Books you're reading (18 Viewers)

[Osman]

@Osman

You should read this book. It's brilliant.

http://www.npr.org/2015/10/08/44348...st-novel-explores-the-chaos-of-central-africa

Everyone should read this book. @Dostoevsky @CrimsonianKing @X @catch22 etc etc etc

Interesting Will check if my book dealer has it.


Which reminds me, they finally got hold of Gravity's Rainbow that catch 22 was recommending.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[GordoDeCentral]

@Osman

You should read this book. It's brilliant.

http://www.npr.org/2015/10/08/44348...st-novel-explores-the-chaos-of-central-africa

Everyone should read this book. @Dostoevsky @CrimsonianKing @X @catch22 etc etc etc

 

[lgorTudor]

i just love the old stuff. @lgorTudor

oyyyy mittelhochdeutsch

 

[DAiDEViL]

oyyyy mittelhochdeutsch

so weird yet so awesome.

 

[Vlad]

reading idiot

having free time is awesome

Your post inclined me to reread it for the umpteenth time. Quite possibly his best work, and the one most autobiographical.

 

[Dostoevsky]

Currently reading Witcher #4 but when I finish it I'm sliding back to Russians.

 

[Dostoevsky]

I really enjoyed Turgenev's shorter works too. Like Diary of a Superfluous Man .

My dad is getting me this one from his company's library

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Started reading the graphic novel MAUS by Art Speigelman.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

@Völler:

 

[Ramin]

Elon Musk by Ashlee Vance - Very interesting read so far..

 

[campionesidd]

Elon Musk by Ashlee Vance - Very interesting read so far..

That guy scares me.

 

[Layce Erayce]

The Righteous Mind: Why People Are Divided by Politics and Religious

Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist at NYU. His book (here), based on copious and interesting research, examines the bases of our political and religious sensibilities. His conclusions are provocative.

His central thesis: We are all frauds. We think of ourselves as rational, enlightened creatures, following the evidence and drawing our conclusions. Research shows this is the opposite. This is how our political views usually develop:

Unconscious gut feeling/intuition --> We become aware of this intuition --> We tell a rational-sounding story to justify this feeling --> This becomes our political views.

One of the most interesting parts of the book is the research it relies on. In one case, peoples' moral judgement become more salient, and critical, upon applying hand sanitizer. A further development of this idea shows that the strictness of a subject's moral judgement varies based on how close to them (proximally) the hand-sanitizer is located.

In another case, eliciting sensations of nausea or disgust makes our moral judgements more critical.

There's a whole lot more to say, but it really throws into question the rationality and cognitive worth of our moral judgements.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

The Righteous Mind: Why People Are Divided by Politics and Religious

Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist at NYU. His book (here), based on copious and interesting research, examines the bases of our political and religious sensibilities. His conclusions are provocative.

His central thesis: We are all frauds. We think of ourselves as rational, enlightened creatures, following the evidence and drawing our conclusions. Research shows this is the opposite. This is how our political views usually develop:

Unconscious gut feeling/intuition --> We become aware of this intuition --> We tell a rational-sounding story to justify this feeling --> This becomes our political views.

One of the most interesting parts of the book is the research it relies on. In one case, peoples' moral judgement become more salient, and critical, upon applying hand sanitizer. A further development of this idea shows that the strictness of a subject's moral judgement varies based on how close to them (proximally) the hand-sanitizer is located.

In another case, eliciting sensations of nausea or disgust makes our moral judgements more critical.

There's a whole lot more to say, but it really throws into question the rationality and cognitive worth of our moral judgements.

Sounds pretty accurate tbh il just add that most people are just venting when opining, that any vehicle will do to get the frustrations out in the guise of intelligent speech.

 

[Layce Erayce]

Sounds pretty accurate tbh il just add that most people are just venting when opining, that any vehicle will do to get the frustrations out in the guise of intelligent speech.

I find that frightening. To think that all out moral judgements are just the product of our feelings... how can we morally condemn ISIS? Why think of them as morally wrong when we can just say they are just emotionally maladaptive?

Shouldn't we give them medical treatment instead of bombing them?

These things raise deep and worrying moral doubts.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

I find that frightening. To think that all out moral judgements are just the product of our feelings... how can we morally condemn ISIS? Why think of them as morally wrong when we can just say they are just emotionally maladaptive?

Shouldn't we give them medical treatment instead of bombing them?

These things raise deep and worrying moral doubts.

Nihilism has its appeal for a reason. But what if we were to consider that our 'feelings' already have goodness in them, a kind of evolutionary morality stitched in our DNA, that our intuition isnt all that random after all but is the culmination of millenia of experiences in the subconscious.

 

[Post Ironic]

My dad is getting me this one from his company's library

Have you read this yet?

 

[Layce Erayce]

Nihilism has its appeal for a reason. But what if we were to consider that our 'feelings' already have goodness in them, a kind of evolutionary morality stitched in our DNA, that our intuition isnt all that random after all but is the culmination of millenia of experiences in the subconscious.

That's a very interesting thought. And there's data to support it (Frans de Waal's work on primates). But ultimately I think there are some weaknesses to this hypothesis.

The first, major problem is the loss of normativity. That is, when we talk about morality, we don't just talk about things along the good/evil axis, we have a second axis, the ought to/ought not to axis. And any evolutionary explanation will make that normative aspect: the ought to/ought not to element, purely fictional.

Even if there is an evolutionary explanation for it, we have no obligation to do moral duties.

This is one worry about this approach.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

That's a very interesting thought. And there's data to support it (Frans de Waal's work on primates). But ultimately I think there are some weaknesses to this hypothesis.

The first, major problem is the loss of normativity. That is, when we talk about morality, we don't just talk about things along the good/evil axis, we have a second axis, the ought to/ought not to axis. And any evolutionary explanation will make that normative aspect: the ought to/ought not to element, purely fictional.

Even if there is an evolutionary explanation for it, we have no obligation to do moral duties.

This is one worry about this approach.

Normativity is circumstance tied and is therfore finite and hardly duplucated, and certainly not over millenia. Like you said even if we are to consider that possibility one still needs to be in tune with their intuition and listen to it, which brings about another dilemma, the process of turning thought into action and here comes a new list of distortionary elements: rationalization, apathy, sloth...

 

[Layce Erayce]

Normativity is circumstance tied and is therfore finite and hardly duplucated, and certainly not over millenia. Like you said even if we are to consider that possibility one still needs to be in tune with their intuition and listen to it, which brings about another dilemma, the process of turning thought into action and here comes a new list of distortionary elements: rationalization, apathy, sloth...

I'm not 100% clear on what you mean here.

When you say normativity is circumstance-tied, finite, hardly duplicated, etc, what do you mean to say? Do you mean to say it's optional? Do you mean to say a deflationist account, or a fictionalist account is correct?

 

[GordoDeCentral]

I'm not 100% clear on what you mean here.

When you say normativity is circumstance-tied, finite, hardly duplicated, etc, what do you mean to say? Do you mean to say it's optional? Do you mean to say a deflationist account, or a fictionalist account is correct?

I meant it's temporal, finite and circumstance tied in the sense that it is only applicable in a certain space/time setting, not like some essence of justice moral compass which transcends all of that.