Tuesday, July 30, 2013



"By today's standards, his technical ability to write is horrible ... The writing, to say the least, is amateurish by even the lowest standard. If this were to be written today, it would be patronized by publishers and (if it even made it to publication) by critics for the silly use of language. There is not a single technical description in the entire novel, and sentence structure is 5th grade Essay Contest at best. Are we really supposed to believe this man of intelligence and 'high consciousness' can't write any better than the average 10-year-old? Some will argue that the writing is intentionally bad to show the mental decay of the Underground Man. This argument may be valid, except that in the sections before the Underground Man's mental trepidation are displayed the writing is even worse ... While some of the ideas are cute (though whiney), nothing in this entire section reaches an intelligence level above common sense. This isn't a book you learn something from. This isn't a book that causes you to think about the depth of meaning. This isn't even a character study, really ... I consider it relevant too. To kids in fifth grade. If you're older than that, and this is still insightful to you, I am insulating your intelligence."

"First of all, with a name like 'Fyodor Dostoyevsky' how in the world can a guy get published? Perhaps he shouldn't be. That is my opinion."


"I feel that poetry may be considered 'wack' by anyone born after 1970"


"If it wasn't for my self-diagnosed partial OCD I most likely would have have given up part way through and thrown this book in the trash, but as it stands I forced myself to finish it"


"does anyone really care boo hoo cry me a river better yet a lake put some stones in your pockets and then walk into it. oh thats right thats exactly what she did.
so was it really worth all the complaining."


"Pretty much a shot for shot rip off of the West Side Story, just based in the early 1800s."


"After reading Spinoza's supposedly great work, I couldn't help but think about the things he told me regarding God, or say, the universe. After constant pondering, I began to come to my own conclusion that most of Spinoza's propositions in Ethics are completely absurd. One of these propositions, that 'God exists, is everything, and is all thoughts' (yes, even the thought that's the opposite of that thought) makes no sense to me. For if it were not absurd, then thinking 'God doesn't exist, is not everything, and is not all thoughts' would be true as well, which totally goes against Spinoza's proposition on God. He also proposes that everything is infinite and that nothing is finite. But what about the size of my arm? How can that be infinite if it does not go out infinitely, say compared to, the distance of light? Spinoza then claims that it's the imagination or distinction of things that makes things finite. But according to Spinoza, nothing is finite. So how can the imagination make something finite if the finite doesn't exist? Again, the more I think about what he says in this book, the more absurd it becomes. I can tell you countless more, but I don't want to bore you. Now I'm giving this review 2 out of 5 stars because I do believe this book is very well organized and very well translated. Other than that, I can't see how this book can help clear my mind from any doubts it has already given me."


"Wittgenstein was a man who despised all things metaphysical and spiritual. He fancied himself a no-nonsense objectivist who would not be hoodwinked by false religious promises or tricked into seeing intangible ghosts ... Wittgenstein's solipsism has spiraled out of control and taken on a life of its own. For him the self is everything; all so-called objective entities spring from the subjective self, leaving us with no real objctive reality or atomic facts at all. All we are left with is Wittgenstein, the self-appointed possessor, owner, and sovereign monarch of the known universe. None of us exist unless Wittgenstein invites us into his little world, and we cease to exist the moment we exit his field of vision. I, for one, take exception to this. Hey Wittgenstein: - I exist - get used to it - I'm here to stay - you cannot expel me from the universe - the world does not revolve around you!"


"I believe those remarks could be summarized more concisely if he had said 'I Paul Feyerabend am an idiot'. I love philosophy but hate philosophers because very little philosophy comes from professional philosophers, it comes from scientists and mathematicians. Every time I think I’m being too hard on philosophers somebody mentions a person like Feyerabend and I remember why I dislike them so much."


"'Twixt? Isn't that a candy bar? I'm going o'er there, back to Dr. Seuss! Back where I can read Withouten all these extraordinarily outdated words!"

No comments:

Post a Comment