If I choose the Encyclopædia Britannica, does that mean that everyone in the world would have a general understanding of most subject matters or just that they'd be able to read said encyclopedia?
I don't know if it's the best choice, but Les Misérables springs to mind. I think the book in particular captures so well that inner turmoil of an impossible choice, but realisation that the selfless act is the most necessary one. I'm not religious, but I think if more people acted like the Bishop or Jean Valjean (especially those people who claim to be Christian but hold no Christian values) the world would be a better place. And it shows how just because an authority is the one holding power, it doesn't necessarily make it correct in its decisions.
Most of the people doing terrible shit in the name of the bible are the same people that understand nothing about the bible. If more people understood it, I feel like fewer people would be theists (or at least Christian since it's only one book).
Most of the people doing terrible shit in the name of the bible are the same people that understand nothing about the bible
So much so.
Also too many love to hate on the Bible without ever reading it, only considering that since many assholes are claiming the Bible as theirs, the Bible must be bad.
To sum up such a colossal work is of course impossible, but if the general idea of life were framed as an individual navigating a map given to them by the circumstances they are born into and the opportunities given, D & G assert that one should become their own cartographer, and I daresay they mean predominantly in the psychic realm, where the process of being holds the greatest potential.
They also frame the human experience as less about static definitions of objects/subjects, and more about process, about becoming, about flow; the production of life and possibilities rather than a static map to navigate within.
Another simplified statement about their work would be to say it is akin to acid, without the drugs.
it is not easy to read, nor is there any one particular interpretation more valid than another. They like to define things as they relate to dynamic process rather than as static meanings inherent in words. To the consternation of many in traditional fields related to philosophy, they even change the meanings of many key tenants as they go along, forcing the reader to re-examine the relationship of the words, their meanings, and how they relate to process.
They move through topics with a fluidity not typically seen in philosophical works, covering a broad range of ideas and interpretations as passed down by some of the greatest thinkers known to man. They approach the book as if it were a record where one is free to drop the needle wherever, and be met with pattern and repetition, but also with development and flow, building and elaborating as it circles.
How to Read a Book will make you better informed on what to actually read from that list, though I'd definitely recommend reading some non-western works as well, The Bhagavad Gita, The Conference of the Birds etc.
30 Comments
elevenbones@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 1d
What in god's name are those commas doing?
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 1d
I may or may not have been mildly edibled.
AliasVortex@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1d
If I choose the Encyclopædia Britannica, does that mean that everyone in the world would have a general understanding of most subject matters or just that they'd be able to read said encyclopedia?
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
Interesting choice. They understand it, not just remember it.
johsny@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1d
Demon haunted world by Sagan.
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 1d
That's definitely a good one, science literacy and our relationship with knowing things.
OmegaMouse@pawb.social · 6 pts · 1d
I don't know if it's the best choice, but Les Misérables springs to mind. I think the book in particular captures so well that inner turmoil of an impossible choice, but realisation that the selfless act is the most necessary one. I'm not religious, but I think if more people acted like the Bishop or Jean Valjean (especially those people who claim to be Christian but hold no Christian values) the world would be a better place. And it shows how just because an authority is the one holding power, it doesn't necessarily make it correct in its decisions.
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1d
I agree, great pick!
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 4 pts · 1d
The Bible.
Most of the people doing terrible shit in the name of the bible are the same people that understand nothing about the bible. If more people understood it, I feel like fewer people would be theists (or at least Christian since it's only one book).
Libb@piefed.social · 4 pts · 1d
So much so.
Also too many love to hate on the Bible without ever reading it, only considering that since many assholes are claiming the Bible as theirs, the Bible must be bad.
Kolanaki@pawb.social · 1 pts · 1d
Well at least, hopefully, they would understand LOVE THY NEIGHBOR.
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1d
I would be inclined to agree it would likely degrade their faith. Would be wild if it didn't though and you just made the world more christian, lol.
Adverse_Reaction@anarchist.nexus · 4 pts · 1d
Capitalism and Schizophrenia by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
What made you think of that one?
Adverse_Reaction@anarchist.nexus · 4 pts · 1d
It has the potential to fundamentally change the way people view reality and their agency of action.
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
How so?
Adverse_Reaction@anarchist.nexus · 1 pts · 1d
To sum up such a colossal work is of course impossible, but if the general idea of life were framed as an individual navigating a map given to them by the circumstances they are born into and the opportunities given, D & G assert that one should become their own cartographer, and I daresay they mean predominantly in the psychic realm, where the process of being holds the greatest potential.
They also frame the human experience as less about static definitions of objects/subjects, and more about process, about becoming, about flow; the production of life and possibilities rather than a static map to navigate within.
Another simplified statement about their work would be to say it is akin to acid, without the drugs.
it is not easy to read, nor is there any one particular interpretation more valid than another. They like to define things as they relate to dynamic process rather than as static meanings inherent in words. To the consternation of many in traditional fields related to philosophy, they even change the meanings of many key tenants as they go along, forcing the reader to re-examine the relationship of the words, their meanings, and how they relate to process.
They move through topics with a fluidity not typically seen in philosophical works, covering a broad range of ideas and interpretations as passed down by some of the greatest thinkers known to man. They approach the book as if it were a record where one is free to drop the needle wherever, and be met with pattern and repetition, but also with development and flow, building and elaborating as it circles.
Here is basic reading on their work:
Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia
A simpler attempt to a similar end would be Quantum Psychology by Robert Anton Wilson
More about Quantum Psychology can be found here.
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
That sounds fascinating. How do you think the world would change?
Adverse_Reaction@anarchist.nexus · 1 pts · 10h
Desire could be reclaimed from capitalism and made to benefit people instead.
noretus@crazypeople.online · 3 pts · 1d
How to Read a Book
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1d
Oh that's interesting, I will have to check it out.
Almacca@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 1d
I'm intrigued, but the recommended reading list on that page is a tad intimidating. There's SO MUCH!
noretus@crazypeople.online · 1 pts · 1d
How to Read a Book will make you better informed on what to actually read from that list, though I'd definitely recommend reading some non-western works as well, The Bhagavad Gita, The Conference of the Birds etc.
Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online · 3 pts · 1d
I was going to say I'll steer away from politics on this one but Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions is certainly political lol.
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
Ah I haven't thought of flatland in ages!
Terrapinjoe@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
The Power Broker by Robert Caro. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_Broker
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 1d
What do you think people would take from it?
Lydon_Feen@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1d
1984
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1d
Oh, clasic
Almacca@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 1d
Voltaire's Bastards by John Ralston Saul.