TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- What Are You Reading? Part Deux.
Pages (33): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 »

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII \I think that philosophy should be mandatory for any student at university. Teaches you basic critical thinking, which god knows everyone needs a bit more of

+ 1 million.

Created a goodreads account. scootsmagoo

add me for I yearn for books and more books. Bookingly.

Just read Dostoyevski's Notes from the underground, which was fucking brilliant.

Now reading "We", which is well and truly living up to the hype created in the other thread

Started on LOTR and my god i was expecting a simple story. The first 10 pages talks about the Baggins family tree. Very detailed, i really can't wait to keep going.

quote:

Originally posted by Tasty Onions

Close to finishing this, fucking excellent. Real workout for the brain, too, at least for a math noob like me.

After reading that, i hope you're about to create a time machine by using a wormhole with your mind.

C0R: Wat ze hel did you reed?

There's a formula from geometry called the Polyhedron Formula, which says:

Vertices - Edges + Faces = 2

This formula holds for "ordinary" polyhedra like cubes, spheres, and octahedrons, but also for some less familiar ones, too. Then you have more exotic shapes, like a torus ("donut"):



The formula doesn't hold the same for them. So the natural question is, what's the number for V-E+F in the case of a torus? Turns out it's 0. And what you can do is classify different shapes by the number you get with the formula V-E+F.

Topology is (partly) based around the idea that shapes with the same number (called "Euler Characteristic") are in some sense really the "same" shape, when viewed from a broader perspective. So, for example, you can view a cube as basically just a sphere that has been "deformed" into a different shape. You can get the ordinary polyhedra by poking and prodding a sphere, but you can't get a torus (for example) without doing something more drastic: cutting a hole in it.

[Edit: Wiki has a neat animation demonstrating "equivalence" between two different shapes, a coffee cup and a donut.]



That's just the beginning, but I won't babble on. The book goes into detail about the people who discovered different aspects of topology and related areas, and gives some of their proofs for theorems and stuff.

That animation doesn't show anything at all.

It just tells me that one shape can be made into another if it's play-doh.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Have you ever read the book!? Where in the book does he say anything remotely similar to this? I'm no fan of Sam Harris, and I didn't even like the book very much, but if you're going to criticise a work an author has penned, read it. Philosophical qualities aside, Harris' style is a lot clearer and well-founded. I'm glad he's no Nietzsche, otherwise this book would be begging for more misunderstandings than the one you've just provided!

sorry, meant "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. i can quote relevant passages if you like.

I assume this new book streams from that same approach: Utilitarian calculus.

Avoiding all the discussion you just had with EgosXII, the main reason to read Nietzsche is he does not resort to the same tired methods of argument. He studies why a particular system of morality is able to emerge at all rather than argue about which system is the best. For Nietzsche, a type of person will correspond to a type of morality, rather than morality emerging out of reasoned argument. "Reasoned argument" is itself entrenched in particular ways of knowing/thinking as part of a historical process, and so has very little to do with Truth apart from that Truth it envisions itself finding.

I remember lurking around and reading somewhere that you've read Hegel. If you've read and know Hegel then why do you care about style? If you are able to navigate his writings effectively then Nietzsche should be child's play. Style isn't an appendage to a work, style is the practice that generates the theory.

quote:

Originally posted by Tasty Onions Topology is (partly) based around the idea that shapes with the same number (called "Euler Characteristic") are in some sense really the "same" shape, when viewed from a broader perspective. So, for example, you can view a cube as basically just a sphere that has been "deformed" into a different shape. You can get the ordinary polyhedra by poking and prodding a sphere, but you can't get a torus (for example) without doing something more drastic: cutting a hole in it. [Edit: Wiki has a neat animation demonstrating "equivalence" between two different shapes, a coffee cup and a donut.]

this is flippin' cool.

That looks super cool, Brian. Too bad I suck at math worse than you

I just finished Physics of the Impossible. Fucking fantastic. Wrote a mini-little review on Goodreads about it for those of you who are there (Brian and everyone else sign up, dammit )

Going to read Dune 2 now as a bit of a mental break before moving to either the Evolution book or Neuromancer.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews That looks super cool, Brian. Too bad I suck at math worse than you I just finished Physics of the Impossible. Fucking fantastic. Wrote a mini-little review on Goodreads about it for those of you who are there (Brian and everyone else sign up, dammit ) Going to read Dune 2 now as a bit of a mental break before moving to either the Evolution book or Neuromancer.

"we" is awesome

quote:

Originally posted by pozz sorry, meant "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. i can quote relevant passages if you like.

I'm sure Oscar will want to talk about Sam Harris more than I do

quote:

Originally posted by pozz I assume this new book streams from that same approach: Utilitarian calculus.

Sort of. He agrees he's a consequentialist, but he refuses to be called a utilitarian because (if I recall correctly) of his emphasis on science. That makes his utilitarianism a lot less problematic than Bentham's. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Harris' work (despite my posts in this thread, the books I like easily outnumber the books I don't like). My main criticism regarding this book is that, even though he talks about the wonders of science and reason, he manages to ignore all the discussion that took place before him, probably because no one else hated religion as much as he does (that's the only conclusion I can arrive at after he criticises Mill).

quote:

Originally posted by pozz Avoiding all the discussion you just had with EgosXII, the main reason to read Nietzsche is he does not resort to the same tired methods of argument. He studies why a particular system of morality is able to emerge at all rather than argue about which system is the best. For Nietzsche, a type of person will correspond to a type of morality, rather than morality emerging out of reasoned argument. "Reasoned argument" is itself entrenched in particular ways of knowing/thinking as part of a historical process, and so has very little to do with Truth apart from that Truth it envisions itself finding.

I know his work, and the whole master/slave morality dichotomy. Really

quote:

Originally posted by pozz I remember lurking around and reading somewhere that you've read Hegel. If you've read and know Hegel then why do you care about style? If you are able to navigate his writings effectively then Nietzsche should be child's play. Style isn't an appendage to a work, style is the practice that generates the theory.

Actually, I read Hegel's most accessible work (Introduction to Philosophy of History). Besides, it's not the difficulty that bothers me (I absolutely love Kierkegaard), but the way he comes to his conclusions and the conclusions themselves. Like I said, it's his project I'm sceptical about (and I admit there's a chance I'm being unfair here).

World War Z

finishing Robinson Crusoe, don't want to finish it cuz its sooo good so saving the end til some ither time.
Meantime I have Kafka short stories that I never read but heard about from so many people. So far very wierd. Me thinks, the Metamorphosis is gonna be one of those

As suggested earlier in this thread. Fucking immense (especially for someone such as myself who is a pesky American without much knowledge regarding the history of this continent as it was entirely brushed aside in my schooling and I just recently took initiative to rectify that and become familiar).

I find narrative histories such as this of different countries and continents and whatnot verrry intriguing so if you guys have recommendations akin to shit like this lemme know.

Just finished Norwegian Wood by Murakami. I really enjoyed it. It was very depressing, but entirely refreshing at the same time. Also very sexual!

I've been extremely busy lately and haven't been able to focus on a single book, so I've been reading short stories out of this when I get a chance. Pretty enjoyable so far, no space-operas or the like.

John Stuart Mill "Utilitarianism"
an den sum
James Rachels "Cultural Relativism"

I think Plato might be next

quote:

Originally posted by justin I think Plato might be next

then you can read some mussolini, same message lolololol

quote:

Originally posted by EgosXII then you can read some mussolini, same message lolololol

"The Allegory of the Cave" would surely become a Hollywood hit if it was called "The Bunker Myth"

books

is dey good

or is dey wack?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.