Metal Reviews

Upper class-lower class didn't emerge just because Marx identified it. Honestly, though, isn't her family a sort of a little short on change and they're trying to get the daughters married off to give them a stable life. The innovation is in that Austen was writing against arranged marriages based on property accumulation, land merges and gentry respect. Her characters fell in love that superceded basic material demands. You don't need Marx for that, silly. It's a lot more Mary Wollstonecraft then Marx.

I kinda agree with Kolakowski that the reason Adorno is so hard to understand is more that he uses this ridiculous vernacular of Hegelese jargon that means nothing to 99% of people without making any attempt to explain what those terms mean... and that's the reason he's hard, rather than because he talks about anything especially deep. That being said, how would I know, given that I don't understand him either way?

Let's just say I SUSPECT Kolakowski is right, but I don't really have the wherewithall to find out for myself.

Nah, in all seriousness, I understand some Adorno- his debate on positivism with Pooper is very understandable and really interesting- as much as any debate on positivism can be, anyway. I think critical theory as a whole is really interesting as a means of analysing the world and as a philosophical continuation/break from Marxism. It's when they get onto stuff requiring knowledge of (and interest in, tbh) Heidegger and Kierkegaard etc. that I switch off a little with a hurting brain.

I can understand the Heidegger distrust but Kierkegaard is a really good read. He's difficult at times but his thoughts on authenticity have some influence on how to look at alienation. Sartre's as well. Both of them are much more readable than the big H, as long as you stay away from Kierkegaard's Sickness Unto Death, which is by far the most unreadable text ever. It pissed me off that In Defense of Lost Causes was a big analysis of Heidegger who I have utter disdain for due to not being able to understand him.

The book I'm reading on Adorno even addresses the fact that he isn't doing anything complex most of the time but he simply fails to define things which leaves the reader clueless. I'm curious if his work with Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, is any more readable? I think we just need to wrestle with some Hegel. And where the hell can you find that book on positivism? I've looked for it and always see it out of print.

Finished David Foster Wallace's The Broom of the System. It was good, a lot less out there than Infinite Jest but still lots of memorable characters, interesting ideas and great writing.

Started Shantaram by Greggory David Roberts but then stopped two pages in because he was trying way too hard and it made me want to hit someone.

Not sure what to read now :(

Shantaram blows, nevermind that. he makes himself look like a righteous, seductive, badass gangster, tries way too hard with the "our lips met like the crest of the waves of the ____ bay"-type crap, and somehow attempts to rationalise Khaderbhai's mafia activities (money trading, smuggling, murder etc.) vs. the other gangs' prostitution, drug trafficking and murder.

seriously, what a waste of time, i can't believe i actually finished that book.

Started Bukowski's Women.
Yay, misogyny!

Maybe I should get some beginner's guide to existentialism or something. But yeah, you're right that Hegel is the key- it's high time I actually made an effort to get to grips.

Re: the positivism thing, there is a really, really ancient copy in my University library... half the pages are falling out, so I worry that some day the library might realise and get rid of it. Maybe they'll let me have it if they do.

I have that Russell- History of Western Philosophy. Do you know how that is for getting a decent overview/introduction to various continental philosophers e.g. Hegel, Kierkegaard? I'm wondering whether to actually try to read it all the way through or just keep it for reference. Seems pretty easy to read though for a non-philosopher such as I.

Russell's History was written while he was in prison with no access to original texts or notes. Basically, all off the top of his head. It's an intro and only that. If you read it straight through I think you'd get into some Plato, Aristotle and rationalist v empiricism which you don't necessarily need. The Kant bits might be worth the twenty minutes.

Honestly, I think with Kierkegaard you could basically get all you need out of a secondary text on him. What he wrote delves as much into literature as it does philosophy. I'll ask some professors and see what I can find as far as Heidegger and Kierkegaard references. One of my old profs is a pro on them both.

Bukowski is awesome.

I've read the first half or so of History of Western Philosophy and it's pretty interesting, although he goes fairly in depth into historical stuff like the conflict between the monarchy and the priesthood. Haven't gotten to Kierkegaard/Hehel stuff. I've heard he sucks at talking about Kant.

Hm, ok, maybe I'll keep it as a reference for now. Yeah, all these people I think I ought to just read secondary texts on. I just get aggravated trying to read them myself.

Anyhoo, just finished my (abridged) version of Capital I-III. Now concentrating on EP Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class.

Love, War and Poverty - A Collection of Essays by Christopher Hitchens.

Apart from the usual anti-Mother Theresa and whatnot bashing, there's some interesting articles on Bob Dylan, Michael Moore, etc.

Oh I have that book.

me2. His writing bugged me and I don't think I got more than 5 pages in.

A Clash of Kings

I was supposed to read Latro in the Mist after A Game of Thrones but there's no way in hell I can take a break from this series until I know what happens to the Starks.

Yeah Chris Hitchens can be kind of a douchebag sometimes. He's often entertaining though. Although some of that book is kinda silly. "Michael Moore is propaganda"- take that, sacred cow!

Recreationally - Understanding Comics

It tickles both the comics fan and the English major in me.

For school -

The Good Soldier
Measure for Measure
More Rome and more Marx as well

I love his writing style- I subscribed to Slate on my kindle and Vanity Fair just for his columns.

Anyway, I had never really thought about Fahrenheit 9/11 that much. Definitely made me more critical.

Yeah, that's the problem. Silly people like Fridge took Farenheit 9/11 at face value and wholeheartedly embraced it as fact instead of liberal propaganda, which it is. BUT THAT'S THE POINT, and for Hitchens to defend the Iraq war and spend so much time criticising Mother Theresa shows (IMHO at least) that he's going about it cockeyed. I do agree with some of his stuff, though most of his anti-Michael Moore points are pretty obvious to anyone with a brain. MM's not being objective! WOMFG!

And yes, he can be an annoying writer.

He's a polemicist- but he's also almost always right. Or at the very least, very convincing.

Hitchens or Moore? I like what Moore says, just not how he says it.