ARISTOTLE - METAPHYSICS
"If I'd lived with Plato for a solid 20 years, would (even) I have written something better than the Metaphysics? I believe so, yes."
SHELLEY - FRANKENSTEIN
"If 'Frankenstein' was a fanfic, it would be flamed into oblivion."
"It gets too melodramatic, like worse than the lives of the populars at my school"
"We're 21st century teens. 19th century is a bit old and boring for us."
GRETTIR'S SAGA
"it's history and it's before there were descriptions"
PLATO - MENO
"In the course of fulfilling my duties as a teaching assistant, I’ve had the mixed blessing of reading and reflecting on Plato for two consecutive quarters these past few months. I say mixed because while this has afforded me an opportunity to understand Plato’s thought in more richly textured detail, it has served mostly to reinforce the position I already held on that most beloved of philosophers – which is, simply, that Plato blows ... Plato was not merely a douchebag, but a douchebag who gave us a really shitty philosophical tradition that contributed to an ongoing 2,000 year plus tradition of stupidity. Why he is routinely credited even within atheist circles as being some kind of super awesome rationalist thinker is beyond me; this guy helped cement many of the assumptions and traditions we are most opposed to."
NABOKOV - LOLITA
"There is mention of doodles in it. Be warned."
TOLSTOY - WAR AND PEACE
"One of the previous reviews comments on Tolstoy's philosophical and sociological views, none of which seem to be conveyed to any extent in this longwinded attempt at storytelling. Periods of poorly described bouts of war and meaningless efforts to describe and accurately portray the interactions within the unrealistic social circles make this so-called 'classic' more like a soap opera than a work of literary genius. The inadequate manner in which the occurances in the book are described are discouraging to educated intellectuals like myself."
"To Tolstoy, the future is predestined by the present and past. He lived in the era before the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, wherein we only proclaim one set of events to have a higher probability than another, rather than a certainty. This uncertainty concept is foreign to the philosophy Tolstoy proclaimed here, and certainly limits the value of the book to current day thinking."
JOYCE - ULYSSES
"This is utter crap, but then Joyce intended his work to be unreadable. People whom like Ulysses probably pride themselves on reading things that they've never actually opened - that said, I found myself foundering in Ulysses, Joyce's insane farce of literature, because it's garbage."
P.S. BAD REVIEWS OF GOOD BOOKS IS COMING TO AN END IN A FEW WEEKS, BUT YOU CAN STILL CATCH ME WHINING ABOUT STUFF AT THIS NEW THING I'M DOING.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Saturday, September 28, 2013
James Joyce - Ulysses VII
"This book would be a signature piece of the 20 century, post-modern literature, ranking high up there with Kafka and Proust."
"I read only the first two pages, this told me everything I needed to know about this puffed up trainwreck of a book. It frightens me that anyone could sit down with this book, waste hours of their life on it and THEN recommend it to another person! Joyce exhibits none of the traits of our truly great authors. Where a skilled writer will agonise for days to find the best word for the job, Joyce settles for the most obscure. In place of good storytelling and interesting, fleshed out characters, we get the most absurd caricatures of intellectual men imaginable. I am NOT an English student but a physics phd and can see this book for the rot it is. Do not waste so much as a moment of your life on this rubbish."
"Not even going to attempt to finish this one; very little happened, and even less of it made sense.
Yes, you're edgy, you're cultured, I get it. Just write a proper book."
"This book is un-comprehensible by humans."
"This is utter crap, but then Joyce intended his work to be unreadable. People whom like Ulysses probably pride themselves on reading things that they've never actually opened - that said, I found myself foundering in Ulysses, Joyce's insane farce of literature, because it's garbage."
"It galls me every time I see a list of the great 20th century novels and this piece of claptrap is on the top. The emperor has no clothes!"
"Ulysses reminds me of The Waste Land by T S Eliot ... One of the tutors explained to me, when we were setting up the exhibition at the end of the final semester, that T S Eliot was interesting because he sort of wrote The Waste Land as confusing as he could and somehow James Joyce was in on it too, in some great, mysterious modernist conspiracy. I didn't entirely pay attention ... The point still stands: empirically, the failings I find in Ulysses are the failings I find in The Waste Land; the obscure references, the anti-theism (which is based on the 'christians I've met are fools so god mustn't exist' logic you see mainly on Facebook nowadays), the confusing wording, and the whole starving artists angle, however, are things I've enjoyed in other books. So, empirically speaking, I have to say, the only factor left is whether it's well written. It can't be. That's the difference. The almost stubbornly clumsy jury rigging of the writer's vocabulary comes off like Richard Dawkins sitting backwards on a chair and high-fiving his friends. It makes my brow bunch up and my hand squeeze my tear ducts... it makes me cringe, in short. Ulysses makes me cringe. You can write that on my epitaph, I don't give a shit."
"Supposedly this is modernism at its best. For me this was one of the most boring and worst written books I have ever read. You can call it a 'stream of consciousness' but if so, this consciousness is that of a dull, unimaginative and perhaps slightly depraved (or just shockingly honest) man. Seriously, people may talk about this, but it’s just not worth your trouble to read. It’s massively long and boring. Unfortunately you can’t just read extracts either. Joyce embraces loads of different styles. At one point the book turns into a play (occurring in one of the main character’s drunken head). Quite early on the prose becomes very shorthand – what we might call informal and 'note-taking' language. If English isn’t your native language you might not be able to understand this at all. At times he borrows dense scientific, or medieval English or Irish styles too. I suppose it is a 'groundbreaking piece of literature' but if it was an experiment into different styles it utterly failed. Most of the styles are really hard to read and unsatisfying. There is a reason for the conventions of writing, and although some of them are pointless and arbitrary I don’t think that’s reason enough to abandon them all. Overall I feel that Joyce cheapens the greatest traditions of literature and science by using them to describe the banal and ugly in life. The reason he revolutionised literature is because he has no sense of the beauty of what he has ruined."
"I'm sorry, but I'm a pretty smart guy and a fairly accomplished reader. But I couldn't make heads or tails of this. It's undecipherable garbage ... I don't know why you'd want to bother trying. Leave this one in the dustbin of history folks"
DEAR READERS: BAD REVIEWS OF GOOD BOOKS IS APPROACHING ITS FIVE HUNDREDTH POST, AND WITH THAT POST THE BLOG WILL BE COMING TO AN END. BUT I HAVE A NEW, HOPEFULLY MORE CONSTRUCTIVE PROJECT BREWING, AND YOU'RE ALL INVITED! I'M NOT EVEN USING A SECRET IDENTITY THIS TIME. IF YOU LIKE LEARNING THINGS OR TEACHING THINGS THEN I'D LOVE TO HAVE YOU ALONG.
"I read only the first two pages, this told me everything I needed to know about this puffed up trainwreck of a book. It frightens me that anyone could sit down with this book, waste hours of their life on it and THEN recommend it to another person! Joyce exhibits none of the traits of our truly great authors. Where a skilled writer will agonise for days to find the best word for the job, Joyce settles for the most obscure. In place of good storytelling and interesting, fleshed out characters, we get the most absurd caricatures of intellectual men imaginable. I am NOT an English student but a physics phd and can see this book for the rot it is. Do not waste so much as a moment of your life on this rubbish."
"Not even going to attempt to finish this one; very little happened, and even less of it made sense.
Yes, you're edgy, you're cultured, I get it. Just write a proper book."
"This book is un-comprehensible by humans."
"This is utter crap, but then Joyce intended his work to be unreadable. People whom like Ulysses probably pride themselves on reading things that they've never actually opened - that said, I found myself foundering in Ulysses, Joyce's insane farce of literature, because it's garbage."
"It galls me every time I see a list of the great 20th century novels and this piece of claptrap is on the top. The emperor has no clothes!"
"Ulysses reminds me of The Waste Land by T S Eliot ... One of the tutors explained to me, when we were setting up the exhibition at the end of the final semester, that T S Eliot was interesting because he sort of wrote The Waste Land as confusing as he could and somehow James Joyce was in on it too, in some great, mysterious modernist conspiracy. I didn't entirely pay attention ... The point still stands: empirically, the failings I find in Ulysses are the failings I find in The Waste Land; the obscure references, the anti-theism (which is based on the 'christians I've met are fools so god mustn't exist' logic you see mainly on Facebook nowadays), the confusing wording, and the whole starving artists angle, however, are things I've enjoyed in other books. So, empirically speaking, I have to say, the only factor left is whether it's well written. It can't be. That's the difference. The almost stubbornly clumsy jury rigging of the writer's vocabulary comes off like Richard Dawkins sitting backwards on a chair and high-fiving his friends. It makes my brow bunch up and my hand squeeze my tear ducts... it makes me cringe, in short. Ulysses makes me cringe. You can write that on my epitaph, I don't give a shit."
"Supposedly this is modernism at its best. For me this was one of the most boring and worst written books I have ever read. You can call it a 'stream of consciousness' but if so, this consciousness is that of a dull, unimaginative and perhaps slightly depraved (or just shockingly honest) man. Seriously, people may talk about this, but it’s just not worth your trouble to read. It’s massively long and boring. Unfortunately you can’t just read extracts either. Joyce embraces loads of different styles. At one point the book turns into a play (occurring in one of the main character’s drunken head). Quite early on the prose becomes very shorthand – what we might call informal and 'note-taking' language. If English isn’t your native language you might not be able to understand this at all. At times he borrows dense scientific, or medieval English or Irish styles too. I suppose it is a 'groundbreaking piece of literature' but if it was an experiment into different styles it utterly failed. Most of the styles are really hard to read and unsatisfying. There is a reason for the conventions of writing, and although some of them are pointless and arbitrary I don’t think that’s reason enough to abandon them all. Overall I feel that Joyce cheapens the greatest traditions of literature and science by using them to describe the banal and ugly in life. The reason he revolutionised literature is because he has no sense of the beauty of what he has ruined."
"I'm sorry, but I'm a pretty smart guy and a fairly accomplished reader. But I couldn't make heads or tails of this. It's undecipherable garbage ... I don't know why you'd want to bother trying. Leave this one in the dustbin of history folks"
DEAR READERS: BAD REVIEWS OF GOOD BOOKS IS APPROACHING ITS FIVE HUNDREDTH POST, AND WITH THAT POST THE BLOG WILL BE COMING TO AN END. BUT I HAVE A NEW, HOPEFULLY MORE CONSTRUCTIVE PROJECT BREWING, AND YOU'RE ALL INVITED! I'M NOT EVEN USING A SECRET IDENTITY THIS TIME. IF YOU LIKE LEARNING THINGS OR TEACHING THINGS THEN I'D LOVE TO HAVE YOU ALONG.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Martin Luther - 95 Theses
"Not bad. It is just nothing special."
"It's a shame that a document which seems to have had such good intentions could be the start of something so ugly, so brutal as the long slide into relativism in the greatest civilization of all, the West."
"It was rather humorous listening to my mom talk about how great Luther was and then I was able to rub her nose in his own words. Of course my mom is such an idiot"
"You Are All Sheep and Martin Luther is an Idiot
The title to a book I'll be writing and publishing. Sit and ponder."
"It's a shame that a document which seems to have had such good intentions could be the start of something so ugly, so brutal as the long slide into relativism in the greatest civilization of all, the West."
"It was rather humorous listening to my mom talk about how great Luther was and then I was able to rub her nose in his own words. Of course my mom is such an idiot"
"You Are All Sheep and Martin Luther is an Idiot
The title to a book I'll be writing and publishing. Sit and ponder."
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Tolstoy - War and Peace III
"What a load of rubbish"
"This book is what we had before soapies!"
"TERRIBLE. HORRIBLE. BORING. LONGER THAN THE BIBLE."
"Quite possibly the most over-rated 'classic' novel ever. Half of it isn't even a novel, but a history account of Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812."
"I believe if I read this book in my twenties, I would have appreciated it., but I have read so many wonderful well-written stories that I was not impressed."
"To be honest, I don't have any letters after my name in relation to literature but I'm a writer and reader myself and I know what I like. This novel is arguably one of the most overrated novels in the history of the written word. It is tedious from beginning to end. Tolstoy rambles on without any sense of real structure developing. It is incomprehensible that it is so beloved to millions of people, most of whom just read it so they can say 'I read War and Peace' to their friends who (wisely) have chosen not to sacrifice three or four months of their lives to study this mess."
"Ever read through a page only to realize that you were daydreaming the whole time and don't quite remember what you read. That happened to me through most of this book. That happens with most books"
"One of the previous reviews comments on Tolstoy's philosophical and sociological views, none of which seem to be conveyed to any extent in this longwinded attempt at storytelling. Periods of poorly described bouts of war and meaningless efforts to describe and accurately portray the interactions within the unrealistic social circles make this so-called 'classic' more like a soap opera than a work of literary genius. The inadequate manner in which the occurances in the book are described are discouraging to educated intellectuals like myself."
"Exceedingly dull with only a few interesting characters who will probably come to irritate you."
"It just didn’t know what it wanted to be. It ended up being so dull and boring and absolutely ridiculous."
"Having read the reviews of others, it reminds me of the emperor's new clothes. Reviewers should be true to the subject matter not state what they believe others expect. Sometimes a Mills and Boons story is just that."
"Honestly, I can't understand why it is considered literature: the characters have no depths and their behaviours, feelings are so similar that it made me think a few of them were the same person."
"The writer sort of sucks and is a hard read. His characters are sort of flaky and disjointed if you want my opinion. I don' see what the big deal is... Tolstoy is just plain verbous!!"
"Typically Russian, in 'why use one sentence when 20 pages will do.' Possibly the most verbose book I have ever read"
"To Tolstoy, the future is predestined by the present and past. He lived in the era before the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, wherein we only proclaim one set of events to have a higher probability than another, rather than a certainty. This uncertainty concept is foreign to the philosophy Tolstoy proclaimed here, and certainly limits the value of the book to current day thinking."
"This book is what we had before soapies!"
"TERRIBLE. HORRIBLE. BORING. LONGER THAN THE BIBLE."
"Quite possibly the most over-rated 'classic' novel ever. Half of it isn't even a novel, but a history account of Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812."
"I believe if I read this book in my twenties, I would have appreciated it., but I have read so many wonderful well-written stories that I was not impressed."
"To be honest, I don't have any letters after my name in relation to literature but I'm a writer and reader myself and I know what I like. This novel is arguably one of the most overrated novels in the history of the written word. It is tedious from beginning to end. Tolstoy rambles on without any sense of real structure developing. It is incomprehensible that it is so beloved to millions of people, most of whom just read it so they can say 'I read War and Peace' to their friends who (wisely) have chosen not to sacrifice three or four months of their lives to study this mess."
"Ever read through a page only to realize that you were daydreaming the whole time and don't quite remember what you read. That happened to me through most of this book. That happens with most books"
"One of the previous reviews comments on Tolstoy's philosophical and sociological views, none of which seem to be conveyed to any extent in this longwinded attempt at storytelling. Periods of poorly described bouts of war and meaningless efforts to describe and accurately portray the interactions within the unrealistic social circles make this so-called 'classic' more like a soap opera than a work of literary genius. The inadequate manner in which the occurances in the book are described are discouraging to educated intellectuals like myself."
"Exceedingly dull with only a few interesting characters who will probably come to irritate you."
"It just didn’t know what it wanted to be. It ended up being so dull and boring and absolutely ridiculous."
"Having read the reviews of others, it reminds me of the emperor's new clothes. Reviewers should be true to the subject matter not state what they believe others expect. Sometimes a Mills and Boons story is just that."
"Honestly, I can't understand why it is considered literature: the characters have no depths and their behaviours, feelings are so similar that it made me think a few of them were the same person."
"The writer sort of sucks and is a hard read. His characters are sort of flaky and disjointed if you want my opinion. I don' see what the big deal is... Tolstoy is just plain verbous!!"
"Typically Russian, in 'why use one sentence when 20 pages will do.' Possibly the most verbose book I have ever read"
"To Tolstoy, the future is predestined by the present and past. He lived in the era before the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, wherein we only proclaim one set of events to have a higher probability than another, rather than a certainty. This uncertainty concept is foreign to the philosophy Tolstoy proclaimed here, and certainly limits the value of the book to current day thinking."
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Vladimir Nabokov - Lolita VII
"There is mention of doodles in it. Be warned."
"How does one make a book about pedophilia boring???"
"maybe i'm not open minded enough but felt I was stuck in the mind of a pedophile"
"my ability to condone paedophilia had been varnished with today's hysteria, much as I would have preferred it not to."
"why we should care about either Humbert Squared or Lo--both are sniveling, self-absorbed and a bit hard to root for"
WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT A KIDNAPPED AND RAPED CHILD OF TWELVE? SHE'S SO SNIVELLY. ALSO THE PEDOPHILE IS HARD TO ROOT FOR
"The book was also confusing because of all the different names Humbert Humbert uses for people. The main female was called numerous things like, Lolita, Lo, Dolly, Dolores, and a few other names that were only used once or twice."
"stupid stupid book, or at least my copy was. the narrator couldn't decide on a name for himself or the little girl."
"It's views on what love is. Was twisted and sick."
"this book is equivalent to reading freudian theoretical papers - that put the most active minds to sleep! i previously read that this book is risqué and cutting-edge, all i found was boring, obsessive treatise/memoirs of a middle-aged man"
"What is truly 'conquering the Nature'?We human have been the dominant for a long time,but some of us still cannot control our sexual desires,power ambitions and obsessions with money.If we want to really conquer the Nature,the only thing we need to do is to control ourselves.Humbert failed,so he had no power over himself and became a criminal in the end.Love is,as a matter of fact,not so complicated as people think.Personally I think love shouldn't be like Humbert's ... Humbert is of little difference from an animal,since they both don't understand what life really is.They eat,drink,sleep,couple,and die.As for Lolita,she's no better than Humbert.
And that's the saddest part of the story."
"This is the most self indulgent book I have ever read, clearly the author wasn't interested in engaging his readers. It was tedious, repetitive and mostly boring. I can't believe I got this from a top 100 Books list. It's not the subject matter that turns me off, it is how the story is woven between absolute rambles of irrelevant tripe! My advice, give this one the flick!"
"I'm not going to waste my breath on the die hard lemmings. But, for those of you who have seen beyond the 'Matrix' I'm with you, this book is wrong ... Remember that the prevention is always better than the cure, yet the forward to Lolita call a "serious reader" as one who can retain innocence while being forced to fill in the blank w/ lusty imaginings, lest the context of the book be lost to the simple minded; the forward claims Lolita as a useful work to be studied in academic circles relating to psychiatry, and as a useful guide for society to take a lesson from; IT'S NOT TRUE - the book is subversive drivel and all these people hawking their dainty paltry brand of literati enlightenment are suckers.
Books to read: Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead
...
LEAVE THE 'CHILDREN OF THE DARK' TO THEIR VANITIES..."
"How does one make a book about pedophilia boring???"
"maybe i'm not open minded enough but felt I was stuck in the mind of a pedophile"
"my ability to condone paedophilia had been varnished with today's hysteria, much as I would have preferred it not to."
"why we should care about either Humbert Squared or Lo--both are sniveling, self-absorbed and a bit hard to root for"
WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT A KIDNAPPED AND RAPED CHILD OF TWELVE? SHE'S SO SNIVELLY. ALSO THE PEDOPHILE IS HARD TO ROOT FOR
"The book was also confusing because of all the different names Humbert Humbert uses for people. The main female was called numerous things like, Lolita, Lo, Dolly, Dolores, and a few other names that were only used once or twice."
"stupid stupid book, or at least my copy was. the narrator couldn't decide on a name for himself or the little girl."
"It's views on what love is. Was twisted and sick."
"this book is equivalent to reading freudian theoretical papers - that put the most active minds to sleep! i previously read that this book is risqué and cutting-edge, all i found was boring, obsessive treatise/memoirs of a middle-aged man"
"What is truly 'conquering the Nature'?We human have been the dominant for a long time,but some of us still cannot control our sexual desires,power ambitions and obsessions with money.If we want to really conquer the Nature,the only thing we need to do is to control ourselves.Humbert failed,so he had no power over himself and became a criminal in the end.Love is,as a matter of fact,not so complicated as people think.Personally I think love shouldn't be like Humbert's ... Humbert is of little difference from an animal,since they both don't understand what life really is.They eat,drink,sleep,couple,and die.As for Lolita,she's no better than Humbert.
And that's the saddest part of the story."
"This is the most self indulgent book I have ever read, clearly the author wasn't interested in engaging his readers. It was tedious, repetitive and mostly boring. I can't believe I got this from a top 100 Books list. It's not the subject matter that turns me off, it is how the story is woven between absolute rambles of irrelevant tripe! My advice, give this one the flick!"
"I'm not going to waste my breath on the die hard lemmings. But, for those of you who have seen beyond the 'Matrix' I'm with you, this book is wrong ... Remember that the prevention is always better than the cure, yet the forward to Lolita call a "serious reader" as one who can retain innocence while being forced to fill in the blank w/ lusty imaginings, lest the context of the book be lost to the simple minded; the forward claims Lolita as a useful work to be studied in academic circles relating to psychiatry, and as a useful guide for society to take a lesson from; IT'S NOT TRUE - the book is subversive drivel and all these people hawking their dainty paltry brand of literati enlightenment are suckers.
Books to read: Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead
...
LEAVE THE 'CHILDREN OF THE DARK' TO THEIR VANITIES..."
Monday, September 16, 2013
Plato - Meno
"I am not a philosophy fan. I feel after finishing this book that i still have the same questions, what is virtue? Can virtue be taught? Are there teachers of virtue? Why do philosophers talk in circles? Why is geometry used to prove virtue? Ew, i hope the discussons at work dont suck as much as this book...."
THERE WILL BE "DISCUSSIONS AT WORK" BECAUSE THIS REVIEWER IS A TEACHER OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
"After being raised by the Socratic method, I now understand its roots better. However, that doesn't make reading this as a book enjoyable at all."
"In the course of fulfilling my duties as a teaching assistant, I’ve had the mixed blessing of reading and reflecting on Plato for two consecutive quarters these past few months. I say mixed because while this has afforded me an opportunity to understand Plato’s thought in more richly textured detail, it has served mostly to reinforce the position I already held on that most beloved of philosophers – which is, simply, that Plato blows ... I have not mentioned how incredibly annoying and condescending the Socratic method is, or how absurd and problematic Plato’s ridiculous craft analogies are, or how unpleasant I find the literary style of pretty much all ancient Greek literature, or how I find aspects of Plato which others describe to be 'profound' to be totally banal, simplistic, and as imaginative as the speculations of someone stoned out of their minds ('we all have like, three parts to our soul dude and like, they are always struggling for dominance and one is like, a lion and the other, a medusa, with all these snakes coming out of its head and shit') – because all of this is far more subjective and not to the point: which is that Plato was not merely a douchebag, but a douchebag who gave us a really shitty philosophical tradition that contributed to an ongoing 2,000 year plus tradition of stupidity. Why he is routinely credited even within atheist circles as being some kind of super awesome rationalist thinker is beyond me; this guy helped cement many of the assumptions and traditions we are most opposed to."
"Plato stinks (academic babbler). Read something real for a change."
"To the translator: Kudos! (However he would translate that into ancient Greek!)"
THERE WILL BE "DISCUSSIONS AT WORK" BECAUSE THIS REVIEWER IS A TEACHER OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
"After being raised by the Socratic method, I now understand its roots better. However, that doesn't make reading this as a book enjoyable at all."
"In the course of fulfilling my duties as a teaching assistant, I’ve had the mixed blessing of reading and reflecting on Plato for two consecutive quarters these past few months. I say mixed because while this has afforded me an opportunity to understand Plato’s thought in more richly textured detail, it has served mostly to reinforce the position I already held on that most beloved of philosophers – which is, simply, that Plato blows ... I have not mentioned how incredibly annoying and condescending the Socratic method is, or how absurd and problematic Plato’s ridiculous craft analogies are, or how unpleasant I find the literary style of pretty much all ancient Greek literature, or how I find aspects of Plato which others describe to be 'profound' to be totally banal, simplistic, and as imaginative as the speculations of someone stoned out of their minds ('we all have like, three parts to our soul dude and like, they are always struggling for dominance and one is like, a lion and the other, a medusa, with all these snakes coming out of its head and shit') – because all of this is far more subjective and not to the point: which is that Plato was not merely a douchebag, but a douchebag who gave us a really shitty philosophical tradition that contributed to an ongoing 2,000 year plus tradition of stupidity. Why he is routinely credited even within atheist circles as being some kind of super awesome rationalist thinker is beyond me; this guy helped cement many of the assumptions and traditions we are most opposed to."
"Plato stinks (academic babbler). Read something real for a change."
"To the translator: Kudos! (However he would translate that into ancient Greek!)"
Friday, September 13, 2013
The Saga of Grettir the Strong
"Overall, I was underwhelmed. The stories are not really written for a modern audience"
"As with any icelandic sagas, the style must be tolerated which includes a story that is not plot-driven"
"incredibly boring."
"I have to say the narrative style killed my interest. I know it's history and it's before there were descriptions."
"As with any icelandic sagas, the style must be tolerated which includes a story that is not plot-driven"
"incredibly boring."
"I have to say the narrative style killed my interest. I know it's history and it's before there were descriptions."
Monday, September 9, 2013
Mary Shelley - Frankenstein IV
"This is truly one of those books that the films do justice to."
"It's been almost 30 years since I've detested a book this much. I didn't think anything could be worse then Kafka's 'The Metamorphosis'. Seems I'm never too old to be wrong."
"By the last half of the book, I was so fed up with her lack of vocabulary that I just could not stand to read it anymore."
"I thought it would be cool to finally know how the monster really came to life, but I didn't even get that much out of the book. It doesn't say how it was created, or even what happened to him after he left.
If you've ever read the book you know that long 50 page story of when the monster was stocking those people in the cottage. Instead of that how about this. After scaring a man out of his home, the monster finds a hole in the wall, looks through it and sees people. He watches them 24 7 while he learns more words, gets more food, and evidently, learns how to read. After so long he decides to meet and actually talk to them, but does it the wrong way so they beat him up and throw him out. Then he runs away ashamed of himself. Wow, that was so hard.
The book would be great with a little work. Okay, lots of work. But, you can't save them all."
"I have to add this to the top of the list of books that I have had to read but HATED! Let's see it was up there with Call of the Wild, The Odyssey, Farenheit 451, The King Must Die, True Grit, When the Legends Die, etc...I think you get my point. It is as if the teachers and district pick the worst possible books."
"In essence, Frankenstein is certainly credible for its depth, but anyone can be a philosopher. Unfortuantely, literature is an art, and, therefore it takes a talented author to create a reabable and enjoyable vehicle for such insight. If you can't read a book, it's not good."
"The big monster with bolts sticking out of his neck, little vocabulary, frightening everybody in his path. He is brought to life in a spooky laboratory with lightning flashing and the mad scientist hovering over him with the joy of accomplishment. This is what we think of when we hear the name Frankenstein. I would like to tell you the book was this exiting, but I can't ... I would not recommend this book to anyone under the age of 40. It's pace is way too slow for the modern worlds fast pace and it leaves you wondering, 'Why didn't I just watch the movie'."
"Great god! This novel is written so poorly, ssslllooowww, plodding, dry, dragging, flowery chapters. For those of you who are searching for a novel rich in literary content, bristling with metaphor and imagery, and full of gripping suspense, you've come to the WRONG place. This novel possesses none of these. Take it from me, a seasoned man of literature."
"I was once subjected to hearing a giggling women wax lyrical about this book"
"In short, Mary Shelley is a silly girl. I had to read this novel for class. If I didn't I wouldn't have been bothered to pick it back up after throwing it across the room innumerable times."
"Great premise, appallingly written. Shelley has an 18 year old girl's romantic perception of the world - which puts an 18 year old (19th Century) girl's words into the mouths of mature males. It just does not work."
"This is the most boring book i have ever read. I never actually finished it because there are are so many long words that by time you've stopped to look each one up in the dictionary you've forgotten what hapened at the beginning of the sentence.To sum this up in one word: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"
"Mary W. Shelley can go suck Frankenstein's dick!!!"
"It's been almost 30 years since I've detested a book this much. I didn't think anything could be worse then Kafka's 'The Metamorphosis'. Seems I'm never too old to be wrong."
"By the last half of the book, I was so fed up with her lack of vocabulary that I just could not stand to read it anymore."
"I thought it would be cool to finally know how the monster really came to life, but I didn't even get that much out of the book. It doesn't say how it was created, or even what happened to him after he left.
If you've ever read the book you know that long 50 page story of when the monster was stocking those people in the cottage. Instead of that how about this. After scaring a man out of his home, the monster finds a hole in the wall, looks through it and sees people. He watches them 24 7 while he learns more words, gets more food, and evidently, learns how to read. After so long he decides to meet and actually talk to them, but does it the wrong way so they beat him up and throw him out. Then he runs away ashamed of himself. Wow, that was so hard.
The book would be great with a little work. Okay, lots of work. But, you can't save them all."
"I have to add this to the top of the list of books that I have had to read but HATED! Let's see it was up there with Call of the Wild, The Odyssey, Farenheit 451, The King Must Die, True Grit, When the Legends Die, etc...I think you get my point. It is as if the teachers and district pick the worst possible books."
"In essence, Frankenstein is certainly credible for its depth, but anyone can be a philosopher. Unfortuantely, literature is an art, and, therefore it takes a talented author to create a reabable and enjoyable vehicle for such insight. If you can't read a book, it's not good."
"The big monster with bolts sticking out of his neck, little vocabulary, frightening everybody in his path. He is brought to life in a spooky laboratory with lightning flashing and the mad scientist hovering over him with the joy of accomplishment. This is what we think of when we hear the name Frankenstein. I would like to tell you the book was this exiting, but I can't ... I would not recommend this book to anyone under the age of 40. It's pace is way too slow for the modern worlds fast pace and it leaves you wondering, 'Why didn't I just watch the movie'."
"Great god! This novel is written so poorly, ssslllooowww, plodding, dry, dragging, flowery chapters. For those of you who are searching for a novel rich in literary content, bristling with metaphor and imagery, and full of gripping suspense, you've come to the WRONG place. This novel possesses none of these. Take it from me, a seasoned man of literature."
"I was once subjected to hearing a giggling women wax lyrical about this book"
"In short, Mary Shelley is a silly girl. I had to read this novel for class. If I didn't I wouldn't have been bothered to pick it back up after throwing it across the room innumerable times."
"Great premise, appallingly written. Shelley has an 18 year old girl's romantic perception of the world - which puts an 18 year old (19th Century) girl's words into the mouths of mature males. It just does not work."
"This is the most boring book i have ever read. I never actually finished it because there are are so many long words that by time you've stopped to look each one up in the dictionary you've forgotten what hapened at the beginning of the sentence.To sum this up in one word: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"
"Mary W. Shelley can go suck Frankenstein's dick!!!"
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Mary Shelley - Frankenstein III
"it was SO not a romance."
"It's obvious that Victor Frankenstein was gay and created the monster to be his gay lover."
"The reason it has a 1 star rating because for one I just thought the book suckes some serous A** ... beside I never really read all of it but I had a friend on here tell what happened after I stopped reading it and it sounded stupid any ways so I'm glade I didn't waste my time reading the rest of it."
"I had to read this book for English and I must ask, WHY ON EARTH ARE ENGLISH TEACHERS STILL MAKING US READ FICTION FROM LIKE THE 1780's????????????????????????????????? GAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
"UMMM CAN WE SAY 'SUCKY' ?"
"The style of writing is interesting and I could see it would have created a stir in its time, but times have moved on."
"I wanted to read about the ongoing conflict between master-and-creation, to understand how one could turn against its own creation. Surprisingly, the author doesn't dig into that."
"When i bought it i tought i was buying a 'fully sized' book, but when it arrived i ordered a 'pocket edition', the book seems to be good, but this special book its for ladies(with the due respect)."
"The description stated it was illustrated and the only illustration is on the cover of the book. I'm reading this book with my senior English students and was hoping I could show them some interesting illustrations."
"Yeah, if you throw enough brickbats at a person, eventually they might retaliate. Big surprise. So, in Shelly's distorted world view, one's throwing the brickbats at creatures whose only sin is ugliness, isn't depraved, but if the receiver of the undeserved brickbats retaliates in any way, then that retaliation confirms depravity? Clearly, Shelly had a very undeveloped mind."
"Perhaps back in 18-something it may have been scary but by modern literary standards I'm afraid to say that Frankenstein is gibberish."
"There is no horror to this story at all...It is about a living creature, shunned by society who eventually goes on the rampage. Gee, like that hasn't happened before. The story was generic, even for it's time. I think Mary was desperate, considering that the book wasn't even liked in the first place by the original romanticists authors of that time."
"I don't want to insult or offend Mary Shelley but she could've had 'brainstormed' a bit more...."
"the creature starts out knowing no english. all the sudden he knows big words that english scholars can't even understand. this book puts the 'BAD' in 'horrible'."
"one second, Frankenstein (the creator of the monster) is studying chemistry at a university, the next thing we know, he has the ability to "bestow life on an inatimate object!" Where did that come from? Can we be any more random?"
"This book was a torture for me. I mean adults might like it but as a highschooler, NOOOO!! I mean it's not just me a lot of my friends thought that it was a horrible book. Though you can't blame us. We're 21st century teens. 19th century is a bit old and boring for us."
"It's obvious that Victor Frankenstein was gay and created the monster to be his gay lover."
"The reason it has a 1 star rating because for one I just thought the book suckes some serous A** ... beside I never really read all of it but I had a friend on here tell what happened after I stopped reading it and it sounded stupid any ways so I'm glade I didn't waste my time reading the rest of it."
"I had to read this book for English and I must ask, WHY ON EARTH ARE ENGLISH TEACHERS STILL MAKING US READ FICTION FROM LIKE THE 1780's????????????????????????????????? GAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
"UMMM CAN WE SAY 'SUCKY' ?"
"The style of writing is interesting and I could see it would have created a stir in its time, but times have moved on."
"I wanted to read about the ongoing conflict between master-and-creation, to understand how one could turn against its own creation. Surprisingly, the author doesn't dig into that."
"When i bought it i tought i was buying a 'fully sized' book, but when it arrived i ordered a 'pocket edition', the book seems to be good, but this special book its for ladies(with the due respect)."
"The description stated it was illustrated and the only illustration is on the cover of the book. I'm reading this book with my senior English students and was hoping I could show them some interesting illustrations."
"Yeah, if you throw enough brickbats at a person, eventually they might retaliate. Big surprise. So, in Shelly's distorted world view, one's throwing the brickbats at creatures whose only sin is ugliness, isn't depraved, but if the receiver of the undeserved brickbats retaliates in any way, then that retaliation confirms depravity? Clearly, Shelly had a very undeveloped mind."
"Perhaps back in 18-something it may have been scary but by modern literary standards I'm afraid to say that Frankenstein is gibberish."
"There is no horror to this story at all...It is about a living creature, shunned by society who eventually goes on the rampage. Gee, like that hasn't happened before. The story was generic, even for it's time. I think Mary was desperate, considering that the book wasn't even liked in the first place by the original romanticists authors of that time."
"I don't want to insult or offend Mary Shelley but she could've had 'brainstormed' a bit more...."
"the creature starts out knowing no english. all the sudden he knows big words that english scholars can't even understand. this book puts the 'BAD' in 'horrible'."
"one second, Frankenstein (the creator of the monster) is studying chemistry at a university, the next thing we know, he has the ability to "bestow life on an inatimate object!" Where did that come from? Can we be any more random?"
"This book was a torture for me. I mean adults might like it but as a highschooler, NOOOO!! I mean it's not just me a lot of my friends thought that it was a horrible book. Though you can't blame us. We're 21st century teens. 19th century is a bit old and boring for us."
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Mary Shelley - Frankenstein II
"If 'Frankenstein' was a fanfic, it would be flamed into oblivion."
"You may think that I am crazy for giving a classic 1 star. I mean, it's a classic for a reason right? That, my friend, is where you are extremely wrong. I am crazy, but not for that reason. My reasoning is very logical and if you are a teen who has read this you will understand why."
"It gets too melodramatic, like worse than the lives of the populars at my school"
"All of Shelley's sentences were TOO complex."
"All in the oldest persons words. Silly!"
"The problem of the book feels like it was written in a different time and place. When's the last time you wrote more than a few pages to a friend? When have you waxed philosophically about... anything?"
"Perhaps it's because the author is a woman. I will admit to enjoying a male voice more than a female voice, especially for science fiction."
"Do not read the book. Do NOT read the book. The moment you crack it open, the pages will violently diarrhea all over your face."
"It was a work of silly science fiction and little more. It wasn't very scientific, and by that I mean at all, and it marginally explored the ideas of creation of life. If it had relentlessly and interestingly pursued life and death and creation and all of those great big themes, I probably would have liked it, but it was a bit more interested in chasing the ideas of lords and ladies and having a monster who for some reason spoke in rather eloquent and almost Shakespearean verse"
"So what is there not to like? The contradictory narrative for one thing; one moment the monster is misunderstood and something to be pitied, the next he is a violent vindictive murderer. Then there is the fact that the monster uses words longer than the name of his creator, even though he has learned to speak from an eight year old."
"My biggest complaint is that this 300-some page story could have been told in about ten."
"I read this in one of my English classes in college. I was an English major for 3 years until I read this book and I hated it. I switched majors and schools because of this book."
"Complicated. I think it went off based off of what you thought about different things. You could probably think differently about it if you were the opposite sex."
"To be frank about Frankenstein, it is truly awful.
The monster cannot get a girlfriend so he kills his creators family.
There is more to life than finding a partner and considering that Shelley's mother was a feminist she would maybe realise this, or then again, seeing as the woman was a husband snatcher, perhaps not."
"My disapproval of the way Ms. Shelley conducted her life may have colored my willingness to give her a break in they way she wrote her novel."
"This book sucked because I didn't understand any word of it. Like seriously Mary Shelly, no need to be rude, but make it more understanding!!! TEAM PEETA AND TEAM GALE AND TEAM FINNICK!!!!!!!!!!!!"
"You may think that I am crazy for giving a classic 1 star. I mean, it's a classic for a reason right? That, my friend, is where you are extremely wrong. I am crazy, but not for that reason. My reasoning is very logical and if you are a teen who has read this you will understand why."
"It gets too melodramatic, like worse than the lives of the populars at my school"
"All of Shelley's sentences were TOO complex."
"All in the oldest persons words. Silly!"
"The problem of the book feels like it was written in a different time and place. When's the last time you wrote more than a few pages to a friend? When have you waxed philosophically about... anything?"
"Perhaps it's because the author is a woman. I will admit to enjoying a male voice more than a female voice, especially for science fiction."
"Do not read the book. Do NOT read the book. The moment you crack it open, the pages will violently diarrhea all over your face."
"It was a work of silly science fiction and little more. It wasn't very scientific, and by that I mean at all, and it marginally explored the ideas of creation of life. If it had relentlessly and interestingly pursued life and death and creation and all of those great big themes, I probably would have liked it, but it was a bit more interested in chasing the ideas of lords and ladies and having a monster who for some reason spoke in rather eloquent and almost Shakespearean verse"
"So what is there not to like? The contradictory narrative for one thing; one moment the monster is misunderstood and something to be pitied, the next he is a violent vindictive murderer. Then there is the fact that the monster uses words longer than the name of his creator, even though he has learned to speak from an eight year old."
"My biggest complaint is that this 300-some page story could have been told in about ten."
"I read this in one of my English classes in college. I was an English major for 3 years until I read this book and I hated it. I switched majors and schools because of this book."
"Complicated. I think it went off based off of what you thought about different things. You could probably think differently about it if you were the opposite sex."
"To be frank about Frankenstein, it is truly awful.
The monster cannot get a girlfriend so he kills his creators family.
There is more to life than finding a partner and considering that Shelley's mother was a feminist she would maybe realise this, or then again, seeing as the woman was a husband snatcher, perhaps not."
"My disapproval of the way Ms. Shelley conducted her life may have colored my willingness to give her a break in they way she wrote her novel."
"This book sucked because I didn't understand any word of it. Like seriously Mary Shelly, no need to be rude, but make it more understanding!!! TEAM PEETA AND TEAM GALE AND TEAM FINNICK!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Mary Shelley - Frankenstein
"Legendary science-fiction and science fact author Dr. Isaac Asimov often wrote that Mary Wollenstonecraft Shelley's 'Frankenstein' (1818) was one of the most influential books of science fiction written. The equally legendary horror and fantasy author Stephen King also urges his readers to read 'Frankenstein' in order to get a good grounding for how to write.
Why? I have no idea. If any writer today turned in a manuscript like this, they'd gather enough rejection slips to paper the walls with.
But if you are looking to read a science fiction book, horror book or even a good book, then pass it by. This is one book that breaks the usual rule of being better than the movie adaptation. Skip this book and watch Mel Brooks' 'Young Frankenstein' (1974) instead. Granted, 'Frankenstein' was groundbreaking in its day ... However, modern readers will be sorely disappointed with 'Frankenstein.' This reviewer couldn't tolerate reading the whole thing (my life is too short to be spent reading bad books) and skimmed the last fourth of the novel. Not that I didn't know what was going to happen, anyway."
"After the upteenth tremble/jerk/gasp/faint/start from our mad scientist Victor Frankenstein, I could only sign in relief that he wasn't a Rabbi about to perform a bris circumcism - oy vey!"
"Warning!: Buttload of sarcasm incoming!!!
Oh yes, that's just brilliant...Let's tell the story in a second-hand past tense. That'll get us right into the action! And I love how this second-hand story-teller is able to relate in very fine detail dialogue exchanges between the monster and people he met years ago via a third person account from the dying Dr. Frankenstein. I mean honestly, what were you thinking Mary?!"
"he only description of the monster you ever get is that it is so ugly that words cannot describe it. WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF DESCRIPTION IS THAT?????"
"In most cases the book is more enjoyable than the movie. However, in this case I much rather preferred the many movie versions versus the book. This book had so many big words and confusing sentence structure that I couldn't enjoy it."
"Shelley is not only a terrible author, she is also an ignorant and prejudiced one. Her novel, hailed as a classic for two centuries, is infantile dross and lacks any imagination or creativity. Mary Shelley was the Stephanie Meyer of her generation, and her novel should be shelved with the chic-lit vampire romances and other such fare read avidly by teenage girls."
"The whole concept Mary Shelley was talking about also, that too much science is bad, was completely stupid. I found, through this book, that my opinion of the romantic era has been reduced to almost zilch. It appears to me that the romantics were a bunch of hippies who believed in strolling around breathing [not that I don't enjoy that] and letting themselves die because they wouldn't take medicine, believing that the science that discovered it was unnatural and unhealthy."
"This book added absolutely zero to my intelletual inner landscape."
"This is a story that we ALL know by heart. We've seen it time and time again in movie after movie. Yet, if you read the book all those details that make Frankenstein, well, Frankenstein, are not there. No dark castle on the top of a hill. Dr. Frankenstein is not a crazed old man, but a university student (whaaaaat?!?!). The coolest part where Dr. Frankenstein goes around to grave sites and morgues collecting pieces for the monster...not even mentioned!!!"
"I thought that Frankenstein was a mad scientist who lived in a castle. A man who loved his monster and shouted out "It's alive" when it opened it's eyes. Where was Egor? And I thought it was the villagers that wanted the monster dead and broke into the castle with fire and pitchforks to try and kill him.
None of this happened ... It's worth avoiding this and just sticking to what you thought the story of Frankenstein was..."
Why? I have no idea. If any writer today turned in a manuscript like this, they'd gather enough rejection slips to paper the walls with.
But if you are looking to read a science fiction book, horror book or even a good book, then pass it by. This is one book that breaks the usual rule of being better than the movie adaptation. Skip this book and watch Mel Brooks' 'Young Frankenstein' (1974) instead. Granted, 'Frankenstein' was groundbreaking in its day ... However, modern readers will be sorely disappointed with 'Frankenstein.' This reviewer couldn't tolerate reading the whole thing (my life is too short to be spent reading bad books) and skimmed the last fourth of the novel. Not that I didn't know what was going to happen, anyway."
"After the upteenth tremble/jerk/gasp/faint/start from our mad scientist Victor Frankenstein, I could only sign in relief that he wasn't a Rabbi about to perform a bris circumcism - oy vey!"
"Warning!: Buttload of sarcasm incoming!!!
Oh yes, that's just brilliant...Let's tell the story in a second-hand past tense. That'll get us right into the action! And I love how this second-hand story-teller is able to relate in very fine detail dialogue exchanges between the monster and people he met years ago via a third person account from the dying Dr. Frankenstein. I mean honestly, what were you thinking Mary?!"
"he only description of the monster you ever get is that it is so ugly that words cannot describe it. WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF DESCRIPTION IS THAT?????"
"In most cases the book is more enjoyable than the movie. However, in this case I much rather preferred the many movie versions versus the book. This book had so many big words and confusing sentence structure that I couldn't enjoy it."
"Shelley is not only a terrible author, she is also an ignorant and prejudiced one. Her novel, hailed as a classic for two centuries, is infantile dross and lacks any imagination or creativity. Mary Shelley was the Stephanie Meyer of her generation, and her novel should be shelved with the chic-lit vampire romances and other such fare read avidly by teenage girls."
"The whole concept Mary Shelley was talking about also, that too much science is bad, was completely stupid. I found, through this book, that my opinion of the romantic era has been reduced to almost zilch. It appears to me that the romantics were a bunch of hippies who believed in strolling around breathing [not that I don't enjoy that] and letting themselves die because they wouldn't take medicine, believing that the science that discovered it was unnatural and unhealthy."
"This book added absolutely zero to my intelletual inner landscape."
"This is a story that we ALL know by heart. We've seen it time and time again in movie after movie. Yet, if you read the book all those details that make Frankenstein, well, Frankenstein, are not there. No dark castle on the top of a hill. Dr. Frankenstein is not a crazed old man, but a university student (whaaaaat?!?!). The coolest part where Dr. Frankenstein goes around to grave sites and morgues collecting pieces for the monster...not even mentioned!!!"
"I thought that Frankenstein was a mad scientist who lived in a castle. A man who loved his monster and shouted out "It's alive" when it opened it's eyes. Where was Egor? And I thought it was the villagers that wanted the monster dead and broke into the castle with fire and pitchforks to try and kill him.
None of this happened ... It's worth avoiding this and just sticking to what you thought the story of Frankenstein was..."
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Aristotle - Metaphysics
"it is best left In the past as its views are too false for the future."
"i dislike all the classics. that goes for aristotle."
"This is kind of like if you need to brush up on your Calculus and you start by going all the way back to multipication tables."
"If I'd lived with Plato for a solid 20 years, would (even) I have written something better than the Metaphysics? I believe so, yes."
"Maybe Aristotle wasn't interested in philosophy
I am not particularly fond of this book. If undergraduate college courses are meant to provide students with general outlook on likely events, and graduate schools at major universities are intended to select those students who want to qualify for cutting edge work in a highly specialized professional discipline, the works of Aristotle seem to be the high point of a Greek attempt to create an upper level above anything that had previously been considered possible. Alexander the Great, as a student of Aristotle, might be faulted for aspiring to far more than what could be useful, just as Heidegger seemed to be pushing for a German spirit that was sure to damn the rest of the world to misery when he assumed a place in the leadership of a German university backing Hitler and the Nazi party.
...
It is far more ancient than modern. It is not clear how infinite his 'triangle containing two right angles' (p. 112) is supposed to be. Even his attempts to tiptoe around the major stereotypes of ancient bookworms seem limp. 'For instance, it is neither always nor for the most part that someone pale has a refined education, but since it sometimes happens, it will be incidental (or if not, everything would be by necessity).' (p. 113).
The Index only mentions three pages in Aristotle's text for Socrates, though Aristotle often uses his name as an example ... Two generations of seeking lessons from Socrates, ignoring whatever meaning the hemlock had, took place before we find Aristotle finally admitting 'For there are two things one might justly credit Socrates with, arguments by example and universal definition,' (p. 260). A real philosopher ought to do better than that."
"i dislike all the classics. that goes for aristotle."
"This is kind of like if you need to brush up on your Calculus and you start by going all the way back to multipication tables."
"If I'd lived with Plato for a solid 20 years, would (even) I have written something better than the Metaphysics? I believe so, yes."
"Maybe Aristotle wasn't interested in philosophy
I am not particularly fond of this book. If undergraduate college courses are meant to provide students with general outlook on likely events, and graduate schools at major universities are intended to select those students who want to qualify for cutting edge work in a highly specialized professional discipline, the works of Aristotle seem to be the high point of a Greek attempt to create an upper level above anything that had previously been considered possible. Alexander the Great, as a student of Aristotle, might be faulted for aspiring to far more than what could be useful, just as Heidegger seemed to be pushing for a German spirit that was sure to damn the rest of the world to misery when he assumed a place in the leadership of a German university backing Hitler and the Nazi party.
...
It is far more ancient than modern. It is not clear how infinite his 'triangle containing two right angles' (p. 112) is supposed to be. Even his attempts to tiptoe around the major stereotypes of ancient bookworms seem limp. 'For instance, it is neither always nor for the most part that someone pale has a refined education, but since it sometimes happens, it will be incidental (or if not, everything would be by necessity).' (p. 113).
The Index only mentions three pages in Aristotle's text for Socrates, though Aristotle often uses his name as an example ... Two generations of seeking lessons from Socrates, ignoring whatever meaning the hemlock had, took place before we find Aristotle finally admitting 'For there are two things one might justly credit Socrates with, arguments by example and universal definition,' (p. 260). A real philosopher ought to do better than that."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)