Just finished "What is Life?: How Chemistry Becomes Biology," by Addy Pross. I think @Wayfarer recommended it to me, but I can't find the post.

I liked the book. It has interesting detail about how evolution starts, not with life, but with replicative chemistry, which in turn provides the mechanism by which non-living matters becomes living organisms . That's something I was looking for after reading "Life's Ratchet" by Peter Hoffman, which deals more with how life works chemically and mechanically at the cellular level rather than how it began.

The book was a bit too breezy, gee whiz, pop sciencey for my taste. More importantly, Pross had a drum to bang, which he did over and over. His point - biology is chemistry. Reductionism is the right way to look at things. Many times here on the forum I have banged my own drum about reductionism with a reference to "More is Different," an article by P.W Anderson which strongly disputes the reductionist viewpoint. Pross has made me rethink that position, although he hasn't changed my mind. What annoyed me is that I don't see how the dispute is relevant to the information about how life starts that I was really interested in.

Still, worth reading.

I think I mentioned that other book, which Apokrisis mentioned.

Dialectic of Enlightenment by Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno — Jamal

Finished it. Pessimistic but also utopian, outrageous but also convincing, obscure but also polemical, bitter but also humane, anti-enlightenment but also pro-enlightenment. Dialectical thinking is addictive and I'm seeking contradictions everywhere. Adorno believed that the dialectic couldn't be set out theoretically, only shown in practice; I think this work is a good exemplar.

One of the keys to appreciating the work comes in the third chapter:

only exaggeration is true

It turns out that this was probably written by Horkheimer, not Adorno, and I appreciated it, because it showed me how to understand the whole book.

Generally, it's really interesting to compare the styles and approaches of the two authors. It seems that while the chapters "The Concept of Enlightenment" and "The Culture Industry" were 50/50, the chapter on Odysseus was mostly written by Adorno, the chapter on Juliette almost entirely by Horkheimer. Horkheimer is the clearer writer and seems to build arguments more explicitly, while at the same time is more brutal, caustic, and pessimistic. He is motivated by love and despair for humanity. Adorno is all over the place but is more playful and even sometimes mystical. He is motivated by love and despair for the fading Western tradition of literature, music, and philosophy.

As aficionados will notice from what I've just written, I've begun to mimic their style. It's like the first time I saw The Karate Kid only more Hegelian.

I won't say more because I want to start a discussion about it, but I'm not sure how to go about it yet.

I now have a rabbit hole of supplementary reading — Jamal

I'm even seriously considering reading Hegel.

I'm even seriously considering reading Hegel. — Jamal

:yikes:

Dude, read Adorno's Negative Dialectics before you lobotomize yourself with Hegelian dialectics. :mask:

Yeah that’s on my list too. :grin:

I think I mentioned that other book, which Apokrisis mentioned. — Wayfarer

I guess you must have recommended it in one of the other branches of the multiverse.

On Physics and Philosophy by Bernard D'Espagnat

New Essays on Human Understanding by GW Leibniz

Melancholy of Resistance by László Krasznahorkai

:lol:

I think you'll find D'Espagnat a pretty hard slog, I took it out of the library but I must confess it defeated me, although I wanted to like it.

Melancholy of Resistance by László Krasznahorkai — Manuel

Great book

Damn man, I actually find it quite intuitive! :rofl: Maybe because I agree with what he's saying. Probably Art Hobson's Tales of the Quantum may merit a look, it's fantastic, tough, but I like how Hobson thinks, takes QM as is, no Many Worlds, no fancy stuff - just interpreting the data and what is means.

Might have helped here, am not sure.



It is excellent, so far, I am liking it more than Satantango, then again, Satantango's brilliance came out in the last 6 pages or so. We'll see, but amazing so far.

Horkheimer’s Eclipse of Reason — Jamal

It was good. More pedestrian than Dialectic of Enlightenment, and while it’s much clearer, it’s perhaps less persuasive. The critique of pragmatism is good, and I’m already primed to agree with it, though I haven’t actually read much of the American pragmatists so I’m not sure how fair the criticism is. On the whole it doesn’t go into things in much depth and really just gives a kind of overview of the concerns and the approach of the Frankfurt School.

In the chapter on the individual, Horkheimer contrasts the period of the liberal entrepreneur with the technocratic administered capitalism of big business. It’s hard not to read into his words a nostalgia for the old-fashioned business practices of his father, who had a very successful textile business.

But he concludes that chapter with this:

The real individuals of our time are the martyrs who have gone through infernos of suffering and degradation in their resistance to conquest and oppression, not the inflated personalities of popular culture, the conventional dignitaries. These unsung heroes consciously exposed their existence as individuals to the terroristic annihilation that others undergo unconsciously through the social process. The anonymous martyrs of the concentration camps are the symbols of the humanity that is striving to be born. The task of philosophy is to translate what they have done into language that will be heard, even though their finite voices have been silenced by tyranny.

Next, because I started this and might as well do it properly:

The Origin of Negative Dialectics by Susan Buck-Morss
Lectures on Negative Dialectics by Theodor Adorno

And maybe some of Adorno’s other lectures, such as those on the Critique of Pure Reason (which will be a re-read) and on Philosophy and Sociology.

If that goes well I’d like to read Negative Dialectics itself, although there doesn’t seem to be a well-regarded translation.

The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society
by Jürgen Habermas

The role of the sphere of intellectual discourse and literature in the context of modern governance. Looks good.

March/April readings:

The consolation of philosophy by Boethius.

Why I am not Christian by Bertrand Russell.

Christ recrucified by Nikos Kazantzakis (recommended by @Alkis Piskas)

Rereading: Fear and Trembling;The Concept of Anxiety, Kierkegaard.

Ola! I noted down the first two, to have a look at them.
(I dislike a lot existentialism (re Kierkegaard) and esp. Sartre).

I understand! Nonetheless, I personally think that both Kierkegaard and Sartre are worthy to read about. :smile:

Maybe. If someone has nothing better to read! :grin:

If someone has nothing better to read! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

:rofl: :100:

Thanks for bringing in these reading suggestions.

Re Boethius's "The consolation of philosophy":

I had a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Consolation_of_Philosophy
Very interesting key subjects for contemplation and discussion: mind, happiness comes from within, predestination vs free will, determinism, the problem of evil, human nature, virtue, and justice. Wow! What an advanced philosophical agenda for that period of time!

***

Re Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not Christian":

Bertrand Russell answers Why I am not Christian?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3b35KkSo-A
Highly recommended! :ok:

From https://weneedtotalkaboutbooks.com/2016/09/15/book-review-why-i-am-not-a-christian/, I liked that Russell had not been engaged in finding flaws in the arguments for the existence of God --anyone can do this and I guess a lot have done it publicly-- but instead:
"Russell chooses to devote his energy to the more difficult interrelated targets proposed by religion’s defenders; that religion, even if untrue, provides an ethical framework to prevent immoral behaviour, it provides emotional comfort, it is useful and beneficial to society and, specific to Christianity, that Christ was among the best and wisest of men."
This is a much more interesting approach and I have also used it myself a few times.

***

About book reading:
The thing is that I have a backlog of materials to read based on priority, and I devote very little time of my life in reading books. To this, add that I am not a fast reader!
I believe this is not the case for you and a lot of other people in here.

P.S. I could try audio books, but I don't think one can find special books one wants to read, like the above for instance. The other solution is our second-to-book companions: YouTube videos! E.g. the one from Russel I brought up above.

Re Boethius's "The consolation of philosophy": — Alkis Piskas

Wow! What an advanced philosophical agenda for that period of time! — Alkis Piskas

This is the book I began with. It is interesting and has deep philosophical inquiries. Another fact to consider is that the book is written in two forms: prose and verse. For example: It begins with a philosophical verse (or poem) like, "To crown with glittering office their ambitions/such blessings leave them cold/relentless greed devours those earlier grains/reopens wide its jaws." Can headlong lust be curbed by any reins, be bounded by fixed laws?... And then Boethius writes a paragraph where he explains his views on life and aspirations through philosophy (influenced by Plato and neo-Platonist)

Great.

Please, find the time to watch --actually, listen-- Russel's video. Even I found the time for that! :smile:
I think you will love it. There's subtle and witty humor in it, which always make watching/listening easier and more fun.

Please, find the time to watch --actually, listen-- Russel's video. — Alkis Piskas

I just watched and listened it. I am not going to lie: this footage or tape is so awesome and with a big philosophical value. I am agree with Russell when he says that Christianity has now another concept or at least, Christians act differently to past times.
On the other hand, it surprised me his voice! I never expected such lightness. Well, it is true that old tapes tend to distort voices...

Glad you liked it!
I think it's something rare. I consider it a great Seminar on Logic.

And it's thanks to you that I had this opportunity to listen to this pearl.
(I have downloaded the video and kept the audio as MP3.)

And it's thanks to you that I had this opportunity to listen to this pearl.
(I have downloaded the video and kept the audio as MP3.) — Alkis Piskas

:up: :100:

The New Spirit of Capitalism by Eve Chiapello and Luc Boltanski

I'm rereading "Tao - The Watercourse Way" by Alan Watts. I haven't read it in more than 30 years. It surprises me how sophisticated his argument against reductionism is. He brings up a lot of issues that I don't normally associate with Taoism, but he helps me see the connection.

The Origin of Negative Dialectics by Susan Buck-Morss — Jamal

Just finished this. A clear and excellent introduction to Adorno but not entry-level. Significantly focused on the influence of Walter Benjamin.

A break from Adorno now: The Gay Science by Friedrich Nietzsche

For the first time in my life, I am able to spell his name without copying and pasting from a Google search. I decided to break it down: niet-z-sche, which is easy to remember.

For the first time in my life, I am able to spell his name without copying and pasting from a Google search. — Jamal

I'm going to stick with Knee-chee.

Interesting passage I’ve just read from Minima Moralia. It goes against the sort of view I’ve usually advocated:

The familiar argument of tolerance, that all people and all races are equal, is a boomerang. It lays itself open to the simple refutation of the senses, and the most compelling anthropological proofs that the Jews are not a race will, in the event of a pogrom, scarcely alter the fact that the totalitarians know full well whom they do and whom they do not intend to murder. If the equality of all who have human shape were demanded as an ideal instead of being assumed as a fact, it would not greatly help. Abstract utopia is all too compatible with the most insidious tendencies of society. That all men are alike is exactly what society would like to hear. It regards factual or imagined differences as marks of shame, which reveal, that one has not brought things far enough; that something somewhere has been left free of the machine, is not totally determined by the totality. … An emancipated society however would be no unitary state, but the realization of the generality in the reconciliation of differences. A politics which took this seriously should therefore not propagate even the idea of the abstract equality of human beings. They should rather point to the bad equality of today … and think of the better condition as the one in which one could be different without fear. — Adorno, Minima Moralia

Fits very well with current arguments against “colour blindness”.

A politics which took this seriously should therefore not propagate even the idea of the abstract equality of human beings. They should rather point to the bad equality of today … and think of the better condition as the one in which one could be different without fear. — Adorno, Minima Moralia

This kind of idea always seems to me to miss the point. For me, it comes back to the words of the US Declaration of Independence—We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. And that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—All people are created morally equal. Equally deserving of respect and freedom. Whatever differences there are are overshadowed by that unavoidable equality.

Yes, good point and I see that. But it’s not enough is it? That a country beset with racism was founded on egalitarianism might prompt us to wonder if there’s something wrong, or at least deficient, with that founding idea.