aristotle's testimony concerning the idea-numbers. This would imply that: a. They have to assert (and strive to prove) that the theory of ideas underwent at Plato's hands a radical alteration or a radical development b. This new form of the Theory was never committed to writing by Plato and can be recovered only from the reports of Aristotle and the fragmentary references which seem to derive from the writings of Plato's students. Cherniss claims that to preserve the integrity of Aristotle, these scholars have used fragmentary evidence of one lecture given by an elderly Plato to construct an elaborate story of how Plato used to give lectures on the more esoteric subjects that were never committed to writing and hence is not available to us. Contrary to popular understanding, Cherniss shows very clearly that only ONE lecture of Plato is ever alluded to and there is no reason to extend that evidence to attribute an entire teaching style and alien philosophy to Plato, especially when contemporary commentaries never attribute any extra philosophies, lectures or extant works to Plato. Nor is the required reconstruction supported even by the remaining accounts of Plato's one attested lecture, for what credible ancient testimony there is for that lecture on the Good indicates that in it there was no specific identification of ideas and numbers. The hypothesis of an oral Platonic doctrine thus rests on very shaky ground. Cherniss continues his investigation by examining Plato and Aristotle side by side and concludes that Aristotle’s reports have discrepancies. Aristotle's evidence itself, he shows us, are testifying against itself, by attributing different versions of the theory to Plato. Cherniss, disdaining this creation of such an elaborate insubstantial doctrine for plato, proposes the alternative hypothesis, that the identification of ideas and numbers was not a theory of Plato's at all but the result of Aristotle's own interpretation. Unravelling the Riddle By elaborate comparative analyses, Cherniss shows us that not only was Aristotle’s conception o the Thoery of Ideas and idea-numbers different from Palto, but so were those of Plato’s other successors and students — Speusippus (Plato’s nephew) and Xenocrates, among others, developed their own contending versions of Plato’s theories, just like Aristotle did. This examination leads Cherniss to speculate on the nature of the early Academy itself — upon the question of Plato's activity there, and of his relation to these men who are usually called his "pupils." How could they have misinterpreted the master's writings when he was there to explain his meaning to them ? Did he think it unimportant to teach his pupils to understand and accept the doctrine of ideas? If he did not teach them this, of which he wrote with such fervor, what did he teach them ? And if he taught them something else, why did he not write that which he taught? What, then, did Plato really do in his Academy? After further brilliant analyses, Cherniss concludes that: Plato’s role appears to have been not that of a "master" or even of a seminar director distributing subjects for research reports or prize essays, but that of an individual thinker whose insight and skill in the formulation of a problem enables him to offer general advice and methodical criticism to other individual thinkers who respect his wisdom and who may be dominated by his personality but who consider themselves at least as competent as they consider him in dealing with the details of special subjects. Cherniss also uses a powerful, but in my opinion weak, argument — that extrapolates the educational system laid out in The Republic onto the possible structure of the Academy — to show why it was that Aristotle was never really a ‘philosophical’ student of Plato. After all, Plato would not have imparted real philosophical training to anyone under 50 year of age under his own scheme in The Republic, and Aristotle was around 38 years of age when Plato died. This is a remarkably clever argument, and I enjoyed it immensely but there is unfortunately no evidence to make such a claim about the structure of the Academy. In the end Cherniss musters all the evidence and shows us how they all point unmistakably to the same conclusion: The Academy was not a school in which an orthodox metaphysical doctrine was taught, or an association the members of which were expected to subscribe to the theory of ideas. If this was so, then it was only natural for Aristotle to develop his own theories. Thus, while Plato gets a very favorable, almost laudatory, conclusion, Cherniss leaves us with an Aristotle who either distorted or misunderstood the works of Plato, though the distortion was much more subtle than it has been portrayed by popular treatises and commentaries. The only consolation is that Plato probably would not have minded the bold explorations of his student, even when occasionally at the expense of his pet ideas, which he always knew were ‘difficult to accept, and difficult to reject.’ I would like to move away from Cherniss in this conclusion to take a less extreme view and entertain the possibility that perhaps Aristotle was talking of the Academy in general when he talked of ‘Platonist’ ideas and not of Plato in particular — maybe he could take this liberty of expression because his audience would have understood what he was referring to better than we do now. This is a valuable work to read while transitioning from study of Plato to Aristotle. It provides perspective and understanding about Aristotle’s positions and keeps the reader from getting lost, or worse, questioning his own understanding of Plato. ...more | Notes are private!
| 1
|
May 07, 2014
|
May 08, 2014
|
May 07, 2014
| Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||||
| B00H53K7RG
| 3.51
| 51
| Jul 31, 2008
| Apr 05, 2012
|
liked it
| This book is designed to lead the interested reader on to further learning through the reading lists that are attached to many of the entries. The aut This book is designed to lead the interested reader on to further learning through the reading lists that are attached to many of the entries. The author says that the original aim was to compile the 100 greatest management ideas and the 100 greatest gurus of the 20th century, an average of one big thought and one big thinker per year. Would have been a great idea. Obviously, that didn’t happen. Hindle makes an interesting demarkation to help classify the thinkers: 1. The idea that management is a science — represented most notably by F.W. Taylor’s ideas about “scientific management” 2. The idea that management is an art — represented most memorably perhaps by Douglas McGregor’s Theory Y. This divide can be said to account for the two main disciplines that management gurus come from: 1. Social science — represented by Elton Mayo, McGregor, Abraham Maslow and Elliott Jaques; and 2. Engineering — represented by Taylor, Michael Porter, Michael Hammer and Taiichi Ohno. I thought this was a nice and informative way to organize the book and also very useful to keep in mind while reading management text books. It was the best part of the book. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
Apr 25, 2014
|
May 2014
|
May 06, 2014
| Kindle Edition
| |||||||||||||||
| 0192854089
| 9780192854087
| 3.68
| 511
| 1982
| 2000
|
really liked it
| On Approaching Aristotle I enjoyed this VSI. What was most valuable was that it gave me a good frame of reference to tackle Aristotle — by letting me On Approaching Aristotle I enjoyed this VSI. What was most valuable was that it gave me a good frame of reference to tackle Aristotle — by letting me prepare for Aristotle in relation to Plato. Of course, Jonathan Barnes mostly assumes that the the reader has already taken the trouble to read Plato. That is the trouble with inviting such a distinguished scholar to write a basic introduction. This was just what I needed as I prepare to take my first tentative steps towards a fuller reading of Aristotle (having a dabbled a bit with Rhetoric before). Putting Aristotle’s works in perspective by relating them to their points of departure from Plato, makes a whole corpus suddenly much more familiar and in tune with things I have been reading and thinking about for months on end now. The VSI only hints at this and does not do this exhaustively, but that is enough and the reader can do the heavy slugging on their own. The Popularity Contest Besides directing the studies in the Academy, Plato himself gave lectures and his hearers took notes. It is important to notice that these lectures were not published, and that they stand in contrast to the dialogues, which were published works meant for "popular" reading. If we realize this fact, then some of the sharp differences that we naturally tend to discern between Plato and Aristotle disappear, at least in part: We possess Plato's popular works, his dialogues, but not his lectures. The situation is the exact opposite in regard to Aristotle, for while the works of Aristotle that are in our hands represent his lectures, his popular works or dialogues have not come down to us—only fragments remain. We do not possess a record of the lectures that he delivered in the Academy (though we have more or less cryptic references in Aristotle), and this would be all the more to be regretted if those are right who would see in the dialogues popular work designed for the educated laymen, to be distinguished from the lectures delivered to professional students of philosophy. We cannot, therefore, by a comparison of Plato's dialogues with Aristotle's lectures, draw conclusions, without further evidence, as to a strong opposition between the two philosophers in point of literary ability, for instance, or emotional, aesthetic and "mystical" outlook. We are told that Aristotle used to relate how those who came to hear Plato's lecture on the Good, were often astonished to hear of nothing but arithmetic and astronomy, and of the limit and the One. So we can assume that if we had only his lecture notes, even the supremely inventive Plato might be able to bore us! An Unfair Contrast Thus we have a queer situation here. What has come down to us from Plato were exactly the material he had designed to be read by the public, while most of the surviving writings of Aristotle were perhaps never intended to be read; for it seems likely that the treatises which we possess were almost wholly put together later from Aristotle’s lecture notes. The notes were made for his own use and not for public dissemination. They were no doubt tinkered with over a period of years. Moreover, although some of the treatises owe their structure to Aristotle himself, others were plainly put together by later editors – the Nicomachean Ethics is evidently not a unitary work, the Metaphysics is plainly a set of essays rather than a continuous treatise. In the light of this, it will hardly be a surprise to find that the style of Aristotle’s works is often rugged. Plato’s dialogues are finished literary artefacts, the subtleties of their thought matched by the tricks of their language. Aristotle’s writings for the most part are terse. His arguments are concise. There are abrupt transitions, inelegant repetitions, obscure allusions. Paragraphs of continuous exposition are set among staccato jottings. The language is spare and sinewy. If the treatises are unpolished, that is in part because Aristotle had felt no need and no urge to take down the beeswax. But only in part; for Aristotle had reflected on the appropriate style for scientific writing and he favoured simplicity. Aristotle could write finely – his style was praised by ancient critics who read works of his which we cannot – and some parts of the surviving items are done with power and even with panache. But he probably did not feel the need for it in his lectures, where the premium was on packing maximum information into limited time available, much like today. The Best Approach to Aristotle All this is not to suggest that reading the treatises is a dull slog. Aristotle has a vigour which is the more attractive the better it is known; and the treatises, which have none of the camouflage of Plato’s dialogues, reveal their author’s thoughts – or at least appear to do so – in a direct and stark fashion. Above all, Aristotle is tough. A good way of reading him is this: Take up a treatise, think of it as a set of lecture notes, and imagine that you now have to lecture from them. You must expand and illustrate the argument, and you must make the transitions clear; you will probably decide to relegate certain paragraphs to footnotes, or reserve them for another time and another lecture; and if you have any talent at all as a lecturer, you will find that the jokes add themselves. Let it be admitted that Aristotle can be not only tough but also vexing. Whatever does he mean here? How on earth is this conclusion supposed to follow from those premises? Why this sudden barrage of technical terms? One ancient critic claimed that ‘he surrounds the difficulty of his subject with the obscurity of his language, and thus avoids refutation – producing darkness, like a squid, in order to make himself hard to capture’. Every reader will, from time to time, think of Aristotle as a squid. But the moments of vexation are outnumbered by the moments of elation. Aristotle’s treatises offer a peculiar challenge to their readers; and once you have taken up the challenge, you would not have the treatises in any other form. It is easy to imagine that you can overhear Aristotle talking to himself. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
May 2014
|
May 04, 2014
|
May 04, 2014
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| B005ELU01Y
| 3.78
| 832
| 2009
| Sep 03, 2009
|
liked it
| The book is like a slightly expanded and selective index of common economic ideas. Useful for a quick glance. This index-of-an-index is for reference: The book is like a slightly expanded and selective index of common economic ideas. Useful for a quick glance. This index-of-an-index is for reference: 01. The invisible hand the condensed idea: Self-interest is good for society 02. Supply and demand the condensed idea: Something is perfectly priced when supply equals demand 03. The Malthusian trap Useful Quote: ‘Malthus has been buried many times, and Malthusian scarcity with him. But as Garrett Hardin remarked, anyone who has to be reburied so often cannot be entirely dead.’ the condensed idea: Beware relentless rises in population 04, Opportunity cost Useful Quote: ‘The cost of something is what you give up to get it.’ the condensed idea: Time is money 05. Incentives Useful Quote: ‘Call it what you will, incentives are what get people to work harder.’ the condensed idea: People respond to incentives 06. Division of labour the condensed idea: Concentrate on your specialities 07. Comparative advantage Useful Quotes: ‘Name me one proposition in all of the social sciences which is both true and nontrivial.’ the condensed idea: Specialization + free trade = win-win 08. Capitalism Useful Quote: ‘The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.’ the condensed idea: The least worst way to run an economy 09. Keynesianism the condensed idea: Governments should spend to prevent deep recessions 10. Monetarism the condensed idea: Control the growth of money 11. Communism the condensed idea: An egalitarian, entirely state-run society 12. Individualism Useful Quote: ‘Once it has been perceived that the division of labour is the essence of society, nothing remains of the antithesis between individual and society. The contradiction between individual principle and social principle disappears.’ the condensed idea: Individual human choices are paramount 13. Supply-side economics the condensed idea: Higher taxes mean lower growth 14. The marginal revolution the condensed idea: Rational people think at the margin 15. Money the condensed idea: Money is a token of trust 16. Micro and macro the condensed idea: Micro for businesses, macro for countries 17. Gross domestic product the condensed idea: The key yardstick of a country’s economic performance 18. Central banks and interest rates Useful Quote: ‘In central banking as in diplomacy, style, conservative tailoring, and an easy association with the affluent, count greatly and results far much less.’ the condensed idea: Central banks steer economies away from booms and busts 19. Inflation Useful Quotes: ‘Inflation is the one form of taxation that can be imposed without legislation.’ the condensed idea: Keep prices rising slowly 20. Debt and deflation the condensed idea: Falling prices can cripple an economy 21. Taxes the condensed idea: As inevitable as death 22. Unemployment the condensed idea: Zero unemployment is impossible 23. Currencies and exchange rates the condensed idea: The barometer of a country’s standing 24. Balance of payments the condensed idea: The ledger of a country’s international economic relations 25. Trust and the law the condensed idea: The irreplaceable foundations of society 26. Energy and oil the condensed idea: Deal with oil shortages through innovation 27. Bond markets the condensed idea: Bonds are the basis of government financing 28. Banks Useful Quote: ‘What is robbing a bank compared with founding a bank?’ the condensed idea: Banks connect borrowers with lenders 29. Stocks and shares the condensed idea: Stock markets sit at the heart of capitalism 30. Risky business the condensed idea: Pass risk to those more willing to take it 31. Boom and bust the condensed idea: Boom and bust are inevitable 32. Pensions and the welfare state the condensed idea: Beware promising money you can’t give 33. Money markets the condensed idea: Money markets make the financial world go round 34. Blowing bubbles the condensed idea: Humans are addicted to bubbles 35. Credit crunches Useful Quote: ‘The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.’ the condensed idea: Economies seize up as credit dries up 36. Creative destruction the condensed idea: Companies must adapt or die 37. Home-owning and house prices the condensed idea: House prices go down as well as up 38. Government deficits the condensed idea: Governments are addicted to debt 39. Inequality the condensed idea: The wealth gap will destabilize nations 40. Globalization the condensed idea: Globalization is the adrenaline of capitalism 41. Multilateralism the condensed idea: Nations can achieve more by working together 42. Protectionism Useful Quote: ‘When goods cannot cross borders, armies will.’ the condensed idea: The biggest threat to world peace and prosperity 43. Technological revolutions the condensed idea: Technology is economic fuel 44. Development economics the condensed idea: Aim to pull the bottom billion out of poverty 45. Environmental economics the condensed idea: Act now to avoid terrible environmental costs 46. Behavioural economics the condensed idea: People are predictably irrational 47. Game theory Useful Quote: ‘Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Their tastes may be different.’ the condensed idea: People behave differently in games 48. Criminomics Useful Quote: ‘Since the science of economics is primarily a set of tools, as opposed to a subject matter, then no subject, however offbeat, need be beyond its reach.’ the condensed idea: Economics can apply to everything 49. Happynomics the condensed idea: Economics is not all about money 50. 21st-century economics the condensed idea: Intervene when people are not rational ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
Apr 20, 2014
|
May 03, 2014
|
May 03, 2014
| Kindle Edition
| |||||||||||||||
| 0140444505
| 9780140444506
| 4.13
| 4,314
| -369
| Mar 26, 1987
|
it was amazing
| Epistemological Idiots Here Plato engages with the concept of ‘knowledge’ and ‘understanding’ as in many other dialogues, but Theaetetus is often hai Epistemological Idiots Here Plato engages with the concept of ‘knowledge’ and ‘understanding’ as in many other dialogues, but Theaetetus is often hailed as ‘Plato’s most sustained study of epistemology,’ and is a deep investigation into the question ‘What is knowledge?’ As such, it is the founding document of what has come to be known as ‘epistemology’, as one of the most important branches of philosophy and went on to influence Aristotle, the Stoics and the modern geography of the field. In comparison with most Platonic Dialogues, Theaetetus is a complex and difficult work of abstract philosophical theory and attempting to summarize would only serve to make it even more so. The difficult topic of epistemology and its many twists and turns are best left to Socrates’ expert hands. Here I will only try to outline my understanding of how this dialogue fits into Plato’s overall objectives. Socrates’ abiding passion was the question of practical conduct, and to be able to have any workable theory on conduct and the ‘good life’, it is not acceptable that truth is relative — if there is no stable norm, no abiding object of knowledge, Socrates (and thus Plato’s) basic objective collapses. This is why it was essential to be convinced that ethical conduct must be founded on knowledge, and that that knowledge must be knowledge of eternal values which are not subject to the shifting and changing impressions of sense or of subjective opinion, but are the same for all men and for all peoples and all ages, eternal. This conviction that there can be knowledge in the sense of objective and universally valid knowledge is what animates the spirit of Theaetetus — to demonstrate this fact theoretically, and to probe deeply into the problems of knowledge, asking what knowledge is and of what. Keeping with this objective, in the Theaetetus Plato's first object is the refutation of false theories. Accordingly he sets himself the task of challenging the theory of Protagoras that knowledge is perception, that what appears to an individual to be true is true for that individual. His method is to elicit dialectically a clear statement of the theory of knowledge implied by the the epistemology of Protagoras, to exhibit its consequences and to show that the conception of "knowledge" thus attained does not fulfill the requirements of true knowledge at all, since knowledge must be, Plato assumes, (i) infallible, and (ii) of what is. Sense-perception is knowledge fails spectacularly (and quite satisfactorily for Plato) in this examination as it is neither the one nor the other. Sense-perception is not, therefore, worthy of the name of knowledge. It should be noted how much Plato is influenced by the conviction that sense-objects are not proper objects of knowledge and cannot be so, since knowledge is of what is, of the stable and abiding, whereas objects of sense cannot really be said to be but only to become. This first of Theaetetus’ (Theaetetus was a famous mathematician, Plato’s associate for many years in the Academy) three successive definitions of knowledge — that knowledge is simply ‘perception’ — is not finally ‘brought to birth’ until Socrates has linked it to Protagoras’ famous ‘man is the measure’ doctrine of relativistic truth, and also to the theory that ‘all is motion and change’ that Socrates finds most Greek thinkers of the past had accepted, and until he has fitted it out with an elaborate and ingenious theory of perception and how it works. He then examines separately the truth of these linked doctrines and, in finally rejecting Theaetetus’ idea as unsound, he advances his own positive analysis of perception and its role in knowledge: Thus Socrates proceeds to the next two definitions of knowledge — that ‘Knowledge is simply "True Judgment”’ and that ‘Knowledge is True Judgment plus an "Account" of it.’ After systematic exploration of these ideas (with a few amusing digressions) and rejecting them as unsound Socrates paves the way toward an acceptable theory of Forms, to be explored further in dialogues such as Parmenides and The Republic . Epistemological Idiots? Not Quite. Once we reject the three proposals and reach the aporetic conclusion of the dialogue, our first impulse might be, as with all epistemological explorations, to conclude that Socrates has proved that it is impossible to define ‘what is knowledge’ and hence, by extension, the impossibility of knowledge itself. I almost laughed with triumph at this nihilistic ending until I was put in my place by reading commentaries on the subject. For a quick flavor: SOCRATES: And so, Theaetetus, if ever in the future you should attempt to conceive or should succeed in conceiving other theories, they will be better ones as the result of this inquiry. And if you remain barren, your companions will find you gentler and less tiresome; you will be modest and not think you know what you don’t know. This is all my art can achieve — nothing more. Instead, a more nuanced reading of Theaetetus’ conclusion by situating it among the Platonic corpus will tell us that the conclusion to be drawn is not that no knowledge is attainable through definition, but rather that the individual, sensible object is indefinable and is not really the proper object of knowledge at all. The object of true knowledge must be stable and abiding, fixed, capable of being grasped in clear and scientific definition, which is of the universal, as Socrates saw. In the Theaetetus he shows that neither sense-perception nor true belief are possessed of both these requirements; neither, then, can be equated with true knowledge. This is the real conclusion of the dialogue, namely, that true knowledge of sensible objects is unattainable, and, by implication, that true knowledge must be knowledge of the universal and abiding, which must be, as we have said, (i) infallible, (ii) of what is. The key to understanding Theaetetus is to accept that Plato has assumed from the outset that knowledge is attainable, and that knowledge must be (i) infallible and (ii) of the real. True knowledge must possess both these characteristics, and any state of mind that cannot vindicate its claim to both these characteristics cannot be true knowledge. It follows, then, that it is the universal and not the particular that fulfills the requirements for being an object of knowledge. Knowledge of the highest universal (beauty, goodness, justice, courage, etc.) will be the highest kind of knowledge, while "knowledge" of the particular will be the lowest kind of "knowledge." This connects us directly to the famous line analogy of The Republic and paves the way for The Theory of Forms. Theaetetus is a valuable but difficult dialogue to be familiar with since Plato explores epistemology without letting on his intentions and this might prove difficult to readers who treat this dialogue as standing by itself. Instead it needs to be treated as part of a continuum, that started with Parmenides and is carried forward in The Sophist and The Statesman (the next two parts of the ‘trilogy’) and on to The Republic, destined to trouble Plato for the rest of his career, never being resolved satisfactorily enough. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
May 2014
|
May 02, 2014
|
May 02, 2014
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0143036831
| 9780143036838
| 3.78
| 778
| Mar 28, 2006
| Mar 28, 2006
|
liked it
| For Whom the Snob Trolls Grammar snobs who like to bully people have done an incredible job of alienating the rest of us from even wanting to know st For Whom the Snob Trolls Grammar snobs who like to bully people have done an incredible job of alienating the rest of us from even wanting to know stuff like how to use the word “whom.” But there’s a good reason to learn. So good that it’s worth overcoming the visceral aversion to the word that these grammar snobs have instilled in us. And here is that reason: About half the people you hear spewing the word “whom” in everyday conversation don’t really know how. It’s now almost normal to just glaze over when you hear about who/whom or I/me or that/which or terms like “subject pronouns” and “object pronouns.” But there is no need to do that — if you stop and take notice, you’ll see that they’re completely self-explanatory. Punctuation, another bugbear, too is pretty darn simple. In fact most of grammar is extremely simple stuff, with just a few confusing gray areas. These gray areas, of course, are where we make our mistakes and, therefore, where snobs & perfectionists find fodder to intimidate the bejesus out of us. Casagrande asks the reader to not let this get to them. That’s what the grammar snobs want. And if we retreat now, the meanies win. Grammar Emperors Wear No Clothes Casagrande insists that the rules are at best self-evident and at worst ridiculous. So it’s a good thing we didn’t invest too much time reading the works of grammar snobs, punctuation pundits and word pervs. And just to prove her point, she ingress out famous gamer snobs and pulls them down. SHe doesn’t hesitate to discredit the worthies as well — Strunk & White too coming in for special hammering. So if you ever find yourself being roughed up by people who actually expect you to say ridiculously stuffy-sounding things like, “I did it wrongly,” or “I followed the directions rightly,” just know that, eventually, all grammar bullies get their comeuppance. Even better, with a little confidence you can be the one who puts them in their place. Channel The Hatred! Okay, maybe spite isn’t the best reason to learn grammar and usage. But it’s certainly good motivation. What’s more, the meanies— just by being themselves—have provided us with excellent fodder for having a good time while we learn. And that is the crux of the book, learn good grammar while being really mean and bashing up your bullies. Stripped of all the foul mouthing, the book is a simple call to learn grammar and not to be intimidated and offended by snobs into ignoring it. Sure, good way to dress it, but does it work? To an extent, yes. Among all the supposed fun are some well articulated and simple rules that might help make grammar easier for the long-bullied. Casagrande takes a few common worry spots such as whom-usage, me/I, etc. and reassures the reader that they are, in fact, more often right than they think.  And, hey, if making a few jokes at rules and getting righteously angry is what it takes to remember, go right ahead, eh? Are You a Snob? Am I one? Yes, of course — anyone who cares for the language is. It is the sense of humor that counts, the idea is to not be snobs that troll. Also, endeavor to not be too harsh as snobs, because most rules have loopholes, if you are good enough a grammarian. If it is the language you care about and not your own ego, then trolling or bullying the occasional honest mistake is not the answer. It will only serve to alienate people from good english. This is Our Language Too This funny and useful book tells the lay reader that when the experts can’t even get their stories straight and when professional writers make egregious flubs, it’s actually good news for the rest of us. It means that the seemingly huge gulf between the duds and those in the know isn’t so huge after all. It means that nine out of ten times when we’re worried we don’t know the right way to speak or write the experts don’t know either. It means that our instincts are good and that common sense applies. It means that the super-arcane, super-difficult aspects of the language aren’t things we’re expected to know anyway. It means, in short, that this is our language too and we shouldn’t be afraid to point out occasionally when the emperors struts out with no clothes on.  So, “Whom’s afraid of the big bad grammar snob?” or “Who’s afraid of the big bad grammar snob?” Not you, that’s for sure. ONE LINE SUMMARY: GRAMMAR EMPERORS WEAR NO CLOTHES. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
Feb 21, 2014
|
Apr 28, 2014
|
Apr 28, 2014
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0025003704
| 9780025003705
| 3.76
| 51
| Mar 20, 1987
| Mar 01, 1987
|
really liked it
| The Testaments of Democracy Adler presents an engaging discussion of what he classes as the three defining documents of the USA — the Declaration of In The Testaments of Democracy Adler presents an engaging discussion of what he classes as the three defining documents of the USA — the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution (plus amendments, especially the First Ten amendments - known as the Bill of Rights), and the Gettysburg Address, and their inter-relations, especially between the Declaration and the Constitution. He calls them the American Testaments, since when interpreted together and in relation to one another, they are like the sacred scriptures of the nation. Adler claims that through detailed examination and critical exegesis, much can be gained from them. - From the Declaration — DERIVE the nation's basic articles of political faith. - From the Preamble & Amendments — UNDERSTAND the elaboration of these articles of political faith in terms of governmental aims, structures and policies. - From the Gettysburg Address — give to ourselves a full and rich CONFIRMATION of our faith in these articles. And also in the people who declared, formed the ‘more perfect union’ and perpetuated it. Best Quote: We are not only the heirs of those people, we ARE those people. The Parts of the Whole The first part of the book is devoted to declarations about the importance of learning these three documents - both for understanding the nation and to charting the future course of democracy. From then on, the book focuses on a minute examination of the three documents. Before the exegesis commences, Adler indulges in a discussion about two words: Ideas & Ideals. These two words look alike and sound alike but have different meanings, and form the very core of this book. To summarize, we can distinguish the two thus: - IDEAS — are to be understood, intellectually and can be theoretical or practical. - IDEALS — are objectives/goals to be striven for, and realized/realizable through action. Once an Ideal is realized, it is no longer an ideal. Only realizable goals are ideals, if not they are utopian fantasies. Genuine ideals belong to the realm of the possible. We need only think of an ideal society to understand that most underlying ideas of any constitution remain unrealized. We have only remotely approximated most ideals, including the practicable ones. Which is why we need to understand the ideas and their most ideal natures and objectives, to understand how they have served us and how they can serve us further. Some of the ideas addressed are - equality, inalienable rights, pursuit of happiness, civil rights and human rights, consent of the governed, the dissent of the governed, people (form of by etc) and thus Democracy itself. Of these ideas, Equality, happiness, etc. generates ideals that are clearly not yet achieved. Democracy too is an idea that is also an ideal - i.e. not fully realized yet. After delineating ideas and ideals, Adler proceeds to set out the ideas and then examine if they have been realized and the ideals we need to aspire to realize more fully The second part of the book is concerned with isolating and explaining the ideas identifiable in the Declaration of Independence & Lincoln’s famous speech. They are only considered as ideas in this section and their more important role as pursuable ideals are discussed only later. The third part isolates the additional ideas found in the Preamble and then foes on to also consider them as ideals, still on the road to fulfillment. The Fourth section of the book is devoted to the most important idea of the modern world - the idea of democracy. This is considered in great detail and more importantly, in both political and economic aspects. Adler says that this idea has only recently been recognized as an ideal. Which is why it requires the fullest possible realization of Political and Economic Justice, Liberty and Equality. We are made to consider also the obstacles to be overcome if a true democracy is to ever be born for the FIRST time in the history of the world. This was my favorite section of the book — most interesting being the discussion on the economic imperative of true democracy, without which it will always remain an ideal, an idea-in the making. Democracy is not a Political idea, it cannot be attained through political means alone. The goals have to include both political and economic ideals. The Individual Obligation to Philosophy Adler wrote this book as an homage to the second centennial celebration of the Declaration of Independence. Mere flag waving, convocations or oratory will not suffice to celebrate such an event and its two centuries of development. What would instead be a better homage to the idea of democracy is to focus on individual celebrations — by accepting the obligation to understand the ‘testament of the nation.’ I would go further and say that this spirit should be maintained at every election year, and even more, at every democratically vital moment a nation passes through. I read this to gain that spirit as India prepped for the world’s largest democratic spectacle. In spite of studying the constitution many times, I have always felt that it had to be more than mere study that is expected. Adler has made me realize that it is direct engagement with the core ideas and ideals that is required along with constant reinterpretation of the arguments. That is the only way to make sure that we stay true to the ideals and keep re-charting the course we have taken. To set out to understand the Ideas & Ideals enshrined in any constitution is nothing less than a philosophical undertaking, and that is what Adler demands of us. It is true that Adler talks primarily of the American Constitution, but readers from any country can come away from this reading with a better appreciation of how to engage with their own Testaments. We are not merely the heirs of the people who gave them to us, we ARE those people and it is our duty, both to confirm them and to fulfill them. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
Apr 10, 2014
|
Apr 25, 2014
|
Apr 25, 2014
| Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0071472339
| 9780071472333
| 4.04
| 134
| Dec 14, 2006
| Jan 04, 2007
|
really liked it
| The Engines of Democracy Edersheim starts the book on a brooding note, by talking of how managements can no longer steer companies assuredly anymore. The Engines of Democracy Edersheim starts the book on a brooding note, by talking of how managements can no longer steer companies assuredly anymore. She says that something is wrong with all businesses in this century — they are overwhelmed, by the amount of information and change that keeps coming their way and the strain placed on them by the call for continuos innovation. Why? Because successful people wants to hold on to yesterday — to things, ideas and habits that made them successful — they don’t know how to free themselves and embrace the new fluxing reality of the day. This is where she believes Drucker has a great and immediate role to play. His greatest asset is his “ability to liberate people” according to Edershiem. This ability involves the creation of tools of thinking and acting that allows ones strategic ability to adapt as fast as the environment — primarily by giving the CEOs or the managers the faith to trust their own judgement and thinking once again, instead of just clinging to whatever has chanced to work before. Hitler and The Dangers of Management Failure While this might seem like something that should concern only the business world, in Edersheim’s hands, Drucker assumes much greater importance — he becomes the modern messiah who has to guide a faltering world. This is because in Drucker’s conception, the vibrancy of business and their direction is a guiding force for the direction of society itself. The book thus represents Drucker’s driving passion for making organizations and management work well in the present to create a better tomorrow. The importance and need for great management derives directly from its importance as the vibrant driving force of society.  Europe’s economic free-fall in 1930s and the organizational failures were, to Drucker, directly connected to poor business and government management. The lack of a viable economic engine in Europe is what bright Hitler to power. Without economic opportunity, he wrote back in 1933, “the European masses realized for the first time that existence in the society is governed not by what is rational and sensible, but by the blind irrational and demon forces.” He says that lack of an economic engine isolates people and they become destructive. The Fragility and interdependence of our economic system and the enormous cost of failure along with the studies on the rise of Fascism and Communism further confirms Drucker’s view of the critical need for vibrant businesses in any economy to be able to function. The Marauder’s Map of Questions In interpreting Drucker, Edersheim has focused on today — the crazy times. The focus is on using the past learnings to drive future change, and to initiate them today. But more than the intent of the book, it is the method that should interest keen readers: Drucker was famous for his Socratic style of questioning - forcing people to step back and think and arrive at answers - it was part of the ‘liberating’ that he was acclaimed for. This freedom to question and to accept new answers were part of that ‘liberation’.  Edersheim has used Drucker’s most insightful questions (that a company/management should ask itself) to structure every chapter in the book along with some insightful case studies as illustrations.The case studies are woven around them as model ways of posing these questions and the answers that were arrived at thus. As we read, we are also encouraged to think through how and where we could pose these questions ourselves and how we might answer them. It is a very consultative book in that sense The Structure The book can best be described as a prep course for a long journey. The minimum essentials are to have a good map handy, to have the best vehicle outfitted and a good driver at the helm. The books is structured around these key requirements. The first chapter lays out the map, ‘looking outside’ before using the famous Drucker concept of “looking in from outside” — laying out the importance changes that makes this century so crazy and dangerous for business. The windshield of the car is the imaginatively titled ‘Marauder’s Map’ — what you see this changing environment through - the map is always in flux, changing along with the people, events and ideas; and what we need to understand is that it has to be accepted on those terms. Chapter 2 is about the guy at the steering wheel - The Customer. The one who should be setting the direction and driving every change, every turn that the organization should take and also changing the map in the process. Chapter 3-5 are the fundamentals needed on the journey — the four wheels: innovation, collaboration, people and knowledge. Chapter 6 is about the the Decision mechanisms, Discipline and Values that connect all the fundamental things (well, wheels) together and gives shape to the vehicle that is the organiation - the chassis. The last chapter is about the CEO — forced to think outside the box always, he stands outside the metaphor too! The Engines of Democracy According to Drucker, the world wars were a point of management transition - of transition from a mercantile economy to an industry economy — and resultant tensions between policy and reality. Drucker believes that we are now in another critical moment of transition — from the Industrial economy to the knowledge-based economy — and we should expect radical changes in society and business and we haven’t by any means seen them all yet. The Lego World, or Competion-less Capitalism Drucker calls the modern world a Lego World — a world where corporations do not compete anymore, but are interchangeable (and sometimes unique) lego blocks that fit together in unique ways to provide specific value oppositions to the customers. Drucker throws a direct challenge to the “World Is Flat” viewpoint. He says that it is so only from an industrial viewpoint. But it is not flat from the viewpoint of organizations. There is plenty of rom for uniqueness — it is all about the coming together of the right Lego pieces.  In Ducker’s view, the current Economic Engine is facing its great threat in more than a 100 years — can modern corporations learn to be be strategic collaborators rather than than unilateral superstars?? The book repeatedly emphasizes Drucker’s conviction that Businesses are the critical engine of a thriving society — of a society that values individuals and rewards achievement, and Management is the key factor to keeping it running. Business isn’t just business. It is the economic engine of democracy! And liberated managers who can ask the right questions are needed to rise to this occasion and meet the grave challenges that are being posed of us. The book is about learning to ask those few key questions. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
Apr 18, 2014
|
Apr 20, 2014
|
Apr 20, 2014
| Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0140136290
| 9780140136296
| 3.87
| 8,386
| 1954
| Dec 12, 1991
|
really liked it
| Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics: The Pirates of the Powerpoint Darrell Huff uses a simple, but effective literary device to impress his readers about Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics: The Pirates of the Powerpoint Darrell Huff uses a simple, but effective literary device to impress his readers about how much statistics affect their daily lives and their understanding of the world. He does this by pretending that the book is a sort of primer in ways to use statistics to deceive, like a manual for swindlers, or better, for pirates. He then pretends to justify the crookedness of the book in the manner of the retired burglar whose published reminiscences amounted to a graduate course in how to pick a lock and muffle a footfall: The crooks already know these tricks; honest men must learn them in self-defense. This keeps the book interesting and entertaining, though for anyone even partly trained in statistics, it has very little educational value. Of course, the title of this book and Huff’s little charade would seem to imply that all such operations are the product of intent to deceive. The intelligent reader would be skeptical — it is the unfortunate truth that it not chicanery much of the time, but incompetence. On the other hand, Huff is pretty clear that the ‘errors’ if that is what they are always seem to come down on the side of the interested party. As long as the errors remain one-sided, he says, it is not easy to attribute them to bungling or accident. No More Mr. Nice Guy After being fellow pirates for much of the book, in the concluding chapter Huff finally lets go if his pet charade and faces up to the more serious purpose of the book: explaining how to look a phony statistic in the eye and face it down; and no less important, how to recognize sound and usable data in that wilderness of fraud to which the previous chapters have been largely devoted. He lays down some thumb rules, which in the end comes come down to asking intelligent questions of the stats, especially of the conclusions. Asking such questions require the readers to be aware of the tendency of stats to mislead and to not be dazzled by the numbers. Huff’s book is primarily an attempt to pull down the high estimation automatically awarded to anybody willing to quote numbers. It is a fun evening read for the expert, who may then roll his eyes and say that there is nothing of real value in the book. But as its popularity attests to, it seems to be an important book for the lay reader, just by serving a reminder that the pirates are still out there — wielding their charts. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
Apr 03, 2014
|
Apr 30, 2014
|
Apr 06, 2014
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1841125628
| 9781841125626
| 4.33
| 3
| Nov 14, 2003
| Nov 14, 2003
|
liked it
|
This book is a series of interviews with top management ‘gurus.’ It is full of business ideas from these — some of world’s leading business thinkers.
This book is a series of interviews with top management ‘gurus.’ It is full of business ideas from these — some of world’s leading business thinkers. It will not turn a bad business into a good business. Nor will it turn a bad businessman into an entrepreneurial genius. However, what this collection of interviews offers is a smorgasbord of business ideas: Pick and choose. Some you will find risible. Others will strike a chord. Others still you may remember and act on. In the final analysis, ideas are nothing without application. The Table of Contents is quite valuable and can serve as quick reference. I am basing my quick summary on it. Please feel free to ‘pick & choose.’ Section 1: Leading the Way 1. Warren Bennis: Geeks, geezers and beyond Warren Bennis analyses Geeks and Geezers — which compares leaders under the age of 35 (‘geeks’) with those over 70 (‘geezers’). His basic argument is that tough situations make for tough leaders. Best question: You argue that crucibles are important in people’s development. But can you create your own crucible? 2. Rosabeth Moss Kanter: Teaching cowboys Confucius Kanter uses The Change Toolkit — to create Web-based versions to empower people to make change more effective. To give these skills to everyone so that change management – essential to leadership – becomes more widely understood and practiced. This is a way to empower people – by giving them the tools. Best Question: Is the western heroic view of leadership still appropriate? Answer: If we think of the western notion of leadership as cowboy leader- ship, the tough heroic stuff, it is no longer very appropriate. My view of leadership is probably more Confucian than cowboy. The best leaders have somewhat universal characteristics. Leaders are more effective when they are able to create coalitions, develop and use a support system, encourage, listen and develop other people. Those sorts of attributes tend to transcend cultures. 3. Manfred Kets de Vries: The dark side of leadership PSYCHOANALYSIS Meets Management Strategy: He talked about why companies crave heroic leaders – and what happens when executive egos get out of control. de Vries is a sort of pathologist of organizations. People would ask me to look at organizations that they thought were going in the wrong direction — for looking at the darker side of organizations, and particularly the darker side of leadership. How do leaders derail, what goes wrong? How can you recognize the signals when things go wrong and what can you can do about it? You can argue that 20 percent of the general population is relatively healthy; 20 percent is relatively sick; and the other 60 percent some- where in the middle. That applies to most people I meet. If you are a CEO you usually have a ‘magnificent obsession’ and that comes with a price. You are obsessed by certain things having to do with business. You may not have the greatest talent for other parts of your life that may result in negative side effects such as a high incidence of divorce. The real disease of many executives, CEOs in particular, is narcissism. 4. John Kotter: In the field There’s no one who has spent more time talking to managers. That is about the claim to fame. 5. Daniel Goleman: Maxed emotions Spread the gospel of emotional intelligence to a largely grateful business world — It is based on the notion that the ability of managers to understand and manage their own emotions and relation- ships is the key to better business performance. Section 2: Selling the Future 6. Peter Schwartz: Thinking the unthinkable An internationally renowned futurist, Peter Schwartz is a leading advocate of scenario planning – a technique that helps organizations ‘think the unthinkable’ by creating alternative stories, or scenarios, about how the future might pan out. Claim to fame: He assembled a team of futurists to envision the world in 2058 for Steven Spielberg’s latest film Minority Report. 7. Watts Wacker: Fringe benefits How do you practically look to the future when things are changing so rapidly? The way to do so it is to look at what is called the fringe. Basically, the fringe is three deviations away from the mean. If we want to see the parts of the future that are seeable we need to look at the fringe because the fringe migrates to the middle. Trends that are peripheral today become mainstream tomorrow. Keep a sharp eye! 8. John Patrick: The attitude thing Very general. Best let the Guru talk: What is the right attitude? It is an attitude that includes the ability to think globally but act locally, think big but start simple, think outside-in instead of inside-out, be able to accept ‘just enough is good enough’, engage in trial by fire, transform to a model of sense and respond instead of the traditional model of plan, build, deliver. This attitude comes from the grassroots thinking that was part of the evolution of the Internet. It’s hard to describe. Young people tend to have it but it’s not really an age thing. The masses of people in the middle layers of large organizations often don’t have it. The bureaucracies of large organizations have shielded them from the new way of thinking and, in some cases, Darwinian instincts have caused them to bring up their own shields. 9. Charles Handy: Reflections of a reluctant capitalist No other management theorist’s world view encompasses the irresistible rise of the flea, the crumbling of the elephants and a written constitution for business. In addition, the world according to Charles Handy calls on the business world to rethink the money-obsessed mindset of executives and to look for a reason for business beyond simply increasing shareholder value. 10. Philip Kotler: Marketing in the digital age Kotler wrote Marketing Management, still the definitive work on marketing and the text-book on every marketing student’s shelves. Subsequently, Kotler has applied marketing theory to a huge variety of new areas – nonprofit organizations (museums, per- forming arts, hospitals, colleges, etc.), social causes, places (cities, regions, and nations), and celebrities. Along the way he has coined phrases such as ‘mega marketing’, ‘demarketing’, ‘social marketing’, ‘place marketing’, and ‘segmentation, targeting, and positioning’. It is no surprise to talk about e-marketing then, right? Best question: What is the best marketing job in the world? Answer: The most satisfying marketing job is not to sell more Coca-Cola or Crest toothpaste but to bring more education and health to people and make a real difference in the quality of their lives. Section 3: People Power 11. Derrick Bell: The ardent protestor Derrick Bell is one of America’s most forthright and best-known commentators on race and ethics. He protests for their rights and makes it a part of business strategy. Commendable. 12. Jonas Ridderstråle: Emotional capital Core Competencies to PASSION! Companies talk a lot about core competencies but they are meaningless without core compassion, actually caring about what you do, why you do it and who you do it with. Organizations can start by hiring people with a passion for their business. In reality, companies actually steer clear of passionate people. They would rather hire dull, reliable people than passionate enthusiasts with an appetite for change. They fill their ranks with people who want the future to be the same rather than people who want to invent the future. One thing we can be sure of is that the future will not bring more of the same. 13. Leif Edvinsson: The context’s the thing The context around the workers matters most: The big issue now is the context around the knowledge worker. The context surrounding knowledge workers has become tougher. Research suggests that 20 per cent of our health is related to the architecture which surrounds us – work space design, sound levels, smells, types of seating and so on. Context matters. So the challenge of intellectual capital is also very personal and health-oriented. One important dimension of this is to replace offices with other meeting places or knowledge arenas, such as knowledge cafés. We have to have space to clear our heads to seize our own opportunities. In years gone by, people took the waters in search of physical restoration. Now, we need mental spas, places where we can renew ourselves and our minds. After all, we have the potential for hundreds of billions of thoughts per day. The opportunity cost of not seizing these opportunities is enormous. This is brain economics; the care for the talent potential. I think it was Peter Drucker who lamented the inefficiency of the knowledge worker. He was right. You, as brainpower, can work positively and usefully for 4–8 hours per day. Thereafter, your effect is likely to be a negative one. 14. Tony Buzan: Brain power Buzan is best known as the creator of Mind Mapping®, a ‘thinking tool’ once described, colourfully and not altogether helpfully, as the ‘Swiss army knife of the brain’. A mind map is a kind of mental shorthand. Arguments and ideas radiate in tentacles from a centre point. His central argument is that the magical powers of the human brain remain largely untapped. Our greatest asset is allowed to wallow in ill-organized, poorly-directed lethargy. Unused muscles rapidly lose their tone. 15. Marshall Goldsmith: Coaching for results Marshall Goldsmith is one of the world’s best-known – and best-paid – executive coaches. What else? Yeah, he gets results. Don’t ask me how. Didn’t you see the word ‘coach’? 16. Kjell Nordström: Tribal gathering How should companies differentiate themselves? The starting point must be a neat niche, a funky few, a global tribe. You need to understand your particular tribe better than anyone else. You must know what makes them tick, what scares them, what gets them out of bed in the morning, what turns them on. The tribe is the basic unit of business. If you don’t know who your tribe is or anything about them, you are not going to stand out from the crowd. So what’s the message? If you focus your energy on creating and then exploiting an extremely narrow niche you can make a lot of money. The tribe may consist of one-legged homosexual dentists. It may be lawyers who race pigeons. But if you manage to capture these customers globally, you can make a lot of money. There are riches in niches. 17. Tom Stewart: Intellectual capitalist Intellectual capital can be crudely described as the collective brainpower of an organization. The switch from physical assets to intellectual assets – brawn to brain – as the source of wealth creation has been underway in the developed economies for some time. As an advertisement for Deutsche Bank put it: ‘Ideas are capital. The rest is just money’. Section 4: Strategic Wisdom 18. Gary Hamel: The radical fringe He calls for radical innovation in business, telling companies that they must continually reinvent themselves, not just at times of crisis. His landmark book, co- authored with C K Prahalad, Competing for the Future, was BusinessWeek’s book of the year in 1995. Its 2000 sequel, Leading the Revolution, was also a bestseller. We have to systematically train people in new ways of think- ing. We have to create new metrics. Most of the metrics companies use – ROI, EVA, and so on – push us into thinking simply about incremental improvements. We still have a very deep belief in management processes, which are the antithesis of innovation. 19. Costas Markides: Escaping the jungle Imagine you find yourself in the middle of a dark and hostile jungle. If you want to get out of the jungle, do you need a strategy? Think about it. In the dense foliage, you cannot see beyond a few feet. You want to get out of this jungle but you don’t know how and you don’t know which way to turn. There is total uncertainty. How then can you get out alive? Well, the last thing you want to do is to stay still, paralysed by uncertainty. You need to analyse your position based on the available information and then decide on a direction. That’s the first principle of strategy – the need to make difficult choices based on what information you have at the time. You take stock, gather information based on that and then start walking. The worst thing is to stay still. That’s the second principle of strategy – the need to stop analysing and start doing, even if you are not entirely sure that what you are doing is going to turn out to be the right thing. So, what needs to change? We need to train people how to think, not what to think. 20. James Champy: What re-engineering did next Champy and Hammer established re-engineering as the big business idea of the early 1990s, creating a whole new consulting industry. His recent book, X-Engineering the Corporation, argues that managers must now look beyond re-engineering and cross (as in X) boundaries they’ve never crossed before. The walls between a company, its customers and its suppliers – and even between competitors – are falling, he argues. The advent of the Internet makes it possible to redesign processes across organizational borders. James Champy talks about what the re-engineering revolution achieved, how it was hijacked by corporate downsizers, and why X-engineering is the next big thing. 21. W Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne: Strategic moves “Smart Strategic Moves” are needed. Yes! You guessed it — I didn’t get how this is anything different. 22. Henry Mintzberg: Searching for balance Henry Mintzberg talks about why MBAs and shareholder value are killing business, and the need to bring balance to the capitalist system. Solzhenitsyn said that a society that has no rules like the communist society is abhorrent, but a society that only stays within the letter of the law – he had the United States in mind – is not much better. Best Question: What’s wrong with MBAs? Answer: Basically, my objection is that MBA programmes claim to be creat- ing managers and they are not. The MBA is really about business, which would be fine except that people leave these programmes thinking they’ve been trained to do management. I think every MBA should have a skull and crossbones stamped on their forehead and underneath should be written, ‘Warning; not prepared to manage’. And the issue is not just that they are not trained to manage, but that they are given a totally wrong impression of what managing is; namely decision-making by analysis. The impression they get from what they’ve studied is that people skills don’t really matter. So they come out with this distorted view. I’ve seen it over and over again where people have MBAs and go into managerial positions and don’t know what they are doing. So basically, they write reports and plans and do all sorts of information processing things and pretend that it’s management. It’s killing organizations, and I think it’s getting worse over time. One more: Is Michael Porter’s Five Forces framework still relevant today? Porter’s Five Forces is a wonderful way to analyse industries but it has nothing to do with making strategies because there’s no creativity in it. It’s just an input for a process, not the process itself. 23. Sumantra Ghoshal: The rise of the volunteer investor Errr… leadership as voluntary investment of human capital? Well, that’s it folks. Have fun wrecking your business. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
Apr 2014
|
Apr 02, 2014
|
Apr 02, 2014
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0415779006
| 9780415779005
| 3.25
| 20
| Jun 06, 2006
| Nov 20, 2009
|
really liked it
| I love reading introductory books. It helps to pick one up on a regular basis. Thankfully the market is overflowing with them. I have found that somet I love reading introductory books. It helps to pick one up on a regular basis. Thankfully the market is overflowing with them. I have found that sometimes it is more invigorating to read one than to read specialist books with lots of ideas and suggestions. The intro frees up space for you to think and work with the basic tools. That is useful if you are in marketing, especially when the daily rigors allow little room for theoretical reasoning. This is a decent introduction and covers a lot of ground without being obscure or loading up with technical terms. Not too many references either. On the other hand, it doesn’t give much in terms of detail. The author keeps it light and focuses on explaining terms and the logical connections between them, all the while keeping the structure of an organization in view, thus making sure that the reader understand the concepts in context. Recommended for a quick glance before diving into text books. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
Mar 11, 2014
|
Mar 13, 2014
|
Mar 13, 2014
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0914955195
| 9780914955191
| 4.35
| 113
| Jan 01, 1971
| Jan 01, 1995
|
it was amazing
| The Open Secret At first glance, the title of the book might give the impression that it is an esoteric defense of some Vedic ‘secret’. It is true that The Open Secret At first glance, the title of the book might give the impression that it is an esoteric defense of some Vedic ‘secret’. It is true that some spiritual teachers like to emphasize the esotericity of works to claim the easy defense - “you are not spiritual enough to understand such works” - to western scholars. Contrary to this, Aurobindo approaches the text like any genuinely curious scholar and puts together a coherent interpretation of the hymns, seen more from the Upanishadic tradition than from the materialistic/ritualistic tradition that is adopted by historic commentaries. His object is not to veil, but to uncover; not to assert that the meaning is secreted away in an inaccessible spiritual realm, but to show that the meaning is easy enough to access consistently. Useful to understand one potent way of looking at the Rig Vedic hymns - what Aurobindo calls the ‘psychological’ way - suffusing the hymns with psychological symbols. In addition, Aurobindo’s interpretation is also based on a fascinating philological exploration of the hymns. Even more importantly, this reading helps to understand the multiple meanings of the many commonly used sanskrit words and comes in very handy to understand the meanings of the hymns independently even if the reader doesn’t want to travel the road prepared by Aurobindo. While it should not be taken uncritically, Aurobindo’s criticism of early brahmin and western scholarship is also vital to a good understanding - especially so since scholarship available to the modern reader is heavily biased towards those interpretations. As Aurobindo is not hesitant to say, this is only an exploration of possibilities, an attempt at uncovering the spiritual ‘Secret of the Veda’ from the elaborate ritualist vein under which it is enclosed - he constantly invites us to adopt a particular symbol and see ‘how far it takes us’ - only if he feels it consistently applicable throughout the hymns does he adopt it. This is quite reasonable and I found it acceptable to quite a degree. The biggest contribution Aurobindo makes is to establish an alternate framework for the Rig Vedic symbols and to ground them in credible first-hand research and scholarly commentary. The beginning reader would be served well to consult Aurobindo while reading the original hymns. However, the reader should also be aware that in translation Aurobindo departs greatly from what might seem at first glance to be the ‘evident’ meaning of the hymns - but this is only because he has chosen to elaborate the symbolic meaning that he believes he has uncovered. This is useful but should not be read in isolation. The best way would be to treat Aurobindo as one more commentary along with Sayana, Dayananda and the modern scholars, read all of them and then form our own interpretations of the original sanskrit hymns. This book only gave me company through the early Fire Hymns, after which I have been left to my own devices by Aurobindo. Even though I skipped ahead with him and read the ‘selected’ hymns, I am not sure I will come back to his translations when I read them again in the course of my own progress. I think that is okay, for even as we part company, his method stays with me. ...more | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
|
Feb 10, 2014
|
Feb 24, 2014
|
Feb 23, 2014
| Paperback
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 3.81
|
it was amazing
|
Apr 22, 2015
|
Apr 21, 2015
| |||||
|
| 3.83
|
it was amazing
|
Apr 20, 2015
|
Apr 20, 2015
| |||||
|
| 3.30
|
liked it
|
Mar 06, 2015
|
Mar 04, 2015
| |||||
|
| 4.20
|
really liked it
|
Feb 28, 2015
|
Feb 27, 2015
| |||||
|
| 3.83
|
really liked it
|
Feb 23, 2015
|
Feb 23, 2015
| |||||
|
| 3.91
|
it was amazing
|
Feb 20, 2015
|
Feb 18, 2015
| |||||
|
| 4.12
|
it was amazing
|
not set
|
Jan 15, 2015
| |||||
|
| 3.85
|
it was ok
|
Sep 24, 2014
|
Sep 23, 2014
| |||||
|
| 3.15
|
did not like it
|
Sep 18, 2014
|
Aug 08, 2014
| |||||
|
| 3.68
|
really liked it
|
Jul 17, 2014
|
Jul 16, 2014
| |||||
|
| 3.50
|
really liked it
|
Jun 17, 2014
|
Jun 17, 2014
| |||||
|
| 3.54
|
liked it
|
Jun 02, 2014
|
Jun 02, 2014
| |||||
|
| 3.58
|
really liked it
|
May 25, 2014
|
May 25, 2014
| |||||
|
| 3.42
|
it was ok
|
May 23, 2014
|
May 22, 2014
| |||||
|
| 4.30
|
really liked it
|
May 19, 2014
|
May 19, 2014
| |||||
|
| 5.00
|
it was amazing
|
May 13, 2014
|
May 13, 2014
| |||||
|
| 3.97
|
did not like it
|
May 12, 2014
|
May 11, 2014
| |||||
|
| 5.00
|
it was amazing
|
May 11, 2014
|
May 11, 2014
| |||||
|
| 4.30
|
it was amazing
|
May 08, 2014
|
May 07, 2014
| |||||
|
| 3.51
|
liked it
|
May 2014
|
May 06, 2014
| |||||
|
| 3.68
|
really liked it
|
May 04, 2014
|
May 04, 2014
| |||||
|
| 3.78
|
liked it
|
May 03, 2014
|
May 03, 2014
| |||||
|
| 4.13
|
it was amazing
|
May 02, 2014
|
May 02, 2014
| |||||
|
| 3.78
|
liked it
|
Apr 28, 2014
|
Apr 28, 2014
| |||||
|
| 3.76
|
really liked it
|
Apr 25, 2014
|
Apr 25, 2014
| |||||
|
| 4.04
|
really liked it
|
Apr 20, 2014
|
Apr 20, 2014
| |||||
|
| 3.87
|
really liked it
|
Apr 30, 2014
|
Apr 06, 2014
| |||||
|
| 4.33
|
liked it
|
Apr 02, 2014
|
Apr 02, 2014
| |||||
|
| 3.25
|
really liked it
|
Mar 13, 2014
|
Mar 13, 2014
| |||||
|
| 4.35
|
it was amazing
|
Feb 24, 2014
|
Feb 23, 2014
|
Loading...
