[{"content":"Summary\nMayer initially planned to go to Germany in 1935 to interview Hitler himself. He failed to secure an interview but discovered, to his horror, that the Nazi movement had more mass appeal than he had previously expected. He decided to switch tactics and focus on the experience of the man on the ground. How does a person, who in most other respects would be considered normal or even good, get swept up in a genocidal ideology? After the war he moved to a small town that had strong support for the NSDAP before, during, and after WW2. He made genuine relationships with 10 of the residents and engaged them in extended interviews. The first half of this book is essentially these interviews, organized into a clear timeline. The second half is Mayer attempting to psychoanalyze Germany as a whole based on what he had learned from these interviews.\nThoughts\nTo get the bad stuff out of the way first, I think it is a mistake to attempt to psychoanalyze an entire country, especially based off of 10 interviews. The second half of this book is largely a showcase of Mayer\u0026rsquo;s erudition, which is impressive, but not in an original or startling way. When people try to explain the decisions of a nation in psychological terms there is seldom anything of value added. These conversations will likely be explicitly racist, or in an attempt to not be, they will become vague enough to match what you\u0026rsquo;d see from astrological readings.\nThis being said, the first half of the book was unique, and worth reading. I think one buys a book like this in an attempt to see \u0026ldquo;how we went wrong\u0026rdquo; hopefully to avoid it happening again in the future. Additionally, they might expect to learn how to communicate with people \u0026ldquo;on the other side\u0026rdquo;. This book suggests that these ideas may be too optimistic. Mayer, of German Jewish descent himself, drew on his strongest asset: his humanity and ability to create real connections with people who had and continued to have ideologies specifically hateful towards people like him. But this proved not enough; in almost every case there was no appreciable change in the position of his 10 interviewees. The only conclusion one can draw from this is pessimistic.\nThe other conclusion this book underlines is that, even though it feels cliche to say at this point, almost anyone could become a Nazi. The reason this conclusion is usually rejected mentally is that we make Nazi and monster equivalent terms. This is not how they are experienced locally. Locally it appears as a mixed bag, some good, some bad. The bad is ignored, and the good emphasized. One small hope that can be taken from this book is that the least \u0026ldquo;Nazi\u0026rdquo; of the 10 was a schoolteacher. This is not to say that education saves you from bad ideology, but I do firmly believe that exposure to the world in all its complexity should impress upon one, the smallness of their own mental life. This still requires a receptive personality, and in a nation of millions one can expect there to be several hundred thousand who are not receptive. Unfortunately, with the right leadership, that is all it takes to create suffering on a historical scale.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/they-thought-they-were-free-the-germans-1933-45/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMayer initially planned to go to Germany in 1935 to interview Hitler himself. He failed to secure an interview but discovered, to his horror, that the Nazi movement had more mass appeal than he had previously expected.\nHe decided to switch tactics and focus on the experience of the man on the ground. How does a person, who in most other respects would be considered normal or even good, get swept up in a genocidal ideology?\nAfter the war he moved to a small town that had strong support for the NSDAP before, during, and after WW2. He made genuine relationships with 10 of the residents and engaged them in extended interviews. The first half of this book is essentially these interviews, organized into a clear timeline. The second half is Mayer attempting to psychoanalyze Germany as a whole based on what he had learned from these interviews.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45"},{"content":"This is a cursory look at the countries that have been arbitrarily grouped together since before WW1. He focuses mainly on Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, and what used to be Yugoslavia. Even though the grouping of \u0026ldquo;The Balkans\u0026rdquo; is largely one of convention, Kaplan argues that the suffering and tragic histories act as a glue that makes their stories inseparable from each other. Instead of writing a full review, I\u0026rsquo;ll relate a story that I found illustrative of the complexities of the region.\nTransylvanian Saxons\nTransylvania is a region formed by the Carpathian mountains, which ring the area in central Romania. It is, of course, best known for Bram Stoker\u0026rsquo;s Count Dracula, as well as the historical figure who inspired him, Vlad the Impaler.\nBack in the 12th century, Transylvania was under the control of the King of Hungary. He faced a problem: nomadic raiders threatened his eastern frontiers, and there wasn\u0026rsquo;t much built out there to act as a buffer to slow invading armies before they reached Hungary. So the solution he came up with was to sponsor waves of immigrants from western regions of Europe near modern-day Luxembourg, Belgium, and the Netherlands. At that time, those areas were overpopulated and underemployed, so the King sent out recruiters to convince people to move over one thousand miles east to Transylvania. As an aside, the term \u0026ldquo;Saxon\u0026rdquo; is something of a misnomer—few of these settlers actually came from the region known today as Saxony yet the name stuck. The King made various promises, including the ability for the Saxons to govern themselves and be exempt from local Transylvanian taxes, instead remitting taxes directly to the King of Hungary. As a result, so many people made the move that it supposedly inspired the folk tale of the Pied Piper, because for the people who were left behind, it was as if a large group of them had disappeared overnight.\nThese groups of migrants refused to integrate with the locals, instead opting to create their own enclaves of communities in a similar fashion to the Amish in the US. Unfortunately for the newly founded Saxon settlements, the Mongols swept through the area in 1241, destroying the new settlements without completely wiping out their residents. As a result, the Saxons rebuilt villages around fortified churches known as Kirchenburgen, which would eventually be surrounded by stone walls. The Saxons are said to have founded 300 such villages, but 7 of them would become quite large and now represent some of the biggest cities in Romania. In fact, the German name for Transylvania, \u0026ldquo;Siebenbürgen,\u0026rdquo; translates to \u0026ldquo;Seven Fortresses\u0026rdquo; in reference to these cities.\nMostly due to their refusal to integrate with the Romanian peasantry, they created a tight-knit group that was treated as a separate entity by the law. But as history kept moving, their privileged place in Romania began to show signs of weakening. This led to reluctant support of the unification of Romania by the Saxons after the end of World War 1. Although they supported the unification on paper, the loss of property in the land reforms and the reduced political power in the region played a large role in the popularity of the Nazi party in the buildup to World War 2.\nThe Saxons in Transylvania always managed to think of themselves as Germans, and Hitler\u0026rsquo;s message of Aryanism resonated so strongly that 95% of able-bodied men in the region ended up in military service for Germany during World War 2. This was approximately 63,000 people, of which only a few thousand would ever return to Romania. The loss of the Germans in the war meant that Romania was almost instantly occupied by Soviet forces. The hatred between Germans and Russians fostered by the Eastern Front was so intense that around 100,000 Germans fled before the arrival of the Soviet forces. The Russians proceeded to arrest more than 70,000 of those who had stayed and shipped them off to labor camps in Ukraine, where most were never heard from again.\nThe population decline didn\u0026rsquo;t stop there. During the communist era, Nicolae Ceaușescu\u0026rsquo;s regime struck a uniquely cynical bargain with West Germany—effectively selling ethnic Germans for hard currency. Between 1969 and 1989, approximately 220,000 people were \u0026ldquo;purchased\u0026rdquo; in this way, with West Germany paying per head for the privilege of repatriating them. When these Saxons finally arrived in Germany after 800 years away, many found that native Germans viewed them not as long-lost kin but as Romanians, making their integration into German society an unexpectedly lonely experience. The Transylvanian Saxons are now about 4% of their peak population.\nConclusion\nThe Transylvanian Saxons is a unique story in the Balkans, but take the shifting populations, negligent foreign governance, corrupt and hostile local governance, rags to riches and back again, then finally mix in a sprinkle of disgust for your neighbors and you have all the essential ingredients to any Balkan story.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/balkan-ghosts/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis is a cursory look at the countries that have been arbitrarily grouped together since before WW1. He focuses mainly on Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, and what used to be Yugoslavia. Even though the grouping of \u0026ldquo;The Balkans\u0026rdquo; is largely one of convention, Kaplan argues that the suffering and tragic histories act as a glue that makes their stories inseparable from each other. Instead of writing a full review, I\u0026rsquo;ll relate a story that I found illustrative of the complexities of the region.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Balkan Ghosts"},{"content":"After reading biographies of Washington and Jefferson, I was quite excited to read more about Hamilton. I thought he would be a shoo-in for my favorite Founding Father, but the reality of his character proved more complex.\nSome of my favorite things about Hamilton:\nHe was the first Secretary of the Treasury and the genius behind the creation of American banking and foreign credit.\nHe was a prolific writer, producing the rough equivalent of 70 novels by the time he was 49.\nHis general political views balanced aristocratic and democratic tendencies almost flawlessly.\nThat being said, Hamilton could be exasperating. He died in a duel shortly after mourning his own son’s death in an equally senseless duel. The reasons for the duel strike the modern reader as absurd. I expected to be crestfallen by the fact that he died young and that America was therefore deprived of his influence, but the older he grew, the worse his views seemed to become. In an oversimplified sense, it was almost as if Washington was necessary to check Hamilton’s impulses, and after Washington’s death, Hamilton lost not only political influence but also a much-needed anchor for his thinking.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/alexander-hamilton/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eAfter reading biographies of Washington and Jefferson, I was quite excited to read more about Hamilton. I thought he would be a shoo-in for my favorite Founding Father, but the reality of his character proved more complex.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSome of my favorite things about Hamilton:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe was the first Secretary of the Treasury and the genius behind the creation of American banking and foreign credit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe was a prolific writer, producing the rough equivalent of 70 novels by the time he was 49.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Alexander Hamilton"},{"content":"Summary\nAre you tired of hearing news stories about Kashmir and wondering why Pakistan and India can\u0026rsquo;t just get along? Can we ever hear any positive news from Sudan? Why does it seem to be in a constant state of turmoil? Why are the borders of some countries straight lines instead of the usual squiggly ones?\nThe world of geopolitics is a complicated place, and there are many approaches one can take to understand it. In Prisoners of Geography, Tim Marshall argues that the most probable route is to look to the land itself for the answers. The main thesis of the book is that there is not enough focus on the \u0026lsquo;geo\u0026rsquo; part of \u0026lsquo;geopolitics\u0026rsquo;. We often spend too much time talking about various ideologies or technologies as driving world events, when reality is often much more affected by land features. For example, on paper it is hard to imagine why the massive empires of China and India have rarely engaged in full-scale conflict—that is until you realize they are separated by the tallest mountain range in the world. This also explains why Tibet is so fiercely contested, as it represents a high ground that neither country is interested in ceding to the other side.\nIt is through this lens that Marshall provides a primer to the world of international relations. He splits the world into ten maps, giving an overview of the modern histories of these locations with special emphasis on the river basins and natural resources contained within.\nThoughts\nI give this book an unqualified endorsement—in both senses of the word. Unqualified because it was a fascinating read, and unqualified because my knowledge of each of these locations is cursory at best. I think there are likely many criticisms leveled at the author for his narrative choice of elevating geography to the prime mover of history. However, if the reader comes to the book with the understanding that the scope of the topic dooms it to oversimplification, I think one could make much worse oversimplifications. Personally, I found this to be a compelling bird\u0026rsquo;s-eye view of the globe. It definitely made me want to study several of them in more detail. In short, this book is a great place to start for those who are interested in broadening their understanding of the world we live in.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/prisoners-of-geography-ten-maps-that-tell-you-everything-you-need-to-know-about-global-politics-politics-of-place-1/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAre you tired of hearing news stories about Kashmir and wondering why Pakistan and India can\u0026rsquo;t just get along? Can we ever hear any positive news from Sudan? Why does it seem to be in a constant state of turmoil? Why are the borders of some countries straight lines instead of the usual squiggly ones?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe world of geopolitics is a complicated place, and there are many approaches one can take to understand it. In Prisoners of Geography, Tim Marshall argues that the most probable route is to look to the land itself for the answers. The main thesis of the book is that there is not enough focus on the \u0026lsquo;geo\u0026rsquo; part of \u0026lsquo;geopolitics\u0026rsquo;. We often spend too much time talking about various ideologies or technologies as driving world events, when reality is often much more affected by land features. For example, on paper it is hard to imagine why the massive empires of China and India have rarely engaged in full-scale conflict—that is until you realize they are separated by the tallest mountain range in the world. This also explains why Tibet is so fiercely contested, as it represents a high ground that neither country is interested in ceding to the other side.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Prisoners of Geography"},{"content":"\u0026ldquo;How does it happen that a writer who\u0026rsquo;s not even very good—and I can say that, I\u0026rsquo;ve read four or five of his books—gets to be in charge of the world\u0026rsquo;s destiny? Or of the entire universe\u0026rsquo;s?\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;If he\u0026rsquo;s not very good why didn\u0026rsquo;t you stop at one?\u0026rdquo;\n**Dark Tower VII, Chapter III **\nStephen King is the Lay’s Potato Chip of authors. His omnipresence makes him an easy target for abuse. The above quotation captures it perfectly. King is a bad writer, but an excellent storyteller—in the same way that Lay’s makes bad chips, but the kind you can’t stop eating.\nHe seems to effortlessly generate tactile, believable worlds. But what makes him memorable is his knack for producing lines that seem to transcend the story itself. These phrases land in the center of the twilight zone—or, as folks in the Dark Tower might say, in Todash Space.\nHere’s one example from the third book:\n\u0026ldquo;He stirs no more from his berth in the cradle—not for years now. He has even stopped speaking in his many voices and laughing.\u0026rdquo;\nThose two sentences are a small masterpiece. The combination of conflicting imagery and emotion is exactly what elevates the series.\nKing also has a gift for inventing words that instantly communicate a vision and provoke a reaction. Take lobstrosities, for example—a four-foot-long crustacean that plucks seagulls from the air at high tide. He doesn’t need to over-describe them; the word makes them easy to imagine.\nThe series’ weakest points come when King leaves his wheelhouse—writing romance, or really just women in general. Some of the “boss fights” also fizzle out, resolving themselves a bit too neatly.\nThat said, the ending is excellent. Finishing a series like this is, I imagine, the hardest part to get right—and the easiest to ruin. King sticks the landing.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-dark-tower-series-books-1-7/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;How does it happen that a writer who\u0026rsquo;s not even very good—and I can say that, I\u0026rsquo;ve read four or five of his books—gets to be in charge of the world\u0026rsquo;s destiny? Or of the entire universe\u0026rsquo;s?\u0026rdquo;\n\u0026ldquo;If he\u0026rsquo;s not very good why didn\u0026rsquo;t you stop at one?\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e**Dark Tower VII, Chapter III **\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStephen King is the Lay’s Potato Chip of authors. His omnipresence makes him an easy target for abuse. The above quotation captures it perfectly. King is a bad writer, but an excellent storyteller—in the same way that Lay’s makes bad chips, but the kind you can’t stop eating.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Dark Tower Series"},{"content":"Summary\nThe year is 1979, and Brezhnev authorizes a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The USSR had been watching developments there uneasily for years. In 1973, Mohammed Daoud Khan ended the Afghan monarchy. Five years later, on April 27–28, 1978, the Marxist PDPA seized power in the Saur Revolution, launching radical reforms and internal purges that fractured Afghan politics. Moscow was unsettled by the PDPA’s sudden rise, but quickly threw its support behind the new regime. The PDPA’s rule proved unstable, dominated by a radical faction that tried to secularize society and overturn centuries of tradition—sparking a conservative Islamic backlash. This had broader implications for the USSR, which contained its own Muslim-majority regions. Moscow was unwilling to stand by and risk a conservative revolution spreading across its southern flank.\nMeanwhile, in the U.S., the view wasn’t much better. Iran had long been a pillar of American foreign policy in the Middle East, but it had just collapsed as Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Tehran to establish an Islamic republic. With Iran’s cooperation against the USSR suddenly gone, Carter’s administration now faced the reality that Afghanistan might open the door for Moscow to expand influence over the Persian Gulf—and, by extension, global oil supplies. Ultimately, Washington decided to provide limited funding to anti-Soviet rebels. The logic was simple: if Moscow was going to try to control Afghanistan, America would do what it could to make that decision costly.\nOther key players included Afghanistan’s neighbor Pakistan and its close ally Saudi Arabia. Both were alarmed by the rise of the pro-Moscow PDPA. Pakistan wanted Afghanistan’s cooperation to counter India to the east, while the Saudis were shaken by Iran’s fallen monarchy and leaned harder into counter-revolutionary politics. Through its intelligence service, the ISI, Pakistan became the main conduit for outside support flowing into Afghanistan. Training, recruiting, and equipping Afghan rebel factions, Pakistan positioned itself as central to the fight against the PDPA and, eventually, Soviet forces.\nGhost Wars picks up here, focusing on the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan from this point through September 11, 2001. The following decades only grew more complicated.\nMoscow’s invasion turned into a disaster, costing billions and yielding nothing but embarrassment—foreshadowing America’s own future involvement. The Soviet withdrawal was hailed in Washington as the CIA’s greatest covert success. But it also marked the beginning of a frustrating cycle that would ultimately lead to one of the agency’s greatest failures.\nOne downside of democracy is that history takes decades to play out while election cycles come and go in predictable, short intervals. Leaders and agency heads change, but the reality on the ground often doesn’t. Between 1979 and 2001, the U.S. cycled through four presidents and seven CIA directors, each with shifting priorities. Afghanistan’s place in Washington’s strategic thinking rose and fell, until it forced itself onto the American consciousness. Ironically, this was caused not by an Afghan leader, but by a Saudi.\nOsama bin Laden came from a wealthy Saudi family with ties to the royal household. With a large bankroll, he became an active funder of Islamic groups and causes, mostly in Pakistan, ranging from charities to small militias. Early on, he was seen as a model citizen devoted to spreading Islam. But over time, he grew more militant. Shortly before the Soviets withdrew, he founded his own group, al-Qaeda. The Afghan conflict drew Arab fighters who saw it as part of a pan-Islamic struggle to rebuild an Islamic empire across the Middle East. Bin Laden gained renown both through his financial support for rebel causes and his own limited participation in the fighting.\nAfter the Soviet withdrawal, Afghanistan remained consumed by warring factions. In 1994, a new force arose from the south: a conservative Islamist movement backed by Pakistan, which promoted them as the future leaders who could finally bring peace. They called themselves the Taliban.\nBy 1996, after Bin Laden’s expulsion from Sudan, the Taliban provided him sanctuary. Under their protection, al-Qaeda grew, safely out of reach of increasingly determined CIA efforts to stop it.\nThe Taliban’s rise further complicated U.S.–Pakistan relations. After Bin Laden was implicated in multiple terrorist attacks against American interests, the CIA pressured Pakistan’s ISI to help capture him. Pakistan, however, played both sides—supporting the Taliban with training, money, and intelligence, while feeding just enough information to Washington to avoid a break.\nThis cat-and-mouse game continued through the Clinton years, as CIA officers tracking Bin Laden grew more alarmed.\nThe CIA itself had been founded to ensure nothing like Pearl Harbor ever blindsided the U.S. again. Yet this new threat of terrorism posed a different kind of danger, one the agency’s slow, bureaucratic machinery struggled to counter. With warnings arriving from all directions, it became harder and harder to separate signal from noise. Until it wasn’t…\nThoughts\nA fantastic history of events, another one of those books that as soon as I finish, makes me think I need to read a dozen more to understand the surrounding details.\nIt is amazing how ignorant I am about everything. So much to learn, so little time.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/ghost-wars-the-secret-history-of-the-cia-afghanistan-and-bin-laden-from-the-soviet-invasion-to-september-10-2001/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe year is 1979, and Brezhnev authorizes a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The USSR had been watching developments there uneasily for years. In 1973, Mohammed Daoud Khan ended the Afghan monarchy. Five years later, on April 27–28, 1978, the Marxist PDPA seized power in the Saur Revolution, launching radical reforms and internal purges that fractured Afghan politics. Moscow was unsettled by the PDPA’s sudden rise, but quickly threw its support behind the new regime. The PDPA’s rule proved unstable, dominated by a radical faction that tried to secularize society and overturn centuries of tradition—sparking a conservative Islamic backlash. This had broader implications for the USSR, which contained its own Muslim-majority regions. Moscow was unwilling to stand by and risk a conservative revolution spreading across its southern flank.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Ghost Wars"},{"content":"Summary\nAmerica\u0026rsquo;s third president was a citizen of the world. An idealist in values, but ruthlessly pragmatic when in the seat of authority. Jefferson was in public service for about fifty years, with his influence lasting directly up to Jackson\u0026rsquo;s presidency, making him one of the most effective political operatives in American history. Meacham gives a full view of Jefferson\u0026rsquo;s life from early education to his end-of-life correspondence with Adams. Jefferson cuts one of the most romantic and contradictory figures in early America. To the rest of the world, he displayed a certain sophistication many thought impossible to emerge from the Americas, whereas to history his regressive stance on slavery taints his memory: he at once acknowledged its illegitimacy yet could not bring himself to reject the peculiar institution altogether. Jefferson was the most vocal of the founding fathers in his defense of the individual rights of man (though, of course, definitions of \u0026ldquo;men\u0026rdquo; varied), and this manifested in an expressed distrust of strong federal governments. The preference for small government formed the basis for his antagonism with America\u0026rsquo;s other premier intellect, Alexander Hamilton. This disagreement ended up forming the first political parties in the US, the Federalists (Hamilton\u0026rsquo;s party) and the Republicans (Jefferson\u0026rsquo;s party). The founding gets mythologized for obvious reasons, but it is truly remarkable that two such politically fertile minds as Jefferson and Hamilton would be selected to form this country\u0026rsquo;s first cabinet. It is also a testament to Washington\u0026rsquo;s leadership that such a cabinet could exist for as long as it did. Always sure that Washington was Hamilton\u0026rsquo;s puppet, Jefferson would eventually retire to Monticello in a semi-theatrical way. His avowed aim was to put the dirty work of politics behind him, but both Washington and Hamilton suspected that Jefferson was \u0026ldquo;protesting too much.\u0026rdquo; Their suspicions turned out to be correct, he would shortly be back in office, serving a single term under the acerbic John Adams as vice president. He would then deftly create the first single-term president in US history, ascending to the highest office in the land. Once in the driver\u0026rsquo;s seat, strong centralized authority seemed useful, and Jefferson did little to curtail the powers of the executive. In fact, when Napoleon offered Jefferson the Louisiana Purchase, he was worried that the purchase of lands was not within the scope of Federal authority and would require an amendment. He ended up deciding the amendment path would open the purchase up to an extended window of debate and deliberation when decisive and quick action was needed, and so he pushed the purchase straight to Congress. This is not to say that Jefferson\u0026rsquo;s values were inauthentically held; it was more a testament to his adaptability. After Jefferson served two terms, the presidential office went to his long-term friend and ideological ally Madison. He would keep in close contact with leaders of the Republican Party for the rest of his life.\nThoughts\nIt is impossible to read biographies of \u0026ldquo;great\u0026rdquo; people and not compare their achievements to your own, or the lack thereof. Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence at the age of 33. I suppose that means I have a year to participate in a revolution against the world\u0026rsquo;s foremost superpower, topple it, and author the founding document of the newly born country.\nI like to think of the founding fathers in terms of who would be fun to hang out with. So far, while Franklin would likely be the best of them to get a drink with, Jefferson would have to be a close second. His intellect and passion for the finer things in life would have made for interesting conversation.\nWhen it comes to the core disagreements between Jefferson and Hamilton, I have to side with my main man Hamilton. This is partially due to hindsight bias, where we can see that several of Hamilton\u0026rsquo;s ideas — in particular national banks and a strong federalized government — are required for a country of independent states like the United States. One can only be glad that Jefferson lost the argument, yet it must be said that strong intelligent debate likely only improved on Hamilton\u0026rsquo;s designs.\nAs for Meacham\u0026rsquo;s handling of Jefferson\u0026rsquo;s life, when it comes to reading biographies, the writing only becomes noticeable when it gets in the way of the story. This never happened; Meacham did a great job of laying out Jefferson\u0026rsquo;s life coherently in a clear and objective way.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/thomas-jefferson-the-art-of-power/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmerica\u0026rsquo;s third president was a citizen of the world. An idealist in values, but ruthlessly pragmatic when in the seat of authority. Jefferson was in public service for about fifty years, with his influence lasting directly up to Jackson\u0026rsquo;s presidency, making him one of the most effective political operatives in American history. Meacham gives a full view of Jefferson\u0026rsquo;s life from early education to his end-of-life correspondence with Adams. Jefferson cuts one of the most romantic and contradictory figures in early America. To the rest of the world, he displayed a certain sophistication many thought impossible to emerge from the Americas, whereas to history his regressive stance on slavery taints his memory: he at once acknowledged its illegitimacy yet could not bring himself to reject the peculiar institution altogether. Jefferson was the most vocal of the founding fathers in his defense of the individual rights of man (though, of course, definitions of \u0026ldquo;men\u0026rdquo; varied), and this manifested in an expressed distrust of strong federal governments. The preference for small government formed the basis for his antagonism with America\u0026rsquo;s other premier intellect, Alexander Hamilton. This disagreement ended up forming the first political parties in the US, the Federalists (Hamilton\u0026rsquo;s party) and the Republicans (Jefferson\u0026rsquo;s party). The founding gets mythologized for obvious reasons, but it is truly remarkable that two such politically fertile minds as Jefferson and Hamilton would be selected to form this country\u0026rsquo;s first cabinet. It is also a testament to Washington\u0026rsquo;s leadership that such a cabinet could exist for as long as it did. Always sure that Washington was Hamilton\u0026rsquo;s puppet, Jefferson would eventually retire to Monticello in a semi-theatrical way. His avowed aim was to put the dirty work of politics behind him, but both Washington and Hamilton suspected that Jefferson was \u0026ldquo;protesting too much.\u0026rdquo; Their suspicions turned out to be correct, he would shortly be back in office, serving a single term under the acerbic John Adams as vice president. He would then deftly create the first single-term president in US history, ascending to the highest office in the land. Once in the driver\u0026rsquo;s seat, strong centralized authority seemed useful, and Jefferson did little to curtail the powers of the executive. In fact, when Napoleon offered Jefferson the Louisiana Purchase, he was worried that the purchase of lands was not within the scope of Federal authority and would require an amendment. He ended up deciding the amendment path would open the purchase up to an extended window of debate and deliberation when decisive and quick action was needed, and so he pushed the purchase straight to Congress. This is not to say that Jefferson\u0026rsquo;s values were inauthentically held; it was more a testament to his adaptability. After Jefferson served two terms, the presidential office went to his long-term friend and ideological ally Madison. He would keep in close contact with leaders of the Republican Party for the rest of his life.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power"},{"content":"Fantastic biography.\nWashington was absolutely instrumental to the birth of the US. It is hard to imagine the country having survived with any other leader at the helm. Although he was vain, insecure, and not the brightest in the pantheon of the founding fathers, his heroism and commitment to the ideals of liberty more than make up for any personal short comings.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/washington-a-life/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eFantastic biography.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWashington was absolutely instrumental to the birth of the US. It is hard to imagine the country having survived with any other leader at the helm. Although he was vain, insecure, and not the brightest in the pantheon of the founding fathers, his heroism and commitment to the ideals of liberty more than make up for any personal short comings.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Washington"},{"content":"This is a great book to build a functional understanding of the how and why of the U.S. government. The first volume is fantastic; the second one is slightly more speculative but still full of good insights.\nMuch has changed since the writing of the book in the 1830s, although one of de Tocqueville\u0026rsquo;s central claims—that Russia and the U.S. were destined to be world powers—has panned out quite nicely. Instead of a full review, which would be insanely long due to the length and breadth of the book, I\u0026rsquo;ll leave some scattered thoughts:\nThe key difference between monarch and president is the gap between legislator and executive. Congress must be convinced to act according to the president\u0026rsquo;s will, while the king\u0026rsquo;s court is obliged to do so, making a king both legislator and executor.\nThe fact that the U.S. was small and the world large when the Constitution was created is nowhere more evident than in the change in scope of presidential powers from when this book was written to the present. To take a single example: one of the key powers given to the president by the Constitution is to preside over foreign affairs. Now imagine the difference in what that practically means for a president in 1800s America versus today.\nThe great end of justice (the judicial branch) is to substitute the notion of right for that of violence, and to place a legal barrier between the state and the physical use of force.\nA republic\u0026rsquo;s greatest weakness is its complexity—the fact that it has multiple sovereigns operating in different realms that can never be fully defined. This is most clearly seen in clashes between state and federal rights.\nSome of the dangers inherent in a federal organization of government are obviated by the fact that the colonies and states were at a similar degree of development, and so could be governed under a similar set of laws. This point, here, is one of the main reasons nation-building often fails: a government can only differ so much from the norms and traditions of a place before the gap causes collapse.\nEquality and honor are inversely related. In an equal society, feelings of honor are diminished. This has been a tradeoff since the beginning of history. Honor creates amazing individuals, while equality is the tide that lifts all boats.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/democracy-in-america/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis is a great book to build a functional understanding of the how and why of the U.S. government. The first volume is fantastic; the second one is slightly more speculative but still full of good insights.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMuch has changed since the writing of the book in the 1830s, although one of de Tocqueville\u0026rsquo;s central claims—that Russia and the U.S. were destined to be world powers—has panned out quite nicely. Instead of a full review, which would be insanely long due to the length and breadth of the book, I\u0026rsquo;ll leave some scattered thoughts:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Democracy in America"},{"content":"I had written an extensive review that was erased. Here is a really good one from an expert in the field.\nhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/10W5lAhu_QmXTfCjzGwg6-3S_bi05NkGo/view\nThe short version is ape alone weak, ape together strong!\nThe secret our success is our ability to leverage the smarts of an entire society instead of relying on individual brilliance. As Henrich says: \u0026ldquo;We stand on the shoulders of a very large pyramid of hobbits\u0026rdquo;.\nOne way to drive this intuition home is to take a minute and try to imagine which objects around you, could you, if stripped of all experience re-invent. Looking around, I think the only thing that made it on my list was a cup, and that is probably being too generous.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-secret-of-our-success-how-culture-is-driving-human-evolution-domesticating-our-species-and-making-us-smarter/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI had written an extensive review that was erased. Here is a really good one from an expert in the field.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ca href=\"https://drive.google.com/file/d/10W5lAhu_QmXTfCjzGwg6-3S_bi05NkGo/view\"\u003ehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/10W5lAhu_QmXTfCjzGwg6-3S_bi05NkGo/view\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe short version is ape alone weak, ape together strong!\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe secret our success is our ability to leverage the smarts of an entire society instead of relying on individual brilliance. As Henrich says: \u0026ldquo;We stand on the shoulders of\na very large pyramid of hobbits\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne way to drive this intuition home is to take a minute and try to imagine which objects around you, could you, if stripped of all experience re-invent. Looking around, I think the only thing that made it on my list was a cup, and that is probably being too generous.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Secret of Our Success"},{"content":"When it comes to politics I\u0026rsquo;ve never connected with the vision of a single group. When I do find myself leaning towards a party, it is typically only because I am leaning away from its opposite. Part of this is because as humans we are much better at knowing what we don\u0026rsquo;t want. Yet I would like to think that the other reason is that I try to value substance over partisanship.\nAll this may change; the direction of Abundance, on the surface appears to align perfectly with my emerging world views and biases. If Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson manage to drive the agenda for the future of the Democratic party, I would proudly become a partisan for that cause.\nThe main idea of their book is the democratic party should become more pragmatic and less ideological. Success should be measured in things built, not in stances taken. The future is uncertain but should be fought for instead of given away passively.\nThis manifesto is likely not destined for a long shelf life; the Democratic party is currently suffering from an identity crisis. I doubt this vision will gather widespread support—it simply isn’t radical enough to capture attention in our current political climate. Even so, I hope it leaves an imprint, influencing the thinking of those who may one day shape policy from positions of power.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/abundance/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eWhen it comes to politics I\u0026rsquo;ve never connected with the vision of a single group. When I do find myself leaning towards a party, it is typically only because I am leaning away from its opposite. Part of this is because as humans we are much better at knowing what we don\u0026rsquo;t want. Yet I would like to think that the other reason is that I try to value substance over partisanship.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Abundance"},{"content":"\u0026ldquo;They\u0026rsquo;ve been living this way for centuries, are you really gonna change that in a year? All you can do is try.\u0026rdquo;\nSummary\nThe above words, quoted from an unlucky soldier stationed in Iraq, seem to epitomize the entire endeavor. George Packer does a brilliant job setting the stage and providing an overview of the why\u0026rsquo;s and how\u0026rsquo;s of the Iraq war.\nWhen it comes to events as significant as war, there are seldom singular reasons that confidently explain everything. WMDs were a reason the administration gave for invading; September 11th provided the provocation for public support. Beyond that, a menagerie of motivations and political realities were aligning to push America into war. According to Packer, George W. Bush was a principled man but not a leader with vision. As a result, when the catastrophe of 9/11 struck, he fell back on his gut instinct, which told him justice needed to be done, without adequately considering long-term consequences. Meanwhile, a parallel ideology known as neoconservatism, which had a particular vision of America\u0026rsquo;s role in the world, happened to be ascending. Thus, Bush\u0026rsquo;s gut feelings found theoretical support, providing the vision he lacked.\nWhile the war is now almost universally seen as a mistake, Packer suggests it might not have necessarily had to end badly. Initially, there was some Iraqi appetite for American intervention. However, America soon discovered that removing a dictator does not automatically guarantee a liberal democracy will follow. Despite brief opportunities when the U.S. had goodwill from Iraqis, neither Bush\u0026rsquo;s sense of justice nor his administration\u0026rsquo;s grand theory of liberal democracy was prepared for the complex reality of Iraqi factions. Consequently, nearly all Iraqi goodwill towards America was squandered by leadership that promised the American public a swift \u0026lsquo;in-and-out\u0026rsquo; mission, toppling Saddam and leaving a thriving democracy behind.\nOne of Packer\u0026rsquo;s most egregious examples of American failure was the absolute lack of planning for rebuilding Iraq after Saddam\u0026rsquo;s defeat. U.S. forces had no plans for maintaining order, instead consolidating into isolated green zones and leaving the country to descend into complete anarchy. Rumsfeld believed that anarchy was merely a stage on the path to liberal democracy, but he would have benefited from heeding the Arab proverb: \u0026ldquo;Better forty years of dictatorship than one day of anarchy.\u0026rdquo; This stance repeatedly proved naive, as it assumed Iraqis were culturally identical to Americans and merely needed a strongman removed to refashion their government.\nThoughts\nPacker argues that American foreign policy has rested upon two primal scenes: World War II and Vietnam. This framework is among the best explanatory models I\u0026rsquo;ve encountered. Every subsequent conflict invites public attempts to categorize the war into one of these classifications. Hawks tend to see each war as an opportunity for America to assert power abroad, teaching \u0026lsquo;bad guys\u0026rsquo; lessons reminiscent of World War II. Conversely, anti-war advocates view each conflict as a quagmire that endlessly produces suffering without benefits, evoking memories of Vietnam.\nThis binary approach presents two problems. First, America will never again fight Nazis or the Viet Cong; every conflict is uniquely complex. Secondly, categorizing wars as simply good or bad is misguided, as all wars inherently involve suffering. The more relevant question becomes: which wars are worthwhile? When is the status quo worse than war?\nPart of this story follows an American father who lost his son to shrapnel from an explosive device. These are questions he will grapple with for the rest of his life.\nToday, more than a decade after the last American combat troops left Iraq, consensus views the war as a clear mistake. Yet, the what-ifs linger. The book highlights the principled and heroic efforts of service members genuinely trying to improve Iraqi lives. Even amidst failure, there were brief glimmers of hope—the jubilation many Iraqis felt voting for the first time, or the relief of Kurds who were systematically oppressed by Saddam’s regime. How does one weigh these outcomes?\nThe Iraq War left an indelible mark on American politics, fueling populism. After all, if experts could fail so spectacularly, perhaps it was time to dethrone them. Internationally, America\u0026rsquo;s image was tarnished; the gamble failed to produce a new Middle Eastern ally and instead stoked resentment and distrust.\nThis book greatly shaped my understanding of America\u0026rsquo;s evolving political landscape. I highly recommend it.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-assassins-gate-america-in-iraq/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026ldquo;They\u0026rsquo;ve been living this way for centuries, are you really gonna change that in a year? All you can do is try.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe above words, quoted from an unlucky soldier stationed in Iraq, seem to epitomize the entire endeavor. George Packer does a brilliant job setting the stage and providing an overview of the why\u0026rsquo;s and how\u0026rsquo;s of the Iraq war.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen it comes to events as significant as war, there are seldom singular reasons that confidently explain everything. WMDs were a reason the administration gave for invading; September 11th provided the provocation for public support. Beyond that, a menagerie of motivations and political realities were aligning to push America into war.  According to Packer, George W. Bush was a principled man but not a leader with vision. As a result, when the catastrophe of 9/11 struck, he fell back on his gut instinct, which told him justice needed to be done, without adequately considering long-term consequences. Meanwhile, a parallel ideology known as neoconservatism, which had a particular vision of America\u0026rsquo;s role in the world, happened to be ascending. Thus, Bush\u0026rsquo;s gut feelings found theoretical support, providing the vision he lacked.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Assassins’ Gate"},{"content":"Most of us are necessarily ignorant of many complex fields, from botany to brain surgery. As a result, we simply do not attempt to operate in, or comment on, those fields. However, every voter and every politician that they vote for affects economic policies. We cannot opt out of economic issues and decisions. Our only options are to be informed, uninformed, or misinformed\u0026hellip;\nSummary\nEconomics touches everyone\u0026rsquo;s life, often before we even realize it. Most opinions on economic issues emerge from personal experiences rather than formal theory. For instance, you notice higher tomato prices long before contemplating global vegetable markets or thin-inventory economies. Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics provides an insightful primer on economic principles, helping readers understand the broader context behind everyday economic experiences.\nThoughts\nEconomics and politics are deeply intertwined, making impartial discussion challenging, especially regarding authors like Thomas Sowell, whose perspectives inevitably reflect the political climate of their time. While I am not an economist and thus cannot definitively assess Sowell’s biases, it’s clear that this book advocates strongly for the efficacy of free-market capitalism in achieving what Sowell frequently terms the “efficient allocation of scarce resources.” Considering Sowell’s historical context—particularly the limitations of New Deal policies against the stagflation crisis of the 1970s—this emphasis on market-driven solutions aligns naturally with the rise of the Chicago school of economics, to which Sowell belongs.\nThe most compelling parts of this book guide readers through a first-principles approach, clearly illustrating why economic systems evolve the way they do. One notable example is Sowell’s discussion of payday lenders. Commonly criticized for charging exorbitant interest rates, these lenders appear driven by sheer greed. However, Sowell offers a different perspective by breaking down lending into its fundamental components: a lender\u0026rsquo;s baseline desired interest rate plus an adjustment for default risk. If, hypothetically, your basic lending interest rate is 5%, and you anticipate a 10% default rate, you must charge around 16% interest to remain profitable. Credit scores emerged as a practical method for lenders to quickly evaluate risk, directly influencing the rates individuals receive. Payday lenders, operating primarily in low-income neighborhoods with high default rates, naturally charge higher interest rates to cover their increased risk.\nOf course, understanding a phenomenon does not inherently justify its morality. Critics rightfully argue that explanation alone doesn\u0026rsquo;t equate to justification. Nonetheless, Sowell emphasizes that effective solutions require first understanding the underlying causes of issues. Legislation intended to cap payday lenders\u0026rsquo; interest rates, for instance, often results in unintended consequences: instead of gaining access to more affordable credit, low-income borrowers frequently lose access entirely as lenders shut down or leave the area.\nThe above example offers a window into how the book works. Typically there will be some theoretical discussion, in this case about lending, then Sowell will choose a practical application for clarification.\nI really enjoyed this book, perhaps as I learn more, I\u0026rsquo;ll come to disagree with some of its portrayals more, but at this point I found it really helpful.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/basic-economics-a-citizens-guide-to-the-economy/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMost of us are necessarily ignorant of many complex fields, from botany to brain surgery. As a result, we simply do not attempt to operate in, or comment on, those fields. However, every voter and every politician that they vote for affects economic policies. We cannot opt out of economic issues and decisions. Our only options are to be informed, uninformed, or misinformed\u0026hellip;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEconomics touches everyone\u0026rsquo;s life, often before we even realize it. Most opinions on economic issues emerge from personal experiences rather than formal theory. For instance, you notice higher tomato prices long before contemplating global vegetable markets or thin-inventory economies. Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics provides an insightful primer on economic principles, helping readers understand the broader context behind everyday economic experiences.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Basic Economics- A Citizen's Guide to the Economy"},{"content":"A Year of Magical Thinking is a meditation on grief. Faced with the sudden loss of her husband and the uncertain health of her daughter, Joan Didion tries to hold the pieces of her world together. The book offers a voyeuristic glimpse into an upper-class introvert\u0026rsquo;s ideal life—Didion and her husband, also a well-known author, had built an insulated existence that, apropos of nothing, ended. Full of anecdotes and disarming vulnerability, the reader can’t help but participate in Didion’s loss.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-year-of-magical-thinking/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eA Year of Magical Thinking is a meditation on grief. Faced with the sudden loss of her husband and the uncertain health of her daughter, Joan Didion tries to hold the pieces of her world together. The book offers a voyeuristic glimpse into an upper-class introvert\u0026rsquo;s ideal life—Didion and her husband, also a well-known author, had built an insulated existence that, apropos of nothing, ended. Full of anecdotes and disarming vulnerability, the reader can’t help but participate in Didion’s loss.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Year of Magical Thinking"},{"content":"Summary\nAs was the fashion in 1759, Adam Smith endeavors to explain what we call right and wrong, as well as why we arrive at these conclusions. The cornerstone of his theory is based on the concept of sympathy. Smith posits that, just as humans are endowed with the sense of sight, they are also equipped with a sense of sympathy. The brief definition of sympathy is the ability for one human to \u0026ldquo;enter into\u0026rdquo; the experience of another. This \u0026ldquo;entering in\u0026rdquo; does not perfectly mirror the original experience, but critically, it is perceived through the lens of an impartial spectator. This impartiality forms the foundation of all morality.\nBecause no one can directly access another\u0026rsquo;s experience, all individuals partake in the imaginary perspective of a person who is devoid of personal bias. For instance, a thief can simultaneously desire the object he has stolen while recognizing the immorality of his actions when judged as though by an impartial spectator. This external perspective becomes the seat of moral intuitions or feelings that guide individual actions.\nJustice vs. Beneficence Naturally, the question arises: \u0026ldquo;Where do the rules come from?\u0026rdquo; Smith takes an interesting position, but before addressing the source of moral rules, Smith introduces two planes of morality: justice and beneficence.\nIn Smith\u0026rsquo;s view, justice represents the bare minimum of morality. It is calculable with great exactness, but it is largely a negative virtue—one could theoretically live justly by doing nothing at all. The second plane of morality is beneficence, which encompasses acts that go beyond justice. Beneficence is highly context-dependent and does not admit precise calculation. It functions more as an art form, where even the greatest practitioners can only offer vague guidance or general principles. Smith contends that any attempt to quantify morality beyond justice is an exercise in futility.\nReturning to the question of moral rules: Smith argues that the rules governing justice emerge from the interaction of society with the moral sentiment. Societies must adopt basic rules to function, and when codified over time, these rules become the framework of justice. However, the realm of beneficence is shaped more directly by environmental factors. According to Smith, the moral ideals of a culture are influenced by its unique environmental demands—artistic sensibilities might hold little value in a jungle, while hunting skills would likely go unnoticed in the Louvre.\nThis distinction between justice and beneficence allows Smith to cleverly reconcile the opposing claims of moral relativism and moral absolutism. He acknowledges that certain moral norms are universally applicable, while also appreciating that cultural differences naturally influence the expectations surrounding acts that go beyond what is justly required of an individual.\nFinally, Smith takes the position that moral sentiments precede rational thought. In other words, we feel something to be right or wrong and then use reason to justify our feelings. This stance contrasts sharply with philosophers like Kant, who assert that morality is rooted in rationality. Though this difference may seem superficial, it creates two distinct schools of moral philosophy.\nThoughts\nI find this school of thought to be one of the more compelling views of morality, as it balances the two key tensions moralists must grapple with: the complexity and the beauty of humanity. Many popular moral frameworks appear to myopically focus on one at the expense of the other. For example, relativists may persuasively argue that culture largely drives moral understanding; yet this insight often neglects the beauty of a well-ordered life. On the other hand, moral absolutists assert that there is always one correct decision for all people in all situations. This stance, however, fails to account for the complexity of human circumstances and overestimates our ability to comprehend moral truths fully.\n\u0026ldquo;The administration of the great system of the universe\u0026hellip; the care of the universal happiness of all rational and sensible beings, is the business of God and not of man. To man is allotted a much humbler department, but one much more suitable to the weakness of his powers, and to the narrowness of his comprehension: the care of his own happiness, of that of his family, his friends, his country.\u0026rdquo;\nAs a whole, the book felt like it could have been more succinct, but Smith is nothing if not thorough. One of my favorite sections in the book explores Smith\u0026rsquo;s observations about how we react differently to actual versus attempted harm. He notes that society readily endorses the harshest penalties for a successful murderer, but rarely demands the same punishment for an attempted murderer, even when the failure was purely accidental. Smith observes that even the perpetrators experience these events differently - the successful murderer typically carries crushing guilt, while the thwarted murderer often feels relief, despite their intentions being identical.\nHowever, one of the book’s weaknesses lies in Smith’s overly optimistic, almost Panglossian view of the world. His treatment of the problem of evil feels superficial—he dismisses it as scarcely worth addressing, arguing that most people enjoy a generally good life most of the time. This oversimplification feels incongruous with the meticulous detail he applies to other topics. This critique of course contradicts my earlier comment about the amount of words he used, so they likely cancel each other out.\nAdam Smith\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-theory-of-moral-sentiments/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs was the fashion in 1759, Adam Smith endeavors to explain what we call right and wrong, as well as why we arrive at these conclusions. The cornerstone of his theory is based on the concept of sympathy. Smith posits that, just as humans are endowed with the sense of sight, they are also equipped with a sense of sympathy. The brief definition of sympathy is the ability for one human to \u0026ldquo;enter into\u0026rdquo; the experience of another. This \u0026ldquo;entering in\u0026rdquo; does not perfectly mirror the original experience, but critically, it is perceived through the lens of an impartial spectator. This impartiality forms the foundation of all morality.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Theory of Moral Sentiments"},{"content":"Deserves its place in classic American literature. It also deserves to be read in high school as it walks the balance of respecting norms and traditions while maintaining a personal responsibility to rise above them when they fall short of our ideals. Thus, the reader is left neither a dupe nor Anarchist, but responsible for their own sphere as well as their \u0026lsquo;place\u0026rsquo; in society.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/to-kill-a-mocking-bird/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eDeserves its place in classic American literature. It also deserves to be read in high school as it walks the balance of respecting norms and traditions while maintaining a personal responsibility to rise above them when they fall short of our ideals. Thus, the reader is left neither a dupe nor Anarchist, but responsible for their own sphere as well as their \u0026lsquo;place\u0026rsquo; in society.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"To Kill a Mocking Bird"},{"content":"Summary\nI remember coming across the Wikipedia summary for this book after Baudrillard did an analysis in his bewildering Simulacra and Simulation, which read:\nIt follows a group of car-crash fetishists who, inspired by the famous crashes of celebrities, become sexually aroused by staging and participating in car accidents. At the time, I thought it was a strange summary, maybe a typo or something—after all, it doesn’t make any sense! So I, in my naivete, tucked this away in the \u0026ldquo;read later\u0026rdquo; list. I’ve read the book and can confirm the above sentence is a valid summary.\nThe book opens with the main character, who is named after the author, looking at the recently deceased Dr. Robert Vaughan. Vaughan had just died in a self-inflicted car crash, but in a twist, it wasn’t a suicidal crash but a sort of sexual apogee. Each of the main characters in the book had experienced a car crash that had altered them in such a way as to transform automobiles and the violence of their collisions into a locus of a new sexuality. As Ballard put it:\na new sexuality, born from a perverse technology Ballard reveals how our relationship with technology is a two-way street: we shape it, but it also shapes us—particularly our desires. The main character’s job as an \u0026ldquo;Ad man\u0026rdquo; is no accident. Consider how cars are marketed: yes, there’s the stereotype of sexy women draped over hoods, but look closer and you’ll see those same \u0026ldquo;sexy\u0026rdquo; design features built into the cars themselves. It would be easy to dismiss this as clever marketing, but Ballard suggests something deeper is happening.\nTake modern Snapchat filters—they create idealized humans that don’t exist, yet we embrace them precisely because they’re \u0026ldquo;better\u0026rdquo; than reality. In both cases, technology isn’t just channeling our desires—it’s actively reshaping what we desire in the first place.\nAnd that’s the story. If you are expecting there to be more to the plot or other events in the book, you would be mistaken. Ballard spends the entire book obsessively exploring this idea.\nThoughts\nIn 1973, a New York Times reviewer said:\nCrash is, hands-down, the most repulsive book I’ve yet to come across. I would have to agree—it is a catastrophic event. Ironically, it reminds me of the way everyone slows down to look at a wreck on the interstate. What are we hoping to see?\nI think, in some ways, this is another one of Ballard’s reasons for writing this book. It is filled to the brim with pornographic experiences, but they are all documented as if by a mortician. Every anatomical part stripped from context, labeled, and filed away as evidence.\nIt is a dystopian future: objectification without limitation. I don’t think I would recommend anyone read this book, in the same way I wouldn’t recommend anyone look at automobile collisions on the side of the road.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/crash/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eI remember coming across the Wikipedia summary for this book after Baudrillard did an analysis in his bewildering \u003cem\u003eSimulacra and Simulation\u003c/em\u003e, which read:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt follows a group of car-crash fetishists who, inspired by the famous crashes of celebrities, become sexually aroused by staging and participating in car accidents.\nAt the time, I thought it was a strange summary, maybe a typo or something—after all, it doesn’t make any sense! So I, in my naivete, tucked this away in the \u0026ldquo;read later\u0026rdquo; list. I’ve read the book and can confirm the above sentence is a valid summary.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Crash"},{"content":"I was expecting this to be a collection of stories, but it was more about the actual mentality of survivors themselves. Overall, really entertaining read, but I wouldn\u0026rsquo;t rely too heavily on the advice inside it other than general rules of thumb. The one thing about survival stories is everyone is unique, and so advice that is good in one situation may get you killed in others.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/deep-survival-who-lives-who-dies-and-why/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI was expecting this to be a collection of stories, but it was more about the actual mentality of survivors themselves. Overall, really entertaining read, but I wouldn\u0026rsquo;t rely too heavily on the advice inside it other than general rules of thumb. The one thing about survival stories is everyone is unique, and so advice that is good in one situation may get you killed in others.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Deep Survival"},{"content":"Summary\nRosenberg sets out to \u0026lsquo;prove\u0026rsquo; through Neuroscience that the way we understand our past, present, and future might not be based on a misunderstanding. In what is sure to ruffle the feathers of academics of every stripe, Rosenberg uses various studies as a lever to overturn several common theories of mind. For the uninitiated, a theory of mind is an explanatory framework whose purpose is to explain the mind to itself. Most common theories of mind rely on the iconic duo of desire and action. Charles is crying because he can\u0026rsquo;t get an ice cream cone. In the previous sentence, we are met with Charles\u0026rsquo; desire and the action that results from the desire, a cause and an effect. Rosenberg then uses this as a jumping-off point to argue that this core assumption that almost all theories of mind make is flawed.\nThis is a tall order because how else can we understand Charles\u0026rsquo; crying if not by its dependent relation with the ice cream cone, the object of his desire? To understand Rosenberg\u0026rsquo;s argument, the first step is to realize that an effect can have multiple seemingly plausible explanations. For example, you could go the crank psychologist route: Charles is crying because he thinks he wants the ice cream cone, but in reality, the ice cream cone is a substitute for his mother\u0026rsquo;s affection. Another possible explanation: a KGB spy injected Charles with a serum that causes him to cry when he sees ice cream. The important thing to remember is that causes and effects are linked by a story we construct, and the story may or may not be true.\nI think one of the best ways to conceptualize the possibility that Rosenberg is pushing on his readers is to imagine a tortoise wandering around an island doing tortoise things, but all the while the tortoise is followed closely by a hummingbird. This hummingbird narrates all the tortoise\u0026rsquo;s actions so the observer can understand the causes. The longer the hummingbird follows the tortoise, the better it becomes at anticipating the behavior patterns of the tortoise, so much so that the narration mostly coincides with the actions taken by the tortoise. Rosenberg would argue this scenario is analogous to the condition we find ourselves in. Our bodies are finely tuned machines responding to various stimuli in the external environment. At the same time, we have this rich conscious experience that runs a constant commentary on what it thinks our body is up to. The key insight here is to realize that this implies that conscious experience is retroactive—that is, our experience is a post-hoc explanation of an event that has already happened, and just like with the hummingbird, our explanations may or may not coincide with the \u0026lsquo;reality\u0026rsquo; of the actions that our body is taking. This is easy enough to intuit when it comes to autonomic processes, like when your stomach growls, you may experience it as your body being hungry but would also be willing to adopt a different explanation if one were offered by your doctor. This is a harder pill to swallow when it comes to conscious centric experiences like anger, rationality, or awe. At this point, the inner monologue is so compelling that it becomes almost impossible not to believe the \u0026ldquo;reasons\u0026rdquo; our mind generates for feeling one way or another. Rosenberg would argue that in reality the line between autonomic and voluntary processes don\u0026rsquo;t exist. The difference is just in how convincing our inner voice is.\nIf this is true, then the title starts to make much more sense. At the same time, it reveals how the title is, in many ways, too narrow. If we are inscrutable to ourselves how much more so must others be? This would make history, social sciences, psychology, and many more pursuits to understand human actions no more than a fool\u0026rsquo;s errand. Thoughts\nA provocative title for a provocative book, it is somewhat reminiscent of the ever present \u0026ldquo;You\u0026rsquo;re doing \u0026lsquo;X\u0026rsquo; wrong\u0026rdquo; articles where \u0026lsquo;X\u0026rsquo; is something like using a can opener. Overall, the arguments in the book are compelling. I am not qualified to comment on the neuroscientific research or conclusions that are in the book, but then again, one could argue that Rosenberg isn\u0026rsquo;t either. One must wonder, why if the conclusions from neuroscience are as clear as Rosenberg claims them to be, the opinions of neuroscientists haven\u0026rsquo;t more closely clustered around Rosenberg\u0026rsquo;s ideas. Rosenberg would argue this reflects how deeply rooted our intuitions about theory of mind are. On the other hand, I would argue that it\u0026rsquo;s also plausible his conclusions aren\u0026rsquo;t the only valid interpretations of the data.\nWhile this is true, advances in language models seem to be aligning with some of Rosenberg\u0026rsquo;s intuitions. Most interestingly, it has been demonstrated that when you ask an LLM to explain how it reached its conclusions, you can\u0026rsquo;t just accept its explanation. The reason is that the explanation it generates may be a hallucination. The parallels between the architecture of LLM\u0026rsquo;s and the way human\u0026rsquo;s think points in the same direction as Rosenberg\u0026rsquo;s retroactive explanation. Rosenberg compares himself to fringe thinkers like Darwin and Copernicus, arguing that his ideas will eventually gain acceptance as evidence accumulates. I also agree that the direction of research tends to be moving towards his position, but I also think this book lacks the clarity to be the \u0026ldquo;Origin of Species\u0026rdquo; of a new movement. Whether or not Rosenberg\u0026rsquo;s opinions become mainstream is something only time will tell, and hopefully they don\u0026rsquo;t become another thing that history gets wrong.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/how-history-gets-things-wrong-the-neuroscience-of-our-addiction-to-stories/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRosenberg sets out to \u0026lsquo;prove\u0026rsquo; through Neuroscience that the way we understand our past, present, and future might not be based on a misunderstanding. In what is sure to ruffle the feathers of academics of every stripe, Rosenberg uses various studies as a lever to overturn several common theories of mind. For the uninitiated, a theory of mind is an explanatory framework whose purpose is to explain the mind to itself. Most common theories of mind rely on the iconic duo of desire and action. Charles is crying because he can\u0026rsquo;t get an ice cream cone. In the previous sentence, we are met with Charles\u0026rsquo; desire and the action that results from the desire, a cause and an effect. Rosenberg then uses this as a jumping-off point to argue that this core assumption that almost all theories of mind make is flawed.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"How History Gets Things Wrong"},{"content":"Summary\nThis book follows the careers of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, focusing on the second half of FDR\u0026rsquo;s administration from 1940 to 1945. By this time, Franklin had been the U.S. President for nearly two full terms. During those two terms, he had transformed the federal government to an almost unrecognizable extent, implementing many policies we now take for granted, like Social Security, the FDIC, the SEC, and the 40-hour workweek. These policies were part of a larger platform known as the \u0026ldquo;New Deal,\u0026rdquo; which was essentially a labor reform agenda that emerged during the Great Depression.\nAll the while tension was boiling up in Europe on the verge of WWII. At this point in history of the U.S., the country\u0026rsquo;s geographical isolation had allowed Americans to feel largely disconnected and protected from whatever was happening in Europe. U.S. involvement in WWI was widely viewed as a misadventure with limited payoff for America\u0026rsquo;s interests. This meant that, as Germany became increasingly aggressive, there was little public support for the U.S. to get involved in what was seen as \u0026ldquo;Europe\u0026rsquo;s problem.\u0026rdquo; FDR had a much different view of the situation. He was more invested in the ideals of democracy and committed to sending aid to the Allies. For much of the early part of the war, any help sent to Britain had to be sold to the public as \u0026ldquo;America\u0026rsquo;s best shot at staying out of the war.\u0026rdquo;\nIt cannot be overstated how unprepared the U.S. military was in 1940 leading up to WWII. Thanks to their geographical buffer, investment in research, training, and equipment was almost nonexistent. What America did have was the world\u0026rsquo;s largest latent productive capacity, but many of the New Deal policies had created an antagonistic relationship between big business and the government. This created another delicate political situation where FDR had to play to both sides, signaling that the government would support big business while also trying to maintain the labor advances secured by the New Deal.\nThe other major character in the book was Eleanor, she transformed the role of First Lady into a politically active position. Early in FDR\u0026rsquo;s political career, Eleanor discovered he was having an affair, which seemed to have completely shattered her sense of self. With the help of close friends, she used this as an opportunity to recreate herself, becoming a larger-than-life character who seemed to be everywhere all the time. Her indefatigable energy allowed her to keep a nonstop schedule for the entirety of FDR\u0026rsquo;s administration, providing him with valuable insights that informed his policies. She often functioned as the angel on FDR\u0026rsquo;s shoulder, arguing that social and civil progress should not be sacrificed in the face of war.\nThoughts\nIt occurred to me that, for all the books and content about WWII I\u0026rsquo;ve consumed, I had never taken a close look at FDR. In most books about WWII, he plays a peripheral character, largely because he placed a lot of faith in his commanders, seldom second-guessing their leadership. A notable example of this was when the date of the invasion of North Africa had to be pushed to after an election. Although it would have been beneficial to move forward, FDR allowed the delay.\nThe major thing I took away from this book was just how good WWII was for the U.S. We are obviously proud of the roles our veterans played in stopping the Nazis and the Japanese; this effort remains one of the few things that is still almost universally agreed upon as a good thing. What I had never paid attention to was how many advances in our society are directly attributed to the war. WWII marked the beginning of what would be known as the \u0026ldquo;American Century.\u0026rdquo; Beyond the immense economic success the war represented for the U.S., it also expedited social justice changes that likely would have stagnated for years otherwise. It was the war that normalized women entering the workforce. It was also the war that elevated the position of Black Americans in the eyes of white Americans in ways that would have been difficult to replicate during peacetime.\nThe war pulled America out of the Great Depression, representing one of the greatest wealth shifts in history. It created the military-industrial complex but this also generated crowds of scientists and researchers, creating a virtuous cycle of productivity-enhancing technologies that drove unparalleled global growth. Thanks to the G.I. Bill returning veterans could attend college for free, creating a skilled workforce without historic comparison. All of these benefits with only a fraction of the losses experienced by European and Asian countries. I think it would be hard to find a more beneficial geopolitical event in U.S. history.\nFDR served more presidential terms than anyone in U.S. history. Defying the traditional two-term limit that his predecessors had respected, FDR was elected to a historic fourth term before succumbing to a cerebral hemorrhage in his twelfth year of office. In many ways, the era of \u0026ldquo;big government\u0026rdquo; can be traced back to him. His ideals pushed the U.S. into the global superpower status it has enjoyed for the past seventy years. He represents one of those rare politicians who seemed to have a preternatural talent for creative solutions to difficult problems, balancing idealism with pragmatism.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/no-ordinary-time-franklin-and-eleanor-roosevelt-the-home-front-in-world-war-ii/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis book follows the careers of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, focusing on the second half of FDR\u0026rsquo;s administration from 1940 to 1945. By this time, Franklin had been the U.S. President for nearly two full terms. During those two terms, he had transformed the federal government to an almost unrecognizable extent, implementing many policies we now take for granted, like Social Security, the FDIC, the SEC, and the 40-hour workweek. These policies were part of a larger platform known as the \u0026ldquo;New Deal,\u0026rdquo; which was essentially a labor reform agenda that emerged during the Great Depression.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"No Ordinary Time"},{"content":"Summary\nThe Federalist Papers are a collection of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay in support of the Constitution drafted in 1787, over a decade after the Declaration of Independence. With the benefit of hindsight, historical events and structures can often seem predetermined, obscuring the many decisions that had to be made along the way. The journey of the United States from independence to forming a federal government was not a straight path. The land won by the Revolutionary War consisted of 13 colonies, newly rebranded as \u0026ldquo;states.\u0026rdquo; Each state had adopted its own constitution shortly after rebelling against the British crown. These individual states were loosely united during the Revolutionary War under the Articles of Confederation, which defined a weak central government and functioned more like a treaty than a true organizing principle. This absence of centralized energy resulted in many inefficiencies during both war and peace. It may seem obvious now, but for the governors of these separate states, the idea of surrendering autonomy and assuming shared responsibility with neighboring states was far from intuitive. Thus, the framers faced an uphill battle in convincing all 13 states that it was in their best interest to form a federal government. This debate can be seen as an early manifestation of the enduring tension between \u0026ldquo;big government\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;small government.\u0026rdquo; Even though the federal government of that time was far more limited than it is today, it still represented a form of \u0026ldquo;big government\u0026rdquo; that had to contend with many of the same critiques leveled by libertarians today. The framers\u0026rsquo; greatest inspiration was their nearly obsessive desire to construct a government that would, by its very design, prevent the rise of a dictator. \u0026ldquo;It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.\u0026rdquo; – Alexander Hamilton One of the key principles was that it should be the structure of the government itself that prevents abuse of power, not merely the laws it creates. This is why so much of The Federalist Papers is devoted to discussing which responsibilities should fall to the legislative, judicial, or executive branches. It was also part of the rationale behind making the Constitution difficult to amend, as the framers hoped to limit the extent to which any bad actor could consolidate power.\nThoughts\nIn a biblical sense, one could liken the Constitution to the Gospels and The Federalist Papers to the letters of Paul. By addressing as many objections as possible, the authors of The Federalist Papers provide one of the most thorough explanations of the motivations behind what might otherwise seem like an opaque document. The U.S. Constitution is the longest-lived constitution in the world, yet it is also one of the shortest. Its brevity and resistance to change have fostered a document that invites many interpretations, and it is difficult to say categorically whether this is a good or bad thing. The Constitution is inherently polarizing. Some elevate it to the level of holy writ, while others eagerly seek contradictions within it to bolster their own sense of superiority. Both approaches are understandable. On the one hand, the United States is the world\u0026rsquo;s leading superpower, and in many respects, despite its youth, it has achieved many of the goals the framers set out to accomplish. On the other hand, certain assumptions and compromises—such as those concerning slavery and women\u0026rsquo;s suffrage—are now universally rejected. The framers anticipated such tensions, attempting to strike a balance between creating a document that commands the respect necessary to serve as the foundation for a society and ensuring it would not become unchangeable, akin to a hereditary monarchy. \u0026ldquo;Frequent appeals would, in great measure, deprive the government of that veneration which time bestows on everything, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability.\u0026rdquo; – James Madison In contemporary debates about constitutional issues such as the Electoral College or Supreme Court term limits, it is important to recognize both that the framers had valid reasons for their decisions and that material conditions have changed significantly. Life expectancy has doubled, and the population has increased eighty-threefold. It is easy to forget that, though rare, we have made substantial changes to the Constitution in recent history. These changes now feel so fundamental that it can be surprising to learn that they were not part of the original document or were actively opposed at the time. For example, the two-term limit for the presidency was not imposed until the 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951. One final observation about The Federalist Papers is the cosmopolitan nature of their justifications. In modern discussions, the Founding Fathers are often portrayed in a mythic light, as if they collectively devised the best form of government ever conceived on their own. This narrative overlooks how much inspiration the framers drew from contemporary and historical governments. There are those who build their identity around the notion that \u0026ldquo;America does things differently,\u0026rdquo; and while this is true in some respects, it can be a limiting worldview. I believe the framers would have encouraged us to keep our eyes open to the world. Every government is an experiment in miniature, and we should be willing to learn not only from their mistakes but also from their successes.\nPeople/Alexander Hamilton\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-federalist-papers/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Federalist Papers\u003c/em\u003e are a collection of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay in support of the Constitution drafted in 1787, over a decade after the Declaration of Independence. With the benefit of hindsight, historical events and structures can often seem predetermined, obscuring the many decisions that had to be made along the way. The journey of the United States from independence to forming a federal government was not a straight path. The land won by the Revolutionary War consisted of 13 colonies, newly rebranded as \u0026ldquo;states.\u0026rdquo; Each state had adopted its own constitution shortly after rebelling against the British crown. These individual states were loosely united during the Revolutionary War under the Articles of Confederation, which defined a weak central government and functioned more like a treaty than a true organizing principle. This absence of centralized energy resulted in many inefficiencies during both war and peace. It may seem obvious now, but for the governors of these separate states, the idea of surrendering autonomy and assuming shared responsibility with neighboring states was far from intuitive. Thus, the framers faced an uphill battle in convincing all 13 states that it was in their best interest to form a federal government. This debate can be seen as an early manifestation of the enduring tension between \u0026ldquo;big government\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;small government.\u0026rdquo; Even though the federal government of that time was far more limited than it is today, it still represented a form of \u0026ldquo;big government\u0026rdquo; that had to contend with many of the same critiques leveled by libertarians today. The framers\u0026rsquo; greatest inspiration was their nearly obsessive desire to construct a government that would, by its very design, prevent the rise of a dictator. \u0026ldquo;It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.\u0026rdquo; – Alexander Hamilton One of the key principles was that it should be the structure of the government itself that prevents abuse of power, not merely the laws it creates. This is why so much of \u003cem\u003eThe Federalist Papers\u003c/em\u003e is devoted to discussing which responsibilities should fall to the legislative, judicial, or executive branches. It was also part of the rationale behind making the Constitution difficult to amend, as the framers hoped to limit the extent to which any bad actor could consolidate power.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Federalist Papers"},{"content":"Summary\nJohn Maynard Keynes would go on to become a household name in economics, ultimately achieving the highest honor of becoming an adjectival eponym for his \u0026lsquo;Keynesian\u0026rsquo; style of economic thinking. Keynes published this monumental work in 1936 during the height of the Great Depression, a period that baffled many classical economists. The primary issue at the time was cripplingly high unemployment rates paired with low demand, triggering a deflationary spiral. Theoretically, this situation should not have occurred because higher unemployment would typically lead to lower wages due to increased competition for jobs. Lower wages should, in turn, result in higher profits for investors, leading to increased investment and, subsequently, higher employment. This is what economists call equilibrium, where demand and supply are perfectly balanced. So why wasn\u0026rsquo;t this happening during the Great Depression? Classical economists believed that some form of market distortion, such as fiscal or monetary policy, must have been at play. Keynes, however, argued that the distortion they sought was not the result of policy but an inherent feature of economies themselves. While it might be simplistically argued that free markets will eventually find the prized equilibrium, Keynes believed that economies could get stuck along the way, like a climber snagged on a ledge. He summarized this idea in his best-known quote: \u0026ldquo;The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.\u0026rdquo; The central idea of Keynes\u0026rsquo; The General Theory is that the level of employment is not determined by the price of labor but by the aggregate demand in the economy. This marked a departure from classical schools of thought, which assumed that supply would naturally generate demand. Keynes observed several circumstances that could disrupt this process. For example, wages tend to be \u0026ldquo;sticky,\u0026rdquo; meaning they are more easily adjusted upwards than downwards. As long as demand grows, wages can be sustained, but when demand contracts, employers are more likely to lay off workers than reduce wages. Moreover, Keynes emphasized the role of behavioral economics, noting that while thrift may be a virtue for individuals, widespread saving instead of investing can contract overall demand. One solution Keynes proposed for governments to stimulate a stagnating economy was through active spending. In hindsight, this is precisely what helped pull the U.S. out of the Great Depression. Between FDR\u0026rsquo;s New Deal and the massive government investment spurred by World War II, these actions acted like defibrillators, restarting the economic engine. Why is government spending sometimes necessary to combat deflation and high unemployment? It starts with a Keynesian concept known as the multiplier. This principle connects to another economic concept—the marginal utility of income. If someone with no money is given $1, that first dollar has a huge impact. Each additional dollar continues to have an effect, but eventually, the impact diminishes. This principle is known as the Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC). Classical economists assumed that each new dollar would be equally likely to be saved or invested, but Keynes\u0026rsquo; MPC demonstrates why this is not always true. In a deflationary spiral, the problem becomes how to encourage consumption when prices continue to fall. The multiplier effect shows that if you target individuals with a high MPC, you can increase overall demand. Government programs that direct funds to those most likely to spend can create a virtuous cycle, where every dollar spent by the government increases the gross domestic product (GDP) by a multiplier. For example, the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which allocated over $780 billion to boost economic demand, had an estimated multiplier effect ranging from 1.5 to 2.5—meaning every dollar spent could add up to $2.50 to the GDP.\nThoughts\nWhile I am by no means equipped to offer a comprehensive review of this book, I found The General Theory to range from dry to, at times, unintelligible—similar to Wealth of Nations. Nevertheless, after working through the ramifications of Keynes\u0026rsquo; theory over the past few weeks, I feel I am beginning to grasp some of its key terms and perspectives. Economics requires a redefinition of terms like consumption, profit, capital, and debt. The way these terms are used in common parlance can hinder disinterested reasoning about their true effects. One key takeaway from Keynes\u0026rsquo; work is that a virtue at the individual level can become a vice when applied to the population at large. It is also fascinating to see how concepts like the Marginal Propensity to Consume naturally lead to ideas like progressive taxation (i.e., adjusting the tax rate based on income level). This book goes a long way in explaining why institutions like the Federal Reserve have target rates for both interest and unemployment. As Keynes might put it, the ultimate goal of a central bank should be to avoid the extremes of boom and bust, favoring a prolonged quasi-boom instead.\nJohn Maynard Keynes\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-general-theory-of-employment-interest-and-money-great-minds/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn Maynard Keynes would go on to become a household name in economics, ultimately achieving the highest honor of becoming an adjectival eponym for his \u0026lsquo;Keynesian\u0026rsquo; style of economic thinking. Keynes published this monumental work in 1936 during the height of the Great Depression, a period that baffled many classical economists. The primary issue at the time was cripplingly high unemployment rates paired with low demand, triggering a deflationary spiral. Theoretically, this situation should not have occurred because higher unemployment would typically lead to lower wages due to increased competition for jobs. Lower wages should, in turn, result in higher profits for investors, leading to increased investment and, subsequently, higher employment. This is what economists call equilibrium, where demand and supply are perfectly balanced. So why wasn\u0026rsquo;t this happening during the Great Depression? Classical economists believed that some form of market distortion, such as fiscal or monetary policy, must have been at play. Keynes, however, argued that the distortion they sought was not the result of policy but an inherent feature of economies themselves. While it might be simplistically argued that free markets will eventually find the prized equilibrium, Keynes believed that economies could get stuck along the way, like a climber snagged on a ledge. He summarized this idea in his best-known quote: \u003cstrong\u003e\u0026ldquo;The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/strong\u003e The central idea of Keynes\u0026rsquo; \u003cem\u003eThe General Theory\u003c/em\u003e is that the level of employment is not determined by the price of labor but by the aggregate demand in the economy. This marked a departure from classical schools of thought, which assumed that supply would naturally generate demand. Keynes observed several circumstances that could disrupt this process. For example, wages tend to be \u0026ldquo;sticky,\u0026rdquo; meaning they are more easily adjusted upwards than downwards. As long as demand grows, wages can be sustained, but when demand contracts, employers are more likely to lay off workers than reduce wages. Moreover, Keynes emphasized the role of behavioral economics, noting that while thrift may be a virtue for individuals, widespread saving instead of investing can contract overall demand. One solution Keynes proposed for governments to stimulate a stagnating economy was through active spending. In hindsight, this is precisely what helped pull the U.S. out of the Great Depression. Between FDR\u0026rsquo;s New Deal and the massive government investment spurred by World War II, these actions acted like defibrillators, restarting the economic engine. Why is government spending sometimes necessary to combat deflation and high unemployment? It starts with a Keynesian concept known as the \u003cstrong\u003emultiplier\u003c/strong\u003e. This principle connects to another economic concept—the \u003cstrong\u003emarginal utility of income\u003c/strong\u003e. If someone with no money is given $1, that first dollar has a huge impact. Each additional dollar continues to have an effect, but eventually, the impact diminishes. This principle is known as the \u003cstrong\u003eMarginal Propensity to Consume (MPC)\u003c/strong\u003e. Classical economists assumed that each new dollar would be equally likely to be saved or invested, but Keynes\u0026rsquo; MPC demonstrates why this is not always true. In a deflationary spiral, the problem becomes how to encourage consumption when prices continue to fall. The multiplier effect shows that if you target individuals with a high MPC, you can increase overall demand. Government programs that direct funds to those most likely to spend can create a virtuous cycle, where every dollar spent by the government increases the gross domestic product (GDP) by a multiplier. For example, the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which allocated over $780 billion to boost economic demand, had an estimated multiplier effect ranging from 1.5 to 2.5—meaning every dollar spent could add up to $2.50 to the GDP.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (Great Minds)"},{"content":"The Void\nThere is a hole in the center of our galaxy, a place where no light lives. This unnerving fact is the key to understanding: the black hole Sagittarius A* is the last answer. Once you’ve seen it show up in one place you start to realize how truly ubiquitous it is. Perhaps hiding beneath every rock or lurking behind every tree.\nSolaris\nStanislaw Lem’s Solaris is the story of a psychologist named Kris who was sent up to investigate an alien planet. In this science fiction book, humanity had long ago discovered a planet that refused to communicate with humans; it was enveloped inside an ocean that was potentially intelligent but infuriatingly enigmatic. The ocean could configure itself into a vast array of structures and shapes often imitating things that were stored in the memories of the scientists attempting to study it. Shortly before Kris’ arrival, the station scientists bombarded Solaris with high-energy X-rays. In the wake of this experiment, the ocean began producing \u0026lsquo;guests\u0026rsquo; - physical manifestations drawn from the scientists\u0026rsquo; memories, often embodying their deepest traumas. Whether this was a response, a coincidence, or something else remains a mystery. In Kris’ case, his guest was his dead lover, Rheya. She committed suicide after years of despair, leaving Kris with the crippling survivor’s guilt of a partner who had not done enough. It is in this setting that Lem explores the limitations of rationality. The main example is the scientists’ complete inability to establish a teleological justification for the choices that the ocean on Solaris makes. Most assume that were an alien civilization to make contact, communication would be as simple as translating from Spanish to English. This is not the case with Solaris. Wittgenstein observed that “If a lion could speak, we could not understand him.” The idea touches not only on the difficulty of translation but also on the role linguistics plays in the creation of being. Linguistics is a plane that simultaneously anchors and suspends us above reality itself. When Kris is confronted with the apparition of Rheya, the isolation of this mode of experience is made evident. The guest is not Rheya, but Kris’ memory of her, including his simplifications and misunderstandings. As far as the scientists can tell, she is a strange neutrino structure held together by an unknown force, not unlike the memory from which she originated. In some ways she is the problem par excellence, the problem of the gap, the hole that is in the center of our galaxy. Language, the great web of signifiers and signifieds, is self-referential and the self at the center is a void. What makes the neutrino less plausible than a mental representation formed from various sense perceptions of the ‘real’ thing? This is a problem of closed systems; Solaris represents a parallel closed system that is inscrutable to our best attempts to peek inside. Like a Möbius strip, there is no entry or exit, only internal transformations. Any progress one makes towards ultimate realization is bound to collapse back on itself due to the untraversable gap between language and experience. Solaris’ ways are not our ways. As humans, there is a certain comfort to the idea of another system of rationality. Perhaps if there were, we would no longer feel so responsible as the sole namers in the universe. We would not be alone in bearing the weight of reflection. Maybe the new gods would know what the hole at the center of the galaxy was for? Various ideologies promise to deal with the void, but the solutions are often misdirection, pure sleight of hand; they move the void a few steps back, but it won’t be gotten rid of so easily. The lesson of Solaris is that even were we to find a companion god, this other thing would likely not share our burden, but would become yet another point of reflection. Another thing that can only show ourselves back to ourselves. A mirror is not an answer. In the end, it is authenticity that drives us from the inside out. To see things as they are, not as we wish them to be. While our experiences are destined to be shared in solitude, we can be sparks in a night. Landmarks for other seekers to see and reflect.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/essays/solaris/","summary":"Stanisław Lem’s Solaris, language and the void, and why contact might never mean mutual understanding.","title":"Solaris"},{"content":"Summary\nWe are all familiar with the scientific method: observe, theorize, experiment, and repeat. This algorithm is humanity\u0026rsquo;s most effective tool for understanding the universe. However, Bill Hammack introduces readers to what he calls the \u0026ldquo;engineering method.\u0026rdquo; While it\u0026rsquo;s commonly believed that scientists create knowledge and engineers apply it, Hammack argues that this perspective greatly underestimates the engineer\u0026rsquo;s role in discovery. He asserts that engineers must be the ultimate pragmatists, unable to wait for perfect knowledge. Instead, they often operate by \u0026ldquo;rules of thumb\u0026rdquo; that push the boundaries of what is known. Hammack illustrates this through various examples, from the thickness of cathedral supports to the invention of the O-ring. Unlike scientists, engineers are constrained by cultural contexts, limited resources, and, most critically, the need to deliver solutions within time constraints. A compelling example is the \u0026lsquo;100-year wind\u0026rsquo; concept, where engineers must design structures, such as skyscrapers, to withstand rare but severe events predicted to occur within the next century. The challenge is that we often lack a century\u0026rsquo;s worth of wind data for an area, forcing engineers to rely on modern \u0026ldquo;rules of thumb,\u0026rdquo; involving complex, yet pragmatic, statistical predictions based on limited or incomplete data. The crux of Hammack’s argument is that while a mathematician might balk at the imprecision of these methods, engineers must proceed not in a world of perfect knowledge, but in one driven by experiential understanding. Often, the only way to answer a question is to build the answer.\nThoughts\nThere exists a fundamental debate in philosophy between scientific realists, who believe that science describes the universe as it truly is, and scientific instrumentalists, who are agnostic about the relationship between scientific knowledge and \u0026ldquo;True knowledge,\u0026rdquo; focusing instead on the utility that scientific knowledge provides. Bill Hammack clearly aligns with the instrumentalists, as do most of us, whether we realize it or not. While we can endlessly debate the foundations of knowledge, the reality is that we rely on a world built from our limited perspectives and knowledge to navigate life. Hammack’s work underscores this pragmatic reliance, reminding us that the things we make are often the best answers we have in a world of imperfect information.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-things-we-make-the-unknown-history-of-invention-from-cathedrals-to-soda-cans/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe are all familiar with the scientific method: observe, theorize, experiment, and repeat. This algorithm is humanity\u0026rsquo;s most effective tool for understanding the universe. However, Bill Hammack introduces readers to what he calls the \u0026ldquo;engineering method.\u0026rdquo; While it\u0026rsquo;s commonly believed that scientists create knowledge and engineers apply it, Hammack argues that this perspective greatly underestimates the engineer\u0026rsquo;s role in discovery. He asserts that engineers must be the ultimate pragmatists, unable to wait for perfect knowledge. Instead, they often operate by \u0026ldquo;rules of thumb\u0026rdquo; that push the boundaries of what is known. Hammack illustrates this through various examples, from the thickness of cathedral supports to the invention of the O-ring. Unlike scientists, engineers are constrained by cultural contexts, limited resources, and, most critically, the need to deliver solutions within time constraints. A compelling example is the \u0026lsquo;100-year wind\u0026rsquo; concept, where engineers must design structures, such as skyscrapers, to withstand rare but severe events predicted to occur within the next century. The challenge is that we often lack a century\u0026rsquo;s worth of wind data for an area, forcing engineers to rely on modern \u0026ldquo;rules of thumb,\u0026rdquo; involving complex, yet pragmatic, statistical predictions based on limited or incomplete data. The crux of Hammack’s argument is that while a mathematician might balk at the imprecision of these methods, engineers must proceed not in a world of perfect knowledge, but in one driven by experiential understanding. Often, the only way to answer a question is to build the answer.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Things We Make"},{"content":"Summary\nMcCullough gives a fairly detailed account of the first year of the American Revolution against the British. Focusing largely on George Washington, this book is more interested in the military maneuvers of both sides without getting too bogged down in the political philosophy of the moment. The first year of America\u0026rsquo;s Revolution was a dark one, but by its end several close calls set the stage for surprise attack by Washington which reinvigorated a fledgling nation\u0026rsquo;s resistance and would be forever memorialized by the famous \u0026ldquo;Crossing the Delaware\u0026rdquo; painting.\nThoughts\nA great accounting of the year although I must say by the end, I was wishing that it continued to cover the rest of the conflict. McCullough did a great job showing the impossibility of Washington\u0026rsquo;s position as general of likely one of the most rag tag armies to have ever existed.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/1776/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMcCullough gives a fairly detailed account of the first year of the American Revolution against the British. Focusing largely on George Washington, this book is more interested in the military maneuvers of both sides without getting too bogged down in the political philosophy of the moment. The first year of America\u0026rsquo;s Revolution was a dark one, but by its end several close calls set the stage for surprise attack by Washington which reinvigorated a fledgling nation\u0026rsquo;s resistance and would be forever memorialized by the famous \u0026ldquo;Crossing the Delaware\u0026rdquo; painting.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"1776"},{"content":"Summary\nAdam Smith lays out one of the first exhaustive accounts of how a complex, developed economy functions. Published in 1776 during some \u0026ldquo;difficulties\u0026rdquo; in the relationship between Britain and one of its colonies, Smith makes the case for fundamental economic concepts like free markets and the division of labor.\nThe first book, by far my favorite, presents the fundamentals of Smith\u0026rsquo;s concepts of value, wages, and labor. One of his key observations concerns the transport of goods. He argues that without the capacity of water to transport heavy items easily, civilization itself would have been greatly hampered. This insight helps explain why civilizations emerged near bodies of water that were easily navigable, most notably in the Mediterranean. It is always fascinating to observe how the limitations imposed by an environment affect the systems that find ways to thrive within those given constraints.\nOne of the main goals of this book was to combat the then-popular view that a country\u0026rsquo;s wealth should be measured by the amount of silver or gold it held in its treasury. This system, known as mercantilism, focused largely on trade relations and trying to avoid situations where more money was leaving the country via imports than was coming in via exports—otherwise known as a trade deficit. Smith took great pains, using several case studies, to convincingly argue that the wealth of a nation lies not in how much money it possesses but in its ability to produce commodities. A fantastic case study was the fall of the once-superpower of Spain. Spain was utterly obsessed with amassing gold and silver, which informed their entire relationship with the Americas. Smith points out in an ingenious fashion how this obsession caused them to neglect investment in local manufacturing and flood their markets with gold and silver. This counterintuitively made everything more expensive because, to Smith\u0026rsquo;s point, gold is merely the medium through which value is transported, not the value itself. As the supply of gold increased, its real value—how much corn it could buy—decreased. This had the dual effect of raising the cost of living in Spain while simultaneously making their exports less desirable to neighboring nations. For this reason, Smith argued that grain is a much better proxy for real value because, during his time, the amount of labor required to produce it was relatively stable. Thus, if a bushel of corn costs twice as much gold as it did one hundred years ago, we could deduce that the supply of gold in that economy had proportionately increased.\nAnother goal of The Wealth of Nations was to demonstrate how free markets were often preferable to heavily regulated ones. A particularly controversial example he gives is about price controls on grain during a famine. As a leader facing a grain shortage, you would expect the price of grain to rise as the supply dwindles. The temptation would be to impose price controls to ensure your subjects can continue to access grain despite the shortage. Smith would argue that this is a surefire way to turn a shortage into a famine. He contends that as the supply dries up, the price will gradually increase. This, in turn, will cause your subjects to ration their purchases because they naturally can\u0026rsquo;t afford as much as they previously could. This results in the grain supply being depleted at a slower rate, giving the leader a chance to limp through the shortage, while the other approach guarantees a famine. That being said, Smith wasn\u0026rsquo;t against all regulations and in fact argued for several different types, but typically ones that would act to shape the economy instead of restrictions which limited the movement of capital.\nSmith covers a lot of other ground, some of my favorites being:\nThe relationship between rural and urban production The different employments of capital Specialization Broad strategies for creating an effective tax system The likely bad investments that colonies make Thoughts\nIt\u0026rsquo;s hard to give a review of this book because, on one hand, it is an absolute classic, but on the other hand, it was probably the driest book I\u0026rsquo;ve read all year. It dove into the minutiae of various European trade agreements, using various forms of currency with which I am not familiar. Many cities and leaders were referenced to whom I had not the slightest connection. The overall effect was that it was difficult to stay focused. I tried to remedy this by reading various resources after finishing the book to ensure I was understanding his arguments correctly. That being said, this book is a slog to get through. It was helpful in rounding out my economic understanding, but my time might have been better spent listening to a lecturer work their way through the text instead of tackling it myself. That being said, I found the first book to be especially interesting and full of useful descriptions and theoretical explanations.\n#book\n#adam_smith #the_wealth_of_nations #economics #free_markets #division_of_labor #mercantilism #economic_theory #capitalism #trade_and_transport #specialization #price_controls #spanish_empire #economic_history #classical_economics #1776 #book_review\nPeople/Adam Smith\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/an-inquiry-into-the-nature-and-causes-of-the-wealth-of-nations/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdam Smith lays out one of the first exhaustive accounts of how a complex, developed economy functions. Published in 1776 during some \u0026ldquo;difficulties\u0026rdquo; in the relationship between Britain and one of its colonies, Smith makes the case for fundamental economic concepts like free markets and the division of labor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first book, by far my favorite, presents the fundamentals of Smith\u0026rsquo;s concepts of value, wages, and labor. One of his key observations concerns the transport of goods. He argues that without the capacity of water to transport heavy items easily, civilization itself would have been greatly hampered. This insight helps explain why civilizations emerged near bodies of water that were easily navigable, most notably in the Mediterranean. It is always fascinating to observe how the limitations imposed by an environment affect the systems that find ways to thrive within those given constraints.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations"},{"content":"Marcus Aurelius, one of the greatest emperors Rome ever produced, wrote a series of notes to himself. It is believed that these notes were never meant to be published but were part of his personal practice of self-improvement and philosophical reflection. Scattered with exhortations to not bend beneath the pressures of life, the reader is presented with a picture of life as something to be endured:\n\u0026ldquo;Be like a rocky promontory against which the restless surf continually pounds.\u0026rdquo;\nThese types of quotes play into the modern stereotype of stoicism, which has been gaining popularity in recent years. However, while reading the Meditations, it quickly becomes clear that there is more to stoicism than its Clint Eastwood avatars.\n\u0026ldquo;Universal nature uses the substance of the universe like wax, making now the model of a horse, then melting it down and using its material for a tree.\u0026rdquo;\nLines like these remind the reader that there is more to Stoicism than grit; there is an ordered universe that operates by rational principles. It is up to the individual not to be distracted by the transient frustrations and temptations that surround them. There is a sense that the truth of the universe is apparent through rationality, but our own self-deception constantly tries to conceal nature\u0026rsquo;s purposes.\n\u0026ldquo;Either a stew, an intricate web, and dispersal into atoms; or unity, order, and providence.\u0026rdquo;\nAnother recurrent theme is the contrast between an ordered view of the universe and that of a random universe. As a Stoic, Marcus is deeply committed to the ordered view of the universe, yet he often investigates his conclusions from the Epicurean (random universe) viewpoint. He does this to reaffirm that the most important conclusion of either view is to lead a virtuous life.\n\u0026ldquo;Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.\u0026rdquo;\nOne admirable aspect of Marcus Aurelius is that he put his high-flying virtues into practice. He managed to avoid many of the vices that were so easily accessible to a Roman emperor, leading an extraordinarily simple life given the circumstances. His virtuous life appears even more stark when contrasted with the absolute depravity of his son, Commodus.\nThroughout the Meditations, there is a tension between individualism and collectivism. Humanity is often referred to in terms of a beehive or a body:\n\u0026ldquo;What does not benefit the hive does not benefit the bee either.\u0026rdquo;\nAlternatively, Marcus constantly reminds himself not to be annoyed by other bees in the hive because they are only acting according to their nature.\n\u0026ldquo;Say to yourself first thing in the morning: today I will meet with people who are meddling.\u0026rdquo;\nThis tension highlights one of the main contradictions in Stoicism. The central claim of Stoicism is that the universe is completely ordered by the Logos. A completely ordered universe is equivalent to a completely deterministic universe. The question that naturally arises then is, where did the error come from? For example, if I get stung by a bee, a Stoic would say that the bee sting was part of the natural order of things; therefore, I should not give in to the pain and should control my emotions. Wouldn\u0026rsquo;t my reaction to start a global empire of pesticide distribution to target that specific genus of bees also be part of the natural order? Stoicism leaves no room in its universe for the virtue that is so important to it. This line of questioning is interesting because I think, if followed, it would cause the Stoic to make similar arguments that theists do when trying to explain \u0026rsquo;the problem of evil'.\nMetaphysics aside, the Meditations provide some very practical advice that continues to offer consolation in a world that often feels adversarial towards well-being. One of the best practices in the Meditations is a form of dissociation, reorientation, and reintegration. The steps are as follows: you find yourself in a problem, the first step is to dissociate from the emotions that the problem is creating. This allows for a disinterested rational examination. Then, you remind yourself of the brevity of your experiences, how insignificant they are in the grand scheme of things. You remind yourself that your job is very simple: to endure. You then re-enter the experience with this frame of mind.\nOverall, I really enjoyed this book. I found it to contain great practical insights that are easily applicable a couple thousand years later.\n#book #marcus_aurelius #stoicism #meditations #philosophy #self_improvement #roman_empire #rationality #universal_order #virtue #determinism #practical_advice #emotional_control #individualism_vs_collectivism #ancient_wisdom\nPeople/Marcus Aurelius\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/meditations-marcus-aurelius-antonius-the-roman-emperor/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eMarcus Aurelius, one of the greatest emperors Rome ever produced, wrote a series of notes to himself. It is believed that these notes were never meant to be published but were part of his personal practice of self-improvement and philosophical reflection. Scattered with exhortations to not bend beneath the pressures of life, the reader is presented with a picture of life as something to be endured:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026ldquo;Be like a rocky promontory against which the restless surf continually pounds.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Meditations (Marcus Aurelius Antonius the Roman Emperor)"},{"content":"I try to review every book I read or listen to, but I have a hard time with these types of books because they are summary style. How would you rate a Wikipedia article? You may be able to, but odds are the rating would have more to do with the facticity of the article versus its writing. I have no knowledge on the topic, so I cannot review that aspect. What I can say is that this did a decent job introducing the Ottomans to a Western reader, although you would do well to get a mental picture of Eastern Europe and Western Asia as there are so many places mentioned. Your eyes will probably glaze over unless you can picture their locations in your head. The reader for this audiobook was not fantastic. I will definitely want to dig more into the Ottomans, but probably after getting a better picture of early European history.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-ottomans-an-enthralling-overview-of-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-ottoman-empire-and-the-life-of-suleiman-the-magnificent-exploring-the-past/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI try to review every book I read or listen to, but I have a hard time with these types of books because they are summary style. How would you rate a Wikipedia article? You may be able to, but odds are the rating would have more to do with the facticity of the article versus its writing. I have no knowledge on the topic, so I cannot review that aspect. What I can say is that this did a decent job introducing the Ottomans to a Western reader, although you would do well to get a mental picture of Eastern Europe and Western Asia as there are so many places mentioned. Your eyes will probably glaze over unless you can picture their locations in your head. The reader for this audiobook was not fantastic. I will definitely want to dig more into the Ottomans, but probably after getting a better picture of early European history.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Ottomans"},{"content":"Summary\nA concise account of one of America\u0026rsquo;s most popular presidents and his infamous assassination.\nThoughts\nThe authors\u0026rsquo; intent with this book was to write history in a way that was \u0026ldquo;fun.\u0026rdquo; They largely succeeded; Killing Kennedy reads similarly to a tabloid, filled with murders, conspiracies, villainous Russian leaders, and, of course, lots of sex. In defense of Bill O\u0026rsquo;Reilly, if ever there was a presidency that lent itself to this lens of analysis, it was JFK\u0026rsquo;s. Serving from 1961 to 1963, JFK was at once the most powerful man in the world and nearly the youngest president in US history. In those three short years, America navigated through the Cuban Missile Crisis, the rise of the Civil Rights Movement, and the inception of the Vietnam War. This book is a quick and easy way to get some context surrounding America\u0026rsquo;s 35th president, as long as the writing style doesn\u0026rsquo;t grate too strongly against your sensibilities.\n#book\n#jfk #assassination #american_presidents #bill_oreilly #history #1960s #cold_war #civil_rights_movement #cuban_missile_crisis #vietnam_war #kennedy_presidency #historical_narrative\nBill O\u0026rsquo; Reilly\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/killing-kennedy-the-end-of-camelot/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA concise account of one of America\u0026rsquo;s most popular presidents and his infamous assassination.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors\u0026rsquo; intent with this book was to write history in a way that was \u0026ldquo;fun.\u0026rdquo; They largely succeeded; Killing Kennedy reads similarly to a tabloid, filled with murders, conspiracies, villainous Russian leaders, and, of course, lots of sex. In defense of Bill O\u0026rsquo;Reilly, if ever there was a presidency that lent itself to this lens of analysis, it was JFK\u0026rsquo;s. Serving from 1961 to 1963, JFK was at once the most powerful man in the world and nearly the youngest president in US history. In those three short years, America navigated through the Cuban Missile Crisis, the rise of the Civil Rights Movement, and the inception of the Vietnam War. This book is a quick and easy way to get some context surrounding America\u0026rsquo;s 35th president, as long as the writing style doesn\u0026rsquo;t grate too strongly against your sensibilities.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Killing Kennedy"},{"content":"I enjoyed the book, although I was looking for something a little more Zee Frank, with more interesting anecdotes. Apparently, the fact that wasps can recognize faces just isn\u0026rsquo;t cool enough for me. The book\u0026rsquo;s central push is to challenge the assumptions we make about intelligence. We often assume that intelligence has to look like \u0026ldquo;human intelligence.\u0026rdquo; This would have been quite controversial fifty years ago, but it seems to be almost common knowledge now. My biggest complaint about this book is that it picks an interesting subject—animal intelligence, or intelligence in general—yet fails to say much meaningful about it. There is a common trope throughout history where someone will say something like \u0026ldquo;play is what makes humans different from animals,\u0026rdquo; only for science to eventually realize that animals play too, and therefore \u0026ldquo;play\u0026rdquo; isn\u0026rsquo;t the thing that makes humans different from animals. [a: Frans de Waal|112082|Frans de Waal|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1222704792p2/112082.jpg] dismantles many more of these potential differences between humans and animals to drive home the point that humans aren\u0026rsquo;t different from animals—which seems both right and wrong to me. Of course, when looking at the evolutionary tree, there isn\u0026rsquo;t a special branch from which humans came. But this then makes the question around the success of humans even more interesting. If animals engage in all the behaviors that were thought to be exclusive to the human domain, why haven\u0026rsquo;t they dominated the environment in a way remotely similar to humans?\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/are-we-smart-enough-to-know-how-smart-animals-are/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI enjoyed the book, although I was looking for something a little more \u003cem\u003eZee Frank\u003c/em\u003e, with more interesting anecdotes. Apparently, the fact that wasps can recognize faces just isn\u0026rsquo;t cool enough for me.  The book\u0026rsquo;s central push is to challenge the assumptions we make about intelligence. We often assume that intelligence has to look like \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;human intelligence.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e This would have been quite controversial fifty years ago, but it seems to be almost common knowledge now. My biggest complaint about this book is that it picks an interesting subject—animal intelligence, or intelligence in general—yet fails to say much meaningful about it. There is a common trope throughout history where someone will say something like \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;play is what makes humans different from animals,\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e only for science to eventually realize that animals play too, and therefore \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;play\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e isn\u0026rsquo;t the thing that makes humans different from animals. [a: Frans de Waal|112082|Frans de Waal|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1222704792p2/112082.jpg] dismantles many more of these potential differences between humans and animals to drive home the point that humans aren\u0026rsquo;t different from animals—which seems both right and wrong to me. Of course, when looking at the evolutionary tree, there isn\u0026rsquo;t a \u003cem\u003especial\u003c/em\u003e branch from which humans came. But this then makes the question around the success of humans even more interesting. If animals engage in all the behaviors that were thought to be exclusive to the human domain, why haven\u0026rsquo;t they dominated the environment in a way remotely similar to humans?\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?"},{"content":"Summary\nScottish philosopher David Hume explores various approaches to theism via dialogue, featuring three central figures:\nDemea Demea represents pre-Enlightenment theism, which emphasized the difference between man and God. The godhead is unintelligible and must be approached by faith alone. We must make our way through this veil of tears, holding on to the belief that everything will be put to rights in the next world. Cleanthes Cleanthes is a post-Enlightenment scientific Christian who highlights the similarities between the mind of God and human reason. To Cleanthes, man can access God, though imperfectly, through reason. When he looks at the universe, he sees a marvelous machine designed by a benevolent creator. It is the delight of man to learn more about their creator by discovering the mechanisms by which the universe operates. Philo Philo is a theistic skeptic, whose role in the dialogue is to tease out the problems in his friends\u0026rsquo; positions. His view is closer to that of Demea but differs in conclusion, believing that it is incredibly unlikely that any human will land on a cosmology that is anywhere near the truth. Therefore, the wisest tactic would be to approach the topic with caution.\nThoughts\nThis was a very disorienting book for me; I ended up having to go through it twice. I think the reason for the confusion was that almost everyone I know holds views similar to both Demea and Cleanthes simultaneously. That is, if you ask a typical theist \u0026ldquo;why\u0026rdquo; questions, they tend to be perfectly able to produce answers, but at some point, there always comes a point when the answer is something along the lines of \u0026ldquo;God\u0026rsquo;s ways are not our ways, we must trust the Divine will.\u0026rdquo; For example, one of the earliest questions of this type that helped to spawn Manicheanism was asked by Epicurus:\n\u0026ldquo;Would God, if willing to prevent evil but unable, be omnipotent? Would he be capable but unwilling? Then he is malevolent. Would he be both capable and willing? Then why is there evil?\u0026rdquo;\nHume, by creating two consistent characters, allows us to contrast these two approaches to understanding God. Thus, Demea will quickly point to the mystery of God, while Cleanthes will struggle to come up with a reasonable answer, which in the end is usually equally mysterious or fantastic. This doesn\u0026rsquo;t let Demea off the hook either, because for him, the idea of dogma and revelation, and basic epistemology becomes suspect. If God is beyond the reach of the human intellect, trying to pin down the true nature and motivations of the deity becomes an exercise in futility, mere guesswork. Leaning on revelation in sacred texts does not alleviate this difficulty but merely kicks the can down the road. Any system of belief built upon text quickly extends past the claims of the text itself and finds itself reliant on the reason of man, which is supposedly nothing like the mind of God.\nThis is the essential claim of Philo that both approaches to God, in the end, leave one unsatisfied. Meditating on the limitations and contradictions of human reason should help foster intellectual humility. This is the first step away from inquisition and towards the kind of tolerance that has become so linked with the very nature of classical liberalism. That is, there are things we are certain about, and perhaps we are certainly wrong.\n#book\nPeople/David Hume\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/dialogues-concerning-natural-religion/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eScottish philosopher David Hume explores various approaches to theism via dialogue, featuring three central figures:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDemea\u003c/em\u003e\nDemea represents pre-Enlightenment theism, which emphasized the difference between man and God. The godhead is unintelligible and must be approached by faith alone. We must make our way through this veil of tears, holding on to the belief that everything will be put to rights in the next world.\n\u003cem\u003eCleanthes\u003c/em\u003e\nCleanthes is a post-Enlightenment scientific Christian who highlights the similarities between the mind of God and human reason. To Cleanthes, man can access God, though imperfectly, through reason. When he looks at the universe, he sees a marvelous machine designed by a benevolent creator. It is the delight of man to learn more about their creator by discovering the mechanisms by which the universe operates.\n\u003cem\u003ePhilo\u003c/em\u003e\nPhilo is a theistic skeptic, whose role in the dialogue is to tease out the problems in his friends\u0026rsquo; positions. His view is closer to that of Demea but differs in conclusion, believing that it is incredibly unlikely that any human will land on a cosmology that is anywhere near the truth. Therefore, the wisest tactic would be to approach the topic with caution.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion"},{"content":"Summary\nSplit into six separate meditations, Descartes seeks to discard everything uncertain and rebuild philosophy from first principles. His chief goal is to demonstrate that the existence of God can be made evident and irrefutable by philosophy alone. This, in turn, suggests that the mind is the only ingredient required to discover God.\nThoughts\nAs often happens in life, the thing we set out to do bears little resemblance to what is actually done. Intended as a work of apologetics, it is Descartes\u0026rsquo; doubt that would forever be remembered. The prevailing school of thought at the time was one of certainty in the senses. Descartes\u0026rsquo; success lay in his ability to cast doubt on the reliability of the senses because they can often be tricked. For example, we trust our senses while dreaming, yet discard their reality upon awakening. I personally have also had dreams where I wake up, and yet, in reality, am still dreaming. The film \u0026ldquo;The Matrix\u0026rdquo; plays with this idea of a curated reality designed explicitly to trick the experiencer into a \u0026ldquo;false\u0026rdquo; experience. Accepting this possibility, what then can we know? This question produces his famous statement, \u0026ldquo;I think, therefore I am.\u0026rdquo; If one imagines reality to be the most extreme version of untruth, where everything we experience is a trick, one thing remains true: it is the \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rdquo; that is being deceived. Descartes then takes this as his foundation for the rest of his arguments, which are, unfortunately, less convincing. Another valuable insight is his distinction between \u0026ldquo;clear\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;confused\u0026rdquo; ideas, or more clearly, ideas that can be confused and those that cannot. For example, consider a square. It is impossible to think of a square without the geometrical properties that designate it as a two-dimensional shape. On the other hand, if you imagine any \u0026ldquo;real\u0026rdquo; object like an electron, lamp, or airplane, there will be something lacking in your idea of the thing and the thing itself. One can approach the real, but in the end, the real cannot be entirely captured by the mind. I hear criticisms of Descartes more than of almost any other philosopher. In most professions, that would be considered a bad thing, but in philosophy, it means that you are difficult to discard. While the last few meditations can easily be disregarded, the first few will persist as long as writing does. They represent a clear illustration of the correct philosophical approach to ideas: a mind that interrogates, doubts, believes, and entertains.\n#book #descartes #meditations_on_first_philosophy #philosophy #epistemology #existence_of_god #doubt #cogito_ergo_sum #clear_and_distinct_ideas #rationalism #metaphysics #critical_thinking #philosophical_insight People/ René Descartes\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/meditations-on-first-philosophy/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSplit into six separate meditations, Descartes seeks to discard everything uncertain and rebuild philosophy from first principles. His chief goal is to demonstrate that the existence of God can be made evident and irrefutable by philosophy alone. This, in turn, suggests that the mind is the only ingredient required to discover God.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs often happens in life, the thing we set out to do bears little resemblance to what is actually done. Intended as a work of apologetics, it is Descartes\u0026rsquo; doubt that would forever be remembered. The prevailing school of thought at the time was one of certainty in the senses. Descartes\u0026rsquo; success lay in his ability to cast doubt on the reliability of the senses because they can often be tricked. For example, we trust our senses while dreaming, yet discard their reality upon awakening. I personally have also had dreams where I wake up, and yet, in reality, am still dreaming. The film \u0026ldquo;The Matrix\u0026rdquo; plays with this idea of a curated reality designed explicitly to trick the experiencer into a \u0026ldquo;false\u0026rdquo; experience. Accepting this possibility, what then can we know? This question produces his famous statement, \u0026ldquo;I think, therefore I am.\u0026rdquo; If one imagines reality to be the most extreme version of untruth, where everything we experience is a trick, one thing remains true: it is the \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rdquo; that is being deceived. Descartes then takes this as his foundation for the rest of his arguments, which are, unfortunately, less convincing.\nAnother valuable insight is his distinction between \u0026ldquo;clear\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;confused\u0026rdquo; ideas, or more clearly, ideas that can be confused and those that cannot. For example, consider a square. It is impossible to think of a square without the geometrical properties that designate it as a two-dimensional shape. On the other hand, if you imagine any \u0026ldquo;real\u0026rdquo; object like an electron, lamp, or airplane, there will be something lacking in your idea of the thing and the thing itself. One can approach the real, but in the end, the real cannot be entirely captured by the mind.\nI hear criticisms of Descartes more than of almost any other philosopher. In most professions, that would be considered a bad thing, but in philosophy, it means that you are difficult to discard. While the last few meditations can easily be disregarded, the first few will persist as long as writing does. They represent a clear illustration of the correct philosophical approach to ideas: a mind that interrogates, doubts, believes, and entertains.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Meditations on First Philosophy"},{"content":"\u0026ldquo;Benjamin Franklin is the founding father who winks at us\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\nWhen we think of Benjamin Franklin today, we picture a Santa Claus character with a touch of mania. We see him flying a kite in a thunderstorm, or perhaps we see him behind a desk penning some of Poor Richard\u0026rsquo;s famous one-liners like \u0026ldquo;a cat in gloves catches no mice\u0026rdquo;. Franklin was indeed often conducting unique experiments, and his witty sayings were legendary, but Isaacson wants to show us the Franklin that has been forgotten. He was the only founding father to have signed and helped create four of the major documents of the American Revolution. His ability to strike a balance between idealism and realism along with his aversion to extremism made him the exact character required to stitch together thirteen disparate colonies into a single country.\nFranklin was almost endlessly adaptable; in his young years, he was the printer with a work ethic that impressed his Puritan neighbors, while later in life his wit and taste for the finer things won him the popularity of the French royalty, especially the ladies. At one moment, Franklin would be fully engaged in the intricacies of balancing French interests against the British; at the next, he would be drafting improvements for streetlamps. He was a man who made a family of friends wherever he went but was often cold and distant with his biological family. He walked lightly through life, managing to be curious about the how of things, but not at all about the why. He was too busy trying to make this life better to spend too much time considering what came next. Famously, near his death, when asked about the divinity of Jesus, his response was:\n\u0026quot;\u0026hellip;it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble.\u0026quot;\n#book\nBenjamin Franklin\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/benjamin-franklin-an-american-life/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026ldquo;Benjamin Franklin is the founding father who winks at us\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen we think of Benjamin Franklin today, we picture a Santa Claus character with a touch of mania. We see him flying a kite in a thunderstorm, or perhaps we see him behind a desk penning some of Poor Richard\u0026rsquo;s famous one-liners like \u0026ldquo;a cat in gloves catches no mice\u0026rdquo;. Franklin was indeed often conducting unique experiments, and his witty sayings were legendary, but Isaacson wants to show us the Franklin that has been forgotten. He was the only founding father to have signed and helped create four of the major documents of the American Revolution. His ability to strike a balance between idealism and realism along with his aversion to extremism made him the exact character required to stitch together thirteen disparate colonies into a single country.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Benjamin Franklin"},{"content":"Summary\nSocrates has just been charged with impiety and is preparing for his trial, which will ultimately lead to his execution. He encounters Euthyphro, one of the few people in Greece whom Socrates has not yet alienated. Socrates quickly remedies this oversight. Euthyphro is on his way to court to accuse his own father of murder. His father had owned a slave who murdered another slave, and in response, Euthyphro\u0026rsquo;s father ordered the guilty slave to be bound and thrown into a ditch while he sent messengers to officials to determine the appropriate legal action. Before the messengers returned, the slave died from exposure. According to Athenian law, murder charges are typically allowed only by relatives of the victim. This accusation would have been considered highly impious by Euthyphro’s society; therefore, he must be highly confident in his understanding of \u0026ldquo;goodness\u0026rdquo; and his ability to convince a court of his definition. Socrates, himself about to be tried, uses his circumstances as a casus belli to challenge Euthyphro’s confidence. Socrates initially asks Euthyphro a simple question: \u0026ldquo;What is goodness?\u0026rdquo; Euthyphro responds that it is to do what God has ordered, as that is pleasing to God. Through dialogue, this definition is shown to have hidden assumptions, which leads Socrates to pose another seemingly innocent question that creates a truly thought-provoking dilemma for those inclined to ponder it: \u0026ldquo;Is the good loved by the gods because it is good, or is it good because it is loved by the gods?\u0026rdquo;\nThoughts\nThis question is more complex than it first appears and would require some intricate reasoning by theologians to resolve to their satisfaction. If the gods love things that are good, then that implies good exists independently and prior to the gods. Conversely, if something becomes good as a result of being loved by the gods, then we are not talking about good directly but through the preferences of the gods. For the sake of discussion, let\u0026rsquo;s assume I am asserting that \u0026ldquo;yellow\u0026rdquo; is the best color.\nArgument 1\nYellow is the best because all the gods love yellow. We took a poll, the votes are in, and yellow has been selected as the best. Socrates would suggest that this poll doesn\u0026rsquo;t inform us about goodness but only divine preference. All colors exist in a neutral state, but there is something in the color yellow that excites love from the gods more than other colors. We are presented with two options: either the \u0026ldquo;excitement\u0026rdquo; caused by the color yellow has a cause, or it is arbitrarily random. If the former is true, then yellow was good before the preference; if the latter is true, good cannot be defined because it is, by definition, without cause.\nArgument 2\nYellow is the best because the gods recognize the properties that are good in it, and therefore, they love it. Socrates would argue that this definition brings us no closer to understanding what good is; it only tells us that it exists apart from and prior to the gods and that they can recognize it and align themselves with it. This question was not only challenging for the ancient Greeks but also continued to challenge Christian theologians for centuries. Often, a good question is much more useful than a good answer, and you can gauge how good a question is by how long it remains unanswered. I would recommend this dialogue to anyone who wants to learn how to lose friends and have no influence over people.\n#book #euthyphro_dilemma #socrates #philosophy #piety #moral_philosophy #theology #goodness #divine_preference #socratic_dialogue #ancient_greek_philosophy #theological_debate #ethical_questions\nPlato\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/plato-euthyphro/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSocrates has just been charged with impiety and is preparing for his trial, which will ultimately lead to his execution. He encounters Euthyphro, one of the few people in Greece whom Socrates has not yet alienated. Socrates quickly remedies this oversight.\nEuthyphro is on his way to court to accuse his own father of murder. His father had owned a slave who murdered another slave, and in response, Euthyphro\u0026rsquo;s father ordered the guilty slave to be bound and thrown into a ditch while he sent messengers to officials to determine the appropriate legal action. Before the messengers returned, the slave died from exposure. According to Athenian law, murder charges are typically allowed only by relatives of the victim. This accusation would have been considered highly impious by Euthyphro’s society; therefore, he must be highly confident in his understanding of \u0026ldquo;goodness\u0026rdquo; and his ability to convince a court of his definition. Socrates, himself about to be tried, uses his circumstances as a casus belli to challenge Euthyphro’s confidence.\nSocrates initially asks Euthyphro a simple question: \u0026ldquo;What is goodness?\u0026rdquo; Euthyphro responds that it is to do what God has ordered, as that is pleasing to God. Through dialogue, this definition is shown to have hidden assumptions, which leads Socrates to pose another seemingly innocent question that creates a truly thought-provoking dilemma for those inclined to ponder it:\n\u0026ldquo;Is the good loved by the gods because it is good, or is it good because it is loved by the gods?\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Plato"},{"content":"Summary\nTowards the end of Franklin\u0026rsquo;s life, he decided to write down an account of his life, ostensibly for the edification of his son. His authorship was briefly interrupted by his involvement in the Revolutionary War, and unfortunately, it appears he wasn\u0026rsquo;t able to finish it before dying in 1790. We are left with a brief account of his family history and selected anecdotes from his life, all the way up to around 10 years before the Declaration of Independence was signed.\nThoughts\nEntertaining and charismatic, Franklin\u0026rsquo;s autobiography was written in a familiar tone. With a tongue-in-cheek humility that fails to convince either the reader or the author, you are shown a scrapbook version of a life. Every story is brought up as if by chance, but gradually, a narrative structure to Franklin\u0026rsquo;s life emerges. This structure is the American ethos, one of self-reliance, industry, and humble beginnings. Another aspect of the autobiography, while not explicit, is a masterclass in profile building. Ranging from Machiavelli to Carnegie, Franklin coaches his readers on topics like how to disagree with someone most effectively or why it is good to be seen doing menial jobs even after achieving success. One of his guiding principles was public virtue for private gain, thus he sought to improve the world around him in such a way that would improve his own. For example, he was a strong proponent of increasing cash currency in Philadelphia, not only because he was firmly convinced that this would be good for the local economy, but also because he stood to make money by being the one who printed the new currency. This particular skill, along with his ability to seemingly create coalitions out of thin air, served him well throughout his life. A magnetic character, equally at home with criminals and kings, his wit and backwoods sage persona that he assiduously maintained won over most people he encountered. If there is one lesson to draw from his autobiography, it is the value of social networking.\n#book\nPeople/Benjamin Franklin\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-autobiography-of-benjamin-franklin/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTowards the end of Franklin\u0026rsquo;s life, he decided to write down an account of his life, ostensibly for the edification of his son. His authorship was briefly interrupted by his involvement in the Revolutionary War, and unfortunately, it appears he wasn\u0026rsquo;t able to finish it before dying in 1790. We are left with a brief account of his family history and selected anecdotes from his life, all the way up to around 10 years before the Declaration of Independence was signed.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin"},{"content":"Summary\nThe gospel of philosophy according to Bertrand Russell begins at the dawn of historical records. In the beginning were the Pre-Socratics, who said many things. Then came the Platonists, who said fewer things, only to be surpassed by the Aristotelians, who said even less. When we arrive at the Middle Ages, folks were saying very little indeed. In the Dark Ages, a silence had broken out; it continued for quite some time, but alas, this state of affairs could not continue. Sooner or later, someone would start talking again. Literally crawling out of an oven, René Descartes presented a freshly baked philosophy to the world, which started the conversation again, and people haven\u0026rsquo;t stopped talking since.\nThoughts\nThis book was much more entertaining than it should have been, thanks to Russell\u0026rsquo;s wit and commentary. Written during World War II, this book helped earn him the Nobel Prize in Literature. Covering such a vast history, mistakes or mischaracterizations were bound to happen. Even so, this book is a great help to start to put some ideas to names. He functions as an opinionated tour guide who helps tie the whole thing together. You may come to a section of the tour where you have enough familiarity with a topic to disagree with his analysis, but in lieu of having your own opinions on things, you could do worse than adopting a few of Russell\u0026rsquo;s.\n#book #bertrand_russell #history_of_philosophy #pre_socratics #platonists #aristotelians #middle_ages #rene_descartes #philosophical_history #nobel_prize_literature #wit_and_commentary\nPeople/Bertrand Russell\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/a-history-of-western-philosophy/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe gospel of philosophy according to Bertrand Russell begins at the dawn of historical records. In the beginning were the Pre-Socratics, who said many things. Then came the Platonists, who said fewer things, only to be surpassed by the Aristotelians, who said even less. When we arrive at the Middle Ages, folks were saying very little indeed. In the Dark Ages, a silence had broken out; it continued for quite some time, but alas, this state of affairs could not continue. Sooner or later, someone would start talking again. Literally crawling out of an oven, René Descartes presented a freshly baked philosophy to the world, which started the conversation again, and people haven\u0026rsquo;t stopped talking since.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"A History of Western Philosophy"},{"content":"Summary\nThe moon has exploded, no one knows who done it, but scientists quickly figure out that it will spell the end of the world in approximately two years.\nThoughts\nThe first half of this book was nearly flawless. Positioned as a hyper realistic sci-fi similar to books like \u0026lsquo;Martian\u0026rsquo;, it faithfully, to a layman at least, describes what the experience would be like for people trying to survive in what could be described as a slightly improved international space station. The major thing that stuck out to me from the book was just how easy it was to sympathize with the characters\u0026rsquo; predicament. This was in part a product of exemplary writing, but there was also something more. Something hauntingly familiar about the way the explosion of the moon occurred. I could easily imagine the way the story would propagate across our information superhighways. The neuronal synapses it would causes to fire, the horror, but also the detachment that would follow. This fictional series of events felt all too familiar for reasons that are difficult to explain.\nThe second half of this book changes tones dramatically, and with it goes my \u0026lsquo;5 star\u0026rsquo; rating that I\u0026rsquo;m sure the author has been waiting with bated breath to receive. He will have to live on knowing that he sabotaged himself by not stopping the book with the first resolution.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/seveneves/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe moon has exploded, no one knows who done it, but scientists quickly figure out that it will spell the end of the world in approximately two years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first half of this book was nearly flawless. Positioned as a hyper realistic sci-fi similar to books like \u0026lsquo;Martian\u0026rsquo;, it faithfully, to a layman at least, describes what the experience would be like for people trying to survive in what could be described as a slightly improved international space station. The major thing that stuck out to me from the book was just how easy it was to sympathize with the characters\u0026rsquo; predicament. This was in part a product of exemplary writing, but there was also something more. Something hauntingly familiar about the way the explosion of the moon occurred. I could easily imagine the way the story would propagate across our information superhighways. The neuronal synapses it would causes to fire, the horror, but also the detachment that would follow. This fictional series of events felt all too familiar for reasons that are difficult to explain.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Seveneves"},{"content":"Summary\nThe first in a series of seven books, \u0026lsquo;Swann\u0026rsquo;s Way\u0026rsquo; opens with reflections by a narrator on some of his earliest memories, one of which involves being visited by a man named Charles Swann. After a period of reflection, we begin to follow Swann, a man of society, as he eventually falls in love with a former courtesan named Odette de Crécy. The rest of the book chronicles the rise and fall of their relationship.\nThoughts\nI\u0026rsquo;ve never read Proust but having heard the name referenced enough, I thought it time to give one of his books a try. After all, I read Kafka, I am now qualified to call something \u0026lsquo;Kafkaesque\u0026rsquo;; although the right moment for that has yet to arise. Perhaps now, I can use the phrase \u0026lsquo;Proustian moment\u0026rsquo;! \u0026lsquo;Swann\u0026rsquo;s Way\u0026rsquo; is part of a larger collection labeled \u0026lsquo;In Search of Lost Time\u0026rsquo; or \u0026lsquo;Remembrance of Things Past.\u0026rsquo; Both themes are prominent as Proust explores the ways in which we remember as well as the ways we are remembered. Even in the most insignificant details of our daily life, none of us can be said to constitute a material whole, which is identical for everyone, and need only be turned up like a page in an account-book or the record of a will; our social personality is created by the thoughts of other people. Many authors and poets have written about memory and things gone by, but few, in my experience, have done so with such skill. Here is a quote of his about the strange power that certain objects have to magically conjure long-forgotten memories, often with unforeseeable force. And so it is with our own past. It is a labor in vain to attempt to recapture it: all the efforts of our intellect must prove futile. The past is hidden somewhere outside the realm, beyond the reach of intellect, in some material object (in the sensation which that material object will give us) of which we have no inkling. And it depends on chance whether or not we come upon this object before we ourselves must die. Describing the beauty of his prose is difficult, especially after coming off of \u0026lsquo;The Catcher in the Rye\u0026rsquo;s\u0026rsquo; more pedestrian style. It was somewhat similar to Dickens but more abstract. Despite this, I personally did not enjoy the book, perhaps because I consumed it over too long a period, when it would have been better to take it in larger doses. The plot of a jealous husband is not, in itself, enough to interest me, so the weight of the narrative had to be borne by the writing itself. While it did an excellent job, I was still left cold at points, wondering how long I would be forced to hear about this or that thing someone did, or a party that a character wasn\u0026rsquo;t invited to. Overall, I am glad I read it, and I will end this review with one of my favorite quotes, wherein the narrator remembers a typical day he experienced in childhood.\nSometimes in the afternoon sky, the moon would pass white as a cloud, furtive, lusterless, like an actress who does not have to perform yet and who, from the audience, in street clothes, watches the other actors for a moment, making herself inconspicuous, not wanting anyone to pay attention to her.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/swanns-way/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first in a series of seven books, \u0026lsquo;Swann\u0026rsquo;s Way\u0026rsquo; opens with reflections by a narrator on some of his earliest memories, one of which involves being visited by a man named Charles Swann. After a period of reflection, we begin to follow Swann, a man of society, as he eventually falls in love with a former courtesan named Odette de Crécy. The rest of the book chronicles the rise and fall of their relationship.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Swann's Way (In Search of Lost Time, #1)"},{"content":"Summary\nAntoine Roquentin, an isolated aspiring biographer, inhabits Bouville (mud town) like a ghost. \u0026ldquo;Nausea\u0026rdquo; by Sartre is not so much a story as it is an attempt to let the reader have an experience. Roquentin\u0026rsquo;s alienation provides the space to observe, producing the typical results of social critique. Yet, he goes beyond this to grapple with the existence of things in general.\nThoughts\nThis book will have a very hit-or-miss reception among readers. It can be easily dismissed as another case of a melancholic Frenchman who needs to spend more time in the sun. When I picture Antoine, he is quite pale, so those readers would probably be correct. However, for my friends who don\u0026rsquo;t know when to stop asking questions, this book will give you a few more.\nIn the book\u0026rsquo;s most famous scene, Antoine encounters a chestnut tree in a park (shout out to \u0026ldquo;The Overstory\u0026rdquo;) and experiences what can best be described as a derealization. The Buddha gained enlightenment under a Bodhi tree, providing an interesting mirror to better understand Roquentin\u0026rsquo;s experience. For the Buddha, the tree represents the world axis, a center of the universe, if you will, a point at which all meaning comes together into perfect unity. For Roquentin, the tree plays a completely opposite role; it is the center of an impact. The roots are not holding things together but are cracks signaling the collapse of all signification.\nBefore this climactic derealization, Sartre anticipates it with a series of smaller dissolutions with varying degrees of success. One of my favorites is the contrast he creates between a life lived vs. a life retold. His claim is that all stories told claim to start at the beginning when, in reality, they can only start at the end. The meaning of the story is the end of it, and it is this end that allows the story to begin. For example, if I were to tell you a story about Van Gogh and said, \u0026ldquo;It was 1887, Van Gogh was lying awake staring at the ceiling,\u0026rdquo; the end is packaged into the beginning in a way that is completely alien to lived experience. We hear of him lying in bed, yet we know he was a brilliant artist, and so the act of staring at the ceiling is laced with a meaning that would have been completely absent from the actual experience because we know that the story is going somewhere. In our own experience, we forget this, and so we feel that perhaps we ourselves are not lying in bed awake in quite the right way because it has yet to lead to such an interesting story.\nIn conclusion, it feels necessary to place my flag in the Camus vs. Sartre debate, and I find myself squarely on the side of Camus. Sartre\u0026rsquo;s ideas may be just as good or better than Camus\u0026rsquo;, but he never comes close to touching Camus\u0026rsquo; prose. A really good book with a very unique atmosphere. It felt somewhat similar to wearing sunglasses that allowed you to see the world with a Roquentin filter superimposed for a few hours. That in itself is an achievement.\n#book\n#nausea #sartre #existentialism #antoine_roquentin #social_critique #derealization #philosophical_novel #camus_vs_sartre #literary_analysis #meaning_of_life #french_literature\nPeople/Jean-Paul Sartre\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/nausea/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAntoine Roquentin, an isolated aspiring biographer, inhabits Bouville (mud town) like a ghost. \u0026ldquo;Nausea\u0026rdquo; by Sartre is not so much a story as it is an attempt to let the reader have an experience. Roquentin\u0026rsquo;s alienation provides the space to observe, producing the typical results of social critique. Yet, he goes beyond this to grapple with the existence of things in general.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis book will have a very hit-or-miss reception among readers. It can be easily dismissed as another case of a melancholic Frenchman who needs to spend more time in the sun. When I picture Antoine, he is quite pale, so those readers would probably be correct. However, for my friends who don\u0026rsquo;t know when to stop asking questions, this book will give you a few more.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Nausea"},{"content":"Summary\nSapolsky is a biologist specializing in neurology. Ever since he was a child, he has been obsessed with primates, so shortly after graduating from Harvard, he travels to Kenya to begin his studies on a troop of baboons. His study focused on the effect that stress has on the development and overall well-being of a physical system and eventually spanned around 25 years, where he would spend four months in the field and the rest of the year analyzing his findings in the States. The book is separated into sections that align his own maturity with those of the baboons, such as adolescent, young adult, etc. With this handy narrative device, the reader is able to witness the maturation of the author simultaneously with his subjects.\nThoughts\nThis book was much more entertaining than it should have been. The scientific findings and theories in this book are pushed into the background, as the real interest comes from Sapolsky getting into all sorts of trouble and just barely managing to talk his way out of these situations. He is witty, self-deprecating, and self-aggrandizing all at the same time, in a way that is hard to resist. I really admired the way he was willing to lean into the vagabond traveler mystique with an almost rampant disregard for his own safety. A brilliant scientific communicator, he manages to strike a balance between joyful moments and realistic cynicism, quite the difficult tightrope to walk. I will be excited to read more of his books and would highly recommend this book.\n#book\n#sapolsky #neurology #primatology #baboons #kenya_research #stress_impact #scientific_study #biological_research #scientific_communication #travel_adventures #personal_growth\nPeople/Robert Sapolsky\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/a-primates-memoir-a-neuroscientists-unconventional-life-among-the-baboons/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSapolsky is a biologist specializing in neurology. Ever since he was a child, he has been obsessed with primates, so shortly after graduating from Harvard, he travels to Kenya to begin his studies on a troop of baboons. His study focused on the effect that stress has on the development and overall well-being of a physical system and eventually spanned around 25 years, where he would spend four months in the field and the rest of the year analyzing his findings in the States. The book is separated into sections that align his own maturity with those of the baboons, such as adolescent, young adult, etc. With this handy narrative device, the reader is able to witness the maturation of the author simultaneously with his subjects.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"A Primate's Memoir- A Neuroscientist's Unconventional Life Among the Baboons"},{"content":"Summary\nWritten in 1844, Max Stirner aimed to stir-ner the pot. While teaching at a school for girls by day, he was a revolutionary writer by night. His publication of \u0026ldquo;The Ego and Its Own\u0026rdquo; necessitated his resignation from teaching, but earned him a spot among influential German thinkers. As a young man, Stirner attended lectures by Hegel before joining the \u0026lsquo;Young Hegelians\u0026rsquo;, a group that included Marx and Engels but eventually imploded due to disagreements - a common issue among philosophers. In \u0026ldquo;The Ego and Its Own\u0026rdquo;, Stirner seeks to open the reader\u0026rsquo;s eyes to the world\u0026rsquo;s workings. He argues that we are born into a body limited by materialistic constraints - we can\u0026rsquo;t fly, we need to eat, we must stay warm, etc. However, as we mature, we discover a limitless internal mind. This internal world, unbeknownst to us, has been populated with \u0026ldquo;spooks\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;ghosts\u0026rdquo; by society, religion, parents, etc. Since we are unaware of the origins of these ideas, we feel they are inviolable and real. Stirner aims to demonstrate that these are not real (in the sense of natural laws) and that surrendering our autonomy to these ideas is a mistake. He argues that all our ideals are egoists, working only for their advancement. Stirner poses the question: why work for another egoist when you can act independently? Beyond this, he suggests that human behavior, when examined, is ultimately driven by egotism. For example, why did person A donate to an orphanage? If you probe deeply enough, it appears that actions are motivated by perceived personal benefit. Stirner posits that there are only two ways to live: either as a conscious egoist or as one who believes they aren\u0026rsquo;t. Recognizing one\u0026rsquo;s egoism, according to Stirner, allows a person to cast off any \u0026ldquo;spook\u0026rdquo; or ideal like humanity, nation-states, etc., as soon as it no longer serves the individual. He argues that we are more than concepts and should not submit to them when they cease to serve us. Unlike Ayn Rand, he does not elaborate on what this approach might entail in practice.\nThoughts\nI should have researched more about the book before reading it. I knew it was influential, advocating radical individualism with ties to anarchism, but was unaware of how it fit into the zeitgeist of the day or the movements and thinkers it would inspire. The writing style is unique, filled with allusions to Hegel and other German scholars, which I often missed. The insights and criticisms of these insights have become so mainstream in philosophy that they seemed almost redundant. This might be due to the book\u0026rsquo;s influence, or the direction philosophical thought has taken since. Thinkers like Nietzsche further developed this line of thinking, attempting to reintroduce ideals in a positive way. My primary critique of the book lies in its assumption that one can take oneself as a given. While liberty and other ideals might not exist in reality, Stirner assumes our existence without question. In practice, unraveling the self, finding its borders and contingencies, is more challenging than Stirner portrayed. Additionally, Stirner seems to underestimate the critical role others play in shaping our pursuit of a good life, a fact more explicitly recognized in later media theories and psychoanalytical findings. Overall, I found the book not very engaging and would not recommend it unless for its historical value. The style was frustrating and dry, and I was relieved to move past it.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-ego-and-its-own/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten in 1844, Max Stirner aimed to stir-ner the pot. While teaching at a school for girls by day, he was a revolutionary writer by night. His publication of \u0026ldquo;The Ego and Its Own\u0026rdquo; necessitated his resignation from teaching, but earned him a spot among influential German thinkers. As a young man, Stirner attended lectures by Hegel before joining the \u0026lsquo;Young Hegelians\u0026rsquo;, a group that included Marx and Engels but eventually imploded due to disagreements - a common issue among philosophers. In \u0026ldquo;The Ego and Its Own\u0026rdquo;, Stirner seeks to open the reader\u0026rsquo;s eyes to the world\u0026rsquo;s workings. He argues that we are born into a body limited by materialistic constraints - we can\u0026rsquo;t fly, we need to eat, we must stay warm, etc. However, as we mature, we discover a limitless internal mind. This internal world, unbeknownst to us, has been populated with \u0026ldquo;spooks\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;ghosts\u0026rdquo; by society, religion, parents, etc. Since we are unaware of the origins of these ideas, we feel they are inviolable and real. Stirner aims to demonstrate that these are not real (in the sense of natural laws) and that surrendering our autonomy to these ideas is a mistake. He argues that all our ideals are egoists, working only for their advancement. Stirner poses the question: why work for another egoist when you can act independently? Beyond this, he suggests that human behavior, when examined, is ultimately driven by egotism. For example, why did person A donate to an orphanage? If you probe deeply enough, it appears that actions are motivated by perceived personal benefit. Stirner posits that there are only two ways to live: either as a conscious egoist or as one who believes they aren\u0026rsquo;t. Recognizing one\u0026rsquo;s egoism, according to Stirner, allows a person to cast off any \u0026ldquo;spook\u0026rdquo; or ideal like humanity, nation-states, etc., as soon as it no longer serves the individual. He argues that we are more than concepts and should not submit to them when they cease to serve us. Unlike Ayn Rand, he does not elaborate on what this approach might entail in practice.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Ego and Its Own"},{"content":"Summary\n\u0026ldquo;The Denial of Death\u0026rdquo; is Ernest Becker\u0026rsquo;s pivotal contribution to the intersection of psychology and philosophy. Rooted in psychoanalytic insights, Becker presents a framework later known as Terror Management Theory, or TMT. The central premise is that to function, one must find a way to ignore or mitigate the central fact of existence: its inevitable end. Becker argues that humanity engages in various strategies to suppress or forget this reality. For example, someone might sacrifice their life for a concept like freedom or, alternatively, for avarice. In the first case, Becker suggests that dying for \u0026lsquo;freedom\u0026rsquo; is an attempt to attach oneself to a concept larger than oneself, thereby achieving vicarious immortality as the concept of \u0026lsquo;freedom\u0026rsquo; lives on. Similarly, in pursuing greed, a person operates under the conception of a certain cultural hero (e.g., the gangster, the successful stockbroker), seeking to become this hero for self-justification. Becker posits that no culture has, or probably ever will, avoid evading death\u0026rsquo;s implications.\nThoughts\nFirstly, a significant portion of the readership might be turned off by the book\u0026rsquo;s overall pessimism, dismissing it as the ramblings of a troubled mind. While I understand this impression, I think such a reaction actually supports Becker\u0026rsquo;s claims rather than diminishes them. Nevertheless, this is not an easy read, and not everyone will find it meaningful. However, there are some compelling ideas in this book worth the reader\u0026rsquo;s time, if they are so inclined.\nBecker describes some universal aspects of the human condition with remarkable clarity. His sections on guilt, and the absurd contradiction between our finite bodies and the infinity our minds perceive, are particularly valuable. His insights into group psychology, especially the psychological intersection of cults and nations, are enlightening. He argues that followers latch onto certain individuals as protectors from death itself. These individuals become elevated in their minds because they embody the ideals the individual lacks, the greatest of which is immortality. This explains the religious fervor surrounding events like Lenin\u0026rsquo;s funeral in an explicitly irreligious state.\nBecker\u0026rsquo;s heavy reliance on Freud, Kierkegaard, and above all Rank, might leave some readers wondering if he lacked the strength to present his theory independently. While Becker sees his theory as a development of Rank\u0026rsquo;s ideas on Freud, whether the degree to which he uses Rank is justified will be up to each reader. To readers unfamiliar with Freud or Kierkegaard, this book is probably not the best introduction, I wish it could have focused more on Becker\u0026rsquo;s theory and less on the giants whose shoulders he stood on.\nOverall, this book is a worthwhile addition to the existing body of work on this topic. I will end this review with an ambiguous and ultimately meaningless statement: while I do not agree with everything the author has said, I did agree with most, and if you want more clarity, well, you will just have to come find me.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-denial-of-death/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;The Denial of Death\u0026rdquo; is Ernest Becker\u0026rsquo;s pivotal contribution to the intersection of psychology and philosophy. Rooted in psychoanalytic insights, Becker presents a framework later known as Terror Management Theory, or TMT. The central premise is that to function, one must find a way to ignore or mitigate the central fact of existence: its inevitable end. Becker argues that humanity engages in various strategies to suppress or forget this reality. For example, someone might sacrifice their life for a concept like freedom or, alternatively, for avarice. In the first case, Becker suggests that dying for \u0026lsquo;freedom\u0026rsquo; is an attempt to attach oneself to a concept larger than oneself, thereby achieving vicarious immortality as the concept of \u0026lsquo;freedom\u0026rsquo; lives on. Similarly, in pursuing greed, a person operates under the conception of a certain cultural hero (e.g., the gangster, the successful stockbroker), seeking to become this hero for self-justification. Becker posits that no culture has, or probably ever will, avoid evading death\u0026rsquo;s implications.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Denial of Death"},{"content":"Summary\nA mother tells a boy that he will be able to go to a nearby lighthouse. The father says that it is unlikely the boy will be able to go to the lighthouse because of bad weather. Ten years pass, the father finally takes the boy to the lighthouse.\nThoughts\nAs you can guess from the summary this is going to be one of those \u0026lsquo;modern\u0026rsquo; books where nothing seems to happen. For some this will be a turn off, but if you find the endless twisting and turning of your mind during one of the thousands of mundane conversations that make up a life, then this book is for you. Similarly to Mrs. Dalloway, time and experience take on new meanings as a single day, seemingly chosen at random, is played out in intricate detail. The level of emotional data that is packed into everyday exchanges will be surprisingly to all but the most mindful. Woolf\u0026rsquo;s diaries indicate that she would spend hours listening to herself think, and the emotions that would arise as responses to external stimuli. She was able to bring this clarity to each of the characters in this book. Some take up more space than others, but with each, the reader feels like they are getting the unfiltered experience that the character themselves are having. Since Woolf is a modern writer, it is not good enough to watch someone do something, we must watch someone watching something be down. Being removed twice from anything is the price we must pay for this authentic experience. Whether the game is worth the candle will be up to each reader to decide on their own. I think it was, providing a unique way to convey emotion and setting. There are moods in this book that are difficult to find anywhere else, consider the following scene when we are briefly left without any narrator so the abandoned house itself takes up the thread:\nWhat people had shed and left — a pair of shoes, a shooting cap, some faded skirts and coats in wardrobes — those alone kept the human shape and in the emptiness indicated how once they were filled and animated; how once hands were busy with hooks and buttons; how once the looking glass had held a face; had held a world hollowed out in which a figure turned, a hand flashed, the door opened, in came children rushing and tumbling; and went out again. Now, day after day, light turned, like a flower reflected in water, its clear image on the wall opposite. Only the shadows of the trees, flourishing in the wind, made obeisance on the wall, and for a moment darkened the pool in which light reflected itself; or birds, flying, made a soft spot flutter slowly across the bedroom floor.\nInstead of making this review any longer, I will just say that this book is a gold mine of insights into the human condition if you have to the patience to not dismiss her style out of hand. I look forward to coming back and spending more time with these characters.\nPeople/Virginia Woolf\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/to-the-lighthouse/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA mother tells a boy that he will be able to go to a nearby lighthouse. The father says that it is unlikely the boy will be able to go to the lighthouse because of bad weather. Ten years pass, the father finally takes the boy to the lighthouse.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs you can guess from the summary this is going to be one of those \u0026lsquo;modern\u0026rsquo; books where nothing seems to happen. For some this will be a turn off, but if you find the endless twisting and turning of your mind during one of the thousands of  mundane conversations that make up a life, then this book is for you. Similarly to Mrs. Dalloway, time and experience take on new meanings as a single day, seemingly chosen at random, is played out in intricate detail. The level of emotional data that is packed into everyday exchanges will be surprisingly to all but the most mindful. Woolf\u0026rsquo;s diaries indicate that she would spend hours listening to herself think, and the emotions that would arise as responses to external stimuli. She was able to bring this clarity to each of the characters in this book. Some take up more space than others, but with each, the reader feels like they are getting the unfiltered experience that the character themselves are having. Since Woolf is a modern writer, it is not good enough to watch someone do something, we must watch someone watching something be down. Being removed twice from anything is the price we must pay for this authentic experience. Whether the game is worth the candle will be up to each reader to decide on their own. I think it was, providing a unique way to convey emotion and setting. There are moods in this book that are difficult to find anywhere else, consider the following scene when we are briefly left without any narrator so the abandoned house itself takes up the thread:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"To the Lighthouse"},{"content":"Summary\nLlewelyn Moss, a small town welder, stumbles on a briefcase full of cash in the middle of the desert. Taking the briefcase triggers a series of events that forever links the fates of him, an aging sheriff, and a hitman.\nThoughts\nThis is the third Cormac McCarthy book I\u0026rsquo;ve read this year and it may be my favorite. He wrote it a year before The Road, you can see the two stories as connected in an interesting way, but more on that later. This book is one of McCarthy\u0026rsquo;s least \u0026ldquo;fancy\u0026rdquo; book, you aren\u0026rsquo;t going to get much of his unique pacing or Hemingway-esque prose that was prominent in his border trilogy. For some, this is a loss; for others, it\u0026rsquo;s a welcome relief. Llewelyn Moss, quickly revealed to be out of his depth, knows this yet persistently tries to convince himself and others of his capability. Sheriff Bell is of course, one of the men that are too old for this country, whenever the book switches to his perspective we are usually met with a memory or utter consternation at the direction the world seems to be heading. Bell is a sheriff that everyone would consider to be an \u0026ldquo;old timer\u0026rdquo;, but he secretly knows he is not. He\u0026rsquo;s got all the common sense of the older generation but can\u0026rsquo;t manage to have the same beliefs, and this bothers him to no end. Bell\u0026rsquo;s wife acts like Dante\u0026rsquo;s Beatrice, a guide and anchor to life that he would be completely lost without. The antagonist, Anton Chigurh, a representation of fate, the unyielding code, and the inevitable end, seamlessly weaves in and out of the narrative. He embodies the universe, one that defies reasoning through its own inexorable logic.\nWhen I came into your life your life was over. It had a beginning, a middle, and an end. This is the end. You can say that things could have turned out differently. That there could have been some other way. But what does that mean? They are not some other way. They are this way. You\u0026rsquo;re asking that I second say the world. Do you see?\nChigurh is a literary archetype of a true nihilists that embraces the idea of being a cog in the machine and takes it to its limits.\nMost people don\u0026rsquo;t believe that there can be such a person. You see what a problem that must be for them.\nIn this way he is one of the most principled persons in book, unlike everyone else he never stops and asks \u0026ldquo;why is this happening to me?\u0026rdquo; he already knows. This character is so well written that even though he is a sociopath, you can\u0026rsquo;t help but wonder what he is going to do next, and I found myself cheering for him when he was being chased by another hitman. I guess any principles, even bad ones, seem to be preferable to those unaware of the ways they are lying to themselves.\nNear the end of this book Sheriff Bell has a dream of his dead father. In the dream his father had rode ahead into the darkness and the Sheriff knew that there would be a fire burning for him. This idea of keeping the fire burning is the mantra of the main character of McCarthy\u0026rsquo;s next book \u0026lsquo;The Road\u0026rsquo;. You could imagine that this series of events happened, and the world did end up \u0026ldquo;going to hell\u0026rdquo; and that is where The Road picks up. Unfortunately, for the father in \u0026lsquo;The Road\u0026rsquo; his Beatrice is not there, so instead his son becomes his guide.\nI thoroughly enjoyed this book and recommend it to your lists.\nPeople/Cormac McCarthy\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/no-country-for-old-men/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLlewelyn Moss, a small town welder, stumbles on a briefcase full of cash in the middle of the desert. Taking the briefcase triggers a series of events that forever links the fates of him, an aging sheriff, and a hitman.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis is the third Cormac McCarthy book I\u0026rsquo;ve read this year and it may be my favorite. He wrote it a year before The Road, you can see the two stories as connected in an interesting way, but more on that later. This book is one of McCarthy\u0026rsquo;s least \u0026ldquo;fancy\u0026rdquo; book, you aren\u0026rsquo;t going to get much of his unique pacing or Hemingway-esque prose that was prominent in his border trilogy. For some, this is a loss; for others, it\u0026rsquo;s a welcome relief. Llewelyn Moss, quickly revealed to be out of his depth, knows this yet persistently tries to convince himself and others of his capability. Sheriff Bell is of course, one of the men that are too old for this country, whenever the book switches to his perspective we are usually met with a memory or utter consternation at the direction the world seems to be heading. Bell is a sheriff that everyone would consider to be an \u0026ldquo;old timer\u0026rdquo;, but he secretly knows he is not. He\u0026rsquo;s got all the common sense of the older generation but can\u0026rsquo;t manage to have the same beliefs, and this bothers him to no end. Bell\u0026rsquo;s wife acts like Dante\u0026rsquo;s Beatrice, a guide and anchor to life that he would be completely lost without. The antagonist, Anton Chigurh, a representation of fate, the unyielding code, and the inevitable end, seamlessly weaves in and out of the narrative. He embodies the universe, one that defies reasoning through its own inexorable logic.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"No Country for Old Men"},{"content":"Summary\nThis book follows nine main characters whose lives are deeply impacted by trees in one way or another. The story unfolds in four parts that mirror the sections of a tree: roots, trunk, crown, and seeds.\nThoughts\nWriting a review for this book leaves me conflicted. The \u0026lsquo;Roots\u0026rsquo; section sets the stage for the rest of the novel, yet I find myself wishing the book had concluded there. With its numerous main characters, the narrative functions almost as an anthology of stories about individuals, and often, several generations of their ancestors. This part of the book is outstanding—moving, thought-provoking, and, I believe, achieves what Powers intended: to view lives through the perspective of trees, or in \u0026ldquo;tree time\u0026rdquo;. You are presented with a series of images, events, tragedies, and triumphs, all the while knowing that these would be encapsulated within several inches of growth in a tree\u0026rsquo;s trunk. The subsequent sections strive to intertwine these characters in various ways as they seek to elevate awareness of industrialization\u0026rsquo;s impact on the planet. Although convincing, these sections lose the originality of the first, often veering into more predictable plot lines reminiscent of a classic Greenpeace-type narrative, akin to \u0026ldquo;Avatar\u0026rdquo;. Here, you have industrialists looking to exploit the planet\u0026rsquo;s natural resources and protagonists fighting to thwart this exploitation. In conclusion, I highly recommend the first section, and if you\u0026rsquo;re like me, you\u0026rsquo;ll complete the book out of a sense of obligation. You won\u0026rsquo;t consider it time wasted, but it won\u0026rsquo;t be a transcendent experience either. Reading this book will change the way you look at trees.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-overstory/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis book follows nine main characters whose lives are deeply impacted by trees in one way or another. The story unfolds in four parts that mirror the sections of a tree: roots, trunk, crown, and seeds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWriting a review for this book leaves me conflicted. The \u0026lsquo;Roots\u0026rsquo; section sets the stage for the rest of the novel, yet I find myself wishing the book had concluded there. With its numerous main characters, the narrative functions almost as an anthology of stories about individuals, and often, several generations of their ancestors. This part of the book is outstanding—moving, thought-provoking, and, I believe, achieves what Powers intended: to view lives through the perspective of trees, or in \u0026ldquo;tree time\u0026rdquo;. You are presented with a series of images, events, tragedies, and triumphs, all the while knowing that these would be encapsulated within several inches of growth in a tree\u0026rsquo;s trunk. The subsequent sections strive to intertwine these characters in various ways as they seek to elevate awareness of industrialization\u0026rsquo;s impact on the planet. Although convincing, these sections lose the originality of the first, often veering into more predictable plot lines reminiscent of a classic Greenpeace-type narrative, akin to \u0026ldquo;Avatar\u0026rdquo;. Here, you have industrialists looking to exploit the planet\u0026rsquo;s natural resources and protagonists fighting to thwart this exploitation. In conclusion, I highly recommend the first section, and if you\u0026rsquo;re like me, you\u0026rsquo;ll complete the book out of a sense of obligation. You won\u0026rsquo;t consider it time wasted, but it won\u0026rsquo;t be a transcendent experience either. Reading this book will change the way you look at trees.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Overstory"},{"content":"Summary\nBill Bryson was flying over an ocean one day when he realized just how little he knew about how everything worked. This propelled him into over three years of research, talking to experts in various fields, visiting important museums and visiting some of the most important places on Earth, including Ohio. Bryson was unimpressed with the science books of his youth, feeling that they hinted at the wonders of the world before drowning them in abstruse terms and he set out to change that. Covering everything from Biology to Astrophysics, Bryson flies through the various disciplines giving the reader a brief and exciting overview of how they started as well as where they are currently.\nThoughts\nThis book is a work of art, an object lesson on science education for the unwashed masses. Bryson manages to make the lives of British paleontologists as salacious as a mid-day soap opera. There are three major things I took away from this book:\nPractically All Knowledge is Recent Knowledge\nWe tend to learn the little we do as kids in school. These \u0026ldquo;facts\u0026rdquo; are handed down to us on high from our teachers. What this process doesn\u0026rsquo;t reveal is the tumultuous history of how those facts came to be, not to mention the tenuous future they may have. For example, it is commonly taught that around 66 million years ago (a number that defies imagination) an asteroid hit near the gulf of Mexico and purportedly caused the extinction of all the dinosaurs. What is less commonly known is that this discovery was made as recently as 1970. In the grand scheme of things that is practically yesterday. Often before the key discovery, like the impact crater in this case, scientist often have these data points like the fossil record that they try to connect with a narrative. Without the right information these theories are often laughable in hindsight. What is obvious to the current generation was not so to previous ones, regardless of their intelligence. For example Einstein famously rejected the possibility of plate tectonics near the end of his life.\nMuch of What We Do Know is Based on Very Little\nThis fact was most clearly made to me when talking about the core of the earth. When I say \u0026ldquo;core of the earth\u0026rdquo;, I imagine that you get the same image of a globe with a quarter missing that I do. You have a sort of crust, a lot of orange and at the perfectly spherical dark gray rock at the center. So how do we know for sure this image is accurate? Well we don\u0026rsquo;t really, the deepest hole ever dug was completed only in 1992 and they didn\u0026rsquo;t make it even halfway through the crust. Even so, the depth that they managed to reach (12km) revealed really surprising results. Not only were the temperatures much higher than the current geological models suggested, they also found water much deeper than it was \u0026ldquo;supposed\u0026rdquo; to be. All this from a single deep hole, and when you come to the fossil record things get even more scarce. It was said that all pre-Homo-Sapien (i.e. Neandethals, Cro Magnum, etc.) bones could fit in the back of a pick up truck. That isn\u0026rsquo;t very many bones, I speak from experience. Needless to say, each new find sheds a bit more light on our past while often managing to cause issues with a lot of previous theories.\nThere is Much More to Learn Than I Would Have Guessed\nLiving in the age of the ten day weather forecast, it often feels like we have nature figured out. While it is true that we have figured out a great deal there is still plenty to learn. Take intraplate earthquakes for instance, these are earthquakes that strike in the middle of tectonic plates instead of at their borders. The mechanisms behind these types of quakes remain largely unknown.. Every new breakthrough in science tends to disprove more theories than it confirms. They bring new insights into the mechanism of things while also bringing new questions. This book was highly entertaining, if I was to level one critique, it would be that it marches the reader to the peak of the Dunning-Kruger graph of confidence and moves onto the next topic. I often felt that I had finally grasped a concept, only to realize, upon attempting to explain it to someone, just how little I actually comprehended. This is hardly a critique, but more a testament to how clear of a communicator Bryson is. I think this is one of those books that everyone should read to get a clearer understanding of the world they live in and how we came to know what we know about it.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/a-short-history-of-nearly-everything/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBill Bryson was flying over an ocean one day when he realized just how little he knew about how everything worked. This propelled him into over three years of research, talking to experts in various fields, visiting important museums and visiting some of the most important places on Earth, including Ohio. Bryson was unimpressed with the science books of his youth, feeling that they hinted at the wonders of the world before drowning them in abstruse terms and he set out to change that. Covering everything from Biology to Astrophysics, Bryson flies through the various disciplines giving the reader a brief and exciting overview of how they started as well as where they are currently.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"A Short History of Nearly Everything"},{"content":"Summary\nWritten in 1921 while WW1 was fresh on his mind, Freud investigates the psychology of groups. Little did he know, one of the most notorious groups in history was just a few years from rising to power, ultimately forcing him to flee to London in 1938, where he would die of cancer. The book starts with a summary and critique of contemporary Gustave Le Bon\u0026rsquo;s work on group psychology and then investigates past where Le Bon\u0026rsquo;s work ends.\nThoughts\nIt has long been acknowledged that the individual takes less responsibility when part of a group. The personal identity gets enveloped by the whole. Groups often take on the attributes of children in that they are prone to the strongest emotions. As Freud describes, \u0026ldquo;impulsive, changeable, and irritable. It is controlled almost exclusively by the unconscious.\u0026rdquo; This type of behavior can lift individuals to heights of heroism they would never have achieved alone, but also to similar extreme levels of cruelty.\nWe all have ideals which are amalgamations of our various heroes, saints, reformers, etc. In normal life, this ideal operates with no real object explicitly identified. In a group, the leader often is one that is close enough to our personal ideal that they take its place in the member\u0026rsquo;s mind. To Freud, this initial tie with the leader is foundational, as the leader often embodies the group\u0026rsquo;s collective ego ideal, the internalized set of aspirations and standards. When it comes to psychoanalysis, some claims it makes can be met with differing levels of incredulity, but the lens it provides to understand group dynamics seems undeniably insightful. Having participated in and observed many groups, I can attest that their leaders often hold a stronger sway over their followers than would be expected given the material circumstances. To Freud, that is because the ego ideal that was initially part of you has become identified with the leader, or put another way, you have invested yourself in the image of the leader. Two things result from this: first, it allows many people to align ideals in one direction. Secondly, it exteriorizes your ideal, providing the necessary space between you and your ideal to keep you engaged. One might imagine a scenario in which a person could eventually subsume their ideal ego into their own ego, but if it is invested in an exterior object, that event will obviously never occur.\nFreud interestingly compares this situation to being in love. It often occurs that the one we fall in love with is initially another object of transference. They are someone that appears to have what you lack; you feel \u0026ldquo;completed\u0026rdquo; by them. This scenario, in love, often does not have the space required to survive what has become known as the \u0026ldquo;honeymoon phase,\u0026rdquo; but what Freud points out is that the very difference between leader and follower provides the psychic space required for this identification to persist for as long as the group does.\nAs a bonus tidbit, Freud also compares groups and hypnosis. He makes some observations about the process of hypnotism and how it requires the hypnotist to become the sole object of their subject\u0026rsquo;s attention. This section produces a quote with the certainty that only Freud could make:\nFerenczi has made the true discovery that when a hypnotist gives the command to sleep, which is often done at the beginning of hypnosis, he is putting himself in the place of the subject\u0026rsquo;s parents\u0026hellip;. Now the command to sleep in hypnosis means nothing more nor less than an order to withdraw all interest from the world and to concentrate it upon the person of the hypnotist. And it is so understood by the subject; for in this withdrawal of interest from the outer world lies the psychological characteristic of sleep, and the kinship between sleep and the state of hypnosis is based upon it.\nPeople often think that psychoanalysis is centered around \u0026ldquo;fixing\u0026rdquo; problems, but it would be better understood as attempting to mechanistically explain things that we think of as problems. The psychoanalytic movement is as open to the same analysis as it levels against the church and army. The hope, perhaps, is the statement of faith that \u0026ldquo;the truth will set you free.\u0026rdquo;\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/group-psychology-and-the-analysis-of-the-ego/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten in 1921 while WW1 was fresh on his mind, Freud investigates the psychology of groups. Little did he know, one of the most notorious groups in history was just a few years from rising to power, ultimately forcing him to flee to London in 1938, where he would die of cancer. The book starts with a summary and critique of contemporary Gustave Le Bon\u0026rsquo;s work on group psychology and then investigates past where Le Bon\u0026rsquo;s work ends.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego"},{"content":"Summary\nIn the future, firemen are not necessary because, thanks to technology, houses never accidentally catch on fire. So, you might ask, when do they catch on fire? Only when these new firemen set them ablaze, naturally. Why would they do that? They would burn houses if the owners were found harboring books. \u0026ldquo;Fahrenheit 451\u0026rdquo; (which is the temperature at which paper combusts) opens with the character Guy Montag, a fireman who relishes watching things burn. Suddenly, a chance meeting makes him question his role as a fireman.\nThoughts\n\u0026ldquo;Fahrenheit 451\u0026rdquo; is yet another book with an undeniable presence in the zeitgeist. All I knew about the book was that it featured characters who wanted to burn books. I assumed that these book burners were villains, as otherwise, the medium of the story seemed to be a suspicious choice. I was right of course, but the book primarily critiques \u0026ldquo;mass media.\u0026rdquo; The main idea posits that information is increasingly delivered in more compressed forms: a book becomes a digest, a digest a magazine, and so forth, until a pamphlet becomes a mere billboard, encapsulating everything you need to know in a single line. With the current ascendancy of TikTok, Bradbury may be onto something. However, this aspect of the book can at times seem like a nostalgic yearning for a nonexistent past filled with philosopher kings. Ironically, I consumed this book as an audiobook, mirroring the dystopian society\u0026rsquo;s constant entertainment feed through headphones. The book is entertaining and builds tension well. The book itself is fairly short and action-packed, never dropping the plot and filled with beautiful ideas.\n“If you hide your ignorance, no one will hit you and you\u0026rsquo;ll never learn.”\n“The books are to remind us what asses and fools we are. They\u0026rsquo;re Caesar\u0026rsquo;s praetorian guard, whispering as the parade roars down the avenue, \u0026lsquo;Remember, Caesar, thou art mortal.\u0026rsquo;\u0026quot;\nReaders should not forget the era when Bradbury wrote this book. He was writing in the aftermath of the first atomic detonation and during the onset of a new Cold War, promising much of the same. The United States government was organizing departments to ferret out Communist sympathizers and those with \u0026ldquo;radical\u0026rdquo; ideas. We often assume too quickly that the status quo will last forever, but history shows that things can and do change rapidly. Generally, history has not looked fondly upon those who try to suppress ideas. The depiction of the negative aspects of the future dystopia is masterfully done. However, when attempting to provide a positive ideal, the answers are as generic as those found in any motel lobby:\n“Stuff your eyes with wonder, he said, live as if you\u0026rsquo;d drop dead in ten seconds. See the world. It\u0026rsquo;s more fantastic than any dream made or paid for in factories.”\nIn conclusion, I highly recommend this book, as a page turner. It may not delve as deeply into human psychology as other dystopian novels like \u0026lsquo;1984\u0026rsquo; or \u0026lsquo;Brave New World,\u0026rsquo; but its exploration of these themes is still compelling.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/fahrenheit-451/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the future, firemen are not necessary because, thanks to technology, houses never accidentally catch on fire. So, you might ask, when do they catch on fire? Only when these new firemen set them ablaze, naturally. Why would they do that? They would burn houses if the owners were found harboring books. \u0026ldquo;Fahrenheit 451\u0026rdquo; (which is the temperature at which paper combusts) opens with the character Guy Montag, a fireman who relishes watching things burn. Suddenly, a chance meeting makes him question his role as a fireman.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Fahrenheit 451"},{"content":"Summary\nDavid Copperfield unsurprisingly tells the story of a character named David Copperfield. We see him, albeit retrospectively, grow from a very young boy into a middle-aged man. Along the way, we meet a host of characters who fill the structure of Copperfield\u0026rsquo;s life with color.\nThoughts\nI can\u0026rsquo;t help but view this book through the lens of recently reading Kingsolver\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Demon Copperhead.\u0026rdquo; I realized that Kingsolver\u0026rsquo;s book was inspired by David Copperfield, but I did not realize just to what extent. In short, \u0026ldquo;Demon Copperhead\u0026rdquo; could be considered a retelling of David Copperfield set in modern-day Appalachia. This affected me in a few ways; for one, it made the story less exciting because once you realized just how closely the plots in the two books were connected, the twists and events were spoiled. Secondly, it made for an interesting dynamic where you read, in a sense, to see what was redacted from the new book. As Camus says, \u0026ldquo;The censor shouts aloud what he proscribes.\u0026rdquo; Although this is an interesting way to consume a story, it probably isn\u0026rsquo;t how Dickens would have wanted to be read. With that out of the way, the story itself was good, if not a little long in the tooth at places. The characters were really strong and memorable. It has the optimism of pre-modern literature that is always a breath of fresh air. If you had to pick one to read, I would always default to the original book; this case is no exception. Dickens is a master author on default settings; he will entertain but seldom surprise. I always enjoy my time with him but have yet to be deeply affected by him.\nDemon Copperhead\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/david-copperfield/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid Copperfield unsurprisingly tells the story of a character named David Copperfield. We see him, albeit retrospectively, grow from a very young boy into a middle-aged man. Along the way, we meet a host of characters who fill the structure of Copperfield\u0026rsquo;s life with color.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eI can\u0026rsquo;t help but view this book through the lens of recently reading Kingsolver\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Demon Copperhead.\u0026rdquo; I realized that Kingsolver\u0026rsquo;s book was inspired by David Copperfield, but I did not realize just to what extent. In short, \u0026ldquo;Demon Copperhead\u0026rdquo; could be considered a retelling of David Copperfield set in modern-day Appalachia. This affected me in a few ways; for one, it made the story less exciting because once you realized just how closely the plots in the two books were connected, the twists and events were spoiled. Secondly, it made for an interesting dynamic where you read, in a sense, to see what was redacted from the new book. As Camus says, \u0026ldquo;The censor shouts aloud what he proscribes.\u0026rdquo; Although this is an interesting way to consume a story, it probably isn\u0026rsquo;t how Dickens would have wanted to be read. With that out of the way, the story itself was good, if not a little long in the tooth at places. The characters were really strong and memorable. It has the optimism of pre-modern literature that is always a breath of fresh air. If you had to pick one to read, I would always default to the original book; this case is no exception. Dickens is a master author on default settings; he will entertain but seldom surprise. I always enjoy my time with him but have yet to be deeply affected by him.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"David Copperfield"},{"content":"Also published as a book review.\nThe Fall- An Account of Modernity by John the Baptist\nThere is always a space between the thoughts in a writer’s head and those that the reader is receptive to, yet when it came to The Fall, I found that space to be incredibly small. Camus boils down modernity to one thing: “judgement”. This unique framework for viewing our image of self and relation to others illuminates what otherwise would appear to be simple self-aggrandizement with a desperate attempt to avoid the Last Judgement.\nIntroduction\nWriting four years before his death, Camus completed one of his most impactful novels. In The Fall the main character, by a clever device is the reader. The reader opens the first page and is immediately interrupted by the character, Jean Baptiste Clamence. Through Clamence you realize that you are in a dive bar named Mexico City which is situated in the center of a dank sailors’ district in Amsterdam. Clamence observes that when viewed from above, Amsterdam’s canals resemble Dante’s concentric circles of hell, and the two of you are in the center. From this center of hell, he begins monologues. This Parisian ex-pat is so charming that the main character, that is to say you as the reader, follows him around the town and he tells you his story in a very particular way.\nThe Name\nThe first thing worth mentioning is Jean Baptiste Clamence’s name. Jean Baptiste (JB) is an homage to the biblical John the Baptist, whose role was to prepare a way for the Messiah. In the Bible, this is accomplished by exposing people’s hidden sins, calling them to repentance, and, when effective, baptizing them. Jean Baptiste, on the other hand, is a thoroughly modern incarnation of this mission. A prophet whose messiah has ascended to heaven and not yet returned.\nAn empty prophet for shabby times, Elijah without a messiah, stuffed with fever and alcohol, my back up against this mouldy door, my finger raised towards a threatening sky, showering imprecations on lawless men who cannot endure any judgment.\nWhat’s more, when one is baptized by Jean Baptiste it is a reverse baptism, you enter the water clean and come out a transgressor. The surname Clamence has multiple readings: there is a similar Latin verb ‘clamare’ or “to cry out” which fits with the John the Baptist motif, but there is also the more obvious French word ‘clement’ or “merciful”. This would be a more sarcastic interpretation, as Clamence is anything but merciful to humanity.\nThe Style\nAlthough this is my favorite of Camus’ books, it is strangely the least quotable, not to say it is not quotable, but when compared with his other works like The Myth of Sisyphus where every line could stand on its own, the Fall requires context, each line is a brush stroke of modernity. It is no secret that Dostoyevsky was one of Camus’ influences, this influence is quite pronounced in the Fall. In many ways you could read this as a retelling of Notes from the Underground. The Underground man could be compared to JB after the completion of the fall. In the Underground man’s terms JB used to be a “man of action” and after his fall he became an honest rodent. One other structural thing to note is that this book doesn’t have chapters; it is organized by conversations. You are in Amsterdam, but are only ever conscious when JB is talking to you.\nThe Setup\nJB initially was a Parisian lawyer with a specialty in what he calls “noble cases” representing the widow and the orphan. According to him, he was gifted with a disposition that found joy in this profession. In almost every way he was “blessed”. He takes pains to inform us that he is past believing in God, yet during that time he unaccountably felt set apart and chosen in some way. How else are we to understand just how wholesome he was?\nIt is during this setup that we learn about JB’s obsession with height. Height comes up again and again, even in the setting. We are in Amsterdam, one of the lowest cities in the world, having a drink in a bar named Mexico City, known for being one of the highest cities in the world. This “double” theme will haunt the rest of the book.\nThe Fall in Three Acts\nThe title ‘The Fall’ is another homage to a Biblical theme, referencing Adam and Eve being cast out of Eden. He likens his lawyer days to being in Eden, shifting paradise from the external reality of Eden to an internal psychological experience of innocence and priority. I find this reinterpretation of the garden compelling. Eden is typically thought of spatially or as some sort of destination, but to JB it is a perch, a high vantage point. Cracks in the supports of this elevated position soon start to form.\nAct 1: The Laugh\nThe seemingly least important of the three events that lead to JB’s fall happened one perfect autumn evening. JB is walking, near the peak of his Edenic experience, when out of nowhere he hears a laugh. His mind instantly interprets this laugh as directed “at” him, but turning and seeing no one, he moves on. This moment is psychologically important for a few reasons, we see first the self pre and then postprocessed. He later says that the laugh itself wasn’t even a derisive laugh, the interpretation, as such, tells us more than if it had been. It is the self that peeks out of the bars of the self, the I before I, that tells the truth. This Freudian repression, or set of wax wings, allowed JB to believe that he believed. Yet there lingered an anxiety that he was all the while a play actor, the beginning of the end.\nAct 2: The Traffic Light\nThe next event happened at a traffic light. He was sitting in his car at a light when a motorcyclist in front of him started having engine problems. The light turns green and instead of moving out of traffic the motorcyclist continues trying to fix his bike, holding up traffic. JB asks the man politely several times to move, each time the cyclist refuses getting more and more frustrated by his bike, finally telling JB that he would give him a “thorough dusting off”. This was enough for JB to get out of his car with the intent of beating the motorcyclist when all the sudden he hears a man behind him say that he wouldn’t let JB strike a man with a motorcycle between his legs as that was unfair, then, immediately following his observation, strikes JB’s ear. Dazed and confused, JB meekly returns to his car without saying a word. Again, the importance of this event, is not the event itself, but the retroactive interpretation it gets from JB. He is unable to forget it, he re-runs it a million times in his head, he fantasizes how it could have gone if only he had done this or that. All this eventually leads him to the realization that instead of being a “predestined defender of the widow and orphan”, what he really wants is to dominate. To be “respected in profession as well as person” to not only win by intellect but also brute force. This discovery made it even more difficult to identify with his previous persona of being a “friend of truth and intelligence”.\nAct 3: The River\nThe finale occurs a couple years earlier than the Laughter. This event further cements the lengths his psyche was willing to go to preserve the false image of himself that he had created. He was again walking through Paris at night animated by Edenic bliss when he notices a woman, alone leaning over the edge of a bridge. A little while after passing her, he hears what is unmistakably the splash of a body hitting the river, followed by a few cries for help that drift downstream, quickly being replaced by silence. Stopping for a moment, he quickly decides that it is “too late, too far… or something of the sort”. Furthermore, he reveals that he never finds out what has happened to the woman because he didn’t read the papers for the next few days. This story highlights the Lacanian insight that events or signifiers only receive their meaning retroactively. By the time he encounters the laughter, this event has been living parasitically below his conscious attention, eroding the foundations of his constructed self. At the time he was able to quickly defend against and dismiss the bridge incident, but this event would in the fullness of time become the foundation of his new identity.\n**Judge Penitent **\nThe culmination of his fall, is the conclusion that we have constructed a society that lives in a constant state of judgment. He had once been able to float above this reality but has now been pulled into it by his own discovered culpability. What follows is his attempt to situate himself in the new reality which he likens to a prison cell so small that it doesn’t allow the occupant to stand or lay down. He first tries to become a misanthropic satirist who can avoid judgment by laughing at everything. When this fails, he then tries to anesthetize himself with debauchery. This would have worked, but it ended up destroying his health, making it impossible to maintain. He eventually settles on this idea he calls a “judge penitent”. He describes this “office” as someone that accuses himself, but in a very particular way. His accusations always have a specific effect in mind, and that effect is reflection. The image that he is painting of himself with his self-incrimination is general enough so that his audience begins to see themselves in its likeness.\nThen imperceptibly I pass from the ‘I’ to the ‘we’. When I get to ‘This is what we are’, the game is over and I can tell them off. I am like them, to be sure; we are in the soup together. However, I have a superiority in that I know it and this gives me the right to speak.\nIn other words, fulfilling his office as the modern incarnation of John the Baptist, he brings his listeners to the water to be condemned. The very act of being a “guide” gives him superiority over the one who is guided, and thus he achieves his domination at last.\nConclusion\nAs centers of our own universes, we embody a natural level of narcissism that Camus masterfully encapsulates in \u0026lsquo;The Fall.\u0026rsquo; Our human struggle to validate our existence referentially hinges on others, with judgment serving as a primary means of asserting dominance. The information revolution has only broadened the number of things available for judgement. Jean Baptiste would have predicted that most social media posts would revolve around people “making stands” and thus electing themselves as a judge. He would have also understood how devastating it would be to those who are subjected to this most wide-ranging judgement in history. He would have anticipated the increasing levels of polarity as individuals try to condemn others for what they are most guilty. After listening to Jean Baptiste, we are left with questions; do I know that I am the subject of judgment? Or do I still believe I am the only exception. If I am fully aware of this, how can it be borne?\n…on the bridges of Paris I too learned that I was afraid of freedom. So hurrah for the master, whoever he may be, to take the place of heaven’s law. ‘Our Father who art provisionally here . . . Our guides, our delightfully severe masters, O cruel and beloved leaders . . .’\n#book\nThe Divine Comedy Albert Camus\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/essays/the-fall/","summary":"Long-form essay on Camus’s The Fall—the same piece as under Reviews, listed here as an essay.","title":"The Fall"},{"content":"Also available as a long essay.\nThe Fall- An Account of Modernity by John the Baptist\nThere is always a space between the thoughts in a writer’s head and those that the reader is receptive to, yet when it came to The Fall, I found that space to be incredibly small. Camus boils down modernity to one thing: “judgement”. This unique framework for viewing our image of self and relation to others illuminates what otherwise would appear to be simple self-aggrandizement with a desperate attempt to avoid the Last Judgement.\nIntroduction\nWriting four years before his death, Camus completed one of his most impactful novels. In The Fall the main character, by a clever device is the reader. The reader opens the first page and is immediately interrupted by the character, Jean Baptiste Clamence. Through Clamence you realize that you are in a dive bar named Mexico City which is situated in the center of a dank sailors’ district in Amsterdam. Clamence observes that when viewed from above, Amsterdam’s canals resemble Dante’s concentric circles of hell, and the two of you are in the center. From this center of hell, he begins monologues. This Parisian ex-pat is so charming that the main character, that is to say you as the reader, follows him around the town and he tells you his story in a very particular way.\nThe Name\nThe first thing worth mentioning is Jean Baptiste Clamence’s name. Jean Baptiste (JB) is an homage to the biblical John the Baptist, whose role was to prepare a way for the Messiah. In the Bible, this is accomplished by exposing people’s hidden sins, calling them to repentance, and, when effective, baptizing them. Jean Baptiste, on the other hand, is a thoroughly modern incarnation of this mission. A prophet whose messiah has ascended to heaven and not yet returned.\nAn empty prophet for shabby times, Elijah without a messiah, stuffed with fever and alcohol, my back up against this mouldy door, my finger raised towards a threatening sky, showering imprecations on lawless men who cannot endure any judgment.\nWhat’s more, when one is baptized by Jean Baptiste it is a reverse baptism, you enter the water clean and come out a transgressor. The surname Clamence has multiple readings: there is a similar Latin verb ‘clamare’ or “to cry out” which fits with the John the Baptist motif, but there is also the more obvious French word ‘clement’ or “merciful”. This would be a more sarcastic interpretation, as Clamence is anything but merciful to humanity.\nThe Style\nAlthough this is my favorite of Camus’ books, it is strangely the least quotable, not to say it is not quotable, but when compared with his other works like The Myth of Sisyphus where every line could stand on its own, the Fall requires context, each line is a brush stroke of modernity. It is no secret that Dostoyevsky was one of Camus’ influences, this influence is quite pronounced in the Fall. In many ways you could read this as a retelling of Notes from the Underground. The Underground man could be compared to JB after the completion of the fall. In the Underground man’s terms JB used to be a “man of action” and after his fall he became an honest rodent. One other structural thing to note is that this book doesn’t have chapters; it is organized by conversations. You are in Amsterdam, but are only ever conscious when JB is talking to you.\nThe Setup\nJB initially was a Parisian lawyer with a specialty in what he calls “noble cases” representing the widow and the orphan. According to him, he was gifted with a disposition that found joy in this profession. In almost every way he was “blessed”. He takes pains to inform us that he is past believing in God, yet during that time he unaccountably felt set apart and chosen in some way. How else are we to understand just how wholesome he was?\nIt is during this setup that we learn about JB’s obsession with height. Height comes up again and again, even in the setting. We are in Amsterdam, one of the lowest cities in the world, having a drink in a bar named Mexico City, known for being one of the highest cities in the world. This “double” theme will haunt the rest of the book.\nThe Fall in Three Acts\nThe title ‘The Fall’ is another homage to a Biblical theme, referencing Adam and Eve being cast out of Eden. He likens his lawyer days to being in Eden, shifting paradise from the external reality of Eden to an internal psychological experience of innocence and priority. I find this reinterpretation of the garden compelling. Eden is typically thought of spatially or as some sort of destination, but to JB it is a perch, a high vantage point. Cracks in the supports of this elevated position soon start to form.\nAct 1: The Laugh\nThe seemingly least important of the three events that lead to JB’s fall happened one perfect autumn evening. JB is walking, near the peak of his Edenic experience, when out of nowhere he hears a laugh. His mind instantly interprets this laugh as directed “at” him, but turning and seeing no one, he moves on. This moment is psychologically important for a few reasons, we see first the self pre and then postprocessed. He later says that the laugh itself wasn’t even a derisive laugh, the interpretation, as such, tells us more than if it had been. It is the self that peeks out of the bars of the self, the I before I, that tells the truth. This Freudian repression, or set of wax wings, allowed JB to believe that he believed. Yet there lingered an anxiety that he was all the while a play actor, the beginning of the end.\nAct 2: The Traffic Light\nThe next event happened at a traffic light. He was sitting in his car at a light when a motorcyclist in front of him started having engine problems. The light turns green and instead of moving out of traffic the motorcyclist continues trying to fix his bike, holding up traffic. JB asks the man politely several times to move, each time the cyclist refuses getting more and more frustrated by his bike, finally telling JB that he would give him a “thorough dusting off”. This was enough for JB to get out of his car with the intent of beating the motorcyclist when all the sudden he hears a man behind him say that he wouldn’t let JB strike a man with a motorcycle between his legs as that was unfair, then, immediately following his observation, strikes JB’s ear. Dazed and confused, JB meekly returns to his car without saying a word. Again, the importance of this event, is not the event itself, but the retroactive interpretation it gets from JB. He is unable to forget it, he re-runs it a million times in his head, he fantasizes how it could have gone if only he had done this or that. All this eventually leads him to the realization that instead of being a “predestined defender of the widow and orphan”, what he really wants is to dominate. To be “respected in profession as well as person” to not only win by intellect but also brute force. This discovery made it even more difficult to identify with his previous persona of being a “friend of truth and intelligence”.\nAct 3: The River\nThe finale occurs a couple years earlier than the Laughter. This event further cements the lengths his psyche was willing to go to preserve the false image of himself that he had created. He was again walking through Paris at night animated by Edenic bliss when he notices a woman, alone leaning over the edge of a bridge. A little while after passing her, he hears what is unmistakably the splash of a body hitting the river, followed by a few cries for help that drift downstream, quickly being replaced by silence. Stopping for a moment, he quickly decides that it is “too late, too far… or something of the sort”. Furthermore, he reveals that he never finds out what has happened to the woman because he didn’t read the papers for the next few days. This story highlights the Lacanian insight that events or signifiers only receive their meaning retroactively. By the time he encounters the laughter, this event has been living parasitically below his conscious attention, eroding the foundations of his constructed self. At the time he was able to quickly defend against and dismiss the bridge incident, but this event would in the fullness of time become the foundation of his new identity.\n**Judge Penitent **\nThe culmination of his fall, is the conclusion that we have constructed a society that lives in a constant state of judgment. He had once been able to float above this reality but has now been pulled into it by his own discovered culpability. What follows is his attempt to situate himself in the new reality which he likens to a prison cell so small that it doesn’t allow the occupant to stand or lay down. He first tries to become a misanthropic satirist who can avoid judgment by laughing at everything. When this fails, he then tries to anesthetize himself with debauchery. This would have worked, but it ended up destroying his health, making it impossible to maintain. He eventually settles on this idea he calls a “judge penitent”. He describes this “office” as someone that accuses himself, but in a very particular way. His accusations always have a specific effect in mind, and that effect is reflection. The image that he is painting of himself with his self-incrimination is general enough so that his audience begins to see themselves in its likeness.\nThen imperceptibly I pass from the ‘I’ to the ‘we’. When I get to ‘This is what we are’, the game is over and I can tell them off. I am like them, to be sure; we are in the soup together. However, I have a superiority in that I know it and this gives me the right to speak.\nIn other words, fulfilling his office as the modern incarnation of John the Baptist, he brings his listeners to the water to be condemned. The very act of being a “guide” gives him superiority over the one who is guided, and thus he achieves his domination at last.\nConclusion\nAs centers of our own universes, we embody a natural level of narcissism that Camus masterfully encapsulates in \u0026lsquo;The Fall.\u0026rsquo; Our human struggle to validate our existence referentially hinges on others, with judgment serving as a primary means of asserting dominance. The information revolution has only broadened the number of things available for judgement. Jean Baptiste would have predicted that most social media posts would revolve around people “making stands” and thus electing themselves as a judge. He would have also understood how devastating it would be to those who are subjected to this most wide-ranging judgement in history. He would have anticipated the increasing levels of polarity as individuals try to condemn others for what they are most guilty. After listening to Jean Baptiste, we are left with questions; do I know that I am the subject of judgment? Or do I still believe I am the only exception. If I am fully aware of this, how can it be borne?\n…on the bridges of Paris I too learned that I was afraid of freedom. So hurrah for the master, whoever he may be, to take the place of heaven’s law. ‘Our Father who art provisionally here . . . Our guides, our delightfully severe masters, O cruel and beloved leaders . . .’\n#book\nThe Divine Comedy Albert Camus\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-fall/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eAlso available as a \u003ca href=\"/essays/the-fall/\"\u003elong essay\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Fall- An Account of Modernity by John the Baptist\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThere is always a space between the thoughts in a writer’s head and those that the reader is receptive to, yet when it came to The Fall, I found that space to be incredibly small. Camus boils down modernity to one thing: “judgement”.  This unique framework for viewing our image of self and relation to others illuminates what otherwise would appear to be simple self-aggrandizement with a desperate attempt to avoid the Last Judgement.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Fall"},{"content":"Summary\nThis is one of those books where revealing anything is too much. The book opens from the perspective of a scruffy stray dog who encounters a mysterious Dr. Filipp Filippovich. Things get out of hand.\nThoughts\nI enjoyed this book. From the author of The Master and Margarita, which I read almost exactly a year ago, Bulgakov offers another incisive satirical take on the Bolshevik Revolution. The book presents a dual critique: on one hand, it addresses the hubris of the revolutionaries, who are overly confident in their understanding of human nature. On the other hand, it highlights that people are indeed different; some are worth listening to, while others should be ignored. This book provides a literary vision of an unfortunately successful bourgeois (which I don\u0026rsquo;t feel a part of until I can spell the word without looking it up) social architect and portrays an exaggerated, unwashed proletariat wielding newfound power. Beyond any political interpretations, the book is fairly short and entertaining for the most part. The writing is unsurprisingly quiet good and makes for a perfect Halloween season read from the USSR. Onward comrades!\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/heart-of-a-dog/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis is one of those books where revealing anything is too much. The book opens from the perspective of a scruffy stray dog who encounters a mysterious Dr. Filipp Filippovich. Things get out of hand.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eI enjoyed this book. From the author of The Master and Margarita, which I read almost exactly a year ago, Bulgakov offers another incisive satirical take on the Bolshevik Revolution. The book presents a dual critique: on one hand, it addresses the hubris of the revolutionaries, who are overly confident in their understanding of human nature. On the other hand, it highlights that people are indeed different; some are worth listening to, while others should be ignored. This book provides a literary vision of an unfortunately successful bourgeois (which I don\u0026rsquo;t feel a part of until I can spell the word without looking it up)  social architect and portrays an exaggerated, unwashed proletariat wielding newfound power. Beyond any political interpretations, the book is fairly short and entertaining for the most part. The writing is unsurprisingly quiet good and makes for a perfect Halloween season read from the USSR. Onward comrades!\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Heart of a Dog"},{"content":"Summary\nThis book is supposedly the longest single-authored mystical poem in the world. Coming in at a little over twenty-five thousand Persian couplets which are the equivalent of fifty thousand European lines, the Spiritual Verses are twice as long as Dante\u0026rsquo;s Divine Comedy. Rumi, a Sufi mystic from the 13th century, puts together a group of fables that are connected by metaphor and style as opposed to any plot. Many stories turn out to be like a Russian nesting doll, containing many smaller, distantly related stories to further enhance the author\u0026rsquo;s ideas. Rumi, at points, floats above time and place to speak of universal experiences, while at other times he is firmly rooted in his Islamic perspective.\nThoughts\nI am always slightly at a loss in reviewing a book like this. How can anyone give a \u0026ldquo;star rating\u0026rdquo; to spiritual text? The amount of arrogance it takes to make a definitive rating on something like the Quaran or the Tao Te Ching should be a crime, yet I\u0026rsquo;ve given star ratings to both of those books because as a \u0026lsquo;modern\u0026rsquo;, I subscribe to the delusion of chronological superiority, underestimating just how wise those that came before were. With that out of the way I will proceed. Most books you read expecting the text to tell you things, but with works like the Spiritual Verses, I find that this process is often reversed. We come to these types of text to tell them things, like a preacher that writes an entire sermon around a single verse, the whole idea of works is that there is more than meets the eye. This creates a problem for the casual reader, which in this case was me. Without the desire to spend the years required to really become acquainted with the author\u0026rsquo;s worldview and mythology, the text often felt hollow, and its morals flat. Much like my experience with the Tao Te Ching, I was left with the feeling of an outsider listening in on an exotic religious ceremony, there would be small tidbits that would cause me to nod my head in agreement, but on the whole, the experience of the text ranged from ambivalence to occasional antagonism. In the end, I think I will continue to, like the rest of my Western comrades, quote Rumi out of context, pretending that I completely understand what he is saying. This way I can cash in on his spiritual status without having to do the legwork required to have any of my own.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/spiritual-verses/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis book is supposedly the longest single-authored mystical poem in the world. Coming in at a little over twenty-five thousand Persian couplets which are the equivalent of fifty thousand European lines, the Spiritual Verses are twice as long as Dante\u0026rsquo;s Divine Comedy. Rumi, a Sufi mystic from the 13th century, puts together a group of fables that are connected by metaphor and style as opposed to any plot. Many stories turn out to be like a Russian nesting doll, containing many smaller, distantly related stories to further enhance the author\u0026rsquo;s ideas. Rumi, at points, floats above time and place to speak of universal experiences, while at other times he is firmly rooted in his Islamic perspective.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Spiritual Verses"},{"content":"Summary\nVictor Davis Hanson tells the story of the Peloponnesian war which is the war where Sparta and Athens fought for close to 30 years. This war starts shortly after Sparta and Athens had united to repel a Persian invasion, partially depicted in the movie 300. Ironically, this war was ultimately decided by Persia backing Sparta which broke the Athenians. For many, this war marks the end of the Greek Golden age. Taking place shortly before Alexander the Great\u0026rsquo;s campaigns, it included many Western superstars like Socrates, who participated in the early part of the war, Hippocrates, the father of medicine, and some of the eminent Greek tragedians like Sophocles and Euripides. Hanson recasts the Peloponnesian War as a Greek Civil War, because much like the American Civil War both sides shared language, culture, and many other inherited traditions, but they differed on governmental strategies. The Spartans are portrayed as being conservative oligarchs, while the Athenians were depicted as radical proponents of democracy. This difference in governing styles is often emphasized by Hanson, who uses it to explain the distinctive reactions of the two nation states to the challenges each in turn faced.\nThoughts\nHanson excels at setting the stage, making the job of seeing this slice of the Mediterranean easy. Sometimes feeling sweaty as you sympathize with a marching Hoplite Spartan soldier, wearing heavy bronze armor under a blazing sun in a windless valley, other times sympathizing with a sweaty Athenian oarsman in the bottom row of three rows, rowing for your life as your head is at \u0026ldquo;hip\u0026rdquo; level of the row of rowers above you. I am now realizing that you spend most of the time feeling sweaty and trying not to imagine what you would be smelling. Similar to one of those Triremes stuck in a doldrum, at times I felt like the book dragged under the sheer weight of Greek names and places, followed by the endless back and forth of attacks and retaliations. However, memorable events like the plague that ravaged Athens during a Spartan siege would breathe fresh air into the sails and we would be off again. One of my favorites of these memorable moments was the fascinating description of the siege on Plataea. The Peloponnesian War takes place at an interesting point in time where Greek siege craft technology had not caught up with Greek fortification technology. At this point there were no siege towers or torsion catapults. This detail means that the attackers were only left with ladders and rams as their siege weapons. Because of this in Plataea 400 defenders were able to hold off a sizeable Spartan army, even when they tried several other novel methods of breaching the city like tunneling, fire, and primitive chemical warfare. After these unsuccessful attempts the Spartan army gave up on a direct assault and built a wall around the entire city and then began the slow process of attrition. At one point during the siege two hundred and twelve men made a daring escape. Unfortunately, their success also meant that the number of the city defenders had been halved. In spite of such a stalwart resistance the city eventually fell when the remaining defenders became too exhausted to carry on. Layers of depth are added to this history by the larger-than-life characters like the Spartan general Brasidas and the romantic yet treacherous Alcibiades. Hanson extracts various morals from the historical events with varying degrees of success. While delving into \u0026ldquo;historical advice\u0026rdquo; for modern scenarios seems futile, as history rarely repeats itself identically, there appear to be general principles underscored in historical conflict that remain relevant across time. One such principle discussed by Hanson is the inherent self-preserving nature of nations, akin to living entities. When faced with existential threats, nations, much like individuals, may and often do swiftly abandon their principles to save themselves. One need not look too hard in history to find many reminders of this potentiality.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/a-war-like-no-other-how-the-athenians-spartans-fought-the-peloponnesian-war/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVictor Davis Hanson tells the story of the Peloponnesian war which is the war where Sparta and Athens fought for close to 30 years. This war starts shortly after Sparta and Athens had united to repel a Persian invasion, partially depicted in the movie 300. Ironically, this war was ultimately decided by Persia backing Sparta which broke the Athenians. For many, this war marks the end of the Greek Golden age. Taking place shortly before Alexander the Great\u0026rsquo;s campaigns, it included many Western superstars like Socrates, who participated in the early part of the war, Hippocrates, the father of medicine, and some of the eminent Greek tragedians like Sophocles and Euripides. Hanson recasts the Peloponnesian War as a Greek Civil War, because much like the American Civil War both sides shared language, culture, and many other inherited traditions, but they differed on governmental strategies. The Spartans are portrayed as being conservative oligarchs, while the Athenians were depicted as radical proponents of democracy. This difference in governing styles is often emphasized by Hanson, who uses it to explain the distinctive reactions of the two nation states to the challenges each in turn faced.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"A War Like No Other"},{"content":"Summary\nAfter writing several books targeted at specialists Stephen Hawking tries to write a book targeted at the everyman. In the book he lays out where our conceptions of the universe and time came from, and how and why they\u0026rsquo;ve been updated as more and more discoveries have been made.\nThoughts\nI don\u0026rsquo;t know if this book was a waste of Hawking\u0026rsquo;s time, but it was fairly clear after reading the book that the talent for mass communication that other popular science writers have is somewhat lacking here. As one of the most intelligent and acclaimed scientists of our time it is not that surprising that the average layman may have difficulties keeping up. I in part blame Einstein for this because up until his general theory of relativity it seemed to me that the basic ideas of physics could be conveyed in a way that most people could understand, but once you start talking about gravity bending time and space, I think the allegories have to be dumbed down so much that they essentially represent nothing to the non-specialist and are quickly misunderstood by the masses. That being said there were some gems in the book, specifically the anthropic principle which we\u0026rsquo;ve all thought about many times in one direction. That is, we often have heard or thought \u0026ldquo;what are the chances that this universe unfolded in such and such a way. It\u0026rsquo;s impossible for that to have been purely chance\u0026rdquo;. What this observation neglects are that in order to make the observation in the first place the universe had to have unfolded in such and such a way. Every long string of events looks improbable in retrospect, yet any outcome of a sufficiently long string of events looks improbable. I guess this is similar to the idea that if something odd DOESN\u0026rsquo;T happen in your day, that would be a truly odd day. Hawking is also of course famous for his work on radiation observed around black holes, and so he goes into how black holes work which didn\u0026rsquo;t help me to sleep any better at night. In fact, I am now convinced that no one believes in black holes. The fact that the universe spawns these giant mouths that consume everything they come into contact with is something that I will continue to ignore.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/a-brief-history-of-time/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter writing several books targeted at specialists Stephen Hawking tries to write a book targeted at the everyman. In the book he lays out where our conceptions of the universe and time came from, and how and why they\u0026rsquo;ve been updated as more and more discoveries have been made.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eI don\u0026rsquo;t know if this book was a waste of Hawking\u0026rsquo;s time, but it was fairly clear after reading the book that the talent for mass communication that other popular science writers have is somewhat lacking here. As one of the most intelligent and acclaimed scientists of our time it is not that surprising that the average layman may have difficulties keeping up. I in part blame Einstein for this because up until his general theory of relativity it seemed to me that the basic ideas of physics could be conveyed in a way that most people could understand, but once you start talking about gravity bending time and space, I think the allegories have to be dumbed down so much that they essentially represent nothing to the non-specialist and are quickly misunderstood by the masses.  That being said there were some gems in the book, specifically the anthropic principle which we\u0026rsquo;ve all thought about many times in one direction. That is, we often have heard or thought \u0026ldquo;what are the chances that this universe unfolded in such and such a way. It\u0026rsquo;s impossible for that to have been purely chance\u0026rdquo;. What this observation neglects are that in order to make the observation in the first place the universe had to have unfolded in such and such a way. Every long string of events looks improbable in retrospect, yet any outcome of a sufficiently long string of events looks improbable. I guess this is similar to the idea that if something odd DOESN\u0026rsquo;T happen in your day, that would be a truly odd day. Hawking is also of course famous for his work on radiation observed around black holes, and so he goes into how black holes work which didn\u0026rsquo;t help me to sleep any better at night. In fact, I am now convinced that no one believes in black holes. The fact that the universe spawns these giant mouths that consume everything they come into contact with is something that I will continue to ignore.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"A Brief History of Time"},{"content":"Summary\nFrankenstein wants to create life, he does, and the results may surprise you.\nThoughts\nA really great read with exceptional prose. Ironically the most articulate character is the monster himself, his description of coming to consciousness is one of the most touching moments of the book. Heavily inspired by Milton\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;Paradise Lost\u0026rsquo;, Shelley tells one of the most memorable stories of the 19th century. As with all great works of art, after they are created, they in some sense no longer belong to their creator but become part of the collective consciousness. I would be interested to see what she would think of its place in culture now. The story itself of course is provocative in that there are so many different ways of reading it. There are of course the social critiques of the time in it, such as the treatment of servants, mob mentality etc. There is also the commonly understood moral that Dr. Frankenstein\u0026rsquo;s creation should remind us that we should be careful when playing God. This moral is interesting in itself, but subversive when reversed, that is God should be careful when playing us. The monster kills people, and therefore Dr. Frankenstein feels that he is in some way culpable, in some ways more so than the Monster, so much so that all he wants to do is kill the monster and die himself. Of course, this makes sense in line with the usual moral, but what does it mean for the inverse? Another fascinating layer to this whole quandary is that the Monster himself has a virtuous heart but is driven to violence by his complete and absolute isolation.\n*The fallen angel becomes a malignant devil. Yet even that enemy of God and man had friends and associates in his desolation; I am alone. *\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/frankenstein-the-1818-text/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrankenstein wants to create life, he does, and the results may surprise you.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA really great read with exceptional prose. Ironically the most articulate character is the monster himself, his description of coming to consciousness is one of the most touching moments of the book. Heavily inspired by Milton\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;Paradise Lost\u0026rsquo;, Shelley tells one of the most memorable stories of the 19th century. As with all great works of art, after they are created, they in some sense no longer belong to their creator but become part of the collective consciousness. I would be interested to see what she would think of its place in culture now. The story itself of course is provocative in that there are so many different ways of reading it. There are of course the social critiques of the time in it, such as the treatment of servants, mob mentality etc. There is also the commonly understood moral that Dr. Frankenstein\u0026rsquo;s creation should remind us that we should be careful when playing God. This moral is interesting in itself, but subversive when reversed, that is God should be careful when playing us. The monster kills people, and therefore Dr. Frankenstein feels that he is in some way culpable, in some ways more so than the Monster, so much so that all he wants to do is kill the monster and die himself. Of course, this makes sense in line with the usual moral, but what does it mean for the inverse? Another fascinating layer to this whole quandary is that the Monster himself has a virtuous heart but is driven to violence by his complete and absolute isolation.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Frankenstein"},{"content":"Summary\nA collaborative autobiography by the man the myth the legend C.G. Jung. As an additional note, after reading this, I then listened to one of the \u0026ldquo;Very short introduction\u0026rdquo; books on Jung which was largely unnecessary after reading this book except that it put a little more meat on the bones of his theories.\nThoughts\nIt is difficult to review books sometimes because books have so many different uses. Some books are for fun, some are works of art, others are descriptive. So should you rate on how much you enjoyed a book? How well it was written? I think I prefer to review a book on how well it did what it set out to do, and this book did really well. Jung\u0026rsquo;s memory of his life is incredible. From his ability to recall a dream he had when he was three, to his structured accounts of his various travels, one thing this book did was made me realize how little of my life I could retell if I was forced to. There is no way I could discuss all the ideas this book brought up, so I\u0026rsquo;ll just give a few impressions. The first one is that if Jung had been born a couple hundred years early, or in a different part of the world, he most definitely would have become a shaman. His unique psyche revealed things to him that I think most people would never be able to experience. The second thing I noticed was that the parallels between priests and psychologists also include the fact that when it comes to both, your mileage may vary. When it comes to allowing myself to be psychoanalyzed, it seems like I would want an extended character reference\u0026hellip;. an autobiography perhaps? People/C.G. Jung\nJung- A Very Short Introduction\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/memories-dreams-reflections/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA collaborative autobiography by the man the myth the legend C.G. Jung. As an additional note, after reading this, I then listened to one of the \u0026ldquo;Very short introduction\u0026rdquo; books on Jung which was largely unnecessary after reading this book except that it put a little more meat on the bones of his theories.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt is difficult to review books sometimes because books have so many different uses. Some books are for fun, some are works of art, others are descriptive. So should you rate on how much you enjoyed a book? How well it was written? I think I prefer to review a book on how well it did what it set out to do, and this book did really well. Jung\u0026rsquo;s memory of his life is incredible. From his ability to recall a dream he had when he was three, to his structured accounts of his various travels, one thing this book did was made me realize how little of my life I could retell if I was forced to. There is no way I could discuss all the ideas this book brought up, so I\u0026rsquo;ll just give a few impressions. The first one is that if Jung had been born a couple hundred years early, or in a different part of the world, he most definitely would have become a shaman. His unique psyche revealed things to him that I think most people would never be able to experience. The second thing I noticed was that the parallels between priests and psychologists also include the fact that when it comes to both, your mileage may vary. When it comes to allowing myself to be psychoanalyzed, it seems like I would want an extended character reference\u0026hellip;. an autobiography perhaps?\nPeople/C.G. Jung\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Memories, Dreams, Reflections"},{"content":"Summary\nOne of Czech\u0026rsquo;s most popular novels, it follows Svejk as his simplicity gets him into all sorts of hijinks during the start of the first world war.\nThoughts\nReminded me of \u0026lsquo;No Time for Sergeants\u0026rsquo; a farce where the main character is an \u0026ldquo;idiot\u0026rdquo; but is always honest, and his simplicity is used to set off the stupidity of the society he is embedded in. Some fairly decent laughs throughout, could not say I was thoroughly entertained, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing, then it will do the job!\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-good-soldier-vejk/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne of Czech\u0026rsquo;s most popular novels, it follows Svejk as his simplicity gets him into all sorts of hijinks during the start of the first world war.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReminded me of \u0026lsquo;No Time for Sergeants\u0026rsquo; a farce where the main character is an \u0026ldquo;idiot\u0026rdquo; but is always honest, and his simplicity is used to set off the stupidity of the society he is embedded in. Some fairly decent laughs throughout, could not say I was thoroughly entertained, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing, then it will do the job!\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Good Soldier Švejk"},{"content":"Summary\nI am not going to write a summary for Dracula. I do pointless things all the time, but not THIS time.\nThoughts\nVery entertaining, I never really got creeped out or tense because all the characters were just so upbeat about everything all the time. The best parallel I can think of is something like reading a King Arthur adventure where every character has their character stats maxed out. The people on the good team are the best most honorable loving and supportive people of all time, while the people on the bad team are the most despicable of all time. The setting and atmosphere of the book was fantastic. Some very memorable scenes involving castle climbing and armies of rats. My only gripe was that the book is written as a series of journal entries and various article clippings. This makes a lot of sense in the beginning of the book when the characters are physically separated but by the end when they are all in the same room it feels cumbersome. Also, because I love nicknames, I am dubbing the author as Bram \u0026lsquo;I\u0026rsquo;m so glad Mina isn\u0026rsquo;t involved\u0026rsquo; Stoker. Good times!\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/dracula/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eI am not going to write a summary for Dracula. I do pointless things all the time, but not THIS time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVery entertaining, I never really got creeped out or tense because all the characters were just so upbeat about everything all the time. The best parallel I can think of is something like reading a King Arthur adventure where every character has their character stats maxed out. The people on the good team are the best most honorable loving and supportive people of all time, while the people on the bad team are the most despicable of all time. The setting and atmosphere of the book was fantastic. Some very memorable scenes involving castle climbing and armies of rats. My only gripe was that the book is written as a series of journal entries and various article clippings. This makes a lot of sense in the beginning of the book when the characters are physically separated but by the end when they are all in the same room it feels cumbersome. Also, because I love nicknames, I am dubbing the author as Bram \u0026lsquo;I\u0026rsquo;m so glad Mina isn\u0026rsquo;t involved\u0026rsquo; Stoker. Good times!\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Dracula"},{"content":"Summary\nChesterton wrote this as a companion piece to his early work \u0026lsquo;Heretic\u0026rsquo;. He wishes to document his own views and how he got to them.\nI did try to found a little heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy.\nChesterton reminds me of a Churchill or Benjamin Franklin in the way in which his ratio of memorable sentences per page asymptotically approaches 1. Every paragraph has gems that beg to be plastered on some living room wall in garish curly-q font:\nif a man would make his world large, he must be always making himself small.\nor maybe in a more strange house with a bigger empty space you could find this quote:\nThe materialist is sure that history has been simply and solely a chain of causation, just as the [lunatic] is quite sure that he is simply and solely a chicken. Materialists and madmen never have doubts.\nChesterton spends most of his time in the lunatic asylum in this book because he feels like that is where the modern age belongs. He makes some really great points around unanchored rationality. He argues that people are sent to the asylum not for having too little rationality, but because they have too much rationality.\nThe madman\u0026rsquo;s explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive, is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the two or three commonest kinds of madness. If a man says (for instance) that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators; which is exactly what conspirators would do. His explanation covers the facts as much as yours. Or if a man says that he is the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were King of England that might be the wisest thing for the existing authorities to do. Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ, it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity; for the world denied Christ\u0026rsquo;s.\nHe feels like this is the situation the materialist finds himself in, that is to say his system is completely logical but also detached from lived experience in the same way that the lunatic makes theories like castles in the air.\nTheir position is quite reasonable; nay, in a sense it is infinitely reasonable, just as a threepenny bit is infinitely circular. But there is such a thing as a mean infinity, a base and slavish eternity. It is amusing to notice that many of the moderns, whether sceptics or mystics, have taken as their sign a certain eastern symbol, which is the very symbol of this ultimate nullity. When they wish to represent eternity, they represent it by a serpent with his tail in his mouth. There is a startling sarcasm in the image of that very unsatisfactory meal. The eternity of the material fatalists, the eternity of the eastern pessimists, the eternity of the supercilious theosophists and higher scientists of today is, indeed, very well presented by a serpent eating his tail, a degraded animal who destroys even himself.\nTo Chesterton, the world feels like so much more than colliding billiard balls because it is more. He refuses to look at the world as dead process but instead as a living and enchanted world :\nThe only words that ever satisfied me as describing Nature are the terms used in the fairy books, \u0026ldquo;charm,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;spell,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;enchantment.\u0026rdquo; They express the arbitrariness of the fact and its mystery. A tree grows fruit because it is a magic tree. Water runs downhill because it is bewitched. The sun shines because it is bewitched. I deny altogether that this is fantastic or even mystical. We may have some mysticism later on; but this fairy-tale language about things is simply rational and agnostic. It is the only way I can express in words my clear and definite perception that one thing is quite distinct from another; that there is no logical connection between flying and laying eggs. It is the man who talks about \u0026ldquo;a law\u0026rdquo; that he has never seen who is the mystic.\nSumming it up in the book\u0026rsquo;s most famous quotation:\nAll the towering materialism which dominates the modern mind rests ultimately upon one assumption; a false assumption. It is supposed that if a thing goes on repeating itself it is probably dead; a piece of clockwork\u0026hellip;.. Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, \u0026ldquo;Do it again\u0026rdquo;; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, \u0026ldquo;Do it again\u0026rdquo; to the sun; and every evening, \u0026ldquo;Do it again\u0026rdquo; to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.\nHe later on expands on his reasoning behind viewing the world as a living and therefore fundamentally irrational thing:\nLife is not an illogicality; yet it is a trap for logicians. It looks just a little more mathematical and regular than it is; its exactitude is obvious, but its inexactitude is hidden; its wildness lies in wait. I give one coarse instance of what I mean. Suppose some mathematical creature from the moon were to reckon up the human body; he would at once see that the essential thing about it was that it was duplicate. A man is two men, he on the right exactly resembling him on the left. Having noted that there was an arm on the right and one on the left, a leg on the right and one on the left, he might go further and still find on each side the same number of fingers, the same number of toes, twin eyes, twin ears, twin nostrils, and even twin lobes of the brain. At last he would take it as a law; and then, where he found a heart on one side, would deduce that there was another heart on the other. And just then, where he most felt he was right, he would be wrong.\nChesterton experienced this feeling of the \u0026ldquo;silent swerving\u0026rdquo; of the magical universe in the irrationalities of Christianity. Every point on the surface where Christianity appears to break the symmetry and be mistaken it actually has anticipated some non-symmetry in reality that would have been overlooked by a mathematical model. Ultimately it was this deep accuracy of Christianity that drew Chesterton to it. He found that over and over again it was most correct when it looked most wrong. He found Christianity to be like a living parent that guided him through an inexplicable universe full of wonder, mystery, and adventure.\nJoy, which was the small publicity of the pagan, is the gigantic secret of the Christian. And as I close this chaotic volume I open again the strange small book from which all Christianity came; and I am again haunted by a kind of confirmation. The tremendous figure which fills the Gospels towers in this respect, as in every other, above all the thinkers who ever thought themselves tall. His pathos was natural, almost casual. The Stoics, ancient and modern, were proud of concealing their tears. He never concealed His tears; He showed them plainly on His open face at any daily sight, such as the far sight of His native city. Yet He concealed something. Solemn supermen and imperial diplomatists are proud of restraining their anger. He never restrained His anger. He flung furniture down the front steps of the Temple, and asked men how they expected to escape the damnation of Hell. Yet He restrained something. I say it with reverence; there was in that shattering personality a thread that must be called shyness. There was something that He hid from all men when He went up a mountain to pray. There was something that He covered constantly by abrupt silence or impetuous isolation. There was some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth; and I have sometimes fancied that it was His mirth.\nThoughts\nThis book is a master piece, a triumph of rhetoric. I picture Chesterton as a Catholic gladiator going out to do battle with the early 20th century. His writing is intuitive and immediately make sense. A very entertaining read and well worth anyone\u0026rsquo;s time. It will probably go down as one of the most compelling apologetics of all time. I am afraid to list objections because of the bias that comes with negativity, and I don\u0026rsquo;t want to detract from the book so I will confine myself to one critique which is similar to the thoughts I had on \u0026lsquo;Heretic\u0026rsquo; and that is that when you read Chesterton you walk into a forest of paradox. Some of these paradoxes are useful and illuminating while others feel contrived to fit a point. I\u0026rsquo;ll take this as an example:\nI have not myself any instinctive kinship with that enthusiasm for physical virginity, which has certainly been a note of historic Christianity. But when I look not at myself but at the world, I perceive that this enthusiasm is not only a note of Christianity, but a note of Paganism, a note of high human nature in many spheres. The Greeks felt virginity when they carved Artemis, the Romans when they robed the vestals, the worst and wildest of the great Elizabethan playwrights clung to the literal purity of a woman as to the central pillar of the world. Above all, the modern world (even while mocking sexual innocence) has flung itself into a generous idolatry of sexual innocence—the great modern worship of children. For any man who loves children will agree that their peculiar beauty is hurt by a hint of physical sex.\nI may be missing something, but it seems like virginity and love of children (sexual innocence included) are not same, but are made to look the same through a clever turn of phrase. Overall, the best way I can describe it is that it would be similar to listening to Oscar Wilde\u0026rsquo;s Lord Henry. It makes for the best conversation imaginable, in one paragraph he convinces you that the universe is big and glorious and that is man is a small and tiny thing and just when you acknowledge the accuracy of that sentiment, he overturns it, and convinces you that man is a big and glorious thing, and the universe outside him tiny and insignificant.\nPeople/G.K. Chesterton\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/orthodoxy/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChesterton wrote this as a companion piece to his early work \u0026lsquo;Heretic\u0026rsquo;. He wishes to document his own views and how he got to them.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eI did try to found a little heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChesterton reminds me of a Churchill or Benjamin Franklin in the way in which his ratio of memorable sentences per page asymptotically approaches 1. Every paragraph has gems that beg to be plastered on some living room wall in garish curly-q font:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Orthodoxy"},{"content":"Summary\nIt is the distant future, the year 2000 and we have managed to bully suffering right out of the human experience. But were the sacrifices worth it?\nThoughts\nThe only scarier thing than the unknown is the mundane. This tension shows lurks in a Brave New World where the reader is left to decide on their own which world they would prefer. Huxley is firmly against this \u0026ldquo;Brave New World\u0026rdquo; full of shallow vapid people but doesn\u0026rsquo;t seem to provide a really convincing alternative. One of the most interesting themes to me was the anxiety around having a complete mechanistic understanding of the \u0026lsquo;human machine\u0026rsquo;. This fear is embodied by the unseen character Ford or Freud. Homages to Henry Ford and of course my golden ziggy, the former mechanized production and the latter the mind. Huxley envisions a world where humans are seen as machines and treated as machines. Machines with complicated maintenance schedules, one missed appointment might just cause a piston to misfire or a belt to break. This human machine world is further exaggerated by the very lack of machines. Instead of what now seems a plausible future where robots outnumber humans by several magnitudes, Huxley has a caste system of humans in place to supply labor. So in the place a mechanical butler would stand, you have a human that was baked to love his chains. The gauntlet being thrown, so to speak, if you really believe humans are soulless automatons, then why would you object to creating them in such a way that they have no ambition? The transcendence of course is revolt, even with such a finely tuned system there are still a few homo-sapiens that slip through the cracks and aren\u0026rsquo;t entirely integrated. The reader again is left to wonder if this is true transcendence or maybe just a bug. Maybe, as some characters suggested, they didn\u0026rsquo;t receive proper doses during incubation, at any rate they are dissatisfied with the status quo. This is the typical awakening archetype, where a character transitions from the unconscious to the conscious. The modern twist is the uncertainty that follows the awakening, don\u0026rsquo;t jump to the conclusion that to see your position in the world is an unalloyed good. This book is a really good object for contemplation and clearly has been a cornerstone of the dystopian utopia genre. One thing I didn\u0026rsquo;t care for was the overcompensation used when discussing families. It seemed naïve or like a cheap shot to have the characters react so strongly to the ideas fathers and mothers. Almost like Huxley was wanting to really show how scary the techno-optimist future would be. These guys will make it so everyone thinks mom and dad are DISGUSTING.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/brave-new-world/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt is the distant future, the year 2000 and we have managed to bully suffering right out of the human experience. But were the sacrifices worth it?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe only scarier thing than the unknown is the mundane. This tension shows lurks in a Brave New World where the reader is left to decide on their own which world they would prefer. Huxley is firmly against this \u0026ldquo;Brave New World\u0026rdquo; full of shallow vapid people but doesn\u0026rsquo;t seem to provide a really convincing alternative. One of the most interesting themes to me was the anxiety around having a complete mechanistic understanding of the \u0026lsquo;human machine\u0026rsquo;. This fear is embodied by the unseen character Ford or Freud. Homages to Henry Ford and of course my golden ziggy, the former mechanized production and the latter the mind. Huxley envisions a world where humans are seen as machines and treated as machines. Machines with complicated maintenance schedules, one missed appointment might just cause a piston to misfire or a belt to break. This human machine world is further exaggerated by the very lack of machines. Instead of what now seems a plausible future where robots outnumber humans by several magnitudes, Huxley has a caste system of humans in place to supply labor. So in the place a mechanical butler would stand, you have a human that was baked to love his chains. The gauntlet being thrown, so to speak, if you really believe humans are soulless automatons, then why would you object to creating them in such a way that they have no ambition? The transcendence of course is revolt, even with such a finely tuned system there are still a few homo-sapiens that slip through the cracks and aren\u0026rsquo;t entirely integrated. The reader again is left to wonder if this is true transcendence or maybe just a bug. Maybe, as some characters suggested, they didn\u0026rsquo;t receive proper doses during incubation, at any rate they are dissatisfied with the status quo. This is the typical awakening archetype, where a character transitions from the unconscious to the conscious. The modern twist is the uncertainty that follows the awakening, don\u0026rsquo;t jump to the conclusion that to see your position in the world is an unalloyed good. This book is a really good object for contemplation and clearly has been a cornerstone of the dystopian utopia genre. One thing I didn\u0026rsquo;t care for was the overcompensation used when discussing families. It seemed naïve or like a cheap shot to have the characters react so strongly to the ideas fathers and mothers. Almost like Huxley was wanting to really show how scary the techno-optimist future would be. These guys will make it so everyone thinks mom and dad are DISGUSTING.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Brave New World"},{"content":"Summary\nThe title being a play on Dicken\u0026rsquo;s David Copperfield, Kingsolver instead writes about a boy growing up as a foster child in Appalachia. Surrounded by drugs and poverty, what kind of life can a kid expect? Spoiler: not a great one.\nThoughts\nThe Good The book is entertaining, and you easily become attached to the main character and are invested in how he turns out. The book is really good at making you feel like you are a dirty, poor, uneducated, overlooked teen. So, if that\u0026rsquo;s what you\u0026rsquo;re in the mood for this book delivers. Also, Kingsolver makes decent points about the acceptable and prevalence of racism versus rednecks or hillbillies. She also makes some interesting, yet less convincing, arguments around this discrimination being fueled by the fat cats who want everyone to be part of the money economy (i.e., get everything by paying money) which can be taxed versus land economy (i.e., produce goods like food and clothing off the land) which cannot be taxed. The goal of the book was to enlighten urbanites to the suffering of the poor whites, and to shine a light on the damage caused by pharmaceutical companies which knowingly got entire counties hooked on cheap opiates.\nThe Bad Stylistically, this book wasn\u0026rsquo;t for me. No fault of Kingsolver just wasn\u0026rsquo;t my favorite. Also, my most cynical review would be that the book is 550 pages of Kingsolver torturing a child until she gets bored and slaps a happy ending on it.\nThe Predictable This could be an extension of the bad section, but I couldn\u0026rsquo;t resist. The main problem here is the main character. The novel does its best, and mostly succeeds at being realistic, but I didn\u0026rsquo;t really buy the main character. He is portrayed as having some rough edges, (he talks about boobs, does drugs etc.) but in the end is a sort of papier-mâché boy, cutout to fit the modern urban ideal. That is not racist, not homophobic, not misogynistic, suspicious of capitalism, artistic, and distrusts authority. He has flaws, but manicured flaws like at 20\u0026rsquo;s movie star\u0026rsquo;s beauty mark, nothing fatal. This is definitely a nitpick, as I am sure there is an Appalachian foster kid that checks all these boxes out there somewhere, I just find it altogether unsurprising that he is the one that got picked to write about. David Copperfield\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/demon-copperhead/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe title being a play on Dicken\u0026rsquo;s David Copperfield, Kingsolver instead writes about a boy growing up as a foster child in Appalachia. Surrounded by drugs and poverty, what kind of life can a kid expect? Spoiler: not a great one.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Good\u003c/em\u003e\nThe book is entertaining, and you easily become attached to the main character and are invested in how he turns out. The book is really good at making you feel like you are a dirty, poor, uneducated, overlooked teen. So, if that\u0026rsquo;s what you\u0026rsquo;re in the mood for this book delivers. Also, Kingsolver makes decent points about the acceptable and prevalence of racism versus rednecks or hillbillies. She also makes some interesting, yet less convincing, arguments around this discrimination being fueled by the fat cats who want everyone to be part of the money economy (i.e., get everything by paying money) which can be taxed versus land economy (i.e., produce goods like food and clothing off the land) which cannot be taxed. The goal of the book was to enlighten urbanites to the suffering of the poor whites, and to shine a light on the damage caused by pharmaceutical companies which knowingly got entire counties hooked on cheap opiates.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Demon Copperhead"},{"content":"Summary\nA nameless father with his nameless boy tries to survive in a world that has been destroyed by a nameless catastrophe. Whatever it was that destroyed the earth left its surface coated in ashes and its skies so perpetually cloudy that nothing can survive. There is no life save a few scattered bands of humans slowly dying off by starvation or violence.\nThoughts\nMcCarthy does a great job of world building, or I should say withering. It turns out he can describe dilapidated cityscapes just as well as western prairies. This book has been lauded as being a champion for climate change, but I think that is incidental. The main question is as Camus says, \u0026ldquo;why not commit suicide?\u0026rdquo;. McCarthy destroys the world and all the creeping things that crawl along its face just to put this question in sharper relief. This book also made me realize that all post-apocalyptic stories are actually just visions of who humans are without society. There are many mini apocalypses in history we can use for inspiration, like the siege of Leningrad or countless other sieges that remove the mask of society to expose the truth that lies beneath, the earth is not a symphony of symbiosis, but a network of mouths and teeth. Even your own body will eat itself if you can\u0026rsquo;t find something else to sacrifice.\nHe walked out in the gray light and stood, and he saw for a brief moment the absolute truth of the world. The cold relentless circling of the intestate earth. Darkness implacable. The blind dogs of the sun in their running. The crushing black vacuum of the universe. And somewhere two hunted animals trembling like ground-foxes in their cover. Borrowed time and borrowed world and borrowed eyes with which to sorrow it.\nThis is the darkness of night, the question with no answer.\nEvery day is a lie. But you are dying. That is not a lie.\nThe above quotation seems to be a reimagined version of Tolstoy\u0026rsquo;s conclusion drawn from an \u0026ldquo;Eastern fable\u0026rdquo; which comes to a similar answer without needing to destroy the world to see it.\nThe story is not over though because its characters are \u0026ldquo;carrying the light\u0026rdquo;. To keep going in spite of it all, in spite of not being able to answer the questions. Death always wins in the end, but we can at least give entropy a run for its money in the meantime. The story ends with a Deus ex machina, but I think that is the only way the conversation can end. The mouth that eats and tells stories about the world.\nOnce there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. You could see them standing in the amber current where the white edges of their fins wimpled softly in the flow. They smelled of moss in your hand. Polished and muscular and torsional. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-road/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA nameless father with his nameless boy tries to survive in a world that has been destroyed by a nameless catastrophe. Whatever it was that destroyed the earth left its surface coated in ashes and its skies so perpetually cloudy that nothing can survive. There is no life save a few scattered bands of humans slowly dying off by starvation or violence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMcCarthy does a great job of world building, or I should say withering. It turns out he can describe dilapidated cityscapes just as well as western prairies. This book has been lauded as being a champion for climate change, but I think that is incidental. The main question is as Camus says, \u0026ldquo;why not commit suicide?\u0026rdquo;. McCarthy destroys the world and all the creeping things that crawl along its face just to put this question in sharper relief. This book also made me realize that all post-apocalyptic stories are actually just visions of who humans are without society. There are many mini apocalypses in history we can use for inspiration, like the siege of Leningrad or countless other sieges that remove the mask of society to expose the truth that lies beneath, the earth is not a symphony of symbiosis, but a network of mouths and teeth. Even your own body will eat itself if you can\u0026rsquo;t find something else to sacrifice.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Road"},{"content":"Summary\nBlaise Pascal was a philosopher, mathematician, and scientist. Just another run of the mill renaissance man. Pensées, or \u0026lsquo;Thoughts\u0026rsquo; are a collection of loosely collected writings put together posthumously. What starts as a series of somewhat disconnected thoughts ends in a fairly coherent apologetic for faith in general and Christian faith in particular.\nThoughts\nI did not research this book before reading it. I saw this quote:\nThe heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of\u0026hellip;\nWhich intrigued me and so finding that the quote came from this book I put it on my list. This book also contains the fairly well-known Pascal\u0026rsquo;s Wager, which in case you hadn\u0026rsquo;t heard was a thought experiment positing the idea that when facing the choice to believe in God you should take into account what there is to be lost vs what there is to be won. In short if you don\u0026rsquo;t believe in God and he doesn\u0026rsquo;t exist, you don\u0026rsquo;t lose or gain anything substantial. On the other if you don\u0026rsquo;t believe in God and he does exist, you stand to lose quite a bit. Conversely, if you believe in God and he doesn\u0026rsquo;t exist, you\u0026rsquo;ve lost nothing substantial, but if you believe in God and he does exist you stand to gain quite a bit. I was not in the mood for apologetics but found some of his ideas interesting and can definitely see how influential he has been in apologetics since. I much more enjoyed the early sections of the book where he picked on my home boy Montaigne and humans in general:\nHuman life is thus only a perpetual illusion; men deceive and flatter each other. No one speaks of us in our presence as he does of us in our absence. Human society is founded on mutual deceit; few friendships would endure if each knew what his friend said of him in his absence, although he then spoke in sincerity and without passion. Man is then only disguise, falsehood, and hypocrisy, both in himself and in regard to others. He does not wish any one to tell him the truth; he avoids telling it to others, and all these dispositions, so removed from justice and reason, have a natural root in his heart. If all men knew what each said of the other, there would not be four friends in the world.\nBut the main event, the thing that drew me to the book was his rejection of rationality:\nReason\u0026rsquo;s last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it.\nThe philosophical divide has always pitted rationalists (truth by reason) against empiricists (truth by experience). Pascal rejected or rather subjected those truth-seeking strategies to a third and what he considered \u0026lsquo;higher\u0026rsquo; strategy, that is faith. He makes the argument that at the bottom of all axioms is a leap of faith, so instead of trying to cloak this leap we should acknowledge it and try to use our \u0026rsquo;leaps\u0026rsquo; wisely. He gives several criteria for comparing various leaps to each other to help evaluate what is ultimately a leap into uncertainty. As one of the fathers of probabilistic mathematics it is no surprise that he was the one to come up with \u0026rsquo;the wager\u0026rsquo;. Overall, there were quite a few interesting lines of thoughts that I enjoyed, but I would not strongly recommend the latter half unless you have an interest in historical Christian apologetics.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/pens-es/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBlaise Pascal was a philosopher, mathematician, and scientist. Just another run of the mill renaissance man. Pensées, or \u0026lsquo;Thoughts\u0026rsquo; are a collection of loosely collected writings put together posthumously. What starts as a series of somewhat disconnected thoughts ends in a fairly coherent apologetic for faith in general and Christian faith in particular.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eI did not research this book before reading it. I saw this quote:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of\u0026hellip;\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Pensées"},{"content":"Summary\nThe final installation in Atkinson\u0026rsquo;s WW2 trilogy, which follows the allies from D-day to V-day from 1944-45 in the European theater.\nThoughts\nLeading up to D-day there was a lot of uncertainty in the outcome of the war, but with the success of D-day allied victory over Germany seemed like a given, it was only a matter of time. This reminds me of playing the game Age of Empires, ( which is a real time strategy game where players control an empire and try to destroy the other players\u0026rsquo; empires) there comes a point in the game where the balance falls so far to one side that, outside of miraculous intervention, the outcome is decided, from here on out it is up to the losers to decide how long to prolong the fight before surrendering. This was essentially the Axis\u0026rsquo; position post D-day, Hitler just refused to give up and intended on doing everything in his power to make a miracle happen. This caused the war to drag on for nearly another year incurring another two hundred thousand casualties in the already battered German army. On top of that you had the absolutely brutal allied bombings that laid to waste many of Germany\u0026rsquo;s large cities inflicting another estimated five hundred thousand civilian casualties. This feeling of how unnecessary this conflict was tinged the book for me, it wasn\u0026rsquo;t as \u0026rsquo;enjoyable\u0026rsquo; as the other books because nothing seemed in to hang in the balance anymore, but still you had to watch people die anyway for a decision that had already been made. The single most important lesson I took from this book was never underestimate the power of production and logistics.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-guns-at-last-light-the-war-in-western-europe-1944-1945-world-war-ii-liberation-trilogy-3/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe final installation in Atkinson\u0026rsquo;s WW2 trilogy, which follows the allies from D-day to V-day from 1944-45 in the European theater.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeading up to D-day there was a lot of uncertainty in the outcome of the war, but with the success of D-day allied victory over Germany seemed like a given, it was only a matter of time. This reminds me of playing the game Age of Empires, ( which is a real time strategy game where players control an empire and try to destroy the other players\u0026rsquo; empires)  there comes a point in the game where the balance falls so far to one side that, outside of miraculous intervention, the outcome is decided, from here on out it is up to the losers to decide how long to prolong the fight before surrendering. This was essentially the Axis\u0026rsquo; position post D-day, Hitler just refused to give up and intended on doing everything in his power to make a miracle happen. This caused the war to drag on for nearly another year incurring another two hundred thousand casualties in the already battered German army. On top of that you had the absolutely brutal allied bombings that laid to waste many of Germany\u0026rsquo;s large cities inflicting another estimated five hundred thousand civilian casualties. This feeling of how unnecessary this conflict was tinged the book for me, it wasn\u0026rsquo;t as \u0026rsquo;enjoyable\u0026rsquo; as the other books because nothing seemed in to hang in the balance anymore, but still you had to watch people die anyway for a decision that had already been made. The single most important lesson I took from this book was never underestimate the power of production and logistics.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Guns at Last Light"},{"content":"Thoughts\nFrank \u0026lsquo;Arrakis is a planet with not very much water, seriously its crazy how little water there is, have you considered how much we take water for granted on earth but how difficult it would be to have little water, you know like Arrakis because it\u0026rsquo;s a desert planet that has almost no water\u0026rsquo; Herbert tells a very entertaining story on a very dry planet. Jokes aside this was a very good book with excellent world building. It made me realize how important names are in Sci-fi books. They can make the difference between your sci-fi book just being another run of the mill DnD group meet-up versus a really entertaining novel. Herbert must play the role of Adam in naming things that do not exist, but in a way that elicits the correct conscious and subconscious reactions from his western readers. He does a great job, for example nobody has to tell me that the Harkonnens are evil I can tell by their name. Bene Gesserits are obviously a religious order and Mentats a logistical one. The Fremens are interesting, the name to me conjures images of rats, vermin or rodents. This in part makes sense because the Fremen lived in holes in the ground and were like pests to the Harkonnens. They are also set up to become an invasive species. I\u0026rsquo;ll be interested to see where that goes. The role religion plays in the book is interesting and tied into Dune\u0026rsquo;s vision of time and determinism. Religion gives us a potential future, but we have to work to bring that potential future into existence. The warning is also that the vision and process of creation does not bring with it control over that future when it comes. Dune does a great job of maintaining the experienced paradox of self-aware agents in a complex system. In some ways the book could be recast as Paul being some Calvinistic hero attempting to slay the Arminian dragon of predestination. He seeks to control a future that is already cast. Another theme throughout the book is the idea that opulent civilizations grow lazy and soft. They are then replaced by civilizations that are sharpened by adversity. I wonder if we as a species have surpassed this point? The idea that decadence leads to decay which leads to collapse seems more plausible for the Roman empire than for a modern society. It seems hard to imagine what a modern-day Visigoth invasion force would look like, but then again, the average Roman may have felt the same way. The Fremens are also interesting because they are cast as a sort of noble savage, like we think of the Comanche for example, where they are brutal but honorable people. But what sets this apart from other troupes is that they also produce sophisticated technology. This made me wonder if it would be possible for an advanced technological society to adhere to old time-y eye for eye moral codes or if there is requirement that aggression must be repressed in a society to allow sophisticated technology to emerge.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/dune-dune-1/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrank \u0026lsquo;Arrakis is a planet with not very much water, seriously its crazy how little water there is, have you considered how much we take water for granted on earth but how difficult it would be to have little water, you know like Arrakis because it\u0026rsquo;s a desert planet that has almost no water\u0026rsquo; Herbert tells a very entertaining story on a very dry planet. Jokes aside this was a very good book with excellent world building. It made me realize how important names are in Sci-fi books. They can make the difference between your sci-fi book just being another run of the mill DnD group meet-up versus a really entertaining novel. Herbert must play the role of Adam in naming things that do not exist, but in a way that elicits the correct conscious and subconscious reactions from his western readers. He does a great job, for example nobody has to tell me that the Harkonnens are evil I can tell by their name. Bene Gesserits are obviously a religious order and Mentats a logistical one. The Fremens are interesting, the name to me conjures images of rats, vermin or rodents. This in part makes sense because the Fremen lived in holes in the ground and were like pests to the Harkonnens. They are also set up to become an invasive species. I\u0026rsquo;ll be interested to see where that goes. The role religion plays in the book is interesting and tied into Dune\u0026rsquo;s vision of time and determinism. Religion gives us a potential future, but we have to work to bring that potential future into existence. The warning is also that the vision and process of creation does not bring with it control over that future when it comes. Dune does a great job of maintaining the experienced paradox of self-aware agents in a complex system. In some ways the book could be recast as Paul being some Calvinistic hero attempting to slay the Arminian dragon of predestination. He seeks to control a future that is already cast.\nAnother theme throughout the book is the idea that opulent civilizations grow lazy and soft. They are then replaced by civilizations that are sharpened by adversity. I wonder if we as a species have surpassed this point? The idea that decadence leads to decay which leads to collapse seems more plausible for the Roman empire than for a modern society. It seems hard to imagine what a modern-day Visigoth invasion force would look like, but then again, the average Roman may have felt the same way. The Fremens are also interesting because they are cast as a sort of noble savage, like we think of the Comanche for example, where they are brutal but honorable people. But what sets this apart from other troupes is that they also produce sophisticated technology. This made me wonder if it would be possible for an advanced technological society to adhere to old time-y eye for eye moral codes or if there is requirement that aggression must be repressed in a society to allow sophisticated technology to emerge.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Dune (Dune, #1)"},{"content":"Summary\nH.G. Wells writes his own version of Plato\u0026rsquo;s Republic laying out the process required to make humanity 2.0 otherwise known as the \u0026lsquo;New Republican\u0026rsquo;. Abandoning hope of finding absolute answers on any questions social, political or ethical, Wells decides to view life in its essence as a succession of births. If this be so, then how might we improve this succession and make it the best process possible? Wells has a plan, and he spends the next 10 chapters walking the reader through how a new republican would be welcomed into life, early education and eventually seated into the greater world of society. His ideas touch on many areas of life, sex, literature, and parenting styles.\nThoughts\nIronically in Plato\u0026rsquo;s Republic the zenith of society was a philosopher, while in Wells\u0026rsquo; Republic it is the writer. Overall, the style of the book was dry, and often seemed to lack force. In fact, later on Wells himself would say about this book:\nmy style at its worst and my matter at its thinnest, and quoting it makes me feel very sympathetic with those critics who, to put it mildly, restrain their admiration for me.\nThe ideas themselves were interesting at points. I specifically liked an idea around elections where officials would be elected by a randomly selected jury that was just big enough to be representative. This jury would be given several weeks to research and interview the perspective candidates before coming to their decision. I am sure in practice this would run into roadblocks, but I like the idea in principle. Secondly, I found his views on eugenics to be interesting, written before WW1 the pall around eugenics hadn\u0026rsquo;t manifested, in fact the idea seemed almost obvious. After all, if we can select our cows for milk production, and our chickens for their egg laying capacity why not our children? Wells\u0026rsquo; response is that \u0026ldquo;we don\u0026rsquo;t know exactly what we want, and we know even less about what is required to get there\u0026rdquo;. Using beauty as a possible variable the would-be eugenicist might want to select for, he makes the argument that there are many types of beauty that would be incongruous if mixed and it is not obvious that mixing selected beautiful people would result in better results than how humans currently conduct mate selection. When it comes to something as complicated as the human organism it is probably best to be cautious when changing a system that has been working for untold eons. He does make suggestions that we could work towards negative eugenics, but only in the clearest of cases where certain illness have been exhaustively proven to be highly heritable or predictable. This is what appears to be taking place in Iceland, where nearly one hundred percent of pregnancies with positive tests for Down syndrome were terminated. Of course, he would argue for earlier intervention where parents who already have these types of diseases would be sterilized or in some other way limited from reproduction. This to, has since had an extremely sketchy history, yet the problem in its fundamental state remains for modern societies. What do we do with the information we have? Overall, I would not recommend this book as it wasn\u0026rsquo;t that original of a work in such a well-trodden literary genre.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/mankind-in-the-making/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eH.G. Wells writes his own version of Plato\u0026rsquo;s Republic laying out the process required to make humanity 2.0 otherwise known as the \u0026lsquo;New Republican\u0026rsquo;. Abandoning hope of finding absolute answers on any questions social, political or ethical, Wells decides to view life in its essence as a succession of births. If this be so, then how might we improve this succession and make it the best process possible? Wells has a plan, and he spends the next 10 chapters walking the reader through how a new republican would be welcomed into life, early education and eventually seated into the greater world of society. His ideas touch on many areas of life, sex, literature, and parenting styles.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Mankind in the Making"},{"content":"As a note I am combining my reviews of this book and Buddhist\u0026rsquo;s Ethic - A Very Short Introduction.\nSummary\nBuddhism is gaining in popularity, but it has so many varying practitioners that it is hard to put a finger down on what it is exactly. I wanted to find out what it was from the horse\u0026rsquo;s mouth, and nowhere produces horses better than London\u0026rsquo;s universities, so that is where I decided to get my information. I\u0026rsquo;ve read quite a few books from the \u0026ldquo;Very Short Introduction\u0026rdquo; series and have yet to be disappointed; this was no exception. Since I am from the west most of my understanding will be filtered from that worldview.\nHistory\nThe history, told briefly, is that the Buddha achieved enlightenment around 400-500BC. He then founds what we now know today to be Buddhism, defining several key concepts like karma, reincarnation and principles for achieving enlightenment or at least getting closer to that destination. After about a hundred years there was a fairly massive split which could be likened to but is not analogous with the protestant reformation. Skipping a lot of history, you ended up with three main schools:\nThe Theravada school which is one of the oldest and is considered to be the conservative school\nThe Mahayana school which seems to have been largely influenced by the combination of Buddhism with Chinese culture and is responsible for large amounts of myths around the Buddha and bodhisattvas (somewhat analogous to saints). The Mahayanist would think of themselves as having a fuller gospel. They shift the focus from saving oneself to saving others.\nThe Tibetan school, this is the one you most often see in Hollywood movies. They are cinematic and use secretive symbols and have secretive initiative rights maybe the Masons would be somewhat similar?\nBuddhism\u0026rsquo;s history is remarkable in just how little violence has been used in the spread of the religion. This is due to the fourth precept of the eight-fold path: And what is right action? Abstaining from killing, abstaining from stealing, abstaining from sexual misconduct. This is called right action. In one more weird parallel to Christianity, there is also an Indian emperor (Ashoka 304-232BC) that was converted to Buddhism after a battle and as a result greatly aided its spread through largely peaceful means. That is not to say that violence and Buddhism have never worked together, but that should be seen as a side effect of the religion\u0026rsquo;s relationship with the state instead of any of its inherent teachings.\nIdeas\nThe central idea is that existence is suffering or at least a central part of existence is suffering. These sufferings are brought about by cravings or attachments. It is possible to transcend these attachments and the eightfold path is the way to this transcendence. As an aside, one objection I had when first coming across this idea of killing desire is that it was self-defeating, as you weren\u0026rsquo;t really killing a desire, but instead you were just choosing one desire over many desires. This objection is mostly caused by translation. The English word \u0026lsquo;desire\u0026rsquo; is broader than the one used by the Buddha. The desire for enlightenment does not fall under the category of harmful desire (think compulsive desire to smoke another cigarette) so it would be denoted by a different Sanskrit term.\nCosmology\nBuddhism is a break from other contemporary religions in that it does not acknowledge one or many supreme creators. The universe is seen more like a clock or process. Buddhist do acknowledge the existence of divine or supernatural beings such as Demigods and Devas, but none of these are creators. One of the universe\u0026rsquo;s central processes is computing Karma. Much like the universe calculates force multiplying acceleration by mass, the universe is also calculating the karmic impacts of the actions of entities inside of it. This makes Buddhism at its heart a moral philosophy, there is no one handing out judgements, but there are judgements, one of them being to confine an individual to the death and rebirth cycle. The salvific goal of many religions is to allow its participants communion with god(s) in a paradise. For Buddhism the goal is vaguer, it is to reach Nirvana. Nirvana is a topic that the Buddha pointedly refused to elaborate on, but he did say that you would be just as wrong to consider it annihilation as you would be to consider it an eternal resting place for the soul. How are these karmic calculations persisted? Through reincarnation, much like in multiplication where we carry numbers over from one column to the next, your karmic deeds from past lives and your current life will be carried forward again and again until you are liberated from the wheel of death and rebirth. Karma effects everything from what species you are, to how much money you will make. In Buddhism there is a definite hierarchy of creatures, although humans aren\u0026rsquo;t the highest in the list, they are the most prized level because they are the ones best situated to achieve enlightenment and thus to escape the wheel. A side effect of this is that contrary to the Christian idea that humans get their dignity from being created in the image of God, to Buddhists, human dignity is directly tied to their capacity for enlightenment. The other assumption that is baked into Buddhism is the concept of freewill, but in a more complicated sense then is typically conceptualized. We are tied by the bonds of dependent origination, or another way of thinking of it is repetition. The first link of dependent origination is ignorance. This is broken by the study of the eight-fold path. You could think of the breaking the first link as you exerting free-will for the first time instead of being directed by animal instincts.\nEthics\nThe second book was a closer examination of Buddhist\u0026rsquo;s normative responses to things like vegetarianism, abortion, suicide, euthanasia etc. The short summary is that the Buddhist answers are for the most part identical to Christian positions, (I should say Christianity is identical to Buddhism seeing as it predates Christianity by half a millennium) but for completely different reasons. The biggest difference is Buddhism\u0026rsquo;s relation to animals. This difference comes from the conception that any of us could have been or could become an animal at some point, and so it extends the golden rule to animals as well. For this reason, a majority of Buddhists are vegetarian. An example of similar answers for different reasons can be looked at in Buddhism\u0026rsquo;s traditional view of sex. Casual sex for the Christian should be avoided for many reasons, it makes a mockery of Christ\u0026rsquo;s relationship with the church, it defiles both participants and it angers the creator. From the Buddhist\u0026rsquo;s view casual sex should be avoided because it is an attachment generating activity. The sex drive is one of the strongest sources of desire of humans, and therefore is one of the greatest obstacles to enlightenment, therefore it should be suppressed and transcended. As a note later Buddhist school such as Tantric Buddhism looked at sex and other powerful drives as possible shortcuts to enlightenment. If you could harness their powers carefully you might be able to sever yourself from this illusory experience and achieve enlightenment in a single lifetime.\nBuddhism in the Modern Age\nOne of the appeals of Buddhism to moderns is that it is much more aligned with newer scientific findings than other religions. The research on the benefits of meditation is ubiquitous, and so far, most of their cosmology does not contradict any of the current scientific theories. This has led to an increase in popularity and often, hasty explanations of thorny issues. The most well-known \u0026ldquo;issue\u0026rdquo; that a modern person would have is around reincarnation, much like Biblical miracles the first answer in the \u0026lsquo;Age of Reason\u0026rsquo; is to turn reincarnation into a parable of some sorts. This is possible but subverts the original teachings, not a deal breaker but isn\u0026rsquo;t considered good behavior either. Another thing that happens is reading or current values into older texts. This is almost impossible not to do but is something we have to try and recognize. The best example of this is in the somewhat complicated relationship Buddhism has with nature. When you first compare it and Christianity, they appear to approach nature completely differently. But on closer inspection their aims are not that different. When we think of nature now, we think of the land as well as the creatures. This inclusion of the land is not as clearly indicated in Buddhist thought. Furthermore, we now love the earth because it is our home, and it has been given intrinsic values, meanwhile the goal of Buddhists much like Christians is to leave this world behind. That is not to say pollution and waste are encouraged, but it isn\u0026rsquo;t fundamentally rejected either. It\u0026rsquo;s complicated. The author of the book for his part, saw these frictions as a positive thing. An exciting chance for a new school of Buddhism to emerge in the modern age. One that is more interested in social and ecological justice as well as personal spiritual growth.\nThoughts\nI have recently been conceptualizing everything in terms of game theory. Specifically, the idea of there being two fundamental approaches to any game, acting like a hawk, or acting like a dove. Buddhism and Christianity as understood from the Sermon on the Mount are dove religions. For this reason, both are susceptible to hawks, and as a result, when they traverse outside of monasteries and are given powers in a nation state for example, it isn\u0026rsquo;t long before dove-ish principles are jettisoned in favor of more hawkish ideals. It is difficult enough to be a dove in your personal life, I think history has proven it is impossible to be a dove as a nation state. This book has cleared up some misunderstandings while introducing some new ones. It would seem that there is a central inconsistency to the Buddhist doctrine, much like Christianity\u0026rsquo;s problem of evil. I have not done the research, but I am sure that my objection has been made long ago, and that there have been gallons of ink spilt in response. I also feel relatively sure that there is and will never be satisfactory answer given, much like the problem of evil. The problem is this, the central sign that someone has achieved enlightenment is that they realize that the idea \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rdquo; is an illusion. This is fair enough, but the issue appears when you combine this truth with the rest of the system. That is karma, enlightenment, escape from the wheel, reincarnation and all the rest. Because once you bring those ideas into play the question is raised. Who or what is achieving enlightenment? Who or what is earning or losing karma? Who or what is being reincarnated aside from a unique unit of some sort, with a barcode if you will. \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rdquo; very well may disappear upon entry into Nirvana, but \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rdquo; must exist in samsara at least or the whole system would break down in my view. The first answer is that the whole point is to realize the illusion, but this ignores the fact that the fundamental signature of an illusion is that it disappears upon discovery. This hasn\u0026rsquo;t appeared to have happened, to anyone, not even the Buddha, who ceased to be an \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rdquo; in the typical fashion. A lesser objection is that of karma for animals, because if one can lose karma to become an animal that must mean that the reverse is true. It seems to me difficult to imagine a way for an animal to be a better or worse animal. These objections aside there is much to admire in Buddhism, and as far as frameworks go, I think the world would be improved by having more Buddhists, which is the signature of a helpful framework and more than I can confidently assert about myself.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/genuine-oxford-through-reading-this-introduction-to-buddhism/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eAs a note I am combining my reviews of this book and Buddhist\u0026rsquo;s Ethic - A Very Short Introduction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuddhism is gaining in popularity, but it has so many varying practitioners that it is hard to put a finger down on what it is exactly. I wanted to find out what it was from the horse\u0026rsquo;s mouth, and nowhere produces horses better than London\u0026rsquo;s universities, so that is where I decided to get my information. I\u0026rsquo;ve read quite a few books from the \u0026ldquo;Very Short Introduction\u0026rdquo; series and have yet to be disappointed; this was no exception. Since I am from the west most of my understanding will be filtered from that worldview.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Genuine Oxford through reading this"},{"content":"Summary\nHeretics is a collection of essays by G.K. Chesterton written prior to World War 1. It is a defense of orthodoxy, not any particular orthodoxy but a defense of having explicit belief structures in the first place. This book is a polemic in the most fundamental sense. I use the word polemic carefully because, at least for me, the word carries a negative connotation. It brings with it ideas of narrow sightedness, or blindness. Chesterton would argue that the inverse is true. That any work that is not a polemic, has no vision to begin with, and therefore it is better to be narrow sighted than not to see at all. To put it succinctly and in Chesterton terms, the spirit of the modern age is one of negative definition, which at the end of the day is no definition. We can quickly point out where things go are wrong but have difficulty nailing down what things are \u0026ldquo;right\u0026rdquo;.\n“We are fond of talking about \u0026rsquo;liberty\u0026rsquo;; but the way we end up actually talking of it is an attempt to avoid discussing what is \u0026lsquo;good.\u0026rsquo; We are fond of talking about \u0026lsquo;progress\u0026rsquo;; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. We are fond of talking about \u0026rsquo;education\u0026rsquo;; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good. The modern man says, \u0026lsquo;Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace unadulterated liberty.\u0026rsquo; This is, logically rendered, \u0026lsquo;Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide it.\u0026rsquo; He says, \u0026lsquo;Away with your old moral standard; I am for progress.\u0026rsquo; This, logically stated, means, \u0026lsquo;Let us not settle what is good; but let us settle whether we are getting more of it.\u0026rsquo; He says, \u0026lsquo;Neither in religion nor morality, my friend, lie the hopes of the race, but in education.\u0026rsquo; This, clearly expressed, means, \u0026lsquo;We cannot decide what is good, but let us give it to our children.”\nThis type of negative definition removes ideals and replaces them with warnings. Chesterton feels the modern ethic can be encapsulated by a humanist\u0026rsquo;s observation that a picture of a drunkard\u0026rsquo;s liver would do more for temperance than any prayer or praise.\nupon the altar to which all men kneel is no longer the perfect flesh, the body and substance of the perfect man; it is still flesh, but it is diseased. It is the drunkard\u0026rsquo;s liver of the New Testament that is marred for us, which we take in remembrance of him.\nTo put it in as stark as terms as possible, that I think Chesterton would agree with, it is better to have died a crusader than to have lived for nothing.\nThoughts\nChesterton is nothing if not a wordsmith, almost everything he wrote is quotable. You could read each paragraph or page out of context and not feel lost, in fact in some cases it might improve the experience. I also feel like this entire book was a personal attack as I am shot through with \u0026ldquo;modern\u0026rdquo; sensibilities. I found many of his criticisms to be well founded, and logical, while there were others that seemed flimsy. One thing I noticed was that he would say things so cleverly that they would seem correct just because they were so cleverly said, but when taken in context with his other ideas they appeared to be contradictory or not really saying anything at all. As one example, he has an essay on simple living where he criticizes the movement as coming from \u0026ldquo;high thinking\u0026rdquo; people who would be much better off by replacing \u0026ldquo;high thinking and plain living\u0026rdquo; with \u0026ldquo;plain thinking and high living\u0026rdquo;. This is of course a Chesterton paradox, because the next sentence might as well be followed by \u0026ldquo;what form of thinking is higher than plain thinking\u0026rdquo; or some other banality. For the most part though, I found his paradoxes to be useful, and he has many valuable observations. What was perhaps most singular about him was the joy that pervaded his book. You would think that a book that is essentially a takedown of people taking down things would be less \u0026ldquo;fun\u0026rdquo; to read, but you really get the sense that Chesterton was a jovial person who genuinely loved humanity. This informs his critique on Nietzsche which I thought was valuable, which was that Nietzsche\u0026rsquo;s super man is no man at all and it is this disdain of mankind that underlies all of Nietzsche\u0026rsquo;s work. I have much more I could say, but I think I\u0026rsquo;ve displayed enough ignorance for one day and will end with another quote.\nTruths turn into dogmas the instant that they are disputed. Thus every man who utters a doubt defines a religion. And the skepticism of our time does not really destroy the beliefs, rather it creates them; gives them their limits and their plain and defiant shape. We who are Liberals once held Liberalism lightly as a truism. Now it has been disputed, and we hold it fiercely as a faith. We who believe in patriotism once thought patriotism to be reasonable, and thought little more about it. Now we know it to be unreasonable, and know it to be right. We who are Christians never knew the great philosophic common sense which inheres in that mystery until the anti-Christian writers pointed it out to us. The great march of mental destruction will go on. Everything will be denied. Everything will become a creed. It is a reasonable position to deny the stones in the street; it will be a religious dogma to assert them. It is a rational thesis that we are all in a dream; it will be a mystical sanity to say that we are all awake. Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer. We shall be left defending, not only the incredible virtues and sanities of human life, but something more incredible still, this huge impossible universe which stares us in the face. We shall fight for visible prodigies as if they were invisible. We shall look on the impossible grass and the skies with a strange courage. We shall be of those who have seen and yet have believed.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/heretics/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHeretics is a collection of essays by G.K. Chesterton written prior to World War 1. It is a defense of orthodoxy, not any particular orthodoxy but a defense of having explicit belief structures in the first place. This book is a polemic in the most fundamental sense. I use the word polemic carefully because, at least for me, the word carries a negative connotation. It brings with it ideas of narrow sightedness, or blindness. Chesterton would argue that the inverse is true. That any work that is not a polemic, has no vision to begin with, and therefore it is better to be narrow sighted than not to see at all. To put it succinctly and in Chesterton terms, the spirit of the modern age is one of negative definition, which at the end of the day is no definition. We can quickly point out where things go are wrong but have difficulty nailing down what things are \u0026ldquo;right\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Heretics"},{"content":"We were silent again for a minute. “Cher,” he concluded at last, getting up quickly, “do you know this is bound to end in something?” “Of course,” said I. “Vous ne comprenez pas. Passons. But … usually in our world things come to nothing, but this will end in something; it’s bound to, it’s bound to!”\nSummary\nDostoyevsky chose as the epigraph to this story the passage of Luke where Jesus sends the demons into the swine, and they subsequently throw themselves off a cliff. A curious passage, and one that will come up over and over in this book. I won\u0026rsquo;t bother to write a plot summary because spoilers, and also like all of Dostoyevsky\u0026rsquo;s books, the plot is the tortilla of the burrito. It serves mainly to deliver the contents of the book. The contents are the conversations. The characters are unforgettable, you have a fifty-year-old child, who was influential once, but is of no practical use and literally runs away from home. You have Stavrogin, a man who can\u0026rsquo;t bring himself to believe in anything, but apparently can\u0026rsquo;t stop influencing people with the force of his ideas. You have the power-hungry revolutionary sociopath Pyotr Stepanovich who is always willing to break a few eggs to make an omelet. Last but not least, one of the most compelling characters Kirillov, the atheists par excellence, consumed by an idea, courageous, selfless, and ultimately doomed. In short, this work is a literary masterpiece that managed to divine the future of Russia with astonishing clarity.\nThoughts\nThe first difficulty that must be surmounted with this book is the long list of characters. The list is multiplied by the Russian\u0026rsquo;s propensity to use different surnames, and nicknames so the fifteen or so major characters can be referred to by around 45 names. I often was looking up a character list sheet to try and keep the web of relations straight, but even so it took a while to get to know the cast. One of the most interesting things to me about Dostoyevsky is that he can make the most salacious events play second fiddle to dialogue. Patricide, a city on fire, an old woman killed by an axe. All of these things do happen in his novels, but they are almost forgotten. It is their psychological footprint that leaves its mark in the memory. I have not read a lot about Dostoyevsky\u0026rsquo;s life, but to me his books are an incarnation of his own psychological struggles, that is an attempt to answer this question:\nGod is necessary, and therefore must exist\u0026hellip; But I know that he does not and cannot exist\u0026hellip; Don\u0026rsquo;t you understand that a man with these two thoughts cannot go on living?\nI think his stories go beyond imagination, to produce this one must have lived it. I have been thinking recently of reason and rationality, they are often referred to as a light, but what if the light is profane? Here the story of the demons and the pigs, represent the various \u0026lsquo;isms\u0026rsquo; that come from around the world, possess their victims and ultimately led them to destruction. To Dostoyevsky there is something beyond reason, or rather something that reason passes by. The \u0026lsquo;Eternal Harmony\u0026rsquo;, again using Kirillov as a mouthpiece:\nThere are seconds, they come only five or six at a time, and you suddenly feel the presence of eternal harmony, fully achieved. It is nothing earthly; not that it\u0026rsquo;s heavenly, but man cannot endure it in his earthly state. One must change physically or die. The feeling is clear and indisputable. As if you suddenly sense the whole of nature and suddenly say: yes, this is true.\n\u0026mdash; As a footnote to this quote, I think this is the \u0026lsquo;oceanic\u0026rsquo; feeling Freud refers to and admits to having never experienced in the opening of \u0026lsquo;Civilizations and Its Discontents\u0026rsquo;. This is the old divide that will always exist, reason and experience. One can experience something they can\u0026rsquo;t explain, and they can also explain something they will never and can never force themselves to experience. I use a quote here from a conversation between Kirillov and the novel\u0026rsquo;s narrator:\n“Imagine”—he stopped before me—“imagine a stone as big as a great house; it hangs and you are under it; if it falls on you, on your head, will it hurt you?” “A stone as big as a house? Of course it would be fearful.” “I speak not of the fear. Will it hurt?” “A stone as big as a mountain, weighing millions of tons? Of course it wouldn’t hurt.” “But really stand there and while it hangs you will fear very much that it will hurt. The most learned man, the greatest doctor, all, all will be very much frightened. Every one will know that it won’t hurt, and every one will be afraid that it will hurt.”\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/demons/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eWe were silent again for a minute.\n“Cher,” he concluded at last, getting up quickly, “do you know this is bound to end in something?”\n“Of course,” said I.\n“Vous ne comprenez pas. Passons. But … usually in our world things come to nothing, but this will end in something; it’s bound to, it’s bound to!”\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDostoyevsky chose as the epigraph to this story the passage of Luke where Jesus sends the demons into the swine, and they subsequently throw themselves off a cliff. A curious passage, and one that will come up over and over in this book. I won\u0026rsquo;t bother to write a plot summary because spoilers, and also like all of Dostoyevsky\u0026rsquo;s books, the plot is the tortilla of the burrito. It serves mainly to deliver the contents of the book. The contents are the conversations. The characters are unforgettable, you have a fifty-year-old child, who was influential once, but is of no practical use and literally runs away from home. You have Stavrogin, a man who can\u0026rsquo;t bring himself to believe in anything, but apparently can\u0026rsquo;t stop influencing people with the force of his ideas. You have the power-hungry revolutionary sociopath Pyotr Stepanovich who is always willing to break a few eggs to make an omelet. Last but not least, one of the most compelling characters Kirillov, the atheists par excellence, consumed by an idea, courageous, selfless, and ultimately doomed.  In short, this work is a literary masterpiece that managed to divine the future of Russia with astonishing clarity.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Demons"},{"content":"Summary\nFoucault writes a history of civilization\u0026rsquo;s ever-changing relationship to madness. Starting inquires around the Renaissance, he tracks how madmen were once considered to be bearers of knowledge, although unintelligible from the edge of experience. His central thesis was that there once was a language that connected reason to unreason, and through various shifts in culture that dialogue has been cut off. The Renaissance gave way to the \u0026ldquo;Age of Reason\u0026rdquo; that signaled the beginning of the shift towards confinement. This separation eventually created a new category, the \u0026ldquo;insane\u0026rdquo;. This category objectified and concretized madness as both a thing to be studied, and something undesirable to be cured. From here the rest as they say is history, all sorts of treatments and testing were tried to cure and restore sanity.\nThoughts\nAt times Foucault\u0026rsquo;s writing was beautiful:\nDeath\u0026rsquo;s annihilation is no longer anything because it was already everything, because life itself was only futility, vain words, a squabble of cap and bells. The head that will become a skull is already empty. Madness is the déjà là of death. But it is also its vanquished presence, evaded in those everyday signs which, announcing that death reigns already, indicate that its prey will be a sorry prize indeed. What death unmasks was never more than a mask; to discover the grin of the skeleton, one need only lift off something that was neither beauty nor truth, but only a plaster and tinsel face. From the vain mask to the corpse, the same smile persists. But when the madman laughs, he already laughs with the laugh of death; the lunatic, anticipating the macabre, has disarmed it.\nbut a common thing I would run into is people quickly stating that they were not \u0026ldquo;an expert on Foucault\u0026rdquo;, I think this might be because of paragraphs like this:\nThe fulfillment of delirium\u0026rsquo;s non-being in being is able to suppress it as non-being itself; and this by the pure mechanism of its internal contradiction—a mechanism that is both a play on words and a play of illusion, games of language and of the image; the delirium, in effect, is suppressed as non-being since it becomes a perceived form of being; but since the being of delirium is entirely in its non-being, it is suppressed as delirium. And its confirmation in theatrical fantasy restores it to a truth which, by holding it captive in reality, drives it out of reality itself, and makes it disappear in the non-delirious discourse of reason.\nI think I read that paragraph around ten times\u0026hellip; I think I understand what it means, but I will be the first to tell you I am not an expert on Foucault. He had an idea that madness replaced leprosy in society, I found this really interesting. He bases this on the fact that for reasons unknown leprosy vanished from Western world in the 1400s. There were all these buildings (lazar houses) of separation to house the sick and it was these very buildings that would be refitted to house the poor, indigent, and insane. He captures a feeling towards lepers at the time in this pithy quote:\nin a strange reversibility that is the opposite of good works and prayer, they are saved by the hand that is not stretched out. The sinner who abandons the leper at his door opens his way to heaven.\nI am not sorry that I read this book, but I did not enjoy reading it. It was difficult and I think wrong in some of its conclusions, or probably what is more likely, I just didn\u0026rsquo;t correctly understand the point he was trying to make. I would like to read more from him, but I will definitely be taking a break. Perhaps I will have an easier time consuming his work after I\u0026rsquo;ve read more. For now I will end this review with one more quote that stuck with me in reference to Durer\u0026rsquo;s Horseman. https://collectionapi.metmuseum.org/api/collection/v1/iiif/336215/766795/main-image\n\u0026hellip;these are no angels of triumph and reconciliation; these are no heralds of serene justice, but the disheveled warriors of a mad vengeance. The world sinks into universal Fury. Victory is neither God\u0026rsquo;s nor the Devil\u0026rsquo;s: it belongs to Madness.\nMichel Foucault\n#book\n#madness_and_civilization #michel_foucault #history_of_insanity #age_of_reason #cultural_shifts #insane_category #mental_health_treatment #renaissance #language_of_unreason #madness_in_society #leprosy_and_madness #philosophical_analysis #literary_critique #durers_horseman #theoretical_explorations #cultural_analysis #vintage_books #foucaults_thesis #madness_as_knowledge #mental_health_history ","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/madness-and-civilization-a-history-of-insanity-in-the-age-of-reason/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFoucault writes a history of civilization\u0026rsquo;s ever-changing relationship to madness. Starting inquires around the Renaissance, he tracks how madmen were once considered to be bearers of knowledge, although unintelligible from the edge of experience. His central thesis was that there once was a language that connected reason to unreason, and through various shifts in culture that dialogue has been cut off. The Renaissance gave way to the \u0026ldquo;Age of Reason\u0026rdquo; that signaled the beginning of the shift towards confinement. This separation eventually created a new category, the \u0026ldquo;insane\u0026rdquo;. This category objectified and concretized madness as both a thing to be studied, and something undesirable to be cured. From here the rest as they say is history, all sorts of treatments and testing were tried to cure and restore sanity.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Madness and Civilization"},{"content":"Summary\nArmy at Dawn documents the United States entry into the fight against Germany in North Africa. This picks up after the allies seized the critical port town of Tunis. This allied victory opened the possibility of attacking in the words of Churchill \u0026ldquo;the Axis\u0026rsquo; underbelly\u0026rdquo; in Italy. Crossing from Tunis to Sicily (the island attached to the toe of the Italy\u0026rsquo;s boot) the allies began their slow march towards Rome. During and after the capture (or liberation if you prefer) of Tunisia there was a great deal of disagreement between the British and the US over what the next target of attack should be. The Americans favored a cross channel invasion jumping from England to France, but on the other hand, after the Dunkirk debacle the Brits were much keener on the idea of invading Italy. So in a compromise they decided to do both, but since the allied troops were already stationed near Italy it was decided that the cross-channel invasion would occur a year later to allow for planning and logistical difficulties to be sorted out. In the meantime, the allies would use their deployed units to invade Italy and try to take some pressure off of Russia. It sounds good on paper, but as the casualties mounted and progress crawled to a halt in the inhospitable Italian mountain winter, victory was far from certain.\nThoughts\nAnother really well-done thorough book by Atkinson. The meat grinder of war, the anticipated losses. For as long as steel has existed it has been used as a catalyst for violence. In a perverse way it is almost as if the material itself has an insatiable blood lust. It is constantly taking new forms to sever, pulverize and otherwise disfigure. As time progresses, the ratio of pounds of steel to pounds of flesh deployed in war tends to approach zero asymptotically. It was said that to kill a single German soldier it cost the allies $25,000 worth of shells, one soldier asked whether it would be smarter to just offer every German that money to defect instead, but steel had different ideas. Doing a bit of napkin math, it turns out that there were an estimated 10.5 billion pounds of combatants used in the European theater as compared to 34.5 billion pounds of artillery. That is only artillery ammunition, but steel was still not satisfied. It mutated into planes, tanks, and monstrous battleships. Speaking of ships, some fun facts, the luxury liner Queen Mary was refitted as a troop ship. They stripped and stored all the fine rugs and fancy china and painted over its elegant colors with a navy grey. It helped to transport German POWs to the states which total reached around 450,000 at the war\u0026rsquo;s peak. Evidently, we also have WW2 to thank for the popularization of the bikini, as it was in part brought about by fabric restrictions put in place during the war. One final piece of trivia is that Rome and its surrounding architecture was in some sense saved by Hitler. By this point in the war, scorched earth tactics were used by both sides. If you were going to cede any ground, you were going to destroy anything useful to the enemy before giving it up. As it became clear that the allied capture of Rome was close to a certainty, the Fuhrer was asked whether or not he wanted to start the destruction of Rome, but he decided against it due to Rome\u0026rsquo;s historical significance. A fantastic history of this slice of the global conflict.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-day-of-battle-the-war-in-sicily-and-italy-1943-1944-world-war-ii-liberation-trilogy-2/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArmy at Dawn documents the United States entry into the fight against Germany in North Africa. This picks up after the allies seized the critical port town of Tunis. This allied victory opened the possibility of attacking in the words of Churchill \u0026ldquo;the Axis\u0026rsquo; underbelly\u0026rdquo; in Italy. Crossing from Tunis to Sicily (the island attached to the toe of the Italy\u0026rsquo;s boot) the allies began their slow march towards Rome. During and after the capture (or liberation if you prefer) of Tunisia there was a great deal of disagreement between the British and the US over what the next target of attack should be. The Americans favored a cross channel invasion jumping from England to France, but on the other hand, after the Dunkirk debacle the Brits were much keener on the idea of invading Italy. So in a compromise they decided to do both, but since the allied troops were already stationed near Italy it was decided that the cross-channel invasion would occur a year later to allow for planning and logistical difficulties to be sorted out. In the meantime, the allies would use their deployed units to invade Italy and try to take some pressure off of Russia. It sounds good on paper, but as the casualties mounted and progress crawled to a halt in the inhospitable Italian mountain winter, victory was far from certain.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Day of Battle"},{"content":"Summary\nThis book (as the title implies) is interested in the emergence of species, and now that we are talking about it, what are species to begin with? At the time, there were many very experienced naturalists who would disagree on whether a certain plant or animal belonged in species A as a variety or actually should be considered a distinct species. These disagreements arose due to the fact that no one had a clear theory as to how these differences arose and up to then we used internal and external structure to define species. If these structures diverged enough, we would separate them into species. They also used the concept of whether entity A could potentially breed with entity B. If not, then the two entities must not be in the same species. There were other methods used, but these two should suffice to show how difficulties in definition might arise. For example, the internal and external structure of sexed organisms may very greatly as in humans, but we obviously must be the same species, right?\u0026hellip;.. Actually, that might explain some things. As for mating, this brings its own difficulties (I\u0026rsquo;m on a roll), but strictly speaking, you can have two different species reproduce, like a grizzly bear and polar bear, and this happens quite often in the plant kingdom. On the other hand, you have many instances of creatures in the same species category that can\u0026rsquo;t reproduce inside their own species. Think Mastiff and Chihuahua. So these principles are by no means black and white. The prevalent view at the time was the belief that each species was created individually, with this view the categorization of species should be much more straight-forward than it is, but Darwin had other ideas. Using pigeons, due to their availability and the long history they have of human selection, he built an argument. He stated that if we had found the various varieties of pigeons in the wild, we would without a doubt classify them as different species. We only refrain from doing so because we happen to know in this case that all the varieties descended from rock pigeons. What if this same concept applied to the whole animal kingdom? What if instead of individually created species there was a single progenitor which has given rise to the magnificent variety we observe today? How far might these accumulated minute changes take us?\nThoughts\nThe first half of this book was fantastic, highly readable and enjoyable. The second half felt a little dry but had some really interesting parts as well, specifically thinking of the section on the dispersal of species across continents. Overall, I was really impressed with just how fully thought out this theory was. I expected it to be more of a rough scaffolding, but the number of examples and details he sketched out was incredible. I am not quite sure how it was possible for someone to have such a breadth of knowledge before the internet. This also cleared up a lot of misconceptions I had about the theory and answered many of the questions I had. Beyond that it also shed light on various phenomenon that had puzzled me. One of the most interesting topics to me was that of invasive species. Darwin theorized that when one species was allowed to have a large range it would become more \u0026ldquo;highly developed\u0026rdquo; due to a high amount of competition. On the other hand, species that were largely secluded and only covered a small range would be less developed. As a result if any of the highly developed species were introduced to the secluded group, they would almost always dominate the lesser developed species and replace them in the ecosystem. As a general rule of thumb this has been bourn out, especially on islands. You could also loosely make the argument (as Jared Diamond has) that this principle applies to people as well. I also have to mention that Mammoth cave was explicitly called out in this book. Darwin was making the observation that cave animals presented another difficulty with the idea of separate creation. The animals in caves are often blind, but curiously they are also endemic. With the idea that species were created, one would expect that there would be a whole class of cave animals that are especially designed to live in caves, but instead what we find are local creatures that have adapted to cave life. So in Kentucky we have Kentucky cave fish, whereas in European caves you would have European cave fish. These fish will be found to be more closely related to fish near them, than to fish in other caves. This of course, suggests a slow migration instead of a specific creation. In conclusion, this was a highly impressive work for a very unintuitive theory. I am reminded of Conway\u0026rsquo;s game of life, or Boids, often complexity can be generated by some simple rules and reverse engineering those \u0026ldquo;rules\u0026rdquo; are often very unintuitive.\nPeople/Charles Darwin\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-origin-of-species/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis book (as the title implies) is interested in the emergence of species, and now that we are talking about it, what are species to begin with? At the time, there were many very experienced naturalists who would disagree on whether a certain plant or animal belonged in species A as a variety or actually should be considered a distinct species. These disagreements arose due to the fact that no one had a clear theory as to how these differences arose and up to then we used internal and external structure to define species. If these structures diverged enough, we would separate them into species. They also used the concept of whether entity A could potentially breed with entity B. If not, then the two entities must not be in the same species. There were other methods used, but these two should suffice to show how difficulties in definition might arise. For example, the internal and external structure of sexed organisms may very greatly as in humans, but we obviously must be the same species, right?\u0026hellip;.. Actually, that might explain some things. As for mating, this brings its own difficulties (I\u0026rsquo;m on a roll), but strictly speaking, you can have two different species reproduce, like a grizzly bear and polar bear, and this happens quite often in the plant kingdom. On the other hand, you have many instances of creatures in the same species category that can\u0026rsquo;t reproduce inside their own species. Think Mastiff and Chihuahua. So these principles are by no means black and white. The prevalent view at the time was the belief that each species was created individually, with this view the categorization of species should be much more straight-forward than it is, but Darwin had other ideas. Using pigeons, due to their availability and the long history they have of human selection, he built an argument. He stated that if we had found the various varieties of pigeons in the wild, we would without a doubt classify them as different species. We only refrain from doing so because we happen to know in this case that all the varieties descended from rock pigeons. What if this same concept applied to the whole animal kingdom? What if instead of individually created species there was a single progenitor which has given rise to the magnificent variety we observe today? How far might these accumulated minute changes take us?\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Origin of Species"},{"content":"Summary\nHaidt argues that morality is an emergent property from the neurological equivalent of taste buds and that different types of people have different tastes. He also makes the case that our moral judgements are gut feelings justified by post hoc rationalizations. Haidt also takes a dualistic approach to mind, comparing it to an elephant with a rider. The elephant represents inarticulate passions while the rider represents the part of the brain that reasons. From here he uses the divide between liberal (using the American definition meaning those on the left side of politics) and conservative to highlight the different moral taste buds that each political party activates.\nThoughts\nI really enjoyed this book. I am biased towards any literature that seeks to find reason on both sides of polarizing issues. It did a fantastic job at explaining why certain groups of people take certain offenses more seriously than others. One of my complaints about the book, however, was that not many solutions were proposed for bridging the gap between these opposing moral feelings. How are we to solve debates between people living in separate moral universes? I found his explanations intuitive and instantly relatable. It is a great read for anyone who is interested in understanding someone with a completely different worldview, and please for the love of beauty, be that kind of person.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-righteous-mind-why-good-people-are-divided-by-politics-and-religion/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHaidt argues that morality is an emergent property from the neurological equivalent of taste buds and that different types of people have different tastes. He also makes the case that our moral judgements are gut feelings justified by post hoc rationalizations. Haidt also takes a dualistic approach to mind, comparing it to an elephant with a rider. The elephant represents inarticulate passions while the rider represents the part of the brain that reasons. From here he uses the divide between liberal (using the American definition meaning those on the left side of politics) and conservative to highlight the different moral taste buds that each political party activates.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Righteous Mind"},{"content":"Summary\nA history of the United States entering WW2 in North Africa. This 700 page book is the first of a trilogy about WW2 in Europe. It covers a single year of the conflict starting with the US landing in Northern Africa and ending with the capture of Tunisia.\nThoughts\nA fantastic history, reading this book really gives you the feeling of living through the events. Not in a first-person sense, but more as a near omniscient deity who is really interested in America\u0026rsquo;s military. What feels like every skirmish, battle, air raid, and flat tire has been listed. Every shell casing counted, and temperature noted. All this is done in a way that manages to stay compelling throughout. -The Allies I never realized just how tense the relationship was between the Brits and the Yankees. There was quite a bit of animosity and distrust between the old power and the new power that was coming of age in this war. British folks thought of the Americans as inexperienced bumbling idiots who would only be useful as a support role in WW2. The Americans had their own reservations, one of my favorite quotes that sums up this new relationship was from Harold Macmillan:\nWe, my dear Crossman, are Greeks in this American empire. You will find the Americans much as the Greeks found the Romans – great big vulgar, bustling people, more vigorous than we are and also more idle, with more unspoiled virtues, but also more corrupt. We must run A.F.H.Q. as the Greeks ran the operations of the Emperor Claudius..\n-The French Atkinson doesn\u0026rsquo;t seem to like the French at all, and nobody liked the Italians. The problem with France capitulating to the Germans was that they were then tasked with defending their territories in North Africa. This in turn means that our introduction to the French is them killing allied soldiers who are in some since fighting to free their country. -The Italians With this book you come away feeling like the Italians were never really in this war. They fought and they died, but in ways that seemed halfhearted. They were poorly equipped and poorly led. Just going from their portrayal in this book if you were an allied commander, you would much prefer a hill to be held by Italians instead of Germans. -Hate A recurrent theme in this book was the genesis of hate. It was noted that when the American soldiers landed in North Africa no one really hated the Germans, but with every new casualty and friend killed that feeling of hate started to grow. This is interesting to me in a game theoretic standpoint. As every allied general knew, a soldier that hates his enemy is much more useful than one that doesn\u0026rsquo;t. The question is how can you foster an environment that creates this hate as quickly as possible? I don\u0026rsquo;t think they came up with an answer more effective than war itself, but it highlights the insanity of war. We have millions of years of tribalism in our blood; we\u0026rsquo;ve managed to tamp down this tribalism with various mechanisms allowing you to interact with strangers while running near zero risk of being murdered. Then along comes this situation where you have to try to fan the flames of that ancient aggression and return humans to their barbarous roots in such a way that if you do run into a stranger, you murder them with no questions asked.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/an-army-at-dawn-the-war-in-north-africa-1942-1943-world-war-ii-liberation-trilogy-1/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA history of the United States entering WW2 in North Africa. This 700 page book is the first of a trilogy about WW2 in Europe. It covers a single year of the conflict starting with the US landing in Northern Africa and ending with the capture of Tunisia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA fantastic history, reading this book really gives you the feeling of living through the events. Not in a first-person sense, but more as a near omniscient deity who is really interested in America\u0026rsquo;s military. What feels like every skirmish, battle, air raid, and flat tire has been listed. Every shell casing counted, and temperature noted. All this is done in a way that manages to stay compelling throughout.\n-The Allies\nI never realized just how tense the relationship was between the Brits and the Yankees. There was quite a bit of animosity and distrust between the old power and the new power that was coming of age in this war. British folks thought of the Americans as inexperienced bumbling idiots who would only be useful as a support role in WW2. The Americans had their own reservations, one of my favorite quotes that sums up this new relationship was from Harold Macmillan:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"An Army at Dawn"},{"content":"Summary\nA fictional account of the three (+1 wallflower sister) Mirabal sisters and their role in the revolution in attempting to overthrow the Trujillo dictatorship of the Dominican Republic. The sisters are eventually assassinated indirectly by Trujillo, this appears to have paved the way for his own assassination six months later.\nThoughts\nWhile I appreciate the engaging narrative presented by Julia Alvarez, I feel conflicted in providing a comprehensive review of this book, as I initially believed it to be more historical than fictional. The unique format—each chapter narrated by one of the four sisters—may take some getting used to, with many passages resembling journal entries. In her afterword, Alvarez explains her decision to rely on the essence of the sisters\u0026rsquo; lives rather than conducting in-depth interviews or research, drawing from her father\u0026rsquo;s involvement in the anti-Trujillo underground network as justification for this approach.\nThe book itself is fairly entertaining as we follow the sisters each growing up in their own ways, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. My main complaint with this book is the absolute lack of detail on the sisters\u0026rsquo; revolutionary activities. We find out all sorts of details about the sisters and their acquaintances, we are painted a very thorough picture of their daily activities all except for their revolutionary actions. There are many meetings attended by the sisters, but the things discussed, the plans made, actions taken never make an appearance. This omission doesn\u0026rsquo;t feel accidental, but it does make the reader wonder; were the meetings boring? Were they uninspiring? Did they not accomplish their goals? We\u0026rsquo;ll never know, because for whatever reason they were not included in the story.\nHaving said that, the sisters themselves are still inspiring, especially Minerva the ringleader. They became national heroes for standing up to a dictator when few else did. Their story is worth hearing.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/in-the-time-of-the-butterflies/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA fictional account of the three (+1 wallflower sister) Mirabal sisters and their role in the revolution in attempting to overthrow the Trujillo dictatorship of the Dominican Republic. The sisters are eventually assassinated indirectly by Trujillo, this appears to have paved the way for his own assassination six months later.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile I appreciate the engaging narrative presented by Julia Alvarez, I feel conflicted in providing a comprehensive review of this book, as I initially believed it to be more historical than fictional. The unique format—each chapter narrated by one of the four sisters—may take some getting used to, with many passages resembling journal entries. In her afterword, Alvarez explains her decision to rely on the essence of the sisters\u0026rsquo; lives rather than conducting in-depth interviews or research, drawing from her father\u0026rsquo;s involvement in the anti-Trujillo underground network as justification for this approach.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"In the Time of the Butterflies"},{"content":"Summary\nCreated near 400BC this book constitutes one of the earliest Christian autobiographies we have. Written as a protracted and one-sided conversation with God, Augustine attempts to lay out his soul to God and his many readers. Written as a collection of thirteen books, the first nine deal with his life up to the age of 33 which is the traditionally accepted age of Jesus when he was crucified. The main story is his conversion to Catholicism and the backdrop is his own personal struggles and failings. His central struggle was in the eradication of his sexuality, the journey to celibacy was a difficult one for Augustine, he had a few mistresses including one during his pending engagement which was broken off after his conversion. This struggle takes up most of the pages dedicated to character flaws, while his key psychological struggle was being converted from Manicheism. Another interesting topic that got discussed thoroughly was astrology, evidently Augustine used to be paid by others to read their future in the stars, he would have had all the girls in 2023. If there is one thing to know about Augustine, it is that he questions, he questions everything. This ultimately leads him to lose faith in Manicheism in favor of the more convincing ideas presented by Catholicism. One way of looking at this text is as a tract to any would be Catholics who were currently Manichaeans. The last four books shift into abstract questions about memory, time, creation, and interpretation of scriptures.\nThoughts\nAs an autobiography one expects to learn about the life of the author, if this was your hope while reading confessions, you\u0026rsquo;ll be largely disappointed. We do learn about what Augustine does, but only as background deeds. This book is completely introspective, it should be considered more as a spiritual autobiography. The necessities of life do show up, but often with maddingly few details. As a spiritual autobiography this book is fantastic. I found it relatable, the constant questioning, the cyclically revelations, the feeling of progression, the assumptions made invisible by time and place. Sidebar The \u0026lsquo;question\u0026rsquo; is the central character in this book and I heartily agree with this choice probably even more than Augustine intended. The \u0026lsquo;question\u0026rsquo; is renewing, it keeps ideas from becoming brittle, it breaks and destroys, but the best questions create something new. I am convinced that we can never completely know any one thing and that the right questions can act as paths to new perspectives. Following this rabbit trail a little further, I think this is one of the things that makes life so exciting, the idea that a diamond rotated will produce different sparkles and be beautiful in a completely new way. We may have explored every inch of the surface of the earth but there are still many places in the mind with few footprints. Why stay on the main roads? I am not an expert in Manicheism and so the many of his arguments against it were lost on me. I do know that following a more Zoroastrian worldview they believe in a dualistic reality. That good and evil are two separate forces that are in constant battle. This neatly answers one of the most difficult questions for Christianity, the problem of evil. The problem of evil was a large hurdle for Augustine to climb over before coming into the Holy C. His answer became the pillar of many modern responses to this problem, and as a result it will be somewhat familiar. Oversimplifying and possibly misunderstanding, it is that evil is man\u0026rsquo;s creation by abusing free will, since the will is free it allows God to remain unsoiled by our sin. This response of course has its criticisms, even by contemporary Manichaeans. I still agree with Camus on this topic:\nYou know the alternative: either we are not free and God the all-powerful is responsible for evil. Or we are free and responsible but God is not all powerful. All the scholastic subtleties have neither added anything to nor subtracted anything from the acuteness of this paradox.\nMyth of Sisyphus\nI am also of the opinion that Augustine, the prodigious questioner still had his doubts on the topic perhaps shared in a separate more personal confession. His discussions on time and memory were really good especially from an experiential standpoint, but I imagine anyone who isn\u0026rsquo;t interested in these questions would be pulling their hair out trying to follow his logic along its tortious steps before arriving at a temporary conclusion. The pacing of the book is fairly slow, and very melancholic. I am not quite convinced that the conversion brought him the internal peace that he was looking for excepting the biggest questions. The old Augustine was bothered by his mistresses, the new Augustine was troubled by the fact that he enjoyed eating when he was hungry, and that this proclivity was only a few steps removed from gluttony. Again, I found this mindset very relatable. This book played a foundational role in Western thought, it isn\u0026rsquo;t necessarily a fun read but it fairly important. That being said while I enjoyed it, I think it would only be enjoyable for a small subset of readers outside of seminary.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/confessions/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCreated near 400BC this book constitutes one of the earliest Christian autobiographies we have. Written as a protracted and one-sided conversation with God, Augustine attempts to lay out his soul to God and his many readers. Written as a collection of thirteen books, the first nine deal with his life up to the age of 33 which is the traditionally accepted age of Jesus when he was crucified. The main story is his conversion to Catholicism and the backdrop is his own personal struggles and failings. His central struggle was in the eradication of his sexuality, the journey to celibacy was a difficult one for Augustine, he had a few mistresses including one during his pending engagement which was broken off after his conversion. This struggle takes up most of the pages dedicated to character flaws, while his key psychological struggle was being converted from Manicheism. Another interesting topic that got discussed thoroughly was astrology, evidently Augustine used to be paid by others to read their future in the stars, he would have had all the girls in 2023. If there is one thing to know about Augustine, it is that he questions, he questions everything. This ultimately leads him to lose faith in Manicheism in favor of the more convincing ideas presented by Catholicism. One way of looking at this text is as a tract to any would be Catholics who were currently Manichaeans. The last four books shift into abstract questions about memory, time, creation, and interpretation of scriptures.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Confessions"},{"content":"Summary\nEvgenni Onegin, pronounced as best as I can tell yev-gainy on-yay-gen is a Russian aristocrat, that seems to be the only stories from Russia I read. Onegin evidently falls into a literary category known as \u0026ldquo;superfluous men\u0026rdquo;, Onegin has drank the glass to the bottom and is bored. Bored of the fancy balls, the gossip, the incessant conversation, of everything. Inheriting his uncle\u0026rsquo;s estate he moves there with no real hopes or ambitions but is surprised to run into a young poet named Vladimir Lensky. This young poet is still full of life and hope much like Onegin\u0026rsquo;s younger self and helps to lift the boredom and bring color back into Onegin\u0026rsquo;s life. The poet falls in love with a pretty coquettish girl named Olga, but we ignore her in favor of her more interesting sister Tatyana. Olga had the looks and Tatyana the brains, unfortunately for her she falls in love, the way that only a sixteen-year-old can, with Onegin. She writes him a letter declaring her love and putting herself at his mercy. He replies in what is now known as \u0026ldquo;Onegin\u0026rsquo;s Sermon\u0026rdquo; the essence of which is that Onegin felt like the marriage would be a disaster because he would become bored with her, and eventually her with him. The tone of his reply was polite but also condescending. This of course completely devastates Tatyana who retires into the background of the novel for a time. Shortly thereafter the poet Lensky tricks Onegin into coming to a country ball. This upsets Onegin, who hates the society and finds nothing diverting there. He chooses quite unaccountably to start flirting with the poet\u0026rsquo;s fiancé Olga, they dance, and she appears to be attracted by Onegin\u0026rsquo;s studied advances. This causes the poet to callout Onegin and demand satisfaction by a duel. The once friends now face off, with Onegin surviving he is of course distraught by his friend\u0026rsquo;s death and decides to travel to take his mind off of it. The novel then jumps forward a couple years, Onegin back from his travels goes to a St. Petersburg ball and is surprised to find the innocent 16-year-old transformed into a lady of high society, and now married to a older general. Immediately smitten he does everything he can think of to rekindle their relationship but in an epic turnabout Tatyana gives him her own sermon. She essentially says that she is going to remain faithful to her husband and the novel ends with Onegin yet again in turmoil.\nThoughts\nOverall, this book was just okay. I had heard Pushkin mentioned in such hollowed tones by other Russian authors like Dostoevsky and Gogol I had high expectations. This novel itself was written obviously in Russian, but also quoting Wikipedia\nAlmost the entire work is made up of 389 fourteen-line stanzas (5,446 lines in all) of iambic tetrameter with the unusual rhyme scheme AbAbCCddEffEgg, where the uppercase letters represent feminine rhymes while the lowercase letters represent masculine rhymes.\nI did not realize this before getting into it, so that leaves it up to the translator (in my case Mary Hobson) to decide to try and keep to the literal sense ignore the rhythmical structure, or lose meaning in favor of sound? The result is a novel that sounds like it was written by Choose Goose. Sometimes the lines are powerful, other times not so much. After this book I will not read anymore Pushkin unless I learn Russian because you are too much reliant on the translator. Especially for this kind of work no matter how talented the translator is, you will be reading them and not Pushkin. That is not to say there aren\u0026rsquo;t memorable parts in the book like Pushkin getting distracted by feet:\nThe storm: oh, how I envied waves That raced, in turn, toward the shore, To lap her feet, her loving slaves! And how I longed, then, I repeat, To press my lips to those dear feet!\nOr one of my favorite sections\nBut my Onegin’s only thought Was for Tatiana; not that wild And timid young girl, who had taught Herself to love, poor simple child, But for this cool, reserved princess This unapproachable goddess Of the resplendent, regal Neva. Oh men! I fear that you all save a Slight trace of Eve’s maternity. What’s given does not appeal to you, The ceaseless serpent calls you to Itself, to the mysterious tree: Forbidden fruit – you don’t think twice; Without it there’s no paradise.\nI don\u0026rsquo;t mean to be too harsh to Hobson as the task was impossible from the outset, and there are some truly beautiful lines in the book, but I went through the book twice and was left lukewarm by it. Onegin reminded me of a Russian version of Husyman\u0026rsquo;s Des Esseintes. The Russian becomes a hermit, the Frenchman an eccentric. I also found it interesting that Pushkin himself would die in a duel that he initiated because a guy was flirting with his wife who was beautiful, but also known as a flirt. On paper Pushkin identified with Onegin and in life with Lensky. I\u0026rsquo;ll end this review with Tatyana\u0026rsquo;s later thoughts about Onegin:\nA phantom, a mere imitation, A fashionable dictionary? \u0026hellip; Might he not be a parody?\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/evgenii-onegin/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEvgenni Onegin, pronounced as best as I can tell yev-gainy on-yay-gen is a Russian aristocrat, that seems to be the only stories from Russia I read. Onegin evidently falls into a literary category known as \u0026ldquo;superfluous men\u0026rdquo;, Onegin has drank the glass to the bottom and is bored. Bored of the fancy balls, the gossip, the incessant conversation, of everything. Inheriting his uncle\u0026rsquo;s estate he moves there with no real hopes or ambitions but is surprised to run into a young poet named Vladimir Lensky. This young poet is still full of life and hope much like Onegin\u0026rsquo;s younger self and helps to lift the boredom and bring color back into Onegin\u0026rsquo;s life. The poet falls in love with a pretty coquettish girl named Olga, but we ignore her in favor of her more interesting sister Tatyana. Olga had the looks and Tatyana the brains, unfortunately for her she falls in love, the way that only a sixteen-year-old can, with Onegin. She writes him a letter declaring her love and putting herself at his mercy. He replies in what is now known as \u0026ldquo;Onegin\u0026rsquo;s Sermon\u0026rdquo; the essence of which is that Onegin felt like the marriage would be a disaster because he would become bored with her, and eventually her with him. The tone of his reply was polite but also condescending. This of course completely devastates Tatyana who retires into the background of the novel for a time. Shortly thereafter the poet Lensky tricks Onegin into coming to a country ball. This upsets Onegin, who hates the society and finds nothing diverting there. He chooses quite unaccountably to start flirting with the poet\u0026rsquo;s fiancé Olga, they dance, and she appears to be attracted by Onegin\u0026rsquo;s studied advances. This causes the poet to callout Onegin and demand satisfaction by a duel. The once friends now face off, with Onegin surviving he is of course distraught by his friend\u0026rsquo;s death and decides to travel to take his mind off of it. The novel then jumps forward a couple years, Onegin back from his travels goes to a St. Petersburg ball and is surprised to find the innocent 16-year-old transformed into a lady of high society, and now married to a older general. Immediately smitten he does everything he can think of to rekindle their relationship but in an epic turnabout Tatyana gives him her own sermon. She essentially says that she is going to remain faithful to her husband and the novel ends with Onegin yet again in turmoil.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Evgenii Onegin"},{"content":"Summary\nWritten in 1975, this book is considered one of the fundamental texts that started the animal rights movement, which is only gaining in momentum. Singer popularized the term speciesism, which plays a central role in his argument. He likens speciesism to all the other nasty \u0026ldquo;isms\u0026rdquo; sexism, racism etc. His main points to support this are that humans are animals as well, and there is no significant difference innate in humans that sets us apart from the natural world. An often-used metric of difference between animals and humans is intelligence. To this he would reply that there are plenty of babies, and mentally handicapped patients that show less signs of intelligence than some animals, yet no one would find it morally justifiable to eat them or conduct cruel tests on them. He challenges anyone to justify speciesism, and if not, then they must deal with the consequences. From there he does an overview of testing conducted on animals and factory farming, the two most egregious forms of mass animal cruelty. From there he feels the only justifiable choice is to remove meat from your meals. He provides arguments in support of this as well as providing practical information for those interested in making the switch from a meat-based diet. He ends the book with a brief discussion on western man\u0026rsquo;s relationship with animals. He breaks up the history into Jewish, Greek, Christian, and Enlightenment eras with his major claim being that any justification of speciesism is either metaphysical or untenable. He quotes Bentham \u0026ldquo;the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?\u0026rdquo;\nThoughts\nA fantastic and compelling read. The sections describing animal testing were difficult to listen to. I was not aware of how wasteful and unnecessary so many of the tests were. As well as how unnecessarily cruel. He also makes a convincing case that the subjects of the tests are hardly necessary and at other times completely irrelevant. To pick one example there were tests done on chimpanzees, where they were trained to keep a platform level by using a throttle. They were then radiated with various types of poison to see how it impacted their performance. The goal of these tests was to see how a pilot would be able to fly a plane after suffering radiation. This of course seems completely unnecessary, as on one hand we know that the pilots flying would be impaired and two, the Airforce is unlikely to alter its doctrine based on the performance of a few chimps. But that didn\u0026rsquo;t stop the scientists from training chimps for weeks via electrical shock, with the culmination of death with extreme pain. The sections on factory farming were also not a fun read, but the terrain was a little more familiar. No space, no quality of life, unnecessary suffering. I found Singer\u0026rsquo;s main arguments around speciesism to be unconvincing, but the power of this book is that he provides so many varied reasons against and examples of unnecessary cruelty that one of them is bound to resonate.\nPeople/Peter Singer\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/animal-liberation/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten in 1975, this book is considered one of the fundamental texts that started the animal rights movement, which is only gaining in momentum. Singer popularized the term speciesism, which plays a central role in his argument. He likens speciesism to all the other nasty \u0026ldquo;isms\u0026rdquo; sexism, racism etc. His main points to support this are that humans are animals as well, and there is no significant difference innate in humans that sets us apart from the natural world. An often-used metric of difference between animals and humans is intelligence. To this he would reply that there are plenty of babies, and mentally handicapped patients that show less signs of intelligence than some animals, yet no one would find it morally justifiable to eat them or conduct cruel tests on them. He challenges anyone to justify speciesism, and if not, then they must deal with the consequences. From there he does an overview of testing conducted on animals and factory farming, the two most egregious forms of mass animal cruelty. From there he feels the only justifiable choice is to remove meat from your meals. He provides arguments in support of this as well as providing practical information for those interested in making the switch from a meat-based diet. He ends the book with a brief discussion on western man\u0026rsquo;s relationship with animals. He breaks up the history into Jewish, Greek, Christian, and Enlightenment eras with his major claim being that any justification of speciesism is either metaphysical or untenable. He quotes Bentham \u0026ldquo;the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Animal Liberation"},{"content":"Summary\nMatt Ridley sets out to explain why, despite how it may feel, we live in the brightest point in history and the future is likely to be even brighter. Homo Sapiens are an incredible species, which always raises the question of how we got to be this way. What set us on this path that allowed us to specialize in ways unique in our known universe. Ridley wants to argue that the distinguishing feature was trade. Trade allows for specialization, and we should think of specialization as skill storage. You learn how to make an axe, I\u0026rsquo;ll learn how to grow corn etc. etc. In this way the amount of knowledge available continues to grow the more trading connections we enter into. For a few ears of corn, I can make use of years of R\u0026amp;D that you\u0026rsquo;ve committed to making the axe. From a game theory point of view this is a win win. As you can make axes better than me, and I can grow corn better than you. The result is a net increase in material wealth. As the community grows and more nodes in the form of human brains join the network, the amount of specialized knowledge grows combinatorically because although the skills are siloed the results are not. For example, if you make a better axe, I can clear forests easier to make more corn than before and so on. This is a fundamental argument for free and global trade, as there seems to be no upper limit to idea storage in the universe.\nThoughts\nI enjoyed this book; it is another one of those books that I was biased to accept from the beginning as we seemed share similar world views. I was already familiar with some of his ideas through other people so not a lot of surprises, most were laid out convincingly. Some weak points in my opinion are the seemingly free pass given to exploiters. He is responding to the popular trend of disliking business magnates, and it seems like he goes too far the other way. For example, he criticizes Marx for criticizing factories in England without taking into account that factory life as terrible as it was, still managed to be better than farm life in England at that time. This explains why so many farmers moved to the city to work in factories. He extends this to sweatshops in East Asia again arguing that people work there because whatever other options aren\u0026rsquo;t as good and so the sweat shop represents an upgrade in wealth. I did not find this argument convincing; I don\u0026rsquo;t think he would either if he had to work in one, at the same time knowing that the owner was living a life of luxury. I do agree with him though, that in the long run sweat shops appear to reduce poverty, it just takes generations for this to happen, so I would hope there was a way to have the omelet without the broken eggs. Lab grown omelets? There were several other things that are possible attack vectors on this book, but overall, I thought it was really good. One of his main points is that \u0026ldquo;if it bleeds it leads\u0026rdquo; applies just as much to our brains as to our newspapers. Therefore, someone saying \u0026ldquo;we are all going to die\u0026rdquo; takes up way more mental space than someone saying, \u0026ldquo;it is likely we will make it\u0026rdquo;. No matter what your views are on the book itself, we should hope he is right, and humanity continues to innovate itself into higher living standards for everyone.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-rational-optimist-how-prosperity-evolves/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatt Ridley sets out to explain why, despite how it may feel, we live in the brightest point in history and the future is likely to be even brighter.\nHomo Sapiens are an incredible species, which always raises the question of how we got to be this way. What set us on this path that allowed us to specialize in ways unique in our known universe. Ridley wants to argue that the distinguishing feature was trade. Trade allows for specialization, and we should think of specialization as skill storage. You learn how to make an axe, I\u0026rsquo;ll learn how to grow corn etc. etc. In this way the amount of knowledge available continues to grow the more trading connections we enter into. For a few ears of corn, I can make use of years of R\u0026amp;D that you\u0026rsquo;ve committed to making the axe. From a game theory point of view this is a win win. As you can make axes better than me, and I can grow corn better than you. The result is a net increase in material wealth. As the community grows and more nodes in the form of human brains join the network, the amount of specialized knowledge grows combinatorically because although the skills are siloed the results are not. For example, if you make a better axe, I can clear forests easier to make more corn than before and so on. This is a fundamental argument for free and global trade, as there seems to be no upper limit to idea storage in the universe.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Rational Optimist"},{"content":"Summary\nAt 900pages in length the book not only covers the civil war but starts at a bird\u0026rsquo;s eye view of the birth of the United States zooming in closer and closer as we near the Civil War. Going fairly in depth on the US\u0026rsquo; economic industry and its evolutions McPherson paints a picture of sprawling plantations and Yankee ingenuity. But in these developments cracks in the \u0026ldquo;United\u0026rdquo; States started to appear. The North and South started to develop in different directions. The North barreled forward (or downward? backward? depends on who you ask) into industrialized capitalism while the South who were largely agricultural stood firm in their conservative values and therefore abhorred the urbanization, automatization, that created crowded crime laden huge cities in the North. As an aside, you can get some of this sentiment playing Red Dead Redemption 2, ironically an explicitly anti-confederate game where the main characters act and view the world through a similar lens as the folks who created the Confederacy. Yet having this stance put you squarely against the march of \u0026ldquo;progress\u0026rdquo;, as such a widening gap between specialists in North and South started to appear. As such the South became more and more dependent on products from the North, whereas the North maintained only its dependence on the South\u0026rsquo;s cotton. The gap wasn\u0026rsquo;t just economic but also in ideas, most of the books, newspapers, inventors, and scientists came from the North. It was fairly common for rich Southerners to pay for their kids to go to school up north. This caused friction as the South began to feel inferiority or distrust towards the North. But even with these things, the central issue was slavery. There was a growing vocal movement of radical abolitionists, next to them was a less radical Free-Soil party who opposed the idea of expanding slavery into the new states of the west. This made southern slave owners uneasy, because for a quite some time slave owners were overrepresented in the government, but several new states with anti-slavery legislation had been added to the Union. This was starting to tip the scale of power away from the once dominant slave owners. This among other things, put these two competing ideologies on a collision course. McPherson then does a fantastic job of describing different factions and their mindsets. Just like any time in history, there was a lot going on and the stories we\u0026rsquo;re told often greatly oversimplify. He makes it very clear that you could be anti-slavery and racist at the same time. The North in general was anti-slavery but most did not view blacks as their equals. All this and the Civil War hasn\u0026rsquo;t even started.\nThoughts\nBrilliant book, hard to imagine being so familiar with a time and place that you haven\u0026rsquo;t lived in, or even that you are living in for that matter. He did a great job making you feel the turmoil of both sides. One of the main themes of the book is that both sides were fighting for \u0026ldquo;freedom\u0026rdquo;, it was the definition of freedom that was being fought over. There are some fascinating characters in this book. I am now going to have to read more on Grant, Lee and Lincoln as all three were extraordinary. I also loved how there were some characters like George B. McClellan who just get destroyed in this book for being the wrong man for the job. You get to know and dislike these types of characters strongly with their constant presence in the story, always acting as a wrench in the gears. I am so woefully under read when it comes to US history that most of the facts were new to me. Such as the seesaw nature of the war, the naval aspect, and the threat of foreign involvement. One of my issues with the book, was not the book, but my unfamiliarity with the history sometimes made all the names and places start to blend together. There were only so many politicians I could keep straight in my mind at once. So, if I had the chance to do it over again, I would probably read a more introductory book before reading this. Overall, it does a fantastic job at giving a narrative to events and giving you a feel for people\u0026rsquo;s motives.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/battle-cry-of-freedom/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt 900pages in length the book not only covers the civil war but starts at a bird\u0026rsquo;s eye view of the birth of the United States zooming in closer and closer as we near the Civil War. Going fairly in depth on the US\u0026rsquo; economic industry and its evolutions McPherson paints a picture of sprawling plantations and Yankee ingenuity. But in these developments cracks in the \u0026ldquo;United\u0026rdquo; States started to appear. The North and South started to develop in different directions. The North barreled forward (or downward? backward? depends on who you ask) into industrialized capitalism while the South who were largely agricultural stood firm in their conservative values and therefore abhorred the urbanization, automatization, that created crowded crime laden huge cities in the North. As an aside, you can get some of this sentiment playing Red Dead Redemption 2, ironically an explicitly anti-confederate game where the main characters act and view the world through a similar lens as the folks who created the Confederacy. Yet having this stance put you squarely against the march of \u0026ldquo;progress\u0026rdquo;, as such a widening gap between specialists in North and South started to appear. As such the South became more and more dependent on products from the North, whereas the North maintained only its dependence on the South\u0026rsquo;s cotton. The gap wasn\u0026rsquo;t just economic but also in ideas, most of the books, newspapers, inventors, and scientists came from the North. It was fairly common for rich Southerners to pay for their kids to go to school up north. This caused friction as the South began to feel inferiority or distrust towards the North. But even with these things, the central issue was slavery. There was a growing vocal movement of radical abolitionists, next to them was a less radical Free-Soil party who opposed the idea of expanding slavery into the new states of the west. This made southern slave owners uneasy, because for a quite some time slave owners were overrepresented in the government, but several new states with anti-slavery legislation had been added to the Union. This was starting to tip the scale of power away from the once dominant slave owners. This among other things, put these two competing ideologies on a collision course. McPherson then does a fantastic job of describing different factions and their mindsets. Just like any time in history, there was a lot going on and the stories we\u0026rsquo;re told often greatly oversimplify. He makes it very clear that you could be anti-slavery and racist at the same time. The North in general was anti-slavery but most did not view blacks as their equals. All this and the Civil War hasn\u0026rsquo;t even started.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Battle Cry of Freedom"},{"content":"When a superior man hears of the Tao, he immediately begins to embody it. When an average man hears of the Tao, he half believes it, half doubts it. When a foolish man hears of the Tao, he laughs out loud. If he didn\u0026rsquo;t laugh it wouldn\u0026rsquo;t be the Tao. -41\nSummary\nFor my first read through (assuming there might be more) without much research I picked up Stephen Mitchell\u0026rsquo;s version. Two things of note, one Stephen Mitchell was also the one who authored my version of Gilgamesh which was fantastic. Second, he makes clear that this is an English \u0026ldquo;version\u0026rdquo; and not straight translation of the Tao Te Ching. This book came with his own commentary at the end, as well as a transcript of an interview about the process of translation. I read once all the way through, and then re-read referencing his notes. The Tao Te Ching itself is similar to the Old Testament in that its actual authors are lost to history. It appears to have been put together from various text around 250BC. The assumed author Laozi or Lao Tzu is a person we know next to nothing about, in fact he may not even exist. His name adds to this mystery by being translated as \u0026ldquo;old teacher\u0026rdquo;. That being said there are now over 250 translations of the text and its 81 short chapters.\nThoughts\nI\u0026rsquo;ve been thinking a lot about the benefits of cyclopean viewpoints. They tend to get a bad rap, but sometimes it takes some unbalance to see things that a balanced person would miss. The first line is \u0026ldquo;The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Dao\u0026rdquo; or again in chapter 56 \u0026ldquo;Those who know do not talk, those who talk do not know\u0026rdquo;. Evidently, these are the lines needed to get your book to be argued about for centuries and translated 250 times. For a book whose main theme is balance, I\u0026rsquo;ve never felt so off balance. Or if I was Laozi, I would say \u0026ldquo;to become truly balanced, one must first become unbalanced\u0026rdquo;. I think I could program a Laozi generator in one line of code: \u0026ldquo;To truly become {noun}, one must first become not-{noun}.\u0026rdquo; Is there a thin line between silly bumper stickers and wisdom? Are bumper stickers, wisdom in its final form? With the TTC I was never really sure what side of the line I was standing on, the only thing I knew was that what I just read was about to be contradicted. If not by the text itself, then the commentary afterward. This contradiction is not enough to make me discount it entirely. In fact, it reminds me a lot of McGilchrist\u0026rsquo;s right hemisphere trying to communicate secret messages before the left hemisphere can attach logic to things and turn them into dead mechanical parts. For the book\u0026rsquo;s message in total, I fall right into Laozi\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;average man\u0026rdquo; in the quote above, I believed parts of it, and disbelieved other parts. This seems like just the book you need to read before doing mechanical work on a car. I have always become frustrated working on cars due to lack of knowledge and never having all the right tools on hand. When you know you have to do something that is really frustrating, I can\u0026rsquo;t think of a better message to read than something like:\nWhen she (the master) runs into a difficulty, she stops and gives herself to it. She doesn\u0026rsquo;t cling to her own comfort; thus problems are no problem for her. -63\nOr\nGive evil nothing to oppose and it will disappear by itself -60\nOn the other hand, there definitely seems to be cases where the above quotations are demonstrably false. Alas, doomed to mediocrity, at least I can take comfort in that I did not laugh, but wait, I would not be surprised to find out that laughing is the wisest of all three choices in the first quote. The final thing is about translation, one reason why there are so many is because the text is notoriously hard to translate from its original language. Classical Chinese has no punctuation, so you can imagine all the difficulties that brings. Additionally, the words themselves make it difficult to understand the author\u0026rsquo;s intent like some Biblical passages. I found this version which purports to be the most accurate version anywhere and this is how it renders chapter 18.\nThe great Tao fades away There is benevolence and justice Intelligence comes forth There is great deception The six relations are not harmonious There is filial piety and kind affection The country is in confused chaos There are loyal ministers\nMitchell renders this beautifully as:\nWhen the great Tao is forgotten goodness and piety appear. When the body\u0026rsquo;s intelligence declines, cleverness and knowledge step forth. When there is no peace in the family, filial piety begins. When the country falls into chaos, patriotism is born.\nThis liberty of translation on Mitchell\u0026rsquo;s part makes the text much more readable as a Westerner and I would assume Easterner as well. This has not gone without some criticism of Western Orientalism, as Mitchell himself does not speak the language, but had profound experiences which he felt gave him the confidence to create such a free translation. I am in no place to judge but I can point to one of his commentaries on a chapter for his take on it. There are a number of passages in the Tao Te Ching where a much narrower consciousness is at work than in the rest of book. These passages may be interpolations. Or perhaps the old fellow had indigestion on the days he wrote them. But since my job was to re-crate the essential mind of Lao-tzu, I could not in good conscience include them in this version. So as a reader I guess you have two options, become a Tao Te Ching fundamentalist where you try to find the most original text and defend every word with your life. Or possibly view it as a classic that is full of wisdom but has its flaws, and as such enjoy the ride. After all, if the Tao cannot be named, then what I\u0026rsquo;ve read is not the Tao. On the negative side, I found it difficult to find much meaning or usefulness to me. I know this would have been considered the wrong way to take the book, so I suppose I will leave it until such a time when I am ready to know by not knowing.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/tao-te-ching-a-new-english-version/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eWhen a superior man hears of the Tao,\nhe immediately begins to embody it.\nWhen an average man hears of the Tao,\nhe half believes it, half doubts it.\nWhen a foolish man hears of the Tao,\nhe laughs out loud.\nIf he didn\u0026rsquo;t laugh it wouldn\u0026rsquo;t be the Tao.  -41\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor my first read through (assuming there might be more) without much research I picked up Stephen Mitchell\u0026rsquo;s version. Two things of note, one Stephen Mitchell was also the one who authored my version of Gilgamesh which was fantastic. Second, he makes clear that this is an English \u0026ldquo;version\u0026rdquo; and not straight translation of the Tao Te Ching. This book came with his own commentary at the end, as well as a transcript of an interview about the process of translation. I read once all the way through, and then re-read referencing his notes. The Tao Te Ching itself is similar to the Old Testament in that its actual authors are lost to history. It appears to have been put together from various text around 250BC. The assumed author Laozi or Lao Tzu is a person we know next to nothing about, in fact he may not even exist. His name adds to this mystery by being translated as \u0026ldquo;old teacher\u0026rdquo;. That being said there are now over 250 translations of the text and its 81 short chapters.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Tao Te Ching"},{"content":"Summary\nThis book looks into what is known as the Bronze Age collapse. There was an interim between the Bronze and Iron ages where highly connected systems of trade and communication went dark. Cline tries to investigate various theories as to why this happened. Long story short, it was a lot of things. There was a mega drought, or more likely two mega droughts which together spanned 150 years. This was no doubt part of the reason why certain tribes had to migrate escalating tensions. There is some evidence of earthquake storms happening around the same time, which are caused by two tectonic plates who won\u0026rsquo;t stop dancing. There were signs of internal rebellion, no doubt exacerbated by the famine. All single things that on their own could be survived, combined into a perfect storm causing a complete collapse of the interconnected Mediterranean world. The date picked to represent the culmination of this collapse is 1177, but this is just a neat handle, much like the term Bronze Age. The actual collapse probably took over 50 years.\nThoughts\nI was brought here by a Hardcore History episode, Dan Carlin talked about the Bronze Age collapse and the mysteries surrounding it. For a long time, people blamed the collapse on the invasion of \u0026ldquo;the sea peoples\u0026rdquo;. That sounded really fun, so I looked for a book about it, and came across this one. Ironically Cline unintentionally takes Carlin to task for spreading a story that has since been proven wrong. There was a clay tablet discovered in a kiln from an archeological dig with the following message:\nMy father, the enemy ships are already here, they have set fire to my towns and have done very great damage in the country. My father, did you not know that all my troops were stationed in the Hittite country, and that all my ships are still stationed in Lycia and have not yet returned? So that the country is abandoned to itself \u0026hellip; Consider this my father, there are seven enemy ships that have come and done very great damage. Now if there are more enemy ships let me know about them so that I can decide what to do\u0026quot; [or \u0026ldquo;know the worst]\nThis message was written by the ruler of Ugarit (a city on the Mediterranean coast of Syria) to the King of Alashiya. The theory was that perhaps this message was found in the kiln because the city was sacked before the message could be sent. This makes for a great story, but recent evidence seems to cast doubts on this story, making for a softcore history moment. This book has some fairly interesting stories and investigations in it similar to the above, but overall, not a page turner. I think for a non-specialist, it is probably a waste of time. If the Bronze Age collapse interests you, it would probably be faster to read an article that has summarized the best guesses in 15 minutes vs wading into the minutia and weighing each of the hypothesis against each other. This book did make me want to learn more about the old-world kingdoms, so mission accomplished on that front! In the introduction and epilogue Cline says that there are lessons we can learn, as there are many similarities between our globalized network and that of the late Bronze Age. He points out things like COVID as potential events that could have precipitated a collapse and that we would do well to learn as much from these old catastrophes as possible. He ends on a somewhat optimistic note where he says it might be possible, but I (and probably he) was not convinced. Time will tell, but for all our sakes, let\u0026rsquo;s hope the next collapse isn\u0026rsquo;t scheduled anytime soon.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/1177-b-c-the-year-civilization-collapsed-turning-points-in-ancient-history-1/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis book looks into what is known as the Bronze Age collapse. There was an interim between the Bronze and Iron ages where highly connected systems of trade and communication went dark. Cline tries to investigate various theories as to why this happened. Long story short, it was a lot of things. There was a mega drought, or more likely two mega droughts which together spanned 150 years. This was no doubt part of the reason why certain tribes had to migrate escalating tensions. There is some evidence of earthquake storms happening around the same time, which are caused by two tectonic plates who won\u0026rsquo;t stop dancing. There were signs of internal rebellion, no doubt exacerbated by the famine. All single things that on their own could be survived, combined into a perfect storm causing a complete collapse of the interconnected Mediterranean world. The date picked to represent the culmination of this collapse is 1177, but this is just a neat handle, much like the term Bronze Age. The actual collapse probably took over 50 years.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"1177 B.C."},{"content":"You shouldn\u0026rsquo;t judge a book by its cover, but I checked this out based on the title alone. Who wouldn\u0026rsquo;t want to read a book titled \u0026ldquo;The Golden Ass\u0026rdquo;?\nSummary\nThe main character Lucius is obsessed with magic. Through a series of events he ends up accidentally being transformed into an ass. Evidently, this is the only entire novel that has survived from ancient Rome. The style is that of a main story with many short stories injected by various devices such as someone retelling a rumor, campfire stories etc.\nThoughts\nWritten in ~200AD I have to say I was surprised by this novel\u0026hellip;this book is racy! You have most of the stereotypical pornographic genres present: strangers, stepmoms, bestiality, wives cheating while the husband is nearby etc. etc. As an example, in one story a man comes back from a dinner party that was abruptly canceled because the host found out that his wife was cheating on him, only to find out that the wife he was telling this story to was only minutes before having her own tryst with a young-ish boy. Upon this discovery the man \u0026ldquo;spends the night\u0026rdquo; with the boy and then beats him the next morning throwing him out of the house. There are more than just humorous sex stories, as while Lucius is a donkey he gets bought and sold many times and as a result gets to live many different lives through the daily routines of his owners. Slap stick, or more accurately skewer stick humor is a near constant ingredient of the stories, with characters being burnt, stabbed, tortured, and eviscerated to great comic effect. I\u0026rsquo;ve read that there is a lot of word play with meter and rhymes that doesn\u0026rsquo;t survive translation, which is a shame, but this won\u0026rsquo;t be the book that makes me learn Latin. The tone and morbid playfulness remind me of Cervantes or even Dickens at times. There is an unexplainable optimism in the writing which no longer exists in modern authors. The subject matter is dark and brutal, but you won\u0026rsquo;t find the cynicism of post WW1 authors or feel the burden of the great existential writers. There is a distinct lack of interiority of the characters, no turning inward, but all oriented outward. The psychology is childlike, and straight-forward. The end of the book felt somewhat abrupt to me. The main character makes an interesting general prayer to the goddess that is known by many names, the one who picks up the phone is Isis. She tells him he will be transformed back into a human and also tells him to join a mystery cult in her honor. This ending feels like an advertisement or tract of sorts. Lucius tells you as much as he can about his experiences, which due to the renowned secrecy of the mystery cults isn\u0026rsquo;t much. As a trailer of sorts, it definitely leaves you wanting to know more. It seemed like a strange addendum to such a surface level story but did serve as a nice peaceful ending to what amounted to a series of unfortunate events. Overall, entertaining, recommend, but not real high on the list.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-golden-ass/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eYou shouldn\u0026rsquo;t judge a book by its cover, but I checked this out based on the title alone. Who wouldn\u0026rsquo;t want to read a book titled \u0026ldquo;The Golden Ass\u0026rdquo;?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe main character Lucius is obsessed with magic. Through a series of events he ends up accidentally being transformed into an ass. Evidently, this is the only entire novel that has survived from ancient Rome. The style is that of a main story with many short stories injected by various devices such as someone retelling a rumor, campfire stories etc.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Golden Ass"},{"content":"Summary\nDawkins argues that the fundamental unit of natural selection is at a gene level. He then continues to build the world from single genes into what we see today, explaining why many different behaviors that are confusing at first, when examined from the \u0026ldquo;gene\u0026rsquo;s eye view\u0026rdquo; they start to make sense. If you have heard of Darwin, then odds are you\u0026rsquo;ve heard the phrase \u0026ldquo;survival of the fittest\u0026rdquo;, but the question that this statement raises is, survival of what? The fittest claw? The fittest lion? The fittest pride? The fittest species? Dawkins makes the case that what is surviving is the gene and for this to work he defines gene slightly different than a geneticist would. He says a gene is the smallest single or collection of chromosomal material that lasts enough generations to act as a unit of natural selection. An easily understandable example would be the gene for blue eyes. On the face of it this definition seems circular, by definition he can\u0026rsquo;t be wrong. Genes — segments of chromosomal material — are the smallest trait-carrying units we know of, so if natural selection exists, it must start there. One might be tempted to ask why he didn\u0026rsquo;t define genes as a group or single quark that exists together long enough to be a unit of natural selection, but he spends a fair bit of time expanding this definition into less of a tautology and more of a theory. One interesting question the comes up is if natural selection is at the gene level and logically therefore all genes are acting selfishly (anthropomorphizing to help us think about the situation), then why would they band together with competing genes to form flesh suits, or elm trees? To answer this he brings in the concepts of replicators and vehicles. Another term he uses throughout the book was survival machines, this was a clever choice as it applies to anything that is alive, plants, animals, etc. Dawkins says that genes are the replicators and survival machines are their vehicles. So since we are already anthropomorphizing, I don\u0026rsquo;t think it would be too much of a stretch to picture a chromosome behind the wheel of a car on a speeding highway trying not to die, the car in this case would anything from single celled amoeba, to a giraffe. When we come back to reality of course this does not work in this way, as a single gene has next to no control over where a bat is going, or over the next word I type. But Dawkins chooses to zoom in on the \u0026ldquo;next to nothing\u0026rdquo; influence, because if you put enough next to nothings together, you just might have something!\nIndividuals are not stable things, they are fleeting. Chromosomes too are shuffled into oblivion, like hands of cards soon after they are dealt. But the cards themselves survive the shuffling. The cards are the genes. The genes are not destroyed by crossing-over, they merely change partners and march on. Of course they march on. That is their business. They are the replicators and we are their survival machines. When we have served our purpose we are cast aside. But genes are denizens of geological time: genes are forever.\nThere is much, much more in this book, but at risk of making a map the size of the continent, I will end this summary with some fascinating points this book makes.\nWith sexual reproduction, there is a perfect 50/50 split of the father and mother\u0026rsquo;s genes. I learned this in grade school but getting down to a chromosomal level this hit me in a new way. Your genes are reliant on you to keep them safe, stop texting and driving! There are two types of equilibriums in groups. One is the optimal equilibrium where every individual gets the best possible outcome to decisions. The other is a stable equilibrium which is signified by the fact that it can\u0026rsquo;t be exploited. The act of sex is initially an equal investment. The egg and the sperm, the inequality comes from incubation. In a rare exception for certain fish, the eggs have to be fertilized after they are ejected, therefore the males end up carrying the lion\u0026rsquo;s share of parental responsibility. This of course cascades into larger mating strategies. The altruism in social insects like bees and ants could be explained by the large majority of participants being sterile, in combination with their interesting haplodiploid system of sex determination which makes the average hive member closer genetically to each other than is normal. Thoughts\nThe first chapter \u0026ldquo;Why are People\u0026rdquo; has a quote from a zoologist who\u0026rsquo;s answer to the question \u0026ldquo;What is man?\u0026rdquo; responded with: \u0026ldquo;The point I want to make now is that all attempts to answer that question before 1859 are worthless and that we will be better off if we ignore them completely\u0026rdquo;. Which Dawkins in a note extends to the questions \u0026ldquo;What are we for?\u0026rdquo;. This is of course a very strong way to start off a book, and his tone seldom lightens. Due to this fact there are times when it is difficult to not get angry at the pomposity, of course the flip side of the coin is that he makes so many good points and is very exacting with his logic. You might get angry but will surely have trouble coming up with coherent responses. Even though I\u0026rsquo;ve read books from pessimists like Schopenhauer and Ligotti, I think this book might be more cynical. It is hard not to be slightly depressed when altruism is broken down into a mathematical equation. On the other hand, the ancient edict to know thyself shouldn\u0026rsquo;t be given up on just because the answers are less romantic than we like. In the end, if I had to make my uneducated guess, I would say we don\u0026rsquo;t quite know enough about traits. I am unsure (again probably due to lack of understanding) if DNA can bear the weight that Dawkins puts on its back. Even though the book was full of interesting insights it was dry at points and took effort to stay focused. I am glad I read this book.\nPeople/Arthur Schopenhauer People/Thomas Ligotti People/Richard Dawkins\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-selfish-gene/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDawkins argues that the fundamental unit of natural selection is at a gene level. He then continues to build the world from single genes into what we see today, explaining why many different behaviors that are confusing at first, when examined from the \u0026ldquo;gene\u0026rsquo;s eye view\u0026rdquo; they start to make sense. If you have heard of Darwin, then odds are you\u0026rsquo;ve heard the phrase \u0026ldquo;survival of the fittest\u0026rdquo;, but the question that this statement raises is, survival of what? The fittest claw? The fittest lion? The fittest pride? The fittest species? Dawkins makes the case that what is surviving is the gene and for this to work he defines gene slightly different than a geneticist would. He says a gene is the smallest single or collection of chromosomal material that lasts enough generations to act as a unit of natural selection. An easily understandable example would be the gene for blue eyes. On the face of it this definition seems circular, by definition he can\u0026rsquo;t be wrong.  Genes — segments of chromosomal material — are the smallest trait-carrying units we know of, so if natural selection exists, it must start there. One might be tempted to ask why he didn\u0026rsquo;t define genes as a group or single quark that exists together long enough to be a unit of natural selection, but he spends a fair bit of time expanding this definition into less of a tautology and more of a theory. One interesting question the comes up is if natural selection is at the gene level and logically therefore all genes are acting selfishly (anthropomorphizing to help us think about the situation), then why would they band together with competing genes to form flesh suits, or elm trees? To answer this he brings in the concepts of replicators and vehicles. Another term he uses throughout the book was survival machines, this was a clever choice as it applies to anything that is alive, plants, animals, etc. Dawkins says that genes are the replicators and survival machines are their vehicles. So since we are already anthropomorphizing, I don\u0026rsquo;t think it would be too much of a stretch to picture a chromosome behind the wheel of a car on a speeding highway trying not to die, the car in this case would anything from single celled amoeba, to a giraffe. When we come back to reality of course this does not work in this way, as a single gene has next to no control over where a bat is going, or over the next word I type. But Dawkins chooses to zoom in on the \u0026ldquo;next to nothing\u0026rdquo; influence, because if you put enough next to nothings together, you just might have something!\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Selfish Gene"},{"content":"Summary\nFollows the back-and-forth progress of \u0026ldquo;civilization\u0026rdquo; in the wild west, with an emphasis on the role Comanches played in that drama.\nThoughts\nThe strength of this book lies in the larger-than-life characters that this little bit of history provides. You have the tough as nails Mackenzie, who tenaciously chases the Comanches as they manage to outmaneuver every force the US government sends their way. You have Cythia Ann Parker, who was kidnapped by the Comanches and raised as one of their own and of course her son, Quanah, who is depicted as a fearless military genius. These characters will stay with me for a while. I am too illiterate to make comments about the historical voracity of the authors claims, but to a layman it seemed like he was even handed in his treatment of both sides. In our current cultural moment, he might have been too even handed. There are of course many things that struck me while going through this experience. One of the craziest things to me was the apparent mutation of Comanche culture when introduced to the horse. It was as if they had this latent superpower that was waiting around to be unlocked. From what Gwynne describes it sounds like their skills in horsemanship were only rivaled by the renowned riders of the Steppe. This book also made me realize that hidden in the \u0026ldquo;ugly duckling\u0026rdquo; troupe is a lie, and a somewhat insidious one at that. So you have a character that is somehow different from the group. Due to these differences that character gets mercilessly mocked and ostracized. A moment of transformation happens, not to the ugly duckling but to the ones viewing the ugly duckling. They realize that the ugly duckling is actually a swan, and as swan, in some senses their superior. The moral of the story of course is that differences are beautiful and should be embraced. Live your truth and others will eventually follow. Everyone has something that makes them special etc. etc. What I never realized is that there is a slight of hand in these stories that undercuts the moral. The real message of these stories is that group values are sacrosanct, immutable. The ugly duckling is now accepted, not because of some group realization, but from a re-categorization, that is to say that he was actually a beautiful swan the whole time. But what of the real ugly duckling? The ugly Betty that can\u0026rsquo;t take off her glasses. Herein lies the truth, to the group there is no rebirth, no accommodation. This was tragically played out in the life of Cythia Ann Parker; she is the true ugly duckling. Adopted by the same Comanches who orphaned her, she transforms into a Comanche, but when forcibly \u0026ldquo;rescued\u0026rdquo; by whites she cannot or will not transition back. As such she continues to her dying day to be a true oddity. Her son on the other hand, makes the transition into the whites\u0026rsquo; expected vision of him. He is accepted inasmuch as he can manage to become white. This book was a really interesting read and has my recommendation.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/empire-of-the-summer-moon-quanah-parker-and-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-comanches-the-most-powerful-indian-tribe-in-american-history/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollows the back-and-forth progress of \u0026ldquo;civilization\u0026rdquo; in the wild west, with an emphasis on the role Comanches played in that drama.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe strength of this book lies in the larger-than-life characters that this little bit of history provides. You have the tough as nails Mackenzie, who tenaciously chases the Comanches as they manage to outmaneuver every force the US government sends their way. You have Cythia Ann Parker, who was kidnapped by the Comanches and raised as one of their own and of course her son, Quanah, who is depicted as a fearless military genius. These characters will stay with me for a while. I am too illiterate to make comments about the historical voracity of the authors claims, but to a layman it seemed like he was even handed in his treatment of both sides. In our current cultural moment, he might have been too even handed. There are of course many things that struck me while going through this experience. One of the craziest things to me was the apparent mutation of Comanche culture when introduced to the horse. It was as if they had this latent superpower that was waiting around to be unlocked. From what Gwynne describes it sounds like their skills in horsemanship were only rivaled by the renowned riders of the Steppe. This book also made me realize that hidden in the \u0026ldquo;ugly duckling\u0026rdquo; troupe is a lie, and a somewhat insidious one at that. So you have a character that is somehow different from the group. Due to these differences that character gets mercilessly mocked and ostracized. A moment of transformation happens, not to the ugly duckling but to the ones viewing the ugly duckling. They realize that the ugly duckling is actually a swan, and as swan, in some senses their superior. The moral of the story of course is that differences are beautiful and should be embraced. Live your truth and others will eventually follow. Everyone has something that makes them special etc. etc. What I never realized is that there is a slight of hand in these stories that undercuts the moral. The real message of these stories is that group values are sacrosanct, immutable. The ugly duckling is now accepted, not because of some group realization, but from a re-categorization, that is to say that he was actually a beautiful swan the whole time. But what of the real ugly duckling? The ugly Betty that can\u0026rsquo;t take off her glasses. Herein lies the truth, to the group there is no rebirth, no accommodation. This was tragically played out in the life of Cythia Ann Parker; she is the true ugly duckling. Adopted by the same Comanches who orphaned her, she transforms into a Comanche, but when forcibly \u0026ldquo;rescued\u0026rdquo; by whites she cannot or will not transition back. As such she continues to her dying day to be a true oddity. Her son on the other hand, makes the transition into the whites\u0026rsquo; expected vision of him. He is accepted inasmuch as he can manage to become white. This book was a really interesting read and has my recommendation.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Empire of the Summer Moon"},{"content":"And if it be objected that we belong to a time of crude force our answer is : We stood with our feet in mud and blood, yet our faces were turned to things of exalted worth. And not one of that countless number who fell in our attacks fell for nothing.\nSummary\nStorm of Steel is the firsthand account of the German officer Ernst\u0026rsquo;s Junger\u0026rsquo;s time in the trenches during WW1.\nThoughts\nAlthough I wish he would have, Junger never goes into causes of the war, and therefore never justifies or condemns it. Instead, what makes the book worth reading is it is written by a rare breed, a man that got his time on the front lines in the worst of conditions and never became disenfranchised. In our era where we are inundated with explicitly antiwar books, it is easy to forget that being antiwar used to be a fringe position. This book reads more like the Iliad where the fighting is gory yet glorious. The glory of war is one of the casualties of mechanized conflict. It is hard to see the glory in huddling in mud pits waiting to be blown apart by a mixture of wood and steel that was fired by an unseen artillery\u0026rsquo;s piece. Yet even as Junger acknowledges this fact, he still finds glory in the brief flashes of bravery of men who refuse to be broken, or perhaps in a trench raid which still has the feel of ancient combat where warriors would go to make a name for themselves.\nlife has no depth of meaning except when it is pledged for an ideal\nOf course, now we cannot read a WW1 book and forget that it was shortly followed by a bigger and even more destructive war. This tinges the above quotation with a dark foreboding. Especially when closely followed by this quotation:\nTo-day we cannot understand the martyrs who threw themselves into the arena in a transport that lifted them even before their deaths beyond humanity, beyond every phase of pain and fear. Their faith no longer exercises a compelling force. When once it is no longer possible to understand how a man gives his life for his country— and the time will come — then all is over with that faith also, and the idea of the Fatherland is dead; and then, perhaps, we shall be envied, as we envy the saints their inward and irresistible strength. For all these great and solemn ideas bloom from a feeling that dwells in the blood and that cannot be forced. In the cold light of reason everything alike is a matter of expedience and sinks to the paltry and mean. It was our luck to live in the invisible rays of a feeling that filled the heart, and of this inestimable treasure we can never be deprived.\nWith words like this, you would think that his role in the Nazi party would be taken for granted, and it was. At least by the Nazis, it turns out he was offered a seat in parliament by the Nazis both before and after their rise to power, and both times he rejected the offer. He was no Bonhoeffer, but I was surprised to see how opposed to the Nazi party he turned out to be. Aside from the overall tone of the book, its contents are hardly unique anymore. Life in the trenches carried a morbid symmetry, the experiences were similar on both sides of the trench. Names and places change, but the ever-present specter of death doesn\u0026rsquo;t. For this reason, I wouldn\u0026rsquo;t put this high on your list unless the grinding, soul crushing, experience of WW1 trench warfare is what you are in the mood for.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/storm-of-steel/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eAnd if it be objected that we belong to a time of crude force our answer is : We stood with our feet in mud and blood, yet our faces were turned to things of exalted worth. And not one of that countless number who fell in our attacks fell for nothing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStorm of Steel is the firsthand account of the German officer Ernst\u0026rsquo;s Junger\u0026rsquo;s time in the trenches during WW1.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Storm of Steel"},{"content":"Summary\nSally Adee, a well-published science and technology journalist, writes her first book about a major shift she has been witnessing in biology, and it all has to do with electricity. She opens the book with a brief history of what we know about electricity and how we discovered what we do know. Spoiler alert: it includes a lot of frogs. The main thing she wanted to highlight was that during the beginning of research into electrical phenomena, the field quickly branched into two directions. One branch focused on what was called animal electricity, while the other focused more on non-animal electricity. At this early stage of research, neither branch had reliable tools to conduct empirical science. There was a high degree of speculation in both fields, but with the breakthrough of the first battery, this quickly changed, at least for non-animal electricity. Suddenly, there was a reliable way to create, measure, and distribute this mysterious energy. When it came to animal electricity, there were no such tools to reliably create results, yet the claims held an intuitive weight and were picked up by many scientists and many more quacks. Eventually, there were so many scandals involving wild, unsubstantiated claims that the whole field of animal electricity was dismissed as pseudoscience. Technology kept improving, and eventually, measurement tools got precise enough to handle the tiny charges created by biological organisms, vindicating much of the early animal electricity scientists. However, their theories about how electricity actually worked in the body were correct only in the broadest sense. Much of the theories had to be thrown out or reworked in the one step forward, two steps back investigation of science. So what does this promising approach to biology offer us? Quite a bit. Scientists have utilized it for a while to stimulate hearts with pacemakers or calm down brains with epilepsy. Beyond this, being able to manipulate our electrome (as Adee calls it) holds tantalizing promises of faster wound healing, limb regeneration, reversing cancer, and slowing aging. The catch is that the system is much more complicated and interconnected than any of man-made electronics. Adee explains that instead of simple positive-negative wires exchanging electricity in our body, we utilize charge differentials in chemicals themselves. Each cell in your body acts like a little battery with the capacity to become more negatively or positively charged than its surroundings. Each cell also has ion channels that allow specific molecules in or out, depending on the state of the overall system. The takeaway here is we have only relatively recently begun to realize the role that electrical charges play in the nervous system. Now, we are discovering that this same mechanism for communication extends through every cell in your body. At this point, we don\u0026rsquo;t know enough to manipulate these distributed electrical systems precisely, but being able to do so looks like the biggest hurdle between us and a medical revolution.\nThoughts\nI came across this book because I had heard it referenced during an NPR interview with the author, and one of her articles was mentioned in Harari\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Homo Deus.\u0026rdquo; In the interview, Adee discussed a lab finding by some scientists that sounded truly like science fiction. They were able, with the help of specially formulated dye, to literally see the shape a developing tadpole would take. The scientists were watching some frog embryos develop and, building off previous research that indicated cells moved according to electromagnetic fields, they attempted to insert a dye activated by a certain voltage level. By doing this, they were able to see the outline and placement of the frog\u0026rsquo;s eyes before the cells dutifully went to where they were supposed to go. Ultimately constructing the eye over where the voltage \u0026lsquo;outline\u0026rsquo; had been. The second story involved a headset that enabled her to learn how to be a sharpshooter \u0026ldquo;instantaneously.\u0026rdquo; The science related to both of these stories is still very much in flux , but either way, they make for good dinner conversation. Unfortunately, these two stories are the high points in the book, so reading it felt a little less fun knowing about them beforehand and not really having anything else that equaled their \u0026lsquo;stickiness\u0026rsquo;. Beyond that, her writing style was exactly what I would expect in a short science article, but was a bit much for a three-hundred-page book. The casual tone is highly digestible in short articles, but I typically read a book for different reasons than I would read an article, and so it didn\u0026rsquo;t quite work for me.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/we-are-electric-inside-the-200-year-hunt-for-our-bodys-bioelectric-code-and-what-the-future-holds/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSally Adee, a well-published science and technology journalist, writes her first book about a major shift she has been witnessing in biology, and it all has to do with electricity. She opens the book with a brief history of what we know about electricity and how we discovered what we do know. Spoiler alert: it includes a lot of frogs. The main thing she wanted to highlight was that during the beginning of research into electrical phenomena, the field quickly branched into two directions. One branch focused on what was called animal electricity, while the other focused more on non-animal electricity.\nAt this early stage of research, neither branch had reliable tools to conduct empirical science. There was a high degree of speculation in both fields, but with the breakthrough of the first battery, this quickly changed, at least for non-animal electricity. Suddenly, there was a reliable way to create, measure, and distribute this mysterious energy. When it came to animal electricity, there were no such tools to reliably create results, yet the claims held an intuitive weight and were picked up by many scientists and many more quacks. Eventually, there were so many scandals involving wild, unsubstantiated claims that the whole field of animal electricity was dismissed as pseudoscience.\nTechnology kept improving, and eventually, measurement tools got precise enough to handle the tiny charges created by biological organisms, vindicating much of the early animal electricity scientists. However, their theories about how electricity actually worked in the body were correct only in the broadest sense. Much of the theories had to be thrown out or reworked in the one step forward, two steps back investigation of science.\nSo what does this promising approach to biology offer us? Quite a bit. Scientists have utilized it for a while to stimulate hearts with pacemakers or calm down brains with epilepsy. Beyond this, being able to manipulate our electrome (as Adee calls it) holds tantalizing promises of faster wound healing, limb regeneration, reversing cancer, and slowing aging. The catch is that the system is much more complicated and interconnected than any of man-made electronics.\nAdee explains that instead of simple positive-negative wires exchanging electricity in our body, we utilize charge differentials in chemicals themselves. Each cell in your body acts like a little battery with the capacity to become more negatively or positively charged than its surroundings. Each cell also has ion channels that allow specific molecules in or out, depending on the state of the overall system. The takeaway here is we have only relatively recently begun to realize the role that electrical charges play in the nervous system. Now, we are discovering that this same mechanism for communication extends through every cell in your body. At this point, we don\u0026rsquo;t know enough to manipulate these distributed electrical systems precisely, but being able to do so looks like the biggest hurdle between us and a medical revolution.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"We Are Electric- Inside the 200-Year Hunt for Our Body's Bioelectric Code, and What the Future Holds"},{"content":"I\u0026rsquo;ve been reading this a lot recently, for my own pleasure of course, and I can\u0026rsquo;t help but picture a dark clear night in the deserted streets of Moscow. A homeless Ivan leans back emptying the contents of a clear glass bottle into his bottomless stomach. He trips over a curb and falls, landing on his back. His head cracks against something sharp and solid. Tasting metal in his mouth, he feels something warm start to trickle down his back. Unable to move he stares into the dark sky. He can only see the brightest of stars, the rest, like so many potential futures left unrealized, are hidden by light pollution. In the distance he can hear a train\u0026rsquo;s lonely call, the walls of the sleeping city echo back their ghostly replies. While nearby, giant smokestacks exhale their black life into this last night of nights. Completely alone, his voice barely above a whisper he says\nGoodnight nobody Goodnight old lady whispering hush Goodnight stars Goodnight air Goodnight noises everywhere\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/goodnight-moon/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI\u0026rsquo;ve been reading this a lot recently, for my own pleasure of course, and I can\u0026rsquo;t help but picture a dark clear night in the deserted streets of Moscow. A homeless Ivan leans back emptying the contents of a clear glass bottle into his bottomless stomach. He trips over a curb and falls, landing on his back. His head cracks against something sharp and solid. Tasting metal in his mouth, he feels something warm start to trickle down his back. Unable to move he stares into the dark sky. He can only see the brightest of stars, the rest, like so many potential futures left unrealized, are hidden by light pollution. In the distance he can hear a train\u0026rsquo;s lonely call, the walls of the sleeping city echo back their ghostly replies. While nearby, giant smokestacks exhale their black life into this last night of nights. Completely alone, his voice barely above a whisper he says\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Goodnight Moon"},{"content":"Also published as a book review.\nThoughts\nThis book was thoroughly enlightening but quite dry and dense and around 850 pages. This is partially why I have written such an extensive summary hoping to convey some of the themes that I think are important to know without just saying \u0026ldquo;read the book\u0026rdquo;. When it comes to topics like morality it is easy to have an axe to grind. Lecky provides what appears to me to have been an even-handed recounting of this slice of history. This book is full of useful information and interesting context that is often lost when trying to understand the events of history. I am sure there are mistakes and misunderstandings, but there is so much else that is of value that what few mistakes there are will be dwarfed by the new perspective given to the reader. I found myself often copying large sections of the text while in other parts leaving surprised questions marks when a new fact that sounded preposterous turned out to be true. If you have the time, this book is worth it.\nSummary\nOne of Churchill and Twain\u0026rsquo;s favorite books, William Edward Hartpole Lecky sets out to trace the evolution of morality in Europe from Augustus to Charlemagne. This roughly starts his investigation around 0AD and ends around 800AD. The goal of the book is to disentangle mythologic shifts of morality and place them in their natural context. Traditionally we learn history as a string of critical events. This is necessary to gain some sense of orientation but often context is lost. This makes those critical events appear to have arisen on their own, they then can take mythical proportion in the collective consciousness slowly becoming disconnected from the facts that precipitated them. The book is split into two volumes, the first addressing the natural history of moral speculation and then investigating the Roman empire during its pagan phase. The second volume picks up with Constantine after he had just instituted Christianity as the national religion of the Roman empire. The book ends with a brief survey of how women were treated in the various eras covered.\n1.1 Natural History of Morals\nBefore analyzing Europe\u0026rsquo;s moral development, Lecky wanted to lay out what he considered to be the two main approaches to explaining the basis of morality.\nUtilitarianism Like the name implies, a utilitarian bases morality on a utility calculation. This approach bases morality on what will produce the most happiness for the acting agent. It is therefore by definition an egocentric approach to morality.\nIntuitionalism Intuitionists argue that there is an inherent moral \u0026ldquo;sense” for duty and moral obligation, which operates in many cases while ignoring the consequences that are the basis of the utilitarian\u0026rsquo;s calculation.\nLecky argues that while it is possible to often come up with selfish reasons for the most apparently virtuous actions, there are three main issues with this approach that push him towards Intuitionalism. The first is that our language makes a clear distinction in how it addresses self-interested actions versus how it refers to virtuous actions. This linguistic distinction indicates a divide that is difficult to explain from the utilitarian view. Secondly, the types of actions that are considered virtuous often are considered less virtuous in proportion to the gain a person gets from them. Lastly, virtues are often diametrically opposed to the \u0026ldquo;happiness\u0026rdquo; of the acting agent. Although initially religion would appear to be on the side of the Intuitionalist, Lecky is quick to point out that often the religious ethic is merely a calculation to avoid eternal torment. Perhaps a good example of the non-utilitarian action Lecky has in mind is the mother who would throw herself into hell to spare her child. It is these types of actions that appeal to a moral aesthetic sense that is difficult to understand from a strictly utilitarian point of view.\n1.2 Pagan Empire\nLecky starts his investigation into European morals by giving a brief overview of the Greek influence. Rome conquered Greece, but Rome itself was largely an unsophisticated civilization. The Romans, upon encountering the sophisticated Greek philosophical tradition, became acutely aware of the limitations of their own provincial, agriculturally rooted worldview. Recognizing the richness and depth of Greek thought, they swiftly embraced and assimilated it into their culture. The Greek intellectual landscape was marked by a remarkable diversity of ideas, largely fostered by their polytheistic beliefs. This religious plurality naturally cultivated an environment of intellectual tolerance, allowing for a wide spectrum of philosophical perspectives to flourish side by side. As philosophical schools matured, they fostered increasingly skeptical thinkers who began to question popular legends and traditional sacrificial practices. These intellectuals were drawn to more pantheistic worldviews, that envisioned the cosmos as a unified, divine whole. This shift in perspective created fertile ground for the emergence and flourishing of Stoic philosophy. Almost at the same time, essentially atheistic material schools like those of the Epicureans were emerging creating a complicated dynamic world of thoughts for the individual to choose from. This rise of skepticism and philosophic rigor caused the morals of the philosophers to reach new heights of coherence but had what can only be described as a degenerative effect on the populace at large. Skepticism wasn\u0026rsquo;t the only factor in the corruption of Rome, Romans had long held to simple traditional values like discipline, civic duty and honesty. Yet new successful conquests brought in large amounts of luxury and wealth undermining these conservative values. At the same time, many Roman emperors sank into cruelty and despotism, some, like Nero and Caligula, becoming so notorious that their names are almost synonymous with brutality and excess. This produced a large amount of disenfranchisement of the common people leading to an increase in public distrust which revealed itself as political instability. The public’s discontentment caused leaders to make irreversibly bad decisions to keep the populace on their side, most famously with the bread and circuses. Initially intended to allay the difficulties produced by political instability or times of crisis, free bread and entertainment became a permanent fixture of the Roman empire. The consequence was a populace that didn\u0026rsquo;t have any needs, creating a petulant and apathetic mood. Culminating in a possibly apocryphal tale of citizens during the sack of Rome not even leaving the arenas during the invasion. This complete societal collapse set the stage for a much-needed new psychic movement, Christianity. Christianity was able to integrate much of Stoic cosmogony and virtue ethic. More than this, it was also able to bring back the sense of reverence that had come from religious rites but had been undercut by the prevailing skepticism.\n1.3 The Conversion of Rome\nThe first thing that strikes a historian of this era is the complete lack of \u0026ldquo;press coverage\u0026rdquo; for the developing Christian movement. Signaling that for some reason the leading philosophers like Plutarch and Pliny didn\u0026rsquo;t see Christianity as something worth recording. With hindsight this was obviously a mistake, Lecky argues that the main reason for this oversight was caused by the focus of the top writers. Morality had largely been removed from the sphere of religion and instead was dictated by philosophy. Christianity\u0026rsquo;s reversal of this, in the minds of the leading philosophers discredited it, relegating it to an unimportant fad that was eclipsed by what were manifestly larger issues of a crumbling empire. The next question is how did such a small movement out of a small province in a huge empire come to ascendancy? The two main approaches in this are either an over emphasis of the pre-existing alignment between Stoicism and Christianity or a reliance on the miracles being so evident that the populace quickly came to adopt the miraculous new religion on the block. Lecky finds both explanations lacking.\nPagan Religion vs Christianity Stoicism and Christianity aren\u0026rsquo;t as compatible as they might seem at first glance. In fact, Christianity\u0026rsquo;s dogged emphasis on the potential rewards or punishments in the afterlife are exactly counter to Stoic and Epicurean aims. One of the main goals of Stoicism and Epicurus was to strip death of its terrifying aspects, while Christianity capitalized on them. The relationship between existing Pagan philosophy and the new Christian philosophy is fraught, riddled with plagiarism and inconsistencies. One church father would bend over backwards trying to bridge that gap between Christian texts and Platonic doctrine, while others would decry any similarities as inconsequential. The result was to sometimes steal philosophical concepts claiming them under the banner of divine revelation while other pagan concepts were thrown on the pyre as heresy.\nMiracles The spread of Christianity is often understood by theologians as verification for the miracles that were witnessed by the early apostles. The argument is as follows: Christianity claims many miracles to have taken place, we find this incredible in the literal sense of the word, yet the people in Rome did not. Therefore, the evidence to support these miracles must have been so credible as to surpass any level of skepticism that the pagans of the time had and win them over to the Christian movement. This argument sounds plausible on its face but is made less so by its historic context. One must often keep in mind that the common Roman wasn\u0026rsquo;t a skeptic from the enlightenment age. Pagan religion was full of supernatural events from omens to emperors performing miracles. Miraculous claims were not out of the ordinary nor were they the subject of rigorous investigation. Instead, they were often taken at face value. Thus, the plethora of miraculous events says less about the veracity of Christianity than it does about the culture from which it emerged.\nLecky\u0026rsquo;s Conclusion Lecky attributes the rise of Christianity to a few factors. First the content of the Christian message which was in many ways a reversal of previous religious claims conferring an importance to the \u0026ldquo;everyman\u0026rdquo; in a way not before seen. Secondly, the empire was catastrophically failing both politically and morally. Among other things you also had the magnetic example of early Christian martyrs which stirred the long dormant moral ideals in an uninspired citizenry. This revolution in thought was cemented by a series of high-ranking conversions leading up to Constantine who designated Christianity as the national religion.\n2.1 From Constantine to Charlemagne\nThe focus of this section is largely on the effects that the Christian ethic had on Roman society. The most noticeable being a dramatic rise in the perceived value of life. Christianity completely suppressed the gladiatorial games and drastically shifted the perception of things like abortion and infanticide. The early Christian ethic was one of nonresistance and therefore things like capital punishment and serving in the military were discouraged. Christianity reunited religious ceremony with philosophy and morality allowing them to speak in multiple registers reaching all social classes simultaneously. While not originally taking such a bleak view of human nature as later Church fathers like Augustine did, the early shift of focus from virtuous ideal to sin and remorse set the groundwork for this later focus. The previous Roman ideal was a sort of civically minded Hercules that was proud, loyal, patriotic, and bound by his duty. The Christian ideal on the other hand was humble, charitable and completely disconnected from the world. This ideal became embodied by the hermit monk who lived in the desert fed by birds and visited by angels. It should be recognized that many of the various charitable institutions like hospitals, orphanages and poorhouses owe their conception to this era. From the start of Christianity there were systems set in place whereby the guilty were disciplined by the clergy. This early version of a church judiciary would come to fruition in the Catholic church. Another passion that became evident from the early Christian followers was their intolerance for those outside of the faith. Their abhorrence of physical violence on this earthly plane was more than made up for by the tortures they would imagine heretics experiencing in the afterlife. Eventually imaginations of future punishment were not enough. Instead, the church saw fit to bring the heretic a taste of their future torment in this life. Monotheism brought with it an undivided loyalty that bred a type of fanaticism foreign to Rome. The culture up until that point was largely polytheistic, this produced a spirit of tolerance that allowed each to follow \u0026ldquo;their god\u0026rdquo;. Conversely, there were no room for \u0026ldquo;many ways to god\u0026rdquo; in the Christian faith. This feeling was not limited to other faiths but was also inwardly directed engendering endless division, sects, and vitriolic hatred. The emphasis Christianity had on orthodoxy and the energy with which they crushed dissenting belief created an environment where doubts and questions were sins and things to be avoided. Where the highest virtue was to take the words of the bishop as those of a god. It is hard to imagine a more important ingredient for the subsequent dark ages. This situation was made worse by the recurrence of the ascetic ideal which was disconnected from worldly affairs. It is all well and good to be too heavenly minded for earthly good when you are the minority, but when you are the state religion the reality principle at some point must interpose. Thus imperceptibly, there was a shift in the humble charitable monk to that of the chivalrous knight. Charlemagne became the embodiment of this ideal and is where Lecky\u0026rsquo;s investigations end.\n2.2 The Position of Women\nIn the shortest and probably least rewarding sections of the book, Lecky investigates the ways that women were treated throughout the history we\u0026rsquo;ve been investigating. He gives a cursory overview of the evolution and changes of sexual norms from Pagan times and contrasting them with Christian times. The major takeaway is that neither culture provided a completely hospitable place for women in general. Both in Pagan and Christian times women occupied a secondary subservient class. While Pagans allowed women to reach somewhat higher in society, Christian culture provided more protections ranging from stricter penalties on profligate men to better financial safety nets for widows. Lecky makes the argument that the station of women was the worst during \u0026ldquo;barbarous\u0026rdquo; times. In this state women were on the same level as cattle. The introduction of the bride price, which seems appalling now, was an improvement. If you could increase the investment of a man in their property, they would be likely to treat them better. The idea of monogamy further improved the \u0026ldquo;lot of women\u0026rdquo;, in that it provided the material conditions for long lasting affectionate relationships to grow between husband and wife. This was undercut by the asymmetry that Greeks treated extra-marital affairs and treated women as citizens. But the rise in loving relationships eventually manifested in more calls for equal treatment as seen by later Roman legal reforms. Today, Christianity is not seen as a champion of women rights, but Lecky claims that in many ways it picked up the torch of gradual progress that the Romans had made and kept going. His main arguments are that while Pagan religion emphasized what would be traditionally considered as masculine traits excepting virginity, the Christian ethic added quite a few stereotypically female virtues for women to idealize. Although this may seem a silly distinction, it is backed up by the large numbers to which Roman women flocked to the early church. It is also demonstrated by the fact that the second most important figure in Christianity is the Virgin Mary. Providing such an ideal, raised the value of women in communal consciousness moving them much closer to an equal footing than in Roman times. One large draw back Christianity had on women was the absolute repugnance the early church fathers had for anything sexual. They were so anti-sex that even within the confines of marriage the idea became permeated with shame. This did much to tarnish the relationship between husband and wife, making the ideal celibacy. As remarked earlier, the total impracticality of such ideas eventually forced a slow change in the message that the church had on marriage, but this change would take hundreds of years and many of its effects can still be seen.\n#book\n#morality #historical_morality #european_history #christianity #stoicism #rome_to_charlemagne #pagan_vs_christian_ethics #utilitarianism_vs_intuitionalism #philosophical_history #role_of_women #dark_ages #moral_evolution #church_influence #william_lecky #roman_empire #early_christianity #cultural_shift #historical_analysis #moral_speculation\nWilliam H. Lecky\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/essays/history-of-european-morals-from-augustus-to-charlemagne/","summary":"Long-form notes on Lecky’s moral history—the same piece as under Reviews, listed here as an essay.","title":"History of European morals from Augustus to Charlemagne"},{"content":"Also available as a long essay.\nThoughts\nThis book was thoroughly enlightening but quite dry and dense and around 850 pages. This is partially why I have written such an extensive summary hoping to convey some of the themes that I think are important to know without just saying \u0026ldquo;read the book\u0026rdquo;. When it comes to topics like morality it is easy to have an axe to grind. Lecky provides what appears to me to have been an even-handed recounting of this slice of history. This book is full of useful information and interesting context that is often lost when trying to understand the events of history. I am sure there are mistakes and misunderstandings, but there is so much else that is of value that what few mistakes there are will be dwarfed by the new perspective given to the reader. I found myself often copying large sections of the text while in other parts leaving surprised questions marks when a new fact that sounded preposterous turned out to be true. If you have the time, this book is worth it.\nSummary\nOne of Churchill and Twain\u0026rsquo;s favorite books, William Edward Hartpole Lecky sets out to trace the evolution of morality in Europe from Augustus to Charlemagne. This roughly starts his investigation around 0AD and ends around 800AD. The goal of the book is to disentangle mythologic shifts of morality and place them in their natural context. Traditionally we learn history as a string of critical events. This is necessary to gain some sense of orientation but often context is lost. This makes those critical events appear to have arisen on their own, they then can take mythical proportion in the collective consciousness slowly becoming disconnected from the facts that precipitated them. The book is split into two volumes, the first addressing the natural history of moral speculation and then investigating the Roman empire during its pagan phase. The second volume picks up with Constantine after he had just instituted Christianity as the national religion of the Roman empire. The book ends with a brief survey of how women were treated in the various eras covered.\n1.1 Natural History of Morals\nBefore analyzing Europe\u0026rsquo;s moral development, Lecky wanted to lay out what he considered to be the two main approaches to explaining the basis of morality.\nUtilitarianism Like the name implies, a utilitarian bases morality on a utility calculation. This approach bases morality on what will produce the most happiness for the acting agent. It is therefore by definition an egocentric approach to morality.\nIntuitionalism Intuitionists argue that there is an inherent moral \u0026ldquo;sense” for duty and moral obligation, which operates in many cases while ignoring the consequences that are the basis of the utilitarian\u0026rsquo;s calculation.\nLecky argues that while it is possible to often come up with selfish reasons for the most apparently virtuous actions, there are three main issues with this approach that push him towards Intuitionalism. The first is that our language makes a clear distinction in how it addresses self-interested actions versus how it refers to virtuous actions. This linguistic distinction indicates a divide that is difficult to explain from the utilitarian view. Secondly, the types of actions that are considered virtuous often are considered less virtuous in proportion to the gain a person gets from them. Lastly, virtues are often diametrically opposed to the \u0026ldquo;happiness\u0026rdquo; of the acting agent. Although initially religion would appear to be on the side of the Intuitionalist, Lecky is quick to point out that often the religious ethic is merely a calculation to avoid eternal torment. Perhaps a good example of the non-utilitarian action Lecky has in mind is the mother who would throw herself into hell to spare her child. It is these types of actions that appeal to a moral aesthetic sense that is difficult to understand from a strictly utilitarian point of view.\n1.2 Pagan Empire\nLecky starts his investigation into European morals by giving a brief overview of the Greek influence. Rome conquered Greece, but Rome itself was largely an unsophisticated civilization. The Romans, upon encountering the sophisticated Greek philosophical tradition, became acutely aware of the limitations of their own provincial, agriculturally rooted worldview. Recognizing the richness and depth of Greek thought, they swiftly embraced and assimilated it into their culture. The Greek intellectual landscape was marked by a remarkable diversity of ideas, largely fostered by their polytheistic beliefs. This religious plurality naturally cultivated an environment of intellectual tolerance, allowing for a wide spectrum of philosophical perspectives to flourish side by side. As philosophical schools matured, they fostered increasingly skeptical thinkers who began to question popular legends and traditional sacrificial practices. These intellectuals were drawn to more pantheistic worldviews, that envisioned the cosmos as a unified, divine whole. This shift in perspective created fertile ground for the emergence and flourishing of Stoic philosophy. Almost at the same time, essentially atheistic material schools like those of the Epicureans were emerging creating a complicated dynamic world of thoughts for the individual to choose from. This rise of skepticism and philosophic rigor caused the morals of the philosophers to reach new heights of coherence but had what can only be described as a degenerative effect on the populace at large. Skepticism wasn\u0026rsquo;t the only factor in the corruption of Rome, Romans had long held to simple traditional values like discipline, civic duty and honesty. Yet new successful conquests brought in large amounts of luxury and wealth undermining these conservative values. At the same time, many Roman emperors sank into cruelty and despotism, some, like Nero and Caligula, becoming so notorious that their names are almost synonymous with brutality and excess. This produced a large amount of disenfranchisement of the common people leading to an increase in public distrust which revealed itself as political instability. The public’s discontentment caused leaders to make irreversibly bad decisions to keep the populace on their side, most famously with the bread and circuses. Initially intended to allay the difficulties produced by political instability or times of crisis, free bread and entertainment became a permanent fixture of the Roman empire. The consequence was a populace that didn\u0026rsquo;t have any needs, creating a petulant and apathetic mood. Culminating in a possibly apocryphal tale of citizens during the sack of Rome not even leaving the arenas during the invasion. This complete societal collapse set the stage for a much-needed new psychic movement, Christianity. Christianity was able to integrate much of Stoic cosmogony and virtue ethic. More than this, it was also able to bring back the sense of reverence that had come from religious rites but had been undercut by the prevailing skepticism.\n1.3 The Conversion of Rome\nThe first thing that strikes a historian of this era is the complete lack of \u0026ldquo;press coverage\u0026rdquo; for the developing Christian movement. Signaling that for some reason the leading philosophers like Plutarch and Pliny didn\u0026rsquo;t see Christianity as something worth recording. With hindsight this was obviously a mistake, Lecky argues that the main reason for this oversight was caused by the focus of the top writers. Morality had largely been removed from the sphere of religion and instead was dictated by philosophy. Christianity\u0026rsquo;s reversal of this, in the minds of the leading philosophers discredited it, relegating it to an unimportant fad that was eclipsed by what were manifestly larger issues of a crumbling empire. The next question is how did such a small movement out of a small province in a huge empire come to ascendancy? The two main approaches in this are either an over emphasis of the pre-existing alignment between Stoicism and Christianity or a reliance on the miracles being so evident that the populace quickly came to adopt the miraculous new religion on the block. Lecky finds both explanations lacking.\nPagan Religion vs Christianity Stoicism and Christianity aren\u0026rsquo;t as compatible as they might seem at first glance. In fact, Christianity\u0026rsquo;s dogged emphasis on the potential rewards or punishments in the afterlife are exactly counter to Stoic and Epicurean aims. One of the main goals of Stoicism and Epicurus was to strip death of its terrifying aspects, while Christianity capitalized on them. The relationship between existing Pagan philosophy and the new Christian philosophy is fraught, riddled with plagiarism and inconsistencies. One church father would bend over backwards trying to bridge that gap between Christian texts and Platonic doctrine, while others would decry any similarities as inconsequential. The result was to sometimes steal philosophical concepts claiming them under the banner of divine revelation while other pagan concepts were thrown on the pyre as heresy.\nMiracles The spread of Christianity is often understood by theologians as verification for the miracles that were witnessed by the early apostles. The argument is as follows: Christianity claims many miracles to have taken place, we find this incredible in the literal sense of the word, yet the people in Rome did not. Therefore, the evidence to support these miracles must have been so credible as to surpass any level of skepticism that the pagans of the time had and win them over to the Christian movement. This argument sounds plausible on its face but is made less so by its historic context. One must often keep in mind that the common Roman wasn\u0026rsquo;t a skeptic from the enlightenment age. Pagan religion was full of supernatural events from omens to emperors performing miracles. Miraculous claims were not out of the ordinary nor were they the subject of rigorous investigation. Instead, they were often taken at face value. Thus, the plethora of miraculous events says less about the veracity of Christianity than it does about the culture from which it emerged.\nLecky\u0026rsquo;s Conclusion Lecky attributes the rise of Christianity to a few factors. First the content of the Christian message which was in many ways a reversal of previous religious claims conferring an importance to the \u0026ldquo;everyman\u0026rdquo; in a way not before seen. Secondly, the empire was catastrophically failing both politically and morally. Among other things you also had the magnetic example of early Christian martyrs which stirred the long dormant moral ideals in an uninspired citizenry. This revolution in thought was cemented by a series of high-ranking conversions leading up to Constantine who designated Christianity as the national religion.\n2.1 From Constantine to Charlemagne\nThe focus of this section is largely on the effects that the Christian ethic had on Roman society. The most noticeable being a dramatic rise in the perceived value of life. Christianity completely suppressed the gladiatorial games and drastically shifted the perception of things like abortion and infanticide. The early Christian ethic was one of nonresistance and therefore things like capital punishment and serving in the military were discouraged. Christianity reunited religious ceremony with philosophy and morality allowing them to speak in multiple registers reaching all social classes simultaneously. While not originally taking such a bleak view of human nature as later Church fathers like Augustine did, the early shift of focus from virtuous ideal to sin and remorse set the groundwork for this later focus. The previous Roman ideal was a sort of civically minded Hercules that was proud, loyal, patriotic, and bound by his duty. The Christian ideal on the other hand was humble, charitable and completely disconnected from the world. This ideal became embodied by the hermit monk who lived in the desert fed by birds and visited by angels. It should be recognized that many of the various charitable institutions like hospitals, orphanages and poorhouses owe their conception to this era. From the start of Christianity there were systems set in place whereby the guilty were disciplined by the clergy. This early version of a church judiciary would come to fruition in the Catholic church. Another passion that became evident from the early Christian followers was their intolerance for those outside of the faith. Their abhorrence of physical violence on this earthly plane was more than made up for by the tortures they would imagine heretics experiencing in the afterlife. Eventually imaginations of future punishment were not enough. Instead, the church saw fit to bring the heretic a taste of their future torment in this life. Monotheism brought with it an undivided loyalty that bred a type of fanaticism foreign to Rome. The culture up until that point was largely polytheistic, this produced a spirit of tolerance that allowed each to follow \u0026ldquo;their god\u0026rdquo;. Conversely, there were no room for \u0026ldquo;many ways to god\u0026rdquo; in the Christian faith. This feeling was not limited to other faiths but was also inwardly directed engendering endless division, sects, and vitriolic hatred. The emphasis Christianity had on orthodoxy and the energy with which they crushed dissenting belief created an environment where doubts and questions were sins and things to be avoided. Where the highest virtue was to take the words of the bishop as those of a god. It is hard to imagine a more important ingredient for the subsequent dark ages. This situation was made worse by the recurrence of the ascetic ideal which was disconnected from worldly affairs. It is all well and good to be too heavenly minded for earthly good when you are the minority, but when you are the state religion the reality principle at some point must interpose. Thus imperceptibly, there was a shift in the humble charitable monk to that of the chivalrous knight. Charlemagne became the embodiment of this ideal and is where Lecky\u0026rsquo;s investigations end.\n2.2 The Position of Women\nIn the shortest and probably least rewarding sections of the book, Lecky investigates the ways that women were treated throughout the history we\u0026rsquo;ve been investigating. He gives a cursory overview of the evolution and changes of sexual norms from Pagan times and contrasting them with Christian times. The major takeaway is that neither culture provided a completely hospitable place for women in general. Both in Pagan and Christian times women occupied a secondary subservient class. While Pagans allowed women to reach somewhat higher in society, Christian culture provided more protections ranging from stricter penalties on profligate men to better financial safety nets for widows. Lecky makes the argument that the station of women was the worst during \u0026ldquo;barbarous\u0026rdquo; times. In this state women were on the same level as cattle. The introduction of the bride price, which seems appalling now, was an improvement. If you could increase the investment of a man in their property, they would be likely to treat them better. The idea of monogamy further improved the \u0026ldquo;lot of women\u0026rdquo;, in that it provided the material conditions for long lasting affectionate relationships to grow between husband and wife. This was undercut by the asymmetry that Greeks treated extra-marital affairs and treated women as citizens. But the rise in loving relationships eventually manifested in more calls for equal treatment as seen by later Roman legal reforms. Today, Christianity is not seen as a champion of women rights, but Lecky claims that in many ways it picked up the torch of gradual progress that the Romans had made and kept going. His main arguments are that while Pagan religion emphasized what would be traditionally considered as masculine traits excepting virginity, the Christian ethic added quite a few stereotypically female virtues for women to idealize. Although this may seem a silly distinction, it is backed up by the large numbers to which Roman women flocked to the early church. It is also demonstrated by the fact that the second most important figure in Christianity is the Virgin Mary. Providing such an ideal, raised the value of women in communal consciousness moving them much closer to an equal footing than in Roman times. One large draw back Christianity had on women was the absolute repugnance the early church fathers had for anything sexual. They were so anti-sex that even within the confines of marriage the idea became permeated with shame. This did much to tarnish the relationship between husband and wife, making the ideal celibacy. As remarked earlier, the total impracticality of such ideas eventually forced a slow change in the message that the church had on marriage, but this change would take hundreds of years and many of its effects can still be seen.\n#book\n#morality #historical_morality #european_history #christianity #stoicism #rome_to_charlemagne #pagan_vs_christian_ethics #utilitarianism_vs_intuitionalism #philosophical_history #role_of_women #dark_ages #moral_evolution #church_influence #william_lecky #roman_empire #early_christianity #cultural_shift #historical_analysis #moral_speculation\nWilliam H. Lecky\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/history-of-european-morals-from-augustus-to-charlemagne/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eAlso available as a \u003ca href=\"/essays/history-of-european-morals-from-augustus-to-charlemagne/\"\u003elong essay\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis book was thoroughly enlightening but quite dry and dense and around 850 pages. This is partially why I have written such an extensive summary hoping to convey some of the themes that I think are important to know without just saying \u0026ldquo;read the book\u0026rdquo;. When it comes to topics like morality it is easy to have an axe to grind. Lecky provides what appears to me to have been an even-handed recounting of this slice of history. This book is full of useful information and interesting context that is often lost when trying to understand the events of history. I am sure there are mistakes and misunderstandings, but there is so much else that is of value that what few mistakes there are will be dwarfed by the new perspective given to the reader. I found myself often copying large sections of the text while in other parts leaving surprised questions marks when a new fact that sounded preposterous turned out to be true. If you have the time, this book is worth it.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"History of European morals from Augustus to Charlemagne"},{"content":"So I listened to this as a dramatic reading while driving to and from Cincinnati, and I think this is how I will consume Shakespeare plays from now on. The actors have had to do all the work of translating the archaic language and sentence structure into universal feeling which made the play much easier to digest. I also mostly listened to this so I could really appreciate the hidden subtleties of this skit.\nSummary\nThe play opens up at a wedding where Hamlet\u0026rsquo;s mother is getting married to Hamlet\u0026rsquo;s recently deceased father\u0026rsquo;s brother. That was a long sentence, mom marries dead dad\u0026rsquo;s brother. But wait there is more, rumor has it that the ghost of Hamlet\u0026rsquo;s father has recently been spotted and he has some information on who murdered him. Hamlet finds the ghost, has the fateful meeting and is sent into a spiral of revenge (or justice depending on who you ask) with a side of madness.\nThoughts\nI got way more into this than I was expecting, as mentioned above the dramatic reading definitely helped. As with most of Shakespeare\u0026rsquo;s plays many of the quotations have become so common most (including me) are unaware of their sources. A few in this particular play were \u0026ldquo;to thy own self be true\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;though this be madness, yet there is method in it\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;there are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;the lady doth protest too much\u0026rdquo; and on and on. The \u0026ldquo;to be, or not to be\u0026rdquo; speech has been performed almost into oblivion, but you may need to check for a pulse if you can hear it without getting goosebumps. If you haven\u0026rsquo;t heard it in a while this was a good performance of it. The sentiment of the soliloquy captures so beautifully the tragedy of consciousness. You can see it being used in pessimistic schools and later on in existentialism. Most notably, in my mind, incarnated in Camus\u0026rsquo; Myth of Sisyphus where he says the most important philosophical question is whether or not to commit suicide. To me this speech was the high mark of the play, the rest served as scaffolding. Overall fantastic, I think it should be mandatory to witness as not only is it fundamental to so much of the succeeding western cannon, but it also still manages to be moving from across the ages. It makes sense that it is still being performed over 400 years after its inception.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/hamlet/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eSo I listened to this as a dramatic reading while driving to and from Cincinnati, and I think this is how I will consume Shakespeare plays from now on. The actors have had to do all the work of translating the archaic language and sentence structure into universal feeling which made the play much easier to digest. I also mostly listened to this so I could really appreciate the hidden subtleties of \u003ca href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_dRw62qVLs\"\u003ethis\u003c/a\u003e skit.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Hamlet"},{"content":"Summary\nThis follows the main character, sixteen-year-old Holden Caulfield, for a couple of days after he is once again kicked out of school for his failing grades. Knowing that he has a couple of days before his parents receive the notice, Holden decides to wander around the town. The story ends up unfolding over a weekend, starting on a Saturday and ending the following Monday afternoon.\nThoughts\nFirst of all, I can\u0026rsquo;t write this review without talking about the style. From the start of the first paragraph to the end of the last line, Salinger\u0026rsquo;s style never stopped annoying me. This is because he decided to write it from the subjective viewpoint of Holden, who, as I said, was a teenager in the \u0026rsquo;40s. Thus, the story is written in the lingo of a teenager from the \u0026rsquo;40s. This means that all the things that you would typically do to write well are thrown out the window in favor of keeping the narration somewhat similar to how a teenager would actually talk. The overall effect is, as one book critic put it, \u0026ldquo;like mainlining castor oil.\u0026rdquo;\nBeyond the writing style, we have Holden himself, an accurately portrayed teen, and I related to him as such. At times, identifying with him, and at other times, really wishing I could take a break from being around him.\nOn both of those levels, the book was not always an enjoyable experience, yet managed to keep me invested. The ambivalence caused by the book created this loop where I was always interested to get to the next \u0026ldquo;thing\u0026rdquo; and see what Caulfield was about to inflict on my psyche. It was like one of those toxic relationships where the people keep breaking up in spectacular fashion, just to get back together the next day and do it all over again. There were some really beautiful moments scattered throughout the book, like, for example, the explanation for the title of the book—no spoilers, but it is one of my favorite moments in the book.\nIn spite of everything, I found this book entertaining through its entirety. It does a great job of encapsulating teenage \u0026ldquo;angst\u0026rdquo; (one of my least favorite words, and how I knew Coldplay was headed for destruction) and overall refusal to participate in society. It does not really offer a resolution but offers a companion to those who feel alienated by society. I must confess some confusion as to how it is often considered to be in the top 100 best English novels of all time. But, I really do look forward to someone who enjoyed it more enlightening me on this.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-catcher-in-the-rye/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis follows the main character, sixteen-year-old Holden Caulfield, for a couple of days after he is once again kicked out of school for his failing grades. Knowing that he has a couple of days before his parents receive the notice, Holden decides to wander around the town. The story ends up unfolding over a weekend, starting on a Saturday and ending the following Monday afternoon.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst of all, I can\u0026rsquo;t write this review without talking about the style. From the start of the first paragraph to the end of the last line, Salinger\u0026rsquo;s style never stopped annoying me. This is because he decided to write it from the subjective viewpoint of Holden, who, as I said, was a teenager in the \u0026rsquo;40s. Thus, the story is written in the lingo of a teenager from the \u0026rsquo;40s. This means that all the things that you would typically do to write well are thrown out the window in favor of keeping the narration somewhat similar to how a teenager would actually talk. The overall effect is, as one book critic put it, \u0026ldquo;like mainlining castor oil.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Catcher in the Rye"},{"content":"This book sets out to answer the question that most people have thought about once or twice, but quickly dismiss because they are afraid of where their intuitions take them. The question is, why did certain civilizations advance into \u0026ldquo;civilized\u0026rdquo; modern cultures while others seemed to have gotten left behind in the stone age. Why does the UN exist in the same timeline as people who are still hunting with stone weapons? What might intuition say? Probably some form of \u0026ldquo;manifest destiny\u0026rdquo;. Well, that sort of thinking is thankfully inappropriate in our current discourse, but this self-censorship kills the question before a reasoned and viable alternative is presented. Therefore, due to the fear of your probably racist intuitions, you don\u0026rsquo;t spend enough time to see how they could possibly be wrong, you just ignore them like your aunt with the bad breath and close hugs. Well, Jared Diamond wants to give you some reasons you can look at that aunt with bad breath and show her the door.\nSummary\nWe start with the statement that there are in fact huge differences between when certain cultures started doing things like food production and herding. We then look for possible explanations for these differences. Diamond makes a compelling case that is closely tied to the title Guns, Germs, and Steel. He didn\u0026rsquo;t work in Agriculture into the title, I think he should have. If you stop and think about it, almost all technology requires food production. Agriculture exponentially increases the amount of food that comes out of a square acre. It also helps that this food usually doesn\u0026rsquo;t try to run away or migrate. Now that you don\u0026rsquo;t have to follow seasonal patterns that means you can own more things than you can carry on your back. I digress, but food is important! So why might the Eurasian peoples have done agriculture first? One of Diamond\u0026rsquo;s compelling theories involves the actual shape of the continents themselves. The Eurasian continent is wider than it is taller, and vice versa for the Americas, and Africa. This means the climate is fairly similar in France and China, but differs tremendously from Mexico to Canada. This in turn means that domesticated plants had a harder time taking root (pun intended) in the varied climates of the Americas vs the relatively similar climate of Eurasia. Secondly, animal domestication. It turns out there are very few animals that make sense to domesticate. Large carnivores will probably eat you, a mouse is kinda gross, so that really only leaves you a handful of options. Especially since most of the other large animals were killed by your literal caveman ancestors\u0026hellip;.and the Younger Dryas impact you\u0026rsquo;re welcome, Randal Carlsen. So, guess who wins the cosmic domesticable animal raffle prize\u0026hellip;.. Eurasia. In all the Americas you ended up with only Turkey and Llamas, cute but worthless. In Australia, it\u0026rsquo;s even worse. To me the rest of the book is unnecessary. I may be way off base, but it seems patently obvious. Agriculture allowed more people per square foot. More people per square foot meant more fights. More fights meant factions. Factions means organization. Organization means centralization of power. Centralization of power is equivalent to centralization of resources. Centralization of resources creates an aristocracy. Aristocracy have time. Time allows for creativity to do things that didn\u0026rsquo;t matter before. This opens the door for changing the world with inventions like the wheel, gun powder etc. One neat side effect of animal domestication was disease. If you are of Eurasia descent, you can thank the thousands of ancestors who died developing your immunity.\nThoughts\nI have not checked out the critical reception of this book, but I imagine it has ruffled a few feathers by his opiniated stance on various things that are currently hotly debated. Overall, an enjoyable read that seem to make a lot of sense. The end of the book he says people will call him a \u0026ldquo;geographic determinist\u0026rdquo; and that he is under valuing human creativity. To me \u0026ldquo;geographic determinism\u0026rdquo; seems obvious. If you don\u0026rsquo;t think so, you should play Sid Meir\u0026rsquo;s Civilization. I think in order to support the next Einstein or Edison, you have to have enough food stored so they aren\u0026rsquo;t having to constantly hunt rabbits.\nSapiens- A Brief History of Humankind\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/guns-germs-and-steel-the-fates-of-human-societies/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis book sets out to answer the question that most people have thought about once or twice, but quickly dismiss because they are afraid of where their intuitions take them. The question is, why did certain civilizations advance into \u0026ldquo;civilized\u0026rdquo; modern cultures while others seemed to have gotten left behind in the stone age. Why does the UN exist in the same timeline as people who are still hunting with stone weapons? What might intuition say? Probably some form of \u0026ldquo;manifest destiny\u0026rdquo;. Well, that sort of thinking is thankfully inappropriate in our current discourse, but this self-censorship kills the question before a reasoned and viable alternative is presented. Therefore, due to the fear of your probably racist intuitions, you don\u0026rsquo;t spend enough time to see how they could possibly be wrong, you just ignore them like your aunt with the bad breath and close hugs. Well, Jared Diamond wants to give you some reasons you can look at that aunt with bad breath and show her the door.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Guns, Germs, and Steel"},{"content":"There is no doubt whatever that this eternally self-replicating old fool (Nature) has now exhausted the good-natured admiration of all true artists, and the moment has come to replace her, as far as that can be achieved, with artiface.\nSo basically, it is this whole thing. Huysmans was a novelist in the 19th century whose early works were part of the naturalistic school which sought out beauty and truth in the mundane, but later in his life this changed. He began to feel cramped and redundant inside the confines of nature and wished to supersede it through artifice. Maybe this would give us a more visceral or concentrated glimpse of beauty? Enter what is known as the \u0026ldquo;Decadent\u0026rdquo; literature. This school found its poster child in Dorian Gray, and this is how I came to hear about it. On a reread of the Picture of Dorian Gray, there was this quote:\nIt was the strangest book that he had ever read. It seemed to him that in exquisite raiment, and to the delicate sound of flutes, the sins of the world were passing in dumb show before him \u0026hellip; It was a novel without a plot, and with only one character, being, indeed, simply a psychological study of a certain young Parisian, who spent his life trying to realize in the nineteenth century all the passions and modes of thought that belonged to every century except his own \u0026hellip;\nWith such a recommendation, I had to add it to my list. The above quotation is a great summary. The main character(Des Esseintes) is an eccentric with a fortune whose only goal is to attempt to be the least bored person in the world. We follow along as he picks up various art forms, cultivates a refined taste for them and then slowly becomes disenchanted with them. He is interior designer, fashion designer, perfumer, art critic, book critic, music critic. While there are some interesting anecdotes from Des Esseintes (like the time he bought a turtle and attached a bunch of jewels to it to complete the look of a room in his house) on the whole this book was not very interesting to me. Do you remember that boring part in Picture of Dorian Gray, where Dorian is on his way down, and he spends all this time picking out draperies and selecting specific jewels for various items? Well imagine expanding that one chapter into an entire book and that is pretty much what this book is. Des Esseintes becomes Huysmans\u0026rsquo; mouthpiece to air his opinions. Some of which are interesting if you are aware of what he is talking about, like Goya for example, and yes I would be \u0026ldquo;the first idiot\u0026rdquo; in this quote\u0026hellip;\nGoya’s savage verve, his harsh, brutal genius, captivated Des Esseintes. On the other hand, the universal admiration his works had won rather put him off, and for years he had refrained from framing them, for fear that if he hung them up, the first idiot who saw them would might feel obliged to dishonour them with a few inanities and go into stereotyped ecstasies over them.\nBut there are also long sections comparing various esoteric religious writers to each other which meant next to nothing to me. That being said, his views are compelling and sometimes funny, like when he talked about the church being given communion bread that was made with illicit ingredients, which invalidated the transubstantiation rituals.\nNow God refused to come down to earth in the form of potato-flour; that was an undeniable, indisputable fact.\nIt seems to me that Huysmans\u0026rsquo; desire of escape into the artificial tracks with modern man. Yes, there are those who wish to return to nature, but they are the minority. Most are happy to integrate into virtual worlds. [in fact, one could argue that books themselves act as an artificial environment] The phrase \u0026ldquo;pictures don\u0026rsquo;t do it justice\u0026rdquo; will not be said forever. The fact that Des Esseintes was a neurotic, doesn\u0026rsquo;t speak too highly of modern man, on the other hand his neuroticism has a charm to it, much like the decadence movement as a whole. He despises theatre set pieces that imitate luxury with cheap materials, so he builds his bedroom in imitation of a monk\u0026rsquo;s cell but with the most expensive materials. He goes into a phase where he collects plants, starting with artificial plants and ending with real plants that look artificial. The decadence movement has long since died out, but to me it feels like a great explanatory lens when looking at society. In conclusion the ideas in the book were pretty interesting, but I think I would have preferred an essay or a short story, because there were large sections in this book that to me could be skipped, as I currently have no desire to read up on 15th century religious polemics.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/against-nature/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThere is no doubt whatever that this eternally self-replicating old fool (Nature) has now exhausted the good-natured admiration of all true artists, and the moment has come to replace her, as far as that can be achieved, with artiface.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSo basically, it is this whole thing. Huysmans was a novelist in the 19th century whose early works were part of the naturalistic school which sought out beauty and truth in the mundane, but later in his life this changed. He began to feel cramped and redundant inside the confines of nature and wished to supersede it through artifice. Maybe this would give us a more visceral or concentrated glimpse of beauty? Enter what is known as the \u0026ldquo;Decadent\u0026rdquo; literature. This school found its poster child in Dorian Gray, and this is how I came to hear about it. On a reread of the Picture of Dorian Gray, there was this quote:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Against Nature"},{"content":"Summary\nAll the Pretty Horses follows the story of John Grady Cole and his best friend Lacey Rawlins. Cole, sixteen years old, was raised on a ranch his entire life. His grandfather has just died and he discovers the ranch is about to be sold. He convinces Rawlins to join him and they both take off to Mexico hoping to find cowboy work.\nThoughts\nMy initial summation of this book was going to be \u0026ldquo;Hemmingway meets Coen brother\u0026rsquo;s No Country for Old Men\u0026rdquo;, but then I found out that Cormac McCarthy wrote No Country for Old Men. So now I guess the summation should be \u0026ldquo;Hemmingway meets McCarthy\u0026rdquo;. Sidebar This impression is created by a writing style called Polysyndeton. Going down this rabbit hole a little, it turns out that this is the style that gives the King James Bible and Shakespeare their distinctive cadence. From what I can tell it is a fancy name for run on sentences that would get red lined on English exams.\nI liked this book quite a bit. At only sixteen, Cole has all the reserve and \u0026ldquo;settledness\u0026rdquo; of a ranch hand twice his age. Rarely ever speaking in sentences longer than three words Cole is the embodiment of the laconic Clint Eastwood type. This simplicity hides a complex mental world with interesting insights and unblinking acceptance of the world\u0026rsquo;s tragedy.\nHe thought that in the beauty of the world were hid a secret. He thought that the world’s heart beat at some terrible cost and that the world’s pain and its beauty moved in a relationship of diverging equity and that in this headlong deficit the blood of multitudes might ultimately be exacted for the vision of a single flower.\nCole is not the only one with things to say, he runs into quite a few armchair philosophers who are willing to share what they\u0026rsquo;ve learned.\nIf fate is the law, then is fate also subject to that law? At some point we cannot escape naming responsibility. It\u0026rsquo;s in our nature. Sometimes I think we are all like that myopic coiner at his press, taking the blind slugs one by one from the tray, all of us bent so jealously at our work, determined that not even chaos be outside of our own making.\nHe spoke of his campaigns in the deserts of Mexico and he told them of horses killed under him and he said that the souls of horses mirror the souls of men more closely than men suppose and that horses also love war. Men say they only learn this but he said that no creature can learn that which his heart has no shape to holo.\nAnd many many more quotable thoughts. This book takes place during the sunset of the horse. I would argue it is the sunset itself that continues to make this slice of history interesting. Furthermore, I don\u0026rsquo;t think it is the gunslinger that makes the West in the way we romantically remember, but the paradox of the horse and train. Cole in his own way escapes to Mexico to watch this sunset a little longer. The invention of the steam engine marked the arrival of inorganic muscle, of steel, of explosion, of opportunity, of limitless exploitation. This is an energy outside of life and death. The West is the moment when the leading train car disconnect from the trailing cars. That brief moment when the train, now two, still share the same momentum. There is a lot of things to think about in this book, a little something for everyone, but be prepared for some beautiful but confusing lines.\nThere was someone there and they had been there. There was no one there. There was someone there and they had been there and they had not left but there was no one there.\nCormac McCarthy\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/all-the-pretty-horses/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll the Pretty Horses follows the story of John Grady Cole and his best friend Lacey Rawlins. Cole, sixteen years old, was raised on a ranch his entire life. His grandfather has just died and he discovers the ranch is about to be sold. He convinces Rawlins to join him and they both take off to Mexico hoping to find cowboy work.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMy initial summation of this book was going to be \u0026ldquo;Hemmingway meets Coen brother\u0026rsquo;s No Country for Old Men\u0026rdquo;, but then I found out that Cormac McCarthy wrote No Country for Old Men. So now I guess the summation should be \u0026ldquo;Hemmingway meets McCarthy\u0026rdquo;.\n\u003cem\u003eSidebar\u003c/em\u003e\nThis impression is created by a writing style called Polysyndeton. Going down this rabbit hole a little, it turns out that this is the style that gives the King James Bible and Shakespeare their distinctive cadence. From what I can tell it is a fancy name for run on sentences that would get red lined on English exams.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"All the Pretty Horses (The Border Trilogy, #1)"},{"content":"Gods die. And when they truly die they are unmourned and unremembered. Ideas are more difficult to kill than people, but they can be killed, in the end.\nSummary\nA recently released prisoner named Shadow is on a return flight home when there is a mix up and his seat gets upgraded to first class. Waiting for him is a mysterious stranger with a job offer.\nThoughts\nUnsurprisingly, I really enjoyed this book. A book that almost lives up to the hype, but would have been slightly better to have stumbled on without knowing anything about it. Neil Gaiman draws out scenes and situations so vividly that they became almost scars in my memory. In the age of pictures, it is difficult to make people see with just words. That is not a problem in this book, you will see what is happening, even if sometimes you didn\u0026rsquo;t want to.\nNo man, proclaimed Donne, is an island, and he was wrong. If we were not islands, we would be lost, drowned in each other\u0026rsquo;s tragedies. We are insulated (a word that means, literally, remember, made into an island) from the tragedy of others, by our island nature\nThe main story, told from Shadow\u0026rsquo;s perspective, is punctuated by a handful of a short and often tragic stories about individuals who brought their Gods to America. These act as nice diversions from the main story and are on the whole interesting, but sometimes I was anxious to get back to the main plot and didn\u0026rsquo;t love the interruptions. But what I did love was the main theme of this book which is God as idea, and that ideas rise and fall.\nReligions are, by definition, metaphors, after all: God is a dream, a hope, a woman, an ironist, a father, a city, a house of many rooms, a watchmaker who left his prize chronometer in the desert, someone who loves you—even, perhaps, against all evidence, a celestial being whose only interest is to make sure your football team, army, business, or marriage thrives, prospers, and triumphs over all opposition. Religions are places to stand and look and act, vantage points from which to view the world.\nAmerica is a young country with even younger gods. Why shouldn\u0026rsquo;t the death of an idea be as violent as murder?\n“Liberty,\u0026quot; boomed Wednesday, as they walked to the car, \u0026ldquo;is a bitch who must be bedded on a mattress of corpses.”\nThis book has a lot of great quotes and little ideas packed into it. If I had wrote it, I would be worried that I wouldn\u0026rsquo;t be able to think of new things and need to recycle some of the ideas in here in the next book I wrote.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/american-gods/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eGods die. And when they truly die they are unmourned and unremembered. Ideas are more difficult to kill than people, but they can be killed, in the end.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recently released prisoner named Shadow is on a return flight home when there is a mix up and his seat gets upgraded to first class. Waiting for him is a mysterious stranger with a job offer.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnsurprisingly, I really enjoyed this book. A book that almost lives up to the hype, but would have been slightly better to have stumbled on without knowing anything about it. Neil Gaiman draws out scenes and situations so vividly that they became almost scars in my memory. In the age of pictures, it is difficult to make people see with just words. That is not a problem in this book, you will see what is happening, even if sometimes you didn\u0026rsquo;t want to.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"American Gods"},{"content":"Happiness or freedom, which would you choose?\nSummary\nLevin tells a story about a community known as \u0026ldquo;the family\u0026rdquo; which is comprised of a group of members who are sedated and regulated by a computer known as \u0026ldquo;uni\u0026rdquo;. Uni knows all, plans all, and grants from each according to his ability to each according to his need. One member starts having doubts about the entire enterprise.\nThoughts\nIt is hard to judge books like this one in the year of our lord 2023, as so much of what we now read and see draw their inspiration from seminal works such as this one. A side effect of this is that when read in the present the story feels redundant, is this Levin\u0026rsquo;s fault or a consequence of passing time? This book at a surface level has some obvious critiques against Communism and in our times against the encroachment of AI into public decision making. The message of the book did seem at times to be too transparent, too in the readers face, damaging the experience for me. On a deeper level this book asks us what it is we are striving for? This is actually a very interesting question especially in terms of equality. We strive to create a world where everyone is treated the same, but is that possible when people are so diverse? Will we need to sacrifice individuality for equality? To me this is still an open question, and thanks to my recent reading of Freud\u0026rsquo;s Civilization and its Discontents I find it hard not to see the hand of Eros in this movement towards oneness. Another takeaway from this book was that of further critiquing Utopia\u0026rsquo;s in general. The main character Chip agrees with Dostoyevsky\u0026rsquo;s underground man, Utopias are inhuman because they are not built for humans, but for machines. They are built for things that always act according to rules that are tabulated in cold sterile databanks. In order for humans to act in this way they must forfeit the thing that makes them human.\nI found the dialogue throughout to be fairly well done. Although by the end I was ready to never read the expletives \u0026ldquo;brother fighter\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;Christ and Wei\u0026rdquo; ever again. The story kept up a good clip and was entertaining, but as I said before, probably not as mind blowing to a modern reader as it would have been upon initial publication. One thing that was mind blowing to the modern reader was a rape scene that comes out of nowhere. You are cruising along in the story when all of the sudden you start to get a little creeped out by the main character and like a slow-moving train wreck the worn-out John Wayne \u0026ldquo;She said no because you haven\u0026rsquo;t kissed her hard enough\u0026rdquo; walks out onto the stage. So there\u0026rsquo;s that.\nOverall, I would not say this is a must read, but I\u0026rsquo;ve definitely read better books. I was looking forward to reading my first Ira Levin book, and I hope his others are better.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/this-perfect-day/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eHappiness or freedom, which would you choose?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLevin tells a story about a community known as \u0026ldquo;the family\u0026rdquo; which is comprised of a group of members who are sedated and regulated by a computer known as \u0026ldquo;uni\u0026rdquo;. Uni knows all, plans all, and grants from each according to his ability to each according to his need. One member starts having doubts about the entire enterprise.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThoughts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt is hard to judge books like this one in the year of our lord 2023, as so much of what we now read and see draw their inspiration from seminal works such as this one. A side effect of this is that when read in the present the story feels redundant, is this Levin\u0026rsquo;s fault or a consequence of passing time? This book at a surface level has some obvious critiques against Communism and in our times against the encroachment of AI into public decision making. The message of the book did seem at times to be too transparent, too in the readers face, damaging the experience for me. On a deeper level this book asks us what it is we are striving for? This is actually a very interesting question especially in terms of equality. We strive to create a world where everyone is treated the same, but is that possible when people are so diverse? Will we need to sacrifice individuality for equality? To me this is still an open question, and thanks to my recent reading of Freud\u0026rsquo;s Civilization and its Discontents I find it hard not to see the hand of Eros in this movement towards oneness. Another takeaway from this book was that of further critiquing Utopia\u0026rsquo;s in general. The main character Chip agrees with Dostoyevsky\u0026rsquo;s underground man, Utopias are inhuman because they are not built for humans, but for machines. They are built for things that always act according to rules that are tabulated in cold sterile databanks. In order for humans to act in this way they must forfeit the thing that makes them human.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"This Perfect Day"},{"content":"Summary\nThis book follows the protagonist Julien Sorell in his attempts to make a name for himself. Julien is the son of a carpenter but has dreams of becoming the next Napoleon. During a period known as the Bourbon Restoration, France is experiencing a brief moment of peace after Napoleon had been defeated and monarchs were back in charge. Julien decides that the only possible path to the glory he seeks is through the church now that Napoleon is no longer around. He soon finds out that in order to climb the ranks of the France elite he must first learn to play their games.\nThoughts\nThe Red and the Black could symbolize a few things, but to me it most symbolizes the Julien himself as he is dressed as a priest but is full of passion. Julien as a character vacillates between extremes. At points cold and calculating, at others completely under the sway of his desires. All the while Stendhal masterfully shines a light on the psychological experience of these conflicting states. This is what makes this novel worth reading in the first place. Stendhal is considered to be the father of the psychological novel paving the way for arguably the next century of writers. My relationship with Julien is a strange one. At points in the book his borderline psychopathic manipulations are enraging, while a little later he would manage to do or say something that was truly beautiful. A large part of this book missed me because it was a critique on French society during the Bourbon Restoration. Like a lot of things, I am largely ignorant of that situation and so a lot of that subtext was lost on me. There were large parts of the book that left me feeling a little bored, wondering where it was all going. For me, I think I will stick with Dostoyevsky for my psychological novels. I would probably not recommend this book were it not for a fantastic ending that really feels like a reward for the pages of setup.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-red-and-the-black/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis book follows the protagonist Julien Sorell in his attempts to make a name for himself. Julien is the son of a carpenter but has dreams of becoming the next Napoleon. During a period known as the Bourbon Restoration, France is experiencing a brief moment of peace after Napoleon had been defeated and monarchs were back in charge. Julien decides that the only possible path to the glory he seeks is through the church now that Napoleon is no longer around. He soon finds out that in order to climb the ranks of the France elite he must first learn to play their games.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Red and the Black"},{"content":"Premise\nModernity is obsessed with individual identity at the cost of destroying culture. The modern self has been reduced almost entirely into the sexual self. Carl Truman takes the reader on a scenic tour from Augustine to Marcuse tracing the way in which the modern conception of the self or \u0026ldquo;psychological self\u0026rdquo; has become increasingly disconnected from the physical self and its realities.\nGood Parts\nThis book does a fair job of running through some of the intellectual heavy weights of the western cannon (think Rosseau, Kant, Marx, etc). The mainstream bits from these thinkers will be review for anyone familiar with philosophical history, but with some interesting threads being drawn out. Ironically, this book taught me some things about the LGBT community that I didn\u0026rsquo;t know like the theoretical difference between \u0026ldquo;gay\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;lesbian\u0026rdquo;. One of the most interesting points to me was that some feminist refuse to accept man to woman trans people as being technically women because of the fact that they for the most part become patriarchal stereotypes of women. There is also the more common argument about certain biological realities lacking in a M2W trans experience.\nBad Parts\nThe forward claims that the book was not meant as a \u0026ldquo;polemic\u0026rdquo;, or a high horse commentary on how our culture is going to hell in a hand basket. While it does succeed at not being aggressive there is no doubt which viewpoints the reader is supposed to find abhorrent or non sensical. The author claims to not \u0026ldquo;strawman\u0026rdquo; certain views yet is fairly quick to call things nonsense. At no point did it ever feel that he was honestly trying to portray his \u0026ldquo;opposition\u0026rdquo; as convincing in the least. This leads me to one of my main issues with this book and that is target audience. This probably explains the book\u0026rsquo;s current high ratings across various platforms. The book is written for those who have never heard of Roseau and are not at all familiar with is work. This is great when they are about to be exposed to a well-rounded take on the strengths and weaknesses of his arguments. This is not what happens in this book. Repeatedly the reader is introduced to yet another name they\u0026rsquo;ve heard but can\u0026rsquo;t quite place. They are then given a brief sketch of whatever thoughts Trueman thought were relevant to the narrative. Then are instantly shown why this view from this person is causing all our problems. This would be more impressive if Trueman were a more original thinker, but he doesn\u0026rsquo;t seem to be. Don\u0026rsquo;t get me wrong, he is no academical slouch, and I don\u0026rsquo;t mean to portray him as one, yet for the first half of the book most of his ideas aren\u0026rsquo;t his, but rather are reinterpretations from three thinkers who I am not familiar with but seem like actual original thinkers. I\u0026rsquo;ve had this experience before where the author uses so many interesting ideas from other authors the reader is left wondering why he is reading this book and not all the referenced materials.\nMy next critique is of overall tone. If the past few years have taught us anything it is that \u0026ldquo;common sense\u0026rdquo; isn\u0026rsquo;t common. It isn\u0026rsquo;t, as most people assume, missing but it is no longer common as in shared. With that in mind any work of this type has to grapple with this fact and understand that not all people shudder when they hear the term \u0026ldquo;expressive individualism\u0026rdquo;. This book fails to take that into account, the author is a Christian theologian and cannot seem to take a moment to really see the world through any other lens. He borrows a way of thinking about cultures as first, second, or third world. The difference between first and second seem a little hazy but basically you could think of the first world culture as pagan (i.e., Greek Myths) and second world as a more sophisticated take (i.e., the major religions of today, Islam, Christianity etc.). Finally, there is third world which is labeled as an anti-culture because it is negatively defined as rejecting the other two cultures. Surprise, surprise Trueman believes we are in an anti-culture. He then goes on to say (or rather again borrow) the fact that third world cultures and second world cultures cannot have an actual conversation because they are so fundamentally different. This of course raises the question of what this 400pg book is about then?\nLastly, this book only mentions at the very end the effect that lived experience has on what \u0026ldquo;makes sense\u0026rdquo; to most people. The whole book casts thinkers like Marx and Freud as villains who are undermining everything we hold dear, but they didn\u0026rsquo;t, and their ideas still don\u0026rsquo;t live in a vacuum. The world has changed a lot, their ideas would have never stuck if in this new world they didn\u0026rsquo;t find some sort of resonance where older ideas did not. Does that mean their ideas are \u0026ldquo;better\u0026rdquo;? Of course not, but it means their ideas corresponded more closely with the experience of their time, and you can do with that what you will.\nConclusion\nAs quoted in length, Nietzsche\u0026rsquo;s god is dead speech is used to underline the fact that with unifying meta narratives out of the way we are like a ship without anchor in a raging sea of shifting cultural aesthetic tastes. What is good today might be bad tomorrow. This of course is not a new thought to those who think about these types of things at any depth, yet as is so often the case it is used as a sort of unanswerable statement that defies any future attempt at improving the world. I\u0026rsquo;ve never understood this. As having been raised conservative, I have a lot of sympathy for the problems that are addressed. For example, I totally agree that history is desperately trying to be erased, and that there seems to be a swing towards the irrational in some radical pockets of society. I do not happen to think that this is the best response to these problems.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-rise-and-triumph-of-the-modern-self-cultural-amnesia-expressive-individualism-and-the-road-to-sexual-revolution/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePremise\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModernity is obsessed with individual identity at the cost of destroying culture. The modern self has been reduced almost entirely into the sexual self. Carl Truman takes the reader on a scenic tour from Augustine to Marcuse tracing the way in which the modern conception of the self or \u0026ldquo;psychological self\u0026rdquo; has become increasingly disconnected from the physical self and its realities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGood Parts\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis book does a fair job of running through some of the intellectual heavy weights of the western cannon (think Rosseau, Kant, Marx, etc). The mainstream bits from these thinkers will be review for anyone familiar with philosophical history, but with some interesting threads being drawn out. Ironically, this book taught me some things about the LGBT community that I didn\u0026rsquo;t know like the theoretical difference between \u0026ldquo;gay\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;lesbian\u0026rdquo;. One of the most interesting points to me was that some feminist refuse to accept man to woman trans people as being technically women because of the fact that they for the most part become patriarchal stereotypes of women. There is also the more common argument about certain biological realities lacking in a M2W trans experience.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self"},{"content":"Sigmund Freud A great primer that doesn\u0026rsquo;t throw the baby out with the repressed infantile sexual instincts.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/freud-a-very-short-introduction/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eSigmund Freud\nA great primer that doesn\u0026rsquo;t throw the baby out with the repressed infantile sexual instincts.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Freud"},{"content":"There was a lot packed into this short book, or long essay. Nearing the end of his life, and the end of the period of peace between WW1 and WW2 Freud was still Freuding. This book is ostensibly about the restrictions that civilization imposes on individuals, but probably more importantly in the psychoanalytic field it further sketches out a new primal drive in human nature, namely aggression. For most of his life Freud had looked at human nature through the lens of the \u0026ldquo;Pleasure principle\u0026rdquo; which is that all actions humans take can be explained in avoidance to unpleasure. This principle ran into problems, one example is how the mind seems to relive traumatic experiences over and over again. Enter the \u0026ldquo;death drive\u0026rdquo;, the main assertion of this book was that our two main drives (pleasure and aggression) are antagonistic to civilization. In that sense, civilization can be conceived of as a mechanism of repression and redirection of those drives towards behaviors that are beneficial to the group. He has called this process \u0026ldquo;Eros\u0026rdquo; and the later drive has come to be known as \u0026ldquo;Thanatos\u0026rdquo;. Eros is a work of unification at the cost of individual desire, i.e. civilization. The question (or warning) of this book is that Eros doesn\u0026rsquo;t seem to care about the individual at all, it will sacrifice the individual completely to achieve its goal of unification which will perhaps make living life in wonderful unity not worth it in the end. There is so much more inside this short book, it is widely considered one of Freud\u0026rsquo;s most important works. I would recommend it to anyone, no matter their views on Freud\u0026rsquo;s other ideas. This book has also tied in with thoughts I was already having in regard to the exclusivity inherent in inclusivity, the need for Orwell\u0026rsquo;s two-minute hate, etc etc.\nPeople/Sigmund Freud\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/civilization-and-its-discontents/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThere was a lot packed into this short book, or long essay. Nearing the end of his life, and the end of the period of peace between WW1 and WW2 Freud was still Freuding. This book is ostensibly about the restrictions that civilization imposes on individuals, but probably more importantly in the psychoanalytic field it further sketches out a new primal drive in human nature, namely aggression. For most of his life Freud had looked at human nature through the lens of the \u0026ldquo;Pleasure principle\u0026rdquo; which is that all actions humans take can be explained in avoidance to unpleasure. This principle ran into problems, one example is how the mind seems to relive traumatic experiences over and over again. Enter the \u0026ldquo;death drive\u0026rdquo;, the main assertion of this book was that our two main drives (pleasure and aggression) are antagonistic to civilization. In that sense, civilization can be conceived of as a mechanism of repression and redirection of those drives towards behaviors that are beneficial to the group. He has called this process \u0026ldquo;Eros\u0026rdquo; and the later drive has come to be known as \u0026ldquo;Thanatos\u0026rdquo;. Eros is a work of unification at the cost of individual desire, i.e. civilization. The question (or warning) of this book is that Eros doesn\u0026rsquo;t seem to care about the individual at all, it will sacrifice the individual completely to achieve its goal of unification which will perhaps make living life in wonderful unity not worth it in the end.\nThere is so much more inside this short book, it is widely considered one of Freud\u0026rsquo;s most important works. I would recommend it to anyone, no matter their views on Freud\u0026rsquo;s other ideas. This book has also tied in with thoughts I was already having in regard to the exclusivity inherent in inclusivity, the need for Orwell\u0026rsquo;s two-minute hate, etc etc.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Civilization and Its Discontents"},{"content":"A clear and concise book that does exactly what the title says it does. Bauer takes issue with the K-12 grading system in the US claiming that it does not make proper contingencies for the individual. Instead, designed much like the factories that were popping up at the same time, the K-12 grading system treats each kid like an identical piece of machinery. This book was helpful to me as it underlined the fact that K-8 grade needn\u0026rsquo;t be nearly as structured as is popularly believed. These grades in fact will have little to no impact on their futures assuming the time isn\u0026rsquo;t completely wasted, and the kids are introduced the core material requisite for high school. Bauer also believes in the idea that each subject is its own island, and kids have natural talents in each. Some may be good at math while others excel in history. Allow each kid to benefit from their natural talents, without falling into the trap of too quickly pushing them forward a grade and into a social situation they are not mature enough to handle. Overall, the book was a couple years away from being really useful to me, but it has given me some ideas for when the time comes so I won\u0026rsquo;t have to start out from scratch.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/rethinking-school-how-to-take-charge-of-your-childs-education/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eA clear and concise book that does exactly what the title says it does. Bauer takes issue with the K-12 grading system in the US claiming that it does not make proper contingencies for the individual. Instead, designed much like the factories that were popping up at the same time, the K-12 grading system treats each kid like an identical piece of machinery. This book was helpful to me as it underlined the fact that K-8 grade needn\u0026rsquo;t be nearly as structured as is popularly believed. These grades in fact will have little to no impact on their futures assuming the time isn\u0026rsquo;t completely wasted, and the kids are introduced the core material requisite for high school. Bauer also believes in the idea that each subject is its own island, and kids have natural talents in each. Some may be good at math while others excel in history. Allow each kid to benefit from their natural talents, without falling into the trap of too quickly pushing them forward a grade and into a social situation they are not mature enough to handle. Overall, the book was a couple years away from being really useful to me, but it has given me some ideas for when the time comes so I won\u0026rsquo;t have to start out from scratch.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Rethinking School- How to Take Charge of Your Child's Education"},{"content":"Candide\nHave you ever been so maddened by a single sentence that you decided to write a book? Leibniz is famous for his claim that we live in \u0026ldquo;the best of all possible worlds\u0026rdquo;, after the Lisbon earthquake which killed somewhere between 12,000 to 50,000 people Voltaire rejected this claim. In large part this book is a parody of this optimism. Candide the main character grows up in a sheltered privileged life where his tutor Pangloss teaches him that he lives in the best of all possible worlds. After a series of events our naïve hero is kicked out into the real world and is almost immediately kidnapped by Bulgarians and pressed into service. Leading to one of my favorite scenes where in Voltaire\u0026rsquo;s dark comedic tone is captured.\nThere was never anything so gallant, so spruce, so brilliant, and so well disposed as the two armies. Trumpets, fifes, hautboys, drums, and cannon made music such as Hell itself had never heard. The cannons first of all laid flat about six thousand men on each side; the muskets swept away from this best of worlds nine or ten thousand ruffians who infested its surface. The bayonet was also a sufficient reason for the death of several thousands. The whole might amount to thirty thousand souls. Candide, who trembled like a philosopher, hid himself as well as he could during this heroic butchery.\nA great story full of things that make you laugh in spite of how terrible they are.\nZadig\nWritten before Candide and is Voltaire\u0026rsquo;s second most famous book, Zadig is a \u0026ldquo;good\u0026rdquo; man. But his goodness is also his constant tormentor as it is constantly getting him into trouble. Not much to say about this one other than a favorite scene where Zadig had stumbled on a man beating a woman. After a sword fight, Zadig was forced to dispatch the woman beater, he then addresses the woman\u0026hellip;\nNow, Madam, let me know your farther Will and Pleasure with me. You shall die, you Villain! You have murder’d my Love. Oh! I could tear your Heart out. Indeed, Madam, said Zadig, you had one of the most hot-headed, oddest Lovers I ever saw. He beat you most unmercifully, and would have taken away my Life because you call’d me in to your Assistance. Would to God he was but alive to beat me again, said she, blubbering and roaring; I deserv’d to be beat. I gave him too just occasion to be jealous of me. Would to God that he had beat me, and you had died in his Stead!\nIt seems like Voltaire wanted the reader to understand that goodness is a thing tied down and in relationship with other things. In a way this could be seen as a rebuke to the idea of reasoning to an \u0026ldquo;absolute\u0026rdquo; good because that approach tends to negate context. In Candide the warning seemed to be to not cut yourself off from the world by reason lest you come up with an idea like \u0026ldquo;we live in the best of all possible worlds\u0026rdquo;.\nPangloss sometimes said to Candide: \u0026ldquo;There is a concatenation of events in this best of all possible worlds: for if you had not been kicked out of a magnificent castle for love of Miss Cunegonde: if you had not been put into the Inquisition: if you had not walked over America: if you had not stabbed the Baron: if you had not lost all your sheep from the fine country of El Dorado: you would not be here eating preserved citrons and pistachio-nuts.\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;All that is very well,\u0026rdquo; answered Candide, \u0026ldquo;but let us cultivate our garden.\u0026rdquo;\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/candide-and-zadig/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCandide\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHave you ever been so maddened by a single sentence that you decided to write a book? Leibniz is famous for his claim that we live in \u0026ldquo;the best of all possible worlds\u0026rdquo;, after the Lisbon earthquake which killed somewhere between 12,000 to 50,000 people Voltaire rejected this claim. In large part this book is a parody of this optimism. Candide the main character grows up in a sheltered privileged life where his tutor Pangloss teaches him that he lives in the best of all possible worlds. After a series of events our naïve hero is kicked out into the real world and is almost immediately kidnapped by Bulgarians and pressed into service. Leading to one of my favorite scenes where in Voltaire\u0026rsquo;s dark comedic tone is captured.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Candide and Zadig"},{"content":"After the first few paragraphs of this book, I was hooked. Amazing writing, beautiful story telling. Mrs. Dalloway follows the events of a random day in June in post WW1 England. There are unmistakable parallels between this and Joyce\u0026rsquo;s Ulysses, the main difference being that this was enjoyable to read while the other was decidedly not. We get to hear the stream of consciousness of many characters through which we are painted a picture of people, relationships, and events from multiple perspectives. To me the main theme of the book was time and society. We jump forward and backward in the day\u0026rsquo;s events, but the connecting string is the sound of Big Ben ticking away the hours. In some ways it seems to anchor the experiences, cutting short thoughts, connecting storylines, signaling the inevitable flow of things. The only thing more ever-present than time is society. One of my favorite characters is a man suffering from severe PTSD after losing a friend in the war. He is eventually driven mad, his remarks on \u0026ldquo;human nature\u0026rdquo; and its inability to put up with difference were very interesting and I feel like a key, albeit extreme version of what several other characters were experiencing. Identity is often looked at individualistically, but I think more and more that it only exists in relation. It is a nexus of desires comprised of many conflicting aspects, even within our own minds. This is shown nowhere more clearly than with the eponymous Mrs. Dalloway. This book was a great experience. Virginia Woolf\nUlysses\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/mrs-dalloway/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eAfter the first few paragraphs of this book, I was hooked. Amazing writing, beautiful story telling. Mrs. Dalloway follows the events of a random day in June in post WW1 England. There are unmistakable parallels between this and Joyce\u0026rsquo;s Ulysses, the main difference being that this was enjoyable to read while the other was decidedly not. We get to hear the stream of consciousness of many characters through which we are painted a picture of people, relationships, and events from multiple perspectives. To me the main theme of the book was time and society. We jump forward and backward in the day\u0026rsquo;s events, but the connecting string is the sound of Big Ben ticking away the hours. In some ways it seems to anchor the experiences, cutting short thoughts, connecting storylines, signaling the inevitable flow of things. The only thing more ever-present than time is society. One of my favorite characters is a man suffering from severe PTSD after losing a friend in the war. He is eventually driven mad, his remarks on \u0026ldquo;human nature\u0026rdquo; and its inability to put up with difference were very interesting and I feel like a key, albeit extreme version of what several other characters were experiencing. Identity is often looked at individualistically, but I think more and more that it only exists in relation. It is a nexus of desires comprised of many conflicting aspects, even within our own minds. This is shown nowhere more clearly than with the eponymous Mrs. Dalloway. This book was a great experience.\nVirginia Woolf\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Mrs. Dalloway"},{"content":"Summary\nThe Master and his Emissary written by Iain \u0026ldquo;Right brain so hott right now\u0026rdquo; McGilchrist is the product of twenty years of research into hemispheric differences in the human brain. He starts out by dismantling the pop psychology version of the hemispheric differences saying that the simple male(left)/ female(right) dichotomy is incorrect because the right is actually good at logic too so now, we can\u0026rsquo;t find a female part of the brain anywhere. To put the book in a single sentence it would be that the left sees parts while the right sees the whole. Part of the impetus of this book seems to be that the right hemisphere has been neglected by research and considered of lesser importance than the left (which does the talking) according to McGilchrist this is flipped. The \u0026ldquo;master\u0026rdquo; in his title is in reference to the right hemisphere and the emissary to the left. His claim is that thought originates in the RH and is sent to the LH but must importantly return to the RH to find its grounding in lived experience. He makes some really broad claims that are bound to ruffle a few feathers. Shots are fired at many folks, like Descartes, everyone\u0026rsquo;s favorite punching bag, Plato who we are assuming you understand if you are disagreeing with him, and Chomsky the misguided genius of the left. This book is full of interesting anecdotes about the functions of the brain, here are a few that stood out. The LH and RH seem to work in a sort of opponent processing. Where if one side loses some power, the other side will step in to fill the gap. This usually causes undesirable outcomes for example in stroke patients or the like. He claims the singing (RH biased) preceded language (LH biased) due to its simplicity and the way our brains pick up rhythm and some studies that showed that babies tend to pick up words lyrically prior to syntax. [Chomsky shakes his fist in feudal rage] The corpus callosum is the major connector between the LH and RH. This is what was severed in patients with severe epilepsy because it appeared to ease the symptoms creating what we call \u0026ldquo;split brain\u0026rdquo; patients. Two things are interesting here, first that for the most part the patients were able to live normal lives after the operation. Secondly, that bridge appears not only as a connector, but a borderline that held the hemispheres at bay. So, after the operation the instances of strange behavior like the left hand reaching for a coat (controlled by the RH) and the right hand (controlled by the LH) reaching out to stop it are caused by this imbalance in opponent processing. One of his major claims in the book is that the western world has become a machine world, the LH preferred way of looking at the world. We moved away from the dynamic world of the RH which is full of curves, circles, and flow into the static world of the left, line segments, n-gons, and timesteps. From art to the written word itself, the world has shifted towards an LH biased mode of operation. Language used to be written vertically and made with pictograms (like hieroglyphs) which meant reading favored the RH, we now use abstracted symbols and read left to right which is exactly the way LH prefers it. The shift to favor the LH has torn us out of an experiential world and placed us into a mechanistic world where we are observers. He makes the case that this perspective is very similar to cases of schizophrenia, which are primarily a malady wherein the LH is overactive. He ends the book by looking at the ways in which this LH bias is not as apparent in eastern cultures and that perhaps this signals a way forward for us.\nThoughts\nThe more books I read from thinkers in recent history the more it seems that for all the disagreement they have, there is one thing in which they all agree. Modern society is not built for humans. We have created a world that wears on us, day after day. The left brain dissects things, and you can only dissect what is dead. This book appealed to things bigger than us. Truth and beauty are concepts outside ourselves which act as meaning makers. The problem is the RH hemisphere\u0026rsquo;s ability to communicate in language is next to nil, so we are left in a world with a premium on the logos. The left brain makes its case for why something should be done in such and such a way, while there is only silence from the right brain. McGilchrist agrees with the idea that metaphor and poetry are the primary way in which the right brain can hint at its ineffable intuitions. One interesting development since the writing of this book has been the rise of AI. For McGilchrist Art, Music and Poetry were almost sacred in their ability to communicate embodied truths about experience, but what are we to think when the creations of AI (the epitome of the LH) become indistinguishable from artists and poets? McGilchrist argues the LH constructs hermetically sealed, self-referential worlds. The self-referential aspect or as he called it \u0026ldquo;hall of mirrors\u0026rdquo; alienates us from experience. His point is that the RH is the way out back into the world as such. These AI creations suggest to me that this is another delusion that cannot survive the information age, where all meaning becomes simulated into nothing. I will need to come back to this book after reading more, some of his arguments were a little too attached to unknown concepts for me to wrap my head around. I really appreciated this book and this perspective; he provides a compelling argument for a more antiquated view of this thing we call life. This book is brilliant and reminds me of how far away we are from solving the mind body problem.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-master-and-his-emissary-the-divided-brain-and-the-making-of-the-western-world/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSummary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Master and his Emissary written by Iain \u0026ldquo;Right brain so hott right now\u0026rdquo; McGilchrist is the product of twenty years of research into hemispheric differences in the human brain. He starts out by dismantling the pop psychology version of the hemispheric differences saying that the simple male(left)/ female(right) dichotomy is incorrect because the right is actually good at logic too so now, we can\u0026rsquo;t find a female part of the brain anywhere. To put the book in a single sentence it would be that the left sees parts while the right sees the whole. Part of the impetus of this book seems to be that the right hemisphere has been neglected by research and considered of lesser importance than the left (which does the talking) according to McGilchrist this is flipped. The \u0026ldquo;master\u0026rdquo; in his title is in reference to the right hemisphere and the emissary to the left. His claim is that thought originates in the RH and is sent to the LH but must importantly return to the RH to find its grounding in lived experience. He makes some really broad claims that are bound to ruffle a few feathers. Shots are fired at many folks, like Descartes, everyone\u0026rsquo;s favorite punching bag, Plato who we are assuming you understand if you are disagreeing with him, and Chomsky the misguided genius of the left. This book is full of interesting anecdotes about the functions of the brain, here are a few that stood out.\nThe LH and RH seem to work in a sort of opponent processing. Where if one side loses some power, the other side will step in to fill the gap. This usually causes undesirable outcomes for example in stroke patients or the like.\nHe claims the singing (RH biased) preceded language (LH biased) due to its simplicity and the way our brains pick up rhythm and some studies that showed that babies tend to pick up words lyrically prior to syntax. [Chomsky shakes his fist in feudal rage]\nThe corpus callosum is the major connector between the LH and RH. This is what was severed in patients with severe epilepsy because it appeared to ease the symptoms creating what we call \u0026ldquo;split brain\u0026rdquo; patients. Two things are interesting here, first that for the most part the patients were able to live normal lives after the operation. Secondly, that bridge appears not only as a connector, but a borderline that held the hemispheres at bay.  So, after the operation the instances of strange behavior like the left hand reaching for a coat (controlled by the RH) and the right hand (controlled by the LH) reaching out to stop it are caused by this imbalance in opponent processing.\nOne of his major claims in the book is that the western world has become a machine world, the LH preferred way of looking at the world. We moved away from the dynamic world of the RH which is full of curves, circles, and flow into the static world of the left, line segments, n-gons, and timesteps. From art to the written word itself, the world has shifted towards an LH biased mode of operation.  Language used to be written vertically and made with pictograms (like hieroglyphs) which meant reading favored the RH, we now use abstracted symbols and read left to right which is exactly the way LH prefers it. The shift to favor the LH has torn us out of an experiential world and placed us into a mechanistic world where we are observers. He makes the case that this perspective is very similar to cases of schizophrenia, which are primarily a malady wherein the LH is overactive. He ends the book by looking at the ways in which this LH bias is not as apparent in eastern cultures and that perhaps this signals a way forward for us.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Master and His Emissary"},{"content":"Secret History is a murder mystery told in reverse, where the reader is shown the victims and perpetrators at the beginning. The book is narrated in first person by one of the perpetrators, and the events are revealed through his recollections of them. The story is set in a fictional small college in New England in the 1980s, where a group of six students form an exclusive cohort under the tutelage of a professor of Greek classics. This professor has peculiar practices, such as being very selective about which students he allows in his classes. He only lets a few students in at a time, and takes total control of their schedules, becoming almost their only professor by teaching multiple classes at once. This creates a close-knit group of students who are almost strangers to the rest of the students on campus.\nAesthetics\nThis book is similar to Dorian Gray in that the pursuit of a possibly extinct beauty animates several of the characters. This search is often dangerous and tends to leave destruction in its wake. The search for ever clearer representations of beauty is a well-trodden path leading through various mediums, but typically arts, music, literature, and eventually into the fringe. In this case ancient Greek mysteries.\nGreek\nThe ancient Greek culture is the backdrop for everything that transpires in this story. It shows up in the sexuality of the characters through homosexuality, incest, and hints of possible pederasty. For the character Henry in particular, he seems to attempt to incarnate the Greek spirit in himself. In particular, I was interested in Tartt\u0026rsquo;s description of Greek as an \u0026ldquo;action oriented\u0026rdquo; language and how that might affect the lives of those who speak it.\nPresentation of Self\nAnother major theme in the story is the performative side of self. We build expectations and ideas around people not for who they are, but for who they are pretending to be. The relationship, in its original form, can really only last as long as the pretense goes unrealized. Yet this is not an external phenomenon because you yourself are to some extent performing as well. Your relationship with yourself also changes when this pretense is exposed. In this case it was exposed to the main character through the act of murder. Afterwards, the world and everyone in it, were irrevocably altered. To quote Freud \u0026ldquo;In the beginning was the deed\u0026rdquo;.\nThoughts\nThe book itself was entertaining, quite moody and atmospheric. I was a bit disappointed that even with all the emphasis on Greek we didn\u0026rsquo;t get more details on the mysteries, but perhaps this was for the best as everything is better when it is hidden. The pacing of the book was decent, with plot twists and reveals that were largely unexpected and satisfying.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-secret-history/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eSecret History is a murder mystery told in reverse, where the reader is shown the victims and perpetrators at the beginning. The book is narrated in first person by one of the perpetrators, and the events are revealed through his recollections of them. The story is set in a fictional small college in New England in the 1980s, where a group of six students form an exclusive cohort under the tutelage of a professor of Greek classics. This professor has peculiar practices, such as being very selective about which students he allows in his classes. He only lets a few students in at a time, and takes total control of their schedules, becoming almost their only professor by teaching multiple classes at once. This creates a close-knit group of students who are almost strangers to the rest of the students on campus.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Secret History"},{"content":"Black Robe is a simple story about a 17th century priest trying to make it out to an isolated mission near the Great Lakes. He is to be guided by a small group of Algonquian in exchange for six muskets and a few other items. The main theme that is in the faces of the reader is the clash of cultures. Two ways of thinking so disparate, it is hard to imagine any bridge large enough to span the chasm. Moore avoids the easy trap of making caricatures of either side, but instead presents both the priest and his guides with an even sympathetic hand. An interesting undercurrent to the book was the idea of contingency. While reading the book you get the feeling that you as the reader have as much control over the outcome of events as the characters inside the book. There is a long string of events that leads Father Laforgue to his current mission, stretching all the way back to scenes from his childhood where statues to martyrs have shaped his dreams and life ambitions. Likewise, the Algonquian, uneasy and fully aware of tectonic shifts occurring are grasping at any hand hold they can find to buy some extra time as they slowly slide towards oblivion. The priest relies on his guides, who in turn are at the mercy of autocratic fort captains who in turn bend the knee to the pope. Like a cancerous tumor, trade spreads and starts to erode cultures into a single melting pot of \u0026ldquo;necessary\u0026rdquo; relations. Inside this maelstrom of turmoil Father Laforgue attempts to do and be good, but as Moore painstakingly makes clear that is no simple matter. The story is interesting, dark, and at times moving. The Algonquian\u0026rsquo;s way of speaking in the book is heavily laced with profanity, this (from an author\u0026rsquo;s note) is supposed to be historically accurate, and it increased the strange juxtaposition between their speech and the speech of a 17th century priest. That being said, at times it was so informal as to be distracting and reminded me a little of the \u0026ldquo;jive\u0026rdquo; language from Airplane. Really enjoyed the setting and look forward to reading more stories from around this era.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/black-robe/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eBlack Robe is a simple story about a 17th century priest trying to make it out to an isolated mission near the Great Lakes. He is to be guided by a small group of Algonquian in exchange for six muskets and a few other items. The main theme that is in the faces of the reader is the clash of cultures. Two ways of thinking so disparate, it is hard to imagine any bridge large enough to span the chasm. Moore avoids the easy trap of making caricatures of either side, but instead presents both the priest and his guides with an even sympathetic hand. An interesting undercurrent to the book was the idea of contingency.  While reading the book you get the feeling that you as the reader have as much control over the outcome of events as the characters inside the book. There is a long string of events that leads Father Laforgue to his current mission, stretching all the way back to scenes from his childhood where statues to martyrs have shaped his dreams and life ambitions. Likewise, the Algonquian, uneasy and fully aware of tectonic shifts occurring are grasping at any hand hold they can find to buy some extra time as they slowly slide towards oblivion. The priest relies on his guides, who in turn are at the mercy of autocratic fort captains who in turn bend the knee to the pope. Like a cancerous tumor, trade spreads and starts to erode cultures into a single melting pot of \u0026ldquo;necessary\u0026rdquo; relations. Inside this maelstrom of turmoil Father Laforgue attempts to do and be good, but as Moore painstakingly makes clear that is no simple matter. The story is interesting, dark, and at times moving. The Algonquian\u0026rsquo;s way of speaking in the book is heavily laced with profanity, this (from an author\u0026rsquo;s note) is supposed to be historically accurate, and it increased the strange juxtaposition between their speech and the speech of a 17th century priest. That being said, at times it was so informal as to be distracting and reminded me a little of the \u0026ldquo;jive\u0026rdquo; language from Airplane. Really enjoyed the setting and look forward to reading more stories from around this era.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Black Robe"},{"content":"Read this as a book club choice and having read the Kybalion earlier in the year I was somewhat interested in what this book had to say. I also intended on coming into it with an open mind. I read it in two days, so what I will say was that it was not boring, and not \u0026ldquo;difficult\u0026rdquo; to understand. I was also intrigued because unlike the Kybalion the author made it quite clear that \u0026ldquo;sorcery\u0026rdquo; was not beneath the per view of this book. That being said, I am not sure how anyone could take this sort of thing seriously. There were many parts of the book that were absolutely laughable. There is a phenomenon in many of these types of books where there will be a lot of words and concepts that together make an amazing edifice, but as soon as these ideas come into contact with the real world they oxidize, and you are left with an empty façade. It is as if you are on a foggy pier, and you run into some wizened old sailor missing a leg. He looks up and says \u0026ldquo;yarg, you want to see Atlantis?\u0026rdquo; You excitedly say that you do, and he says, \u0026ldquo;follow me\u0026rdquo;. You follow the old man into his rickety boat and descend into his dank cabin to find that he has constructed some sort of island city out of LEGOs. He looks at you with his one good eye and says, \u0026ldquo;yarg, this be Atlantis\u0026rdquo;.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/condensed-chaos-an-introduction-to-chaos-magic/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eRead this as a book club choice and having read the Kybalion earlier in the year I was somewhat interested in what this book had to say. I also intended on coming into it with an open mind. I read it in two days, so what I will say was that it was not boring, and not \u0026ldquo;difficult\u0026rdquo; to understand. I was also intrigued because unlike the Kybalion the author made it quite clear that \u0026ldquo;sorcery\u0026rdquo; was not beneath the per view of this book. That being said, I am not sure how anyone could take this sort of thing seriously. There were many parts of the book that were absolutely laughable. There is a phenomenon in many of these types of books where there will be a lot of words and concepts that together make an amazing edifice, but as soon as these ideas come into contact with the real world they oxidize, and you are left with an empty façade. It is as if you are on a foggy pier, and you run into some wizened old sailor missing a leg. He looks up and says \u0026ldquo;yarg, you want to see Atlantis?\u0026rdquo; You excitedly say that you do, and he says, \u0026ldquo;follow me\u0026rdquo;. You follow the old man into his rickety boat and descend into his dank cabin to find that he has constructed some sort of island city out of LEGOs. He looks at you with his one good eye and says, \u0026ldquo;yarg, this be Atlantis\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Condensed Chaos"},{"content":"Gogol is one more of those Russian authors (actually born in Ukraine) that was an inspiration to many other authors (Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Kafka, etic) I thought it was about time to take the old boy out himself. Dead Souls follows a mysterious character that the reader gets to know as the book unfolds who just as mysteriously wants to buy dead serfs from Russian aristocrats. The writing style was easy to digest, and the book is filled with many charming and ridiculous characters. This book was somewhat unique as the author would break the fourth wall from time to time and give his own views about things. Full of insightful social commentary and awkward predicaments the book was called the Russian Pickwick Papers, but I wouldn\u0026rsquo;t go that far, I would say this book is a lot less ridiculous and more surreal, which I would guess is why it appealed to Kafka. The book surprisingly ends in mid-sentence leaving scholars to argue whether or not it was supposed to be that way. Whether it was or not it definitely felt like the rug was pulled from under you. Gogol was another one of those Russian authors that seemed to live like a character from his books. A complete chad that wanted to teach Cossack history but instead was offered a job teaching Medieval History at the university of St. Petersburg a subject of which he had no qualifications.\n\u0026ldquo;He turned in a performance ludicrous enough to warrant satiric treatment in one of his own stories. After an introductory lecture made up of brilliant generalizations which the \u0026lsquo;historian\u0026rsquo; had prudently prepared and memorized, he gave up all pretence at erudition and teaching, missed two lectures out of three, and when he did appear, muttered unintelligibly through his teeth. At the final examination, he sat in utter silence with a black handkerchief wrapped around his head, simulating a toothache, while another professor interrogated the students.\u0026rdquo;\nPart of the mystery surrounding the ending of the book is that he had meant it to be part of a trilogy which mirrored Dante\u0026rsquo;s divine comedy. This first part represented the Inferno or Russian governmental corruption. But he ended up burning the second part of the trilogy shortly before his death which was brought on by ascetism. Dead Souls keeps you guessing about the main character while meeting tons of terrible but somehow charming people. I was thoroughly entertained. Add another one to the Russian literature scoreboard.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/dead-souls/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eGogol is one more of those Russian authors (actually born in Ukraine) that was an inspiration to many other authors (Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Kafka, etic) I thought it was about time to take the old boy out himself. Dead Souls follows a mysterious character that the reader gets to know as the book unfolds who just as mysteriously wants to buy dead serfs from Russian aristocrats. The writing style was easy to digest, and the book is filled with many charming and ridiculous characters. This book was somewhat unique as the author would break the fourth wall from time to time and give his own views about things. Full of insightful social commentary and awkward predicaments the book was called the Russian Pickwick Papers, but I wouldn\u0026rsquo;t go that far, I would say this book is a lot less ridiculous and more surreal, which I would guess is why it appealed to Kafka. The book surprisingly ends in mid-sentence leaving scholars to argue whether or not it was supposed to be that way. Whether it was or not it definitely felt like the rug was pulled from under you. Gogol was another one of those Russian authors that seemed to live like a character from his books. A complete chad that wanted to teach Cossack history but instead was offered a job teaching Medieval History at the university of St. Petersburg a subject of which he had no qualifications.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Dead Souls"},{"content":"An easy-to-read book that makes a case that aging is at the center of all humanity\u0026rsquo;s health issues. Before David Sinclair, there had never been a unified aging theory that stood up to scientific scrutiny. Sinclair argues that aging is a disease. Our body is constantly reproducing itself on the micro level. As we exist things cause damage to our bodies (UV radiation, Coca Cola, the mail man etc) these mini disasters cause cells to go into disaster recovery mode where they leave their domestic tasks to address the foreign catastrophe. While they are gone their grass at home gets long, their mailbox gets full and some never make it back home. Overtime these absences stack up like scratches on a DVD. All the sudden a cell that was making sure a certain other cell wasn\u0026rsquo;t reproducing, never makes it back and you get cancer. Like scratches on a DVD Sinclair is confident that we can and have made progress in interventions that would essentially expose the data underneath the scratches and be able reverse the effects. Sinclair looks at the current medical approach as an ineffectual game of whack a mole that address various symptoms of aging but has never worried about aging itself because it was assumed that aging was an inevitable process that should not/could not be messed with. Sinclair\u0026rsquo;s grandmother and mother both died in the typical modern way. That is their lifespan was extended, but their quality of life was ignored. Those two events are the cornerstone of his life\u0026rsquo;s work, which is to extend vitality not just lifespan. He makes some very optimistic predictions about life spans extending in the near future. For example, saying that the first person to live to 150 has already been born. The writing itself is pretty standard for this type of book, engaging but not unique in any way. To me, most of Sinclair\u0026rsquo;s metaphysics was a breath of fresh air. I am still a maladjusted pig boy that enjoys living, and would enjoy living longer than 80 years, maybe not forever but longer than 80 years. More than that I would like to still be kicking when I\u0026rsquo;m 80, because what is the point of living 1000 years if you are in an old folk\u0026rsquo;s home for 900 of those years. This is exactly what Sinclair is saying will happen in the near future. He doesn\u0026rsquo;t make any predictions for life spans longer than 150, but he does make the claim that there is no biological limit to lifespan, there are only biological entities that experience aging and those that don\u0026rsquo;t.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/lifespan-why-we-age-and-why-we-dont-have-to/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eAn easy-to-read book that makes a case that aging is at the center of all humanity\u0026rsquo;s health issues. Before David Sinclair, there had never been a unified aging theory that stood up to scientific scrutiny. Sinclair argues that aging is a disease. Our body is constantly reproducing itself on the micro level. As we exist things cause damage to our bodies (UV radiation, Coca Cola, the mail man etc) these mini disasters cause cells to go into disaster recovery mode where they leave their domestic tasks to address the foreign catastrophe. While they are gone their grass at home gets long, their mailbox gets full and some never make it back home. Overtime these absences stack up like scratches on a DVD. All the sudden a cell that was making sure a certain other cell wasn\u0026rsquo;t reproducing, never makes it back and you get cancer. Like scratches on a DVD Sinclair is confident that we can and have made progress in interventions that would essentially expose the data underneath the scratches and be able reverse the effects. Sinclair looks at the current medical approach as an ineffectual game of whack a mole that address various symptoms of aging but has never worried about aging itself because it was assumed that aging was an inevitable process that should not/could not be messed with. Sinclair\u0026rsquo;s grandmother and mother both died in the typical modern way. That is their lifespan was extended, but their quality of life was ignored. Those two events are the cornerstone of his life\u0026rsquo;s work, which is to extend vitality not just lifespan. He makes some very optimistic predictions about life spans extending in the near future. For example, saying that the first person to live to 150 has already been born. The writing itself is pretty standard for this type of book, engaging but not unique in any way. To me, most of Sinclair\u0026rsquo;s metaphysics was a breath of fresh air.  I am still a maladjusted pig boy that enjoys living, and would enjoy living longer than 80 years, maybe not forever but longer than 80 years. More than that I would like to still be kicking when I\u0026rsquo;m 80, because what is the point of living 1000 years if you are in an old folk\u0026rsquo;s home for 900 of those years. This is exactly what Sinclair is saying will happen in the near future. He doesn\u0026rsquo;t make any predictions for life spans longer than 150, but he does make the claim that there is no biological limit to lifespan, there are only biological entities that experience aging and those that don\u0026rsquo;t.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Lifespan- Why We Age―and Why We Don't Have To"},{"content":"Keeping this review short, I really enjoyed this book. Full of very interesting points and theories, really helped to get a grasp on the story about what happened between big bang and man. Got way more acquainted with monkey sexual practices than I had expected. The things that I didn\u0026rsquo;t like was that on one hand we have the insistence (correctly I think) that evolution is blind and has no destination in mind, where on the other hand there was still the subtle presence of the idea of \u0026ldquo;evolving past something\u0026rdquo;. Most notably xenophobia, this struck me as inconsistent with the previously utilitarian view presented on the universe. The other thing that caused some mental friction was their approach to chimps learning language. This section felt like quite a stretch to me, as I think it misrepresented chimps\u0026rsquo; linguistical abilities. In total, I still enjoyed this book quite a bit and it is worth a read if only to see the interesting overlaps between monkey culture and human culture.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/shadows-of-forgotten-ancestors/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eKeeping this review short, I really enjoyed this book. Full of very interesting points and theories, really helped to get a grasp on the story about what happened between big bang and man. Got way more acquainted with monkey sexual practices than I had expected. The things that I didn\u0026rsquo;t like was that on one hand we have the insistence (correctly I think) that evolution is blind and has no destination in mind, where on the other hand there was still the subtle presence of the idea of \u0026ldquo;evolving past something\u0026rdquo;. Most notably xenophobia, this struck me as inconsistent with the previously utilitarian view presented on the universe. The other thing that caused some mental friction was their approach to chimps learning language. This section felt like quite a stretch to me, as I think it misrepresented chimps\u0026rsquo; linguistical abilities. In total, I still enjoyed this book quite a bit and it is worth a read if only to see the interesting overlaps between monkey culture and human culture.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors"},{"content":"This was probably one of the most difficult books I\u0026rsquo;ve ever read, but at the same time one of the most thought provoking. As the first book I\u0026rsquo;ve ever read from Baudrillard, this book felt like jumping on a bullet train that was traveling to some unknown destination at top speed. Never pausing to offer his readers any lifelines Baudrillard forges on with twisted logic and esoteric analogies. Steeped in the culture and place of France in the 1980s I found myself often at a loss and not catching the references to geography or pop culture. Even so this book has stuck to my mind like glue, and for the rest of the year I was unable to shake it. His view of the world seeped into mine, and irrevocably changed it. Let\u0026rsquo;s just say I won\u0026rsquo;t be going to Disney World anytime soon, I for one am satisfied with the unreality that the rest of America has on offer.\nPeople/Jean Baudrillard\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/simulacra-and-simulation/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis was probably one of the most difficult books I\u0026rsquo;ve ever read, but at the same time one of the most thought provoking. As the first book I\u0026rsquo;ve ever read from Baudrillard, this book felt like jumping on a bullet train that was traveling to some unknown destination at top speed. Never pausing to offer his readers any lifelines Baudrillard forges on with twisted logic and esoteric analogies. Steeped in the culture and place of France in the 1980s I found myself often at a loss and not catching the references to geography or pop culture. Even so this book has stuck to my mind like glue, and for the rest of the year I was unable to shake it. His view of the world seeped into mine, and irrevocably changed it. Let\u0026rsquo;s just say I won\u0026rsquo;t be going to Disney World anytime soon, I for one am satisfied with the unreality that the rest of America has on offer.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Simulacra and Simulation (The Body, In Theory"},{"content":"This book was a wild ride like watching some guy on the history channel talk about something that you have no clue about. Could be classy\u0026hellip;. could be demonic, but either way entertaining! I found his points about the complexity of DNA and the stability of animal archetypes after the Cambrian explosion to be quite interesting and something that I will have to keep an eye out for in the future. Big bang debunked?! But seriously, I think we should be able to hold Darwinism as loosely as we hold Mormonism. If something else comes along and replaces it, all the better! I thought the book raised a lot of good questions and gave some pretty shaky answers, not that I have any better theories to sally forth, I shall sit back and let someone braver face the ridicule of the scientific world. As Planck\u0026rsquo;s principle says, \u0026ldquo;Science progresses one funeral at a time\u0026rdquo;. Perhaps our conceptions of soup to cell, needs a snake!\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-cosmic-serpent-dna-and-the-origins-of-knowledge/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis book was a wild ride like watching some guy on the history channel talk about something that you have no clue about. Could be classy\u0026hellip;. could be demonic, but either way entertaining! I found his points about the complexity of DNA and the stability of animal archetypes after the Cambrian explosion to be quite interesting and something that I will have to keep an eye out for in the future. Big bang debunked?! But seriously, I think we should be able to hold Darwinism as loosely as we hold Mormonism. If something else comes along and replaces it, all the better! I thought the book raised a lot of good questions and gave some pretty shaky answers, not that I have any better theories to sally forth, I shall sit back and let someone braver face the ridicule of the scientific world. As Planck\u0026rsquo;s principle says, \u0026ldquo;Science progresses one funeral at a time\u0026rdquo;. Perhaps our conceptions of soup to cell, needs a snake!\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Cosmic Serpent"},{"content":"Was really interested at the start of the book, but the dialogue seemed canned and eventually the weird melting stuff in the book became laughable. Interesting plot, but the execution in the end did not do it for me.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-gods-themselves/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eWas really interested at the start of the book, but the dialogue seemed canned and eventually the weird melting stuff in the book became laughable. Interesting plot, but the execution in the end did not do it for me.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Gods Themselves"},{"content":"The Good Earth tracks the life of a peasant farmer in early 20th century China. Opening with the main character\u0026rsquo;s (Wang Lung) wedding day and then follows him and his wife through the end of their lives. Famine, Bandits, War, and odious family obligations stand in between Wang Lung and his quest for good farmland. Written (1931) by the child of an American Missionary in China, I was surprised by the lack of judgment and the sympathetic way it presented the Chinese culture. The author definitely demonstrated an intimate understanding of the Chinese culture, but I still think it was written as an outsider when compared to Wild Swans. A very entertaining and moving book, I would recommend this book if you were interested in the topic. I appreciated the fact that the book didn\u0026rsquo;t have a clear moral or apparent agenda.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-good-earth-house-of-earth-1/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThe Good Earth tracks the life of a peasant farmer in early 20th century China. Opening with the main character\u0026rsquo;s (Wang Lung) wedding day and then follows him and his wife through the end of their lives. Famine, Bandits, War, and odious family obligations stand in between Wang Lung and his quest for good farmland. Written (1931) by the child of an American Missionary in China, I was surprised by the lack of judgment and the sympathetic way it presented the Chinese culture. The author definitely demonstrated an intimate understanding of the Chinese culture, but I still think it was written as an outsider when compared to Wild Swans. A very entertaining and moving book, I would recommend this book if you were interested in the topic. I appreciated the fact that the book didn\u0026rsquo;t have a clear moral or apparent agenda.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Good Earth (House of Earth, #1)"},{"content":"There is a phenomenon where a large group of ideas and people are looked at in the academic world with contempt as if they were below consideration. Or perhaps we have progressed past them in some way. But at every turn we see signs of their influence and general acceptance. I feel like Jung, Campbell, and especially Freud with their ideas fit neatly into this category. The influence of a hero with 1000 faces (1949) is insane. Pretty much any story you\u0026rsquo;ve ever enjoyed either implicitly follows the structure laid out by Campbell or was directly influenced by this book. From Watership Down to Jim Morrison, the Matrix, Harry Potter, Star Wars, etc. Campbell makes the claim that all of the different mythologies in the world are actually part of a monomyth which emerges from the human psyche. As such a myth in any part of the world will loosely follow a structure, which he calls the Hero\u0026rsquo;s Journey. One way of thinking about myths are that they are stories that can\u0026rsquo;t not be told. A dream is a personalized myth, and a myth is a de-personalized dream. Myths in this light are our primary link to metaphysics. After having already read the Power of Myth there won\u0026rsquo;t be much new in this book other than a more rigorous explanation of the stages of the hero\u0026rsquo;s journey. Also (my favorite part) many entertaining myths that you\u0026rsquo;ve probably never heard of. Like all work relating to myth, it is highly speculative and prone to the brain seeing patterns that do not exist. This objection must in some sense be ignored though, due to the resonance this book has had. It seems like there must be something to it even if it is just a glitch in our brains. It doesn\u0026rsquo;t matter if these ideas are ignored, they seem to seep through the cracks of our psyche anyway. For the average reader I would probably recommend just reading this or Power of Myth if you are looking for something shorter. To read both of them is probably only necessary if you are in need of a double dose of mythological pimping.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-hero-with-a-thousand-faces/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThere is a phenomenon where a large group of ideas and people are looked at in the academic world with contempt as if they were below consideration. Or perhaps we have progressed past them in some way. But at every turn we see signs of their influence and general acceptance. I feel like Jung, Campbell, and especially Freud with their ideas fit neatly into this category. The influence of a hero with 1000 faces (1949) is insane. Pretty much any story you\u0026rsquo;ve ever enjoyed either implicitly follows the structure laid out by Campbell or was directly influenced by this book. From Watership Down to Jim Morrison, the Matrix, Harry Potter, Star Wars, etc. Campbell makes the claim that all of the different mythologies in the world are actually part of a monomyth which emerges from the human psyche. As such a myth in any part of the world will loosely follow a structure, which he calls the Hero\u0026rsquo;s Journey. One way of thinking about myths are that they are stories that can\u0026rsquo;t not be told. A dream is a personalized myth, and a myth is a de-personalized dream. Myths in this light are our primary link to metaphysics. After having already read the Power of Myth there won\u0026rsquo;t be much new in this book other than a more rigorous explanation of the stages of the hero\u0026rsquo;s journey. Also (my favorite part) many entertaining myths that you\u0026rsquo;ve probably never heard of. Like all work relating to myth, it is highly speculative and prone to the brain seeing patterns that do not exist. This objection must in some sense be ignored though, due to the resonance this book has had. It seems like there must be something to it even if it is just a glitch in our brains. It doesn\u0026rsquo;t matter if these ideas are ignored, they seem to seep through the cracks of our psyche anyway. For the average reader I would probably recommend just reading this or Power of Myth if you are looking for something shorter. To read both of them is probably only necessary if you are in need of a double dose of mythological pimping.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Hero With a Thousand Faces"},{"content":"Heard this book referenced in a podcast as one of the best historical novels ever. I\u0026rsquo;m not sure I would go that far, but it was a very entertaining read. The writing and setting were beautiful. It follows the last in a long line of Sicilian nobility while Sicily and Italy as a whole is experiencing revolution and political turmoil during the unification of Italy that was happening ~1870s. This novel further cemented my views on the inevitability of history and the material blow to culture from the extinction of the noble class. Any remnants of the nobility left today are mere SIMULACRA of the originals.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-leopard/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eHeard this book referenced in a podcast as one of the best historical novels ever. I\u0026rsquo;m not sure I would go that far, but it was a very entertaining read. The writing and setting were beautiful. It follows the last in a long line of Sicilian nobility while Sicily and Italy as a whole is experiencing revolution and political turmoil during the unification of Italy that was happening ~1870s. This novel further cemented my views on the inevitability of history and the material blow to culture from the extinction of the noble class. Any remnants of the nobility left today are mere SIMULACRA of the originals.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Leopard"},{"content":"This book was fairly interesting if somewhat opaque to me due to my ignorance around Buddhism. There were some interesting ideas put forth in the book, I really liked the following quote\nThe traveler who finds his road blocked by a river will use a raft to reach the opposite shore, but, his shore once reached, he will not carry the raft on his shoulders while continuing his journey. He will abandon it as something which has become useless.\nAlso, the concept that reality is really the aggregation of discrete flashes of energy was interesting. The book does get into the weeds a fair bit in regard to various Buddhist and Hindu sects which didn\u0026rsquo;t mean much to me, again due to ignorance.\nBuddhism\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-secret-oral-teachings-in-tibetan-buddhist-sects/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis book was fairly interesting if somewhat opaque to me due to my ignorance around Buddhism. There were some interesting ideas put forth in the book, I really liked the following quote\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe traveler who finds his road blocked by a river will use a raft to reach the opposite shore, but, his shore once reached, he will not carry the raft on his shoulders while continuing his journey. He will abandon it as something which has become useless.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Secret Oral Teachings in Tibetan Buddhist Sects"},{"content":"Schopenhauer has been on my radar for a while because like Donald Trump, Schopenhauer was a Kantian. To better understand how Trump will complete German idealism, one must first wrestle with this great thinker. While some philosophers content themselves with attempting to explain a single concept Schopenhauer decides he would rather explain everything from magnets to women ☕. Combining Kant\u0026rsquo;s distinction between idea of a thing vs thing in itself (in short, your idea of a car is not the car) and Platonic Idea (there is a single tree in a realm of forms which all trees in our world are representations of) he comes up with his own spin on things stating that the world presents itself to our experience as individuations of a single thing. That thing is Will. So hypothetically the process could go something like this Will encounters a subject and gets objectified into a Platonic idea. This platonic idea then encounters space and time where it is objectified once more into a perception, like a tree for example. So, what exactly is Will? Will is actually very similar to the Buddhist concept of desire. This is no coincidence as Schopenhauer calls the translation of the Vedas one of the greatest gifts of the 19th century. Will can be considered the universal principle that animates the universe. A blind insatiable striving. One outcome of this is that everything that wills, suffers. And since everything that exists is a manifestation of will it means that everything suffers. This plants Schopenhauer squarely in the school of pessimists. To Schopenhauer life can be broken into two experiences. One is either striving after something or bored (read depressed). Schopenhauer would say that the happiness we feel when accomplishing a goal isn\u0026rsquo;t actually happiness it is merely the cessation of suffering that was caused by the desire. Once this desire is gone a new one almost instantaneously takes its place. He also has some interesting ideas about art that somewhat resonated specifically that good art lifts a person out of their subject-ness for brief periods of time. It opens them up to look at the world more universally. For example, you hear a sad song and can join in not with particular sadness, but sadness at a universal level. He ends the book by talking about ethics\n\u0026ldquo;For virtue certainly proceeds from knowledge, but not from the abstract knowledge that can be communicated through words. If it were so, virtue could be taught, and by here expressing in abstract language its nature and the knowledge which lies at its foundation, we should make everyone who comprehends this even ethically better. But this is by no means the case. On the contrary, ethical discourses and preaching will just as little produce a virtuous man as all the systems of æsthetics from Aristotle downwards have succeeded in producing a poet.\u0026rdquo;\nHe boils down a virtuous person as one who makes less distinction than is usually made between himself and others. Because to Schopenhauer this distinction between I and you is illusory, as he quotes often- tat tvam asi (Thou art that). So, I assume he would rewrite the golden rule from \u0026ldquo;do unto others as you would have them do unto you\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;do unto you as you would have you do to you\u0026rdquo;. He ends the book by describing what he considers to be the most moral thing you can do. In short it is to live an ascetic life. There are only two ways you can do this; one is to be a saint. I.E to recognize that I and you are illusions. This knowledge curves the saint\u0026rsquo;s will to life and thus the saint\u0026rsquo;s suffering. This as was stated above can\u0026rsquo;t be taught. The second way is to experience suffering at such a high level that it forcibly breaks your will. You become will-less. I am surprised by how closely this aligns with my Matrix/Mushroom idea. As a random bit of trivia in his later life he lived alone except for a succession of poodles that he named Atman. Overall, this book was quite dense at times, full of interesting insights at others. I found it difficult to stay engaged for the entirety of it, but when I was engaged it had its rewards.\nArthur Schopenhauer\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-world-as-will-and-representation-vol-1/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eSchopenhauer has been on my radar for a while because like Donald Trump, Schopenhauer was a Kantian. To better understand how Trump will complete German idealism, one must first wrestle with this great thinker. While some philosophers content themselves with attempting to explain a single concept Schopenhauer decides he would rather explain everything from magnets to women ☕.  Combining Kant\u0026rsquo;s distinction between idea of a thing vs thing in itself (in short, your idea of a car is not the car) and Platonic Idea (there is a single tree in a realm of forms which all trees in our world are representations of) he comes up with his own spin on things stating that the world presents itself to our experience as individuations of a single thing. That thing is Will. So hypothetically the process could go something like this Will encounters a subject and gets objectified into a Platonic idea. This platonic idea then encounters space and time where it is objectified once more into a perception, like a tree for example. So, what exactly is Will? Will is actually very similar to the Buddhist concept of desire. This is no coincidence as Schopenhauer calls the translation of the Vedas one of the greatest gifts of the 19th century. Will can be considered the universal principle that animates the universe. A blind insatiable striving. One outcome of this is that everything that wills, suffers. And since everything that exists is a manifestation of will it means that everything suffers. This plants Schopenhauer squarely in the school of pessimists. To Schopenhauer life can be broken into two experiences. One is either striving after something or bored (read depressed). Schopenhauer would say that the happiness we feel when accomplishing a goal isn\u0026rsquo;t actually happiness it is merely the cessation of suffering that was caused by the desire. Once this desire is gone a new one almost instantaneously takes its place. He also has some interesting ideas about art that somewhat resonated specifically that good art lifts a person out of their subject-ness for brief periods of time. It opens them up to look at the world more universally. For example, you hear a sad song and can join in not with particular sadness, but sadness at a universal level. He ends the book by talking about ethics\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The World as Will and Representation, Vol. 1"},{"content":"This was a very enjoyable fast paced novel. Would definitely recommend, brilliant! The thing that I loved in this book the most was his attention to little details. These details really helped to complete the feel of the sci-fi world his characters inhabited. The story was great and loved the ending except for the very last chapter. This one felt too much like a concession to leave the door open for an \u0026ldquo;Ubik 2\u0026rdquo;. Other than that, a fantastic book.\nPeople/Philip K. Dick\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/ubik/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis was a very enjoyable fast paced novel. Would definitely recommend, brilliant! The thing that I loved in this book the most was his attention to little details. These details really helped to complete the feel of the sci-fi world his characters inhabited. The story was great and loved the ending except for the very last chapter. This one felt too much like a concession to leave the door open for an \u0026ldquo;Ubik 2\u0026rdquo;. Other than that, a fantastic book.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Ubik"},{"content":"Finished this book UNABRIDGED, double plus good. Hated how believable it was. This should be required reading. The main new idea I got this time through was that the party doctrine sounded a little bit like biocentrism. They had just swapped the party for consciousness. Biocentrism says reality exists only by conscious observation. Winston said reality only has true existence by the party\u0026rsquo;s doctrine. He who owns the present owns the past. Winston\u0026rsquo;s point about immortality through the party is also the same point that people have made about the \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rdquo; continuing to exist through the other \u0026ldquo;I\u0026quot;s that succeed it. In Winston\u0026rsquo;s case he believed he was immortal because the party would never die. I think this is a great insight by Orwell, because it would seem that it is impossible to set up a society without bringing along metaphysical baggage. The desire (need?) for metaphysics is like a sexuality that if repressed just comes through the cracks in very disturbing ways.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/1984/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eFinished this book UNABRIDGED, double plus good. Hated how believable it was. This should be required reading. The main new idea I got this time through was that the party doctrine sounded a little bit like biocentrism. They had just swapped the party for consciousness.  Biocentrism says reality exists only by conscious observation. Winston said reality only has true existence by the party\u0026rsquo;s doctrine. He who owns the present owns the past. Winston\u0026rsquo;s point about immortality through the party is also the same point that people have made about the \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rdquo; continuing to exist through the other \u0026ldquo;I\u0026quot;s that succeed it. In Winston\u0026rsquo;s case he believed he was immortal because the party would never die. I think this is a great insight by Orwell, because it would seem that it is impossible to set up a society without bringing along metaphysical baggage. The desire (need?) for metaphysics is like a sexuality that if repressed just comes through the cracks in very disturbing ways.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"1984"},{"content":"I had bought this monstrosity of a book shortly before moving to Africa. I had heard an interview about it on NPR which piqued my interest. I had planned to read it in my down time and on flights but I was a beta reader back then and only got a couple hundred pages in before getting distracted. One of my pacts I\u0026rsquo;ve made with myself is not to have a book on my bookshelf that I haven\u0026rsquo;t read and this one had been staring at me for half a decade. I picked it back up and was surprised how interesting it was. It is actually 5 novels in one book that are tied together by common thematic elements. There is an obscure German author who goes by the pseudonym Archomboldi and the book opens with 4 literary professors from different parts of Europe who are obsessed by this obscure author. The author\u0026rsquo;s real name is unknown, but they spend many years trying to glean personal details about him from his publisher and anyone else who has ever heard of him. They end up in the small town of Santa Teresa Mexico where they had gotten a tip he was hiding. This small Mexican town plays as the second key thematic element and becomes a focal point that shows up again and again in the other novels. There is a rash of women being killed in Santa Teresa, over 200, and the police can\u0026rsquo;t seem to do anything about it. This is the backdrop for the lives of the next several novel\u0026rsquo;s main characters. We follow a washed-out professor, a detective, a journalist from Brooklyn, and many many more characters who are somehow all drawn to the town in one way or another. I guess Bolano was a good short story author, and this is his magnum opus where he writes his longest book. I didn\u0026rsquo;t realize this while reading, but it makes sense because really this book is group of short stories that are linked together loosely by various details. I definitely had to shift into low gear on this book, as you must be prepared to get sidetracked by anyone\u0026rsquo;s life story at any point. Also, there isn\u0026rsquo;t always a neat ending to the novels. Many are left feeling a little unfinished. If you are ok with that and are not in a rush, the book takes you many strange and interesting places. From Chile with a struggling film crew that is trying to make a raunchy B movie into the head of an aging black man who is the last member of his communist cell in Boston. The magnitude of detail in this book is mind boggling. Just thinking about the amount of imagination it took to create these many backstories is overwhelming. I started to become more and more worried as I came to the end that things would not be tied up, but in the last 30 pages he pulls it out a sort of No Country for Old Men ending. An ending that is not complete but is still satisfying in its own way.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/2666/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI had bought this monstrosity of a book shortly before moving to Africa. I had heard an interview about it on NPR which piqued my interest. I had planned to read it in my down time and on flights but I was a beta reader back then and only got a couple hundred pages in before getting distracted. One of my pacts I\u0026rsquo;ve made with myself is not to have a book on my bookshelf that I haven\u0026rsquo;t read and this one had been staring at me for half a decade. I picked it back up and was surprised how interesting it was. It is actually 5 novels in one book that are tied together by common thematic elements. There is an obscure German author who goes by the pseudonym Archomboldi and the book opens with 4 literary professors from different parts of Europe who are obsessed by this obscure author. The author\u0026rsquo;s real name is unknown, but they spend many years trying to glean personal details about him from his publisher and anyone else who has ever heard of him. They end up in the small town of Santa Teresa Mexico where they had gotten a tip he was hiding. This small Mexican town plays as the second key thematic element and becomes a focal point that shows up again and again in the other novels. There is a rash of women being killed in Santa Teresa, over 200, and the police can\u0026rsquo;t seem to do anything about it. This is the backdrop for the lives of the next several novel\u0026rsquo;s main characters. We follow a washed-out professor, a detective, a journalist from Brooklyn, and many many more characters who are somehow all drawn to the town in one way or another. I guess Bolano was a good short story author, and this is his magnum opus where he writes his longest book. I didn\u0026rsquo;t realize this while reading, but it makes sense because really this book is group of short stories that are linked together loosely by various details. I definitely had to shift into low gear on this book, as you must be prepared to get sidetracked by anyone\u0026rsquo;s life story at any point. Also, there isn\u0026rsquo;t always a neat ending to the novels. Many are left feeling a little unfinished. If you are ok with that and are not in a rush, the book takes you many strange and interesting places. From Chile with a struggling film crew that is trying to make a raunchy B movie into the head of an aging black man who is the last member of his communist cell in Boston. The magnitude of detail in this book is mind boggling. Just thinking about the amount of imagination it took to create these many backstories is overwhelming. I started to become more and more worried as I came to the end that things would not be tied up, but in the last 30 pages he pulls it out a sort of No Country for Old Men ending. An ending that is not complete but is still satisfying in its own way.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"2666"},{"content":"After talking about it yesterday oh my brothers, I got curious, and your humble narrator checked out the book. Overall, I couldn\u0026rsquo;t believe how much of the book was fit into the Kubrick movie. It made me respect the movie that much more. To me, it seemed to perfectly communicate the ideas of the book without much loss in translation. Anthony Burgess wrote it in 3 weeks. He originally wrote it with 21 chapters to signify 21 years, the age of an adult, but when trying to get it published in New York the publisher wanted to cut the last chapter. Needing the money, he agreed, and this is the version that the film was based on. Naturally this burned the author\u0026rsquo;s beans and he thought that this was a huge mistake. Inevitably, this book ended up becoming his most influential as well as his least liked book that he authored.\nThe next to last chapter of the book concludes with the protagonist (Alex) waking up in a hospital bed after his attempted suicide and the doctors having managed to reverse the Ludovico technique thereby allowing him to have violent fantasies and enjoy classical music again. The last sentence being \u0026ldquo;I was cured all right\u0026rdquo;. The chapter that follows is a redemptive chapter. As Alex grows older the destructive tendencies of youth are replaced with creational values and so after having reorganized a group of droogs he just ends up getting bored and wanting to settle down. I 100% agree with the American publisher and Kubrick on this one. That last chapter made no sense to me, and it was a great choice to cut it.\nThe title Clockwork Orange was a piece of slang that Burgess overheard in a Cockney Bar shortly after WWII which stuck with him. Its original meaning was something like \u0026ldquo;the ultimate strange\u0026rdquo; as in \u0026ldquo;as queer as a clockwork orange\u0026rdquo;. But Burgess then adds to this the core struggle of novel which is free will vs forced will. Where clockwork represents a mechanism, and orange represents something juicy and sweet. Meaning someone good without choice. There is a quote that gets used a couple of times that sums this up.\n\u0026ldquo;A man who cannot choose ceases to be a man.\u0026rdquo;\nBurgess use of language is probably my favorite part of this novel. The slang is mostly adaptations of Russian words, but it seems like he came up with the slang by himself for this novel which is really impressive to do in three weeks. The only thing I was surprised to learn in the book was that the main character (Alex) was 15 when the book starts, in the movie he seemed older. Also, in the book the girls that he picks up in the record shop and takes back to his flat are pre-teens in the book, yikes. This is a great book, that I don\u0026rsquo;t think you need to read if you\u0026rsquo;ve seen the movie, but it is definitely entertaining. The main character to me is Satan incarnate. This is because violence in the real world is typically associated with low IQ and lack of culture. This is why the words \u0026ldquo;civilization\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;education\u0026rdquo; get bandied about so often as a curative for lower class violence. This character on the other hand is cultured and has a high IQ. These are the most dangerous and rare violent people. Like the story of Satan destroying paradise, there was no real reason for his violence. Worse yet he is charming and charismatic. Burgess complained that the movie glorified violence (which wasn\u0026rsquo;t an uncommon criticism) but this is partially his fault for having written such a charismatic villain. He is simultaneously sickening and inspirational. He truly does represent William Blake\u0026rsquo;s conception of Hell as energy. The allure of the dark side is criticized by society, yet it remains, and ignoring it doesn\u0026rsquo;t lessen its appeal. It may be surprising to hear me call the main character inspirational, but I say this because he lived as if he were a character in a video game. Whenever you put someone in an open world and give them tools to destroy it, they will. This seems to be how he viewed the world. It was a game, one day it was some random homeless guy creeching in a puddle of his own krovvy, and maybe the next day it\u0026rsquo;d be him. It is also inspirational to see anyone completely sold out on whatever they are doing. Almost anyone who acts without doubt will have followers. Burgess wanted the last chapter to be included as a redemptive element, allowing the character to change and giving a sort of optimistic moral to the story, being that the best change is self-determined, and that creation is better than destruction. Without the last chapter, we are left to grapple with the possibility that some humans may be beyond change. \u0026ldquo;Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated.\u0026rdquo;\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/a-clockwork-orange/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eAfter talking about it yesterday oh my brothers, I got curious, and your humble narrator checked out the book. Overall, I couldn\u0026rsquo;t believe how much of the book was fit into the Kubrick movie. It made me respect the movie that much more. To me, it seemed to perfectly communicate the ideas of the book without much loss in translation. Anthony Burgess wrote it in 3 weeks. He originally wrote it with 21 chapters to signify 21 years, the age of an adult, but when trying to get it published in New York the publisher wanted to cut the last chapter. Needing the money, he agreed, and this is the version that the film was based on. Naturally this burned the author\u0026rsquo;s beans and he thought that this was a huge mistake. Inevitably, this book ended up becoming his most influential as well as his least liked book that he authored.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"A Clockwork Orange"},{"content":"I find myself questioning how things are typically done to see if there are any better ways out there. Currently my interest is focused on education. This book is widely recommended by overanxious parents everywhere. If I remember correctly Alethea was founded on some classical principles that were most likely inspired by Dorothy Sayers (1893-1957) and Sayers is a contemporary of Mason (1842-1923). Most likely influenced by her. Their methods have a lot of overlap but some differences as well. Charlotte Mason thought that all kids should have the right to an education and not just the rich ones. She came up with her own method of education which minimized the amount of time talking by the teacher and replaced it with the students \u0026ldquo;narrating\u0026rdquo; what they had just read. This narration is a cornerstone to her method as she believes it cements what the student has learned in their minds and helps the student to incorporate the new knowledge into their brains. I sure hope this is true as this is the main reason I write these reviews. She also believed that children did not need to be trained how to think but instead should be exposed to the best thinkers and use their innate reasoning to process the best kinds of information. She believed that every subject (excluding math) should be taught in a literary form as story is the best way to learn. The younger children would narrate paragraph by paragraph, then chapter by chapter and then finally an entire book at a time. This narration would start out in verbal form but would eventually become written. In short starting from around age 6 children should be exposed to the best art, literature, music the world has to offer and this \u0026ldquo;mind stuff\u0026rdquo; will be good food for a growing brain. This nutritive aspect of learning is also prominent in Mason\u0026rsquo;s thinking. For the postmodern push back, Mason assumed everyone would be on the same page when she said \u0026ldquo;best stuff\u0026rdquo; i.e. Dickens, Rembrandt, Mozart etc. But why not Peterson, Heffner, and Cardie B? I tended to agree with her approach as I feel like kids often underachieve because they aren\u0026rsquo;t asked to achieve anything worth achieving. The other thing about her method which was interesting was she didn\u0026rsquo;t like tests, or homework, but structured her curriculum to be consumed (dependent on stellar focus, which may be a relic by now) at high speed in the morning and then in the afternoon to work on handicrafts or learn out in nature. Give the children beautiful things to think about and they will become beautiful thinkers. Overall, I enjoyed the book, and it gave me some valuable perspective from a very experienced and well-read person. The downside of this is that I don\u0026rsquo;t know how realistic it was as a lot of it sounded insane in a modern context, but I would love to be wrong on that point.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/a-philosophy-of-education-homeschooler-series/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI find myself questioning how things are typically done to see if there are any better ways out there. Currently my interest is focused on education. This book is widely recommended by overanxious parents everywhere. If I remember correctly Alethea was founded on some classical principles that were most likely inspired by Dorothy Sayers (1893-1957) and Sayers is a contemporary of Mason (1842-1923). Most likely influenced by her. Their methods have a lot of overlap but some differences as well. Charlotte Mason thought that all kids should have the right to an education and not just the rich ones. She came up with her own method of education which minimized the amount of time talking by the teacher and replaced it with the students \u0026ldquo;narrating\u0026rdquo; what they had just read. This narration is a cornerstone to her method as she believes it cements what the student has learned in their minds and helps the student to incorporate the new knowledge into their brains. I sure hope this is true as this is the main reason I write these reviews. She also believed that children did not need to be trained how to think but instead should be exposed to the best thinkers and use their innate reasoning to process the best kinds of information. She believed that every subject (excluding math) should be taught in a literary form as story is the best way to learn. The younger children would narrate paragraph by paragraph, then chapter by chapter and then finally an entire book at a time. This narration would start out in verbal form but would eventually become written.  In short starting from around age 6 children should be exposed to the best art, literature, music the world has to offer and this \u0026ldquo;mind stuff\u0026rdquo; will be good food for a growing brain. This nutritive aspect of learning is also prominent in Mason\u0026rsquo;s thinking. For the postmodern push back, Mason assumed everyone would be on the same page when she said \u0026ldquo;best stuff\u0026rdquo; i.e. Dickens, Rembrandt, Mozart etc. But why not Peterson, Heffner, and Cardie B? I tended to agree with her approach as I feel like kids often underachieve because they aren\u0026rsquo;t asked to achieve anything worth achieving. The other thing about her method which was interesting was she didn\u0026rsquo;t like tests, or homework, but structured her curriculum to be consumed (dependent on stellar focus, which may be a relic by now) at high speed in the morning and then in the afternoon to work on handicrafts or learn out in nature. Give the children beautiful things to think about and they will become beautiful thinkers. Overall, I enjoyed the book, and it gave me some valuable perspective from a very experienced and well-read person. The downside of this is that I don\u0026rsquo;t know how realistic it was as a lot of it sounded insane in a modern context, but I would love to be wrong on that point.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"A Philosophy of Education (Homeschooler Series)"},{"content":"I\u0026rsquo;ll keep this one short. As the cover says, this book was written by the guy who also wrote kite runner, which was a very good book. This being my second book of his the appeal wasn\u0026rsquo;t there as much for me this time around. This story was also centered in Afghanistan (I started reading before the US troop pull-out and subsequent Taliban takeover in 2021, so it was synchronistic) and follows the life story of two women who end up living in the same house because one of them was forced to marry this dude as a child and the other was kind of forced due to the ongoing war. Similar to Kite Runner its cool to get a glimpse into the life of folks where you have no clue how they do what they do. This book was really entertaining and easy to read. The story itself was very dark. I enjoyed reading this book but wouldn\u0026rsquo;t label it as a \u0026ldquo;must read\u0026rdquo; especially if you get your hands on any of his other stuff first. Good stuff, prepare for despair.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/a-thousand-splendid-suns/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI\u0026rsquo;ll keep this one short. As the cover says, this book was written by the guy who also wrote kite runner, which was a very good book. This being my second book of his the appeal wasn\u0026rsquo;t there as much for me this time around. This story was also centered in Afghanistan (I started reading before the US troop pull-out and subsequent Taliban takeover in 2021, so it was synchronistic) and follows the life story of two women who end up living in the same house because one of them was forced to marry this dude as a child and the other was kind of forced due to the ongoing war. Similar to Kite Runner its cool to get a glimpse into the life of folks where you have no clue how they do what they do. This book was really entertaining and easy to read. The story itself was very dark. I enjoyed reading this book but wouldn\u0026rsquo;t label it as a \u0026ldquo;must read\u0026rdquo; especially if you get your hands on any of his other stuff first. Good stuff, prepare for despair.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"A Thousand Splendid Suns"},{"content":"Poe isn\u0026rsquo;t my favorite author, but I bought his complete works by accident (can\u0026rsquo;t\u0026rsquo; remember why) and so my rule is that everything on the shelf has to have been read. The book presents his works in three stages. His poems, his short fiction and essays and one long from essay and one short novel at the end of the book. I must say I was not a huge fan of his poetry (not that I am any authority) either from confirmation bias or some other mechanism his more popular poems like the Raven and the bells seem to stand head and shoulders over the other works, like a band that made that really good song once upon a time. That isn\u0026rsquo;t to say there wasn\u0026rsquo;t anything worthwhile in this section, here is one of my favorites.\n\u0026ldquo;Deep in Earth Deep in earth my love is lying and I must weep alone.\u0026rdquo;\nHis short fiction is a completely different story. Known for his macabre and dark themes he does not fail to deliver many great narratives in this style. But much to my surprise there were many other types of stories that were equally entertaining. He wrote what some consider to be the first science fiction story, detective stories that were the inspiration for Sherlock Holmes and much more. He often satirizes his own profession (writer/ journalistic critic) while other times writing more Dicken-esque folky stories. I found his writing to be very flowery, sometimes overly so, other times just right even in a comedic sense. Some of my favorites from this section are Loss of breath, Four Beasts in One- The Homo-Cameleopard, King Pest, How to Write a Blackwood Article, The Devil in the Belfry, Instinct vs Reason - A Black Cat, A Descent into the Maelstrom, The Masque of the Red Death, The Pit and the Pendulum, The Oblong Box, The Imp of the Perverse, The Cask of Amontillado. His long form Essay called Eureka was really difficult for me to get through. It was actually fairly impressive as he pretty much intuits the beginnings of modern theories like the big bang, black holes, and many universes, but he does so in an overly flowery way. Talking about something that is very complicated in prose and poetic terms made it extremely hard to follow. One of my least favorite reads in the book. The novel at the end (The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket) was very entertaining and a great way to end the book. As far as novels go, probably not the best as it seemed more like ~5 short stories tied into one string of events. A stowaway, a mutiny, a shipwreck, a seal hunting expedition, an exploration mission all in one story. On the whole the man was clearly a genius but did not seem as troubled as I was led to believe in 6th grade. He did marry his 13-year-old cousin, but when all you read is The Raven, Tell Tale heart, etc. you picture a manic person like Van Gogh running around cutting off ears and pulling out hair. His other literature seems to show someone with a deep appreciation for natural beauty, a love of science, but a respect for how it fits into history.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/edgar-allan-poe-complete-tales-and-poems/","summary":"\u003cp\u003ePoe isn\u0026rsquo;t my favorite author, but I bought his complete works by accident (can\u0026rsquo;t\u0026rsquo; remember why) and so my rule is that everything on the shelf has to have been read. The book presents his works in three stages. His poems, his short fiction and essays and one long from essay and one short novel at the end of the book. I must say I was not a huge fan of his poetry (not that I am any authority) either from confirmation bias or some other mechanism his more popular poems like the Raven and the bells seem to stand head and shoulders over the other works, like a band that made that really good song once upon a time. That isn\u0026rsquo;t to say there wasn\u0026rsquo;t anything worthwhile in this section, here is one of my favorites.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Edgar Allan Poe"},{"content":"Enjoyed, a few points that stuck out to me.\nIf people with high IQs learn to practice emotional intelligence or EQ then we are all screwed -Unlike IQ there is no test (author claims there might never be) to measure EQ. -The way your brain works against itself will never stop being interesting. -EQ seems like the alpha version to something that better quantifies the right brains responsibilities. ","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/emotional-intelligence-why-it-can-matter-more-than-iq/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eEnjoyed, a few points that stuck out to me.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIf people with high IQs learn to practice emotional intelligence or EQ then we are all screwed\n-Unlike IQ there is no test (author claims there might never be) to measure EQ.\n-The way your brain works against itself will never stop being interesting.\n-EQ seems like the alpha version to something that better quantifies the right brains responsibilities.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","title":"Emotional Intelligence"},{"content":"So, in this surprising newsflash, we feature a story about how Ernest Hemingway is actually a really good writer. This story was set in the Spanish civil war where a mix of communists and republicans were fighting an established fascist government. The book follows an American named Robert Jordan who is fighting for the communist resistance. He is employed as a dynamiter and instructed to blow up a bridge behind enemy lines. There were two things that stuck out to me from this book. First is that Hemingway is probably the manliest man I\u0026rsquo;ve ever read. But in the best way possible. In my opinion this book is a great antidote to \u0026ldquo;toxic masculinity\u0026rdquo;. There is no machismo, chest thumping or other forms of \u0026ldquo;compensation\u0026rdquo;. Instead, there is a confident determination to carry out one\u0026rsquo;s responsibilities and to not be found wanting when the key moment arises. The main character is a blueprint of competency without arrogance. He managed to do that as well as write two female characters that seemed complex and layered. Hats off to you sir. The second thing was, it has been a while since I\u0026rsquo;ve read a book where I felt like I could see exactly what the main character was seeing. Hemingway manages to describe the setting and scenes so well I felt myself in the pine forests in the mountains of Spain. Or as an eyewitness to a massacre perpetrated by victorious rebels. This book makes you feel a full range of emotions.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/for-whom-the-bell-tolls/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eSo, in this surprising newsflash, we feature a story about how Ernest Hemingway is actually a really good writer.  This story was set in the Spanish civil war where a mix of communists and republicans were fighting an established fascist government. The book follows an American named Robert Jordan who is fighting for the communist resistance. He is employed as a dynamiter and instructed to blow up a bridge behind enemy lines. There were two things that stuck out to me from this book. First is that Hemingway is probably the manliest man I\u0026rsquo;ve ever read. But in the best way possible. In my opinion this book is a great antidote to \u0026ldquo;toxic masculinity\u0026rdquo;. There is no machismo, chest thumping or other forms of \u0026ldquo;compensation\u0026rdquo;. Instead, there is a confident determination to carry out one\u0026rsquo;s responsibilities and to not be found wanting when the key moment arises. The main character is a blueprint of competency without arrogance. He managed to do that as well as write two female characters that seemed complex and layered. Hats off to you sir. The second thing was, it has been a while since I\u0026rsquo;ve read a book where I felt like I could see exactly what the main character was seeing. Hemingway manages to describe the setting and scenes so well I felt myself in the pine forests in the mountains of Spain. Or as an eyewitness to a massacre perpetrated by victorious rebels. This book makes you feel a full range of emotions.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"For Whom the Bell Tolls"},{"content":"I listened to this whole book, then went back and listened to the first half again, to try and cement an understanding of his argument which could be fairly complicated. The goal of the book was to give a convincing explanation of Scientific Materialism. So instead of \u0026ldquo;A Case for Christ\u0026rdquo; this would be \u0026ldquo;A Case for Darwin\u0026rdquo;. It was pretty nice to hear the best arguments for materialism from a guy who has spent much of his life studying the problem, but it took extra concentration to keep up as the reasoning was so different from the usual hippy pan psychic stuff I\u0026rsquo;ve been reading of late. Here are some thoughts,\nTwo Kinds of Why When someone asks why something is the way it is, are asking two different things. One answer describes the process of how something came to be, the other answer is the reason for the way the thing is. He labels this difference as the how come vs what for distinction. For example, if you were to ask, \u0026ldquo;why do I have a fever?\u0026rdquo; the how come answer is that your body is creating many cells which are working harder than usual which raises your body temperature. The \u0026ldquo;what for\u0026rdquo; answer is that your body is does this to fight infections. This is an important distinction to keep in mind when considering natural selection. The evolutionary process always has a \u0026ldquo;how come\u0026rdquo; reason but think of the \u0026ldquo;what for\u0026rdquo; reason as a graduation. Only when a series of \u0026ldquo;how comes\u0026rdquo; align to create a meaningful difference do the how comes get a what for reason.\nThings can do things without \u0026ldquo;having\u0026rdquo; the reason Agents can operate in a system to achieve really complex results without \u0026ldquo;having\u0026rdquo; the reason for what they are doing. The example in the book was to contrast Gaudi\u0026rsquo;s Barcelona Cathedral with termite mounds. The many termites work together to create this complicated structure, but not one of the termites knows why they are doing what they are doing (as far as we know\nPeople/Daniel Dennett\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/from-bacteria-to-bach-and-back-the-evolution-of-minds/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI listened to this whole book, then went back and listened to the first half again, to try and cement an understanding of his argument which could be fairly complicated. The goal of the book was to give a convincing explanation of Scientific Materialism. So instead of \u0026ldquo;A Case for Christ\u0026rdquo; this would be \u0026ldquo;A Case for Darwin\u0026rdquo;. It was pretty nice to hear the best arguments for materialism from a guy who has spent much of his life studying the problem, but it took extra concentration to keep up as the reasoning was so different from the usual hippy pan psychic stuff I\u0026rsquo;ve been reading of late. Here are some thoughts,\u003c/p\u003e","title":"From Bacteria to Bach and Back"},{"content":"I did this so you wouldn\u0026rsquo;t have to, and now you can at least take one book off your list. Gargantua and Pantagruel was written by François Rabelais in the 1500s. While the term \u0026ldquo;renaissance man\u0026rdquo; is often over-used it really applies to Rabelais. He was a genius walking contradiction. A Frenchman, a Greek scholar, a learned physician, a monk, a humanist, and is best known for his risqué satirical songs and writing. Whatever box you try to put him in, he seems to pop out of it. His characters have a love for life that flies in the face of the reserved stoicism that we generally associate with the 1500s. Whether it is taking a piss or reading Apollodorus each is treated equally in this book. Appearing in 5 books, the reader follows the adventures of Gargantua who is a giant, and his son Pantagruel who is also a giant. The book is filled to the brim with sex jokes and bathroom humor. Here is my favorite of each, for bathroom humor Gargantua is talking to his father about all the different objects he has used for toilet paper in his search for the perfect wiping sensation. The list includes but is not limited to old hats, slippers and velvet gloves. But his favorite is\u0026hellip;\nBut, to conclude, I say and maintain, that of all torcheculs, arsewisps, bumfodders, tail-napkins, bunghole cleansers, and wipe-breeches, there is none in the world comparable to the neck of a goose, that is well downed, if you hold her head betwixt your legs. And believe me therein upon mine honour, for you will thereby feel in your nockhole a most wonderful pleasure, both in regard of the softness of the said down and of the temporate heat of the goose, which is easily communicated to the bum-gut and the rest the inwards, in so far as to come even to the regions of the heart and brains.\u0026quot;\nThe book is at times hilarious, a lot of it is a little dull. It is mostly interesting due to its significance in historic literature. I would much more recommend Don Quixote as to me, the story was in a similar vein but much less entertaining.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/gargantua-and-pantagruel/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI did this so you wouldn\u0026rsquo;t have to, and now you can at least take one book off your list. Gargantua and Pantagruel was written by François Rabelais in the 1500s. While the term \u0026ldquo;renaissance man\u0026rdquo; is often over-used it really applies to Rabelais. He was a genius walking contradiction. A Frenchman, a Greek scholar, a learned physician, a monk, a humanist, and is best known for his risqué satirical songs and writing.  Whatever box you try to put him in, he seems to pop out of it. His characters have a love for life that flies in the face of the reserved stoicism that we generally associate with the 1500s. Whether it is taking a piss or reading Apollodorus each is treated equally in this book. Appearing in 5 books, the reader follows the adventures of Gargantua who is a giant, and his son Pantagruel who is also a giant. The book is filled to the brim with sex jokes and bathroom humor. Here is my favorite of each, for bathroom humor Gargantua is talking to his father about all the different objects he has used for toilet paper in his search for the perfect wiping sensation. The list includes but is not limited to old hats, slippers and velvet gloves. But his favorite is\u0026hellip;\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Gargantua and Pantagruel"},{"content":"Consistently rated as American\u0026rsquo;s favorite book second only to the Bible, Gone with the Wind has undeniably shaped America\u0026rsquo;s culture and helped serialize the romantic ethos of \u0026lsquo;The South\u0026rsquo;. Written in 1936 it was an instant hit, selling more than a million copies before being turned into arguably the first blockbuster film three years later. Gone with the Wind follows the life of Scarlett O\u0026rsquo;Hara for around 15 years observing the start of the civil war and the tumultuous reconstruction that followed. This book has often courted controversy and how could it not? This is a story of the south, by someone who loved the south. \u0026mdash;-Main Characters\u0026mdash;- Scarlett The epitome of a southern belle, except that her charms are only skin deep. A beautiful headstrong girl who has always been the center of attention, surrounded by suitors and always pampered. As a main character I have never liked anyone less. The whole book is from her point of view which in the early part of the book is the same as being stuck inside a ditzy 17-year-old girl\u0026rsquo;s head. Scarlett isn\u0026rsquo;t stupid per se, but nothing abstract interests her, as such, much of the philosophy of the South is omitted from the book and instead is presented through motifs. Honestly this might be for the best, as because of this the book seldom gets bogged down in preaching for a way of life that we as a society have decidedly rejected. Scarlett may not be stupid in a classical sense, but she is clueless how to live life and to know what she really wants. In many ways she is the most believable of the main characters and while it is often not pleasant to be stuck in her head, I feel the same way about being stuck in my head sometimes.\nRhett Played by Clark Gable in the movie and there is no one else who could have played him. The description of Rhett in the book matches Clark Gable to a \u0026lsquo;T\u0026rsquo; down to his mustache. Me thinks this is no coincidence. It is hard not to love Rhett, he is never in society but always above. He is all the mythical \u0026lsquo;man of the world\u0026rsquo; stereotypes rolled into one. He is wise in the ways of women, drink, gambling, politics, and as a cherry on top, drops well placed references to ancient Greek literature. A cynic that sees through the pretensions of society, but still has a heart of gold and a strong character. In short Scarlett may not have known what she wanted but Margaret Mitchell definitely did and now I think I do to.\nAshley Scarlett\u0026rsquo;s forbidden love interest, he is the focus of her attentions for most of the book, but is married. Ashley represents the last of the old guard and is the southern gentleman par excellence. Where Rhett\u0026rsquo;s cold pragmatism and cynicism allows him to adapt, Ashley\u0026rsquo;s character is set in stone. Once the south falls, he is a fish out of water, the last of a dying breed. He was an enlightened southern gentleman and was against the war, but still fought in it. Planned on releasing his slaves upon inheritance of the plantation, which never happened. His inflexible character spells his doom, for all his strong character he never seems to be able to do anything, as the world he was made for no longer exists.\nMelanie Melanie is married to Ashley putting him off limits to Scarlett and herself at odds with her. Melanie is the friend we all wish we had, but personally never hope to be. Her character is incapable of seeing bad in people. She befriends Scarlett even though Scarlett hates her because she is married to Ashley. Melanie fails to see through Scarlett\u0026rsquo;s thin veneer of politeness and only assumes the best of her. Where it says to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves Melanie ignored the first part. That is not to say she was weak, as often times she was a bulwark against chaos, but she was unbelievably naïve. To me this is less attractive than Dostoyevsky\u0026rsquo;s idiot who always tells the truth because there is nothing in that formula that requires ignorance. The question still lingers, does it make for a better life to be naïve and trusting? Melanie would say yes.\n\u0026mdash;\u0026ndash;The Good\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;- By the time you finish this book you feel older than when you started. The phrase \u0026rsquo;tour de force\u0026rsquo; is often applied to books and it fits here. A true epic with ambitious scope and wonderful character development. It is one of those books that seeps into your real life. You start to see things differently because of it. There are a few central themes in the book, the main one is resilience, but the one that most interested me is the question that it raises, most especially in our modern context and that is: What are we as twenty first century humans to make of the Southern Gentleman? The answer has been simple, you vilify. The southern gentleman is a fabrication, in reality they were ill-bred cruel vindictive hicks who would rape their slaves and beat them to death for overcooking breakfast. Is this true? Margaret Mitchell refuses to take this route. She clearly has a bias, make no mistake, but the South, with its people she portrays are a proud group of people with strong convictions and an unshakeable sense of honor. The southern gentleman according to her, is a sort of reincarnation of the knight, or samurai. He is an individual who would rather die than compromise. Is this true? The answer seems obvious, what Margaret Mitchell was writing was a form of propaganda. Why? Because it showed a clear good guy/ bad guy scenario where the north came in and burned Atlanta to the ground, pillaged and stole from the destitute survivors, while the South fought bravely to protect their ideals from despotic rulers. Since, this is true does it also mean that the modern conception of the Southern Gentleman as hick/ sadist is also propaganda? I think one valuable takeaway is that people are almost always fighting for and doing what they think is right. The good guy/ bad guy language is post processing. The second observation from this book is that the south has an undeniable romance that is nonexistent in the south. Was there something special about the opulence that was created off the backs of slave labor that created the romantic ethos? Why exactly was it there? It shows up in the antithesis to this work (Uncle Tom\u0026rsquo;s cabin) as well, so it seems hard to believe it was entirely fabricated. The south has the same charms that the old aristocracies had. This charm doesn\u0026rsquo;t seem to exist anymore. Why?\n\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;\u0026ndash;The Bad\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;\u0026ndash; There were a few points in this book where I wondered if I would actually end up liking it at all. Most of these moments involved love triangles, soapy drama and cliché romance writing. I am not the best reviewer on that type of writing because it is not my cup of tea.\n\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;The Ugly\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash; Slaves serve as a background detail in the book. It was remarkable how little they were mentioned. This itself could be interpreted as the oppressive class suppressing speech. That being said Mitchell did not mince words when they were mentioned. The slaves in GWTW were largely portrayed as happy simple creatures, one generation removed from the jungle. Children under the civilizing influence of their beneficent masters. As I said earlier this book falls into the \u0026ldquo;Anti-Uncle Tom\u0026rsquo;s Cabin\u0026rdquo; category. There is actually a \u0026ldquo;reverse\u0026rdquo; underground railroad story where a slave is taken up north and \u0026ldquo;freed\u0026rdquo;, this slave gets so tired of his freedom that he sneaks back down south to be reunited with his master. I feel like there could be some parallels made between existentialism and established dogma, but I digress. Ashley, after the war, joins the Klu Klux Clan which is portrayed as a group of patriotic southerners fighting against corrupt carpet baggers. Rhett murders a black man for speaking \u0026ldquo;uppity\u0026rdquo; to a white woman and it is written off as \u0026ldquo;what else was a southern man to do?\u0026rdquo;. Pretty much every \u0026ldquo;decent\u0026rdquo; slave in this book was similar to the role Samuel Jackson played in Django. Mitchell would have called him a house n****r the highest station for a black person in the south. The main black character in the book is known as Mammy. We never learn anymore about her personally, other than she is fiercely loyal to her mistress (again I note would anyone protest not knowing Geeve\u0026rsquo;s full back story?). In the movie Clark Gable became close friends with the actress playing Mammy. She was not invited to the premiere because at the time theatres in Atlanta were segregated, this enraged Clark Gable who threatened to not go to the premiere if she wasn\u0026rsquo;t invited. Furthermore, she went on to win an Oscar for the role but was not allowed to attend the awards dinner. All that on top of the fact that she was hated by a lot of black people for playing the role at all.\n\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;-Conclusion\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;\u0026mdash;- This book has its controversy, but I personally feel like it deserves the recognition it received. By the end of the book, I found myself deeply invested in all the characters. It also made me see the south in a new light, not as an institution worth rebuilding, but as something more than how it is typically portrayed in our modern context.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/gone-with-the-wind/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eConsistently rated as American\u0026rsquo;s favorite book second only to the Bible, Gone with the Wind has undeniably shaped America\u0026rsquo;s culture and helped serialize the romantic ethos of \u0026lsquo;The South\u0026rsquo;. Written in 1936 it was an instant hit, selling more than a million copies before being turned into arguably the first blockbuster film three years later. Gone with the Wind follows the life of Scarlett O\u0026rsquo;Hara for around 15 years observing the start of the civil war and the tumultuous reconstruction that followed. This book has often courted controversy and how could it not? This is a story of the south, by someone who loved the south.\n\u0026mdash;-Main Characters\u0026mdash;-\nScarlett\nThe epitome of a southern belle, except that her charms are only skin deep. A beautiful headstrong girl who has always been the center of attention, surrounded by suitors and always pampered. As a main character I have never liked anyone less. The whole book is from her point of view which in the early part of the book is the same as being stuck inside a ditzy 17-year-old girl\u0026rsquo;s head. Scarlett isn\u0026rsquo;t stupid per se, but nothing abstract interests her, as such, much of the philosophy of the South is omitted from the book and instead is presented through motifs. Honestly this might be for the best, as because of this the book seldom gets bogged down in preaching for a way of life that we as a society have decidedly rejected. Scarlett may not be stupid in a classical sense, but she is clueless how to live life and to know what she really wants. In many ways she is the most believable of the main characters and while it is often not pleasant to be stuck in her head, I feel the same way about being stuck in my head sometimes.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Gone with the Wind"},{"content":"I inherently don\u0026rsquo;t trust people who are named Dr. \u0026lsquo;X\u0026rsquo;, but they always seem to become popular. In a single sentence I would say that the book is full of BS that probably works. There were things in the book that triggered the Hank Hill \u0026ldquo;now that\u0026rsquo;s just asinine\u0026rdquo; response, but then she would follow it up with an explanation that would end up making a lot of sense. The foundation of this book is the idea that everyone is \u0026ldquo;Good inside\u0026rdquo;. She puts an emphasis on the idea that we are not our actions. A what she calls \u0026ldquo;two things are true\u0026rdquo; attitude. You did something that you aren\u0026rsquo;t proud of, but you are good inside. She takes this approach because she believes that people can\u0026rsquo;t change their behaviors until they believe they are good inside. She is anti-shame, so anything that promotes shame (like thinking you are bad inside) must go. So basically, a childhood completely opposite from the one I had. She promotes viewing everyone, but especially your kids through a \u0026ldquo;most generous interpretation\u0026rdquo; lens. The main role of the parent is to create an environment that is safe for the child to learn how to self-regulate emotions. So instead of shutting down kids\u0026rsquo; feelings you are supposed to acknowledge them and let the kid feel them, so they know how to deal with their emotions instead of repressing them\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;sounds demonic. So, an example would be if your child is afraid of the dark, instead of trying to convince them they are not, you should approach things from a \u0026ldquo;trying to understand\u0026rdquo; way and ask why questions. Then you would tell your child, that you believe they are afraid, and that it isn\u0026rsquo;t bad or wrong to feel that way. You could then work together on trying to find solutions to mitigate the fear, instead of just telling your kid to not be \u0026ldquo;so dramatic\u0026rdquo;. That\u0026rsquo;s pretty much it, any feeling your kid has, you tell them that it is okay to feel that way, while holding boundaries. Overall, this book made me realize that I had been thinking through parenting through too much of a \u0026ldquo;me-centric\u0026rdquo; viewpoint. Focusing on what I can do instead of thinking through things from the child\u0026rsquo;s point of view. What is it like to be told what to do all the time? What is it like to have no control over your activities? How can we promote autonomy in such a structured environment? How can we learn to regulate feelings we aren\u0026rsquo;t allowed to have? So just take a moment, put your hand on your heart, deep breath in, close your eyes and say \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rsquo;m good inside\u0026rdquo;\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/good-inside-a-guide-to-becoming-the-parent-you-want-to-be/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI inherently don\u0026rsquo;t trust people who are named Dr. \u0026lsquo;X\u0026rsquo;, but they always seem to become popular. In a single sentence I would say that the book is full of BS that probably works. There were things in the book that triggered the Hank Hill \u0026ldquo;now that\u0026rsquo;s just asinine\u0026rdquo; response, but then she would follow it up with an explanation that would end up making a lot of sense. The foundation of this book is the idea that everyone is \u0026ldquo;Good inside\u0026rdquo;. She puts an emphasis on the idea that we are not our actions. A what she calls \u0026ldquo;two things are true\u0026rdquo; attitude. You did something that you aren\u0026rsquo;t proud of, but you are good inside. She takes this approach because she believes that people can\u0026rsquo;t change their behaviors until they believe they are good inside. She is anti-shame, so anything that promotes shame (like thinking you are bad inside) must go. So basically, a childhood completely opposite from the one I had. She promotes viewing everyone, but especially your kids through a \u0026ldquo;most generous interpretation\u0026rdquo; lens. The main role of the parent is to create an environment that is safe for the child to learn how to self-regulate emotions. So instead of shutting down kids\u0026rsquo; feelings you are supposed to acknowledge them and let the kid feel them, so they know how to deal with their emotions instead of repressing them\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;sounds demonic. So, an example would be if your child is afraid of the dark, instead of trying to convince them they are not, you should approach things from a \u0026ldquo;trying to understand\u0026rdquo; way and ask why questions. Then you would tell your child, that you believe they are afraid, and that it isn\u0026rsquo;t bad or wrong to feel that way. You could then work together on trying to find solutions to mitigate the fear, instead of just telling your kid to not be \u0026ldquo;so dramatic\u0026rdquo;. That\u0026rsquo;s pretty much it, any feeling your kid has, you tell them that it is okay to feel that way, while holding boundaries. Overall, this book made me realize that I had been thinking through parenting through too much of a \u0026ldquo;me-centric\u0026rdquo; viewpoint. Focusing on what I can do instead of thinking through things from the child\u0026rsquo;s point of view. What is it like to be told what to do all the time? What is it like to have no control over your activities? How can we promote autonomy in such a structured environment? How can we learn to regulate feelings we aren\u0026rsquo;t allowed to have?\nSo just take a moment, put your hand on your heart, deep breath in, close your eyes and say \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rsquo;m good inside\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Good Inside"},{"content":"I had heard this book mentioned a couple times and so I had it on my list for a month or so and finished it in one sitting. Very entertaining, the mood was very tense. It reminded me a little of Lovecraft\u0026rsquo;s style. The story follows a captain of a steamboat for an ivory trading company that goes up a mysterious river in Africa. The plot started to feel familiar to me about halfway through. Turns out it inspired the movie Apocalypse Now which I had just seen for the first time less than a week prior, one of those rando coincidences. So, there are many similar themes between that movie and this book. Here are some notable quotes to summarize the feeling:\n\u0026ldquo;Do you see the story? Do you see anything? It seems to me I am trying to tell you a dream\u0026ndash;making a vain attempt, because no relation of a dream can convey the dream-sensation, that commingling of absurdity, surprise, and bewilderment in a tremor of struggling revolt, that notion of being captured by the incredible which is the very essence of dreams\u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\n\u0026ldquo;It was unearthly, and the men were, they were not inhuman. Well, you know, that was the worst of it the suspicion of their not being inhuman. It would come slowly to one. They howled and leaped, and spun, and made horrid faces; but what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity like yours the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar. Ugly. Yes, it was ugly enough; but if you were man enough you would admit to yourself that there was in you just the faintest trace of a response to the terrible frankness of that noise, a dim suspicion of there being a meaning in it which you so remote from the night of first ages could comprehend. And why not?\u0026rdquo;\nThis book also deals with issues of British imperialism, and rightly argues (as seen in the quote above) for the humanity of the African individual. This book has been called racist for not being supportive enough of the native people. It has also been hailed as an anti-racist book that speaks out against the mistreatment of black people. In my eye it is not really either. It does mention these topics but to me they weren\u0026rsquo;t the main point of the book. The main issue of the book is the eternal wrestling with the \u0026ldquo;heart of darkness\u0026rdquo; which isn\u0026rsquo;t a river in Africa but an individual inside the mystery and horror of existence.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/heart-of-darkness/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI had heard this book mentioned a couple times and so I had it on my list for a month or so and finished it in one sitting. Very entertaining, the mood was very tense. It reminded me a little of Lovecraft\u0026rsquo;s style. The story follows a captain of a steamboat for an ivory trading company that goes up a mysterious river in Africa.  The plot started to feel familiar to me about halfway through. Turns out it inspired the movie Apocalypse Now which I had just seen for the first time less than a week prior, one of those rando coincidences. So, there are many similar themes between that movie and this book. Here are some notable quotes to summarize the feeling:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Heart of Darkness"},{"content":"Living in the fictional small town in Kentucky named Port William from shortly before WW1 to the 70s the industrialization and with it, the destruction of small communities in America functions as a backdrop in this story. The main character, Jayber a name the locals gave him converted from his original name Jonah, is sent to the orphanage at 10 years of age. He has vague memories of his parents and images he has seen of the terrible war, he finds himself alone in a situation that is outside his control. This will be a theme in the story, the idea that life often just happens to you and is seldom what one plans. Without spoiling the plot too much, he feels that he is \u0026ldquo;called\u0026rdquo; to be a Baptist minister, although deep down he was never quite sure, but he joins a Bible college that convinces him that he was not meant to be a pastor. He decides to \u0026ldquo;make something of himself\u0026rdquo; by going to the big city (Lexington in this case) and get a college degree, but much like his biblical namesake he gets vomited back onto the shores of Port William sometime later. He ends up living his life in this small town as a barber and outsider. The writing was beautiful, many of the themes of Unsettling of America are worked out in the narrative by the characters. A swan song to when the farmer was one that \u0026ldquo;tends\u0026rdquo; the earth instead of \u0026ldquo;mining\u0026rdquo; it. Reminds me of some of the supposed writings of the Indians as they watched in detached depression the once thriving balanced ecosystem they knew get turned into a sex-worker. Apparently, this is just one book of ~50 that Berry has written set in the fictional town of Port William. I guess he really liked that DnD map and didn\u0026rsquo;t want to leave it. I would recommend this to be added to the reading list but not urgently.\nThe Unsettling of America- Culture and Agriculture Wendell Berry\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/jayber-crow/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eLiving in the fictional small town in Kentucky named Port William from shortly before WW1 to the 70s the industrialization and with it, the destruction of small communities in America functions as a backdrop in this story. The main character, Jayber a name the locals gave him converted from his original name Jonah, is sent to the orphanage at 10 years of age. He has vague memories of his parents and images he has seen of the terrible war, he finds himself alone in a situation that is outside his control. This will be a theme in the story, the idea that life often just happens to you and is seldom what one plans. Without spoiling the plot too much, he feels that he is \u0026ldquo;called\u0026rdquo; to be a Baptist minister, although deep down he was never quite sure, but he joins a Bible college that convinces him that he was not meant to be a pastor. He decides to \u0026ldquo;make something of himself\u0026rdquo; by going to the big city (Lexington in this case) and get a college degree, but much like his biblical namesake he gets vomited back onto the shores of Port William sometime later. He ends up living his life in this small town as a barber and outsider. The writing was beautiful, many of the themes of Unsettling of America are worked out in the narrative by the characters. A swan song to when the farmer was one that \u0026ldquo;tends\u0026rdquo; the earth instead of \u0026ldquo;mining\u0026rdquo; it. Reminds me of some of the supposed writings of the Indians as they watched in detached depression the once thriving balanced ecosystem they knew get turned into a sex-worker. Apparently, this is just one book of ~50 that Berry has written set in the fictional town of Port William. I guess he really liked that DnD map and didn\u0026rsquo;t want to leave it. I would recommend this to be added to the reading list but not urgently.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Jayber Crow"},{"content":"Another round from Dennett attempting his best materialistic explanation of the mind. This seems to be his main goal in life. To cut to the chase I would recommend \u0026ldquo;From Bach to Bacteria and Back\u0026rdquo; as it is newer and more convincing than this book. The main message of this book is that we should stop anthropomorphizing things, or at least be more self-aware when we do. Specifically, around the experiences of animals. He argues that questions like \u0026ldquo;what is it like to be a spider, bat, etc\u0026rdquo; makes a huge assumption, viz that being the creature in question is like anything. He has some interesting thought experiments to feel this out. For example, were your arm to get amputated and you brought it to the doctor to slap it back on you should the doctor give both you and the amputated arm pain killers? Were we to find something so big and complicated in the wild we would probably assume that it would be wrong to dice it up as it would appear to have nerves, etc. etc. Furthermore, if the amputated arm DID feel pain how would it communicate it? The example obviously has gaps, considering that there is \u0026ldquo;no brain\u0026rdquo; for the arm, but is the presence of the brain where we assume pain comes from? He then uses the example of rolling over in your sleep to relieve pain or discomfort on your limbs. Do you experience this pain? The big difference between animals and humans (according to Dennett) is language. All creatures receive information through their senses, but his idea is that this information is tokenized in a storable form vis-à-vis words. Consider words to be additional layer on the operating system that allows a system to start labeling nodes in the brain that were just \u0026ldquo;instinct\u0026rdquo;. (I\u0026rsquo;m going into non canon examples here, but I think he would agree) Consider various things we all do out of habit, like driving. Have you ever driven a common route and been so up in your head that you were a little surprised when you pulled into work? You were functioning on a sort of auto pilot, much like your heart, digestive system, and most other functions in your body do 24/7. Is it \u0026ldquo;like\u0026rdquo; anything to be your heart? Maybe? but we don\u0026rsquo;t offer it the same affordances when it is on the surgery table as we would a cat. Now say that as you are driving your \u0026lsquo;attention\u0026rsquo; comes back to driving. You experience driving, what is it that you are doing when you are experiencing? Perhaps no more than tokenizing incoming visual/audio/olfactory data from related nodes inside your neural meat case to words that act as a sort of post it note to various states. He isn\u0026rsquo;t trying to argue that we should treat living things as automata, but his point is there probably won\u0026rsquo;t be some clean line between organisms that experience human like pain and ones that don\u0026rsquo;t. In fact, I think he would go so far as to say the evidence is indicating that no animals experience pain \u0026ldquo;like\u0026rdquo; we do. Another example from the book was a Rhesus Macaque monkey was observed to have one of its testicles bitten off in a fight, but showed few signs of pain and the next day was observed mating again (what a chad), but does that mean Rhesus monkeys don\u0026rsquo;t feel pain? Probably not, but they definitely don\u0026rsquo;t feel pain in that one scenario the same way as humans, which is surprising given their other human like behaviors. He also had a quote in talking about perceptual biases that was worth sharing\n\u0026ldquo;Spatial scale also shows a powerful built-in bias; if gnats were the size of seagulls, more people would be sure they had minds, and if we had to look through microscopes to see the antics of otters, we would be less confident that they were fun-loving.\u0026rdquo;\nNot an airtight case for anything, but at the same time it doesn\u0026rsquo;t claim to be. The goal is to bring up questions that make us a little less sure about our assumptions. Also why is it when animal cruelty is brought up, it is mostly stories about dogs or other domesticated animals? He thinks that our domestication has actually turned them mentally closer to humans than other animals. Again debatable, but interesting.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/kinds-of-minds-towards-an-understanding-of-consciousness/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eAnother round from Dennett attempting his best materialistic explanation of the mind. This seems to be his main goal in life. To cut to the chase I would recommend \u0026ldquo;From Bach to Bacteria and Back\u0026rdquo; as it is newer and more convincing than this book. The main message of this book is that we should stop anthropomorphizing things, or at least be more self-aware when we do. Specifically, around the experiences of animals. He argues that questions like \u0026ldquo;what is it like to be a spider, bat, etc\u0026rdquo; makes a huge assumption, viz that being the creature in question is like anything. He has some interesting thought experiments to feel this out. For example, were your arm to get amputated and you brought it to the doctor to slap it back on you should the doctor give both you and the amputated arm pain killers? Were we to find something so big and complicated in the wild we would probably assume that it would be wrong to dice it up as it would appear to have nerves, etc. etc. Furthermore, if the amputated arm DID feel pain how would it communicate it? The example obviously has gaps, considering that there is \u0026ldquo;no brain\u0026rdquo; for the arm, but is the presence of the brain where we assume pain comes from? He then uses the example of rolling over in your sleep to relieve pain or discomfort on your limbs. Do you experience this pain? The big difference between animals and humans (according to Dennett) is language. All creatures receive information through their senses, but his idea is that this information is tokenized in a storable form vis-à-vis words. Consider words to be additional layer on the operating system that allows a system to start labeling nodes in the brain that were just \u0026ldquo;instinct\u0026rdquo;. (I\u0026rsquo;m going into non canon examples here, but I think he would agree) Consider various things we all do out of habit, like driving. Have you ever driven a common route and been so up in your head that you were a little surprised when you pulled into work? You were functioning on a sort of auto pilot, much like your heart, digestive system, and most other functions in your body do 24/7.  Is it \u0026ldquo;like\u0026rdquo; anything to be your heart?  Maybe? but we don\u0026rsquo;t offer it the same affordances when it is on the surgery table as we would a cat. Now say that as you are driving your \u0026lsquo;attention\u0026rsquo; comes back to driving. You experience driving, what is it that you are doing when you are experiencing? Perhaps no more than tokenizing incoming visual/audio/olfactory data from related nodes inside your neural meat case to words that act as a sort of post it note to various states. He isn\u0026rsquo;t trying to argue that we should treat living things as automata, but his point is there probably won\u0026rsquo;t be some clean line between organisms that experience human like pain and ones that don\u0026rsquo;t. In fact, I think he would go so far as to say the evidence is indicating that no animals experience pain \u0026ldquo;like\u0026rdquo; we do.  Another example from the book was a Rhesus Macaque monkey was observed to have one of its testicles bitten off in a fight, but showed few signs of pain and the next day was observed mating again (what a chad), but does that mean Rhesus monkeys don\u0026rsquo;t feel pain? Probably not, but they definitely don\u0026rsquo;t feel pain in that one scenario the same way as humans, which is surprising given their other human like behaviors. He also had a quote in talking about perceptual biases that was worth sharing\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Kinds of Minds"},{"content":"This book has been on my list for a long time, as it could be considered one of the most influential texts in shaping the western world. Written in 1651 Hobbes gives his views on political philosophy and touches on almost everything else along the way. Ghosts, validity of scripture, hell and truth. The central tenant of the book is his view on men in a \u0026ldquo;state of nature\u0026rdquo; which is synonymous with the state of \u0026ldquo;war of all against all\u0026rdquo;. He famously said that in this state \u0026ldquo;life of man, (is) solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short\u0026rdquo; The book is broken into 4 parts and the first deals with this as well as an overview of Hobbes\u0026rsquo; philosophic framework with which he is operating. Hobbes is a materialist and Christian in that way a sort of relic of his time. He discounts all events supernatural excepting a small handful which God did during biblical times. In the first part of the book, he describes man as a machine, tossing the platonic idea of soul out the window as silly. His logic is incisive and leaves little room for grey areas. In some ways it feels like you are indulging a senile old man who still believes that truth can be got at by \u0026ldquo;precise\u0026rdquo; definitions and clear statements, but on the other hand, it is hard to knock the man\u0026rsquo;s models as we live in a world partially built by him. If nothing else, he seemed to have a clear view of human nature. The crux of this book is that he believes (much like Sam Harris) that it is best to start considering political philosophy from the worst-case scenario. To him the worst-case scenario is a state of nature. This means that any government, no matter how tyrannical is preferable to the state of nature and therefore all efforts should tend towards preserving governments. To Hobbes a government at its core is always representational. A group of people agree to give up their right of ruling to a person or group of persons in order to avoid the state of nature. The person or group of persons is the embodiment of the people (book\u0026rsquo;s cover photo), otherwise known as the commonwealth. This brings about some other interesting conclusions from Hobbes\u0026rsquo;. Again, viewing the world in black and white terms, he believes you are either part of the commonwealth or not. If you are, then you agree to give up your representation to whoever your leader is. Since you\u0026rsquo;ve done this, you (and everyone in the commonwealth) could be considered to be the authors of the leader\u0026rsquo;s actions. This in turn means that the sovereign cannot do anything considered unjust as like God, justice is defined by the sovereign and the sovereign owns the agency of the subjects. To be brief Hobbes feels that the worst thing in the world is to be in a state of anarchy and the best defense against that is a strong united government, otherwise known as the leviathan. Something that everyone works to preserve to make it as difficult as possible to kill. Whatever consequences the ruler imposes the subjects should consider worthy sacrifices to avoid the state of nature. He finishes the book by trying to couch his principles in Biblical terms. He, unperturbed by the millions of scholars before him, wades into the murky depths of exegesis and comes out on the other end with his political philosophy intact. I was quite glad to finish this one as the last half was quite dry and I thought a little pointless as once a person with a brain turns 16, they stop being convinced by other people\u0026rsquo;s readings of scripture. I will say that his incisive logic did not sleep on religious matters either though as he brought up some really good problems overlooked by many. Like this thought on divine inspiration:\nHow God speaketh to a man immediately may be understood by those well enough to whom He hath so spoken; but how the same should be understood by another is hard, if not impossible, to know. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it.\u0026quot;\nOr in another passage discussing who people put their faith in:\nAnd first, for the Person whom we believe, because it is impossible to believe any Person, before we know what he saith, it is necessary he be one that we have heard speak. The Person therefore, whom Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the Prophets believed, was God himself, that spake unto them supernaturally: And the Person, whom the Apostles and Disciples that conversed with Christ believed, was our Savior himself. But of them, to whom neither God the Father, nor our Savior ever spake, it cannot be said, that the Person whom they believed, was God. They believed the Apostles, and after them the Pastors and Doctors of the Church, that recommended to their faith the History of the Old and New Testament: so that the Faith of Christians ever since our Saviors time, hath had for foundation, first, the reputation of their Pastors, and afterward, the authority of those that made the Old and New Testament to be received for the Rule of Faith; which none could do but Christian Sovereigns;\nBy Christian Sovereign, he means the sovereign of the commonwealth, as he has \u0026ldquo;proved\u0026rdquo; in other parts of the book that the idea of a universal church or idea that the pope should have authority over the king is balderdash. This train of logic would seem heretical to some believers, preposterous to most unbelievers, but pragmatically good enough to Hobbes. Overall, the first part was fairly decent, but it got quite into the weeds, and I would not recommend this book unless you can live with that.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/leviathan/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis book has been on my list for a long time, as it could be considered one of the most influential texts in shaping the western world. Written in 1651 Hobbes gives his views on political philosophy and touches on almost everything else along the way. Ghosts, validity of scripture, hell and truth. The central tenant of the book is his view on men in a \u0026ldquo;state of nature\u0026rdquo; which is synonymous with the state of \u0026ldquo;war of all against all\u0026rdquo;. He famously said that in this state\n\u0026ldquo;life of man, (is) solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short\u0026rdquo;\nThe book is broken into 4 parts and the first deals with this as well as an overview of Hobbes\u0026rsquo; philosophic framework with which he is operating. Hobbes is a materialist and Christian in that way a sort of relic of his time. He discounts all events supernatural excepting a small handful which God did during biblical times. In the first part of the book, he describes man as a machine, tossing the platonic idea of soul out the window as silly. His logic is incisive and leaves little room for grey areas. In some ways it feels like you are indulging a senile old man who still believes that truth can be got at by \u0026ldquo;precise\u0026rdquo; definitions and clear statements, but on the other hand, it is hard to knock the man\u0026rsquo;s models as we live in a world partially built by him. If nothing else, he seemed to have a clear view of human nature. The crux of this book is that he believes (much like Sam Harris) that it is best to start considering political philosophy from the worst-case scenario. To him the worst-case scenario is a state of nature. This means that any government, no matter how tyrannical is preferable to the state of nature and therefore all efforts should tend towards preserving governments. To Hobbes a government at its core is always representational. A group of people agree to give up their right of ruling to a person or group of persons in order to avoid the state of nature. The person or group of persons is the embodiment of the people (book\u0026rsquo;s cover photo), otherwise known as the commonwealth. This brings about some other interesting conclusions from Hobbes\u0026rsquo;. Again, viewing the world in black and white terms, he believes you are either part of the commonwealth or not. If you are, then you agree to give up your representation to whoever your leader is. Since you\u0026rsquo;ve done this, you (and everyone in the commonwealth) could be considered to be the authors of the leader\u0026rsquo;s actions. This in turn means that the sovereign cannot do anything considered unjust as like God, justice is defined by the sovereign and the sovereign owns the agency of the subjects. To be brief Hobbes feels that the worst thing in the world is to be in a state of anarchy and the best defense against that is a strong united government, otherwise known as the leviathan. Something that everyone works to preserve to make it as difficult as possible to kill. Whatever consequences the ruler imposes the subjects should consider worthy sacrifices to avoid the state of nature. He finishes the book by trying to couch his principles in Biblical terms. He, unperturbed by the millions of scholars before him, wades into the murky depths of exegesis and comes out on the other end with his political philosophy intact. I was quite glad to finish this one as the last half was quite dry and I thought a little pointless as once a person with a brain turns 16, they stop being convinced by other people\u0026rsquo;s readings of scripture. I will say that his incisive logic did not sleep on religious matters either though as he brought up some really good problems overlooked by many. Like this thought on divine inspiration:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Leviathan"},{"content":"Lost in the Cosmos is a uniquely styled book. It loosely follows the theme of modern alienation. In most chapters Percy sets up a scene, asks a question, and then provides multiple choice answers leaving it to the reader to decide. I can see how the format could be a turn off for some, but I found the whole exercise very interesting although I admittedly never stopped to formulate my own answers. He also takes a detour into semiotics (the study of signifiers and signified) which never fails to get into the weeds but provides a context for many of his thought experiments. The central thesis of the book is that humans are \u0026ldquo;naming things\u0026rdquo;. We live in a world full of objects that we name and put inside boxes. This is all well and good but something uncanny happened when we became self-aware. We found that in a world full of named things we are unable to name ourselves. Everything is something to the subject, but the subject is nothing to itself. The attempt to say who you are is like trying to see the back of your head. This creates alienation in the individual that used to be salved by religion naming you as a creature, brahman, atman, something is better than nothing but now we live in an age where it is extraordinarily difficult to believe in those stories so most jettison the whole thing leaving themselves alone in the cosmos. To further illustrate this idea the book opens with a beautiful quote from Nietzsche:\n\u0026ldquo;We are unknown, we knowers, to ourselves\u0026hellip; Of necessity we remain strangers to ourselves, we understand ourselves not, in our selves we are bound to be mistaken, for each of us holds good to all eternity the motto, \u0026ldquo;Each is the farthest away from himself\u0026rdquo;-as far as ourselves are concerned we are not knowers. \u0026quot;\nSo, what options does the modern man have open to him apart from religion? According to Percy there are two modes of living that try to fill the gap. First, and most common is passive consumerism. That is the usual rat race, nine to five, save for retirement, bigger car, bigger house etc. etc. The second mode is transcendence of the self through art or science. Without getting into the details, the issue with this mode is reentry can be a bitch, what are you to do the day after you finish writing \u0026ldquo;The Old Man and the Sea\u0026rdquo;? I really enjoyed this book; Percy brings up some very valid critiques of modern society and our relationship with it. In some ways Percy is arguing, along similar lines to Peterson, that religion played a bigger role in stitching together meta narratives than most people realize, and that the death of God is a sort of Pandora\u0026rsquo;s box. I suppose in that way he is saying nothing new, but how he says it is novel and thought provoking. The twist is that the author is Catholic, this to me was very puzzling as I am unsure how you can think and write like he does about religion while still being part of it, but I admire the tenacity. Overall, a very intriguing read which gave me more things to think about in my thinker.\nFriedrich Nietzsche\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/lost-in-the-cosmos-the-last-self-help-book/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eLost in the Cosmos is a uniquely styled book. It loosely follows the theme of modern alienation. In most chapters Percy sets up a scene, asks a question, and then provides multiple choice answers leaving it to the reader to decide. I can see how the format could be a turn off for some, but I found the whole exercise very interesting although I admittedly never stopped to formulate my own answers. He also takes a detour into semiotics (the study of signifiers and signified) which never fails to get into the weeds but provides a context for many of his thought experiments. The central thesis of the book is that humans are \u0026ldquo;naming things\u0026rdquo;. We live in a world full of objects that we name and put inside boxes. This is all well and good but something uncanny happened when we became self-aware. We found that in a world full of named things we are unable to name ourselves. Everything is something to the subject, but the subject is nothing to itself. The attempt to say who you are is like trying to see the back of your head. This creates alienation in the individual that used to be salved by religion naming you as a creature, brahman, atman, something is better than nothing but now we live in an age where it is extraordinarily difficult to believe in those stories so most jettison the whole thing leaving themselves alone in the cosmos. To further illustrate this idea the book opens with a beautiful quote from Nietzsche:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Lost in the Cosmos"},{"content":"This book tried to capture the zeitgeist of the 1950s and therefore by necessity over-simplified and added artificial narratives to the decades preceding it. This narrative laid the preamble for the book by arguing that different ages had had different defining psychological hang ups. Whether this is true or similar to a horoscope reading it is up for debate. As a psychologist coming at the problem of identity from an existential viewpoint authentic individuality was the focus of the book. Some points that stuck out to me are:\nWe often live our lives like mirrors, trying to react to other\u0026rsquo;s reactions. We therefore aren\u0026rsquo;t ourselves, but versions of what other\u0026rsquo;s want us to be. This leaves us feeling disingenuous. Loneliness is rooted in a fear of death, or what I like to call the \u0026ldquo;big lonely\u0026rdquo; Interesting thought experiment, perhaps the only thing keeping us sane is our meaningless routine. So maybe heaven is just a mildly dissatisfying 9-5. Anxiety, in its final stage, presents as apathy, a telltale sign that it may be too late to resolve the underlying cause of anxiety Neurotic behavior and thoughts are helplessly repetitive. Meditation focuses on being rather than doing. Rebellion provides temporary freedom but is ultimately defined negatively so must be a bridge and not a destination. As I was reading this book, I wanted to change his name to Rollo \u0026ldquo;Quotes alot\u0026rdquo; Mays. I found it mildly irritating the volume of quotes per page that this book employed to try proving whatever point he was making. To me it is a signal that the things that he was saying weren\u0026rsquo;t unique thoughts to himself, but things he had learned from other books. As such, some of the best writing in the book came from quotations. The upshot being that now I have a few more books I want to read. Furthermore, he ended up \u0026ldquo;improving\u0026rdquo; the quotations in some sense right out of their value in the first place. To quote Kierkegaard myself: \u0026ldquo;One must go further, one must go further.\u0026rdquo; This impulse to go further is an ancient thing in the world. Heraclitus the obscure, who deposited his thoughts in his writings and his writings in the Temple of Diana (for his thoughts had been his armor during his life, and therefore he hung them up in the temple of the goddess),Heraclitus the obscure said, \u0026ldquo;One cannot pass twice through the same stream.\u0026rdquo; Heraclitus the obscure had a disciple who did not stop with that, he went further and added, \u0026ldquo;One cannot do it even once.\u0026rdquo; Poor Heraclitus, to have such a disciple! By this amendment the thesis of Heraclitus was so improved that it became an Eleatic thesis which denies movement, and yet that disciple desired only to be a disciple of Heraclitus ΓǪ and to go further-not back to the position Heraclitus had abandoned.\u0026quot;\nOne of the most egregious cases of this was on page 85:\n\u0026ldquo;Human nature is not a machine to be built after model and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing.\u0026rdquo; In this charmingly expressed thought, John Stuart Mill has unfortunately omitted the most important \u0026ldquo;tendency of the inward forces\u0026rdquo; which make man a living thing, namely that man does not grow automatically like a tree but fulfills his potentialities only as he in his own consciousness plans and chooses.\u0026quot;\nI was about to count this book as a loss, but then he redeems the book (imo) in chapter 4. He describes the process of growing up in a very succinct and helpful way. Specifically, in regard to rebellion\u0026rsquo;s creative elements. His take on the story of Adam and Eve in the garden was very compelling. I never considered that they weren\u0026rsquo;t really humans, but infants until they ate of the tree of good and evil. And by his logic therefore it is immature to wish to go back to that infantile reliance on God. Which if flipped on its head one might think that the introduction of self is what separated us from God. So, you must lose yourself to regain fellowship with the godhead. Depending on your way of thinking that would be admirable or a catastrophe. He then gives some pretty insightful readings of the Greek myth of Orestes as a counter to Oedipus that I found very enlightening. In particular the parallels between incest and actions taken that are done out of tradition. This, and the following sections really hit me in relation to thinking about raising a kid and going through the \u0026ldquo;rebellious teenager\u0026rdquo; phase. Where (as long as it is a phase) maybe that isn\u0026rsquo;t such a bad thing. That better to be a rebel and make your own way, than to be the \u0026ldquo;obedient\u0026rdquo; one that never makes his choices himself. Equally appropriate was the warning to not stay in rebellion, as this isn\u0026rsquo;t true freedom. It is merely the mirror image of the thing being rebelled against. This is the trap that I think most ex-evangelicals fall into. The books ending, talking about time was not very convincing to me. I feel like he trots out the worn-out transcendental line about \u0026ldquo;eternity being in every moment\u0026rdquo; blah blah and talks eternal life down to an allegory. All the \u0026ldquo;enlightened\u0026rdquo; people say that eternal life would be boring and hellish. My response is \u0026ldquo;how do you know? We\u0026rsquo;ve tried dying, and most people aren\u0026rsquo;t fans of that. Haven\u0026rsquo;t tried living forever yet, so maybe don\u0026rsquo;t knock it?\u0026rdquo; But of course, this too is a healthful delusion. If you can believe that life only has meaning because its brevity maybe, you won\u0026rsquo;t go into the next world kicking and screaming and maybe that\u0026rsquo;s ok. Søren Kierkegaard\n#book\n#mans_search_for_himself #rollo_may #1950s_zeitgeist #psychological_hangups #existential_psychology #identity_and_individuality #reflection_on_self #loneliness_and_death #anxiety_and_apathy #neurotic_behaviors #meditation_and_being #rebellion_and_freedom #kierkegaard_quotations #john_stuart_mill #growth_and_development #adam_and_eve_analysis #greek_mythology #orestes_vs_oedipus #rebellion_in_youth #existential_thought #souvenir_press_ltd #philosophical_reflections #time_and_eternity ","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/mans-search-for-himself/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis book tried to capture the zeitgeist of the 1950s and therefore by necessity over-simplified and added artificial narratives to the decades preceding it. This narrative laid the preamble for the book by arguing that different ages had had different defining psychological hang ups. Whether this is true or similar to a horoscope reading it is up for debate. As a psychologist coming at the problem of identity from an existential viewpoint authentic individuality was the focus of the book. Some points that stuck out to me are:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Man's Search for Himself"},{"content":"The author is a neuroscientist and psychologist who is also a concentration camp survivor. The first half of the book is split between an autobiographical description of his experience in the camps as well as some psychoanalysis on himself and other inmates and guards. After being released he founds a new school of psychology called \u0026ldquo;logotherapy\u0026rdquo;. The second half of the book talks more about what this school of psychology is and how it works. To boil down this guy\u0026rsquo;s philosophy is as follows:\nHe who has a why to live can bear almost any how. Happiness is not something to strive for, but is instead a consequence The only thing one cannot take from a person is their ability to choose how to orient themselves in an experience. -The most certain type of being is your past -Live your life as if it was your second time and the first time you lived your life you acted as poorly as you are about to act. -Suffering is a catalyst for meaning (caveat: should not be sought on purpose) The question \u0026ldquo;what is the meaning of life\u0026rdquo; is asked in the wrong direction. It should instead be asked \u0026ldquo;what does my life require of me\u0026rdquo; Overall, a pretty good book but was almost unsurprising, because he was such an influential thinker that even without reading his thoughts, you hear them from other people all the time. Little did I know before reading this book, but he is also the father of reverse psychology although he did not call it by that name. In the book he talks about how a lot of the times when you try to control your mental problems you tend to make it worse. The phobia of something is also its inception. So, the example was if you are afraid of blushing in public, trying not to blush will only make it that much more inevitable. Instead, what you should do is try to set the world record in blushing. Try to blush as you\u0026rsquo;ve never blushed before! Doing this will reintroduce agency into your neurosis and may help in the narrating self to get control again. #book #psychology #psychoanalysis #existentialism\n#mans_search_for_meaning #viktor_frankl #logotherapy #concentration_camp #resilience #meaning_of_life #existential_philosophy #personal_choice #freedom #happiness #suffering #psychotherapy_techniques #autobiographical_elements #beacon_press #neurosis_and_agency #reverse_psychology #coping_with_trauma #trauma #holocaust #philosophical_insights #mental_health_strategies #human_spirit #adversity ","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/mans-search-for-meaning/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThe author is a neuroscientist and psychologist who is also a concentration camp survivor. The first half of the book is split between an autobiographical description of his experience in the camps as well as some psychoanalysis on himself and other inmates and guards. After being released he founds a new school of psychology called \u0026ldquo;logotherapy\u0026rdquo;.  The second half of the book talks more about what this school of psychology is and how it works. To boil down this guy\u0026rsquo;s philosophy is as follows:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Man's Search for Meaning"},{"content":"At times illuminating, frustrating, thought provoking, unrelatable Roland Barthes has a different understanding of what myth is than most. He feels as if no one is intentionally creating myths anymore but they are being creating all the same via social values. This book is broken into two parts the first part is a collection of essays he wrote where he analyses various events and things in the modern day and explains the modern myth that is attached to them. This branch of study is I guess called semiology, basically it looks at things in the world and looks for things that carry more meaning than their essence. For example, he breaks down different portraits styles of French politicians to explain why they were cropped just so, looked in such and such a direction, wore just such a suit etc. etc. etc. All choices deliberately made to communicate more than just happenstance random choice but instead a specific meaning. He saw myth as an organizational tool used to maintain and justify a given social order. As indicated in this quote:\n\u0026ldquo;I am at the barbers and copy of Paris-Match is offered to me. On the cover, a young Negro in a French uniform is saluting, with his eyes uplifted, probably fixed on a fold of the tricolor. All this is the meaning of the picture. But whether naively or not, I see very well what it signifies to me: that France is a great Empire, that all her sons, without any color discrimination, faithfully serve under the flag, and that there is no better answer to the detractors of an alleged colonialism than the zeal shown by this Negro in serving his so-called oppressors \u0026hellip;\u0026rdquo;\nOne further conclusion from this line of thinking is that modern myth is more prevalent on the right than it is on left. This is a matter of necessity as the left, before being concretized as the left, is always a force of revolution and revolution\u0026rsquo;s job is shake up the order. On the other hand, the job of the right is to maintain order and thereby myth has more of a foot to stand on. One of my favorite essays was titled \u0026ldquo;Operation Margarine\u0026rdquo; where he describes the process whereby you are inoculated to the evils of a given thing. Here is an excerpt worth quoting a length:\n\u0026ldquo;One can trace in advertising a narrative pattern which clearly show the working of this new vaccine. It is found in the publicity for Astra margarine. The episode always begins with a cry of indignation against margarine. \u0026ldquo;A mousse? Made with margarine? Unthinkable!.\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Margarine? Your uncle will be furious!\u0026rdquo; And then one\u0026rsquo;s eyes are opened, one\u0026rsquo;s conscience becomes more pliable and margarine is a delicious food, tasty digestible, economical, useful in all circumstances. The moral at the end is well known. \u0026ldquo;here you are rid of a prejudice which cost you dearly!\u0026rdquo; It is in the same way that the Established Order relievers you of your progressive prejudices. The army, an absolute value? It is unthinkable: look at it vexations, its strictness, the always possible blindness of its chiefs. The church, infallible? Alas it is very doubtful: look at its bigots, its powerless priests, its murderous conformism. And then common sense makes its reckoning.: what is this trifling dross of Order, compared to its advantages? It is well worth the price of an immunization. What does it matter, after all, if margarine is just fat, when it goes further than butter and costs less? What does it matter after all, if Order is a little brutal or a little blind when it allows us to live cheaply? here we are, in our turn rid of a prejudice which cost us dearly, too dearly, which cost us too much in scruples, in revolt, in fights and in solitude. \u0026quot;\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/mythologies/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eAt times illuminating, frustrating, thought provoking, unrelatable Roland Barthes has a different understanding of what myth is than most. He feels as if no one is intentionally creating myths anymore but they are being creating all the same via social values. This book is broken into two parts the first part is a collection of essays he wrote where he analyses various events and things in the modern day and explains the modern myth that is attached to them. This branch of study is I guess called semiology, basically it looks at things in the world and looks for things that carry more meaning than their essence. For example, he breaks down different portraits styles of French politicians to explain why they were cropped just so, looked in such and such a direction, wore just such a suit etc. etc. etc. All choices deliberately made to communicate more than just happenstance random choice but instead a specific meaning. He saw myth as an organizational tool used to maintain and justify a given social order. As indicated in this quote:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Mythologies"},{"content":"The only surviving work of the Roman Poet Lucretius, \u0026lsquo;On the Nature of things\u0026rsquo; was written about a hundred years before Christ. The goal of the book was to try and explain Epicureanism to the Romans. I was surprised to learn that Epicurus was born about 300BC. This book explains pretty much every phenomenon you can think of from sweet vs bitter tasting things to why we sleep. Of course, the caveat being that it explains everything from a perspective of a guy two thousand years ago, so he was bound to have made a lot of mistakes. That being said it was impressive some of the things that he got right. For example, he argues that at a tiny level the most abundant thing must be nothing or void. If this was not the case movement would not be allowed. This of course turns out to be true as the closer you look at something the more space you start to see. The temptation is to read something like this from an angle of superiority, but while reading this instead of thinking \u0026ldquo;how far we\u0026rsquo;ve come\u0026rdquo; it kept making me feel like we haven\u0026rsquo;t come that far. Or rather we still barely know anything. A phrase from Foucault has been in my head for the last few weeks. He basically says that there are certain words that get used in science as definitions that aren\u0026rsquo;t actually definitions. They act instead as boxes that hide things we don\u0026rsquo;t understand. This seems very applicable here as many of the things Lucretius talked about, we now have better names and smaller boxes for, but there is still a lot of boxes. Lucretius essentially gives the basis of a mechanical viewpoint of the world that was free from the influence of gods. Where particles interacted with particles and the shapes of particles largely influenced the reaction. For example, he theorized that foods that were sweet had round smooth shaped particles while bitter food must have hooked and rough shaped particles. This viewpoint of bodies effecting bodies for all interactions remained the only answer in science until newton came along 300 years ago (Epicurus to Lucretius is the Same time as Newton to us) and turned everything on its head by introducing the concept of i.e., a box for something we don\u0026rsquo;t fully understand. As foundational of a text as this is, I wouldn\u0026rsquo;t necessarily say it needs to be on your must-read list. Probably the most interesting section in this book to me was a section on the mortality of the soul. Where the definition he gives of the soul is pretty much the same one modern science gives. Here modernity has not learned a single new thing since his time. In fact, we\u0026rsquo;ve probably forgotten some things.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/on-the-nature-of-things/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThe only surviving work of the Roman Poet Lucretius, \u0026lsquo;On the Nature of things\u0026rsquo; was written about a hundred years before Christ. The goal of the book was to try and explain Epicureanism to the Romans.  I was surprised to learn that Epicurus was born about 300BC. This book explains pretty much every phenomenon you can think of from sweet vs bitter tasting things to why we sleep. Of course, the caveat being that it explains everything from a perspective of a guy two thousand years ago, so he was bound to have made a lot of mistakes. That being said it was impressive some of the things that he got right. For example, he argues that at a tiny level the most abundant thing must be nothing or void. If this was not the case movement would not be allowed. This of course turns out to be true as the closer you look at something the more space you start to see. The temptation is to read something like this from an angle of superiority, but while reading this instead of thinking \u0026ldquo;how far we\u0026rsquo;ve come\u0026rdquo; it kept making me feel like we haven\u0026rsquo;t come that far. Or rather we still barely know anything. A phrase from Foucault has been in my head for the last few weeks. He basically says that there are certain words that get used in science as definitions that aren\u0026rsquo;t actually definitions. They act instead as boxes that hide things we don\u0026rsquo;t understand. This seems very applicable here as many of the things Lucretius talked about, we now have better names and smaller boxes for, but there is still a lot of boxes. Lucretius essentially gives the basis of a mechanical viewpoint of the world that was free from the influence of gods. Where particles interacted with particles and the shapes of particles largely influenced the reaction. For example, he theorized that foods that were sweet had round smooth shaped particles while bitter food must have hooked and rough shaped particles. This viewpoint of bodies effecting bodies for all interactions remained the only answer in science until newton came along 300 years ago (Epicurus to Lucretius is the Same time as Newton to us) and turned everything on its head by introducing the concept of i.e., a box for something we don\u0026rsquo;t fully understand.  As foundational of a text as this is, I wouldn\u0026rsquo;t necessarily say it needs to be on your must-read list. Probably the most interesting section in this book to me was a section on the mortality of the soul. Where the definition he gives of the soul is pretty much the same one modern science gives. Here modernity has not learned a single new thing since his time. In fact, we\u0026rsquo;ve probably forgotten some things.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"On the Nature of Things"},{"content":"When I bought the Symposium, it came in a two pack with Phaedrus as its second. I was glad to find out that this book too revolved around pederasty(sarcasm). Essentially, Phaedrus runs into Socrates walking in the country after hearing a speech by Lysias on reasons why a boy should only lend his favors to a lover (older man) who is not in love with him. The text is lighthearted and has many jokes as Socrates then makes a better speech which agrees with Lysias impressing Phaedrus, but eventually reveals he believed Lysias\u0026rsquo; speech to be pretty lame and he didn\u0026rsquo;t agree with his own. The book finishes with him giving a rebuttal speech and then he focuses on the art of rhetoric and the dangers and pitfalls that are in it. My favorite quote is in regard to (ironically) writing:\n\u0026ldquo;Socrates: In which case, if a man thinks he is handing down a science in writing, or if the recipient in turn thinks something clear and certain will emerge from what is written then he would be full of foolishness, and truly ignorant of Ammon\u0026rsquo;s prophecy, if he thought that written words were anything more than a reminder to one who knows of the things the writing is about. Phaedrus: Absolutely right.\nSocrates: Yes, Phaedrus, because writing has this strange property, I take it, which makes it really very like painting. The things painting produces stand there as if they were alive, but ask them a question, and there\u0026rsquo;s a deathly silence. It\u0026rsquo;s the same with writing. You might think the words spoke with some intelligence; but if you want to know more, and ask them any question about what they say, all they can do is signify the same one thing, over and over again. Once it is written any piece of work can be wheeled around all over the place, alike to those who know about it and then, in precisely the same form, to those for whom it is completely irrelevant. It has no way of speaking to those it should speak to, and not speaking to those it should not speak to. And if it gets into difficulties, and it unfairly criticized, it always needs its father to stand up for it. It cannot, of its own accord, defend itself or stand up for itself.\u0026rdquo;\nOverall, this was a decent read, but I would need more practice to really pull out a lot of meaning from these types of text.\nPlato\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/phaedrus/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eWhen I bought the Symposium, it came in a two pack with Phaedrus as its second. I was glad to find out that this book too revolved around pederasty(sarcasm). Essentially, Phaedrus runs into Socrates walking in the country after hearing a speech by Lysias on reasons why a boy should only lend his favors to a lover (older man) who is not in love with him. The text is lighthearted and has many jokes as Socrates then makes a better speech which agrees with Lysias impressing Phaedrus, but eventually reveals he believed Lysias\u0026rsquo; speech to be pretty lame and he didn\u0026rsquo;t agree with his own. The book finishes with him giving a rebuttal speech and then he focuses on the art of rhetoric and the dangers and pitfalls that are in it. My favorite quote is in regard to (ironically) writing:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Phaedrus (Hackett Classics)"},{"content":"This book was pretty long and mostly interesting. As one might expect it is fairly dense full of charts and diagrams. On the upshot is I now have a concept of what a standard deviation is. This book makes several statements:\nEveryone has varied levels of intelligence and this intelligence can be measured by what psychometricians call \u0026lsquo;G\u0026rsquo; for general intelligence. G is a subset of IQ, but I\u0026rsquo;ll just refer to it via IQ. IQ has a high predictive power on various social outcomes including marriage, illegitimacy, salary, criminality and more. It is easier to be successful in life with a high IQ than with a low IQ. IQ is more important than how much money your parents had in predicting outcomes. Colleges have gotten better at selecting for IQ and therefore Ivy League schools get a much higher percentage of the best and brightest than they did 100 years ago. There is the emergence of a new class in America that they dub the \u0026ldquo;Cognitive Elite\u0026rdquo; these people are separated from the larger subset of the population in ways that were not the case 100 years ago. (i.e., private schools, rich neighborhoods, white collar offices, etc.). This new cognitive elite wields an extraordinary amount of power over the shape of our culture. IQ is affected by genetic and environmental factors IQ is pretty much set by the time you are 6 years old IQ varies between ethnicities in the following order from top to bottom Asian, White, Latino, Black. (They don\u0026rsquo;t really say why other than a combination of genetic and environmental factors) All of our best efforts in education haven\u0026rsquo;t produced as large of improvements in student\u0026rsquo;s IQ as most people think. The top IQ students have been neglected by government funding, which has instead been funneled towards the lowest performing students. Affirmative action is a disaster After reading this, whether right or wrong this book has been helpful. It was so controversial that it initiated many research groups to be formed to try and ferret out the legitimacy of the claims that the authors make, which is more useful than everyone nodding their heads in agreement. Most of the criticisms of this book center around their statistical methods and their decision to look at the correlation between race and IQ. It is worth noting that (from what I\u0026rsquo;ve seen) almost none of the conclusions the authors make have been refuted. For example, there is actually an apparent gap between white and black IQs (as of 96) for reasons unknown. My professional(joking) opinion is that the correlations are very compelling and intuitively it makes sense that a \u0026ldquo;smart\u0026rdquo; person would be more successful than a \u0026ldquo;dumb\u0026rdquo; person ON AVERAGE. That is pretty much the entire book in a single sentence, and I am not sure what is so controversial about that. As for the race difference thing, it makes more sense to me to look at it with open eyes instead of pretending it doesn\u0026rsquo;t exist. So, if there is a difference, we should do more investigations on trying to figure out how to close the gap. The authors sound defeatist on this point saying that all attempts in the past have failed to produce much change, but that doesn\u0026rsquo;t seem to be a reasonable conclusion to make from the data to me. In fact, the last section of the book was centered on what they would suggest for political actions based on this data and to me it was the worst part. As they aren\u0026rsquo;t political scientists it comes as no surprise their suggestions would tend towards the naive and whatever political bent, they brought to the table initially. Overall, I enjoy reading polarizing books because they are typically right at the center of important conversations. Rating 7.5/10\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-bell-curve-intelligence-and-class-structure-in-american-life/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis book was pretty long and mostly interesting. As one might expect it is fairly dense full of charts and diagrams. On the upshot is I now have a concept of what a standard deviation is. This book makes several statements:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEveryone has varied levels of intelligence and this intelligence can be measured by what psychometricians call \u0026lsquo;G\u0026rsquo; for general intelligence. G is a subset of IQ, but I\u0026rsquo;ll just refer to it via IQ.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIQ has a high predictive power on various social outcomes including marriage, illegitimacy, salary, criminality and more.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIt is easier to be successful in life with a high IQ than with a low IQ.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIQ is more important than how much money your parents had in predicting outcomes.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eColleges have gotten better at selecting for IQ and therefore Ivy League schools get a much higher percentage of the best and brightest than they did 100 years ago.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThere is the emergence of a new class in America that they dub the \u0026ldquo;Cognitive Elite\u0026rdquo; these people are separated from the larger subset of the population in ways that were not the case 100 years ago. (i.e., private schools, rich neighborhoods, white collar offices, etc.).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThis new cognitive elite wields an extraordinary amount of power over the shape of our culture.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIQ is affected by genetic and environmental factors\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIQ is pretty much set by the time you are 6 years old\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIQ varies between ethnicities in the following order from top to bottom Asian, White, Latino, Black. (They don\u0026rsquo;t really say why other than a combination of genetic and environmental factors)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAll of our best efforts in education haven\u0026rsquo;t produced as large of improvements in student\u0026rsquo;s IQ as most people think.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe top IQ students have been neglected by government funding, which has instead been funneled towards the lowest performing students.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAffirmative action is a disaster\nAfter reading this, whether right or wrong this book has been helpful. It was so controversial that it initiated many research groups to be formed to try and ferret out the legitimacy of the claims that the authors make, which is more useful than everyone nodding their heads in agreement. Most of the criticisms of this book center around their statistical methods and their decision to look at the correlation between race and IQ. It is worth noting that (from what I\u0026rsquo;ve seen) almost none of the conclusions the authors make have been refuted. For example, there is actually an apparent gap between white and black IQs (as of 96) for reasons unknown. My professional(joking) opinion is that the correlations are very compelling and intuitively it makes sense that a \u0026ldquo;smart\u0026rdquo; person would be more successful than a \u0026ldquo;dumb\u0026rdquo; person ON AVERAGE. That is pretty much the entire book in a single sentence, and I am not sure what is so controversial about that. As for the race difference thing, it makes more sense to me to look at it with open eyes instead of pretending it doesn\u0026rsquo;t exist. So, if there is a difference, we should do more investigations on trying to figure out how to close the gap. The authors sound defeatist on this point saying that all attempts in the past have failed to produce much change, but that doesn\u0026rsquo;t seem to be a reasonable conclusion to make from the data to me. In fact, the last section of the book was centered on what they would suggest for political actions based on this data and to me it was the worst part. As they aren\u0026rsquo;t political scientists it comes as no surprise their suggestions would tend towards the naive and whatever political bent, they brought to the table initially. Overall, I enjoy reading polarizing books because they are typically right at the center of important conversations.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRating 7.5/10\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Bell Curve"},{"content":"This book sets out to demonstrate how violence over history is on a downward trajectory and that we currently live in the least violent time in history by almost every metric. This is very counter intuitive considering we have gotten so efficient at killing people; indeed, we have invented weapons capable of wiping out the human race, but they have yet to be used. The future is a little more optimistic than it appears at first glance. This book starts by outlining various trends he found of violence that has drastically been reduced. For example, homicide, war, torture, executions, and lynching have all been in decline for some time. In the next section he talks about 5 factors that contribute to these declines. The first factor is \u0026ldquo;The Leviathan\u0026rdquo; borrowing the term from Thomas Hobbes who argues that even though governments are somewhat arbitrary they nonetheless decrease violence on the overall. The second factor contributing to peace is the concept of commerce. As they say, \u0026ldquo;if goods don\u0026rsquo;t cross borders, soldiers will\u0026rdquo;. Thirdly he attributes the feminization of culture as a cause for the drop in violence. He draws some very interesting correlations between cultures of honor and violence that I hadn\u0026rsquo;t thought of before. Honor much like a religious ideal can be inflated to infinite proportions leading to tiny insults being cause for a duel to the death. He then draws parallels between the duels of gentlemen from the past and gang violence in the present, showing how the motivation behind the violence is similar, it is just that one had been romanticized more. The ultimate example of this \u0026ldquo;honor\u0026rdquo; oriented violence is the era of chivalry. As women stopped being property to be fought over like oil or gold, many of these types of honor-based violence have decreased. Women also tend to be less aggressive on the whole, for example women are less likely to vote for hawkish foreign policy when compared to men. So as their ability to contribute and influence society has grown so too has their more peaceful ideas. The fourth cause in the decrease of violence is cosmopolitanism. He cites the printing press as having an outsized effect on people\u0026rsquo;s perceptions of other people. Crediting novels as the medium that allowed people for the first time to see the world from a different perspective. Doing this allowed people to feel the pain of others in ways that were not possible before literacy. The final reason he cites is what he labels \u0026ldquo;The escalator of reason\u0026rdquo;. He argues that enlightenment and humanist traditions have been the most successful tool in humanity\u0026rsquo;s arsenal for decreasing violence. To put it simply, if you believe in logic when you ask someone not to hurt you, by extension you also must apply the same logic to see that they themselves don\u0026rsquo;t want to be hurt. Thusly expanding our circles of consideration and integration. This book is well written, fairly easy to digest. It is full of interesting anecdotes and statistics that Pinker marshals to back his various claims. I enjoyed it, although I feel as if the book could have been shortened by a fair bit without sacrificing on content. There is some controversy as to his way of counting war violence to come away with the results he did, but no one can argue that violence has been restrained quite a bit since the Middle Ages. Especially when you consider the spine-chilling methods of executions and tortures employed and the complete lack of consideration for the welfare of humans that don\u0026rsquo;t look like you.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-better-angels-of-our-nature-why-violence-has-declined/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis book sets out to demonstrate how violence over history is on a downward trajectory and that we currently live in the least violent time in history by almost every metric. This is very counter intuitive considering we have gotten so efficient at killing people; indeed, we have invented weapons capable of wiping out the human race, but they have yet to be used. The future is a little more optimistic than it appears at first glance. This book starts by outlining various trends he found of violence that has drastically been reduced. For example, homicide, war, torture, executions, and lynching have all been in decline for some time. In the next section he talks about 5 factors that contribute to these declines. The first factor is \u0026ldquo;The Leviathan\u0026rdquo; borrowing the term from Thomas Hobbes who argues that even though governments are somewhat arbitrary they nonetheless decrease violence on the overall. The second factor contributing to peace is the concept of commerce. As they say, \u0026ldquo;if goods don\u0026rsquo;t cross borders, soldiers will\u0026rdquo;. Thirdly he attributes the feminization of culture as a cause for the drop in violence. He draws some very interesting correlations between cultures of honor and violence that I hadn\u0026rsquo;t thought of before. Honor much like a religious ideal can be inflated to infinite proportions leading to tiny insults being cause for a duel to the death. He then draws parallels between the duels of gentlemen from the past and gang violence in the present, showing how the motivation behind the violence is similar, it is just that one had been romanticized more. The ultimate example of this \u0026ldquo;honor\u0026rdquo; oriented violence is the era of chivalry. As women stopped being property to be fought over like oil or gold, many of these types of honor-based violence have decreased. Women also tend to be less aggressive on the whole, for example women are less likely to vote for hawkish foreign policy when compared to men. So as their ability to contribute and influence society has grown so too has their more peaceful ideas. The fourth cause in the decrease of violence is cosmopolitanism. He cites the printing press as having an outsized effect on people\u0026rsquo;s perceptions of other people. Crediting novels as the medium that allowed people for the first time to see the world from a different perspective. Doing this allowed people to feel the pain of others in ways that were not possible before literacy. The final reason he cites is what he labels \u0026ldquo;The escalator of reason\u0026rdquo;. He argues that enlightenment and humanist traditions have been the most successful tool in humanity\u0026rsquo;s arsenal for decreasing violence. To put it simply, if you believe in logic when you ask someone not to hurt you, by extension you also must apply the same logic to see that they themselves don\u0026rsquo;t want to be hurt. Thusly expanding our circles of consideration and integration. This book is well written, fairly easy to digest. It is full of interesting anecdotes and statistics that Pinker marshals to back his various claims. I enjoyed it, although I feel as if the book could have been shortened by a fair bit without sacrificing on content. There is some controversy as to his way of counting war violence to come away with the results he did, but no one can argue that violence has been restrained quite a bit since the Middle Ages. Especially when you consider the spine-chilling methods of executions and tortures employed and the complete lack of consideration for the welfare of humans that don\u0026rsquo;t look like you.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Better Angels of Our Nature"},{"content":"Nassim Taleb investigates the improbability baked into the world and the expert\u0026rsquo;s underestimation of it. A quick synopsis of the title is that for many years it was assumed that all Swans were white. This assumption held true over thousands and thousands of observations. It remained true until Australia was discovered and lo and behold a Black Swan was found and overthrew the \u0026ldquo;scientific theory\u0026rdquo; that all swans are white. This anecdote is a reminder that we cannot verify anything, only conduct experiments that either confirm or disconfirm theories. Confirmation of a theory should not be considered verification. This problem is the main focus of the book which is: you can for sure know when you are wrong but will never know when you\u0026rsquo;re right. Taleb defines a Black Swan event as relates to the book as having the following characteristics:\nIt has a disproportionate effect on reality It is not predictable using the scientific method Once the event happens, it is immediately rationalized in hindsight as being something that could have been predicted. Taleb grew up in Lebanon but was forced out at an early age due to an unpredictable civil war that happened there. This probably helped set him off in the direction of this theory. He notes that no one predicted the war, and everyone underestimated how long/damaging it would be. His dad was a high ranking official in Lebanon and his predictions were just as accurate as a cab driver who knew nothing about it. He draws a parallel with the people of WW2 underestimating the effects and severity of the war as evidenced by the markets just prior and during the beginning of the conflict. Taleb attacks people on the left and right in this book but having a background as an options trader he has a special vendetta against those people who right economic forecasts, these forecasters are never held accountable for their poor predictions. These predictions all have a fatal flaw, they presume the ability to quantify using platonic distinctions, without ever realizing how rare a perfect triangle (if one exists) is in nature. His complaint about mathematics is that it is 100% correct and not 99% which makes it dangerous to use in the real world because it gives you a sense of confidence without reflecting the uncertainty inherent in reality. He makes an interesting distinction between two sets of data, one set lives in what he calls Mediocrastan while the other set lives in Extremastan. To illustrate the difference between these two sets, imagine picking at random 1000 people and weighing them and then finding the average. (It might just look like a bell curve ;). Now imagine finding the heaviest human in the world and adding it to the set. How much would it effect the average? Not very much. Next imagine that you took 1000 people at random and averaged their income. Odds are it too would create a bell curve like distribution, but now imagine adding the richest person in the world to the set of 1000 people. This would completely destroy the distribution as the richest person would have over 99% of the wealth leaving the rest of the 1000 people to fight over the remaining percentage, and with that, we have a crack in the liberty bell. People\u0026rsquo;s weight belongs in Mediocrastan the land of bell curves while people\u0026rsquo;s income belongs in Extremastan where bell curves lie. He then makes the argument that there are many more scenarios that belong in Extremastan today (economics, history/future events, best sellers, etc.) that are treated as if they belong in Mediocrastan. Another great example he gives was that of a casino that was working on risk management. They spent millions of dollars to catch cheaters that would try to steal money from the casino where what ended up costing them much more was three black swan events that the risk management team had not predicted. A tiger mauled its trainer causing them to cancel a popular show. A lazy employee had inexplicably been hiding tax documents under their desk making them have to pay a huge fine for back taxes and the owner\u0026rsquo;s daughter was kidnapped making them have to dip into the casino\u0026rsquo;s earnings to get her back. The major take away here is that people mistakenly define risk in terms of bell curves, but bell curves do not account for the truly improbable which paradoxically happens often. The problem is centered around this conception that randomness can be modeled by a roll of the dice. He would call this mild randomness, because if rolled enough times dice are actually perfectly predictable and therefore not random (he objects to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as being metaphysically important for the same reason- it averages out). In the real world you will find true randomness that cannot be predicted by any method. He defines randomness as the following: \u0026ldquo;In the end Randomness is just unknowledge there is no functional difference between a completely random system and a chaotic system whose outcome we cannot predict\u0026rdquo;\nWhen I first started this book, the author struck me as conceited and a little annoying, but by the end of it, the tone was somehow a little charming? humans are weird. Either way this book challenges a lot of conceptions in my gourd and gives me some more ammo to flame those scientific positivists. Very interesting read full of anecdotes that will stick around in your head for a while.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-black-swan-the-impact-of-the-highly-improbable/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eNassim Taleb investigates the improbability baked into the world and the expert\u0026rsquo;s underestimation of it. A quick synopsis of the title is that for many years it was assumed that all Swans were white. This assumption held true over thousands and thousands of observations. It remained true until Australia was discovered and lo and behold a Black Swan was found and overthrew the \u0026ldquo;scientific theory\u0026rdquo; that all swans are white. This anecdote is a reminder that we cannot verify anything, only conduct experiments that either confirm or disconfirm theories. Confirmation of a theory should not be considered verification.  This problem is the main focus of the book which is: you can for sure know when you are wrong but will never know when you\u0026rsquo;re right. Taleb defines a Black Swan event as relates to the book as having the following characteristics:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Black Swan"},{"content":"Short review here. Not much to say about this other than it was enjoyable reading. The book contained 18 short stories by H.P. Lovecraft. They seemed to get better and better. My favorites were\nThe Rats in the Walls The Call of Cthulhu The Color Out of Space The Outsider Author\nThree things of note about the author, one he was reciting poetry by two, reading by three, and writing stories by six years of age. Secondly, his adult life was incredibly unstable. He didn\u0026rsquo;t ever seem to have much money and reading how he lived, he seemed a little bit like a loser. As in living with his mom, and then with a sugar mamma, and then moved in with his aunt. Makes me realize that maybe getting \u0026ldquo;Employee of the Year\u0026rdquo; for 40 years isn\u0026rsquo;t always the definition of success. Thirdly, he was a very materialistic thinker. It was this that partially attracted him to the strange and weird as a sort of escape from a bland clockwork world.\nWriting\nClearly one of the most influential writers in American history he has inspired countless people. His imagination and ability to create that special other worldly feel is fantastic. This being said his writing when consumed one story after another bears some repetitive themes. For example, the idea of someone going insane over something they see/learn. Someone being horrified by something, but not knowing why they are horrified. A troupe where the author is too afraid to put into words what he saw, but by necessity has to, because otherwise what am I reading? Many plot twists are fairly predictable. If I laid these critiques at a normal author\u0026rsquo;s feet it would signal to me, that their work isn\u0026rsquo;t worth reading. This is not the case for Lovecraft. He somehow manages to make entertaining stories in spite of all these cliches. I found myself slightly more immersed with each story of his I read. Embedded a little deeper with each tale. It is nice to get swept away into a world, where there are other conscious beings that have been around eons before us and will outlive us. It is nice to not be at the top, just for a couple hours.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-call-of-cthulhu-and-other-weird-stories/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eShort review here. Not much to say about this other than it was enjoyable reading. The book contained 18 short stories by H.P. Lovecraft. They seemed to get better and better. My favorites were\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Rats in the Walls\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Call of Cthulhu\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Color Out of Space\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Outsider\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAuthor\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThree things of note about the author, one he was reciting poetry by two, reading by three, and writing stories by six years of age. Secondly, his adult life was incredibly unstable. He didn\u0026rsquo;t ever seem to have much money and reading how he lived, he seemed a little bit like a loser. As in living with his mom, and then with a sugar mamma, and then moved in with his aunt. Makes me realize that maybe getting \u0026ldquo;Employee of the Year\u0026rdquo; for 40 years isn\u0026rsquo;t always the definition of success. Thirdly, he was a very materialistic thinker. It was this that partially attracted him to the strange and weird as a sort of escape from a bland clockwork world.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Call of Cthulhu and Other Weird Stories"},{"content":"This was a really interesting read. The emphasis on the active role the mind plays in constructing reality was thought provoking. Also watching the space time paradigm go out to get milk is rewarding. I think I fundamentally disagree with a few of his main conclusions, but that\u0026rsquo;s something we\u0026rsquo;ll have to discuss over tea. It\u0026rsquo;s funny the more books I read like this; the more overlapping stories/ illustrations pop up. Like Necker cubes, split brain patient stories, etc. It is as if these units of information are virulent. Good read, I love books that help you look at the world differently.\nBiocentrism- How Life and Consciousness Are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-case-against-reality-why-evolution-hid-the-truth-from-our-eyes/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis was a really interesting read. The emphasis on the active role the mind plays in constructing reality was thought provoking. Also watching the space time paradigm go out to get milk is rewarding. I think I fundamentally disagree with a few of his main conclusions, but that\u0026rsquo;s something we\u0026rsquo;ll have to discuss over tea. It\u0026rsquo;s funny the more books I read like this; the more overlapping stories/ illustrations pop up. Like Necker  cubes, split brain patient stories, etc. It is as if these units of information are virulent. Good read, I love books that help you look at the world differently.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Case Against Reality"},{"content":"Lee Strobel earned a law degree from Yale and was a crime reporter back in the 80s. Long story short his wife became a Christian and so he goes on a spiritual quest to see if there is anything to Christianity. Strobel sets the book up by saying he was going to use his hardnosed skeptic journalistic approach that he used on crime to get to the bottom of the evidence, historical or otherwise that supports Christianity. He proceeds to interview a lot of the leading evangelical theologians and historians asking them hard questions and recording their answers. As such this book is a good summary of the state of the art of Christian apologetics. Broken into 3 parts it starts by compiling the best arguments for the historicity and facticity of the gospels. This section sets out to prove the following:\nThe gospels were written by disciples or people they are named after They were written very early after Jesus\u0026rsquo;s death They have not substantially changed The gospel accounts don\u0026rsquo;t contradict each other in any meaningful way There were never significant candidate gospels that have not been included in our current cannon There are corroborating historical documents that back up some of the events that are described in the gospel Almost all archaeological evidence found to date reinforces the narratives put forward by the gospels. The second section looks at the historical Jesus and attempts to prove the following: Jesus thought he was God Jesus was in a fit mental state and was not crazy Jesus fit the attributes of God (i.e. he was morally perfect, could forgive sins etc) Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies for the Messiah The third section focus on providing the best evidence that supported the resurrection. It sets out to prove: Jesus actually died and there was no chance that he was mistaken for dead by the Romans. Jesus\u0026rsquo; grave was empty as a historical fact Eye witness stories of seeing Jesus after resurrection Various addendum proofs like the disciples dying for their beliefs and skeptics being convinced On the whole this book was well written and very convincing. Especially when listening to one interview at a time. If you already believe or if you grew up in a Bible saturated environment the arguments and data seem quite compelling. It doesn\u0026rsquo;t take long reading into this book before you realize that you have been gently tricked though. The author claims to have been a cynical atheist who was out on a quest to pitch the hardball questions to the experts and not let them get away with anything. As the book unfolds, this doesn\u0026rsquo;t seem to be the case. He does ask some hard questions, but also some very stupid questions that he pretends are \u0026ldquo;hard\u0026rdquo;. A lot of questions feel formulated in such a way as to tee up the expert in a certain direction. This doesn\u0026rsquo;t mean that the book is bad more that it shouldn\u0026rsquo;t have been framed as a fair hearing. It should have instead been framed as an apologetic. One other thing I noticed is that there were several (if my memory serves) instances where the experts would contradict each other but in totally different contexts. For example, the claim that the Gospels were written by the people for whom they are named. This book was thought provoking and has made me dig into the other side of the arguments presented in this book. Getting unbiased history is difficult on its own, it might be impossible in this situation.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-case-for-christ/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eLee Strobel earned a law degree from Yale and was a crime reporter back in the 80s. Long story short his wife became a Christian and so he goes on a spiritual quest to see if there is anything to Christianity.  Strobel sets the book up by saying he was going to use his hardnosed skeptic journalistic approach that he used on crime to get to the bottom of the evidence, historical or otherwise that supports Christianity. He proceeds to interview a lot of the leading evangelical theologians and historians asking them hard questions and recording their answers. As such this book is a good summary of the state of the art of Christian apologetics.  Broken into 3 parts it starts by compiling the best arguments for the historicity and facticity of the gospels. This section sets out to prove the following:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Case for Christ"},{"content":"At some point during a conversation, I asked a question that was half-joking and half-serious. I asked, \u0026ldquo;If life is suffering, why is it morally okay to continue bringing more life into this world?\u0026rdquo; Little did I know, I would soon read a book that asked the same question. This book, published in 2010 by Thomas Ligotti, was an explanation of his own philosophy, which happened to be extremely dark. Ligotti starts by explaining that most people have the assumption that \u0026ldquo;being alive is alright,\u0026rdquo; and it is from this assumption that most philosophy is built. Instead, Ligotti starts with the assumption that \u0026ldquo;being alive is NOT alright,\u0026rdquo; and proceeds from there. This book could be considered an agreement and expansion of Peter Zapffe\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;The Last Messiah,\u0026rdquo; in which Zapffe argues that consciousness (mostly a sense of self) is a class A blunder by evolution. Ligotti calls this level of consciousness the \u0026ldquo;Mother of All Horrors,\u0026rdquo; as it has given us the ability to realize that we are puppets, turning us into uncanny things that no longer belong in nature. Zapffe concludes that the best course of action is for humanity to implement a two-child limit, causing the gradual extinction of the human race. Ligotti and other philosophers argue that parents have blood on their hands for bringing more uncanny, absurd creatures into this world of suffering. He also points out the similarities between this worldview and Buddhism, in that the destruction of the self is the goal of both, just with different wrapping paper. Ligotti argues that many philosophers have arrived at the same conclusion that he has, but they have made a twist at the end to allow them to tell the same story differently or come to a different conclusion, which is usually the conclusion that \u0026ldquo;being alive is alright.\u0026rdquo; There was a quote near the end of the book that has really stuck with me, which captures the isolation communicated in the book. It went something like, \u0026ldquo;Humans are the only species that, if they were to instantly go extinct, would not be missed.\u0026rdquo; As a bit of trivia, this book was a primary inspiration for Matthew McConaughey\u0026rsquo;s character in the first season of True Detective. Overall, this book was difficult to read due to how dark it was. The writing was quite good, but it was the definition of defeatist. It has given me much to think about.\n#book #conspiracy_again_human_race #thomas_ligotti #philosophical_pessimism #existentialism #suffering #moral_questions #anti-natalism #peter_zapffe #consciousness #nature_of_existence #human_extinction #parental_responsibility #buddhism #self_destruction #philosophical_agreement #evolutionary_mistake #dark_philosophy #existential_horror #defeatism #metaphysical_isolation\nThomas Ligotti\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-conspiracy-against-the-human-race/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eAt some point during a conversation, I asked a question that was half-joking and half-serious. I asked, \u0026ldquo;If life is suffering, why is it morally okay to continue bringing more life into this world?\u0026rdquo; Little did I know, I would soon read a book that asked the same question. This book, published in 2010 by Thomas Ligotti, was an explanation of his own philosophy, which happened to be extremely dark. Ligotti starts by explaining that most people have the assumption that \u0026ldquo;being alive is alright,\u0026rdquo; and it is from this assumption that most philosophy is built. Instead, Ligotti starts with the assumption that \u0026ldquo;being alive is NOT alright,\u0026rdquo; and proceeds from there. This book could be considered an agreement and expansion of Peter Zapffe\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;The Last Messiah,\u0026rdquo; in which Zapffe argues that consciousness (mostly a sense of self) is a class A blunder by evolution. Ligotti calls this level of consciousness the \u0026ldquo;Mother of All Horrors,\u0026rdquo; as it has given us the ability to realize that we are puppets, turning us into uncanny things that no longer belong in nature. Zapffe concludes that the best course of action is for humanity to implement a two-child limit, causing the gradual extinction of the human race. Ligotti and other philosophers argue that parents have blood on their hands for bringing more uncanny, absurd creatures into this world of suffering. He also points out the similarities between this worldview and Buddhism, in that the destruction of the self is the goal of both, just with different wrapping paper. Ligotti argues that many philosophers have arrived at the same conclusion that he has, but they have made a twist at the end to allow them to tell the same story differently or come to a different conclusion, which is usually the conclusion that \u0026ldquo;being alive is alright.\u0026rdquo; There was a quote near the end of the book that has really stuck with me, which captures the isolation communicated in the book. It went something like, \u0026ldquo;Humans are the only species that, if they were to instantly go extinct, would not be missed.\u0026rdquo; As a bit of trivia, this book was a primary inspiration for Matthew McConaughey\u0026rsquo;s character in the first season of True Detective. Overall, this book was difficult to read due to how dark it was. The writing was quite good, but it was the definition of defeatist. It has given me much to think about.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Conspiracy Against the Human Race"},{"content":"This book is Sagan\u0026rsquo;s ode to science. The point of this book is to argue the science is the most reliable way that humans have come up with for making descriptive statements about reality. Not a particularly novel concept but it is deftly laid out in this book. He starts out by destroying the man in the moon with facts and logic. Showing how only simpletons could believe the moon is made out of cheese. He then talks about aliens and draws very interesting links between alien abduction stories and the stories of witches during the 1600s. He draws a causal link between scientific knowledge and economic success and its converse which is the loss of scientific thinking producing poverty. He makes compelling arguments as to how America is largely scientifically illiterate and that more funding should be directed away from defense and towards education and general science. He gives some historical insights for funding general science and not just science for the sake of medicine and technology, arguing that general science is typically the best way to make technological and medicinal breakthroughs. The secondary point of this book was to try and convince everyone to be a skeptic. In line with this he describes what he calls as a \u0026ldquo;bologna detection kit\u0026rdquo;. This kit contains several logical fallacies used by politicians and bad actors to trick people into believing something. Shots fired at the authors of the bell curve in this book as well which was unexpected. I was expecting this book to be a lot more condescending than it was. Sagan\u0026rsquo;s tone was actually fairly polite and made a lot of sense. Definitely a little bit of a wet blanket to have at a party though. A lot of good ideas in here, not mind blowing but definitely helpful to remember when trying to build your worldview.\nThe Bell Curve- Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-demon-haunted-world-science-as-a-candle-in-the-dark/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis book is Sagan\u0026rsquo;s ode to science. The point of this book is to argue the science is the most reliable way that humans have come up with for making descriptive statements about reality. Not a particularly novel concept but it is deftly laid out in this book. He starts out by destroying the man in the moon with facts and logic. Showing how only simpletons could believe the moon is made out of cheese. He then talks about aliens and draws very interesting links between alien abduction stories and the stories of witches during the 1600s. He draws a causal link between scientific knowledge and economic success and its converse which is the loss of scientific thinking producing poverty.  He makes compelling arguments as to how America is largely scientifically illiterate and that more funding should be directed away from defense and towards education and general science. He gives some historical insights for funding general science and not just science for the sake of medicine and technology, arguing that general science is typically the best way to make technological and medicinal breakthroughs. The secondary point of this book was to try and convince everyone to be a skeptic. In line with this he describes what he calls as a \u0026ldquo;bologna detection kit\u0026rdquo;. This kit contains several logical fallacies used by politicians and bad actors to trick people into believing something. Shots fired at the authors of the bell curve in this book as well which was unexpected. I was expecting this book to be a lot more condescending than it was. Sagan\u0026rsquo;s tone was actually fairly polite and made a lot of sense. Definitely a little bit of a wet blanket to have at a party though. A lot of good ideas in here, not mind blowing but definitely helpful to remember when trying to build your worldview.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Demon-Haunted World"},{"content":"I have read Dante\u0026rsquo;s Inferno a couple times, but it is part one of the trilogy titled the Divine Comedy. The first part is Inferno, then Purgatorio, and lastly Paradiso. So, when I finally got a hard copy that contained all three parts I was excited to check out the other pieces of it. First things first, these books are very difficult to read for two main reasons.\nLanguage The language in this book can be very tricky. That is because the whole book is a poem written in (3-line stanzas) also in Italian. This makes the job of translator especially difficult to try and maintain the rhythm of the poem. On top of that since it is poetic there are many times where a very simple action like: person A asks person B a question can span paragraphs and therefore make it difficult to always keep track of what is going on.\nReferences This book is littered with references to Italian, Roman, Greek historical, political and mythological figures spanning from before Christ to Dante\u0026rsquo;s modern era. If I was to buy another hardcopy, I would probably try to find one with annotations as I spent a lot of time googling, which was time consuming and annoying because it would break the flow of the story. Here is an excerpt for example\n\u0026ldquo;So came he with deductions to this point; Then he concluded: \u0026ldquo;Therefore it behoves The roots of your effects to be diverse. Hence one is Solon born, another Xerxes, Another Melchisedec, and another he Who, flying through the air, his son did lose. Revolving Nature, which a signet is To mortal wax, doth practice well her art, But not one inn distinguish from another, Thence happens it that Esau differeth In seed from Jacob; and Quirinus comes From sire so vile that he is given to Mars\nParidiso Canto VIII\nHere we see an Athenian Statesmen, Persian King, Old Testament characters, Greek mythological characters, a Roman aristocrat and a Roman god all mentioned in a single paragraph. Sometimes it isn\u0026rsquo;t necessary to know all the references to understand the text, but other times the text doesn\u0026rsquo;t mean much if you don\u0026rsquo;t. This also demonstrates a common writing style of Dante\u0026rsquo;s which was to obliquely refer to a character based on details \u0026ldquo;everyone\u0026rdquo; would know. Like the above reference to Icarus and Daedalus. With this in mind the book was pretty difficult to get through but is so foundational to western literature it almost seems like you should climb up saint peter\u0026rsquo;s steps on your knees once, and maybe you can learn something.\nStory The story starts by Dante being lost in a dark wood where he gets corned by three wild beasts. Unable to get away from these animals all is almost lost until Virgil shows up and saves him from the beasts. This scenario is an allegory for the redemption of the soul. Virgil then becomes Dante\u0026rsquo;s guide as they start their journey that out of necessity begins in hell. Hell is described as concentric rings going deeper and deeper into the earth. This section contains Limbo where Virgil is from and where all virtuous pagans live. They can\u0026rsquo;t go to heaven, but they were good people, so they aren\u0026rsquo;t tormented. They just chill doing nothing for eternity. Of course, this is also where all the damned souls reside with no chance of redemption. After going through hell, they must ascend the mountain of Purgatory which is a place where souls are cleansed of their earthly faults before being received into paradise. At the top of the mountain is the garden of Eden which must be crossed through, and the last stop to Paradise is the river Lethe. When one enters the river all bad things they did in their life are forgotten and all their virtues are strengthened. This is as far as Virgil can take Dante due to the fact that he is a pagan. Dante gets a hot new guide named Beatrice who takes over. They then ascend to paradise which is in the sky. Going back to a concentric circle schema heaven too is segregated like hell, but by virtue instead of vice with the highest heavens being in the center.\nThoughts This reminded me of the matrix, where the first installment was best, and the rest were just ok. I guarantee that most of this is due to the stupidity of the reader and not the book itself. The book is full of genius allegories and cosmological ideas. I can\u0026rsquo;t imagine being in a state of mind where I felt confident enough to sit down and just write out such a titanic description of the afterlife. Especially when people were still getting burnt at the stake for not toeing the line. There is a formula where Dante and Virgil are walking through a place, and they stop and ask someone in the place how they got there. This is efficient but is used so often it gets a little repetitive IMO. Also, since Dante was the only living soul in purgatory the souls that they would come across would always freak out that he had a shadow (indicating he was still alive). Again, the first time, I thought this was cool but by the end of that book it was run into the ground. Purgatorio was probably my least favorite book until the end. The section on crossing through Eden to get to paradise is a brilliant idea to me. Paradiso\u0026rsquo;s repetitive theme was that as he ascended into higher and higher heavens the glorious light emanating from the characters got brighter and brighter. Again, makes sense, but by the end a little played out. Something else that struck me as funny in Paradiso was that in each circle of heaven there was almost always a character complaining about how bad something was on i.e., corrupt the popes were, lame the Dominican friars had become, etc. I guess even in Paradise you are still annoyed by \u0026ldquo;kids these days\u0026rdquo;. In Canto 28 of Paradiso Dante sees a geo centric version of the solar system in the reflection of Beatrice\u0026rsquo;s eye. The planets are replaced by rings of Angels. These angels orbit a single impossibly bright point of light. The closer the angel\u0026rsquo;s orbit to the center the higher ranking it is. This Canto stuck out to me for some reason, not positive why but there is something interesting here. Probably a connection to Philip K Dick or Emerson\u0026rsquo;s idea of the infinite inside a finite point. One last thing that was interesting to me was just how interwoven Greek mythology was in Dante\u0026rsquo;s view of Christianity. He in one breath recognizes its subordination, but at every turn leans on it for explanation and allegory. I feel our friend Brian Muraresku from the Immortality Key would have some things to say about that. Overall, it was mostly a slog to get through but had little gems in there that were nice to find. Additionally, I think it is one of those books where the more acquainted you become with poetry and Greek mythology, the more you will find to enjoy in this book. It also helps to have an IQ of 420 instead of 69.\nPS Turns out Dante was promised to a girl for marriage at the age of 12. But unfortunately, for that lady he had met Beatrice at age 9 and devoted his whole life to her, although she was married to someone else. In Dante\u0026rsquo;s writing Beatrice functions as a muse who is as close to divine as you can get.\nRating 7.0/10\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-divine-comedy/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI have read Dante\u0026rsquo;s Inferno a couple times, but it is part one of the trilogy titled the Divine Comedy. The first part is Inferno, then Purgatorio, and lastly Paradiso. So, when I finally got a hard copy that contained all three parts I was excited to check out the other pieces of it. First things first, these books are very difficult to read for two main reasons.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLanguage\u003c/em\u003e\nThe language in this book can be very tricky. That is because the whole book is a poem written in (3-line stanzas) also in Italian. This makes the job of translator especially difficult to try and maintain the rhythm of the poem. On top of that since it is poetic there are many times where a very simple action like: person A asks person B a question can span paragraphs and therefore make it difficult to always keep track of what is going on.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Divine Comedy"},{"content":"The Double is Dostoyevsky\u0026rsquo;s second published work and is a definite precursor to much of his later work. Following the life of a low-level bureaucrat named Golyadkin for a couple chaotic days. Golyadkin is a weak and flakey person with crippling anxiety and bordering on psychotic. After attending a party and committing some embarrassing party fouls he is thrown out into the snowy night in St. Petersburg. It is in this state that Golyadkin literally bumps into his double a person that looks just like him and even shares his name. The rest of the book follows the relationship of these two characters as the double is the inverse of the real Golyadkin and has everything the original lacks. This book was also adapted into a movie with Jesse Eisenburg who is a great match for this character. The style is very surreal and also satirical it is much different from anything else I\u0026rsquo;ve read from Dostoyevsky. It was also the worst book I\u0026rsquo;ve read from him, in fact I think he says it best\n\u0026ldquo;Most decidedly, I did not succeed with that novel; however, its idea was rather lucid, and I have never expressed in my writings anything more serious. Still, as far as form was concerned, I failed utterly.\u0026rdquo;\nTotally agree, the idea was fantastic and improved upon in the later works by him. The main theme of this book was the fight for individuality and the destructive lengths someone will go if denied this desire. It is also a commentary on the destruction of individuality that accompanies bureaucracy. This is shown when no one reacts at his office when his double applies at the same place. The main character questions a co-worker about the lack of reaction and upon questioning the co-worker realizes for the first time that Golyadkin and his double look identical but then writes it off as not too important because after all \u0026ldquo;he is a good clerk.\u0026rdquo; Overall, I would say only the biggest fans of Dostoyevsky would find this one worth reading as similar ideas are better presented in his later books.\nFyodor Dostoevsky\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-double/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThe Double is Dostoyevsky\u0026rsquo;s second published work and is a definite precursor to much of his later work. Following the life of a low-level bureaucrat named Golyadkin for a couple chaotic days. Golyadkin is a weak and flakey person with crippling anxiety and bordering on psychotic. After attending a party and committing some embarrassing party fouls he is thrown out into the snowy night in St. Petersburg. It is in this state that Golyadkin literally bumps into his double a person that looks just like him and even shares his name. The rest of the book follows the relationship of these two characters as the double is the inverse of the real Golyadkin and has everything the original lacks. This book was also adapted into a movie with Jesse Eisenburg who is a great match for this character. The style is very surreal and also satirical it is much different from anything else I\u0026rsquo;ve read from Dostoyevsky. It was also the worst book I\u0026rsquo;ve read from him, in fact I think he says it best\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Double"},{"content":"I\u0026rsquo;ve listened to Sammy boy\u0026rsquo;s podcast a fair bit so I figured I should check out some of his work. In the End of Faith, he comes out of the gate swinging. This book was written in 2005 while the Twin Towers were still fresh in everyone\u0026rsquo;s minds. So, while it pulls no punches for any religion there is a special place in Sam\u0026rsquo;s hell for Islam. He claims that much like we have retired Zeus and Apollo it is time to do the same to Jesus and Mohammed. A central claim of this book is that religion is that last place in society that has managed to remove itself from criticism. It attempts to justify itself from reason while dismissing reason as a valid way to understanding its truths. He then makes some interesting points about religious moderates not really helping things because to those living the letter of the law a religious moderate is a failed fundamentalist who will likely end up in hell. This is a very valid insight in my opinion, moderates have no leg to stand on. To me this has always been my biggest thing against \u0026ldquo;Jesus loved the gays\u0026rdquo; viewpoint. Another quip \u0026ldquo;sacred texts are sacred because they were thought so yesterday\u0026rdquo;. He then fires some shots at Bill Moyers trying to revivify these traditions. Right or wrong at points in the book Harris feels like an angry parent who wants to tell us: \u0026ldquo;you\u0026rsquo;ve been very naughty with your myths and so you\u0026rsquo;ve lost your privilege to use them! Go to your room and think about what you\u0026rsquo;ve done.\u0026rdquo; He also brought up this point (that I haven\u0026rsquo;t been able to verify) about the impossibility of removing contradictory beliefs from your own head. He said, if there was a computer as large as the universe made up circuits the size of protons running at the speed of light that verified each new belief against all its prior beliefs before continuing, and this computer had been running since the big bang it would still be working on cross referencing its 300th belief. Yikes! Another interesting insight is the concept that belief may be a passive response from the brain while in order to disbelieve something you have to expend mental effort. Good for Tigers in the jungle, bad for Bitcoin taking me to the moon. He then makes the common critique of sacred texts easily being used to justify violence (i.e. stoning an adulterer in the OT or killing infidels in the Koran), indeed he argues that it takes more work most times to sidestep such awkward verses than to accept them. Fair play! He does some minor stanning for the Israel/ Palestine situation, arguing that if Palestine was in power there wouldn\u0026rsquo;t be a conflict because there wouldn\u0026rsquo;t be any Israel left. This too seems like a fair point. He criticizes Chomsky for laying the responsibility at the foot of American foreign policy arguing that America\u0026rsquo;s foreign policy is not the driving factor behind terrorist attacks and that religion is. If you stop and think about it Chomsky\u0026rsquo;s opinion does seem a little weak, because one would expect many more Vietnamize suicide bombers than Middle Eastern suicide bombers, but to Sam\u0026rsquo;s point the Vietnamize aren\u0026rsquo;t Muslim. Chomsky has further made the classic liberal blunder of attributing unequal ethical blame to the actions of those in power. One only has to stop and question the motives of the two sides. The US seems to go out of its way to reduce civilian casualties while the Taliban seems to do the opposite. Cynically you could say that to the Taliban every civilian dead is one less infidel, while to the US every civilian dead is bad PR. He then ends the book making a case for spirituality without un-reason. In particular he singles out how the eastern traditions have largely been able to make a form of spirituality the is based on experience and not faith. Overall, I think that this book, similarly to \u0026ldquo;The case for Christ\u0026rdquo; will not convince anyone one way or the other about religion unless they were already halfway there. I found some compelling critiques and ideas to munch on and that is good enough for me. He received a lot of flak in the book for making the statement \u0026ldquo;There are some ideas that are worth killing someone over\u0026rdquo;. This is a great statement to vilify someone until further inspection and it becomes patently obvious that this is the only reason, we kill anyone and so the statement is almost pointless. Not a must read, especially if you\u0026rsquo;ve listened to any of his stuff for very long as you probably already understand most of the ideas put forth in the book. The book itself is well written and entertaining. People/Sam Harris\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-end-of-faith-religion-terror-and-the-future-of-reason/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI\u0026rsquo;ve listened to Sammy boy\u0026rsquo;s podcast a fair bit so I figured I should check out some of his work. In the End of Faith, he comes out of the gate swinging. This book was written in 2005 while the Twin Towers were still fresh in everyone\u0026rsquo;s minds. So, while it pulls no punches for any religion there is a special place in Sam\u0026rsquo;s hell for Islam. He claims that much like we have retired Zeus and Apollo it is time to do the same to Jesus and Mohammed. A central claim of this book is that religion is that last place in society that has managed to remove itself from criticism. It attempts to justify itself from reason while dismissing reason as a valid way to understanding its truths. He then makes some interesting points about religious moderates not really helping things because to those living the letter of the law a religious moderate is a failed fundamentalist who will likely end up in hell. This is a very valid insight in my opinion, moderates have no leg to stand on. To me this has always been my biggest thing against \u0026ldquo;Jesus loved the gays\u0026rdquo; viewpoint. Another quip \u0026ldquo;sacred texts are sacred because they were thought so yesterday\u0026rdquo;. He then fires some shots at Bill Moyers trying to revivify these traditions. Right or wrong at points in the book Harris feels like an angry parent who wants to tell us: \u0026ldquo;you\u0026rsquo;ve been very naughty with your myths and so you\u0026rsquo;ve lost your privilege to use them! Go to your room and think about what you\u0026rsquo;ve done.\u0026rdquo; He also brought up this point (that I haven\u0026rsquo;t been able to verify) about the impossibility of removing contradictory beliefs from your own head. He said, if there was a computer as large as the universe made up circuits the size of protons running at the speed of light that verified each new belief against all its prior beliefs before continuing, and this computer had been running since the big bang it would still be working on cross referencing its 300th belief. Yikes! Another interesting insight is the concept that belief may be a passive response from the brain while in order to disbelieve something you have to expend mental effort. Good for Tigers in the jungle, bad for Bitcoin taking me to the moon. He then makes the common critique of sacred texts easily being used to justify violence (i.e. stoning an adulterer in the OT  or killing infidels in the Koran), indeed he argues that it takes more work most times to sidestep such awkward verses than to accept them. Fair play! He does some minor stanning for the Israel/ Palestine situation, arguing that if Palestine was in power there wouldn\u0026rsquo;t be a conflict because there wouldn\u0026rsquo;t be any Israel left. This too seems like a fair point. He criticizes Chomsky for laying the responsibility at the foot of American foreign policy arguing that America\u0026rsquo;s foreign policy is not the driving factor behind terrorist attacks and that religion is. If you stop and think about it Chomsky\u0026rsquo;s opinion does seem a little weak, because one would expect many more Vietnamize suicide bombers than Middle Eastern suicide bombers, but to Sam\u0026rsquo;s point the Vietnamize aren\u0026rsquo;t Muslim. Chomsky has further made the classic liberal blunder of attributing unequal ethical blame to the actions of those in power. One only has to stop and question the motives of the two sides. The US seems to go out of its way to reduce civilian casualties while the Taliban seems to do the opposite. Cynically you could say that to the Taliban every civilian dead is one less infidel, while to the US every civilian dead is bad PR. He then ends the book making a case for spirituality without un-reason. In particular he singles out how the eastern traditions have largely been able to make a form of spirituality the is based on experience and not faith. Overall, I think that this book, similarly to \u0026ldquo;The case for Christ\u0026rdquo; will not convince anyone one way or the other about religion unless they were already halfway there. I found some compelling critiques and ideas to munch on and that is good enough for me. He received a lot of flak in the book for making the statement \u0026ldquo;There are some ideas that are worth killing someone over\u0026rdquo;. This is a great statement to vilify someone until further inspection and it becomes patently obvious that this is the only reason, we kill anyone and so the statement is almost pointless. Not a must read, especially if you\u0026rsquo;ve listened to any of his stuff for very long as you probably already understand most of the ideas put forth in the book. The book itself is well written and entertaining.\nPeople/Sam Harris\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The End of Faith"},{"content":"I had never read any Emerson and was excited to stick my toe in the water. This book was a collection of some of his most famous essays. Written in the mid nineteenth century he is one of those early American intellectuals which seemed to have burned brightly and all but disappeared. Emerson was one of the leaders of the transcendentalist movement which started in the 1820s-1830s. These essays do a lot to outline in vague terms the ideas Emerson had about life. Which are essentially romantic, you as the individual are the orthodox of your life. Heaven is not a place out there somewhere, but something that can be experienced in everyday life given the right mindset. Humans are at their best when they are reliant on themselves for their ideas and beliefs. Man is one thing, that an individual rises out of, this is what gives literature its meaning in the sense that it speaks to that common denominator in all of us. \u0026ldquo;The eye is the first circle; the horizon which it forms is the second; and throughout nature this primary figure is repeated without end.\u0026rdquo; These essays covered a wide range of topics my personal favorites were on friendship and self-reliance. This will definitely be a book I am looking forward to getting a hard copy of, because his writing is so poetic as it is probably best enjoyed a sentence or a paragraph at a time. Very beautifully written. Emerson himself was a Unitarian minister when he was younger but ended up resigning largely because his worldview no longer aligned with what the church\u0026rsquo;s dogma. I respect that, and that American individualism is everywhere in his texts. As a sad side note in his old age about a decade before his death he started suffering from aphasia. Aphasia is the inability to comprehend or formulate speech. A cruel irony.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-essays-of-ralph-waldo-emerson/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI had never read any Emerson and was excited to stick my toe in the water. This book was a collection of some of his most famous essays. Written in the mid nineteenth century he is one of those early American intellectuals which seemed to have burned brightly and all but disappeared. Emerson was one of the leaders of the transcendentalist movement which started in the 1820s-1830s. These essays do a lot to outline in vague terms the ideas Emerson had about life. Which are essentially romantic, you as the individual are the orthodox of your life. Heaven is not a place out there somewhere, but something that can be experienced in everyday life given the right mindset. Humans are at their best when they are reliant on themselves for their ideas and beliefs. Man is one thing, that an individual rises out of, this is what gives literature its meaning in the sense that it speaks to that common denominator in all of us. \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eThe eye is the first circle; the horizon which it forms is the second; and throughout nature this primary figure is repeated without end.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e These essays covered a wide range of topics my personal favorites were on friendship and self-reliance. This will definitely be a book I am looking forward to getting a hard copy of, because his writing is so poetic as it is probably best enjoyed a sentence or a paragraph at a time. Very beautifully written. Emerson himself was a Unitarian minister when he was younger but ended up resigning largely because his worldview no longer aligned with what the church\u0026rsquo;s dogma. I respect that, and that American individualism is everywhere in his texts. As a sad side note in his old age about a decade before his death he started suffering from aphasia. Aphasia is the inability to comprehend or formulate speech. A cruel irony.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Essays of Ralph Waldo Emerson (Belknap Press)"},{"content":"This was an experience, a probably literal fever dream. This book was never meant to be published as most of it is notes that he had written to himself. As such it isn\u0026rsquo;t the best most fun read, but it would probably be the most interesting journal you ever read. To me this book has its highs and lows. There are parts of this book that are fascinating, frustrating, redundant, contradictory, brilliant, and insightful. Being a preeminent science fiction writer, his strength is in his original ideas. There is no end to them. This book\u0026rsquo;s inspiration is based on a series of events that led him to the experience of singular mystical experience that was so life changing to him that he spends the next 8 years theorizing about its source and significance. He only stops theorizing about it because he died. As a reader it makes you want to experience something that significant just once in your life, but then again maybe not. Due to the type of mystical experience that was had, religious terms are best suited to try and describe it, but rest assured this religion of PKD is unlike any you\u0026rsquo;ve ever heard. I wrote down some of the ideas that stuck out to me, that I will continue to think about for a while.\nThe holy spirit acts upon the universe like a magnet drawing events towards a predefined target. The paradox that information is really just noise, and that maximum information is also maximum entropy(noise) in a system. So as the universe unfolds, and entropy expands, information gains density. Almost as if we are going somewhere. Apollonius of Tyana, really interesting character worth pursuing. Was a miracle worker that early church fathers denounced as a sorcerer. He taught reincarnation and was a vegetarian. He also taught that one must please god through intellect and not sacrifices The relationship between author and critic where critic is part generator of the works meaning. This shows up time and time again where a critic will be talking about PKD\u0026rsquo;s book and the critic ends up shaping what the book means to PKD The fundamental plot of unifying the self. The two hemispheres, the old man and new creation, the left brain the right brain. He made this really interesting parallel between Zeus/ Zagrues with God the Father and Jesus. Zagreus was the divine son of Zeus. Zagreus was the heir of Zeus\u0026rsquo; power, but Hera got jealous (as always) and convinced the Titans to kill Zagreus. They consume him, everything but his heart which Athena manages to bring to Zeus. Zeus swallowed the heart which would eventually be re-used in the god Dionysus (whole other can of worms). Zeus punishes the Titans by blasting them with his lightning bolts. Out the remains of the Titans arose the mortals(us). So, in a sense we were created from the sacrifice of the son of god. A fascinating tenuous connection. \u0026ldquo;We are all portraits from a Disney Land sketch artist whose subject is Christ but who only has one minute fifty seconds to draw. Never exact but the subject is always approximated\u0026rdquo; - What a cool idea Dick\u0026rsquo;s conception of time was complicated, he believed(sometimes) that the linear time conception was a lie, and that time was actually a loop that layered on top of itself. As such a central theme of the book is this idea that although his experience took place in California in 1974, it also happened simultaneously in AD 70 somewhere in the ancient world. He seemed to believe that for a moment his experience allowed him to see clearly that he was alive at the same time in both locations. Of course, like everything else in this book that translation doesn\u0026rsquo;t survive for long. Building on the last point, he has the idea that the biblical fall is a sort of reverse memory of the future and thus implies the possibility of evolution of the species to fulfil that future memory. Meaning that at some point perhaps we will evolve into the type of people who can inhabit Eden. I never noticed how similar Science Fiction and Theology are to each other. This is a very interesting concept. DNA as a sort of block chain for God. Just like you hit play on a record and a song appears, you hit play on DNA and God appears. Perhaps god is so coy because he doesn\u0026rsquo;t want to be frozen into hypostasis by words. The moment you think you have a hold on god, he disappears into the woods. Frustrating, but necessary? Perhaps every life has meaning, but one lacks the means to have knowledge of the meaning The logos/Christ/holy spirit communicates via low level waves in the universe. These waves transmit information directly to our subconscious and won\u0026rsquo;t be noticed except in certain circumstances. Could this sidernal knowledge be what provides animals with their instinct. He has a story about watching his cat habitually go out and look at the stars for a few minutes at a time. Claiming that when the cat came back it was different. Almost like the cat was going out and downloading the latest update to its instincts. A crazy whacko idea, but very original and a great basis for a book. The fall caused a breakdown of communication between the hemispheres of our brains. It is impossible to get 10 seconds of mental silence and therefore the logos must sneak in a backdoor. The universe is plastic in the face of mind This concept that God created the world, but made it so realistic that he has to leave reminders in the world to remind him he\u0026rsquo;s dreaming. PKD (often) had a gnostic view of the world which is that God isn\u0026rsquo;t supreme but instead is locked in a cosmic struggle against a different malevolent force. The idea of \u0026ldquo;God working in mysterious ways\u0026rdquo; may be due to the fact that he has to do this in order to successfully complete his mission and evade detection by the malevolent deity. Zebra(god) is saving reality by transubstantiation. Turning dead determinism into free will What if reality was created in a mind to solve a problem much like you do in chess The universe has an irrational streak, where in this zone the irreal is real and the irrational is true Intelligence to comprehend the written word, more intelligence to supersede and generate extraneous meaning from the words. A dream with a painting of a lamb being tortured. The more they tortured the lamb the more beautiful and significant the image became. If you press world hard enough you get God. God is the world under threat of death The role of religion is to defeat a mechanistic universe Love is a wish that the other and not you exist. love guarantees the existence of that which is not under your will. Free of your will, this is true creation. In a example of the evolution of PKD\u0026rsquo;s ideas here is a development of a previous idea - We may have constructed an imaginary reality so well that we forget that we are its creators. We possibly have encoded details to help us remember The idea of closing a Canon is human and not divine. The divine idea is one of generation not stagnation. Right action must bear the stamp of folly, self-sacrifice and finally madness itself. One should not do things because of rewards. Earth people long for a realm of lights and mathematical certainty. People in the realm of lights long for earth and music. When each die, they go where they long to go, and their desires switch polarities. Each are exiled from heaven Overall, this book was an experience, as soon as you got a loose grip on an idea of his, it would change, disappear or be discarded. This book is not for everyone, but for some it will be great fun to jump inside a tormented brilliant mind and see connections that you would have never made on your own. ","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-exegesis-of-philip-k-dick/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis was an experience, a probably literal fever dream. This book was never meant to be published as most of it is notes that he had written to himself. As such it isn\u0026rsquo;t the best most fun read, but it would probably be the most interesting journal you ever read. To me this book has its highs and lows. There are parts of this book that are fascinating, frustrating, redundant, contradictory, brilliant, and insightful. Being a preeminent science fiction writer, his strength is in his original ideas. There is no end to them. This book\u0026rsquo;s inspiration is based on a series of events that led him to the experience of singular mystical experience that was so life changing to him that he spends the next 8 years theorizing about its source and significance. He only stops theorizing about it because he died. As a reader it makes you want to experience something that significant just once in your life, but then again maybe not. Due to the type of mystical experience that was had, religious terms are best suited to try and describe it, but rest assured this religion of PKD is unlike any you\u0026rsquo;ve ever heard.  I wrote down some of the ideas that stuck out to me, that I will continue to think about for a while.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Exegesis of Philip K. Dick"},{"content":"I was gifted this book and was completely shocked by how entertaining and well written this was. It was a joy to read but unsurprisingly depressing. The story is about a family of tenant farmers in the dust bowl that get booted off their farm in Oklahoma and travel West in hopes of work. This book to me is the Uncle Tom\u0026rsquo;s cabin but for sharecroppers. Steinbeck takes no prisoners in his scathing critique of laissez faire capitalism that completely hung the poor people out to dry during the Great Depression. A master class on making interesting and contextualized dialogue, conversations are thought provoking and extremely moving. I wanted to travel back in time to punch those big banks right in the kisser, I\u0026rsquo;m voting Bernie Sanders next year. What was also unsurprising was that upon publication, this book was immediately considered as communist propaganda, was banned, burned, and censored. Put this on your list in front of \u0026ldquo;Of Mice and Men\u0026rdquo; if that book is on your list as I think this one is much better from John. Here are two excerpts to give you a sense of style, both are unrelated to the main plot, so NO SPOILERS\n\u0026ldquo;The big cars on the highway. Languid, heat-raddled ladies, small nucleuses about whom revolve a thousand accouterments: creams, ointments to grease themselves, coloring matter in phials black, pink, red, white, green, silver change the color of hair, eyes, lips, nails, brows, lashes, lids. Oils, seeds, and pills to make the bowels move. A bag of bottles, syringes, pills, powders, fluids, jellies to make their sexual intercourse safe, odorless, and unproductive. And this apart from clothes. What a hell of a nuisance! Lines of weariness around the eyes, lines of discontent down from the mouth, breasts lying heavily in little hammocks, stomach and thighs straining against cases of rubber. And the mouths panting, the eyes sullen, disliking sun and wind and earth, resenting food and weariness, hating time that rarely makes them beautiful and always makes them old. Beside them, little pot-bellied men in light suits and panama hats; clean, pink men with puzzled, worried eyes, with restless eyes. Worried because formulas do not work out; hungry for security and yet sensing its disappearance from the earth. In their lapels the insignia of lodges and service clubs, places where they can go and, by a weight of numbers of little worried men, reassure themselves that business is noble and not the curious ritualized thievery they know it is; that business men are intelligent in spite of the records of their stupidity; that they are kind and charitable in spite of the principles of sound business; that their lives are rich instead of the thin tiresome routines they know; and that a time is coming when they will not be afraid any more.\u0026rdquo;\nAnd one more for good measure:\n\u0026ldquo;I was a recruit against Geronimo And the people listened, and their quiet eyes reflected the dying fire. Them Injuns was cuteslick as snakes, an\u0026rsquo; quiet when they wanted. Could go through dry leaves, an\u0026rsquo; make no rustle. Try to do that sometimes. And the people listened and remembered the crash of dry leaves under their feet. Come the change of season an\u0026rsquo; the clouds up. Wrong time. Ever hear of the army doing anything right? Give the army ten chances, an\u0026rsquo; they\u0026rsquo;ll stumble along. Took three regiments to kill a hundred bravesalways. And the people listened, and their faces were quiet with listening. The story tellers,gathering attention into their tales, spoke in great rhythms, spoke in great words because the tales were great, and the listeners became great through them. They was a brave on a ridge, against the sun. Knowed he stood out. Spread his arms an\u0026rsquo; stood. Naked as morning, an\u0026rsquo; against the sun. Maybe he was crazy. I don\u0026rsquo; know. Stood there, arms spread out; like a cross he looked. Four hunderd yards. An\u0026rsquo; the menwell, they raised their sights an\u0026rsquo; they felt the wind with their fingers; an\u0026rsquo; then they jus\u0026rsquo; lay there an\u0026rsquo; couldn\u0026rsquo; shoot. Maybe that Injun knowed somepin. Knowed we couldn\u0026rsquo; shoot. Jes\u0026rsquo; laid there with the rifles cocked, an\u0026rsquo; didn\u0026rsquo; even put \u0026rsquo;em to our shoulders. Lookin\u0026rsquo; at him. Headband, one feather. Could see it, an\u0026rsquo; naked as the sun. Long time we laid there an\u0026rsquo; looked, an\u0026rsquo; he never moved. An\u0026rsquo; then the captain got mad. \u0026ldquo;Shoot, you crazy bastards, shoot!\u0026rdquo; he yells. An\u0026rsquo; we jus\u0026rsquo; laid there. \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rsquo;ll give you to a five-count, an\u0026rsquo; then mark you down,\u0026rdquo; the captain says. Well sir we put up our rifles slow, an\u0026rsquo; ever\u0026rsquo; man hoped somebody\u0026rsquo;d shoot first. I ain\u0026rsquo;t never been so sad in my life. An\u0026rsquo; I laid my sights on his belly, \u0026lsquo;cause you can\u0026rsquo;t stop a Injun no other placean\u0026rsquo; then. Well, he jest plunked down an\u0026rsquo; rolled. An\u0026rsquo; we went up. An\u0026rsquo; he wasn\u0026rsquo;t bighe\u0026rsquo;d looked so grandup there. All tore to pieces an\u0026rsquo; little. Ever see a cock pheasant, stiff and beautiful, ever\u0026rsquo; feather drawed an\u0026rsquo; painted, an\u0026rsquo; even his eyes drawed in pretty? An\u0026rsquo; bang! You pick him upbloody an\u0026rsquo; twisted, an\u0026rsquo; you spoiled somepin better\u0026rsquo;n you; an\u0026rsquo; eatin\u0026rsquo; him don\u0026rsquo;t never make it up to you, \u0026lsquo;cause you spoiled somepin in yaself, an\u0026rsquo; you can\u0026rsquo;t never fix it up. And the people nodded, and perhaps the fire spurted a little light and showed their eyes looking in on themselves. Against the sun, with his arms out. An\u0026rsquo; he looked big as God.\u0026rdquo;\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-grapes-of-wrath/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI was gifted this book and was completely shocked by how entertaining and well written this was. It was a joy to read but unsurprisingly depressing. The story is about a family of tenant farmers in the dust bowl that get booted off their farm in Oklahoma and travel West in hopes of work. This book to me is the Uncle Tom\u0026rsquo;s cabin but for sharecroppers. Steinbeck takes no prisoners in his scathing critique of laissez faire capitalism that completely hung the poor people out to dry during the Great Depression. A master class on making interesting and contextualized dialogue, conversations are thought provoking and extremely moving. I wanted to travel back in time to punch those big banks right in the kisser, I\u0026rsquo;m voting Bernie Sanders next year. What was also unsurprising was that upon publication, this book was immediately considered as communist propaganda, was banned, burned, and censored. Put this on your list in front of \u0026ldquo;Of Mice and Men\u0026rdquo; if that book is on your list as I think this one is much better from John.  Here are two excerpts to give you a sense of style, both are unrelated to the main plot, so NO SPOILERS\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Grapes of Wrath"},{"content":"This book was actually a lot more entertaining than I thought it was going to be. This story is around the legend of the siege of Troy. The story opens with a disagreement between Achilles and Agamemnon, after the siege had been going on for over a decade. Agamemnon had stolen a girl from Achilles that he had \u0026ldquo;rightfully\u0026rdquo; won in sacking a city. For this reason Achilles sits out on the fighting and watches as the Achaeans get their asses handed to them by the trojans. This book is full of chads and it reads somewhat like a marvel comic book story where you have 4 main levels of characters that make for some really interesting dynamics.\nZeus top dog, no one can go against his will, but he can be tricked. Pantheon of gods, like Apollo, Athena, Hera, etc. They are immortal but all have their favorite mortals so they are always scheming to help one side or the other. They often take human form to look like someone\u0026rsquo;s uncle or distant relative and offer advice or actually get out on the field and crush some skulls. Less powerful immortals that act as messengers and such but usually stay out of politics like Hermes and Iris. Heroes, these are mortals that are most of the time descendants of gods. For this reason they usually have supernatural strength or some supernatural skill. The central Olympians in this story are Achilles who I can only now picture as sexy sexy brad pitt and Hector who is his rival from Troy. Humans the rest of the population which are brave, but mostly cannon fodder. With all these dynamics I was really invested in the story for probably the first 75%. It is unbelievably violent, there are 240 deaths described in this book between named combatants. Towards the end it started to get a little long because all the elements had been played out a little, but still very entertaining. One of my favorite elements of the book is that everyone has little attributes that get added to their name and whenever someone great was referred to they would always use the full name. It was never just \u0026ldquo;Diomedes\u0026rdquo; it was always \u0026ldquo;Diomedes Breaker of Horses\u0026rdquo;. So even in the heat of combat the combatants would use the full name. Some of my favorites are Diomedes master of the war-cry Briseis of the sweet cheeks Ino of the lovely ankles Apollo who strikes from afar Entertaining read! ","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-iliad/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis book was actually a lot more entertaining than I thought it was going to be. This story is around the legend of the siege of Troy. The story opens with a disagreement between Achilles and Agamemnon, after the siege had been going on for over a decade. Agamemnon had stolen a girl from Achilles that he had \u0026ldquo;rightfully\u0026rdquo; won in sacking a city. For this reason Achilles sits out on the fighting and watches as the Achaeans get their asses handed to them by the trojans. This book is full of chads and it reads somewhat like a marvel comic book story where you have 4 main levels of characters that make for some really interesting dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Iliad"},{"content":"A very interesting tale. This book is full of new details I can almost guarantee most people haven\u0026rsquo;t heard of or thought about. I did have some minor knit picks with the book. I didn\u0026rsquo;t appreciate how the author constantly presented theories and then always incorporated them into his speech as facts. It works like the following: My theory is that there is life on mars\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;so springtime for a Martian is wild, because Martians have to deal with crazy climatic elements unique to Martians and Martian society.\nThat being said there was still many novel ways of looking at things that made it worth it. My opinion on the overlap between John and Dionysian rituals was that John was written like one used car salesman trying to convince you to buy a car from them and not the lot across the street. That is still very interesting, but a little less interesting than if the used car salesman was saying he IS actually the dealership across the street. Entertaining and weirdly fast paced for the subject matter it will be sure to put pleats in your pants. Time will be the arbiter.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-immortality-key-uncovering-the-secret-history-of-the-religion-with-no-name/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eA very interesting tale. This book is full of new details I can almost guarantee most people haven\u0026rsquo;t heard of or thought about. I did have some minor knit picks with the book. I didn\u0026rsquo;t appreciate how the author constantly presented theories and then always incorporated them into his speech as facts.  It works like the following:\nMy theory is that there is life on mars\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;\u0026hellip;so springtime for a Martian is wild, because Martians have to deal with crazy climatic elements unique to Martians and Martian society.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Immortality Key"},{"content":"Published in 1962, nine years after his psychedelic experience that he documented in Doors of Perception, Huxley writes the \u0026ldquo;yang\u0026rdquo; to Brave New World\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;yin\u0026rdquo;. This story follows a cynical journalist who is shipwrecked on an island called Pala. These people do things in their own way thanks to the chance encounter between a Scottish doctor and the previous King of Pala about a hundred years prior to the main story in the book. The island represents a utopia imagined by Aldous with the best of east and west. This book started off with a bang then lagged a little in the middle but picked up at the end. Like many utopian ideas there is no shortage of opportunities to pick holes in ideas and explain why they wouldn\u0026rsquo;t work, but instead of doing that I\u0026rsquo;ll point out some ideas that seemed really interesting:\nMutual Adoption Clubs- the idea here is that a kid has 15-20 different parents that they can rotate through. Thus, allowing for different responsibilities and settings to be experienced in youth Manual labor jobs were worked in shifts- a worked would be a lumber jack for a couple months, then copper smelter, then fishermen etc. Intellectuals were encouraged to spend a couple hours a day working with their hands Naturally aggressive people were trained to use their aggression in manual labor and other ways that would benefit the nation Children were taught elementary psychology- mostly in terms of Emotional Intelligence The ability to experience is the equalizer - this is especially interesting while reading the bell curve. No matter what talents or lack thereof, all people have the capacity for deep experience of \u0026ldquo;being\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;suchness\u0026rdquo; This was Huxley\u0026rsquo;s last book he published before dying about a year later and literally died on an LSD high as a journalist said, \u0026ldquo;tripped his way out of this world\u0026rdquo;. Mushrooms play a prominent role in this book. In fact, one could almost make a flowchart of all the different utopian remedies for social problems in this book and if the solution didn\u0026rsquo;t start with mushrooms, it was definitely in there somewhere. Some people may look at that as short sightedness or lack of imagination, but to me it sounds like a true mushroom believer. Some of my criticisms of this book is that the characters in the book were fairly two dimensional. The main character was complicated but that is because he was on a journey from one viewpoint to the other. The other characters were either agreeing with the utopian ideas and were portrayed as mini buddhas or they weren\u0026rsquo;t with the program and were portrayed as Hitlers. (sometimes literally). Also, earlier I said the island was his imagination of the best of east and best of west combined. What that turns out to be in practice is that the west is pretty much completely trash at everything except some science. That the east has really nailed down the truth of existence. Secure in their knowledge that they aren\u0026rsquo;t pull out kings, all the eastern folk can chuckle politely at the entire western cannon of philosophy, watching as little Freud and Plato mess around in the sandbox, while the adults are busy making lotus necklaces. This approach didn\u0026rsquo;t bother me too much as it might be the case but did strike me as a bit heavy handed at times. That being said, many of his critiques were fair while others went over my head. In conclusion, I can imagine shaping your life after the pattern laid out in this book and it doesn\u0026rsquo;t seem like it\u0026rsquo;d be the worst pattern. By the end of the book, I really would have liked to live on the island. Aldous Huxley\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-island/","summary":"\u003cp\u003ePublished in 1962, nine years after his psychedelic experience that he documented in Doors of Perception, Huxley writes the \u0026ldquo;yang\u0026rdquo; to Brave New World\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;yin\u0026rdquo;. This story follows a cynical journalist who is shipwrecked on an island called Pala. These people do things in their own way thanks to the chance encounter between a Scottish doctor and the previous King of Pala about a hundred years prior to the main story in the book. The island represents a utopia imagined by Aldous with the best of east and west. This book started off with a bang then lagged a little in the middle but picked up at the end. Like many utopian ideas there is no shortage of opportunities to pick holes in ideas and explain why they wouldn\u0026rsquo;t work, but instead of doing that I\u0026rsquo;ll point out some ideas that seemed really interesting:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Island"},{"content":"I read this book because of the article I found on Hermes Trismegistus a character who shows up in the weirdest places. The alleged inspiration behind the Egyptian god Thoth and the later Greek god Hermes, Hermetic philosophy appears to be incredibly influential in world religion yet something I had never really heard of. This is where we get the phrase \u0026ldquo;Hermetically sealed\u0026rdquo; from as the process was used in alchemy in attempts to make the philosopher\u0026rsquo;s stone. Enter the Kybalion, a fairly popular book written by the three initiates which puts the hermetic philosophy into a nice, condensed package.\nSummary(Ripped from Wiki)\nThe book covers the 7 main tennents of the Hermetic philosophy. 1. The principle of mentalism \u0026mdash; \u0026ldquo;The All is Mind; the Universe is Mental.\u0026rdquo; 2. The principle of correspondence \u0026mdash; \u0026ldquo;As above, so below; as below, so above. This principle embodies the truth that there is always a correspondence between the laws and phenomena of the various planes of being and life. 3. The principle of vibration \u0026mdash; \u0026ldquo;Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates.\u0026rdquo; 4. The principle of polarity \u0026mdash; \u0026ldquo;Everything is dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled.\u0026rdquo; 5. The principle of rhythm \u0026mdash; \u0026ldquo;Everything flows, out and in; everything has its tides; all things rise and fall; the pendulum-swing manifests in everything; the measure of the swing to the right is the measure of the swing to the left; rhythm compensates.\u0026rdquo; 6. The principle of cause and effect \u0026mdash; \u0026ldquo;Every cause has its effect; every effect has its cause; everything happens according to law; chance is but a name for law not recognized; there are many planes of causation, but nothing escapes the law.\u0026rdquo; 7. The principle of gender \u0026mdash; \u0026ldquo;Gender is in everything; everything has its masculine and feminine principles; gender manifests on all planes.\u0026rdquo; Thoughts\nDue to its mysterious name and mystical aura I expected the content to be a little more crazy than it was. It struck me as another version of those things that draws from many different religions and traditions to create something new. The claims of the book were of course that it was the Hermetic philosophy that inspired the earliest religions (for example one Jewish tradition says that Hermes was Abraham\u0026rsquo;s teacher for a time). This is an interesting claim, but in digging further there appears to be no basis for this for several reasons.\nThis book was published in 1908, and although the author is unconfirmed many suspect it to be a guy named William Walker Atikinson(WWA). It turns out this book has a tenuous connection with actual Hermetic philosophy. It looks like only 4 of the 7 principles can be firmly rooted in the older Hermetic philosophy. Specifically, concepts of vibration (which was heavily hammered on as a \u0026ldquo;Hermes called this thousands of years ago and science is just now confirming this\u0026rdquo;) turns out to be a very popular new idea that WWA\u0026rsquo;s group propounded. The old hermetic writings aren\u0026rsquo;t really that old. Think ~300AD That being said I found many of these principles to be interesting and actually somewhat helpful ways of looking at the world. I feel like they are similar to principles my brother would create if he moved to India for a year came back and worked at a BP for five years, and then wrapped up his time running a Zamboni over a public ice ring until he retired. Joking aside, it did seem like a much more coherent system of belief than most people have although this book was an introduction so i think the crazy would come in the deeper you got into the system. Another claim this book makes was that Alchemy was originally about transmuting negative thoughts into positive ones, not just about lead into gold. It\u0026rsquo;s a shame we have the internet because without it, this book could have become a sacred text. ","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-kybalion-hermetic-philosophy/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI read this book because of the article I found on Hermes Trismegistus a character who shows up in the weirdest places. The alleged inspiration behind the Egyptian god Thoth and the later Greek god Hermes, Hermetic philosophy appears to be incredibly influential in world religion yet something I had never really heard of. This is where we get the phrase \u0026ldquo;Hermetically sealed\u0026rdquo; from as the process was used in alchemy in attempts to make the philosopher\u0026rsquo;s stone. Enter the Kybalion, a fairly popular book written by the three initiates which puts the hermetic philosophy into a nice, condensed package.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Kybalion"},{"content":"Written by Mikhail Bulgakov(Ukrainian) in the USSR during Stalin\u0026rsquo;s reign the book was censored and only published in full posthumously. The book is now widely considered to be one of the best novels of the 20th century and with good reason. The novel opens with a conversation between a literary editor and a poet. The editor had just commissioned the poet to write a satirical poem belittling Jesus and was upset with the poet\u0026rsquo;s creation. According to the editor, the poet\u0026rsquo;s approach was all wrong because he admitted that Jesus existed in the first place and was not a completely mythological creation. With great erudition he points out the similarity between different mystery religions and Christianity, and also the parallels between the dying and rising gods category of mythology. While the poet listens deeply impressed by these new facts a mysterious tall stranger sits on a bench next to them. Overhearing their conversation, he breaks in asking what they were talking about. The stranger then relates a captivating account of the conversation between Pontius Pilate and Jesus. He then predicts that the literary editor will be beheaded\u0026hellip;. I will say no more of the plot as I would highly recommend this book makes its way onto your read list. The writing is superb, the story is engrossing, sags a little in the middle but picks up again at the end. I also guarantee whatever ideas about the plot you have, given the introduction I gave are pleasantly mistaken. Say what you will about Stalin and the rough Russian climate, but the images of hope, forgiveness, and love that the area produced seem to be unparalleled.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-master-and-margarita/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eWritten by Mikhail Bulgakov(Ukrainian) in the USSR during Stalin\u0026rsquo;s reign the book was censored and only published in full posthumously. The book is now widely considered to be one of the best novels of the 20th century and with good reason. The novel opens with a conversation between a literary editor and a poet. The editor had just commissioned the poet to write a satirical poem belittling Jesus and was upset with the poet\u0026rsquo;s creation. According to the editor, the poet\u0026rsquo;s approach was all wrong because he admitted that Jesus existed in the first place and was not a completely mythological creation. With great erudition he points out the similarity between different mystery religions and Christianity, and also the parallels between the dying and rising gods category of mythology. While the poet listens deeply impressed by these new facts a mysterious tall stranger sits on a bench next to them. Overhearing their conversation, he breaks in asking what they were talking about. The stranger then relates a captivating account of the conversation between Pontius Pilate and Jesus. He then predicts that the literary editor will be beheaded\u0026hellip;.\nI will say no more of the plot as I would highly recommend this book makes its way onto your read list. The writing is superb, the story is engrossing, sags a little in the middle but picks up again at the end. I also guarantee whatever ideas about the plot you have, given the introduction I gave are pleasantly mistaken. Say what you will about Stalin and the rough Russian climate, but the images of hope, forgiveness, and love that the area produced seem to be unparalleled.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Master and Margarita"},{"content":"Synopsis\nPublished in 1942 Camus began writing this book as France (his home country) was collapsing under the pressure of the German advance. Let\u0026rsquo;s just say it was probably a pretty dark time to be a Frenchmen. This book starts off by Camus asking what he considers to be the most important question in philosophy. Which is: does the realization that life is meaningless and absurd necessarily require suicide? He then begins by defining exactly what he means by absurd. According to Camus the absurd emerges when man\u0026rsquo;s passionate and ceaseless desire for an answer from the universe is, and forever will be met by silence. He asserts that many philosophers have started from this realization but have in the end taken a leap to get around or alleviate the discomfort of this conclusion. Either by turning to a God or elevating reason until it essentially serves the function of God. He labels this leap \u0026ldquo;philosophical suicide\u0026rdquo;. He says that suicide in general is admission that either life is too much for you or that you do not understand it. The same could be said of this philosophical leap. His approach is rooted in acceptance of the absurd without hope, but a perpetual revolt in spite of this fact. He uses the story of Sisyphus (the guy who is cursed to roll a rock up a hill only to see it roll back down again) as a guide to how to live in this absurd world. He says, \u0026ldquo;there is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.\u0026rdquo; This is the attitude of revolt that the absurd hero must adopt. To at once be fully conscious of the meaninglessness of your life while at the same time transcending this conclusion by acceptance. As the famous quote from this essay states \u0026ldquo;one must imagine Sisyphus happy\u0026rdquo;. The point is that you can choose to find freedom in a universe that does not have a predefined path.\nThoughts\nCamus\u0026rsquo; writing style is so quotable. It is hard to read because you want to write down everything the man says because it is so well worded. I will try to pick out a few quotes, but it will be difficult to narrow it down. Camus seemed to be a very \u0026ldquo;live in the moment\u0026rdquo; type of guy. He is quite educated and well-read but at the same time appears to reject most of the conclusions from thinkers through the ages, instead opting for a strict empiricism that is quite limited in scope.\n\u0026ldquo;This heart within me I can feel, and I judge that it exists. This world I can touch, and I likewise judge that it exists. There ends all my knowledge, and the rest is construction. For if I try to seize this self of which I feel sure, if I try to define and to summarize it, it is nothing but water slipping through my fingers.\u0026rdquo;\nI found his worldview compelling and logical albeit quite dark. The central tenant being that in the context of the universe every action is of equal meaning and therefore meaninglessness.\n\u0026ldquo;To work and create \u0026lsquo;for nothing\u0026rsquo;, to sculpture in clay, to know that one\u0026rsquo;s creation has no future, to see one\u0026rsquo;s work destroyed in a day while being aware that fundamentally this has no more importance than building for centuries- this is the difficult wisdom that absurd thought sanctions.\u0026rdquo;\nHe has a section on free will, which was very interesting, saying: \u0026ldquo;man exchanges his divinity for happiness\u0026rdquo;. This is a brilliant idea to me. In this sense, by divinity he is referring to the generative aspect of man. This is what it means to be divine, to generate or create. Nietzsche\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;God is dead\u0026rdquo; statement was not an exultation, Camus believes that we should read Dostoyevsky\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;everything is permitted\u0026rdquo; the same way. Everything being permitted means there are not limitations to your choice. No limitations means no structure. No structure means no goal. No goal means of course no meaning. But, if this conclusion is too bleak you can always trade in your divinity by picking up an \u0026lsquo;off the shelf\u0026rsquo; system that has all the limitations, structure, goals, and meaning that you desire. If accepted, it will most likely make you happier. This is a poignant reminder that whenever you find something that seems to explain everything (i.e. a cult that believes a UFO is coming to take you off planet) you are sacrificing your divinity.\nIn the end this was thought provoking and made a lot of sense. I do feel as if his suggestions are easier said than done, but that seems to be the case with every \u0026ldquo;life plan\u0026rdquo;. Of course, I say life plan ironically as this goes against the whole point he was trying to make.\nPeople/Albert Camus\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-myth-of-sisyphus/","summary":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSynopsis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePublished in 1942 Camus began writing this book as France (his home country) was collapsing under the pressure of the German advance. Let\u0026rsquo;s just say it was probably a pretty dark time to be a Frenchmen. This book starts off by Camus asking what he considers to be the most important question in philosophy. Which is: does the realization that life is meaningless and absurd necessarily require suicide? He then begins by defining exactly what he means by absurd. According to Camus the absurd emerges when man\u0026rsquo;s passionate and ceaseless desire for an answer from the universe is, and forever will be met by silence. He asserts that many philosophers have started from this realization but have in the end taken a leap to get around or alleviate the discomfort of this conclusion. Either by turning to a God or elevating reason until it essentially serves the function of God. He labels this leap \u0026ldquo;philosophical suicide\u0026rdquo;. He says that suicide in general is admission that either life is too much for you or that you do not understand it. The same could be said of this philosophical leap. His approach is rooted in acceptance of the absurd without hope, but a perpetual revolt in spite of this fact. He uses the story of Sisyphus (the guy who is cursed to roll a rock up a hill only to see it roll back down again) as a guide to how to live in this absurd world. He says, \u0026ldquo;there is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.\u0026rdquo; This is the attitude of revolt that the absurd hero must adopt. To at once be fully conscious of the meaninglessness of your life while at the same time transcending this conclusion by acceptance. As the famous quote from this essay states \u0026ldquo;one must imagine Sisyphus happy\u0026rdquo;. The point is that you can choose to find freedom in a universe that does not have a predefined path.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Myth of Sisyphus"},{"content":"This book was complete trash. This wins the worst book I\u0026rsquo;ve read since I can remember. There weren\u0026rsquo;t any redeeming factors in this book. The author was a strong proponent of the \u0026ldquo;Jesus went to India\u0026rdquo; theory, which is literally based on one book by some random Russian dude who may or may not have gotten rich from the story. No modern-day scholars put any merit in this theory. That doesn\u0026rsquo;t mean it\u0026rsquo;s wrong necessarily, but it does mean you can get a show on the History channel if you believe in it. For some unknown reason the author tried to write the story in a sort of prose, which if you ever have heard spoken world then you know exactly the style this book was written in. The author\u0026rsquo;s views were an infusion of eastern mysticism with Marxist overtones. This by itself is great, but why not write in a normal format. Also why try to foist your views onto a 1st century Palestinian? This book would have been more convincing and enjoyable had it been written like a normal book instead of in Goodwill prose, also if he could have cited sources, for further research that would have been much appreciated.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-naked-truth-of-jesusism-from-oriental-manuscripts-classic-reprint/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis book was complete trash. This wins the worst book I\u0026rsquo;ve read since I can remember. There weren\u0026rsquo;t any redeeming factors in this book. The author was a strong proponent of the \u0026ldquo;Jesus went to India\u0026rdquo; theory, which is literally based on one book by some random Russian dude who may or may not have gotten rich from the story. No modern-day scholars put any merit in this theory. That doesn\u0026rsquo;t mean it\u0026rsquo;s wrong necessarily, but it does mean you can get a show on the History channel if you believe in it. For some unknown reason the author tried to write the story in a sort of prose, which if you ever have heard spoken world then you know exactly the style this book was written in. The author\u0026rsquo;s views were an infusion of eastern mysticism with Marxist overtones. This by itself is great, but why not write in a normal format. Also why try to foist your views onto a 1st century Palestinian? This book would have been more convincing and enjoyable had it been written like a normal book instead of in Goodwill prose, also if he could have cited sources, for further research that would have been much appreciated.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Naked Truth of Jesusism From Oriental Manuscripts (Classic Reprint)"},{"content":"Julian Barnes wrote my favorite book of 2020 (The History of the World in 10 and 1/2 Chapters) so I was looking forward to reading a newer book from him. This one was published in 2016 and is not quite a historical fiction and not a true autobiography but more like a story that follows the life of a Russian composer (Dmitri Shostakovich) under Stalin shortly after WWII. Barnes then fills in some missing pieces, drawing out a psychological portrait of a neurotic and somewhat spineless composer under the iron fist of the USSR. All in all, this book had some really good moments but came nowhere near the mastery (IMO) of what I was expecting from Barnes. Where Solzhenitsyn approaches the USSR regime as a prisoner in a gulag this is from the perspective of Russia\u0026rsquo;s most popular composer who was also in constant fear of the gulag. This helps to paint a picture of what life was like to those who were \u0026ldquo;lucky\u0026rdquo; enough to be outside the gulag. I really like Barnes\u0026rsquo; writing style, but I would not put this is on a must-read list.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-noise-of-time/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eJulian Barnes wrote my favorite book of 2020 (The History of the World in 10 and 1/2 Chapters) so I was looking forward to reading a newer book from him. This one was published in 2016 and is not quite a historical fiction and not a true autobiography but more like a story that follows the life of a Russian composer (Dmitri Shostakovich) under Stalin shortly after WWII. Barnes then fills in some missing pieces, drawing out a psychological portrait of a neurotic and somewhat spineless composer under the iron fist of the USSR. All in all, this book had some really good moments but came nowhere near the mastery (IMO) of what I was expecting from Barnes. Where Solzhenitsyn approaches the USSR regime as a prisoner in a gulag this is from the perspective of Russia\u0026rsquo;s most popular composer who was also in constant fear of the gulag. This helps to paint a picture of what life was like to those who were \u0026ldquo;lucky\u0026rdquo; enough to be outside the gulag. I really like Barnes\u0026rsquo; writing style, but I would not put this is on a must-read list.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Noise of Time"},{"content":"The Perennial Philosophy was Aldous Huxley\u0026rsquo;s attempt to unify the major world religions. The premise of the book is that they are all talking about the same thing and the differences are illusory. He relies heavily on mystics from some of the main traditions (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Zen). It is clear that Huxley has done an immense amount of research into all these traditions and is able to pull out some fascinating quotes from each. Here are some interesting thoughts:\nTimes of crisis tend to pull people out of the selfulness and raise their personality to an advanced but equal level of being. He uses an example of airplane pilots in a war zone all acting with identical courage and adeptness even though on the ground they had very different personalities. In regard to the former point \u0026ldquo;saints\u0026rdquo; live their entire life in this crisis mode, that is in an elevated state of self-emptiness. In Eastern art landscape paintings arose out of their religious tradition, whereas it took secular thought in western art to inspire landscape paintings. The command to \u0026ldquo;become like a child\u0026rdquo; is essentially equivalent to the command to \u0026ldquo;lose yourself\u0026rdquo; (wonder what old Rollo Mays would think about this one) When property ceases to exist, all can be yours Love of power is worse than debauchery because debauchery is tempered with age, while the temptations of power are stronger when one is older Jesus treated lawyers as if there was no way they could get his teachings, but they ended up being the ones who have framed his religion. Huxley believed that with intense faith coupled with austerity one might get petitions answered through some opaque psychic means. -10 out 10 mystics agree miracles hinder the process of salvation from the self. Huxley also held that things like relics, places, saints, etc could hold some amount of psychic power depending on if they were still actively venerated by many people. The goal of finding who one really is, leads to the knowledge that you are all. This realization leads to an emptying of self. Or put another way a journey back to the garden of Eden and once again losing the individual \u0026ldquo;I\u0026rdquo;. Huxley argues that the main function of humans is knowledge of \u0026ldquo;god\u0026rdquo; or the \u0026ldquo;ground\u0026rdquo; which by this is meant something like eternal infinite suchness, which is the essence of everything. While interesting, this book reinforces this feeling I\u0026rsquo;ve been having, that mystics are some sort of genius, like mathematicians, virtuoso musicians, or rocket scientist, meaning that not everyone can be one. Huxley, I believe, knew this, but believed similarly to the believers in reincarnation that it could take a soul many, many tries to get right. That seems a little more difficult to swallow for those who don\u0026rsquo;t believe in reincarnation. This book also throws some shade at the folks who look to technology to save them. Huxley was a firm believer that every advance comes with some sort of cost that may be hidden at the start. He argues that it, like austerity, spiritual discipline, and charity should be considered means and not ends in themselves. There is much to learn from this book. The reading was dense the first time through. I am sure I\u0026rsquo;ll read this again sometime in the future to learn more from this genius. Aldous Huxley ","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-perennial-philosophy/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThe Perennial Philosophy was Aldous Huxley\u0026rsquo;s attempt to unify the major world religions. The premise of the book is that they are all talking about the same thing and the differences are illusory. He relies heavily on mystics from some of the main traditions (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and Zen). It is clear that Huxley has done an immense amount of research into all these traditions and is able to pull out some fascinating quotes from each. Here are some interesting thoughts:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Perennial Philosophy"},{"content":"A witty read that follows a gullible but beneficent aristocrat (Samuel Pickwick) and his friends that form the Pickwick Club around as they galivant around the English countryside. Eating, drinking and getting into trouble. A brilliant writer, Dickens manages to convey the frivolity of life with an irresistible charm that makes you want to join in, even though it is all very silly. Filled with adventures as well as short stories told by various characters the plot is only loosely attended to, allowing the reader to hear many stories in one. is one of my favorite short stories. I will say that there are many stories where the characters get in trouble in somewhat stressful ways. Not sure what the name of this troupe is, but for example the main character gets lost in a hotel in the middle of the night. Returns to a room that looks just like his and starts to settle down but as the reader you are pretty sure that it isn\u0026rsquo;t his room. He is nearly asleep when a woman walks in, but due to the lighting he only sees the shape of a person and hides behind some drapes thinking it was a thief before realizing it was a woman, and that he must be in her room. This puts him in a very awkward position of course and as the reader you also happen to know that he was just hanging out with a guy who had come to that hotel to propose to a woman and naturally the woman in the room ends up being the same woman who was to be proposed to the next day and on and on. So if you don\u0026rsquo;t find that stuff entertaining than this isn\u0026rsquo;t for you, but I much enjoy. I guess a little similar to Naked Gun or something, but the protagonist isn\u0026rsquo;t quite so bumbling. All in all, good\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-pickwick-papers/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eA witty read that follows a gullible but beneficent aristocrat (Samuel Pickwick) and his friends that form the Pickwick Club around as they galivant around the English countryside. Eating, drinking and getting into trouble. A brilliant writer, Dickens manages to convey the frivolity of life with an irresistible charm that makes you want to join in, even though it is all very silly. Filled with adventures as well as short stories told by various characters the plot is only loosely attended to, allowing the reader to hear many stories in one. is one of my favorite short stories. I will say that there are many stories where the characters get in trouble in somewhat stressful ways. Not sure what the name of this troupe is, but for example the main character gets lost in a hotel in the middle of the night. Returns to a room that looks just like his and starts to settle down but as the reader you are pretty sure that it isn\u0026rsquo;t his room. He is nearly asleep when a woman walks in, but due to the lighting he only sees the shape of a person and hides behind some drapes thinking it was a thief before realizing it was a woman, and that he must be in her room. This puts him in a very awkward position of course and as the reader you also happen to know that he was just hanging out with a guy who had come to that hotel to propose to a woman and naturally the woman in the room ends up being the same woman who was to be proposed to the next day and on and on. So if you don\u0026rsquo;t find that stuff entertaining than this isn\u0026rsquo;t for you, but I much enjoy. I guess a little similar to Naked Gun or something, but the protagonist isn\u0026rsquo;t quite so bumbling. All in all, good\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Pickwick Papers"},{"content":"The Plague is a fictional story about a cousin of the Bubonic plague reappearing in the town of Oran in Algeria on the North coast of Africa. As an aside the stranger also took place mostly in Algeria but in a different city. Really well written but quite dark, reading the plague was maybe a little too soon after COVID, but it was a great reminder that we are incredibly lucky that things weren\u0026rsquo;t as bad as they could have been. The story follows the doomed efforts of a doctor to treat the untreatable or in the doctor\u0026rsquo;s words \u0026ldquo;an endless defeat\u0026rdquo;. Yet with dogged persistence and help of a friend they organize a small crew inside the cutoff city to do what they can to stem the tide of the disease. As Camus was also a part of the French resistance in WW2 there are obvious parallels to the feelings of hopelessness but rebellion in the face of it\n\u0026ldquo;Tarrou nodded. \u0026lsquo;Yes. But your victories will never be lasting; that\u0026rsquo;s all.\u0026rsquo; Rieux\u0026rsquo;s face darkened. \u0026lsquo;Yes, I know that. But it\u0026rsquo;s no reason for giving up the struggle.\u0026rdquo;\nAgain, Camus is very quotable, but I will refrain. All in all, well worth a read and I will leave it with this one quote\n\u0026ldquo;It is in the thick of a calamity that one gets hardened to the truth in other words, to silence.\u0026rdquo; Albert Camus\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-plague/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThe Plague is a fictional story about a cousin of the Bubonic plague reappearing in the town of Oran in Algeria on the North coast of Africa. As an aside the stranger also took place mostly in Algeria but in a different city. Really well written but quite dark, reading the plague was maybe a little too soon after COVID, but it was a great reminder that we are incredibly lucky that things weren\u0026rsquo;t as bad as they could have been. The story follows the doomed efforts of a doctor to treat the untreatable or in the doctor\u0026rsquo;s words \u0026ldquo;an endless defeat\u0026rdquo;. Yet with dogged persistence and help of a friend they organize a small crew inside the cutoff city to do what they can to stem the tide of the disease. As Camus was also a part of the French resistance in WW2 there are obvious parallels to the feelings of hopelessness but rebellion in the face of it\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Plague"},{"content":"I love myths, so this book was really interesting in that regard. It goes well beyond the common ones that you\u0026rsquo;ve heard. Definitely made me want to read more about myths from North America. Campbell and Peterson seem like two peas in a pod although it seems like one pea (Peterson) has spent more time looking into the abyss than the other, for better or worse. This book is very staccato, an idea broached, a story told and then moved past to the next. What was at first a conversation between Campbell and Moyers was transcribed into the power of myth. In this sense it made for a poor book seeing as a book is the best medium we have for long form thought, but a conversation unless purely one sided can never truly be long form. The silver lining was that you were able to witness a huge breadth of Campbell\u0026rsquo;s beliefs instead of a narrow but deep vein. It made for a good overview of his position so that if you ever were to read one of his books in the future you won\u0026rsquo;t be starting from scratch. The connections made in this book were very interesting and food for more research. I am especially interested in the connection of the rise and fall of goddesses and the beginning of agriculture. Simone de Beauvoir pointed out essentially the same thing and for the similar reasons. Campbell seems places the chain of causality to be:\nPsychological Truth -\u0026gt; Visionary (Shaman, Priest, Artist, etc) -\u0026gt; Myth\nI don\u0026rsquo;t know what this interpretation is called but he is in good company (Freud, Jung, and others). There was a long section of the function of myths surrounding \u0026ldquo;rites of passage\u0026rdquo;. I really enjoyed this part and can feel the lack of this myth in modernity. I will be considering elements and connections this book made for a while. People/Joseph Campbell\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-power-of-myth/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI love myths, so this book was really interesting in that regard. It goes well beyond the common ones that you\u0026rsquo;ve heard. Definitely made me want to read more about myths from North America. Campbell and Peterson seem like two peas in a pod although it seems like one pea (Peterson) has spent more time looking into the abyss than the other, for better or worse. This book is very staccato, an idea broached, a story told and then moved past to the next. What was at first a conversation between Campbell and Moyers was transcribed into the power of myth.  In this sense it made for a poor book seeing as a book is the best medium we have for long form thought, but a conversation unless purely one sided can never truly be long form. The silver lining was that you were able to witness a huge breadth of Campbell\u0026rsquo;s beliefs instead of a narrow but deep vein. It made for a good overview of his position so that if you ever were to read one of his books in the future you won\u0026rsquo;t be starting from scratch. The connections made in this book were very interesting and food for more research. I am especially interested in the connection of the rise and fall of goddesses and the beginning of agriculture.  Simone de Beauvoir pointed out essentially the same thing and for the similar reasons. Campbell seems places the chain of causality to be:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Power of Myth"},{"content":"And upon completion of this book, I would like to please receive a paper certificate that indicates my commitment to the advance of woman\u0026rsquo;s equality in society. Furthermore, I would like to be acknowledged as being a forerunner in the movement to bring about a peaceful conclusion to the war between the sexes. To put it shortly I feel as though I have solved all issues based on sex and am equipped to fully exercise my god given authority over women now that I have a complete understanding of them. Jokes aside this was a very dense book, but had many valuable insights nestled in there. Published in 1949 the information, descriptions, and approach of this book are unavoidably dated, due to the fact that it has been so influential in shaping modern conceptions of \u0026ldquo;the plight of womankind\u0026rdquo;. That being said I feel as though our upbringing and indoctrination created similar expectations about women as those widely held in the 50s. So, this book was \u0026lsquo;convicting\u0026rsquo; more so for me than it probably would be for most people in our modern culture. Split into two volumes the first volume discusses what \u0026ldquo;woman\u0026rdquo; is. Looking first at biological examples from various insects, animals and eventually humans. Then with this foundation she transitions from the physiological to the psychological. While critical of most thinkers (like Freud and Adler) that had attempted to analysis woman\u0026rsquo;s condition it is easy to tell that she was heavily influenced by their form of analysis. I\u0026rsquo;ve seen/heard many people talk about how she completely disagreed with these thinkers, but that is not how I read it. For example, the Freudian concept about women suffering from penis envy, is rebaptized in her thought as the fact that women are envious of the privileges that come along with having a penis. This is a long and interesting (to me) conversation but long story short, I don\u0026rsquo;t see this view as a complete contradiction, but more of a reformation. She ends volume 1 with an in depth look at the various mythical styling that are given to women. In particular focusing on a handful of author\u0026rsquo;s depictions as a case study. Noting that each of these different types of mythologies make heavy use of mystery when describing woman. This mystery is largely responsible for creating this idea of the \u0026ldquo;other\u0026rdquo; where woman isn\u0026rsquo;t another subjective free acting human, but something else. Volume 2 then describes woman\u0026rsquo;s experience from infancy to old age. This section was actually very interesting to me, and I feel like I learned a fair bit that I was not aware of previously. To summarize, the distance between the starting line and the finish line of becoming a unified self is much longer and more confusing for women than it is for men. There are many more opportunities for women to stop halfway on the path to individualization than there are for men thanks in large part (but not entirely) to the path society has set out for them. She then cycles through many stereotypes of women and provides a psychoanalysis of each case which would always start off with me thinking she was insane, or overstating things and by the end, everything she said started making sense. The book concludes with her talking about why there haven\u0026rsquo;t been very many great women authors, artists, etc. Put simply (do not strike me dead Simone) women have to first convince themselves and the world that they are competent individuals. This initial effort takes so much energy and time that they are left with little energy to go further. This \u0026ldquo;going further\u0026rdquo; is essential in becoming great. Few men achieve it even with having a head start, which explains why even fewer women achieve it, and why \u0026ldquo;Wuthering Heights, in spite of its stature, does not have the scope of Brothers Karamazov\u0026rdquo; (Had to sneak in a Dostoevsky plug in there). You cannot expect a black slave to write a transcendent epic like Moby Dick, because the experiences that allowed the author to create the epic are not open to the slave. This book was, as I said dense. Some parts were slow, others interesting. But most modern ideas about birth control, abortion and economic equality of the sexes, and objectification have their birthplace in this book. I could definitely see re-reading some of these sections again to be reminded of some of the insights she presented. Great stuff\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-second-sex/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eAnd upon completion of this book, I would like to please receive a paper certificate that indicates my commitment to the advance of woman\u0026rsquo;s equality in society. Furthermore, I would like to be acknowledged as being a forerunner in the movement to bring about a peaceful conclusion to the war between the sexes. To put it shortly I feel as though I have solved all issues based on sex and am equipped to fully exercise my god given authority over women now that I have a complete understanding of them. Jokes aside this was a very dense book, but had many valuable insights nestled in there. Published in 1949 the information, descriptions, and approach of this book are unavoidably dated, due to the fact that it has been so influential in shaping modern conceptions of \u0026ldquo;the plight of womankind\u0026rdquo;. That being said I feel as though our upbringing and indoctrination created similar expectations about women as those widely held in the 50s. So, this book was \u0026lsquo;convicting\u0026rsquo; more so for me than it probably would be for most people in our modern culture. Split into two volumes the first volume discusses what \u0026ldquo;woman\u0026rdquo; is. Looking first at biological examples from various insects, animals and eventually humans. Then with this foundation she transitions from the physiological to the psychological. While critical of most thinkers (like Freud and Adler) that had attempted to analysis woman\u0026rsquo;s condition it is easy to tell that she was heavily influenced by their form of analysis. I\u0026rsquo;ve seen/heard many people talk about how she completely disagreed with these thinkers, but that is not how I read it. For example, the Freudian concept about women suffering from penis envy, is rebaptized in her thought as the fact that women are envious of the privileges that come along with having a penis. This is a long and interesting (to me) conversation but long story short, I don\u0026rsquo;t see this view as a complete contradiction, but more of a reformation. She ends volume 1 with an in depth look at the various mythical styling that are given to women. In particular focusing on a handful of author\u0026rsquo;s depictions as a case study. Noting that each of these different types of mythologies make heavy use of mystery when describing woman. This mystery is largely responsible for creating this idea of the \u0026ldquo;other\u0026rdquo; where woman isn\u0026rsquo;t another subjective free acting human, but something else. Volume 2 then describes woman\u0026rsquo;s experience from infancy to old age. This section was actually very interesting to me, and I feel like I learned a fair bit that I was not aware of previously. To summarize, the distance between the starting line and the finish line of becoming a unified self is much longer and more confusing for women than it is for men. There are many more opportunities for women to stop halfway on the path to individualization than there are for men thanks in large part (but not entirely) to the path society has set out for them. She then cycles through many stereotypes of women and provides a psychoanalysis of each case which would always start off with me thinking she was insane, or overstating things and by the end, everything she said started making sense. The book concludes with her talking about why there haven\u0026rsquo;t been very many great women authors, artists, etc. Put simply (do not strike me dead Simone) women have to first convince themselves and the world that they are competent individuals. This initial effort takes so much energy and time that they are left with little energy to go further. This \u0026ldquo;going further\u0026rdquo; is essential in becoming great. Few men achieve it even with having a head start, which explains why even fewer women achieve it, and why \u0026ldquo;Wuthering Heights, in spite of its stature, does not have the scope of Brothers Karamazov\u0026rdquo; (Had to sneak in a Dostoevsky plug in there). You cannot expect a black slave to write a transcendent epic like Moby Dick, because the experiences that allowed the author to create the epic are not open to the slave. This book was, as I said dense. Some parts were slow, others interesting. But most modern ideas about birth control, abortion and economic equality of the sexes, and objectification have their birthplace in this book. I could definitely see re-reading some of these sections again to be reminded of some of the insights she presented. Great stuff\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Second Sex"},{"content":"This is another short story that came with the hard copy i bought of \u0026ldquo;heart of darkness\u0026rdquo; so i read it this week. Very entertaining read, probably pretty easy to finish in one sitting under normal circumstances. It is about a new ship captain that is a \u0026ldquo;stranger to the ship and its crew\u0026rdquo; but makes an unexpected connection with a stowaway that he must hide from the rest of the ship\u0026rsquo;s crew. As with the heart of darkness, Conrad is able to produce a tense, and mysterious atmosphere that makes you feel present in the action, while keeping things dark and primal feeling. Very fun quick read.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-secret-sharer/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis is another short story that came with the hard copy i bought of \u0026ldquo;heart of darkness\u0026rdquo; so i read it this week. Very entertaining read, probably pretty easy to finish in one sitting under normal circumstances. It is about a new ship captain that is a \u0026ldquo;stranger to the ship and its crew\u0026rdquo; but makes an unexpected connection with a stowaway that he must hide from the rest of the ship\u0026rsquo;s crew. As with the heart of darkness, Conrad is able to produce a tense, and mysterious atmosphere that makes you feel present in the action, while keeping things dark and primal feeling. Very fun quick read.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Secret Sharer"},{"content":"Length: 6hrs\nSummary Written in 1767 ten years before America\u0026rsquo;s independence Rousseau give\u0026rsquo;s his version of the social contract theory. Social contract theory in a nutshell is that individuals give up certain rights to attain a higher level of security than they could have in a state of nature. Rosseau is probably most famous for his optimistic view of this \u0026ldquo;state of nature\u0026rdquo; in opposition to his predecessor Hobbes who described it as \u0026ldquo;solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short\u0026rdquo;. The focus of this book was on what types of governments make for the best quality of life when you are past the state of nature. As you probably guessed the answer is \u0026ldquo;it\u0026rsquo;s complicated\u0026rdquo;. He starts by attempting to demonstrate that even though governments and institutions are man-made and thus arbitrary they can have some legitimacy and should be followed excepting certain circumstances. Another difference from Hobbes is that he argues that the freedom that men give up in order to enter a social contract is returned with interest in the form of civil freedoms. So while the social contract removes natural liberty which gives unlimited ownership to what you can take by force, it replaces it with civil liberty in which ownership is decided via convention and enforced via an entire group. This is a neat trick we human\u0026rsquo;s played because unlike the rest of the animal kingdom we seem to like fighting to the death over the smallest things. In Rosseau\u0026rsquo;s view the social contract aims to equalize nature\u0026rsquo;s inequalities. He interestingly observes that almost all governments require a god in their formation as an anchor point that gives a leader authority initially, but after the government is well underway the authority of god can fade into obscurity. He then talks about different types of governments. An important distinction he makes is that between the sovereign and the legislature. Like church and state these two should be kept separate. To Rousseau the sovereign is every citizen in a state (or body politic, a new term to me, thanks Jacque) together that form this magical thing called the general will. The legislature on the other hand is the people, one or many that implement the general will. A legislature made of one would be a monarchy a legislature of many approaches a direct democracy. These two branches should be kept separate because if the sovereign (the people) attempt to implement particular things they lose their generality (general will poofs out of existence). This separation also allows for the sovereign to overthrow the legislature if it is not following the general will. He argues that smaller the state is the bigger the government should be, and the larger the state is the smaller the government should be. Because small governments are efficient and large governments are slow (think bureaucracy). He says that small states with big governments (like Geneva where he was living) allow freedom to flourish the most of any type of government. He argues (mistakenly as I think the following 200 years has shown) that states should be self-sufficient and not reliant on other countries for trade.\nQuotes \u0026ldquo;He who wishes to preserve his life at others\u0026rsquo; expense should also, when it is necessary, be ready to give it up for their sake. Furthermore, the citizen is no longer the judge of the dangers to which the law desires him to expose himself; and when the prince says to him: \u0026ldquo;It is expedient for the State that you should die,\u0026rdquo; he ought to die, because it is only on that condition that he has been living in security up to the present, and because his life is no longer a mere bounty of nature, but a gift made conditionally by the State. The death-penalty inflicted upon criminals may be looked on in much the same light: it is in order that we may not fall victims to an assassin that we consent to die if we ourselves turn assassins. In this treaty, so far from disposing of our own lives, we think only of securing them, and it is not to be assumed that any of the parties then expects to get hanged.\u0026rdquo;\n\u0026ldquo;We may add that frequent punishments are always a sign of weakness or remissness on the part of the government. There is not a single ill-doer who could not be turned to some good. The State has no right\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;to put to death, even for the sake of making an example, any one whom it can leave alive without danger.\u0026rdquo;\n\u0026ldquo;It is true, they(Israel) regarded as powerless the gods of the Canaanites, a proscribed people condemned to destruction, whose place they were to take; but remember how they spoke of the divisions of the neighbouring peoples they were forbidden to attack! \u0026ldquo;Is not the possession of what belongs to your god Chamos lawfully your due?\u0026quot;(Judges 11:24) said Jephthah to the Ammonites. \u0026ldquo;We have the same title to the lands our conquering God has made his own.\u0026rdquo;* Here, I think, there is a recognition that the rights of Chamos and those of the God of Israel are of the same nature.\u0026rdquo;\n\u0026ldquo;It was in these circumstances that Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, made the State no longer one, and brought about the internal divisions which have never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. As the new idea of a kingdom of the other world could never have occurred to pagans, they always looked on the Christians as really rebels, who, while feigning to submit, were only waiting for the chance to make themselves independent and their masters, and to usurp by guile the authority they pretended in their weakness to respect. This was the cause of the persecutions. What the pagans had feared took place. Then everything changed its aspect: the humble Christians changed their language, and soon this so-called kingdom of the other world turned, under a visible leader, into the most violent of earthly despotisms.\u0026rdquo;\nRegarding \u0026ldquo;true\u0026rdquo; Christian Government \u0026ldquo;But I am mistaken in speaking of a Christian republic; the terms are mutually exclusive. Christianity preaches only servitude and dependence. Its spirit is so favorable to tyranny that it always profits by such a regime. True Christians are made to be slaves, and they know it and do not much mind: this short life counts for too little in their eyes.\u0026rdquo;\nThoughts I read this book very much as a child listening to an adult. That is to say that almost everything he said sounded correct and convincing. It was only after reading info about the book that I realized that this idea was an early incarnation of collectivism in which the individual is only important as part of a group or general will. Very interesting! Of course, this is probably not exactly how Rosseau would have formulated it, but it is where the ideas led (both to RED Commies and Nazis). The book itself was quite interesting in the beginning and then fairly dull throughout the middle as he focused a lot on Roman and Spartan governments which I know little about. The ending picked up steam as you can see from the quotes as he investigated religion and government. I assume this is why this book was banned and burned by the Catholic censor when it was released.\nPeople/Jean-Jacques Rousseau\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-social-contract/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eLength: 6hrs\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSummary\u003c/em\u003e\nWritten in 1767 ten years before America\u0026rsquo;s independence Rousseau give\u0026rsquo;s his version of the social contract theory. Social contract theory in a nutshell is that individuals give up certain rights to attain a higher level of security than they could have in a state of nature. Rosseau is probably most famous for his optimistic view of this \u0026ldquo;state of nature\u0026rdquo; in opposition to his predecessor Hobbes who described it as \u0026ldquo;solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short\u0026rdquo;. The focus of this book was on what types of governments make for the best quality of life when you are past the state of nature. As you probably guessed the answer is \u0026ldquo;it\u0026rsquo;s complicated\u0026rdquo;.  He starts by attempting to demonstrate that even though governments and institutions are man-made and thus arbitrary they can have some legitimacy and should be followed excepting certain circumstances. Another difference from Hobbes is that he argues that the freedom that men give up in order to enter a social contract is returned with interest in the form of civil freedoms. So while the social contract removes natural liberty which gives unlimited ownership to what you can take by force, it replaces it with civil liberty in which ownership is decided via convention and enforced via an entire group. This is a neat trick we human\u0026rsquo;s played because unlike the rest of the animal kingdom we seem to like fighting to the death over the smallest things. In Rosseau\u0026rsquo;s view the social contract aims to equalize nature\u0026rsquo;s inequalities. He interestingly observes that almost all governments require a god in their formation as an anchor point that gives a leader authority initially, but after the government is well underway the authority of god can fade into obscurity. He then talks about different types of governments. An important distinction he makes is that between the sovereign and the legislature. Like church and state these two should be kept separate. To Rousseau the sovereign is every citizen in a state (or body politic, a new term to me, thanks Jacque) together that form this magical thing called the general will. The legislature on the other hand is the people, one or many that implement the general will. A legislature made of one would be a monarchy a legislature of many approaches a direct democracy. These two branches should be kept separate because if the sovereign (the people) attempt to implement particular things they lose their generality (general will poofs out of existence). This separation also allows for the sovereign to overthrow the legislature if it is not following the general will. He argues that smaller the state is the bigger the government should be, and the larger the state is the smaller the government should be. Because small governments are efficient and large governments are slow (think bureaucracy). He says that small states with big governments (like Geneva where he was living) allow freedom to flourish the most of any type of government. He argues (mistakenly as I think the following 200 years has shown) that states should be self-sufficient and not reliant on other countries for trade.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Social Contract"},{"content":"This was a short story about a man who seemed to float through life mostly detached. You could almost say a stoic not by philosophy but by personality. Most things that attach people to this life didn\u0026rsquo;t seem to be there for him. A French man living in colonialized Algiers. Meursault is like Dostoevsky\u0026rsquo;s Idiot. He tells the truth, but instead of having a good heart, Meursault\u0026rsquo;s heart seems indifferent. Written by Albert Camus while Hitler occupied France, this book places the character in the most extreme of human situations. Meursault and the reader are forced to realize they are condemned to death and to try to find a way to enjoy the time they have in the face of absurdity and meaninglessness. I liked this book because just when you think you have a handle on it you remember a new detail that makes you look at it from a different angle. It is similar to no country for old men in that sense and in the fact that the ending leaves it up to the reader to write the conclusion. This book was not written from a place of answers, the character is just as clueless as the reader. That is valuable and leaves it open to many interpretations. Camus had this one sentence summary:\n\u0026ldquo;I summarized \u0026lsquo;The Stranger\u0026rsquo; long time ago, with a remark I admit was highly paradoxical: \u0026ldquo;In our society any man who does not weep at his mother\u0026rsquo;s funeral runs the risk of being sentenced to death.\u0026rdquo; I only meant that the hero of my book is condemned because he does not play the game.\u0026rdquo;\nIn the end I couldn\u0026rsquo;t get myself in the same headspace as the character and so his conclusion seemed unconvincing, but his thoughts on the guillotine were brilliant.\n\u0026ldquo;For by giving it some hard thought, by considering the whole thing calmly, I could see that the trouble with the guillotine was that you had no chance at all, absolutely none. The fact was that it had been decided once and for all that the patient was to die. It was an open-and-shut case, a fixed arrangement, a tacit agreement that there was no question of going back on. If by some extraordinary chance the blade failed, they would just start over. So, the thing that bothered me most was that the condemned man had to hope the machine would work the first time. And I say that\u0026rsquo;s wrong. And in a way I was right. But in another way, I was forced to admit that that was the whole secret of good organization. In other words, the condemned man was forced into a kind of moral collaboration. It was in his interest that everything go off without a hitch.\u0026rdquo;\nAlbert Camus\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-stranger/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis was a short story about a man who seemed to float through life mostly detached. You could almost say a stoic not by philosophy but by personality. Most things that attach people to this life didn\u0026rsquo;t seem to be there for him. A French man living in colonialized Algiers. Meursault is like Dostoevsky\u0026rsquo;s Idiot. He tells the truth, but instead of having a good heart, Meursault\u0026rsquo;s heart seems indifferent. Written by Albert Camus while Hitler occupied France, this book places the character in the most extreme of human situations. Meursault and the reader are forced to realize they are condemned to death and to try to find a way to enjoy the time they have in the face of absurdity and meaninglessness. I liked this book because just when you think you have a handle on it you remember a new detail that makes you look at it from a different angle. It is similar to no country for old men in that sense and in the fact that the ending leaves it up to the reader to write the conclusion. This book was not written from a place of answers, the character is just as clueless as the reader. That is valuable and leaves it open to many interpretations. Camus had this one sentence summary:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Stranger"},{"content":"This is about a guy named Joseph K. who wakes up one morning to find out that he is under arrest. But no one can tell him why. This is a very surrealist novel in which everything in the world seems to operate by complex systems that are hidden both to the character and the reader. One of the most interesting parts of the book is that it really gives you no one to relate to. Out of habit you initial attach your view to the main character, but the way in which he navigates the world quickly becomes somewhat alien and hard to understand. In its own way his actions are just as confusing as the court system\u0026rsquo;s. This book does a great job of making the reader uneasy and never sure of what will happen next as the connection between action and consequence is hard to decipher. I read this because of Camus\u0026rsquo; recommendation, and I can see why he liked it as one could imagine the book \u0026lsquo;The Outsider\u0026rsquo; as being a descendant of \u0026lsquo;The Trial\u0026rsquo;. The last words of Joseph K. \u0026ldquo;like a dog\u0026rdquo; have stuck in my head ever since. People/Franz Kafka Albert Camus\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-trial/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis is about a guy named Joseph K. who wakes up one morning to find out that he is under arrest. But no one can tell him why. This is a very surrealist novel in which everything in the world seems to operate by complex systems that are hidden both to the character and the reader. One of the most interesting parts of the book is that it really gives you no one to relate to. Out of habit you initial attach your view to the main character, but the way in which he navigates the world quickly becomes somewhat alien and hard to understand. In its own way his actions are just as confusing as the court system\u0026rsquo;s. This book does a great job of making the reader uneasy and never sure of what will happen next as the connection between action and consequence is hard to decipher. I read this because of Camus\u0026rsquo; recommendation, and I can see why he liked it as one could imagine the book \u0026lsquo;The Outsider\u0026rsquo; as being a descendant of \u0026lsquo;The Trial\u0026rsquo;. The last words of Joseph K. \u0026ldquo;like a dog\u0026rdquo; have stuck in my head ever since.\nPeople/Franz Kafka\nAlbert Camus\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Trial"},{"content":"I had been meaning to read Wendell Berry for a while as he lives less than 30 minutes away. Without much research I chose \u0026lsquo;The Unsettling of America\u0026rsquo; which is his critique of modern agricultural and its effects on society. Written in 1977 it seems like not much has changed. To me Wendell Berry sounds like a modern-day Jeremiah. It was really coincidental to have read Grapes of Wrath just prior to starting this book, as it deals with similar content. The central theme of the book is that modernity has up-ended the natural patterns and cycles and replaced them with destructive and exploitative practices. The book opens with:\n\u0026ldquo;One of the peculiarities of the white race\u0026rsquo;s presence in America is how little intention has been applied to it. As a people, wherever we have been, we have never really intended to be. The continent is said to have been discovered by an Italian who was on his way to India. The earliest explorers were looking for gold, which was, after an early streak of luck in Mexico, always somewhere farther on\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Once the unknown of geography was mapped, the industrial marketplace became the new frontier, and we continued, with largely the same motives and with increasing haste and anxiety, to displace ourselves\u0026rsquo;no longer with unity of direction, like a migrant flock, but like the refugees from a broken ant hill. In our own time we have invaded foreign lands and the moon with the high-toned patriotism of the conquistadors, and with the same mixture of fantasy and avarice.\u0026rdquo;\nNow that there is nowhere left to \u0026lsquo;displace\u0026rsquo; we must displace ourselves by reducing the amount of labor required to live:\n\u0026ldquo;What caused these divisions? There are no doubt many causes, complex both in themselves and in their interaction. But pertinent to all of them, I think, is our attitude toward work. The growth of the exploiters\u0026rsquo; revolution on this continent has been accompanied by the growth of the idea that work is beneath human dignity, particularly any form of hand work. We have made it our overriding ambition to escape work, and as a consequence have debased work until it is only fit to escape from. We have debased the products of work and have been, in turn, debased by them. Out of this contempt for work arose the idea of a nigger: at first some person, and later some thing, to be used to relieve us of the burden of work. If we began by making niggers of people, we have ended by making a nigger of the world. We have taken the irreplaceable energies and materials of the world and turned them into jimcrack \u0026rsquo;labor-saving devices.\u0026rsquo; We have made of the rivers and oceans and winds niggers to carry away our refuse, which we think we are too good to dispose of decently ourselves. And in doing this to the world that is our common heritage and bond, we have returned to making niggers of people: we have become each other\u0026rsquo;s niggers. But is work something that we have a right to escape? And can we escape it with impunity? We are probably the first entire people ever to think so. All the ancient wisdom that has come down to us counsels otherwise. It tells us that work is necessary to us, as much a part of our condition as mortality; that good work is our salvation and our joy; that shoddy or dishonest or self-serving work is our curse and our doom. We have tried to escape the sweat and sorrow promised in Genesis only to find that, in order to do so, we must forswear love and excellence, health and joy.\u0026rdquo;\nPerhaps this motivation is one of the root causes of modern anxiety and depression? There are two types of approaches to harvesting resources from the earth. One is a nurturer signified by the idyllic farmer, while the other is an exploiter signified by a strip mine. One works in renewing cycles while the other deals in a one-way transaction. Farming used to be almost completely reliant natural \u0026lsquo;renewable\u0026rsquo; energy. That is horses, mules, manpower. This energy has now been mechanized and the energy comes almost solely from fossil fuels and chemicals. As a result, farming has shifted from being a nurturing activity to an exploitative one. At the time of writing farms were losing topsoil at similar rates to the dust bowl due to a focus on profit margins. The farms have become so big, the machinery so expensive, that all pressure is directed towards bringing the crops in as quickly as possible. Bigger mono crops make the plants more vulnerable to diseases and insects which, in turn requires the use of more pesticides and fertilizers which then must be artificial due to the fact that livestock and crops are seldom grown together. Farming has been turned into an equation instead of an organic operation based on local peculiarities. He goes into a fair bit of detail around the social implications of this division which I am tempted to quote at length, but this is already getting too long. By the end of it the question naturally arises \u0026lsquo;Oh Wendell Berry, what must I do to be saved?\u0026rsquo; while he has suggestions for agricultural solutions, the broader societal answers seem elusive.\nThere is no use pretending that the contradiction between what we think or say and what we do is a limited phenomenon. There is no group of the extra intelligent or extra-concerned or extra-virtuous that is exempt. I cannot think of any American whom I know or have heard of, who is not contributing in some way to destruction.\nA great read, Wendell Berry is so conservative that he comes out as a liberal on the other side.\nPeople/Wendell Berry\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-unsettling-of-america-culture-and-agriculture/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI had been meaning to read Wendell Berry for a while as he lives less than 30 minutes away. Without much research I chose \u0026lsquo;The Unsettling of America\u0026rsquo; which is his critique of modern agricultural and its effects on society. Written in 1977 it seems like not much has changed. To me Wendell Berry sounds like a modern-day Jeremiah. It was really coincidental to have read Grapes of Wrath just prior to starting this book, as it deals with similar content. The central theme of the book is that modernity has up-ended the natural patterns and cycles and replaced them with destructive and exploitative practices.  The book opens with:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Unsettling of America"},{"content":"Someone let Freud loose in the field of Anthropology! Spurred on by works from his rival Jung, Freud investigates the connections of totems, exogamy, taboos, religious and neurotic thoughts. A collection of four essays Freud initially investigates (or attempts to) the origins of \u0026ldquo;Incest Dread\u0026rdquo;, that is to say why incest became a taboo to begin with. From there he considers the correlation between Taboo and emotional conflict. He demonstrates this with some fascinating deconstructions of certain ceremonies to honor a king which required severe austerities that (in the school of psychoanalysis) demonstrates the peoples wish to honor but also torture the king. To prevent harm from coming to the king, but also prevent the king from harming. The subtitle of the book is Some Points of Agreement between the Mental Lives of Savages and Neurotics. This is looked at in depth in the third essay investigating the similar power that animist and neurotics both attribute to thought. In many cases elaborate rituals are created to propitiate themselves of actions that were only committed in the psychic and perhaps subconscious realm. The fourth and final essays is a sort of climax where he attempts to tie everything together and put a Freudian bow on it. In this brilliant essay he argues that our entire society is built off of a real or imaginary event that has given us generational guilt (i.e., original sin). This guilt is the origin of all religion. Drawing from one of Darwin\u0026rsquo;s speculations about human society possibly being constructed similarly to gorilla\u0026rsquo;s social structure, that is one alpha male with a harem. The original act then was the brothers (whom the alpha male kicked out) united to murder their father. The father that they loved, feared, and respected. At the end of the day, you gotta go back to Oedipus.\nTo call this work speculative is an understatement, it has been highly criticized and dismissed by the entire anthropological society, as they prefer to speculate without a cigar! I am not smart enough to speak to the accuracy or rigor with which he dealt with those topics, but I mostly came along for the ride, as you get to follow a genius\u0026rsquo;s train of thought. No matter if it ends up in left field you will have seen some alleys, and byways most people would never get to. I end this review with the quote that ended the book.\n\u0026ldquo;In the beginning was the deed\u0026rdquo;\nSigmund Freud\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/totem-and-taboo/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eSomeone let Freud loose in the field of Anthropology! Spurred on by works from his rival Jung, Freud investigates the connections of totems, exogamy, taboos, religious and neurotic thoughts. A collection of four essays Freud initially investigates (or attempts to) the origins of \u0026ldquo;Incest Dread\u0026rdquo;, that is to say why incest became a taboo to begin with. From there he considers the correlation between Taboo and emotional conflict. He demonstrates this with some fascinating deconstructions of certain ceremonies to honor a king which required severe austerities that (in the school of psychoanalysis) demonstrates the peoples wish to honor but also torture the king. To prevent harm from coming to the king, but also prevent the king from harming. The subtitle of the book is \u003cem\u003e\u003cem\u003eSome Points of Agreement between the Mental Lives of Savages and Neurotics.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/em\u003e This is looked at in depth in the third essay investigating the similar power that animist and neurotics both attribute to thought. In many cases elaborate rituals are created to propitiate themselves of actions that were only committed in the psychic and perhaps subconscious realm. The fourth and final essays is a sort of climax where he attempts to tie everything together and put a Freudian bow on it. In this brilliant essay he argues that our entire society is built off of a real or imaginary event that has given us generational guilt (i.e., original sin). This guilt is the origin of all religion. Drawing from one of Darwin\u0026rsquo;s speculations about human society possibly being constructed similarly to gorilla\u0026rsquo;s social structure, that is one alpha male with a harem. The original act then was the brothers (whom the alpha male kicked out) united to murder their father. The father that they loved, feared, and respected. At the end of the day, you gotta go back to Oedipus.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Totem and Taboo"},{"content":"Man, this book was an experience. Not altogether pleasant either. I\u0026rsquo;ve never read a book before where I felt like the author almost wanted you to quit reading it. Really, I\u0026rsquo;ve just never read a book like this one before. Published in 1922 banned by censorship panels in various countries for around a decade, this book is a groundbreaking work to be sure. In short, this book describes events that take place on June 16, 1904, in Dublin, mostly focused on two characters Leopold Bloom and Stephen Deadalus. There is nothing special about the day it could have been written about 2 other characters in a different place in a different time and had the same effect. It seems to be a meditation on how everyday contains the entire range of human experience. Like every day is a universe onto itself or something like that. The best way I can explain the experience is to imagine being trapped inside someone\u0026rsquo;s brain where you could hear every thought they had but could not experience the world in any other way. So, you never hear anything you instead hear the processed thought the sound triggers. You never see anything, you instead piece together the outside world through flashes of objects and impressions. This style produces two effects. The first one is that I\u0026rsquo;ve never felt so intimately connected with a character in a book before. By the end of the book, you literally know Leopold Bloom better than his closest friends and maybe even himself. One example of this is that I\u0026rsquo;ve never read a book where you live through someone taking a shit. It was described so well you feel like you are actually sitting inside a dude\u0026rsquo;s head while he is sitting on a toilet reading a book and making a big mud pie. The second effect is confusion. There is no explanation in this book. Everything just \u0026ldquo;is\u0026rdquo;. A character has a memory of so and so doing this and that, but I have never heard of so and so and I don\u0026rsquo;t have any context for why them doing this and that is important. This confusion is unavoidable for the style though, as you would be this confused being jacked into someone\u0026rsquo;s stream of conscious. The other thing is that this book is deeply rooted into Dublin. Joyce plotted out each character\u0026rsquo;s movements in a map and calculated their positions based on average walking speed, etc. So again, you are almost required to know Dublin to not get overwhelmed with a long list of roads, landmarks and other geographically accurate markers. On top of all this everything can shift from episode to episode. You may be at one place in time at the end of one episode and without warning start in a completely new place and time in the next with no explanation, or sometimes actually go back in time. The writing styles also shift as Joyce seemed determined to flex on Shakespeare. In fact, there is one episode where he parodies every single writing style in western literature from Herodotus to Dickens. Then there is also the fact that the line between a character imagining an event taking place and an event actually taking place isn\u0026rsquo;t demarked by anything. Again, remember that you aren\u0026rsquo;t seeing anything, you are hearing about what someone saw, or in some cases imagined. Finally, this book was written to be read and re-read. So, there are many things that don\u0026rsquo;t really make sense at all in the beginning that you are \u0026ldquo;supposed to know\u0026rdquo; but you don\u0026rsquo;t until later on. Overall, this was not a fun read. I wouldn\u0026rsquo;t recommend it to most people. I ended up finding a helpful companion guide because some episodes were so confusing that I really had no idea what was going on. Check out website where someone plotted out all the characters movement/places in the real world in a single episode to see the complexity Joyce was working with. That being said I\u0026rsquo;m glad I read it. It was incredibly written and unbelievable complex. I know if I was smarter, I would appreciate it more. I\u0026rsquo;ll come back to it someday and maybe enjoy it more on the second read. The most unique book I\u0026rsquo;ve read in a while, so if you\u0026rsquo;re interested in novel styles I\u0026rsquo;d recommend it, but you\u0026rsquo;d have to be REALLY interested. I\u0026rsquo;ll leave this review with a quote that was memorable and seems like a good example of the overall tone.\n\u0026ldquo;Heavenly weather really. If life was always like that. Cricket weather. Sit around under sunshades. Over after over. Out. They can\u0026rsquo;t play it here. Duck for six wickets. Still Captain Buller broke a window in the Kildare street club with a slog to square leg. Donnybrook fair more in their line. And the skulls we were acracking when M\u0026rsquo;Carthy took the floor. Heatwave. Won\u0026rsquo;t last. Always passing, the stream of life, which in the stream of life we trace is dearer than them all.\u0026rdquo;\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/ulysses/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eMan, this book was an experience. Not altogether pleasant either. I\u0026rsquo;ve never read a book before where I felt like the author almost wanted you to quit reading it. Really, I\u0026rsquo;ve just never read a book like this one before. Published in 1922 banned by censorship panels in various countries for around a decade, this book is a groundbreaking work to be sure. In short, this book describes events that take place on June 16, 1904, in Dublin, mostly focused on two characters Leopold Bloom and Stephen Deadalus. There is nothing special about the day it could have been written about 2 other characters in a different place in a different time and had the same effect. It seems to be a meditation on how everyday contains the entire range of human experience. Like every day is a universe onto itself or something like that. The best way I can explain the experience is to imagine being trapped inside someone\u0026rsquo;s brain where you could hear every thought they had but could not experience the world in any other way. So, you never hear anything you instead hear the processed thought the sound triggers. You never see anything, you instead piece together the outside world through flashes of objects and impressions. This style produces two effects. The first one is that I\u0026rsquo;ve never felt so intimately connected with a character in a book before. By the end of the book, you literally know Leopold Bloom better than his closest friends and maybe even himself. One example of this is that I\u0026rsquo;ve never read a book where you live through someone taking a shit. It was described so well you feel like you are actually sitting inside a dude\u0026rsquo;s head while he is sitting on a toilet reading a book and making a big mud pie. The second effect is confusion. There is no explanation in this book. Everything just \u0026ldquo;is\u0026rdquo;. A character has a memory of so and so doing this and that, but I have never heard of so and so and I don\u0026rsquo;t have any context for why them doing this and that is important. This confusion is unavoidable for the style though, as you would be this confused being jacked into someone\u0026rsquo;s stream of conscious. The other thing is that this book is deeply rooted into Dublin. Joyce plotted out each character\u0026rsquo;s movements in a map and calculated their positions based on average walking speed, etc. So again, you are almost required to know Dublin to not get overwhelmed with a long list of roads, landmarks and other geographically accurate markers. On top of all this everything can shift from episode to episode. You may be at one place in time at the end of one episode and without warning start in a completely new place and time in the next with no explanation, or sometimes actually go back in time. The writing styles also shift as Joyce seemed determined to flex on Shakespeare. In fact, there is one episode where he parodies every single writing style in western literature from Herodotus to Dickens.  Then there is also the fact that the line between a character imagining an event taking place and an event actually taking place isn\u0026rsquo;t demarked by anything. Again, remember that you aren\u0026rsquo;t seeing anything, you are hearing about what someone saw, or in some cases imagined. Finally, this book was written to be read and re-read. So, there are many things that don\u0026rsquo;t really make sense at all in the beginning that you are \u0026ldquo;supposed to know\u0026rdquo; but you don\u0026rsquo;t until later on. Overall, this was not a fun read. I wouldn\u0026rsquo;t recommend it to most people. I ended up finding a helpful companion guide because some episodes were so confusing that I really had no idea what was going on. Check out  website where someone plotted out all the characters movement/places in the real world in a single episode to see the complexity Joyce was working with. That being said I\u0026rsquo;m glad I read it. It was incredibly written and unbelievable complex. I know if I was smarter, I would appreciate it more. I\u0026rsquo;ll come back to it someday and maybe enjoy it more on the second read. The most unique book I\u0026rsquo;ve read in a while, so if you\u0026rsquo;re interested in novel styles I\u0026rsquo;d recommend it, but you\u0026rsquo;d have to be REALLY interested. I\u0026rsquo;ll leave this review with a quote that was memorable and seems like a good example of the overall tone.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Ulysses"},{"content":"Another short book that has been on my list for a while. Utopia was published in 1516 and while preceded by several utopian style books before it (most notably Plato\u0026rsquo;s Republic) it was one of the earliest utopian novels created after the printing press had been invented (1436). Partly serious, partly satirical it seems to be a pretty gutsy book to have been written when it was considering the Spanish Inquisition started in 1478. This book describes a fictional island called \u0026ldquo;Utopia\u0026rdquo;. The island had the following interesting attributes:\nNo private property No personal wealth No diversity of clothing -everything standard issue No money (gold was stored for war) Greatly reduced capital punishment (Criminal would first be forced to be a slave and if they didn\u0026rsquo;t comply eventually, they would finally be killed) Aversion to war 6hr working days Ruled by a prince Freedom of religion (except Atheism) They make their chamber pots and the chains of slaves out of gold to promote a culture that does not esteem gold Bonus- Prior to being married the bride would be stripped naked and presented to the groom for inspection and vice versa groom to bride. This would assure that there were no \u0026ldquo;hidden\u0026rdquo; deformities that would cause the marriage to be more difficult than necessary. These details and many others made this island a pretty revolutionary idea. There are several details in the book that seem are borderline satirical. For example the last name of the character in the book who is describing this Utopia (which is from the Greek ou-topos which means \u0026rsquo;no place\u0026rsquo;) was Hythlodaeus means \u0026ldquo;dispenser of nonsense\u0026rdquo;. This has caused commentators some confusion. My personal opinion was that these details provided him a way to say his opinion without becoming a crispy critter, a big old \u0026ldquo;just kidding\u0026rdquo; appended to his book. To me this seemed pretty forward thinking, but still has its problems. Mostly in the fact that the society is built off the incorporation of other people\u0026rsquo;s greed or criminality. For example, all their slaves come either from criminals of the state, prisoners of war. Or volunteers from nearby countries that don\u0026rsquo;t have it as good as the Utopians. So, they are really opposed to war, and it doesn\u0026rsquo;t seem like there would be many people \u0026ldquo;volunteering \u0026quot; to be slaves, which leaves criminals. This would then put a premium on creating slaves. Which doesn\u0026rsquo;t seem great. This is a genre is something I intend to look more into. I spend so much time reading about deconstructing ideas it is nice to read people\u0026rsquo;s best attempts to construct something for a change. Rating 7.8/10\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/utopia/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eAnother short book that has been on my list for a while. Utopia was published in 1516 and while preceded by several utopian style books before it (most notably Plato\u0026rsquo;s Republic) it was one of the earliest utopian novels created after the printing press had been invented (1436). Partly serious, partly satirical it seems to be a pretty gutsy book to have been written when it was considering the Spanish Inquisition started in 1478. This book describes a fictional island called \u0026ldquo;Utopia\u0026rdquo;.  The island had the following interesting attributes:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Utopia"},{"content":"This book was a treat. Essentially picture Marc-Andre Leclerc (from the Alpinist) with an education and it will put you in the right head space. Thoreau lives in a 10X15 cabin he built with just the bare essentials, eating what he grows and seldom going into town.\n\u0026ldquo;I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practice resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion.\u0026rdquo;\nI loved the connection and familiarity he had with the flora and fauna around his cabin. Living like he did, allowed him to really lean into the natural rhythms of the seasons and nature. A very romantic idea that I think commonly niggles and wiggles just out of view of the modern domesticated monkey in a cubicle.\nTranscendentalism\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/walden/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis book was a treat. Essentially picture Marc-Andre Leclerc (from the Alpinist) with an education and it will put you in the right head space. Thoreau lives in a 10X15 cabin he built with just the bare essentials, eating what he grows and seldom going into town.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practice resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Walden"},{"content":"I don\u0026rsquo;t get paid enough to do a proper review of this book, so here\u0026rsquo;s an improper review for ya. War and Peace covers about 8 years of history from 1805-1813. This is the part of history where Napoleon invades Europe and makes it all the way to Russia, culminating in the war of 1812. It is a realist novel, as Tolstoy did an unbelievable amount of research into the war and paints an incredibly detailed picture of the invasion. The central theme of this book (to me) is history, and the way people relate to it.\nThere are two sides to the life of every man, his individual life, which is the more free the more abstract its interests, and his elemental hive life in which he inevitably obeys laws laid down for him.\nMan lives consciously for himself, but is an unconscious instrument in the attainment of the historic, universal, aims of humanity. A deed done is irrevocable, and its result coinciding in time with the actions of millions of other men assumes an historic significance. The higher a man stands on the social ladder, the more people he is connected with and the more power he has over others, the more evident is the predestination and inevitability of his every action. The king\u0026rsquo;s heart is in the hands of the Lord. A king is history\u0026rsquo;s slave. History, that is, the unconscious, general, hive life of mankind, uses every moment of the life of kings as a tool for its own purposes.\nWhen an apple has ripened and falls, why does it fall? Because of its attraction to the earth, because its stalk withers, because it is dried by the sun, because it grows heavier, because the wind shakes it, or because the boy standing below wants to eat it? Nothing is the cause. All this is only the coincidence of conditions in which all vital organic and elemental events occur. And the botanist who finds that the apple falls because the cellular tissue decays and so forth is equally right with the child who stands under the tree and says the apple fell because he wanted to eat it and prayed for it. Equally right or wrong is he who says that Napoleon went to Moscow because he wanted to, and perished because Alexander desired his destruction, and he who says that an undermined hill weighing a million tons fell because the last navvy struck it for the last time with his mattock. In historic events the so-called great men are labels giving names to events, and like labels they have but the smallest connection with the event itself. Every act of theirs, which appears to them an act of their own will, is in an historical sense involuntary and is related to the whole course of history and predestined from eternity.\nOverall, I found this book highly entertaining throughout. It was of course detailed, but the details all seemed necessary to the story to me. It was the first book in a while that moved me to tears. Great narrative arcs, character development and of course insight. I would hesitate to recommend this book to people due to the sheer size of it, but it really is worth the effort if you are not in a hurry and have the time. The firsthand accounts of the battles are superb, Tolstoy had a view way ahead of his time portraying war and violence as a terrible thing. The characters are all 10d.\nLeo Tolstoy\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/war-and-peace/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI don\u0026rsquo;t get paid enough to do a proper review of this book, so here\u0026rsquo;s an improper review for ya. War and Peace covers about 8 years of history from 1805-1813. This is the part of history where Napoleon invades Europe and makes it all the way to Russia, culminating in the war of 1812. It is a realist novel, as Tolstoy did an unbelievable amount of research into the war and paints an incredibly detailed picture of the invasion. The central theme of this book (to me) is history, and the way people relate to it.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"War and Peace"},{"content":"You could fill a post-it note with what I don\u0026rsquo;t know about Chinese history. Wild Swans follows 3 generations of Chinese women in the 1900s-1990. The grandmother is part of the last generation of Chinese to endure the foot-binding craze. She had her feet bound starting ate age 2. As a brief reminder, bound feet were supposed to be less than 4 inches and would require the toes to be curled in under the feet until they broke. The foot would then stretched straight down until the arch broke. The foot would then be tightly bandaged to keep the bones from ever healing correctly. On top of this, the process was usually done by the girl\u0026rsquo;s mom. The grandmother was born into a poor family and ends up becoming a general\u0026rsquo;s concubine. She has a daughter (author\u0026rsquo;s mother) this daughter joins the Communist party shortly after WW2 and marries a high ranking communist party member. They have several children one named Jung Chang(the author) who outlines the experience of going through Mao\u0026rsquo;s famine and his cultural revolution. It\u0026rsquo;s a very interesting story and I don\u0026rsquo;t want to give away too many details, but the parallels to 1984 were striking.\nMao used citizens to report on each other Mao turned children into informers on their parents Forced recitation of Mao sayings in schools. Speak Bitterness sessions where citizens would air grievances and remember how bad the past was History rewritten The heavy use of Mao\u0026rsquo;s face The psychological attachment the citizens had to Mao, especially the younger children All the above being said the big surprise for me (and probably not the goal of the author) was that life actually did get better for a while after the communist took over. The Communist were actually an improvement over the previous regime. At the beginning their leaders were honest and corruption was unheard of. This is crazy seeing as China had issues with corrupt officials for centuries prior to Communism. Women were also treated better (a la no more concubines). The author\u0026rsquo;s mom and dad were true believers in Communism and they were both good people. Its very interesting to think what would have happened had the author\u0026rsquo;s dad replaced Mao. Maybe the same thing? Who knows, but it made me realize that I don\u0026rsquo;t think Marx really lays out a governmental structure. I think he was more interested in critiquing capitalism per se and trying to make the case we could do a little better. I also found out this weekend that the Cincinnati Reds got their name because the players originally wore red stockings. They were originally named the Red Stockings, but that got shortened to Reds. Then during the cold war, they lengthened it to Redlegs to distance themselves from Communism. In the West Islam is to Christianity what Communism is to Capitalism. Don\u0026rsquo;t expect to hear a \u0026ldquo;fair and balanced\u0026rdquo; take on either of them. Overall, the writing was not the best, but the story was so interesting it didn\u0026rsquo;t matter. ","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/wild-swans-three-daughters-of-china/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eYou could fill a post-it note with what I don\u0026rsquo;t know about Chinese history. Wild Swans follows 3 generations of Chinese women in the 1900s-1990. The grandmother is part of the last generation of Chinese to endure the foot-binding craze. She had her feet bound starting ate age 2. As a brief reminder, bound feet were supposed to be less than 4 inches and would require the toes to be curled in under the feet until they broke. The foot would then stretched straight down until the arch broke. The foot would then be tightly bandaged to keep the bones from ever healing correctly. On top of this, the process was usually done by the girl\u0026rsquo;s mom. The grandmother was born into a poor family and ends up becoming a general\u0026rsquo;s concubine. She has a daughter (author\u0026rsquo;s mother) this daughter joins the Communist party shortly after WW2 and marries a high ranking communist party member. They have several children one named Jung Chang(the author) who outlines the experience of going through Mao\u0026rsquo;s famine and his cultural revolution. It\u0026rsquo;s a very interesting story and I don\u0026rsquo;t want to give away too many details, but the parallels to 1984 were striking.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Wild Swans"},{"content":"Wuthering Heights is a novel published in 1847 that follows the lives and interactions of two families centered around a large estate called \u0026ldquo;Wuthering Heights\u0026rdquo;. The only book written by Emily Bronte published a year before she died (aged 30) it was received with mixed reviews initially but by the time the 20th century came around it was canonized as one of the greatest novels of all time. The story itself is full of brutally selfish and vindictive characters that the reader ends up despising by the end of the book. While this book was entertaining and well written it failed to take me in because it was a little too soapy. The characters are all complex and well-conceived, but I am a sucker for hearing thought processes. I like hearing the \u0026ldquo;why\u0026rdquo; a person did this or that. The story was told from the perspective of someone observing the action and relaying it to you, so there wasn\u0026rsquo;t much of a window into the heads of the characters. Overall good book, that I can imagine others enjoying greatly but not quite my style.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/wuthering-heights/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eWuthering Heights is a novel published in 1847 that follows the lives and interactions of two families centered around a large estate called \u0026ldquo;Wuthering Heights\u0026rdquo;. The only book written by Emily Bronte published a year before she died (aged 30) it was received with mixed reviews initially but by the time the 20th century came around it was canonized as one of the greatest novels of all time. The story itself is full of brutally selfish and vindictive characters that the reader ends up despising by the end of the book. While this book was entertaining and well written it failed to take me in because it was a little too soapy. The characters are all complex and well-conceived, but I am a sucker for hearing thought processes. I like hearing the \u0026ldquo;why\u0026rdquo; a person did this or that. The story was told from the perspective of someone observing the action and relaying it to you, so there wasn\u0026rsquo;t much of a window into the heads of the characters. Overall good book, that I can imagine others enjoying greatly but not quite my style.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Wuthering Heights"},{"content":"Another book by my homie Yuval. In Sapiens he retold the story of the past in Homo Deus he investigates possibilities for the future. Yuval makes the claim that since the cognitive revolution 70,000 years ago humans have been dominated by 3 things. War, Famine, and Disease. He then proceeds to layout some convincing evidence as to why the tide has turned on those three problems in the past hundred years. What used to look like impossible tasks are now tantalizingly close. In fact in many ways, we have already achieved these goals in one form or another. This raises the question \u0026ldquo;what\u0026rsquo;s next?\u0026rdquo;. This is what the rest of the book about. His guesses are that immortality, divinity, and the secret of happiness will be the next items on the agenda. But with each of these innocuous sounding goals comes all sorts of problems that may indeed make things worse. As crazy as this sounds you don\u0026rsquo;t have to look far for proof of this, just consider that suicide rates are higher in first world countries as opposed to the developing world. So maybe whatever goals we\u0026rsquo;ve had in the past have not contributed much to overall human happiness. He then examines how these goals are based largely on humanism and that technology poses a major threat to the tenants of humanism. Humanism proclaims that humans are the most precious thing in the universe. We are the peak of creation, and this is reinforced by our domination of the objective world. This stance may become more difficult to maintain once we find ourselves outsmarted by machines and artificial intelligence. Our creations may end up casting us out of the garden. This book was really good, full of more interesting insights that Harari has a knack for pulling out of his hat. I would suggest that more space be given between the reading of Sapiens and Homo Deus than what I gave though because there are some overlaps of ideas. This book was fantastic but not as good as sapiens, as one deals with history (or our best guess at the time) of the world, while interesting as this book is guesses about the future are seldom close to what ends up happening.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/homo-deus-a-history-of-tomorrow/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eAnother book by my homie Yuval. In Sapiens he retold the story of the past in Homo Deus he investigates possibilities for the future. Yuval makes the claim that since the cognitive revolution 70,000 years ago humans have been dominated by 3 things. War, Famine, and Disease. He then proceeds to layout some convincing evidence as to why the tide has turned on those three problems in the past hundred years. What used to look like impossible tasks are now tantalizingly close. In fact in many ways, we have already achieved these goals in one form or another. This raises the question \u0026ldquo;what\u0026rsquo;s next?\u0026rdquo;. This is what the rest of the book about. His guesses are that immortality, divinity, and the secret of happiness will be the next items on the agenda. But with each of these innocuous sounding goals comes all sorts of problems that may indeed make things worse. As crazy as this sounds you don\u0026rsquo;t have to look far for proof of this, just consider that suicide rates are higher in first world countries as opposed to the developing world. So maybe whatever goals we\u0026rsquo;ve had in the past have not contributed much to overall human happiness. He then examines how these goals are based largely on humanism and that technology poses a major threat to the tenants of humanism.   Humanism proclaims that humans are the most precious thing in the universe. We are the peak of creation, and this is reinforced by our domination of the objective world. This stance may become more difficult to maintain once we find ourselves outsmarted by machines and artificial intelligence. Our creations may end up casting us out of the garden. This book was really good, full of more interesting insights that Harari has a knack for pulling out of his hat. I would suggest that more space be given between the reading of Sapiens and Homo Deus than what I gave though because there are some overlaps of ideas. This book was fantastic but not as good as sapiens, as one deals with history (or our best guess at the time) of the world, while interesting as this book is guesses about the future are seldom close to what ends up happening.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Homo Deus"},{"content":"Read this while on vacation. Luckily this particular edition came with definitions for most arcane words and phrases used. If I had not have had this the book would have been fairly unintelligible. Overall, even with definitions this book was just \u0026ldquo;pretty good\u0026rdquo;. This might be because it is not written as a book but as a play. So much of the weight of what is happening is only as heavy as your imagination can make it. Living in the TV era I can hardly imagine anything, it left me mostly in the dark. With that being said I was still able to piece together that action and character development of the story. The language and metaphors in the book are truly Shakespearian (pause for chuckles). But really the word play is masterful and renders emotions in high dynamic range. The thing that struck me most about this story was that it had many parallels to the movie Scarface. I was not expecting that connection. Some great quotes in this book to be sure.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/macbeth/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eRead this while on vacation. Luckily this particular edition came with definitions for most arcane words and phrases used. If I had not have had this the book would have been fairly unintelligible.  Overall, even with definitions this book was just \u0026ldquo;pretty good\u0026rdquo;. This might be because it is not written as a book but as a play. So much of the weight of what is happening is only as heavy as your imagination can make it. Living in the TV era I can hardly imagine anything, it left me mostly in the dark. With that being said I was still able to piece together that action and character development of the story. The language and metaphors in the book are truly Shakespearian (pause for chuckles). But really the word play is masterful and renders emotions in high dynamic range. The thing that struck me most about this story was that it had many parallels to the movie Scarface. I was not expecting that connection. Some great quotes in this book to be sure.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Macbeth"},{"content":"Not much to say about this one. I picked it because I wanted to read something lighter. Published in 1988 by a Brazilian author this is a short story about a shepherd boy in Spain that has a dream that recurs to him about a treasure near the pyramids. This launches the boy into a quest to find it where he encounters many interesting characters and learns \u0026ldquo;life lessons\u0026rdquo;. The two main points of this book are that each person has their own \u0026ldquo;personal legend\u0026rdquo; (or dharma) and that the secret to happiness is in pursuit of your personal legend. The second point is \u0026ldquo;when you really want something to happen, the whole universe will conspire so that your wish comes true\u0026rdquo;. Overall, it was pretty good, I wanted something lighter and maybe overshot. This would probably be very interesting reading for a small little, tiny man child.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-alchemist/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eNot much to say about this one. I picked it because I wanted to read something lighter. Published in 1988 by a Brazilian author this is a short story about a shepherd boy in Spain that has a dream that recurs to him about a treasure near the pyramids. This launches the boy into a quest to find it where he encounters many interesting characters and learns \u0026ldquo;life lessons\u0026rdquo;. The two main points of this book are that each person has their own \u0026ldquo;personal legend\u0026rdquo; (or dharma) and that the secret to happiness is in pursuit of your personal legend. The second point is \u0026ldquo;when you really want something to happen, the whole universe will conspire so that your wish comes true\u0026rdquo;.  Overall, it was pretty good, I wanted something lighter and maybe overshot. This would probably be very interesting reading for a small little, tiny man child.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Alchemist"},{"content":"This book is a short story that focuses mostly on the last few days of Ivan Ilyich. Ivan is a judge in high court. Tolstoy briefly gives a bird\u0026rsquo;s eye view of his life by describing it as\nneither as cold and formal as his elder brother nor as wild as the younger, but was a happy mean between them an intelligent, polished, lively, and agreeable man.\nIvan took great pains to structure his life to be described just in that way. The Radiohead song \u0026ldquo;everything in its right place\u0026rdquo; comes to mind. Climbing the social ladder and making all his decisions based on what was most \u0026ldquo;decorous\u0026rdquo;, Ivan is struck down by an unforeseen terminal illness and spends his last days introspectively considering the life he\u0026rsquo;s lived. He feels like he doesn\u0026rsquo;t deserve sickness he has been afflicted with because he views his life as being lived well. This book articulates most people\u0026rsquo;s worst fear, which is living your entire life but only at the end of it having the clarity to see it was mostly a sham. I think everyone considers their own life. Some people more than others, but no matter how much you do consider it one thing is true. You will never be able to manufacture the clarity of the final which you will be faced with on your death bed. This book, like other Russian books, places emphasis on living truthfully. The alternative is spiritual death. This book has really funked with the headspace for which I am thankful. This book was written later in Tolstoy\u0026rsquo;s life, and many translate it as his own struggle with the reality of death which can be summed up in this quote:\nNo matter how often I may be told, \u0026ldquo;You cannot understand the meaning of life so do not think about it, but live,\u0026rdquo; I can no longer do it: I have already done it too long. I cannot now help seeing day and night going round and bringing me to death. That is all I see, for that alone is true. All else is false.\nPeople/Leo Tolstoy\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-death-of-ivan-ilych/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis book is a short story that focuses mostly on the last few days of Ivan Ilyich. Ivan is a judge in high court. Tolstoy briefly gives a bird\u0026rsquo;s eye view of his life by describing it as\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eneither as cold and formal as his elder brother nor as wild as the younger, but was a happy mean between them an intelligent, polished, lively, and agreeable man.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIvan took great pains to structure his life to be described just in that way. The Radiohead song \u0026ldquo;everything in its right place\u0026rdquo; comes to mind. Climbing the social ladder and making all his decisions based on what was most \u0026ldquo;decorous\u0026rdquo;, Ivan is struck down by an unforeseen terminal illness and spends his last days introspectively considering the life he\u0026rsquo;s lived. He feels like he doesn\u0026rsquo;t deserve sickness he has been afflicted with because he views his life as being lived well. This book articulates most people\u0026rsquo;s worst fear, which is living your entire life but only at the end of it having the clarity to see it was mostly a sham. I think everyone considers their own life. Some people more than others, but no matter how much you do consider it one thing is true. You will never be able to manufacture the clarity of the final which you will be faced with on your death bed. This book, like other Russian books, places emphasis on living truthfully. The alternative is spiritual death. This book has really funked with the headspace for which I am thankful. This book was written later in Tolstoy\u0026rsquo;s life, and many translate it as his own struggle with the reality of death which can be summed up in this quote:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Death of Ivan Ilych"},{"content":"Written in 1903 the book opens with W.E.B Du Bois central thesis that \u0026ldquo;The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color-line.\u0026rdquo; This book is a collection of essays that lays out Du Bois\u0026rsquo; views on race relations. Poetically written and very moving at times. The essays cover a variety of topics ranging from black farmers in a post-civil war south, the death of his first child and his views on education. What is most surprising to me about reading this book is that although many of the things he fought for (i.e allowing black people in universities, general equal rights) have been accomplished many of his issues with race relation still remain unmoved. This is also interesting because in an early chapter he likened the bill of emancipation to a \u0026ldquo;promise land\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;second coming\u0026rdquo; for the black folk who had been waiting on it for so long. But when they got it, it didn\u0026rsquo;t solve the problem. They instead realized that the power to be free lied in being able to vote. So, then they pushed towards that goal. Achieving that and still finding themselves not free. It seems like you are only as \u0026ldquo;free\u0026rdquo; as everyone that is around you thinks. Du Bois describes his experience as living in a veil with whites on one side and blacks on the other. Himself having been able to go to university and having overcome the three temptations of a black life (hate, despair, and doubt) had given him a unique vantage point. He uses this point of view to write the book to in his words \u0026ldquo;Leaving, then, the world of the white man, I have stepped within the Veil, raising it that you may view faintly its deeper recesses, the meaning of its religion, the passion of its human sorrow, and the struggle of its greater souls.\u0026rdquo; Overall, a very interesting, well written and balanced take on the current standing of the race problem in 1903 and still seems very relevant today.\nRace\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-souls-of-black-folk/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eWritten in 1903 the book opens with W.E.B Du Bois central thesis that \u0026ldquo;The problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color-line.\u0026rdquo; This book is a collection of essays that lays out Du Bois\u0026rsquo; views on race relations. Poetically written and very moving at times. The essays cover a variety of topics ranging from black farmers in a post-civil war south, the death of his first child and his views on education. What is most surprising to me about reading this book is that although many of the things he fought for (i.e allowing black people in universities, general equal rights) have been accomplished many of his issues with race relation still remain unmoved. This is also interesting because in an early chapter he likened the bill of emancipation to a \u0026ldquo;promise land\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;second coming\u0026rdquo; for the black folk who had been waiting on it for so long. But when they got it, it didn\u0026rsquo;t solve the problem. They instead realized that the power to be free lied in being able to vote. So, then they pushed towards that goal. Achieving that and still finding themselves not free. It seems like you are only as \u0026ldquo;free\u0026rdquo; as everyone that is around you thinks. Du Bois describes his experience as living in a veil with whites on one side and blacks on the other. Himself having been able to go to university and having overcome the three temptations of a black life (hate, despair, and doubt) had given him a unique vantage point. He uses this point of view to write the book to in his words \u0026ldquo;Leaving, then, the world of the white man, I have stepped within the Veil, raising it that you may view faintly its deeper recesses, the meaning of its religion, the passion of its human sorrow, and the struggle of its greater souls.\u0026rdquo; Overall, a very interesting, well written and balanced take on the current standing of the race problem in 1903 and still seems very relevant today.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Souls of Black Folk"},{"content":"In this book David Stannard sets out to explain how the conquest of the Americas was the worst genocide in history. This book tells the story of pre-America in a much different light than how our history book explained it. Full of new information and insights overturning old, preconceived notions. For example, many thought that the population of both north and south America was around 20ish million pre-Columbus. New figures put that number at closer to 100 million. In addition, the common theory is that homo sapiens crossed into America via a now submerged land bridge that connects Asia and Alaska. Initially thinking was that this would put people in the Americas around 12,000BC, but newer evidence dates some artifacts in Mexico to 20,000 years prior to that. Which means there were already civilizations in place prior to the agricultural revolution. This and many more interesting facts are found in this overall depressing book. I will say the author is high atop his horse as he lays out all the atrocities committed by the conquistadors and early American settlers. Overall seeming to show a complete lack of understanding of human nature in a given context. This led to the writing style being unnecessarily preachy at times. The overall value and interest of the book made up for this though so I would still recommend it. It is easy to judge the past instead of learning from it.\nRating 7.9/10\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/american-holocaust-the-conquest-of-the-new-world/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eIn this book David Stannard sets out to explain how the conquest of the Americas was the worst genocide in history. This book tells the story of pre-America in a much different light than how our history book explained it. Full of new information and insights overturning old, preconceived notions. For example, many thought that the population of both north and south America was around 20ish million pre-Columbus. New figures put that number at closer to 100 million. In addition, the common theory is that homo sapiens crossed into America via a now submerged land bridge that connects Asia and Alaska. Initially thinking was that this would put people in the Americas around 12,000BC, but newer evidence dates some artifacts in Mexico to 20,000 years prior to that. Which means there were already civilizations in place prior to the agricultural revolution. This and many more interesting facts are found in this overall depressing book. I will say the author is high atop his horse as he lays out all the atrocities committed by the conquistadors and early American settlers. Overall seeming to show a complete lack of understanding of human nature in a given context. This led to the writing style being unnecessarily preachy at times. The overall value and interest of the book made up for this though so I would still recommend it. It is easy to judge the past instead of learning from it.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"American Holocaust"},{"content":"This book has been on my list for a long time. A very entertaining short story written by the same guy who wrote 1984. The story takes place on a farm where a pig, shortly before his death, prophesied about a day when the animals would unite and overthrow their human farmer overlords and run the farm themselves. This prophecy comes to pass a couple years after the prophet\u0026rsquo;s death. The story then follows the conditions and developments that take place at the newly \u0026ldquo;freed\u0026rdquo; farm. The story on the whole is very well written and carries a similar sense of despair as 1984 did. Written shortly after WW2 it was Orwell\u0026rsquo;s unpopular (at the time) critique of the Bolshevik revolution and the new USSR. I feel like this book as well as 1984 gets taken out of context and applied to all types of movements to greater and lesser degrees of accuracy. While this book was written critiquing communists, I don\u0026rsquo;t think the point was a critique of communism per se, but more a critique of censorship and ideologies. Overall great/ easy read.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/animal-farm/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis book has been on my list for a long time. A very entertaining short story written by the same guy who wrote 1984. The story takes place on a farm where a pig, shortly before his death, prophesied about a day when the animals would unite and overthrow their human farmer overlords and run the farm themselves. This prophecy comes to pass a couple years after the prophet\u0026rsquo;s death. The story then follows the conditions and developments that take place at the newly \u0026ldquo;freed\u0026rdquo; farm. The story on the whole is very well written and carries a similar sense of despair as 1984 did. Written shortly after WW2 it was Orwell\u0026rsquo;s unpopular (at the time) critique of the Bolshevik revolution and the new USSR. I feel like this book as well as 1984 gets taken out of context and applied to all types of movements to greater and lesser degrees of accuracy. While this book was written critiquing communists, I don\u0026rsquo;t think the point was a critique of communism per se, but more a critique of censorship and ideologies. Overall great/ easy read.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Animal Farm"},{"content":"This book was pretty interesting definitely full of things that make you think, but honestly, I feel like I understood less than half. Nietzsche\u0026rsquo;s writing style seems to take for granted that you understand what a lot of loaded words mean when he says them. So before i read this I did an overview of his ideas and also this being the second book of his i read it helped to make somethings be clearer, but many of his thoughts seem too internalized for me to understand at this stage. They are also so wrapped up in responses to various other ideas I don\u0026rsquo;t know much about, that they come off often as riddles. But it is funny in reading through a book like this where you read riddle after riddle, to then come across something that you\u0026rsquo;ve experienced in your own life and immediately get exactly what he is saying. \u0026ldquo;The reader ready for the writer\u0026rdquo;. That being said this book is very aggressive against pretty much every prior philosopher on the grounds that many of them without their own knowledge were propounding a sort of \u0026ldquo;slave morality\u0026rdquo;. The theme of slave vs master morality is really the central theme of this book. The idea of going beyond good and evil is to understand them not as opposites but different routes to the same thing. What is this thing? Nietzsche would say it is \u0026ldquo;the will to power\u0026rdquo;. I won\u0026rsquo;t go into exactly what he means by that but oversimplified it\u0026rsquo;d probably be better understood as \u0026ldquo;the will to self-expression/realization\u0026rdquo;. This book covers a lot of ground but has a sort of interlude in it which was my favorite part. It\u0026rsquo;s a sort of shower thoughts channel for Nietzsche, just full of great one-liners. So, I imagine this book will get better the more that the reader understands and has experienced. I look forward to re-reading at some point in the future.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/beyond-good-and-evil/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis book was pretty interesting definitely full of things that make you think, but honestly, I feel like I understood less than half. Nietzsche\u0026rsquo;s writing style seems to take for granted that you understand what a lot of loaded words mean when he says them. So before i read this I did an overview of his ideas and also this being the second book of his i read it helped to make somethings be clearer, but many of his thoughts seem too internalized for me to understand at this stage.  They are also so wrapped up in responses to various other ideas I don\u0026rsquo;t know much about, that they come off often as riddles. But it is funny in reading through a book like this where you read riddle after riddle, to then come across something that you\u0026rsquo;ve experienced in your own life and immediately get exactly what he is saying. \u0026ldquo;The reader ready for the writer\u0026rdquo;.  That being said this book is very aggressive against pretty much every prior philosopher on the grounds that many of them without their own knowledge were propounding a sort of \u0026ldquo;slave morality\u0026rdquo;. The theme of slave vs master morality is really the central theme of this book. The idea of going beyond good and evil is to understand them not as opposites but different routes to the same thing. What is this thing? Nietzsche would say it is \u0026ldquo;the will to power\u0026rdquo;. I won\u0026rsquo;t go into exactly what he means by that but oversimplified it\u0026rsquo;d probably be better understood as \u0026ldquo;the will to self-expression/realization\u0026rdquo;.  This book covers a lot of ground but has a sort of interlude in it which was my favorite part. It\u0026rsquo;s a sort of shower thoughts channel for Nietzsche, just full of great one-liners.  So, I imagine this book will get better the more that the reader understands and has experienced. I look forward to re-reading at some point in the future.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Beyond Good and Evil"},{"content":"This book is where the phrase Catch-22 came from. A friend of mine recommended the TV show and I got it all twisted for a book recommendation, so I listened to the book. This book is set in an island in the Mediterranean nearing the end of World War 2. Centered around a group of bomber pilots who are pretty much over fighting and just want to go home but their superior officer keeps moving the goal lines on how many combat missions they have to fly before they can go home. There is this a way in which the pilots can go home early. They have to be declared crazy by the base doctor. If they are declared crazy by the doctor, they can go home. The doctor asks you one simple question. \u0026ldquo;Do you want to get out of combat duty?\u0026rdquo; This question is the catch 22. Because if you say you do want to get out of duty then that proves that you are sane because you are worried about your safety. Whereas if you say you do not want to get out of combat, they never turn down volunteers, so they send you into combat. To be honest this book was equal parts stressful and funny to me. Picture this book being set in the \u0026ldquo;greatest generation\u0026rdquo; setting with more of a \u0026ldquo;Vietnam\u0026rdquo; attitude. There are no heroes in this book just mindless bureaucrats and people who incredibly adept at getting out of work. Whereas this is comical it also reminds me too much of real-life people getting out of work which stresses me out.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/catch-22/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis book is where the phrase Catch-22 came from. A friend of mine recommended the TV show and I got it all twisted for a book recommendation, so I listened to the book. This book is set in an island in the Mediterranean nearing the end of World War 2. Centered around a group of bomber pilots who are pretty much over fighting and just want to go home but their superior officer keeps moving the goal lines on how many combat missions they have to fly before they can go home. There is this a way in which the pilots can go home early. They have to be declared crazy by the base doctor. If they are declared crazy by the doctor, they can go home. The doctor asks you one simple question. \u0026ldquo;Do you want to get out of combat duty?\u0026rdquo; This question is the catch 22. Because if you say you do want to get out of duty then that proves that you are sane because you are worried about your safety. Whereas if you say you do not want to get out of combat, they never turn down volunteers, so they send you into combat.  To be honest this book was equal parts stressful and funny to me. Picture this book being set in the \u0026ldquo;greatest generation\u0026rdquo; setting with more of a \u0026ldquo;Vietnam\u0026rdquo; attitude. There are no heroes in this book just mindless bureaucrats and people who incredibly adept at getting out of work. Whereas this is comical it also reminds me too much of real-life people getting out of work which stresses me out.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Catch-22"},{"content":"Don Quixote is hailed by many as the best work of fiction ever written. While I\u0026rsquo;m not sure I\u0026rsquo;d go that far, it is impressive that a book written in the 1600s can still be funny, entertaining, and not terribly dated 400 years later. This book was a lot of fun to read. Don Quixote of La Mancha and his trusty squire, Sancho Panza, get into all sorts of hijinks as they travel around the Spanish countryside. Don Quixote is convinced he is a knight errant, and that all the stories about knight errantry that were told previously actually happened. This leads him into some very interesting and ironic situations. One of the most interesting things about this book is that, while everyone he comes into contact with almost immediately recognizes that he is insane, there is still some magnetic quality about the nobility of his character that causes people to like him. Additionally, even though he was insane, to some extent his madness created the reality that he believed in and gave him meaningful experiences that he would have missed out on if he hadn\u0026rsquo;t believed in knight errantry. This was a long book, maybe a touch too long, but was never dry.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/don-quixote/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eDon Quixote is hailed by many as the best work of fiction ever written. While I\u0026rsquo;m not sure I\u0026rsquo;d go that far, it is impressive that a book written in the 1600s can still be funny, entertaining, and not terribly dated 400 years later. This book was a lot of fun to read. Don Quixote of La Mancha and his trusty squire, Sancho Panza, get into all sorts of hijinks as they travel around the Spanish countryside. Don Quixote is convinced he is a knight errant, and that all the stories about knight errantry that were told previously actually happened. This leads him into some very interesting and ironic situations. One of the most interesting things about this book is that, while everyone he comes into contact with almost immediately recognizes that he is insane, there is still some magnetic quality about the nobility of his character that causes people to like him. Additionally, even though he was insane, to some extent his madness created the reality that he believed in and gave him meaningful experiences that he would have missed out on if he hadn\u0026rsquo;t believed in knight errantry. This was a long book, maybe a touch too long, but was never dry.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Don Quixote"},{"content":"Umph old baby Kierkegaard really stops you in your tracks and makes you look closely at a story you\u0026rsquo;ve heard a million times but points out that you\u0026rsquo;ve never actually understood it. As you can probably tell from the cover the story is of Abraham and Isaac. The main question of the book is what makes Abraham the \u0026ldquo;Father of Faith\u0026rdquo; and not a murderer? That question is so obvious but why has it never been talked about in any sermon other than the cursory \u0026ldquo;God said so?\u0026rdquo;. Kierkegaard wonders this as well. He spends the first section of the book elaborating on the insanity of request. He then describes his version of what faith is and why he\u0026rsquo;s never found anyone (including himself) that has it. Clearly, I can\u0026rsquo;t convey an accurate picture of what he was trying to explain in a couple lines but the gist of it (as I understood it) is that true faith requires a dual movement of the soul. The first movement is that of infinite resignation. That is to say releasing attachments that you have. The second movement is the infinite expectation by means of the absurd. This sort of reminds me of Schrodinger\u0026rsquo;s cat situation. In which one has given something up but at the same time has complete confidence that they will get it back, but that expectation never gets old or inhibits the resignation. Needless to say, it\u0026rsquo;s a complex idea which I am sure that I am bungling. The book then continues in a short investigation on the ethics of what Abraham did. In the epilogue of the book, he wraps up things nicely where he is talking about his belief that faith is \u0026ldquo;the highest passion of man\u0026rdquo; and that perhaps like love is an end to itself. Thus moving past faith, he thinks is part of the human tendency to always ask \u0026ldquo;what\u0026rsquo;s next?\u0026rdquo;. He illustrates this with this story at the very end of the book that has really stuck in my head:\n\u0026ldquo;One must go further; one must go further.\u0026rdquo; This impulse to go further is an ancient thing in the world. Heraclitus the obscure, who deposited his thoughts in his writings and his writings in the Temple of Diana (for his thoughts had been his armor during his life, and therefore he hung them up in the temple of the goddess), Heraclitus the obscure said, \u0026ldquo;One cannot pass twice through the same stream.\u0026rdquo; Heraclitus the obscure had a disciple who did not stop with that, he went further and added, \u0026ldquo;One cannot do it even once.\u0026rdquo; Poor Heraclitus, to have such a disciple! By this amendment the thesis of Heraclitus was so improved that it became an Eleatic thesis which denies movement, and yet that disciple desired only to be a disciple of Heraclitus and to go further-not back to the position Heraclitus had abandoned.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/fear-and-trembling/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eUmph old baby Kierkegaard really stops you in your tracks and makes you look closely at a story you\u0026rsquo;ve heard a million times but points out that you\u0026rsquo;ve never actually understood it.  As you can probably tell from the cover the story is of Abraham and Isaac. The main question of the book is what makes Abraham the \u0026ldquo;Father of Faith\u0026rdquo; and not a murderer? That question is so obvious but why has it never been talked about in any sermon other than the cursory \u0026ldquo;God said so?\u0026rdquo;. Kierkegaard wonders this as well. He spends the first section of the book elaborating on the insanity of request. He then describes his version of what faith is and why he\u0026rsquo;s never found anyone (including himself) that has it. Clearly, I can\u0026rsquo;t convey an accurate picture of what he was trying to explain in a couple lines but the gist of it (as I understood it) is that true faith requires a dual movement of the soul. The first movement is that of infinite resignation. That is to say releasing attachments that you have. The second movement is the infinite expectation by means of the absurd. This sort of reminds me of Schrodinger\u0026rsquo;s cat situation. In which one has given something up but at the same time has complete confidence that they will get it back, but that expectation never gets old or inhibits the resignation. Needless to say, it\u0026rsquo;s a complex idea which I am sure that I am bungling. The book then continues in a short investigation on the ethics of what Abraham did. In the epilogue of the book, he wraps up things nicely where he is talking about his belief that faith is \u0026ldquo;the highest passion of man\u0026rdquo; and that perhaps like love is an end to itself. Thus moving past faith, he thinks is part of the human tendency to always ask \u0026ldquo;what\u0026rsquo;s next?\u0026rdquo;. He illustrates this with this story at the very end of the book that has really stuck in my head:\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Fear and Trembling"},{"content":"This book was pretty interesting. Especially since probably the last couple years I noticed that the idea of heaven and hell don\u0026rsquo;t seem to show up in the Old Testament very much at all. Which makes for some very interesting questions. Written by an historian of early Christian religion, this book makes some startling claims. The goal of the book was to walk through recorded history (in the western world) and take note of what was said about the afterlife that indicates what beliefs were popular at the time. The cornerstone thesis of this book is that the historical Jesus did not believe in a heaven and hell in the now traditional sense, but a different conception that is based on a tradition of Jewish apocalyptical ideas. Ehrman starts with what is probably the oldest fiction we have the \u0026ldquo;Epic of Gilgamesh\u0026rdquo; and works his way up to the Greek authors Virgil, Homer and eventually Socrates examining how the idea of the afterlife was expressed at each stage. He then turns his attention to the Bible and works his way chronologically through the Bible stating pretty categorically that the main idea of the afterlife presented in the Old Testament was that there wasn\u0026rsquo;t one. After looking at the OT he spends some time in a couple apocryphal books written in between the OT and NT which shed some light on how the idea of afterlife was evolving. He then comes to the clickbait part of the book where he explains that he believes the historical Jesus believed that God was going to come back and set things right in the world and rebuild Jerusalem and have a physical Kingdom on this earth that believers would be part of. He also believed that Jesus thought this was happening soon (Matt 16:28). As for non-believers they would be annihilated into nonexistence. From there he continues through history into the early 300AD time period up through the conception of purgatory and ends the book with the idea of universalism that is the idea that all eventually make it into heaven. This was surprisingly a view of one of the early church theologians, Origen who lived around 200AD. This book was well written and pretty easy to follow. It is another book that at the end of the day you read it and realize, that you just have to go back to the bible because everyone has always agreed about what it had to say about things.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/heaven-and-hell-a-history-of-the-afterlife/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis book was pretty interesting. Especially since probably the last couple years I noticed that the idea of heaven and hell don\u0026rsquo;t seem to show up in the Old Testament very much at all. Which makes for some very interesting questions.\nWritten by an historian of early Christian religion, this book makes some startling claims. The goal of the book was to walk through recorded history (in the western world) and take note of what was said about the afterlife that indicates what beliefs were popular at the time. The cornerstone thesis of this book is that the historical Jesus did not believe in a heaven and hell in the now traditional sense, but a different conception that is based on a tradition of Jewish apocalyptical ideas. Ehrman starts with what is probably the oldest fiction we have the \u0026ldquo;Epic of Gilgamesh\u0026rdquo; and works his way up to the Greek authors Virgil, Homer and eventually Socrates examining how the idea of the afterlife was expressed at each stage. He then turns his attention to the Bible and works his way chronologically through the Bible stating pretty categorically that the main idea of the afterlife presented in the Old Testament was that there wasn\u0026rsquo;t one. After looking at the OT he spends some time in a couple apocryphal books written in between the OT and NT which shed some light on how the idea of afterlife was evolving. He then comes to the clickbait part of the book where he explains that he believes the historical Jesus believed that God was going to come back and set things right in the world and rebuild Jerusalem and have a physical Kingdom on this earth that believers would be part of. He also believed that Jesus thought this was happening soon (Matt 16:28). As for non-believers they would be annihilated into nonexistence. From there he continues through history into the early 300AD time period up through the conception of purgatory and ends the book with the idea of universalism that is the idea that all eventually make it into heaven. This was surprisingly a view of one of the early church theologians, Origen who lived around 200AD. This book was well written and pretty easy to follow. It is another book that at the end of the day you read it and realize, that you just have to go back to the bible because everyone has always agreed about what it had to say about things.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Heaven and Hell"},{"content":"This was fun. I thoroughly enjoyed the book. Melville does a great job of giving you a sense of place and feeling. This book made me want to be a sailor, maybe i\u0026rsquo;ll buy a sailor outfit at least. Who knows. It exposes various human foibles, like Quaker whalers who are fundamentally anti violence while spending large portions of their time inflicting violence on the largest creature on earth or the animal rights person who writes their edicts in the light of a whale oil lamp. The book teaches its reader a lot about the anatomy of a whale and engenders a respect for an animal and then proceeds to graphically describe the exciting whale hunt that ultimately causes much pain and suffering to the animal you just learned about. I wonder if the point is that we are all walking contradictions in our own way? Maybe we need to give each other some slack\u0026hellip;Who knows either way great book.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/moby-dick-or-the-whale/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis was fun.  I thoroughly enjoyed the book. Melville does a great job of giving you a sense of place and feeling. This book made me want to be a sailor, maybe i\u0026rsquo;ll buy a sailor outfit at least. Who knows. It exposes various human foibles, like Quaker whalers who are fundamentally anti violence while spending large portions of their time inflicting violence on the largest creature on earth or the animal rights person who writes their edicts in the light of a whale oil lamp. The book teaches its reader a lot about the anatomy of a whale and engenders a respect for an animal and then proceeds to graphically describe the exciting whale hunt that ultimately causes much pain and suffering to the animal you just learned about. I wonder if the point is that we are all walking contradictions in our own way? Maybe we need to give each other some slack\u0026hellip;Who knows either way great book.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Moby-Dick or, The Whale"},{"content":"Written by Jordan Peterson\u0026rsquo;s daddy himself this book was really quite enjoyable. I preferred it over some of the books I\u0026rsquo;ve read from Freud. It is a collection of 11 essays that cover various topics from dreams to metaphysics. Opening the book, the reader is asked to make two assumptions. Assumption one, the subconscious exists. While this doesn\u0026rsquo;t seem like a big deal in a post Freud world (which Jung is post Freud) there is still some debate. The second assumption is that there exists in humans a soul. This is still up for heated debate today, but if you accept these two assumptions daddy Jung takes you on a ride, explaining his approach to psychoanalysis, modern man vs primitive man and the overlap between the two. The waning effectiveness of the church to treat psychoses due to the approach of the education system. This is one of those books like a C.S Lewis book where everything he says just makes sense. Made for an enjoyable read but I also know whenever I am feeling that comfortable with what someone is saying it means that I have not been educated enough in contra-ideas. Overall, I\u0026rsquo;d highly recommend, it\u0026rsquo;s given me much to think about and I will definitely be returning to re-read later on.\nC.G. Jung\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/modern-man-in-search-of-a-soul/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eWritten by Jordan Peterson\u0026rsquo;s daddy himself this book was really quite enjoyable. I preferred it over some of the books I\u0026rsquo;ve read from Freud. It is a collection of 11 essays that cover various topics from dreams to metaphysics. Opening the book, the reader is asked to make two assumptions. Assumption one, the subconscious exists. While this doesn\u0026rsquo;t seem like a big deal in a post Freud world (which Jung is post Freud) there is still some debate. The second assumption is that there exists in humans a soul. This is still up for heated debate today, but if you accept these two assumptions daddy Jung takes you on a ride, explaining his approach to psychoanalysis, modern man vs primitive man and the overlap between the two. The waning effectiveness of the church to treat psychoses due to the approach of the education system. This is one of those books like a C.S Lewis book where everything he says just makes sense. Made for an enjoyable read but I also know whenever I am feeling that comfortable with what someone is saying it means that I have not been educated enough in contra-ideas. Overall, I\u0026rsquo;d highly recommend, it\u0026rsquo;s given me much to think about and I will definitely be returning to re-read later on.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Modern Man in Search of a Soul"},{"content":"This set of short stories was recommended to me by a friend. Each story takes about 5-10 minutes to read. Akutagawa published these stories in 1915 and the six stories included have some really interesting psychology in them investigating honor, revenge, humiliation, and morality in subtle ways. Impress your friends and buy a copy of this to put on your toilets good bathroom reading.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/rashomon-and-other-stories/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis set of short stories was recommended to me by a friend. Each story takes about 5-10 minutes to read. Akutagawa published these stories in 1915 and the six stories included have some really interesting psychology in them investigating honor, revenge, humiliation, and morality in subtle ways. Impress your friends and buy a copy of this to put on your toilets good bathroom reading.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Rashomon and Other Stories"},{"content":"This was a sort of rando pick I made but was definitely the best book I\u0026rsquo;ve read this year. There is a well-known guy in the computer science community who coined this idea that code quality can be judged by the \u0026ldquo;number of WTFs/minute\u0026rdquo; the person coming behind that code has. Well, I\u0026rsquo;d like to say that when it comes to a book like this, the quality of it can be judged by how many times your mind gets blown by a unique thought or viewpoint that I haven\u0026rsquo;t had. This book has hundreds of those. In a nutshell this book outlines science\u0026rsquo;s best \u0026ldquo;story\u0026rdquo; about the development of man in the following stages\nPre-Cognitive Revolution - 2.5 million years - 70k years ago. Ignorance is bliss Troglodyte 356,550 BC\nThis is the longest section in human history and ironically has the least amount of information to document it. Therefore, most ideas about how this era works are mostly just best guesses, but fascinating guesses.\nCognitive Revolution Started between 70-30k years ago - 10k years ago Ohhhh shiiiiiiiittt was I ever in the ghost house? Captain Bart 45,550 BC\nLittle is known for about this section of history either but it is characterized by the emergence of cultures and introduces a concept that will change the world. That concept is imagination. Or in other words the ability to talk and conceive of things that have no existence in the physical world.\nAgricultural Revolution 10k - ~300 Years ago Hello I\u0026rsquo;m farming, I\u0026rsquo;m here I\u0026rsquo;m queer so get used to it Wheat Farmer 7,550 BC\nThis stage is characterized by 2 main things. First the major decline of hunter gatherers and the replacement of them by farmers. Like a falling domino farming set off a chain reactions like population exploding, people becoming non-migratory, cities becoming bigger, kingdoms existing, math being invented, and on and on. One interesting observation about this stage is that when taken as a whole this revolution most likely caused a decrease in living standards for the individual as opposed to an increase.\n*Scientific Revolution ~*300 years ago to present God is dead, elon musk is our savior now Modern Technocrat 1550 AD Have you ever stopped and wondered what happened to set off the chain reactions of events that explain the last couple hundred years? The author makes a compelling argument that part of the answer is that some cultures shifted enough to allow people to admit that they didn\u0026rsquo;t know it all.\nOverall, this is a MUST READ. Do yourself a favor and put this book on your list. I read a review debating some of the technical details that the book puts forward, but the technical details aren\u0026rsquo;t the point (to me). The book provides some provocative questions and things that\u0026rsquo;ll make you think differently. After all isn\u0026rsquo;t that the only reason that we read books?\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/sapiens-a-brief-history-of-humankind/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis was a sort of rando pick I made but was definitely the best book I\u0026rsquo;ve read this year. There is a well-known guy in the computer science community who coined this idea that code quality can be judged by the \u0026ldquo;number of WTFs/minute\u0026rdquo; the person coming behind that code has. Well, I\u0026rsquo;d like to say that when it comes to a book like this, the quality of it can be judged by how many times your mind gets blown by a unique thought or viewpoint that I haven\u0026rsquo;t had. This book has hundreds of those. In a nutshell this book outlines science\u0026rsquo;s best \u0026ldquo;story\u0026rdquo; about the development of man in the following stages\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Sapiens"},{"content":"Finished this, this weekend. Still processing it. I think the moral of the story is you can\u0026rsquo;t teach wisdom, the only way to learn that is through personal experience. Especially being aware enough to know when you are fighting a useless battle trying to \u0026ldquo;teach\u0026rdquo; someone wisdom when they aren\u0026rsquo;t ready. While this is somewhat of a common idea, being able to graciously accept that is not common at all. I\u0026rsquo;ve often found it frustrating trying to impart my \u0026ldquo;wisdom\u0026rdquo; on people who clearly just aren\u0026rsquo;t ready. Why can\u0026rsquo;t they see I\u0026rsquo;m always right?\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/siddartha/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eFinished this, this weekend. Still processing it. I think the moral of the story is you can\u0026rsquo;t teach wisdom, the only way to learn that is through personal experience. Especially being aware enough to know when you are fighting a useless battle trying to \u0026ldquo;teach\u0026rdquo; someone wisdom when they aren\u0026rsquo;t ready. While this is somewhat of a common idea, being able to graciously accept that is not common at all. I\u0026rsquo;ve often found it frustrating trying to impart my \u0026ldquo;wisdom\u0026rdquo; on people who clearly just aren\u0026rsquo;t ready. Why can\u0026rsquo;t they see I\u0026rsquo;m always right?\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Siddartha"},{"content":"I first listened to the Bhagavad-Gita in its entirety. I found it somewhat interesting but ultimately a dud because it felt like every other word was either a Sanskrit deity that i was supposed to already know about or a Sanskrit word that represented an entire doctrine like the word \u0026ldquo;transubstantiation\u0026rdquo;. It felt like watching marvel\u0026rsquo;s avengers end game with a Spanish voice over without any context. Probably similar feeling to someone who has never read the bible reading a book like Hebrews or something. That being said there were some interesting things in there that made me want to dig a little further. I then washed down the Bhagavad-Gita with a book by Jack Hawley. He basically walks through every verse in the Gita and translates it into more modern western terms, adding a couple clarifying sentences to those pesky single word Sanskrit ideas. The idea that was most novel to me in the Gita was that Krishna and also (luckily) other Hindu philosophies break people and actions into 3 categories. Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas. Sattva being the highest representing balance, harmony and goodness. Rajas representing energy and motion and Tamas representing lethargy and darkness. The idea being that each person and action has all three of these present at all times but in differing proportions. This was an interesting choice and makes for a more dynamic categorization of actions than the dichotomies of the west. I will have to think more about this in the future. Another question this book brought up for me was wondering why the particular virtues of \u0026ldquo;Grace, gentleness, self-control, and humility\u0026rdquo; to name a few appear to be somewhat universal in religions? The Gita did overlap a lot with ideas of the New Testament. One of the biggest differences I recognized was that Krishna did not call for evangelizing his ideas. All in all, worth the read and has opened up new frontiers to think over. Also don\u0026rsquo;t let your wives become corrupted or they will ruin this whole caste system we have set up. That is all.\nThe Bhagavad Gita\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-bhagavad-gita-a-walkthrough-for-westerners/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI first listened to the Bhagavad-Gita in its entirety. I found it somewhat interesting but ultimately a dud because it felt like every other word was either a Sanskrit deity that i was supposed to already know about or a Sanskrit word that represented an entire doctrine like the word \u0026ldquo;transubstantiation\u0026rdquo;. It felt like watching marvel\u0026rsquo;s avengers end game with a Spanish voice over without any context. Probably similar feeling to someone who has never read the bible reading a book like Hebrews or something. That being said there were some interesting things in there that made me want to dig a little further. I then washed down the Bhagavad-Gita with a book by Jack Hawley. He basically walks through every verse in the Gita and translates it into more modern western terms, adding a couple clarifying sentences to those pesky single word Sanskrit ideas. The idea that was most novel to me in the Gita was that Krishna and also (luckily) other Hindu philosophies break people and actions into 3 categories. Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas. Sattva being the highest representing balance, harmony and goodness. Rajas representing energy and motion and Tamas representing lethargy and darkness. The idea being that each person and action has all three of these present at all times but in differing proportions. This was an interesting choice and makes for a more dynamic categorization of actions than the dichotomies of the west. I will have to think more about this in the future. Another question this book brought up for me was wondering why the particular virtues of \u0026ldquo;Grace, gentleness, self-control, and humility\u0026rdquo; to name a few appear to be somewhat universal in religions?  The Gita did overlap a lot with ideas of the New Testament. One of the biggest differences I recognized was that Krishna did not call for evangelizing his ideas. All in all, worth the read and has opened up new frontiers to think over. Also don\u0026rsquo;t let your wives become corrupted or they will ruin this whole caste system we have set up. That is all.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Bhagavad Gita"},{"content":"I found it somewhat interesting but ultimately a dud because it felt like every other word was either a Sanskrit deity that I was supposed to already know about or a Sanskrit word that represented an entire doctrine like the word \u0026ldquo;transubstantiation\u0026rdquo;. It felt like watching marvel\u0026rsquo;s avengers end game with a Spanish voice over without any context. Probably similar feeling to someone who has never read the bible reading a book like Hebrews or something. That being said there were some interesting things in there that made me want to dig in a little more.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-bhagavad-gita/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI found it somewhat interesting but ultimately a dud because it felt like every other word was either a Sanskrit deity that I was supposed to already know about or a Sanskrit word that represented an entire doctrine like the word \u0026ldquo;transubstantiation\u0026rdquo;. It felt like watching marvel\u0026rsquo;s avengers end game with a Spanish voice over without any context. Probably similar feeling to someone who has never read the bible reading a book like Hebrews or something. That being said there were some interesting things in there that made me want to dig in a little more.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Bhagavad Gita"},{"content":"This is essay was written documenting Huxley\u0026rsquo;s psychedelic experience while being given Mescaline (the active ingredient in peyote). Huxley\u0026rsquo;s theory was that the ego acts a \u0026ldquo;reducer valve\u0026rdquo; on consciousness and by taking a psychoactive drug he could thereby sidestep this valve and widen his experience of reality. According to the essay this is exactly what happened. He was administered the drug by a psychiatrist who had been studying the drug for some time before this event. This psychiatrist and Huxley\u0026rsquo;s wife accompanied him for the 8hr trip with a tape recorder and some questions to help document the effects of the drug. While high Huxley looks at some fine art paintings and suddenly understands that the artist could see things the way he currently was seeing things and that he could tell his consciousness had been brought up to the level of \u0026ldquo;visionary\u0026rdquo;. Among other things he later makes an argument that the relationship of alcohol and Christianity should be abandoned and replaced with Mescaline. I feel like if you were to have that conversation the response would just be laughter, but to me it was an interesting argument. People/Aldous Huxley\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-doors-of-perception-heaven-and-hell/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis is essay was written documenting Huxley\u0026rsquo;s psychedelic experience while being given Mescaline (the active ingredient in peyote). Huxley\u0026rsquo;s theory was that the ego acts a \u0026ldquo;reducer valve\u0026rdquo; on consciousness and by taking a psychoactive drug he could thereby sidestep this valve and widen his experience of reality. According to the essay this is exactly what happened. He was administered the drug by a psychiatrist who had been studying the drug for some time before this event. This psychiatrist and Huxley\u0026rsquo;s wife accompanied him for the 8hr trip with a tape recorder and some questions to help document the effects of the drug. While high Huxley looks at some fine art paintings and suddenly understands that the artist could see things the way he currently was seeing things and that he could tell his consciousness had been brought up to the level of \u0026ldquo;visionary\u0026rdquo;. Among other things he later makes an argument that the relationship of alcohol and Christianity should be abandoned and replaced with Mescaline. I feel like if you were to have that conversation the response would just be laughter, but to me it was an interesting argument.\nPeople/Aldous Huxley\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Doors of Perception / Heaven and Hell"},{"content":"This is the oldest work of fiction in the history of the world. Read it! The oldest copies date around 2100BC. For reference the oldest copies of the Bible we have on hand are from the dead sea scrolls which date to 200-300 BC. That\u0026rsquo;s not to say that the dead sea scrolls are the first copies of the bible but they are the oldest we have while the rest are probably lost due to the writing material of choice, so we\u0026rsquo;ll never really know when the first copy of the Bible was written. The reason this survived for so long was that it was inscribed on a clay tablet. Going into this story I expected it to be dull. I was wrong, probably in part thanks to the particular translation I used, but on the whole this book is a must read. I think the most striking and controversial thing is that in the book there is an account of the flood. Now I know what you picture in your head when I say that, but literally when a character in the book started recounting the flood, it was totally shocking. The similarities and details couched in such exotic settings made for an incredible mind-bending experience. I won\u0026rsquo;t go over the similarities to save them for those who read. The story was then followed by an essay by the translator who explained where the text came from and how it was translated. This too was helpful to get more of an understanding of its place in history. At any rate I\u0026rsquo;d definitely put this one on your reading list.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-epic-of-gilgamesh/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis is the oldest work of fiction in the history of the world. Read it! The oldest copies date around 2100BC. For reference the oldest copies of the Bible we have on hand are from the dead sea scrolls which date to 200-300 BC. That\u0026rsquo;s not to say that the dead sea scrolls are the first copies of the bible but they are the oldest we have while the rest are probably lost due to the writing material of choice, so we\u0026rsquo;ll never really know when the first copy of the Bible was written. The reason this survived for so long was that it was inscribed on a clay tablet. Going into this story I expected it to be dull. I was wrong, probably in part thanks to the particular translation I used, but on the whole this book is a must read. I think the most striking and controversial thing is that in the book there is an account of the flood. Now I know what you picture in your head when I say that, but literally when a character in the book started recounting the flood, it was totally shocking. The similarities and details couched in such exotic settings made for an incredible mind-bending experience. I won\u0026rsquo;t go over the similarities to save them for those who read. The story was then followed by an essay by the translator who explained where the text came from and how it was translated. This too was helpful to get more of an understanding of its place in history. At any rate I\u0026rsquo;d definitely put this one on your reading list.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Epic of Gilgamesh"},{"content":"I read this book after seeing it tangentially referenced in the \u0026ldquo;Doors of Perspective\u0026rdquo;. Written as the forward states in response to the short story by William Blake, C.S Lewis sets out to refute the idea of Hell and Heaven being made of the same stuff. Or put in more general terms this is his refutation of the concept of non-duality. Instead of using arguments he chooses to use story as a device to get his points across. In this story the main character takes a bus ride from what turns out to be hell to a place that turns out to be heaven, or more accurately a place of transition to heaven. Upon arrival he eventually runs into George MacDonald, and MacDonald acts much like Virgil did in Dante\u0026rsquo;s inferno and guides the main character through this new and foreign place. What unfolds is a series of vignettes where the residents of heaven would interact with old friends from hell and try to convince them in various ways to \u0026ldquo;see the light\u0026rdquo;. The main points of these small exchanges are that each person chooses to keep themselves in hell and out of \u0026ldquo;eternal joy\u0026rdquo;. Like other C.S Lewis stories I\u0026rsquo;ve read his strongest talent is his ability to spot and succinctly point out deficiencies in character. Especially of the self-righteous. Every time I read any of his stories, I feel self-conscious of some way in which I am acting selfishly or harming others with my choices. If you ever read any of his works, you\u0026rsquo;ll know exactly what I mean. This is a weak point in secular philosophy (IMO) because it is difficult to justify telling someone to alter their behavior without the authority of a metaphysic behind you. Lewis continually manages to thread the needle between intellect and faith in a compelling way that is difficult to ignore. That being said I don\u0026rsquo;t really feel like this book did much in the way of addressing some of the more difficult questions about hell and heaven. It did a fantastic job of shedding a light on how even good things like love and pity can be twisted into bad things. But in the stories people continually chose hell and their own misery over the joy they were created to experience, but the question of whether or not there was actually a \u0026ldquo;choice\u0026rdquo; to begin with is a slippery slope which leads to a lot of other complications. That being said this is a short read and does give the reader plenty of things to think about and is definitely worth the read.\nThe Doors of Perception - Heaven and Hell\nPeople/C.S. Lewis\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-great-divorce/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI read this book after seeing it tangentially referenced in the \u0026ldquo;Doors of Perspective\u0026rdquo;. Written as the forward states in response to the short story by William Blake, C.S Lewis sets out to refute the idea of Hell and Heaven being made of the same stuff. Or put in more general terms this is his refutation of the concept of non-duality. Instead of using arguments he chooses to use story as a device to get his points across. In this story the main character takes a bus ride from what turns out to be hell to a place that turns out to be heaven, or more accurately a place of transition to heaven. Upon arrival he eventually runs into George MacDonald, and MacDonald acts much like Virgil did in Dante\u0026rsquo;s inferno and guides the main character through this new and foreign place. What unfolds is a series of vignettes where the residents of heaven would interact with old friends from hell and try to convince them in various ways to \u0026ldquo;see the light\u0026rdquo;.  The main points of these small exchanges are that each person chooses to keep themselves in hell and out of \u0026ldquo;eternal joy\u0026rdquo;. Like other C.S Lewis stories I\u0026rsquo;ve read his strongest talent is his ability to spot and succinctly point out deficiencies in character. Especially of the self-righteous. Every time I read any of his stories, I feel self-conscious of some way in which I am acting selfishly or harming others with my choices. If you ever read any of his works, you\u0026rsquo;ll know exactly what I mean. This is a weak point in secular philosophy (IMO) because it is difficult to justify telling someone to alter their behavior without the authority of a metaphysic behind you. Lewis continually manages to thread the needle between intellect and faith in a compelling way that is difficult to ignore. That being said I don\u0026rsquo;t really feel like this book did much in the way of addressing some of the more difficult questions about hell and heaven. It did a fantastic job of shedding a light on how even good things like love and pity can be twisted into bad things. But in the stories people continually chose hell and their own misery over the joy they were created to experience, but the question of whether or not there was actually a \u0026ldquo;choice\u0026rdquo; to begin with is a slippery slope which leads to a lot of other complications. That being said this is a short read and does give the reader plenty of things to think about and is definitely worth the read.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Great Divorce"},{"content":"Not sure what it was, but I wasn\u0026rsquo;t really taken in by this book. It was well written and not boring per se. But failed to capture my imagination as much as I expected it to. It did give an interesting glimpse into high American society in the 20s which was somewhat interesting, but the plot moved slowly IMO which is impressive seeing at how short this book was. To me it just seemed like a reader\u0026rsquo;s digest book. I\u0026rsquo;ll pass no thanks Mr. Fitzgerald.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-great-gatsby/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eNot sure what it was, but I wasn\u0026rsquo;t really taken in by this book. It was well written and not boring per se. But failed to capture my imagination as much as I expected it to. It did give an interesting glimpse into high American society in the 20s which was somewhat interesting, but the plot moved slowly IMO which is impressive seeing at how short this book was. To me it just seemed like a reader\u0026rsquo;s digest book. I\u0026rsquo;ll pass no thanks Mr. Fitzgerald.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Great Gatsby"},{"content":"I was not man enough to take on the full work, which was about 3 times this length, maybe I will come back when I need more instances of cruelty in my life. This book walks through the stages of life in the archipelago.\nArrest Interrogation Transport to prison Life in prison Banishment after prison Although this book had unmistakable political undertones it comes more from the point of view of a moralist and not a political scientist. The atrocities in this book are examined at a human level and communism is the backdrop that made the examination possible. The opening dedication sets the tone for the entire book \u0026ldquo;I dedicate this book to all those who did not live to tell it, and may they please forgive me for not having seen it all, or remembered it all\u0026hellip;for not having divined it all\u0026rdquo; There is a tragedy in human death, but a greater tragedy still is humans that die without profundity or acknowledgement. These camps existed out of sight, and the millions they killed are forgotten\u0026hellip; and being forgotten is the worst offense of all. ","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-gulag-archipelago-1918-1956-an-experiment-in-literary-investigation-books-i-ii/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI was not man enough to take on the full work, which was about 3 times this length, maybe I will come back when I need more instances of cruelty in my life. This book walks through the stages of life in the archipelago.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArrest\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInterrogation\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTransport to prison\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLife in prison\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBanishment after prison\nAlthough this book had unmistakable political undertones it comes more from the point of view of a moralist and not a political scientist. The atrocities in this book are examined at a human level and communism is the backdrop that made the examination possible.  The opening dedication sets the tone for the entire book\n\u0026ldquo;I dedicate this book to all those who did not live to tell it, and may they please forgive me for not having seen it all, or remembered it all\u0026hellip;for not having divined it all\u0026rdquo;\nThere is a tragedy in human death, but a greater tragedy still is humans that die without profundity or acknowledgement. These camps existed out of sight, and the millions they killed are forgotten\u0026hellip; and being forgotten is the worst offense of all.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","title":"The Gulag Archipelago, 1918 - 1956"},{"content":"I put this on the list because I had heard that in this book there was a conversation between Socrates and Diotima about love. The book is set where a group of friends get together and throw a party for a friend that had won an award for a play that he had written. At this party they all decide that they should go around in a circle and give a speech praising the god Eros (God of love). So, they go around in a circle and each character gives their speeches. On the whole speeches were mostly unenlightening although they raised very interesting realizations about homosexual relationships between older men and younger \u0026ldquo;boys\u0026rdquo; (re: modern authors believe that they were all over the age of 18 of course crossed fingers). This side of the story I did not expect. Yet another time when history sneaks up on you from \u0026ldquo;behind\u0026rdquo;. One of the speeches contained a story about how in the beginning hermaphrodites were running around doing crazy stuff and the gods got mad and split them in half to make male and female. As a result, men and women roam the earth in search of their \u0026ldquo;other half\u0026rdquo;. Socrates\u0026rsquo; speech was pretty interesting. i.e., Plato) makes the argument that love happens in stages. One first learns to love details about a specific person. Then realizes that these details exist in many people. They then begin to love many people. Then they begin to love the details in and of themselves abstracted from people. In this final stage if they are lucky, they will get a glimpse of beauty (the thing which they have desired all along) un-encumbered by humanity\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;fleshiness\u0026rdquo;. This fits in with Plato\u0026rsquo;s idea of a world of \u0026ldquo;Forms\u0026rdquo; pretty well. Where basically everything we see and interact with is an imperfect clone of something perfect that exists only in this world of forms. I.E the world in which a perfect triangle exists, which for now can only be accessed by thought.\nPeople/Plato\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-symposium/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI put this on the list because I had heard that in this book there was a conversation between Socrates and Diotima about love. The book is set where a group of friends get together and throw a party for a friend that had won an award for a play that he had written. At this party they all decide that they should go around in a circle and give a speech praising the god Eros (God of love). So, they go around in a circle and each character gives their speeches. On the whole speeches were mostly unenlightening although they raised very interesting realizations about homosexual relationships between older men and younger \u0026ldquo;boys\u0026rdquo; (re: modern authors believe that they were all over the age of 18 of course \u003cem\u003ecrossed fingers\u003c/em\u003e). This side of the story I did not expect. Yet another time when history sneaks up on you from \u0026ldquo;behind\u0026rdquo;. One of the speeches contained a story about how in the beginning hermaphrodites were running around doing crazy stuff and the gods got mad and split them in half to make male and female. As a result, men and women roam the earth in search of their \u0026ldquo;other half\u0026rdquo;. Socrates\u0026rsquo; speech was pretty interesting. i.e., Plato) makes the argument that love happens in stages. One first learns to love details about a specific person. Then realizes that these details exist in many people. They then begin to love many people. Then they begin to love the details in and of themselves abstracted from people. In this final stage if they are lucky, they will get a glimpse of beauty (the thing which they have desired all along) un-encumbered by humanity\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;fleshiness\u0026rdquo;. This fits in with Plato\u0026rsquo;s idea of a world of \u0026ldquo;Forms\u0026rdquo; pretty well. Where basically everything we see and interact with is an imperfect clone of something perfect that exists only in this world of forms. I.E the world in which a perfect triangle exists, which for now can only be accessed by thought.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Symposium"},{"content":"In this book Noam Chomsky tries to answer the question the title poses. Being a linguist, he attempts to answer this question from a linguist\u0026rsquo;s perspective. Taking a deep dive into the meanings and relationship between language and thought Chomsky tries to summarize years of linguistic research and some conclusions he has come to in his experience. One of the most interesting conclusions is that to him it appears as if instead of the ancient idea that \u0026ldquo;language is sound with meaning\u0026rdquo; Chomsky believes that phrase should be reversed to say that \u0026ldquo;language is meaning with sound\u0026rdquo;. He attempts to demonstrate how language is actually a couple layers deeper into the structure of the brain than previously thought. In fact, we may in some ways \u0026ldquo;think\u0026rdquo; in a language. So perhaps without language we could not \u0026ldquo;think\u0026rdquo; at all?? This feels intuitively true to me. The book then addresses a line of thinking that could be called \u0026ldquo;mysterianism\u0026rdquo;. Put simply it is that we face two types of problems. The first type are problems we can solve. The second type are problems we will never solve. Otherwise known as mysteries. This second type of problem Chomsky claims we are not the right type of creatures to solve. Similarly, to how rats are not the right kind of creatures to solves for prime numbers. To support this argument, he brings up the story of how Newton not only fundamentally changed physics but changed science entirely when he introduced the concept of \u0026ldquo;Force\u0026rdquo;. Newton himself could not wrap his mind around what this force was only, how it worked. From then on strict materialism was out. No one could explain in strictly mechanical terms how the universe worked. This book contains some interesting anecdotes as well as compelling theories. At points the writing can get a little long in the tooth for a non-linguist but over all very interesting.\nPeople/Noam Chomsky\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/what-kind-of-creatures-are-we-columbia-themes-in-philosophy/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eIn this book Noam Chomsky tries to answer the question the title poses. Being a linguist, he attempts to answer this question from a linguist\u0026rsquo;s perspective. Taking a deep dive into the meanings and relationship between language and thought Chomsky tries to summarize years of linguistic research and some conclusions he has come to in his experience. One of the most interesting conclusions is that to him it appears as if instead of the ancient idea that \u0026ldquo;language is sound with meaning\u0026rdquo; Chomsky believes that phrase should be reversed to say that \u0026ldquo;language is meaning with sound\u0026rdquo;. He attempts to demonstrate how language is actually a couple layers deeper into the structure of the brain than previously thought. In fact, we may in some ways \u0026ldquo;think\u0026rdquo; in a language. So perhaps without language we could not \u0026ldquo;think\u0026rdquo; at all?? This feels intuitively true to me.  The book then addresses a line of thinking that could be called \u0026ldquo;mysterianism\u0026rdquo;. Put simply it is that we face two types of problems. The first type are problems we can solve. The second type are problems we will never solve. Otherwise known as mysteries. This second type of problem Chomsky claims we are not the right type of creatures to solve. Similarly, to how rats are not the right kind of creatures to solves for prime numbers. To support this argument, he brings up the story of how Newton not only fundamentally changed physics but changed science entirely when he introduced the concept of \u0026ldquo;Force\u0026rdquo;. Newton himself could not wrap his mind around what this force was only, how it worked. From then on strict materialism was out. No one could explain in strictly mechanical terms how the universe worked. This book contains some interesting anecdotes as well as compelling theories. At points the writing can get a little long in the tooth for a non-linguist but over all very interesting.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"What Kind of Creatures Are We? (Columbia Themes in Philosophy)"},{"content":"This is a story that takes place entirely inside a hotel in Moscow from just after the Bolshevik revolution to just after World War 2. The main character is a man who was part of the bourgeoisie, a count. He is spared summary execution by the red army because he had penned a poem that helped start the revolution. For this reason, instead of being executed he was sentenced to live the rest of his life inside an iconic hotel that is a block away from the Kremlin. The story is told from his perspective. That is to say from someone that is watching his entire world be turned upside down. Reading this book will make you nostalgic for an Era that can never be recreated. Whereas you could argue that the bourgeoisie still exists the gentlemen that used to occupy it (at least in our imagination) have been replaced with people named Chad who drive their daddy\u0026rsquo;s BMW. I also had watched a couple episodes of the show \u0026ldquo;The Great\u0026rdquo; around the same time (which is very loosely based on Catherine the great) which cemented this idea. The show is set largely in a palace, with fancy ball parties and what not. But it was upsetting me to watch because the language of the show is modern and casual. Littered with penis jokes and modern curse words. Which was in keeping with the shows aesthetic but annoyed me for some reason. I think that reason is after reading this book the main character is an example of best-case scenario of nobility. He is well read, charming, respectful, and honest. So, when those folks are given wealth, it seems natural like fish in water. But when we see people like the characters in \u0026ldquo;The Great\u0026rdquo; it reminds one of a pearl necklace on a pig. Of course, the latter is probably more common, but the former is what we like to remember.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/a-gentleman-in-moscow/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis is a story that takes place entirely inside a hotel in Moscow from just after the Bolshevik revolution to just after World War 2. The main character is a man who was part of the bourgeoisie, a count. He is spared summary execution by the red army because he had penned a poem that helped start the revolution. For this reason, instead of being executed he was sentenced to live the rest of his life inside an iconic hotel that is a block away from the Kremlin. The story is told from his perspective. That is to say from someone that is watching his entire world be turned upside down. Reading this book will make you nostalgic for an Era that can never be recreated. Whereas you could argue that the bourgeoisie still exists the gentlemen that used to occupy it (at least in our imagination) have been replaced with people named Chad who drive their daddy\u0026rsquo;s BMW. I also had watched a couple episodes of the show \u0026ldquo;The Great\u0026rdquo; around the same time (which is very loosely based on Catherine the great) which cemented this idea. The show is set largely in a palace, with fancy ball parties and what not. But it was upsetting me to watch because the language of the show is modern and casual. Littered with penis jokes and modern curse words. Which was in keeping with the shows aesthetic but annoyed me for some reason. I think that reason is after reading this book the main character is an example of best-case scenario of nobility. He is well read, charming, respectful, and honest. So, when those folks are given wealth, it seems natural like fish in water. But when we see people like the characters in \u0026ldquo;The Great\u0026rdquo; it reminds one of a pearl necklace on a pig. Of course, the latter is probably more common, but the former is what we like to remember.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"A Gentleman in Moscow"},{"content":"Finally checked this one of the list, of course that raises the question of what I mean by \u0026ldquo;finally\u0026rdquo;. The word obviously indicates a sequence of events and sequence indicates time and time indicates a required conscious observer. So, in a sense I\u0026rsquo;ve read this book both before, after and not yet. Jokes aside this book raises a lot of interesting questions, making you think about things a little differently than you had before. And that is the most and best that you can ask from a book. The writing in the book is kind of poor and a little self-aggrandizing at points but the ideas are original enough to make that not too difficult to look past. This book also made me want to read Emerson. While some of his conclusions and observations have in recent years been \u0026ldquo;proven\u0026rdquo; wrong (most notably the experiment of being able to read someone\u0026rsquo;s intentions up to 10 seconds before they actually make a decision) there still seems to be plenty of latitude in the field of consciousness to allow for his ideas to have value. Good suggestion has given me a lot to think about.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/biocentrism-how-life-and-consciousness-are-the-keys-to-understanding-the-true-nature-of-the-universe/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eFinally checked this one of the list, of course that raises the question of what I mean by \u0026ldquo;finally\u0026rdquo;. The word obviously indicates a sequence of events and sequence indicates time and time indicates a required conscious observer. So, in a sense I\u0026rsquo;ve read this book both before, after and not yet. Jokes aside this book raises a lot of interesting questions, making you think about things a little differently than you had before. And that is the most and best that you can ask from a book. The writing in the book is kind of poor and a little self-aggrandizing at points but the ideas are original enough to make that not too difficult to look past. This book also made me want to read Emerson. While some of his conclusions and observations have in recent years been \u0026ldquo;proven\u0026rdquo; wrong (most notably the experiment of being able to read someone\u0026rsquo;s intentions up to 10 seconds before they actually make a decision) there still seems to be plenty of latitude in the field of consciousness to allow for his ideas to have value.  Good suggestion has given me a lot to think about.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Biocentrism"},{"content":"Rachel Evans has done all the research on the bible that you probably meant to do but never got around to. Like researching the canonization of the Bible, comparing different types of those canonizations. Researching the similarities to other older religions and the Bible generally trying to figure out what its deal is and why people still give a fluff about it. The author comes from a similar-ish background to what I did, but since she is a woman the things that made her start questioning the stories she was told were different than the ones that caused me to question. Her\u0026rsquo;s I would guess started with the treatment of women in the Bible. So, she tries her best, like we all do to honestly question what we are supposed to do with the \u0026ldquo;good book\u0026rdquo; in the year of our lord 2020. She has some interesting insights and gives me plenty to think about. It is always really weird to me to hear from someone who has such a completely new translation of what the bible means to them as opposed to what we were raised in. When you hear the same thing in the same way for so many hours you get the idea that there is only one way to read something. And even though you know that is not true you don\u0026rsquo;t know how else to read it. At any rate this is a decent book. It seems pretty fairly written with manageable biases here and there.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/inspired-slaying-giants-walking-on-water-and-loving-the-bible-again/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eRachel Evans has done all the research on the bible that you probably meant to do but never got around to. Like researching the canonization of the Bible, comparing different types of those canonizations. Researching the similarities to other older religions and the Bible generally trying to figure out what its deal is and why people still give a fluff about it. The author comes from a similar-ish background to what I did, but since she is a woman the things that made her start questioning the stories she was told were different than the ones that caused me to question. Her\u0026rsquo;s I would guess started with the treatment of women in the Bible. So, she tries her best, like we all do to honestly question what we are supposed to do with the \u0026ldquo;good book\u0026rdquo; in the year of our lord 2020. She has some interesting insights and gives me plenty to think about. It is always really weird to me to hear from someone who has such a completely new translation of what the bible means to them as opposed to what we were raised in. When you hear the same thing in the same way for so many hours you get the idea that there is only one way to read something. And even though you know that is not true you don\u0026rsquo;t know how else to read it.\nAt any rate this is a decent book. It seems pretty fairly written with manageable biases here and there.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Inspired"},{"content":"This book is easy reading and goes by fast. It\u0026rsquo;s about a lawyer who represents death row inmates as well as other mostly poor black folks and children. The stories contained in this book are enough to make anyone\u0026rsquo;s blood boil and want to start a civil war against the Alabama court system. The book is more than just the complaints of a black lawyer though. Bryan Stevenson has a lot to say about the death penalty and the way we enforce crime in general. This book at times was profound, at other times sad. Most of the time it provided a fairly even take on mass incarceration. I do think the book in general is similar to listening to an emergency room doctor in New York talking about covid, or a general in Iraq talking about the Taliban. What he is saying is definitely true, but also definitely not the case for everyone everywhere IMO. I\u0026rsquo;ll end this review with a compelling quote on the death penalty which is probably old news for you folks but was the first time I\u0026rsquo;ve heard it put so succinctly. This quote comes after he personally witnesses the execution of a convicted criminal \u0026ldquo;We would never think it was human to pay someone to rape people convicted of rape or assault and abuse someone guilty of assault or abuse. Yet we were comfortable killing people who kill, in part because we think we can do it in a manner that doesn\u0026rsquo;t implicate our own humanity, the way that raping or abusing someone would. I couldn\u0026rsquo;t stop thinking that we don\u0026rsquo;t spend much time contemplating the details of what killing someone actually involves.\u0026rdquo;\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/just-mercy-a-story-of-justice-and-redemption/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis book is easy reading and goes by fast. It\u0026rsquo;s about a lawyer who represents death row inmates as well as other mostly poor black folks and children. The stories contained in this book are enough to make anyone\u0026rsquo;s blood boil and want to start a civil war against the Alabama court system. The book is more than just the complaints of a black lawyer though. Bryan Stevenson has a lot to say about the death penalty and the way we enforce crime in general. This book at times was profound, at other times sad. Most of the time it provided a fairly even take on mass incarceration. I do think the book in general is similar to listening to an emergency room doctor in New York talking about covid, or a general in Iraq talking about the Taliban. What he is saying is definitely true, but also definitely not the case for everyone everywhere IMO. I\u0026rsquo;ll end this review with a compelling quote on the death penalty which is probably old news for you folks but was the first time I\u0026rsquo;ve heard it put so succinctly. This quote comes after he personally witnesses the execution of a convicted criminal\n\u0026ldquo;We would never think it was human to pay someone to rape people convicted of rape or assault and abuse someone guilty of assault or abuse. Yet we were comfortable killing people who kill, in part because we think we can do it in a manner that doesn\u0026rsquo;t implicate our own humanity, the way that raping or abusing someone would. I couldn\u0026rsquo;t stop thinking that we don\u0026rsquo;t spend much time contemplating the details of what killing someone actually involves.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Just Mercy"},{"content":"Judea Pearl is one of the fathers of modern Bayesian Networks which are pretty much used everywhere these days. So, in my pursuit to find a book talking about AI, I stumbled across this book. This book explains Judea\u0026rsquo;s latest contribution to computer science which is a mathematical approach to modeling causality. In the book he starts by explaining where the phrase \u0026ldquo;correlation does not equal causality\u0026rdquo; comes from. His argument is that with statistics you will never be able to define causation, because statistics does not have the language or framework to make such statements. As such statistics and big data can only go so far in their abilities to provide answers for our questions. Instead of approaching problems with the esoteric methods of regression, data stratification and trying to control for various values based on intuition, he proposes that we should try to approach problems more like human beings. He breaks the idea of causality into three rungs on a ladder. He proceeded to explain a sort of calculus that quantifies the effects that different causal relations have on the outcome of a situation.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-book-of-why-the-new-science-of-cause-and-effect/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eJudea Pearl is one of the fathers of modern Bayesian Networks which are pretty much used everywhere these days. So, in my pursuit to find a book talking about AI, I stumbled across this book. This book explains Judea\u0026rsquo;s latest contribution to computer science which is a mathematical approach to modeling causality. In the book he starts by explaining where the phrase \u0026ldquo;correlation does not equal causality\u0026rdquo; comes from. His argument is that with statistics you will never be able to define causation, because statistics does not have the language or framework to make such statements. As such statistics and big data can only go so far in their abilities to provide answers for our questions. Instead of approaching problems with the esoteric methods of regression, data stratification and trying to control for various values based on intuition, he proposes that we should try to approach problems more like human beings. He breaks the idea of causality into three rungs on a ladder. He proceeded to explain a sort of calculus that quantifies the effects that different causal relations have on the outcome of a situation.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Book of Why"},{"content":"This book was published after Crime and Punishment. Pretty good, definitely not my favorite of Dostoevsky. This book is I think his first iteration on the idea of a beautiful soul. The main character (Prince Myshkin) is a man who is guileless and deeply compassionate. As a result, everyone he comes in contact with assumes he is an idiot. The simple soul is dropped into the current of crazy Russians and you are left to watch what happens and where the soul ends up. While personally I feel like the character of the prince was perfected in story the brothers Karamazov, some of the transcendent goodness of father Zosima and Alyosha can be seen here. Enough of it is visible to make you wish you were a little more like the prince even though the consequences would be unbearable. Fyodor Dostoevsky\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-idiot/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis book was published after Crime and Punishment. Pretty good, definitely not my favorite of Dostoevsky. This book is I think his first iteration on the idea of a beautiful soul. The main character (Prince Myshkin) is a man who is guileless and deeply compassionate. As a result, everyone he comes in contact with assumes he is an idiot. The simple soul is dropped into the current of crazy Russians and you are left to watch what happens and where the soul ends up. While personally I feel like the character of the prince was perfected in story the brothers Karamazov, some of the transcendent goodness of father Zosima and Alyosha can be seen here. Enough of it is visible to make you wish you were a little more like the prince even though the consequences would be unbearable.\nFyodor Dostoevsky\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Idiot"},{"content":"Man, I don\u0026rsquo;t even know where to begin with this book. I had started this book last spring but took a break for a couple months. Even during the sabbatical, thoughts from this book would recur in my head until I eventually picked it back up about a month ago. Written towards the end of Tolstoy\u0026rsquo;s life it was banned from Russia so initially it was printed in Germany. This book comes at a very interesting point in history. About 30 years after Das Kapital, and only 20 years prior to a world war that the book predicts without intending to, but almost as an inevitability. While people were arguing and continue to argue the virtues of Communism over Capitalism or vice versa, Tolstoy presents a possible third choice\u0026hellip; neither. Tolstoy\u0026rsquo;s fundamental belief springs from the nonresistance taught in the sermon on the mount. As a result, he draws striking conclusions about governments and the people who support them. He draws a consistent line from this single doctrine to show that a government of any kind is incompatible with this belief. When I say to anti capital punishment people something like \u0026ldquo;if you are against the death penalty, then disband the army\u0026rdquo;. Tolstoy would say yes, absolutely and also defundThePolice. As such his ideas were inherently anarchistic, but in the most compelling and consistent of ways. He makes his argument that human\u0026rsquo;s moral development is in stages. The first stage is that of a savage where one only cares about themselves. The second stage is that of a citizen where one only thinks of the group they belong to (family, nation, etc.) the third and final stage is that of divinity when one cares for the entire world. Whereas this might sound cliche, he backs it up with brilliant reasons, and allegories to elaborate his thinking. It is a very interesting pairing to read this book directly after Just Mercy. The two of these books have me again questioning crime and punishment, death penalty etc. I will be thinking about points in this book for some time to come.\nLeo Tolstoy\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-kingdom-of-god-is-within-you/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eMan, I don\u0026rsquo;t even know where to begin with this book. I had started this book last spring but took a break for a couple months. Even during the sabbatical, thoughts from this book would recur in my head until I eventually picked it back up about a month ago. Written towards the end of Tolstoy\u0026rsquo;s life it was banned from Russia so initially it was printed in Germany. This book comes at a very interesting point in history. About 30 years after Das Kapital, and only 20 years prior to a world war that the book predicts without intending to, but almost as an inevitability. While people were arguing and continue to argue the virtues of Communism over Capitalism or vice versa, Tolstoy presents a possible third choice\u0026hellip; neither. Tolstoy\u0026rsquo;s fundamental belief springs from the nonresistance taught in the sermon on the mount. As a result, he draws striking conclusions about governments and the people who support them. He draws a consistent line from this single doctrine to show that a government of any kind is incompatible with this belief. When I say to anti capital punishment people something like \u0026ldquo;if you are against the death penalty, then disband the army\u0026rdquo;. Tolstoy would say yes, absolutely and also defundThePolice. As such his ideas were inherently anarchistic, but in the most compelling and consistent of ways. He makes his argument that human\u0026rsquo;s moral development is in stages. The first stage is that of a savage where one only cares about themselves. The second stage is that of a citizen where one only thinks of the group they belong to (family, nation, etc.) the third and final stage is that of divinity when one cares for the entire world. Whereas this might sound cliche, he backs it up with brilliant reasons, and allegories to elaborate his thinking. It is a very interesting pairing to read this book directly after Just Mercy. The two of these books have me again questioning crime and punishment, death penalty etc. I will be thinking about points in this book for some time to come.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Kingdom of God Is Within You"},{"content":"This is the book that I think the idea of Freudian slips comes from. It is an investigation into brain farts basically. He investigates various mental mistakes like not being able to remember a person\u0026rsquo;s name and the circumstances that cause these mistakes. This book was surprisingly practical for the most part, especially when compared to the psychology of dreams. I found that a lot of his explanations for things made sense in a logical way and didn\u0026rsquo;t seem to be too much of a reach. The format of this book is he would basically dedicate a chapter to a particular mistake, take misplacing things for example. He would then explain what he thought the reason for this was and then he would offer between 10 and 20 anecdotal stories that helped to solidify his point. Overall, a pretty interesting read that will make you stop and ask yourself next time you stub your toe: \u0026ldquo;was this just an accident? Or did I secretly not want to have kids and gave expression to this wish by kicking that wall\u0026rdquo;\nSigmund Freud\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-psychopathology-of-everyday-life/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis is the book that I think the idea of Freudian slips comes from. It is an investigation into brain farts basically. He investigates various mental mistakes like not being able to remember a person\u0026rsquo;s name and the circumstances that cause these mistakes. This book was surprisingly practical for the most part, especially when compared to the psychology of dreams. I found that a lot of his explanations for things made sense in a logical way and didn\u0026rsquo;t seem to be too much of a reach. The format of this book is he would basically dedicate a chapter to a particular mistake, take misplacing things for example. He would then explain what he thought the reason for this was and then he would offer between 10 and 20 anecdotal stories that helped to solidify his point. Overall, a pretty interesting read that will make you stop and ask yourself next time you stub your toe: \u0026ldquo;was this just an accident? Or did I secretly not want to have kids and gave expression to this wish by kicking that wall\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Psychopathology of Everyday Life"},{"content":"Another suggested book that I probably wouldn\u0026rsquo;t have stumbled across normaly. Provided a decent break from the last book I read. The three-body problem refers to the difficult mathematical problem of predicting the orbit of a 3-planet system. It turns out there are very few stable configurations of these, and predicting their orbit is difficult because of all the variables that go into their movement. This ambitious sci-fi book is the first of a trilogy. It starts in China during communist revolutions in the 70s and progresses to modern day where the fate of humanity is threatened by disenfranchised humans and a dispassionate race of advanced ETs whose home planet is about to be destroyed. The author seems to be very familiar with quantum physics, computer science and basic radio wave theory. This knowledge imbues the book with a believable \u0026ldquo;almost within reach feel\u0026rdquo;. Where you could imagine some of the inventions described being created in our lifetimes. All in all, very light reading but pretty entertaining.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-three-body-problem/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eAnother suggested book that I probably wouldn\u0026rsquo;t have stumbled across normaly. Provided a decent break from the last book I read. The three-body problem refers to the difficult mathematical problem of predicting the orbit of a 3-planet system. It turns out there are very few stable configurations of these, and predicting their orbit is difficult because of all the variables that go into their movement. This ambitious sci-fi book is the first of a trilogy. It starts in China during communist revolutions in the 70s and progresses to modern day where the fate of humanity is threatened by disenfranchised humans and a dispassionate race of advanced ETs whose home planet is about to be destroyed. The author seems to be very familiar with quantum physics, computer science and basic radio wave theory. This knowledge imbues the book with a believable \u0026ldquo;almost within reach feel\u0026rdquo;. Where you could imagine some of the inventions described being created in our lifetimes. All in all, very light reading but pretty entertaining.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Three-Body Problem (Remembrance of Earth’s Past, #1)"},{"content":"My first foray into Nietzche I did not find this book to be super enjoyable. It is about Zarathustra who is a spokesman for Nietzche\u0026rsquo;s new vision. He declares that God is dead and presents the idea of the over-man (or superman) as what should replace him. This super man should be a warrior and have a personal sense of pride and above all should not be driven by pity. For as one of the most interesting quotes of the book says, \u0026ldquo;Thus spoke the devil to me, once on a time: \u0026ldquo;Even God has his hell: it is his love for man\u0026rdquo;. And lately did I hear him say these words: \u0026ldquo;God is dead: of his pity for man has God died\u0026rdquo;. So, Zarathustra comes down from a mountain and teaches some disciples about his ideas but then they try to couple his idea with some ideas of Christianity. This will not do because this is the thing that led to the death of God in the first place. So, after teaching these disciples Zarathustra starts to become overwhelmed with pity for man as well. So, he retreats back to his mountain and reconnects with nature to \u0026ldquo;find himself\u0026rdquo;. He thus returns to his enlightened state of supreme joy and happiness. After some time, some \u0026ldquo;higher men\u0026rdquo; of various types come to visit him. He thinks that they may be a sort of mantle carrier for him after he passes. But long story short, although better than most they are no superman. The story ends with him deciding to come down from the mountain again in an attempt to find some men that would live up to his standards. As far as writing goes it was pretty well written (obvious) I feel like as with most poetic type of literature it was hard to follow from time to time due to the over-floweryness of the language. Overall, I did not really like the tone very much because the \u0026ldquo;enlightened\u0026rdquo; character seemed to mirror Nietzsche\u0026rsquo;s own character too closely. It seemed a little like a long high five to himself for being so awesome and better than everyone else.\nFriedrich Nietzsche\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/thus-spoke-zarathustra/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eMy first foray into Nietzche I did not find this book to be super enjoyable. It is about Zarathustra who is a spokesman for Nietzche\u0026rsquo;s new vision. He declares that God is dead and presents the idea of the over-man (or superman) as what should replace him. This super man should be a warrior and have a personal sense of pride and above all should not be driven by pity. For as one of the most interesting quotes of the book says, \u0026ldquo;Thus spoke the devil to me, once on a time: \u0026ldquo;Even God has his hell: it is his love for man\u0026rdquo;. And lately did I hear him say these words: \u0026ldquo;God is dead: of his pity for man has God died\u0026rdquo;. So, Zarathustra comes down from a mountain and teaches some disciples about his ideas but then they try to couple his idea with some ideas of Christianity. This will not do because this is the thing that led to the death of God in the first place. So, after teaching these disciples Zarathustra starts to become overwhelmed with pity for man as well. So, he retreats back to his mountain and reconnects with nature to \u0026ldquo;find himself\u0026rdquo;. He thus returns to his enlightened state of supreme joy and happiness. After some time, some \u0026ldquo;higher men\u0026rdquo; of various types come to visit him. He thinks that they may be a sort of mantle carrier for him after he passes. But long story short, although better than most they are no superman. The story ends with him deciding to come down from the mountain again in an attempt to find some men that would live up to his standards. As far as writing goes it was pretty well written (obvious) I feel like as with most poetic type of literature it was hard to follow from time to time due to the over-floweryness of the language. Overall, I did not really like the tone very much because the \u0026ldquo;enlightened\u0026rdquo; character seemed to mirror Nietzsche\u0026rsquo;s own character too closely. It seemed a little like a long high five to himself for being so awesome and better than everyone else.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Thus Spoke Zarathustra"},{"content":"This is a book I literally stumbled on because of the title. It ended up being probably my favorite book I have read all year long. It is a collection of short stories each based around a central theme. Stories range from Noah to astronauts. I must say after the first story I was only halfway on board, but by the end of the second story the author had won me over. I have not been as challenged mentally by a book in a long time. Delightfully dark and depressing with just enough humor and love to keep you from giving up. Which could be an allegory for life I suppose, either way I highly recommend this book. Get it in audio-book form, each story is about an hour long and will give you something to think about while you are stuck in traffic.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/a-history-of-the-world-in-10-chapters/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis is a book I literally stumbled on because of the title. It ended up being probably my favorite book I have read all year long. It is a collection of short stories each based around a central theme. Stories range from Noah to astronauts. I must say after the first story I was only halfway on board, but by the end of the second story the author had won me over. I have not been as challenged mentally by a book in a long time. Delightfully dark and depressing with just enough humor and love to keep you from giving up. Which could be an allegory for life I suppose, either way I highly recommend this book. Get it in audio-book form, each story is about an hour long and will give you something to think about while you are stuck in traffic.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"A History of the World in 10½  Chapters"},{"content":"This was one of the densest and most abstract books I\u0026rsquo;ve read. The first section was Karl Marx breaking down his view of economy down to first principles. Answering questions like where money comes from, how are babies made and what\u0026rsquo;s the difference between the commodity form of gold and the money form of gold. Descriptions of the relationships between supply and demand in the simplest and in my view unnecessarily dry way. This discussion turned to how capital breeds capital. The book is full of references to the terrible working conditions for people during the industrial revolution. Really makes you glad that you live in an era of 40-hour work weeks and PTO. It seems like in some sick twisted way a pinko commie might have been what was necessary to get the people riled up enough to push the glacial pace of change in the right direction. Part of me wonders if Marx was alive today if he would still be as anti-capitalist (I know, I know, put your sickles down) as he was. I feel like the answer would be yes and I would be disappointed. It seems to me that many of his complaints about capitalism, while still inherent in our economy, have been addressed. Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Overall Marx was a brilliant thinker, and I can see why he thought the way he did. It would be hard not to agree with him back in the day when six-year-olds were forced to work 17-hour shifts.\nPeople/Karl Marx\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/das-kapital-capital/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis was one of the densest and most abstract books I\u0026rsquo;ve read. The first section was Karl Marx breaking down his view of economy down to first principles. Answering questions like where money comes from, how are babies made and what\u0026rsquo;s the difference between the commodity form of gold and the money form of gold. Descriptions of the relationships between supply and demand in the simplest and in my view unnecessarily dry way. This discussion turned to how capital breeds capital. The book is full of references to the terrible working conditions for people during the industrial revolution. Really makes you glad that you live in an era of 40-hour work weeks and PTO. It seems like in some sick twisted way a pinko commie might have been what was necessary to get the people riled up enough to push the glacial pace of change in the right direction. Part of me wonders if Marx was alive today if he would still be as anti-capitalist (I know, I know, put your sickles down) as he was. I feel like the answer would be yes and I would be disappointed. It seems to me that many of his complaints about capitalism, while still inherent in our economy, have been addressed. Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Overall Marx was a brilliant thinker, and I can see why he thought the way he did. It would be hard not to agree with him back in the day when six-year-olds were forced to work 17-hour shifts.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Das Kapital - Capital"},{"content":"This is a collection of four short /ish stories by the king of Steve. It was all in all very entertaining. I can see why people like the guy. A little pedestrian at points but always in a diverting way. His characters are always believable and easy (for me at least) to relate to.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/different-seasons/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis is a collection of four short /ish stories by the king of Steve. It was all in all very entertaining. I can see why people like the guy. A little pedestrian at points but always in a diverting way. His characters are always believable and easy (for me at least) to relate to.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Different Seasons"},{"content":"This is a memoir of a girl raised in a strict Mormon household by a dad who had bipolar. It was recommended to me by sister which is why I checked it out. Basically, the dad has a lot of weird convictions that span from not having any dairy products in the house to not enrolling their kids in public school. The story heavily documents what it\u0026rsquo;s like to be trapped in a life where you have no control. Many parallels to our own childhood could be drawn from the book although our childhood was better in many ways. The stories she tells are very interesting and sad but by the end of the book I had grown a little tired of her tone. You can only listen to someone explain how someone else has mistreated them for so long before you start to not care. The author is a pretty impressive. In spite of it all she able to earn a doctorate at a prestigious college. All in all, not upset I read it but I didn\u0026rsquo;t feel like I gained a lot from it. Although I will say there is a sort of attractive form to feminism that is posed in the book that I found interesting.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/educated/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis is a memoir of a girl raised in a strict Mormon household by a dad who had bipolar. It was recommended to me by sister which is why I checked it out. Basically, the dad has a lot of weird convictions that span from not having any dairy products in the house to not enrolling their kids in public school. The story heavily documents what it\u0026rsquo;s like to be trapped in a life where you have no control. Many parallels to our own childhood could be drawn from the book although our childhood was better in many ways. The stories she tells are very interesting and sad but by the end of the book I had grown a little tired of her tone. You can only listen to someone explain how someone else has mistreated them for so long before you start to not care. The author is a pretty impressive. In spite of it all she able to earn a doctorate at a prestigious college. All in all, not upset I read it but I didn\u0026rsquo;t feel like I gained a lot from it. Although I will say there is a sort of attractive form to feminism that is posed in the book that I found interesting.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Educated"},{"content":"So, Spinoza is an interesting guy. He was brought up Jewish but ended up coming up with his own philosophy of God which didn\u0026rsquo;t really agree with anyone that was around him at the time. This book wasn\u0026rsquo;t published during his life but shortly after his death by his friends. He did this because there were a lot of \u0026ldquo;burn the witch\u0026rdquo; things going on so I guess he didn\u0026rsquo;t want his beans burned. The book itself reads like a mathematical book of proofs where he lays out his Axioms, Propositions, Lemmas and proofs. Due to this it was sometimes difficult to keep up, but there were still many interesting ideas picked up. His two cornerstone ideas (IMO) were his definition of \u0026ldquo;Substance\u0026rdquo; and his idea of \u0026ldquo;God\u0026rdquo;. To him substance was something that can be explained independent of anything else. With this definition it is really difficult to figure out even one thing that can have this label. (This is a fun mental exercise). His definition of God is linked to his idea of substance in that God is absolute infinite substance. He expands on this idea throughout the whole book as a foundation to his ethics. This could be viewed as a form or inspiration for the following transcendentalism movement.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/ethics/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eSo, Spinoza is an interesting guy. He was brought up Jewish but ended up coming up with his own philosophy of God which didn\u0026rsquo;t really agree with anyone that was around him at the time. This book wasn\u0026rsquo;t published during his life but shortly after his death by his friends. He did this because there were a lot of \u0026ldquo;burn the witch\u0026rdquo; things going on so I guess he didn\u0026rsquo;t want his beans burned. The book itself reads like a mathematical book of proofs where he lays out his Axioms, Propositions, Lemmas and proofs. Due to this it was sometimes difficult to keep up, but there were still many interesting ideas picked up. His two cornerstone ideas (IMO) were his definition of \u0026ldquo;Substance\u0026rdquo; and his idea of \u0026ldquo;God\u0026rdquo;. To him substance was something that can be explained independent of anything else. With this definition it is really difficult to figure out even one thing that can have this label. (This is a fun mental exercise). His definition of God is linked to his idea of substance in that God is absolute infinite substance. He expands on this idea throughout the whole book as a foundation to his ethics. This could be viewed as a form or inspiration for the following transcendentalism movement.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Ethics"},{"content":"This is a collection of short stories written by Ray Bradbury. The stories varied in length from a half hour to a little over an hour. The stories are a sort of anthology. Some really brilliant stuff in here. Very much like good black mirror/ twilight zone episodes. In fact, I want to send a copy of it to the black mirror studios so they can make good stories again. Not every story was a homerun but there were quite a few that were brilliant. The \u0026ldquo;title track\u0026rdquo; story actually was turned into a twilight zone episode. So, if you don\u0026rsquo;t read the book, you can at least watch that episode to get a taste of what the book was like. A lot of robots.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/i-sing-the-body-electric-other-stories/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis is a collection of short stories written by Ray Bradbury. The stories varied in length from a half hour to a little over an hour. The stories are a sort of anthology. Some really brilliant stuff in here. Very much like good black mirror/ twilight zone episodes. In fact, I want to send a copy of it to the black mirror studios so they can make good stories again. Not every story was a homerun but there were quite a few that were brilliant. The \u0026ldquo;title track\u0026rdquo; story actually was turned into a twilight zone episode. So, if you don\u0026rsquo;t read the book, you can at least watch that episode to get a taste of what the book was like. A lot of robots.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"I Sing the Body Electric! \u0026 Other Stories"},{"content":"Premise : group of boys 13 and under get stranded on a desert island. Chaos ensues as they try to build a society with immature minds. Gets dark pretty fast. Interesting implications about the origin of religion and the effect of personality on political tendencies. Definitely more of a Hobbes take on men in the state of nature. Very entertaining and not hard to follow\nLeviathan\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/lord-of-the-flies/","summary":"\u003cp\u003ePremise : group of boys 13 and under get stranded on a desert island. Chaos ensues as they try to build a society with immature minds. Gets dark pretty fast. Interesting implications about the origin of religion and the effect of personality on political tendencies. Definitely more of a Hobbes take on men in the state of nature. Very entertaining and not hard to follow\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeviathan\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Lord of the Flies"},{"content":"This is pretty much a handbook on how to start a successful anti-establishment movement. It has been used to great affect by a handful of dictators including Saddam Hussein to help organize movements. So, it is full of actually brilliant ideas on how to present/ manage an insurgency. Probably most notably how to produce effective propaganda. It touches on many big ideas about group mindsets including but not limited to, who you should target your revolution too, how you should handle other revolutionary groups with similar ideas, and how to select proper targets to keep your mini revolution energized. Aside from that he had some interesting ideas about education, compelling anti-democracy arguments, and an unexpected view about morality of the state. That being said obviously he has some less than flattering things to say about people of Jewish heritage and others. To be honest I was surprised to see how weak his racial arguments were. There wasn\u0026rsquo;t much proof to any statements that he made about races. It was mostly just true because he said it was. I could see that if you were a German living in post WW1 Germany where you had probably lost several family members to the war and had got less than nothing in return that assertions that Hitler makes might be attractive. But to an outside observer it mostly just seemed convenient. This was probably one of my least favorite books I have read this year because of the length. It seemed to drag on unnecessarily long for the subjects that were covered in it. I was happy to put this book behind me and move on to hopefully greener pastures.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/mein-kampf/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis is pretty much a handbook on how to start a successful anti-establishment movement. It has been used to great affect by a handful of dictators including Saddam Hussein to help organize movements. So, it is full of actually brilliant ideas on how to present/ manage an insurgency. Probably most notably how to produce effective propaganda. It touches on many big ideas about group mindsets including but not limited to, who you should target your revolution too, how you should handle other revolutionary groups with similar ideas, and how to select proper targets to keep your mini revolution energized. Aside from that he had some interesting ideas about education, compelling anti-democracy arguments, and an unexpected view about morality of the state. That being said obviously he has some less than flattering things to say about people of Jewish heritage and others.  To be honest I was surprised to see how weak his racial arguments were. There wasn\u0026rsquo;t much proof to any statements that he made about races. It was mostly just true because he said it was. I could see that if you were a German living in post WW1 Germany where you had probably lost several family members to the war and had got less than nothing in return that assertions that Hitler makes might be attractive. But to an outside observer it mostly just seemed convenient. This was probably one of my least favorite books I have read this year because of the length. It seemed to drag on unnecessarily long for the subjects that were covered in it. I was happy to put this book behind me and move on to hopefully greener pastures.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Mein Kampf"},{"content":"In 1864, Russia and the Western world was experiencing a philosophical reversal with reverberations that can still be felt almost two hundred years later. One by one “unquestionable” truths were being placed in the dust bin by a cold rationality. The attack on humanity’s placement of itself in the universe started over three hundred years earlier, when a polymath named Copernicus rediscovered the forgotten truth that we are not the center of the universe. Ever since then, the more scientific details that are catalogued about the world, the further man is pushed from that once prized and secure position. There are two main ideas that the underground man (UM) simultaneously seems to prove by his actions and disapprove of by his words. First is man as nature, the second is man as automata, and by extension nature as automata. It had only been five years since Charles Darwin had written ‘On the Origin of Species’ and already Dostoyevsky has incorporated his theory and worked out what he sees as its possible ramifications. Chiefly that of an alienated human that is horrified to look in the mirror and see no-thing looking back. In an opening note to the book Dostoevsky makes clear that the UM is an inevitable product of the spread of these two ideologies. The book opens with the memorable\u0026hellip;\nI’m a sick man…I’m a spiteful man, I’m an unattractive man.\nThis opening salvo is as confident a summation of himself as you will get from the UM, by the time we reach chapter six it becomes clear that part of his internal turmoil is that he cannot manage to be anything completely. What is a man who hasn’t become anything? The contradictory self-description is another main theme and product of the age. Observe how easy it is to describe others but when it comes to oneself, contradictions must be employed and even then, the description is never quite complete. The next important concept the UM introduces is his distinction between the “man of action” and the UM (i.e. inert, spiteful, conscious, retort man). The man of action is the individual that has assimilated his education without letting it change his outlook. He has adjusted to society without seeing what he has given up. He looks at problems in the world with confidence in his ability to divine the answer, and if there is no answer this also does not cause him to lose sleep. The man of action is characterized as being able to act due to his “limited consciousness”. To the UM this is how nature intended man to be, the UM thinks that if someone has let their consciousness be expanded by the education available in the 19th century, they would be none the better for it. Standing in contrast to the “man of action”, the UM and his ilk cannot help but be inert. They see through everything including themselves. This means that there is almost nothing that they can honestly do other than “sink into luxurious inertia…”. He works this out mainly through investigating revenge. His claim is that the man of action can take revenge because he confuses primary causes for secondary ones, whereas the UM is not confused. The two examples he uses, seem almost to be abstruse on purpose. The first example is the UM making the claim that at certain moments he would have been “positively glad” to be slapped in the face. This theme shows up again several times later in his memoir, and its meaning is up for interpretation. Here the emphasis is on the laws of nature, later it seems to be more about recognition. The second example is a memorable psychoanalysis of an educated man suffering from a toothache. In both examples, the UM is making the case that there can be a type of pleasure found in the deepest of despair. This is part of a larger observation he is making on the human condition, which is that man in some appreciable sense seeks out suffering. Both the slap in the face and the toothache also represent what he calls a stone wall, which is twice two makes four, from different angles. The slap in the face highlights the superficiality of revenge or anger because one does not get angry or take revenge on natural laws. The mistake is assigning the primary cause of the slap to the person instead of a long string of events that lead from the beginning of time to this very moment. Due to these events, it could not have occurred in any other way. The man who slapped you, is no more to blame than a tornado or a single domino in a line of toppling dominos. A similar thing occurs to the educated man suffering from a toothache. The toothache destroys any illusions of autonomy, in that moment it becomes clear that he is a slave to everything. In this instance his teeth. This results in groans that are no longer only due to pain, but also that illusive pleasure that is found in despair. What makes these events more poignant, is that the “truth” that the conscious man knows, does not spare him from the experience that he experiences.\nby the way of the most inevitable, logical combinations to reach the most revolting conclusions on the everlasting theme, that even for the stone wall you are yourself somehow to blame, though again it is as clear as day you are not to blame in the least, and therefore grinding your teeth in silent impotence to sink into luxurious inertia, brooding on the fact that there is no one even for you to feel vindictive against, that you have not, and perhaps never will have, an object for your spite, that it is a sleight of hand, a bit of juggling, a card-sharper’s trick, that it is simply a mess, no knowing what and no knowing who, but in spite of all these uncertainties and jugglings, still there is an ache in you, and the more you do not know, the worse the ache.\nThis is the stone wall, the twice two makes four. This fact can neither be disproved by logic or reconciled to experience. Nature does not care what our experience is, twice two goes on being four despite our willing it to be different. The result is inertia and the inability to become anything, what is a domino to do when it has found out that it is in fact a domino? Here the UM transitions to attacking an idea that is still commonly held today, which is the idea that if man knew his own interests, he would not act against them. The UM thinks this is ultimately naïve because man does not always act rationally. For example, he says that every list of human “advantages” that is compiled (think wealth, health, stability, etc) always leaves out the most important advantage of all, which is the ability to act against every advantage. The argument goes like this, that the laws of nature dictate that every human action is caused by a previous action and therefore future actions can be calculated as soon as these laws are known. Once all the factors are tabulated the future will become dull and the human race will cease to exist. He says this because he believes that reason is good, but it doesn’t make up one tenth of what it means to be human. Yet even so it wants to have control over the whole show. To escape becoming an automaton the last resort is to throw off reason and embrace the rest of life. Caprices and desires that arise from parts unknown remain unexplained. The UM argues that humanity will spend most of its time trying to prove to themselves that they are more than a piano key. That this “desire” is the last stronghold for humanity. If we don’t know where desire comes from, but we know it doesn’t come from reason could it perhaps come from ourselves?\nModernity has largely been a time of dissection. No longer the handiwork of a benevolent benefactor, the totality of the soul has been cut into various systems, the limbic system, the digestive system, the nervous system, and so on. Yet when we attempt to put these systems back together, they fail to make a whole. They fail to justify the experience of what it is like to be human, and therefore we have gained a greater knowledge about our parts but have gotten further away from understanding their aggregation. This leads to another key insight from the UM into the human condition, and that is our relationship to goals. Humans need goals, we cannot live without them, but the goals themselves are illusory. Once achieved they are in immediate need of replacing. This is one reason why life goals need to be abstract. In some sense they need to be unreachable. Like that old saying “never meet your heroes” if one places too much importance on the goal itself, they will likely be disappointed upon reaching it. Have you ever noticed that fairy tales always end with “and they lived happily ever after” but they can never describe what that would look like. This isn’t because they are bad writers, it is because to live happily ever after you would need to cease to be human. This is one of the UM’s key critiques of utopia’s whether they are in this life or the next, part of being human is the ability to act against one’s own advantages and would therefore instantly destroy any utopia they occupy. This is a rebuke to any system that promises utopia if only its rules are followed. You can, in some sense gain the world but you will lose your soul.\nThis is when the UM recounts a couple stories of past events. It is essentially a sketch of what the UM looks like when interacting with the world. It is a concrete representation of the previous abstract concepts. I hadn’t realized it, but this book was written prior to “The Idiot”. My main critique of The Idiot was that in the book there is an assumption that where there is honesty, there is goodness. This was not being fair to Dostoyevsky, because the narrative part of this book lays out (as honestly as the UM can manage) a recounting of someone who is honestly bad. In some ways the story can be seen as a confession or an attempt to ease the suffering of particularly painful memories. I think the best ending to this review would be to let the UM end it himself.\nEven now, so many years later, all this is somehow a very evil memory. I have many evil memories now, but \u0026hellip; hadn’t I better end my “Notes” here? I believe I made a mistake in beginning to write them, anyway I have felt ashamed all the time I’ve been writing this story; so it’s hardly literature so much as a corrective punishment. Why, to tell long stories, showing how I have spoiled my life through morally rotting in my corner, through lack of fitting environment, through divorce from real life, and rankling spite in my underground world, would certainly not be interesting; a novel needs a hero, and all the traits for an anti-hero are expressly gathered together here, and what matters most, it all produces an unpleasant impression, for we are all divorced from life, we are all cripples, every one of us, more or less. We are so divorced from it that we feel at once a sort of loathing for real life, and so cannot bear to be reminded of it. Why, we have come almost to looking upon real life as an effort, almost as hard work, and we are all privately agreed that it is better in books. And why do we fuss and fume sometimes? Why are we perverse and ask for something else? We don’t know what ourselves. It would be the worse for us if our petulant prayers were answered. Come, try, give any one of us, for instance, a little more independence, untie our hands, widen the spheres of our activity, relax the control and we \u0026hellip; yes, I assure you \u0026hellip; we should be begging to be under control again at once. I know that you will very likely be angry with me for that, and will begin shouting and stamping. Speak for yourself, you will say, and for your miseries in your underground holes, and don’t dare to say all of us—excuse me, gentlemen, I am not justifying myself with that “all of us.” As for what concerns me in particular I have only in my life carried to an extreme what you have not dared to carry halfway, and what’s more, you have taken your cowardice for good sense, and have found comfort in deceiving yourselves. So that perhaps, after all, there is more life in me than in you. Look into it more carefully! Why, we don’t even know what living means now, what it is, and what it is called? Leave us alone without books and we shall be lost and in confusion at once. We shall not know what to join on to, what to cling to, what to love and what to hate, what to respect and what to despise. We are oppressed at being men—men with a real individual body and blood, we are ashamed of it, we think it a disgrace and try to contrive to be some sort of impossible generalised man. We are stillborn, and for generations past have been begotten, not by living fathers, and that suits us better and better. We are developing a taste for it. Soon we shall contrive to be born somehow from an idea. But enough; I don’t want to write more from “Underground.”\nPeople/Fyodor Dostoevsky\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/notes-from-the-underground/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eIn 1864, Russia and the Western world was experiencing a philosophical reversal with reverberations that can still be felt almost two hundred years later. One by one “unquestionable” truths were being placed in the dust bin by a cold rationality. The attack on humanity’s placement of itself in the universe started over three hundred years earlier, when a polymath named Copernicus rediscovered the forgotten truth that we are not the center of the universe. Ever since then, the more scientific details that are catalogued about the world, the further man is pushed from that once prized and secure position. There are two main ideas that the underground man (UM) simultaneously seems to prove by his actions and disapprove of by his words. First is man as nature, the second is man as automata, and by extension nature as automata. It had only been five years since Charles Darwin had written ‘On the Origin of Species’ and already Dostoyevsky has incorporated his theory and worked out what he sees as its possible ramifications. Chiefly that of an alienated human that is horrified to look in the mirror and see no-thing looking back. In an opening note to the book Dostoevsky makes clear that the UM is an inevitable product of the spread of these two ideologies. The book opens with the memorable\u0026hellip;\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Notes from the Underground"},{"content":"Written by the same guy who wrote grapes of wrath, this book was written in the late 1930s right near the end of the great depression and as a result this book is greatly depressing. It covers the story of two main characters named George and Lenny. Both of them had been traveling together for quite some time and the book opens with them heading to their next short-term gig. George is a scrawny scrappy guy and Lenny is a giant fella who has the intellect of a child. This unlikely pair stick together because of a shared common goal. They both want to get a farm and have some land to call their own. Set in an idyllic countryside there are plenty of foreboding details that Steinbeck gives to the reader throughout the book hinting at the ending. All and all a very interesting but depressing story. Great writing\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/of-mice-and-men/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eWritten by the same guy who wrote grapes of wrath, this book was written in the late 1930s right near the end of the great depression and as a result this book is greatly depressing. It covers the story of two main characters named George and Lenny. Both of them had been traveling together for quite some time and the book opens with them heading to their next short-term gig. George is a scrawny scrappy guy and Lenny is a giant fella who has the intellect of a child. This unlikely pair stick together because of a shared common goal. They both want to get a farm and have some land to call their own. Set in an idyllic countryside there are plenty of foreboding details that Steinbeck gives to the reader throughout the book hinting at the ending. All and all a very interesting but depressing story. Great writing\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Of Mice and Men"},{"content":"I feel like this probably could be considered a primer for the much longer gulag archipelago. This story covers as the title says a fictional character (Ivan) for a day. Although the story is fiction, the experiences described in the book were definitely not. If you decide to read this book prepare to feel hungry and cold for approximately four and a half hours. The book is written from the perspective of Ivan Denisovich who is doing a ten-year sentence on fake charges. Provides a window into the mindset required (or at least according to Ivan) to survive in a Russian gulag. The story is well written easy to understand and a page turner.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/one-day-in-the-life-of-ivan-denisovich/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI feel like this probably could be considered a primer for the much longer gulag archipelago. This story covers as the title says a fictional character (Ivan) for a day. Although the story is fiction, the experiences described in the book were definitely not. If you decide to read this book prepare to feel hungry and cold for approximately four and a half hours. The book is written from the perspective of Ivan Denisovich who is doing a ten-year sentence on fake charges. Provides a window into the mindset required (or at least according to Ivan) to survive in a Russian gulag. The story is well written easy to understand and a page turner.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich"},{"content":"This book was largely a response to a response to the French Revolution by Edmund Burke. The French Revolution started in 1789. The aristocracy of England was starting to see the writing on the wall and the French Revolution made them that much more uneasy. So, one of monarchy\u0026rsquo;s most vocal proponents (Edmund Burke) wrote a book entitled \u0026ldquo;Reflections on the Revolution of France\u0026rdquo;. If that book was a Facebook status a good chunk of this book was a comment on Burke\u0026rsquo;s Facebook status. Paine rips the idea of monarchy to shreds. To summarize his argument in a couple sentences I would say Paine\u0026rsquo;s main point was this: Government should be formed to protect the existing rights of man and not be looked to as a definition of human rights. Furthermore, that any formal document that is written in order to form a government is a limitation on those rights of man. Therefore, it should be the individuals themselves that define the contract that does so limit each man\u0026rsquo;s individual freedom. The book itself is a little rant-y hence my Facebook reference. But it would probably be one of the best, and most informed Facebook responses you will ever read. I did not realize that the French revolution was in such close proximity to our own. This makes me interested to contrast the two. One seemed very \u0026lsquo;gentlemanly\u0026rsquo; and the other seemed sort of \u0026lsquo;barbaric\u0026rsquo;. Not sure if this is due to my own ignorance or not.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/rights-of-man/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis book was largely a response to a response to the French Revolution by Edmund Burke. The French Revolution started in 1789. The aristocracy of England was starting to see the writing on the wall and the French Revolution made them that much more uneasy. So, one of monarchy\u0026rsquo;s most vocal proponents (Edmund Burke) wrote a book entitled \u0026ldquo;Reflections on the Revolution of France\u0026rdquo;. If that book was a Facebook status a good chunk of this book was a comment on Burke\u0026rsquo;s Facebook status. Paine rips the idea of monarchy to shreds. To summarize his argument in a couple sentences I would say Paine\u0026rsquo;s main point was this: Government should be formed to protect the \u003cem\u003eexisting\u003c/em\u003e rights of man and not be looked to as a \u003cem\u003edefinition\u003c/em\u003e of human rights. Furthermore, that any formal document that is written in order to form a government is a limitation on those rights of man. Therefore, it should be the individuals themselves that define the contract that does so limit each man\u0026rsquo;s individual freedom. The book itself is a little rant-y hence my Facebook reference. But it would probably be one of the best, and most informed Facebook responses you will ever read. I did not realize that the French revolution was in such close proximity to our own. This makes me interested to contrast the two. One seemed very \u0026lsquo;gentlemanly\u0026rsquo; and the other seemed sort of \u0026lsquo;barbaric\u0026rsquo;. Not sure if this is due to my own ignorance or not.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Rights of Man"},{"content":"This is America Don\u0026rsquo;t catch you slippin\u0026rsquo; now Don\u0026rsquo;t catch you slippin\u0026rsquo; now Look what I\u0026rsquo;m whippin\u0026rsquo; now 0/10\nOn first read through though I thought this book was difficult to understand and made a lot of HUGE assumptions that the readers are just supposed to agree with. It doesn\u0026rsquo;t seem like this book is a good primer into communism but more like a good closer if you are already leaning in that direction. The book included a chapter of excerpts from various Engles/Marx\u0026rsquo;s writings which was more helpful to understand why they said what they said. I\u0026rsquo;ll definitely be doing so more research.\nKarl Marx Communism\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-communist-manifesto/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis is America\nDon\u0026rsquo;t catch you slippin\u0026rsquo; now\nDon\u0026rsquo;t catch you slippin\u0026rsquo; now\nLook what I\u0026rsquo;m whippin\u0026rsquo; now\n0/10\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn first read through though I thought this book was difficult to understand and made a lot of HUGE assumptions that the readers are just supposed to agree with. It doesn\u0026rsquo;t seem like this book is a good primer into communism but more like a good closer if you are already leaning in that direction. The book included a chapter of excerpts from various Engles/Marx\u0026rsquo;s writings which was more helpful to understand why they said what they said. I\u0026rsquo;ll definitely be doing so more research.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Communist Manifesto"},{"content":"I enjoyed this reread a lot more than the first time through. There were some points where he takes tangents and side roads which left me at times bored at other times frustrated. Yet the author is well aware of this tendency and warns the reader that it will happen from time to time, so I don\u0026rsquo;t really have anyone to blame but myself. There were so many parts of this book where it would feel as if I was reading my own journal, had I been a better writer. Several overlapping points of personality made a lot of his views relatable. I very much liked his humble approach to knowledge and latitude when it came to accepting other\u0026rsquo;s customs. His love for life as it is, not in concept but in embodied reality was refreshing. Everything in moderation, this goes for thought as well as action. I am sure the older I get, the more I will appreciate and understand from this humorous and likeable man.\n**August 2019 Review **\nPremise : A French dude writes a selection of short essays about his ideas. Each essay is set on a theme. He brings up some points that are surprisingly applicable considering they were written in the 1500s. My personal favorite if you were to choose a single essay would be his thoughts on customs and how they are pretty much the only reason anyone thinks are does anything. A little difficult to get through due to the large amounts of quotes from classical authors but contains some nuggets of wisdom that are worth the effort.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-essays-a-selection/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI enjoyed this reread a lot more than the first time through. There were some points where he takes tangents and side roads which left me at times bored at other times frustrated. Yet the author is well aware of this tendency and warns the reader that it will happen from time to time, so I don\u0026rsquo;t really have anyone to blame but myself. There were so many parts of this book where it would feel as if I was reading my own journal, had I been a better writer. Several overlapping points of personality made a lot of his views relatable. I very much liked his humble approach to knowledge and latitude when it came to accepting other\u0026rsquo;s customs. His love for life as it is, not in concept but in embodied reality was refreshing. Everything in moderation, this goes for thought as well as action. I am sure the older I get, the more I will appreciate and understand from this humorous and likeable man.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Essays"},{"content":"Really well written in a cheeky way. An easily digestible book. Great allegories in there. I liked the way that the book portrayed the whole universe in a very relatable but strange way. I would like to try a pan galactic gargleblaster sometime. Clever explanation of the simulation idea. Well worth the read, now I can finally watch the movie without feeling bad.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-hitchhikers-guide-to-the-galaxy-the-hitchhikers-guide-to-the-galaxy-1/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eReally well written in a cheeky way. An easily digestible book. Great allegories in there. I liked the way that the book portrayed the whole universe in a very relatable but strange way. I would like to try a pan galactic gargleblaster sometime. Clever explanation of the simulation idea. Well worth the read, now I can finally watch the movie without feeling bad.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, #1)"},{"content":"This book caught me off guard. For one I know the Disney movie made from the book so that set certain expectations. Also, this is written by the same dude who wrote Les Misérables. Which made me think he was probably just another rom-com author (joking). But in all seriousness this book started out a little slow for me. Victor Hugo was exiled from France, and it was apparent that he loved France as much as he hated Napoleon (fun fact in looking up how to spell Napoleon to make sure I was doing it right, it turns out napoleon dynamite is more popular on google than Napoleon Bonaparte). He spends about two hours describing the city of Paris as it was back in the 1500s. Frankly, I found this dry as it was hard to visualize because I am an idiot who doesn\u0026rsquo;t know very much about architecture. But as the book went on the tension kept growing. There is this scene in the book where a priest is in a room that overlooks Notre Dame, and he points at a book, and he says \u0026ldquo;This will destroy that\u0026rdquo; pointing at Notre Dame. This launches Victor Hugo into an hour-long discussion of how the invention of the printing press signaled the end of architecture. This was fascinating. As I said the book started off a little slow but like a good Tarantino movie by the end all these unrelated(ish) characters find themselves tangled in destiny like a fly in a spider web(imagery from the book). I don\u0026rsquo;t think I have read a book that had as much tragic irony as this one had. For the last 20% of the book, you really did feel like you really were watching a fly in a spider web.\nOne of the main reasons I read this book was because of this preface. Talk about a good sales pitch:\nAnanke -defined\nPREFACE. A few years ago, while visiting or, rather, rummaging about Notre-Dame, the author of this book found, in an obscure nook of one of the towers, the following word, engraved by hand upon the wall:ΓÇö ß╝ê╬¥├ü╬ô╬Ü╬ù. These Greek capitals, black with age, and quite deeply graven in the stone, with I know not what signs peculiar to Gothic calligraphy imprinted upon their forms and upon their attitudes, as though with the purpose of revealing that it had been a hand of the Middle Ages which had inscribed them there, and especially the fatal and melancholy meaning contained in them, struck the author deeply. He questioned himself; he sought to divine who could have been that soul in torment which had not been willing to quit this world without leaving this stigma of crime or unhappiness upon the brow of the ancient church. Afterwards, the wall was whitewashed or scraped down, I know not which, and the inscription disappeared. For it is thus that people have been in the habit of proceeding with the marvelous churches of the Middle Ages for the last two hundred years. Mutilations come to them from every quarter, from within as well as from without. The priest whitewashes them, the archdeacon scrapes them down; then the populace arrives and demolishes them. Thus, with the exception of the fragile memory which the author of this book here consecrates to it, there remains to-day nothing whatever of the mysterious word engraved within the gloomy tower of Notre-Dame,ΓÇönothing of the destiny which it so sadly summed up. The man who wrote that word upon the wall disappeared from the midst of the generations of man many centuries ago; the word, in its turn, has been effaced from the wall of the church; the church will, perhaps, itself soon disappear from the face of the earth. It is upon this word that this book is founded. March, 1831.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-hunchback-of-notre-dame/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis book caught me off guard. For one I know the Disney movie made from the book so that set certain expectations. Also, this is written by the same dude who wrote Les Misérables. Which made me think he was probably just another rom-com author (joking). But in all seriousness this book started out a little slow for me. Victor Hugo was exiled from France, and it was apparent that he loved France as much as he hated Napoleon (fun fact in looking up how to spell Napoleon to make sure I was doing it right, it turns out napoleon dynamite is more popular on google than Napoleon Bonaparte). He spends about two hours describing the city of Paris as it was back in the 1500s. Frankly, I found this dry as it was hard to visualize because I am an idiot who doesn\u0026rsquo;t know very much about architecture. But as the book went on the tension kept growing. There is this scene in the book where a priest is in a room that overlooks Notre Dame, and he points at a book, and he says \u0026ldquo;This will destroy that\u0026rdquo; pointing at Notre Dame. This launches Victor Hugo into an hour-long discussion of how the invention of the printing press signaled the end of architecture. This was fascinating. As I said the book started off a little slow but like a good Tarantino movie by the end all these unrelated(ish) characters find themselves tangled in destiny like a fly in a spider web(imagery from the book). I don\u0026rsquo;t think I have read a book that had as much tragic irony as this one had. For the last 20% of the book, you really did feel like you really were watching a fly in a spider web.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Hunchback of Notre-Dame"},{"content":"This is a book a little out of my wheelhouse, but I am glad I read it. The author is an Afghan American who does a brilliant job of describing the life of a privileged Afghan in pre-war Afghanistan. By far the best part about this book was the perspective it gave on life, or at least one life in the middle east. It was also interesting to hear Islam talked about from a neutral point of view instead of either fearmongering or blind acceptance. The book richly describes the culture through food, family and the center of the book kite flying. The book reads as a biography but is in fact a fiction. As for the criticisms of the book there were several literary devices the author overused and some plot choices that seemed a little predictable, but believable. Overall, a very entertaining book.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/reviews/the-kite-runner/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eThis is a book a little out of my wheelhouse, but I am glad I read it. The author is an Afghan American who does a brilliant job of describing the life of a privileged Afghan in pre-war Afghanistan. By far the best part about this book was the perspective it gave on life, or at least one life in the middle east. It was also interesting to hear Islam talked about from a neutral point of view instead of either fearmongering or blind acceptance. The book richly describes the culture through food, family and the center of the book kite flying. The book reads as a biography but is in fact a fiction. As for the criticisms of the book there were several literary devices the author overused and some plot choices that seemed a little predictable, but believable. Overall, a very entertaining book.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Kite Runner"},{"content":"In 1864, Russia and the Western world was experiencing a philosophical reversal with reverberations that can still be felt almost two hundred years later. One by one “unquestionable” truths were being placed in the dust bin by a cold rationality. The attack on humanity’s placement of itself in the universe started over three hundred years earlier, when a polymath named Copernicus rediscovered the forgotten truth that we are not the center of the universe. Ever since then, the more scientific details that are catalogued about the world, the further man is pushed from that once prized and secure position. There are two main ideas that the underground man (UM) simultaneously seems to prove by his actions and disapprove of by his words. First is man as nature, the second is man as automata, and by extension nature as automata. It had only been five years since Charles Darwin had written ‘On the Origin of Species’ and already Dostoyevsky has incorporated his theory and worked out what he sees as its possible ramifications. Chiefly that of an alienated human that is horrified to look in the mirror and see no-thing looking back. In an opening note to the book Dostoevsky makes clear that the UM is an inevitable product of the spread of these two ideologies. The book opens with the memorable tripartition of the UM.\nI’m a sick man…I’m a spiteful man, I’m an unattractive man.\nThis opening salvo is as confident a summation of himself as you will get from the UM, by the time we reach chapter six it becomes clear that part of his internal turmoil is that he can not manage to be anything completely. What is a man who hasn’t become anything? The contradictory self-description is another main theme and product of the age. Have you ever noticed how easy it is to describe others but when it comes to oneself, contradictions must be employed and even then, the description is never quite complete.\nThe next important concept the UM introduces is his distinction between the “man of action” and the UM (i.e. inert, spiteful, conscious, retort man). The man of action is the individual that has assimilated his education without letting it change his outlook. He has adjusted to society without seeing what he has given up. He looks at problems in the world with confidence in his ability to divine the answer, and if there is no answer this also does not cause him to lose sleep. The man of action is characterized as being able to act due to his “limited consciousness”. To the UM this is how nature intended man to be, the UM thinks that if someone has let their consciousness be expanded by the education available in the 19th century they would be none the better for it. Standing in contrast to the “man of action”, the UM and his ilk cannot help but be inert. They see through everything including themselves. This means that there is almost nothing that they can honestly do other than “sink into luxurious inertia…”. He works this out mainly through investigating revenge. His claim is that the man of action can take revenge because he confuses primary causes for secondary ones, whereas the UM is not confused. The two examples he uses, seem almost to be abstruse on purpose. The first example is that the UM claims that at certain moments he would have been “positively glad” to be slapped in the face. This theme shows up again several times later in his memoir, and its meaning is up for interpretation. Here the emphasis is on the laws of nature, later it seems to be more about recognition. The second example is a memorable psychoanalysis of an educated man suffering from a toothache. In both examples, the UM is making the case that there can be a type of pleasure found in the deepest of despair. This is part of a larger observation that he is making on the human condition, which is that man in some appreciable sense seeks out suffering. Both the slap in the face and the toothache also represent what he calls a stone wall, which is twice two makes four, from different angles. The slap in the face highlights the superficiality of revenge or anger because one does not get angry or take revenge on natural laws. The mistake is assigning the primary cause of the slap to the person instead of a long string of events that lead from the beginning of time to this very moment. Due to these events, it could not have occurred in any other way. The man who slapped you, is no more to blame than a tornado or a single domino in a line of toppling dominos. A similar thing occurs to the educated man suffering from a toothache. The toothache destroys any illusions of autonomy, in that moment it becomes clear that he is a slave to everything. In this instance his teeth. This results in groans that are no longer only due to pain, but also that illusive pleasure that is found in despair. What makes these events more poignant, is that the “truth” that the conscious man knows, does not spare him from the experience that he experiences.\nby the way of the most inevitable, logical combinations to reach the most revolting conclusions on the everlasting theme, that even for the stone wall you are yourself somehow to blame, though again it is as clear as day you are not to blame in the least, and therefore grinding your teeth in silent impotence to sink into luxurious inertia, brooding on the fact that there is no one even for you to feel vindictive against, that you have not, and perhaps never will have, an object for your spite, that it is a sleight of hand, a bit of juggling, a card-sharper’s trick, that it is simply a mess, no knowing what and no knowing who, but in spite of all these uncertainties and jugglings, still there is an ache in you, and the more you do not know, the worse the ache.\nThis is the stone wall, the twice two makes four. The fact that can’t be disproved by logic but can’t be reconciled to experience. Nature does not care what our experience is, twice two goes on being four despite our willing it to be different. The result is inertia and the inability to become anything, what is a domino to do when it has found out that it is in fact a domino?\nHere the UM transitions to attacking an idea that is still commonly held today, which is the idea that if man knew his own interests, he would not act against them. The UM thinks this is ultimately naïve because man does not always act rationally. For example, he says that every list of human “advantages” that is compiled (think wealth, health, stability, etc) always leaves out the most important advantage of all, which is the ability to act against every advantage. The argument goes like this, that the laws of nature dictate that every human action is caused by a previous action and therefore future actions can be calculated as soon as these laws are known. Once all the factors are tabulated the future will become dull and the human race will cease to exist. He says this because he believes that reason is good, but it doesn’t make up one tenth of what it means to be human. Yet even so it wants to have control over the whole show. To escape becoming an automaton the last resort is to throw off reason and embrace the rest of life. Caprices and desires that arise from parts unknown remain unexplained. The UM argues that humanity will spend most of its time trying to prove to themselves that they are more than a piano key. That this “desire” is the last stronghold for humanity. If we don’t know where desire comes from, but we know it doesn’t come from reason could it perhaps come from ourselves?\nModernity has largely been a time of dissection. No longer the handiwork of a benevolent benefactor, the totality of the soul has been cut into various systems, the limbic system, the digestive system, the nervous system, and so on. Yet when we attempt to put these systems back together, they fail to make a whole. They fail to justify the experience of what it is like to be human, and therefore we have gained a greater knowledge about our parts but have gotten further away from understanding their aggregation.\nThis leads to another key insight from the UM into the human condition, and that is our relationship to goals. Humans need goals, we can not live without them, but the goals themselves are illusory. Once achieved they are in immediate need of replacing. This is one reason why life goals need to be abstract. In some sense they need to be unreachable. Like that old saying “never meet your heroes” if one places too much importance on the goal itself, they will likely be disappointed upon reaching it. Have you ever noticed that fairy tales always end with “and they lived happily ever after” but they can never describe what that would look like. This isn’t because they are bad writers, it is because to live happily ever after you would need to cease to be human. This is one of the UM’s key critiques of utopias whether they are in this life or the next, part of being human is the ability to act against one’s own advantages and would therefore instantly destroy any utopia they occupy. This is a rebuke to any system that promises utopia if only its rules are followed. You can, in some sense gain the world but you will lose your soul.\nThis is when the UM recounts a couple stories of past events. It is essentially a sketch of what the UM looks like when interacting with the world. It is a concrete representation of the previous abstract concepts. I hadn’t realized it, but this book was written prior to “The Idiot”. My main critique of The Idiot was that in the book there is an assumption that where there is honesty, there is goodness. This was not being fair to Dostoyevsky, because the narrative part of this book lays out (as honestly as the UM can manage) a recounting of someone who is honestly bad. In some ways the story can be seen as a confession or an attempt to ease the suffering of particularly painful memories. I think the best ending to this review would be to let the UM end it himself.\nEven now, so many years later, all this is somehow a very evil memory. I have many evil memories now, but … hadn’t I better end my “Notes” here? I believe I made a mistake in beginning to write them, anyway I have felt ashamed all the time I’ve been writing this story; so it’s hardly literature so much as a corrective punishment. Why, to tell long stories, showing how I have spoiled my life through morally rotting in my corner, through lack of fitting environment, through divorce from real life, and rankling spite in my underground world, would certainly not be interesting; a novel needs a hero, and all the traits for an anti-hero are expressly gathered together here, and what matters most, it all produces an unpleasant impression, for we are all divorced from life, we are all cripples, every one of us, more or less. We are so divorced from it that we feel at once a sort of loathing for real life, and so cannot bear to be reminded of it. Why, we have come almost to looking upon real life as an effort, almost as hard work, and we are all privately agreed that it is better in books. And why do we fuss and fume sometimes? Why are we perverse and ask for something else? We don’t know what ourselves. It would be the worse for us if our petulant prayers were answered. Come, try, give any one of us, for instance, a little more independence, untie our hands, widen the spheres of our activity, relax the control and we … yes, I assure you … we should be begging to be under control again at once. I know that you will very likely be angry with me for that, and will begin shouting and stamping. Speak for yourself, you will say, and for your miseries in your underground holes, and don’t dare to say all of us—excuse me, gentlemen, I am not justifying myself with that “all of us.” As for what concerns me in particular I have only in my life carried to an extreme what you have not dared to carry halfway, and what’s more, you have taken your cowardice for good sense, and have found comfort in deceiving yourselves. So that perhaps, after all, there is more life in me than in you. Look into it more carefully! Why, we don’t even know what living means now, what it is, and what it is called? Leave us alone without books and we shall be lost and in confusion at once. We shall not know what to join on to, what to cling to, what to love and what to hate, what to respect and what to despise. We are oppressed at being men—men with a real individual body and blood, we are ashamed of it, we think it a disgrace and try to contrive to be some sort of impossible generalised man. We are stillborn, and for generations past have been begotten, not by living fathers, and that suits us better and better. We are developing a taste for it. Soon we shall contrive to be born somehow from an idea. But enough; I don’t want to write more from “Underground.”\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/essays/historical-turmoil/","summary":"Dostoyevsky’s underground man, Copernican shame, Darwin, the stone wall, and why consciousness without illusion slides toward spite and inertia.","title":"Historical Turmoil"},{"content":"There are many ways of viewing historical events. Each one of them requires a narrative structure. Whether you view history as a series of class struggles or as a progression towards utopia, odds are the structure will highlight human choice as its main driving force. Therefore, by extension, history is investigated through a moral lens, because you can’t separate choice from responsibility. From childhood, every decision is anchored in some form of moral framework. This creates a clean separation, allowing us to cut the world into neat sections, the good people and the bad. This good guy, bad guy paradigm seems to be hardwired into the deepest parts of our brains. In its simplest abstraction the brain can be conceived of as a complicated pattern matching tool. Comparisons with high contrast are always more salient than overlapping shades of gray. Nothing creates contrast in our brains like the battle between good and evil. Or, similarly, the distinction between us and them. This seems to be the default way humans see the world. Consequently, it takes a concerted effort to conceptualize things differently. Amusingly, we even attempt to impose this framework of right and wrong onto our pets. It is interesting that the natural reaction to finding out that your dog has chewed through your new shoes is to impugn its character with the exclamation, “Bad dog!”. Or better yet, consider Katya the brown bear from Kazakhstan. She was imprisoned in 2004 after mauling two people. Only after serving a 15-year sentence was she allowed to continue socializing with animals again. This concept of victim and victimizer runs so deep that even animals can’t escape it. I do not intend to investigate the wellspring of morality here, only to observe that human history is often viewed through its lens. History is examined by a result of history. That is to say, a process that is affected by history turns upon itself in a recursive loop of introspection, leaving the observer alternating between confusion and repulsion. Choices are categorized as moral or immoral. History, therefore, can be considered as an aggregate of moral and immoral choices. This intuitive approach to history is not without its merits, but it is limited in scope. Morality is a poor way to understand history from any significantly removed vantage point. It is too easy to get distracted by perceptual advancements which disguise the absolute movement of history. With this, let us investigate natural fractal systems as an alternative model to understanding history.\nThe Theory\nTheories, especially ones concerned with history, are stories. The goal of a story is to draw connections between consecutive events, giving these events an artificial clarity of causation. This is not the only model by which a causal chain can be imposed on historical events, but it can serve as a helpful way to consider the past and possible futures. With that in mind, if you want to understand history it may be helpful to conceptualize humanity as a “mindless” fungus. Or more abstractly, a natural system devoid of internal intelligence. We are likely to feel that humanity has been heading somewhere. A person is someone that either makes history or is forgotten by it, but let’s zoom out for a moment and consider what actual movements are taking place. Nature tends to act in fractals or phrased differently, nature seems often to use self-similar patterns. From branching rivers to branching trees to branching lungs, the same shapes recur at radically different scales. In the same way, if we watch systems in nature, we will find that the rules which guide the growth of fractal systems (i.e. plants, bacteria, viruses, and fungi) are also key in driving the progression of human history.\nScale\nIn our home we have a Taro plant that has been growing for a few years. It has been fascinating to watch its development from a small plant measured in inches, to one that is measured in feet. It follows the same pattern of growth, starting with a couple big leaves surrounded by a few smaller leaves. As the plant grows, the smaller leaves, depending on their orientation, gradually lose access to the sunlight. The unlucky ones eventually yellow and die away. Meanwhile, in the center of the plant a new stem grows. More often than not, this new stem will turn into the largest leaf on the plant. As this process continues the entire plant moves towards a sort of stasis. Below the ground, roots, which are a fractal system in their own right, fill the pot as densely as the soil will support. Above the soil the leaves fan out to catch the rays from the sun in an efficient manner. This orchestration of shifting, expanding, and overshadowing repeats as the plant grows larger and larger. The process by which this plant grows can save you from countless hours of reading dusty history books about wars and exploration. There is much that can be learned from its growth. Let us consider this plant a little further. Its life, like all life, is a sort of drama. A drama which changes genre based on the context in which you observe it. In the forest this plant would be cast as an extra, hardly being noticed. If viewed as a separate thing, the biggest, most majestic leaves would no doubt steal the show. But when viewed at the level of the individual leaf, we suddenly have a tragedy on our hands. A story where Goliath always kills David. We would see a yellowing leaf near the bottom of the plant, vainly attempting to twist and turn after elusive rays of filtered light. Eventually succumbing through a war of attrition, the once brightly colored leaf withers and dies.\nHistory\nHistory proceeds in much the same way. We have many persons making choices (perhaps even freely) driven by opaque reasoning, but when taken in aggregate the effect they produce is indistinguishable from the growth of a mindless system. This process has reliably produced several outcomes.\nHomogenization. Increased surface area. Population growth. Greater cohesion. Homosapien’s life on earth has been characterized by a transition from extreme diversity of small populations to a handful of densely packed groups. This effect isn’t limited to cultures and people but extends into the flora and fauna as well. Our best guesses place the extinction rate of species near 1000 times higher in the Anthropocene era than previous eras. More than 99 percent of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. There is only one reason why the most successful mammal per pound is cattle and the most successful bird is a chicken. The latter having an estimated population of over 18 billion. Livestock outnumber wild animals 10 to 1. Humans have been able to quickly and permanently alter ecosystems to their will. The view from the plant world is similar; monocrops of wheat, corn and soy cover miles of the earth’s surface. The homogenization of the non-human world occurred in parallel with the homogenization of human civilization. It appears that our ancestors started in many small hunter gatherer groups that would coalesce into tribes. These tribes eventually converged into cities. These cities into nation states and nation states into sprawling empires that encompassed the globe. We live in an interesting era; we are more aware than ever before of the vast numbers of varying cultures in the world, while at the same time, living in one of the least diverse moments of human history. Another key attribute of our history has been the way we spread out. Humans have scattered across diverse biomes and environments unlike any other animal before in history. The current theory is that we began this expansion in Africa and spread across the planet from there, spilling into East Asia and crossing the Beringia land bridge into the Americas. One of the more fascinating and mysterious human migrations is that of the Austronesians. Starting in Taiwan from about 3000 BC (1000 years prior to the birth of Abraham), these peoples settled lands from Madagascar to New Zealand. One branch of this group is the people we now know as the Polynesians. The Polynesians earned the distinction of being the last true pioneers, settling some islands in the Pacific around 1200AD. And with that, the ancient command “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” was completed. Much like the roots of the Taro plant, humans had reached into every hospitable place this planet had to offer, and they did it 200 years before the invention of the printing press. Taken from another view, human history can be viewed as a series of technological and ideological advancements that resulted in the ability to sustain increased human population. In the most fecund parts of the world, groups of 100 hunter gatherers still required 7 square miles to be able to collect enough food for survival. Compare this to the city of Uruk, which in circa 3100 BC took up around 2 square miles and thanks to the advances of agriculture, hosted around 40,000 inhabitants. Of course, agriculture alone cannot account for this increase in population density. Without abstract ideas such as governments, national identity, and laws, it would be impossible for stable populations to increase for any significant length of time. Technology and ideology grew together and fed off each other. People need good reasons to work together. They also need the means to sustain those relationships. This leads to the final effect, greater cohesion. With the growth of population and the spread of humans across the globe, it was only natural that the number of contacts between peoples would increase. Early on, these exchanges often resulted in all-out war or at least an uneasy tension between the two parties. As time progressed, something interesting happened. People began to specialize in producing things and trade sprung up between neighboring tribes. These primitive trade networks were an early precursor to the modern global society we find ourselves in today. It turns out that although money may indeed be the root of all evil, it might also be the single most important concept in creating a more peaceful world in the modern era. This assertion on its face seems absurd. After all, many wars could be attributed to a leader’s quest for resources. While true, this same desire for wealth can be leveraged in defense of a smaller country. If positioned correctly, a nation with a meager military can co-exist next to a superpower, because it provides the superpower with something it needs. Money is an abstraction that makes the trade of specialized labor a trivial operation. With its introduction, suddenly everyone in the world had something they could agree on: money is desirable. This premium on specificity makes the destruction of neighboring nations not as beneficial as it once was. The steam engine represents the first time ever that an object could be moved arbitrarily without depending on wind, water, or muscle. It also represents a turning point in the complexity of assembling machines. The number of different operations required to assemble tools quickly ballooned past what any one town could offer.\nIn a few decades if you wanted the most technically sophisticated tools available, you would need to either be a global superpower, or well-connected with neighboring nation states. These days, even global superpowers rely on an intricate web of trade relations to function. These relationships act as hooks in the body of the Leviathan of war. The hooks can be ripped out, but not without some torn flesh. Many of the most recent technological breakthroughs have helped to increase this cohesion. Gone are the days when remote countries could silently be annexed into larger countries. With the advent of the internet and mass media the average citizen of today has more intelligence on world events than the early Presidents of the United States. This cohesion of global citizens would not be possible if some people refused to participate. Have you ever wondered why all countries in the world are categorized as “Developing” or “Developed”? Like it or not, the pull towards maximizing production is so strong, that there is not a single country that has removed themselves from the game. This fact did not occur by chance, of course. There were originally countries that weren’t playing the game, either for philosophical or geographical reasons. These countries ended up bearing the brunt of colonialization. In his Utopian novel The Island, Aldous Huxley imagines an island nation that has all the technological know-how of an advanced civilization without the emphasis on materialism. Or, put another way, an island that had somehow reaped the rewards of civilization without contracting its vices. The book ends realistically with the island being sucked back into the game. There are certain things a country does not sit out on, or not for long. Whether this is a flaw or feature of human nature is a discussion for another time, but for our purposes it is worth noting that this modern cohesion can’t be easily avoided. It also should be noted that it is a blessing when compared with the only other apparent option, as forced homogenization often required a much bloodier sacrifice.\nConclusion\nThis theory describes many developments in history that defy explanations via other models. The progression of human history seems to conform to the same rules that guide the growth of many other living systems. This insight provides a different framework to conceptualize many important historical events. For example, the formation of the government of the United States of America can be stripped of its historical context regarding the disagreements between the founding fathers and Britain. Instead, it could be viewed as a self-generated evolution. A potential optimization to the organization of large groups. Its success will in time be judged by its stability and longevity. We can be certain that barring a civilization ending event like that of a nuclear war, asteroid, or super volcano erupting, the governments of both the United States and Britain will be replaced by some new ideology that may better organize a group and leverage its potential output. This model makes no predictions on the effects of this societal evolution in regard to the personal happiness of its subjects. Therefore, the new iteration of society may be worse for the individual than our current version. This would not be the first time in history that this has happened. The theory also tinges history with shades of inevitability. It proposes the idea that societies don’t evolve by choice, but by inscrutable processes. These processes are heading towards a vague goal. Perhaps this goal is no more complex than the ability to create things more efficiently, perhaps not. Another implication of this theory is that it looks at moral advances as side effects. The attempts of abolishing our most shameful vices like slavery, child trafficking, extreme poverty, etc. will either succeed or fail, not based on the overall morality of the world we live in but based on whether the overall system is “ready” to receive these changes. Going back to our Taro plant analogy: imagine the leaves bending towards the sun.\nWith each of these societal evolutions, there is some movement of the leaf. Each twist will either lessen or increase the amount of sun the leaf is soaking up. The central point here is that we have no guarantees that a relatively moral (as defined by us) evolution to society will result in a leaf that absorbs more sun. In this view we have been extraordinarily lucky that the two movements have coincided with each other. Maybe this will continue, maybe not. This in the end, resembles a dialectical view of history, but one with no known goal. To summarize, human history is moving along an axis, albeit one that may not be recognizable to us. This vector is more heavily weighted than any one human ideal. Therefore, while certain humans may seem to dictate the course of history, if viewed from an appropriate distance, we will see that in time the contributions of these individuals get lost in the growth of the overall organism. Therefore, if your goal is to model the past and predict the future, natural fractal systems provide a better framework than individual human motivations, no matter the lens you choose to view them with.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/essays/humanity-from-a-planetary-perspective/","summary":"History as moral narrative versus natural fractal systems—humanity as pattern, not protagonist.","title":"Humanity from a Planetary Perspective"},{"content":"Enumerations for the Reduction of Complexity March 13, 2020 by thepigeonfighter\nIntroduction One of the ever present problems faced by developers is the concept of complexity. Complexity is everywhere; it makes things difficult to analyze and even more difficult to control. When writing programs, complexity is introduced exponentially every time a conditional path is added. With every ‘IF’ statement, you are introducing two possible paths your program could take. This article will start first with principles of conditions. I will then examine possible use cases for enumerations.\nFirst Principles In 500 BC a philosopher named Democritus proposed this theory that the universe could be broken down into these tiny discrete geometric units that he called ‘atoms’. This theory during it’s conception was no more founded on science than any of the other competing theories at the time. Of course, now we know that this theory was much closer to the truth than the other theories. For the sake of argument, lets just assume that Democritus’s theory of atoms is correct. What has he just done? He has taken the complexity of the universe and broken it down into it’s principle elements. This process has been, and continues to be attempted by scientists all over the world. In order to fully describe something, you must be able to break it down into its atomic components. This is one of the reasons I enjoy programming so much. It forces you to describe a problem in it’s most fundamental building blocks. After all, at the end of the day the only tool in your tool-box is a ‘0’ and a ‘1’. It’s up to the programmer to describe arbitrary complexity with those two digits. One of the most common ways that this is done is through conditionals. Say you are trying to write the behavior for a car. You would probably have the following idea:\nIf the traffic light is red, then stop With this simple condition you have defined a branch of execution. The car will either encounter a red light and stop, or the light won’t be red and the car can continue. This is one building block required in describing the behavior of a car. But if you look a little closer at this statement, it doesn’t take long to realize that it is not precise enough. According to the ‘IF’ statement the traffic light can only be ‘red’ or ‘not red’. We of course know that traffic lights can be yellow as well as green. Therefore, there are situations where a simple boolean is not descriptive enough to describe a condition. What does this tell us? It means we haven’t broken the problem down into it’s most atomic parts yet. There is still some complexity hiding in the condition that needs to be defined. So the obvious thing you would do next is change the statement to look something like this:\nIf the traffic light is red then stop else if the traffic light is yellow slow down else if the traffic light is green continue This works and is much more precise, but it’s a little verbose and unnecessary. Let’s say the light is green. When the program hits this section of execution it is now keeping track of the following booleans:\nIsGreen IsYellow IsRed In some situations this might be required, but not in the traffic light scenario, because the light can never be in more than one of those states. This gives us a chance to use another tactic to reduce the complexity of our behavior. Give a warm welcome to our friend enumerations.\nThis solution is more precise but somewhat verbose. If the light is green, the program is now tracking multiple booleans: IsGreen, IsYellow, IsRed. However, only one of these can be true at any given time, so we can simplify using enumerations.\nEnumerations Enumerations^1 at their heart are simple integers. Their intended purpose is to describe all possible states that an object could be in. Thinking back to the traffic light problem, we know that a stop light can either be Red, Yellow, Or Green^2. So what if we made an agreement that when the light was green we would represent that as a ‘1’ , yellow as a ‘2’ and red as a ‘3’. We could now rewrite the ‘IF’ statement above to say\nIf traffic light is currently 3, then stop This is perfectly precise and we are only keeping track of one variable now. Much better! The downside here is that we have lost some readability, because we now have to remember that 3 actually means red. This will get annoying very quickly. Time to take a look at enumerations and kill two birds with one stone. Enumerations map an integer to a name. So if I wanted to create an enumeration to represent our traffic light state it would look like this:\nenum TrafficLight { Green = 1, Yellow = 2, Red = 3 } With this enumeration, we can rewrite our condition:\nIf traffic light is TrafficLight.Red, then stop Voila! We now have a statement that is precise and easy to read.\nFlags So are enumerations a magic elixir that cures all our ails of conditional complexity? Well sadly, no. But when used judiciously they can go a long way in managing complexity. Let me leave you with one more way you can use enumerations, which is probably not immediately obvious to you. Consider the following system:\nThis system contains 3 animal components. Each animal can do different things, but many of the actions have similarities. So imagine that you had to write a controller that would be responsible for receiving and processing events from these three components. Let’s make an enumeration that contains all of the events that the system can contain.\nenum AnimalSystem { DogEat = 1, DogRun = 2, DogAttack = 3, Bark = 4, CatEat = 5, CatRun = 6, CatAttack = 7, LickPaw = 8, Meow = 9, FishEat = 10, FishRun = 11, BlowBubble = 12 } Wow! I am out of breath just writing that! The complexity is killing me and that’s only for three animals! Imagine if we added a rabbit to the system? Surely there has to be way to cut down this complexity even more. Indeed there is. We need to use enumerations in a different way. So far we have used enumerations to represent state. Like in our traffic light example, the state of the traffic light can neatly be described as ‘red’,’yellow’, or ‘green’. We also have just defined the state of the Animal System explicitly. One way to rephrase it is that we have described what the current state “IS”. What if we could ask a different question. What if we could describe the current state in terms of what the current state “HAS”. Well in the traffic light scenario it would make no difference. But it would drastically reduce the complexity of the animal system. If we redesign the enumeration to answer the “HAS” question we would get an enumeration like this:\nenum AnimalSystem { Dog = 1, Cat = 2, Fish = 4, Eat = 8, Run = 16, Attack = 32, Speak = 64, LickPaw = 128 } The way this works is probably not immediately obvious unless you’ve seen this type of thing before. The reason this works is due to the numbers we assigned the names. You’ll notice that each of those numbers is a power of 2. As we learned in the post What is Binary, every time you raise a binary number by a power of 2 you are essentially adding a zero to the right of the number. So lets rewrite the enumeration in binary\nenum AnimalSystem { // NAME INTEGER BINARY Dog = 1, // 00000001 Cat = 2, // 00000010 Fish = 4, // 00000100 Eat = 8, // 00001000 Run = 16, // 00010000 Attack = 32, // 00100000 Speak = 64, // 01000000 LickPaw = 128 // 10000000 } So now that we have cleverly organized numbers, we can use these values to quickly filter Animal System events. We can now know that if the first bit of the event is a ‘1’ then the event is going to be about the dog. If the fourth bit is also ‘1’ we now know that the dog is supposed to eat. If this is sounding similar to Bit Masking, you are absolutely correct. It is the same technique only a little easier to think about, because the numbers now have names. So how would we create a Dog-Eat event for our animal system? Well, we would use the logical “OR” operator to combine bits.\n//Dog-Eat Event // As a reminder the symbol \u0026#39;|\u0026#39; represents a logical OR statement AnimalSystem.Dog | AnimalSystem.Eat = 0001001 0000001 | 0001000 = 0001001 So now our AnimalSystem sends out the event that has the code ‘0001001’. The people listening for the event then can process that event by asking ‘HAS’ questions about the event. So the dog component in this case would say – does this event have anything to do with dogs? Well the first bit is ‘1’ so the answer is yes! This means the dog is now interested in processing the rest of this event. You can ask this event what it ‘HAS’ by using the reverse of the ‘OR’ operation which is the ‘AND’ operation.\nGenericAnimalSystemEvent = 0001001 //Does this AnimalSystemEvent have anything to do with a dog? // Reminder the \u0026#39;\u0026amp;\u0026#39; symbol represents the logical \u0026#39;AND\u0026#39; operation does GenericAnimalSystemEvent \u0026amp; AnimalSystem.Dog = AnimalSystem.Dog 0001001 \u0026amp; 0000001 = 0000001 As you can see, you can use the ‘AND’ operation to ask an event if it ‘HAS’ a certain flag.\nhttps://web.archive.org/web/20210126050625im_/https://georgefabish.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/close-up-photo-of-gray-metal-pipes-1381938-768x511.jpg\nConclusion There are always multiple ways to solve problems. Some are better than others at limited complexity and, more importantly, making it easier for us humans to think about. I believe the above example is a great way to encode/decode complex data in a very simple way. Using this new method, if you wanted to add a rabbit component to the animal system, you would only have to add one more entry into the enumeration instead of four entries. On top of that, there are no rules inherent in this data structure about what trait the animal components have to support. This allows a lot of flexibility. For example, right now a Dog-LickPaw event is not supported by our system specifications. But with this design it would be trivial to add support to that event. Again, one of the main goals of a programmer should be to describe problems as specifically as possible. We started out with a boolean that can only be true or false. Then moved to an enumeration which can have ‘N’ number of states. Finishing with a simple AnimalSystem. First using an enum that explicitly defined 12 different states the AnimalSystem could be in. We then used the enumeration as an implicit description of the state of the AnimalSystem that allowed us to represent 5,040 possible states with 7 entries.\nFootnotes:\nare often called ‘enums’ in programming languages This of course is assuming the traffic light is powered on and functioning correctly. This is a testament to how often you think you have a problem fully broken down, but you have overlooked certain states and edge conditions. ","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/posts/enumerations/","summary":"\u003ch1 id=\"enumerations-for-the-reduction-of-complexity\"\u003eEnumerations for the Reduction of Complexity\u003c/h1\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMarch 13, 2020\u003c/strong\u003e by thepigeonfighter\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"introduction\"\u003eIntroduction\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne of the ever present problems faced by developers is the concept of complexity. Complexity is everywhere; it makes things difficult to analyze and even more difficult to control. When writing programs, complexity is introduced exponentially every time a conditional path is added. With every ‘IF’ statement, you are introducing two possible paths your program could take. This article will start first with principles of conditions. I will then examine possible use cases for enumerations.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Enumerations for the Reduction of Complexity"},{"content":"How Code Becomes Binary November 10, 2019 by thepigeonfighter Humans have been inventing programming languages since the 1940s. But what exactly is a “programming language” and how do computers understand different programming languages? Well read on to find out.\nThe Basics Before we dive into things we have to break down what code is. Code is a series of instructions given to some sort of CPU. It doesn’t matter if you are using Java, C-based language or something silly like PHP. At the end of the day it all becomes just an instruction (or more likely a series of instructions) that is passed to the CPU to be executed. Let’s take a look at a line of code that is written in JACK which is a high level Java-like language.\nThis is a great example of high level code doing what high level code does best. That is, making complicated things easy and saving the end user a lot of work. The above line of code simply prints to a window the words “The average is “. The high level code makes it almost human readable. You could walk up to your futuristic voice controlled computer (that neeeevvvverr misunderstands you) and say: “Hey computer do output print string the average is “. This is all well and good, but if you say that to a CPU you won’t get very far.\nA computer can only understand binary. A CPU doesn’t understand the above line of code anymore than Rory understands Tristan’s stupid hair. It turns out that most modern high level languages deal with the problem in similar ways. In fact they all, generally speaking, follow this architecture:\nThis was probably a little more complicated than you were expecting. Especially since the problem seems so simple, right? You need to translate an instruction into binary, so why not do something like this:\nThe answer is: you totally could! But it may not be the best choice. The following diagram might help.\nThe jump between high level code to binary is a titanic leap, as we will see as we continue. To translate from high level code directly to binary would be a major task. The other design has broken that task down into more manageable chunks like this:\nHaving a design like this not only makes the job of building the translators easier, it also opens up all sorts of possibilities to swap any of the above components without compromising the whole system. Now if you want to implement a new high level coding language, you only have to jump 34 meters instead of the entire 100. The same could be said about swapping up different styles of assembly code or virtual machine code. This comes in really handy, because on every single level of this design there are thousands of different implementations in use today. It doesn’t matter if you are writing code for a toaster or a space station, if the compiler is set up correctly it will translate the code down to hardware specific needs. This design gives us much more flexibility than the simpler version. So now lets follow this line of code through the translation layers. It starts in jack like this:\nIt gets translated into the much less readable virtual machine language layer:\nAs a note, the multiple calls to ‘String.appendChar’ are creating the requested string “The average is “. Each of those constants represent a character code that is linked to a particular letter.\nThis is then translated into the much less easy to read Assembly code:\n```\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----label WHILE_END0----//\r(WHILE_END0)\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----push constant 15----//\r@15\rD=A\r@SP //SP = 15\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP //SP++\rM=M+1\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----call String.new 1----//\r//--------CALLING Main-----\r//Pushing Stack Snapshot to Stack\r@Main$ret.40\rD=A\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@LCL\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@ARG\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THIS\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THAT\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r//---------Stack Snapshot Complete ------\r@6\rD=A\r@SP\rD=M-D\r@ARG\rM=D\r@SP\rD=M\r@LCL\rM=D\r@String.new\r0;JMP\r(Main$ret.40)\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----push constant 84----//\r@84\rD=A\r@SP //SP = 84\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP //SP++\rM=M+1\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----call String.appendChar 2----//\r//--------CALLING Main-----\r//Pushing Stack Snapshot to Stack\r@Main$ret.41\rD=A\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@LCL\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@ARG\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THIS\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THAT\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r//---------Stack Snapshot Complete ------\r@7\rD=A\r@SP\rD=M-D\r@ARG\rM=D\r@SP\rD=M\r@LCL\rM=D\r@String.appendChar\r0;JMP\r(Main$ret.41)\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----push constant 104----//\r@104\rD=A\r@SP //SP = 104\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP //SP++\rM=M+1\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----call String.appendChar 2----//\r//--------CALLING Main-----\r//Pushing Stack Snapshot to Stack\r@Main$ret.42\rD=A\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@LCL\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@ARG\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THIS\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THAT\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r//---------Stack Snapshot Complete ------\r@7\rD=A\r@SP\rD=M-D\r@ARG\rM=D\r@SP\rD=M\r@LCL\rM=D\r@String.appendChar\r0;JMP\r(Main$ret.42)\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----push constant 101----//\r@101\rD=A\r@SP //SP = 101\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP //SP++\rM=M+1\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----call String.appendChar 2----//\r//--------CALLING Main-----\r//Pushing Stack Snapshot to Stack\r@Main$ret.43\rD=A\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@LCL\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@ARG\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THIS\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THAT\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r//---------Stack Snapshot Complete ------\r@7\rD=A\r@SP\rD=M-D\r@ARG\rM=D\r@SP\rD=M\r@LCL\rM=D\r@String.appendChar\r0;JMP\r(Main$ret.43)\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----push constant 32----//\r@32\rD=A\r@SP //SP = 32\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP //SP++\rM=M+1\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----call String.appendChar 2----//\r//--------CALLING Main-----\r//Pushing Stack Snapshot to Stack\r@Main$ret.44\rD=A\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@LCL\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@ARG\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THIS\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THAT\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r//---------Stack Snapshot Complete ------\r@7\rD=A\r@SP\rD=M-D\r@ARG\rM=D\r@SP\rD=M\r@LCL\rM=D\r@String.appendChar\r0;JMP\r(Main$ret.44)\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----push constant 97----//\r@97\rD=A\r@SP //SP = 97\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP //SP++\rM=M+1\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----call String.appendChar 2----//\r//--------CALLING Main-----\r//Pushing Stack Snapshot to Stack\r@Main$ret.45\rD=A\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@LCL\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@ARG\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THIS\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THAT\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r//---------Stack Snapshot Complete ------\r@7\rD=A\r@SP\rD=M-D\r@ARG\rM=D\r@SP\rD=M\r@LCL\rM=D\r@String.appendChar\r0;JMP\r(Main$ret.45)\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----push constant 118----//\r@118\rD=A\r@SP //SP = 118\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP //SP++\rM=M+1\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----call String.appendChar 2----//\r//--------CALLING Main-----\r//Pushing Stack Snapshot to Stack\r@Main$ret.46\rD=A\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@LCL\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@ARG\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THIS\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THAT\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r//---------Stack Snapshot Complete ------\r@7\rD=A\r@SP\rD=M-D\r@ARG\rM=D\r@SP\rD=M\r@LCL\rM=D\r@String.appendChar\r0;JMP\r(Main$ret.46)\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----push constant 101----//\r@101\rD=A\r@SP //SP = 101\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP //SP++\rM=M+1\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----call String.appendChar 2----//\r//--------CALLING Main-----\r//Pushing Stack Snapshot to Stack\r@Main$ret.47\rD=A\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@LCL\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@ARG\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THIS\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THAT\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r//---------Stack Snapshot Complete ------\r@7\rD=A\r@SP\rD=M-D\r@ARG\rM=D\r@SP\rD=M\r@LCL\rM=D\r@String.appendChar\r0;JMP\r(Main$ret.47)\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----push constant 114----//\r@114\rD=A\r@SP //SP = 114\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP //SP++\rM=M+1\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----call String.appendChar 2----//\r//--------CALLING Main-----\r//Pushing Stack Snapshot to Stack\r@Main$ret.48\rD=A\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@LCL\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@ARG\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THIS\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THAT\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r//---------Stack Snapshot Complete ------\r@7\rD=A\r@SP\rD=M-D\r@ARG\rM=D\r@SP\rD=M\r@LCL\rM=D\r@String.appendChar\r0;JMP\r(Main$ret.48)\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----push constant 97----//\r@97\rD=A\r@SP //SP = 97\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP //SP++\rM=M+1\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----call String.appendChar 2----//\r//--------CALLING Main-----\r//Pushing Stack Snapshot to Stack\r@Main$ret.49\rD=A\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@LCL\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@ARG\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THIS\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THAT\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r//---------Stack Snapshot Complete ------\r@7\rD=A\r@SP\rD=M-D\r@ARG\rM=D\r@SP\rD=M\r@LCL\rM=D\r@String.appendChar\r0;JMP\r(Main$ret.49)\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----push constant 103----//\r@103\rD=A\r@SP //SP = 103\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP //SP++\rM=M+1\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----call String.appendChar 2----//\r//--------CALLING Main-----\r//Pushing Stack Snapshot to Stack\r@Main$ret.50\rD=A\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@LCL\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@ARG\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THIS\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THAT\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r//---------Stack Snapshot Complete ------\r@7\rD=A\r@SP\rD=M-D\r@ARG\rM=D\r@SP\rD=M\r@LCL\rM=D\r@String.appendChar\r0;JMP\r(Main$ret.50)\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----push constant 101----//\r@101\rD=A\r@SP //SP = 101\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP //SP++\rM=M+1\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----call String.appendChar 2----//\r//--------CALLING Main-----\r//Pushing Stack Snapshot to Stack\r@Main$ret.51\rD=A\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@LCL\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@ARG\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THIS\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THAT\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r//---------Stack Snapshot Complete ------\r@7\rD=A\r@SP\rD=M-D\r@ARG\rM=D\r@SP\rD=M\r@LCL\rM=D\r@String.appendChar\r0;JMP\r(Main$ret.51)\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----push constant 32----//\r@32\rD=A\r@SP //SP = 32\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP //SP++\rM=M+1\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----call String.appendChar 2----//\r//--------CALLING Main-----\r//Pushing Stack Snapshot to Stack\r@Main$ret.52\rD=A\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@LCL\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@ARG\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THIS\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THAT\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r//---------Stack Snapshot Complete ------\r@7\rD=A\r@SP\rD=M-D\r@ARG\rM=D\r@SP\rD=M\r@LCL\rM=D\r@String.appendChar\r0;JMP\r(Main$ret.52)\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----push constant 105----//\r@105\rD=A\r@SP //SP = 105\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP //SP++\rM=M+1\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----call String.appendChar 2----//\r//--------CALLING Main-----\r//Pushing Stack Snapshot to Stack\r@Main$ret.53\rD=A\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@LCL\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@ARG\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THIS\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THAT\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r//---------Stack Snapshot Complete ------\r@7\rD=A\r@SP\rD=M-D\r@ARG\rM=D\r@SP\rD=M\r@LCL\rM=D\r@String.appendChar\r0;JMP\r(Main$ret.53)\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----push constant 115----//\r@115\rD=A\r@SP //SP = 115\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP //SP++\rM=M+1\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----call String.appendChar 2----//\r//--------CALLING Main-----\r//Pushing Stack Snapshot to Stack\r@Main$ret.54\rD=A\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@LCL\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@ARG\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THIS\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THAT\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r//---------Stack Snapshot Complete ------\r@7\rD=A\r@SP\rD=M-D\r@ARG\rM=D\r@SP\rD=M\r@LCL\rM=D\r@String.appendChar\r0;JMP\r(Main$ret.54)\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----push constant 32----//\r@32\rD=A\r@SP //SP = 32\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP //SP++\rM=M+1\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----call String.appendChar 2----//\r//--------CALLING Main-----\r//Pushing Stack Snapshot to Stack\r@Main$ret.55\rD=A\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@LCL\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@ARG\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THIS\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THAT\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r//---------Stack Snapshot Complete ------\r@7\rD=A\r@SP\rD=M-D\r@ARG\rM=D\r@SP\rD=M\r@LCL\rM=D\r@String.appendChar\r0;JMP\r(Main$ret.55)\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----call Output.printString 1----//\r//--------CALLING Main-----\r//Pushing Stack Snapshot to Stack\r@Main$ret.56\rD=A\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@LCL\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@ARG\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THIS\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r@THAT\rD=M\r@SP\rA=M\rM=D\r@SP\rM=M+1\r//---------Stack Snapshot Complete ------\r@6\rD=A\r@SP\rD=M-D\r@ARG\rM=D\r@SP\rD=M\r@LCL\rM=D\r@Output.printString\r0;JMP\r(Main$ret.56)\r//(----VMCOMMAND--------)\r//----pop temp 0----//\r//Popping from stack\r@SP\rM=M-1\rA=M\rD=M\r@5\rM=D\r```\rThat is a lot of code! Lastly, it gets translated into glorious binary.\r```\r0000000000001111\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000110110\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000001\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000010\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000011\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000100\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000110\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111000111010000\r0000000000000010\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000001\r1110001100001000\r0000000000010000\r1110101010000111\r0000000001010100\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000001101100\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000001\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000010\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000011\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000100\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000111\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111000111010000\r0000000000000010\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000001\r1110001100001000\r0000000000010001\r1110101010000111\r0000000001101000\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000010100010\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000001\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000010\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000011\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000100\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000111\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111000111010000\r0000000000000010\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000001\r1110001100001000\r0000000000010001\r1110101010000111\r0000000001100101\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000011011000\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000001\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000010\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000011\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000100\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000111\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111000111010000\r0000000000000010\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000001\r1110001100001000\r0000000000010001\r1110101010000111\r0000000000100000\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000100001110\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000001\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000010\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000011\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000100\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000111\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111000111010000\r0000000000000010\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000001\r1110001100001000\r0000000000010001\r1110101010000111\r0000000001100001\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000101000100\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000001\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000010\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000011\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000100\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000111\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111000111010000\r0000000000000010\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000001\r1110001100001000\r0000000000010001\r1110101010000111\r0000000001110110\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000101111010\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000001\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000010\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000011\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000100\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000111\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111000111010000\r0000000000000010\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000001\r1110001100001000\r0000000000010001\r1110101010000111\r0000000001100101\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000110110000\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000001\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000010\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000011\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000100\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000111\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111000111010000\r0000000000000010\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000001\r1110001100001000\r0000000000010001\r1110101010000111\r0000000001110010\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000111100110\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000001\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000010\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000011\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000100\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000111\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111000111010000\r0000000000000010\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000001\r1110001100001000\r0000000000010001\r1110101010000111\r0000000001100001\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000001000011100\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000001\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000010\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000011\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000100\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000111\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111000111010000\r0000000000000010\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000001\r1110001100001000\r0000000000010001\r1110101010000111\r0000000001100111\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000001001010010\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000001\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000010\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000011\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000100\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000111\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111000111010000\r0000000000000010\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000001\r1110001100001000\r0000000000010001\r1110101010000111\r0000000001100101\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000001010001000\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000001\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000010\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000011\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000100\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000111\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111000111010000\r0000000000000010\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000001\r1110001100001000\r0000000000010001\r1110101010000111\r0000000000100000\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000001010111110\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000001\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000010\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000011\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000100\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000111\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111000111010000\r0000000000000010\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000001\r1110001100001000\r0000000000010001\r1110101010000111\r0000000001101001\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000001011110100\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000001\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000010\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000011\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000100\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000111\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111000111010000\r0000000000000010\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000001\r1110001100001000\r0000000000010001\r1110101010000111\r0000000001110011\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000001100101010\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000001\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000010\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000011\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000100\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000111\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111000111010000\r0000000000000010\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000001\r1110001100001000\r0000000000010001\r1110101010000111\r0000000000100000\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000001101100000\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000001\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000010\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000011\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000100\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000111\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111000111010000\r0000000000000010\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000001\r1110001100001000\r0000000000010001\r1110101010000111\r0000001110001111\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000001\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000010\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000011\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000100\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0000000000000110\r1110110000010000\r0000000000000000\r1111000111010000\r0000000000000010\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000001\r1110001100001000\r0000000000010010\r1110101010000111\r0000000000000000\r1111110010001000\r1111110000100000\r1111110000010000\r0000000000000101\r1110001100001000\r```\rSo in this case, a single line of code when translated into binary resulted in 917 separate instructions to the CPU. Although, even that number is low, because the instructions that write the characters to the screen were omitted; instead they were merely pointed to in the instructions. These instructions assume that the “Output.printString” function has been created elsewhere in code. So the instructions merely point to that function and say that it needs to be executed. Isn’t it nice to have high level languages?","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/posts/binary/","summary":"\u003ch1 id=\"how-code-becomes-binary\"\u003eHow Code Becomes Binary\u003c/h1\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNovember 10, 2019\u003c/strong\u003e by thepigeonfighter\n\u003cimg alt=\"Programming\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"programming.png\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHumans have been inventing programming languages since the 1940s. But what exactly is a “programming language” and how do computers understand different programming languages? Well read on to find out.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"the-basics\"\u003eThe Basics\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore we dive into things we have to break down what code is. Code is a series of instructions given to some sort of CPU. It doesn’t matter if you are using Java, C-based language or something silly like PHP. At the end of the day it all becomes just an instruction (or more likely a series of instructions) that is passed to the CPU to be executed. Let’s take a look at a line of code that is written in JACK which is a high level Java-like language.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"How Code Becomes Binary"},{"content":"Stack vs Heap September 17, 2019 by thepigeonfighter Synopsis Stack and Heap refer to different memory segments. In general, the size of the stack will be much smaller than the heap, but the time required to access data on the stack will be much shorter than trying to access data that is stored in the heap.\nMore Info This is an inherently confusing question. Why? Because in computer science there is a data structure called a “Stack” and a data structure called a “Heap.” When people are talking about the stack and the heap and computer memory, they are NOT referring to the data structures, but to memory segments inside the computer. To make it more confusing, the “stack” they are talking about actually employs the “Stack” data structure. For that reason, we will really quickly describe what a “Stack” data structure is before we investigate what people mean when they refer to the stack vs the heap.\nStack A Stack is merely a way to sort data. The easiest way to think of it is to imagine stacks of things in the real world — like plates, for example. So what can you do with these “stack of plates” data type? Well, in Computer Science there are three things you can do to stack:\nPush Pop Peek Push When you add something to a stack it is called a “push.” It is the only way to add items to the stack data structure. And each time you add an item it must be placed at the top of the stack. Just as though you were stacking plates, each new plate would be stacked on the others. You are not allowed to insert a piece of data into the middle of a stack.\nPop When you remove something from a stack it is called “popping” the item off the stack. Just like with pushing things to a stack, there is a rule that tells you that you are only allowed to take the item at the very top of the stack. Again going back to our stack of plates: if you want a plate you must take whatever plate is on the top of the stack. You cannot take a plate from the middle of the stack.\nPeek Peek is the ability to look at the item that is currently at the top of plates. Pretty simple (to beat a dead horse), going back to our plate example, the only plate you can really examine is the plate at the top of the stack.\nMemory Now that you understand how a stack data structure works we can proceed to explaining how these different memory segments are used. At it’s foundation all computing can be roughly broken into three categories. You have the program, which is a set of instructions. You have the processor, which receives those instructions and executes them. Then you have the memory, which stores the results of the execution.\nLike I said before, when talking about Stack vs Heap we are talking memory segments, so let’s investigate the “Memory” part of this diagram a little closer.\nIf you remember from before, the stack section of memory actually uses the rules of a stack data structure. But since this function is so low level, it has to keep track of the stacks status itself. So in the first slot in the stack, memory is reserved for a variable called a stack pointer. This is in charge of keeping track of where the “top” of the stack is. Going back to our plate illustration, the stack pointer points to the position right above the top plate. That way, if you want to add a plate to the stack you know what position it needs to be added at. This data structure allows us to do everything that we do with computers today. Lets look at the following code and the way that it would be stored on the stack and the heap.\nx = 1 + 2; This code would result in instructions similar to this:\nPush the value 0 to the stack to represent ‘x’ Push the value 1 to the stack Push the value 2 to the stack Call the Addition Function Set the value of ‘x’ to the result of the function What’s interesting about these instructions is that if you look close enough, you can see the main stack in action. Let’s visualize this process.\nStep 1: Push the value 0 to the stack to represent ‘x’: Step 2: Push the value 1 to the stack : Step 3: Push the value 2 to the stack: Step 4: Call the addition function : This is the first interesting step that needs explanation. So in order for the function that handles addition to work, it needs two values to add. Where does it get those values? It pops them off the stack. So when the function is called, it will ‘Pop’ 2 and then 1 from the stack. It will then add them together and ‘Push’ the result back to the stack. After which the stack will look something like this:\nStep 5: Set x to the result: To achieve this, the ‘3’ is popped from the stack and placed in a local register. The ‘0’ is then popped from the stack and set as the current variable, and then it has the value 3 written to it. What you will notice is that this leaves us with an empty stack. As it turns out, all programs have to be written in a way where the stack is emptied at some point, or else you will run into the infamous “Stack Overflow Error” which is where the name for the popular computer science website came from.\nHeap So now that we know what the stack is used for we can answer what the heap is used for. Since the stack has more conservative size restrictions, it is common to store larger objects in the heap instead of the stack. Now what objects exactly get stored where is decided by the particular operating system that you are running. The most common thing to be stored on the heap are objects and arrays. To keep this conversation programming language agnostic, I will refer to these objects in the most general of terms. The easiest way to imagine an object is a box that holds values. It is important to note that the computer has no idea what an object is; objects are just things that humans use to help us write programs. Let’s imagine we created the following object:\nAs you can see, this object is very simple. It contains three number values. This is an example of an object that could be stored on the heap. The OS (operating system) would see that the object has three values, so it would allocate three slots in memory to store the object. The OS then pushes the address for the first memory slot of the object. This address is commonly referred to as a pointer, because it points to the address where the data is being stored. It would end up looking something like this:\nSo if we were to create a new object with the values 25, 37, 98 it would look like this:\nWhat does that allow us to do? Well, now the stack only has to store the pointer value of ‘80001,’ instead of all three values (25,37,98). This helps to reduce the memory requirements of the stack. The pointer value at this point acts as a kind of bookmark that we can use to quickly navigate back to a particular section of memory and read values we stored there. Whereas this might not seem to be very important in the above example, you can imagine how handy this would be when storing large arrays or objects with many properties attached to them.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/posts/stack-vs-heap/","summary":"\u003ch1 id=\"stack-vs-heap\"\u003eStack vs Heap\u003c/h1\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSeptember 17, 2019\u003c/strong\u003e by thepigeonfighter\n\u003cimg alt=\"Background\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"background.jpg\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"synopsis\"\u003eSynopsis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStack and Heap refer to different memory segments. In general, the size of the stack will be much smaller than the heap, but the time required to access data on the stack will be much shorter than trying to access data that is stored in the heap.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"more-info\"\u003eMore Info\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis is an inherently confusing question. Why? Because in computer science there is a data structure called a “Stack” and a data structure called a “Heap.” When people are talking about the stack and the heap and computer memory, they are NOT referring to the data structures, but to memory segments inside the computer. To make it more confusing, the “stack” they are talking about actually employs the “Stack” data structure. For that reason, we will really quickly describe what a “Stack” data structure is before we investigate what people mean when they refer to the stack vs the heap.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Stack vs Heap"},{"content":"How Bit Shifting \u0026amp; Bit Masking Work June 1, 2019 by thepigeonfighter Last post we talked about binary on a basic level. If you are not comfortable with reading binary or counting in binary I recommend you check out that post before reading this one. Using bit shifting and bit masking judiciously opens the door for massive performance optimizations in low level hardware and high level systems alike. Read on to find out how.\nBit Shifting There are two basic types of bit shifting. You can either shift left or right. Both act similarly to each other. Although the term bit shift sounds frightening, hopefully you will be able to see how you have used similar techniques in dealing with elementary arithmetic.\nLeft Shift Left shift is probably the most common type of bit shifting. Check out the number two in binary.\nTo perform a ‘Left Bit Shift’ of one to this number you simply add a zero to the right. Which in turn shifts the number left by one place. Giving us this:\nThat syntax may look complicated, but you simply have the number you want to shift on the left. In our case that was ‘010.’ You then have the operation you want to perform on that number, which was a ‘Left Bit Shift’ represented by two less-than signs (\u0026laquo;). We use less-than signs to make it easier to understand which direction we want to shift. Less-than signs point left. Therefore we use them to represent a shift to the left. Finally, the right side of the equation shows how many places we want to shift the number left. Have a look at some more examples.\nThe clever ones of the bunch can probably already guess the math behind how this works. If you looked at the first example we started with the number 2. We shifted it left by one and ended up with the number 4. Well, in our second example we have the number 1 and we shift it left by two and also end up with the number 4. The formula for shifting a bit is as follows.\nx = number we want to shift. k = number of places we want to shift.\nBefore you lose it with all the ‘math – E’ symbols, stop and think – where have we seen this before? Again, harkening back to our third grade math class, you will realize we have been doing things like this with decimal numbers for a long time. What did you do when you wanted to add a zero to a decimal number? You would multiply by ten! Similarly if you wanted to add two zeros you would multiply by one hundred. So the above formula works with decimals just by changing the ‘2’ into a ’10’. In binary if you want to add a zero just multiply a number by two. If you want to add two zeros to the left just multiply it by 4.\nLogical Right Shift It is the exact opposite of the ‘Left Shift,’ so I won’t spend much time on it. Instead of inserting a zero to the right of the number it inserts a zero to the left of the number. In doing so, this shifts the number right. To refer back to the decimal system, think of it like you were dividing a number by ten. 100 becomes 10 and 10 becomes one. The syntax is very similar except we use three greater-than (again think of the direction the arrows are pointing to represent a right shift) symbols to represent the function. The formula is as follows.\nx = number we want to shift. k = number of places we want to shift.\nJust a quick note: there is a second type of Right Shift called an ‘Arithmetic Right Shift.’ It serves a similar purpose to the logical right shift. The difference is that the logical shift doesn’t preserve a number’s sign where as the arithmetic right shift does preserve the sign.\nBit Masking The easiest way to think of bit masking is to think of it as a filter function. The good news is there are no formulas to it!\nThe idea is simple enough; it is the process of taking two numbers and performing a logical operation to them. If you are not familiar with logical operations, here is a quick refresher on the two most often used ones.\nWhy do we need these functions? So why would you want to do that? These operations are extremely handy when it comes to handling large sets of boolean data. Take for example a power strip that has six outlets in it. Let’s say you wanted to represent the empty outlets with a ‘0’ and the full outlets with a ‘1.’ An empty power strip would then look like this:\nLets plug something in and notice how the state updates.\nThat was simple. You just place a ‘1’ on the outlet that has been filled. Well, it’s actually not that simple. Because remember that to us we are letting zero and one represent true and false, but to a computer it is still just a zero and a one. So in computer memory we had a value of ‘0’ that represented the initial empty state of our power strip. But now we have used one of the outlets which has resulted in setting our state to ’16’ or ‘010000’. So how do we set the value? We would keep track of the outlets counting from right to left, starting at 0. Which would look like this:\nWe now see that the the outlet at position 4 has been used. This is where bit shifting comes in. We need to set the value of the bit in the fourth place to one. Now that you understand how bit shifting works, we can come up with a general formula that will give us the number we need to represent a filled outlet position.\nstate = 1 \u0026lt;\u0026lt; position So if we apply that formula to our power strip we can see the following:\nposition = 4 state = 1 \u0026lt;\u0026lt; 4\r1 \u0026lt;\u0026lt; 4 = 1 * 2^4 = 16\rstate = 16 = 010000 Very cool! Now lets see what happens when a second outlet is filled.\nSo our value has updated from 16 to 18. How should we handle this? If we follow the same strategy as before we will see that position 1 has been filled, and if we put that into our formula we end up getting 000010. That’s not what we need. This is where we mask that fool to get what we want. We can use the OR operation to keep our old values and add the new ones.\noldState = 010000 or 16\rplugAdded = 000010 or 2\r010000\rOR 000010\r-----------\rnewState = 010010 or 18 The general formula for that is as follows:\noldState\rOR plugAdded\r---------------\rnewState It is important to note that although they work the same way in this instance, the OR operation is different from a simple addition. Awesome! We have updated our power-strip state and we know how to update it in the future when someone else plugs into it. Well, what if someone unplugs? Consider the following:\nOur state was 18 and now it is 2. What general formula can we use to govern this transition? This one is a little more tricky. Essentially what is happening is the reverse of plugging something in. To plug something in is represented by all zeroes except in the position where the plug is being added; that position is being represented by a one. The reverse of that would be represented by all ones except at the position where the plug is being removed. That should be represented by a zero. So how do we achieve this? We will use a NOT operation, which is great for this because it simply reverses 1’s into 0’s and vice versa. Let’s take a look:\nplugAdded = 010000\rNOT 010000\r-----------\rplugRemoved = 101111 Resulting in the tongue-in-cheek formula:\nNOT plugAdded\r-------------\rplugRemoved The final trick to update the state is to use the AND bit mask to the old state.\noldState = 010010\rplugRemoved = 101111\r010010\rAND 101111\r-----------\rnewState = 000010\r----------------------\rGeneral Formula for removing a plug\roldState\rAND (NOT)plugAdded\r--------------------\rnewState Whammy blammy, our power strip is now fully functional, thanks to our sweet bit masking and bit shifting skills! These techniques are used heavily in all sorts of AI as well as different graphical programming, and now you know how to use them!\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/posts/bit-shifting/","summary":"\u003ch1 id=\"how-bit-shifting--bit-masking-work\"\u003eHow Bit Shifting \u0026amp; Bit Masking Work\u003c/h1\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJune 1, 2019\u003c/strong\u003e by thepigeonfighter\n\u003cimg alt=\"Background\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"images.png\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLast post we talked about binary on a basic level. If you are not comfortable with reading binary or counting in binary I recommend you check out that post before reading this one. Using bit shifting and bit masking judiciously opens the door for massive performance optimizations in low level hardware and high level systems alike. Read on to find out how.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"How Bit Shifting \u0026 Bit Masking Work"},{"content":"What is Binary? April 17, 2019 by thepigeonfighter Learning how to understand Binary will change how you see all numbers. What is Binary? I am sure you have had that question at least once or twice before. Usually for me what happened in the past was, I would ask that question and then end up in some article written for a college Computer Science course that would over-explain what is a pretty simple idea. Adding in poor un-intuitive examples to further muddy up the waters. So I want to remove the mystery about it once and for all. Taking your skills from zero to one when it comes to binary.\nHow to Count In reality, binary is just as simple as the way we normally count, but at the same time it is harder to read. The reason for this is largely because we are just not used to it. Why learn it? Because as I said before, I believe having an understanding of binary will change the way you see numbers and number systems. If you look up ‘Binary Number’ on Wikipedia the definition is as follows:\nIn mathematics and digital electronics, a binary number is a number expressed in the base-2 numeral system or binary numeral system, which uses only two symbols: typically “0” (zero) and “1” (one). The base-2 numeral system is a positional notation with a radix of 2. Each digit is referred to as a bit. Because of its straightforward implementation in digital electronic circuitry using logic gates, the binary system is used by almost all modern computers and computer-based devices.\nLet’s Start with What We Know See what I mean? That explanation makes things worse! So forget that definition for a moment and lets see if we can simplify things. Lets do a thought experiment. Okay, counting from 1 to 10 just like we normally do, how would you do it?\n1…2…3…4…5…6…7…8…9…10 Great job! There is a part of that counting process that you might not have thought about before, or paid much attention to. I want to focus on the numbers ‘9’ and ’10’. What is going on here? Why is the number ’10’ the number that comes right after ‘9’? Well, there are a couple things going on here. First we see that the number ‘9’ is the highest single digit number we have in our system. So what do we need to do to get a higher number? We add another digit. So we add a digit but then we automatically reset the number ‘9’ to zero and the new digit is set to one. Let me re-write the sequence to see if I can help illustrate the process.\nYou see, conceptually as we are counting you can imagine an infinite amount of zeroes to the left of any number that you write. They wait there patiently until they are needed. They are needed every time we need an extra digit.\n008…009…010………\r018…019…020………\r098…099…100…….. Armed with this perspective, lets look at binary. Binary works the exact same way, except instead of being able to use all the digits from 0-9 it is stuck with just using two digits 0-1. Lets start by looking at the number one.\nNotice both are exactly the same. But the changes happen when we try to represent the number ‘2’. Remember Binary only has one’s and zero’s. So how do we proceed? Well we follow the same strategy as we do when counting from 9 to 10. We add a zero to the right of the number like so:\n“There are 10 kinds of people in the world. People who understand binary, and people who don’t.”\nMoving on, when trying to represent the number ‘3’ in binary we look at the number ‘2’ in binary. Since it still has space in it we don’t need to add a digit. We can represent it like so:\nCan you guess what four would be?\nGood guess, here is a GIF that will help to further cement your knowledge\nReading Binary So now that you know how to count in binary I wanted to address what is meant by a ‘base-2’ number. Let’s first go back to how we were taught to count in kindergarten. We were taught to count in a base-10 system. You were taught about digits having a ‘place’ (i.e. tens, hundreds, thousands and so on). But what you might not have realized is that those places are directly correlated with the number 10 being raised to some power. So if you think about it in that way the following table emerges.\nWhat we can deduce from the chart above is that every time a digit is added, we are essentially raising the value of the number by an additional power of ’10’. This results in the following equation that the number ‘n’ (where ‘n’ is equal to the number of digits) will always be equal to or greater than the number 10n-1. Why the negative one? That is because we are starting from zero. This very same principle can be applied to Binary. The difference is that Binary is a base-2 system, and therefore, instead of raising ’10’ to the power of some number we are raising ‘2’ to the power of something. Which results in the following table.\nConverting Binary → Decimal Knowing this allows us to use that information and relatively quickly convert Binary into our easier-to-read Decimal form. Lets take the 16-bit number 1010101010101010. For simplicity’s sake we will assume that it is an unsigned number. Meaning that this number represents a positive number. How would we count it? Well it’s actually pretty simple. Starting from the left of the number (what is called the most significant bit) every time you find a one you take its value and add it to a running sum. This is where a graphic might help.\nThis same strategy of conversion works for all types of number systems. In fact it works for converting decimal to decimal like so:\nA little redundant, but this demonstrates the universality of this counting method. I will not discuss converting decimals into binary other than to say it is the same process, just in reverse.\nQuiz Here is a little puzzler for you… What would 16 ‘1’s in binary represent after being converted into decimal? (Hint: you don’t need to do any conversions just think about the exponents.)\nWhy don’t you have to do any fancy conversions? Because if we have all 16 ones you know that the next number is going to flip all those ones to zero’s and add a digit. So we would end up with a ‘1’ followed by 16 ‘0’s, which is……216 or 65,536. Therefore 16 ‘1’s must be one less than 1 followed by 16 ‘0’s giving us the result of 65,535.\nThere are many more tricks and shortcuts like that which can be done with binary due to its simplicity. I will probably try and tackle some of them in a later post. Hopefully this has been helpful in your pursuit of understanding what binary is and how to read it.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/posts/what-is-binary/","summary":"\u003ch1 id=\"what-is-binary\"\u003eWhat is Binary?\u003c/h1\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eApril 17, 2019\u003c/strong\u003e by thepigeonfighter\n\u003cimg alt=\"Background\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"background.jpg\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"learning-how-to-understand-binary-will-change-how-you-see-all-numbers\"\u003eLearning how to understand Binary will change how you see all numbers.\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhat is Binary? I am sure you have had that question at least once or twice before. Usually for me what happened in the past was, I would ask that question and then end up in some article written for a college Computer Science course that would over-explain what is a pretty simple idea. Adding in poor un-intuitive examples to further muddy up the waters. So I want to remove the mystery about it once and for all. Taking your skills from zero to one when it comes to binary.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"What is Binary?"},{"content":"How does your Processor Process? March 30, 2019 by thepigeonfighter An exploration into how your Processor works. In previous posts I have described how computers store information and how the special ALU chip can run elementary operations on that information. In this post I will endeavor to bring it all together into a cohesive overview of how your processor works. Before I dive into the details, I want to step back and talk about the overall architecture.\nIn previous posts I have described how computers store information and how the special ALU chip can run elementary operations on that information. In this post I will endeavor to bring it all together into a cohesive overview of how your processor works. Before I dive into the details, I want to step back and talk about the overall architecture.\nIf we take a look at CPU it actually appears simple, and in some ways it is! We have the program which is written by the programmer. Think of the program like a list of commands. This list of commands is fed to the ALU which then executes the command that it is given. More than likely, that command will have something to do with data that has been stored in our data container – at which point the ALU will interact with the data and update it as needed. Once the command has been executed it moves to the next command or line in the program and begins executing that command. This brilliant architecture was invented by Von Neumann in the 1940s. It is such an effective design that it is still being utilized today. My current computer is running a Ryzen AMD processor that operates at peaks of 3.6GHZ. Which means that it is running 3.6 billion cycles per second.\nThe Program In exploring the CPU I feel like the best part to start is the program. As I said before, you can think of the program as a series of instructions for the ALU. Since this CPU is built on a 16-bit architecture those commands come in the form of a 16-bit number. The following is a set of seven instructions to ALU:\n1110101010010000\r0000000000000000\r1111110000100000\r1110001100001000\r0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0001111101000001 Now that might not be very helpful and is definitely not human readable, so lets see if we can break it down into something more understandable. It turns out that these codes are encoded in the following way.\nA or C Instruction As you can see, there are 5 different groups of instructions packed into this 16 digit binary number. The bit on the far left dictates whether the instruction is a C instruction or an A instruction. If it is that the bit is set to one, then the instruction is a C instruction; otherwise the instruction is an A instruction. Don’t worry too much about the difference between an A and C instruction. An easy way to think about it is that if it is an A instruction, then it is referring to an address. In which case, none of the groups matter because the rest of the number is to be used as an address to get to a particular place in memory. On the other hand, if that bit is set to one, then the rest of the bits have instructions encoded into them. In fact, with just this knowledge you can look at the binary instructions I gave above and note that there are two A instructions and the rest appear to be C instructions. As a bonus, those A instructions are just zero, which means it is referencing the very first address in the RAM. As another teaser, that very first register of RAM is where the stack pointer resides. I won’t get into what exactly that does but I’ll leave that as an advertisement for a future post.\nWrite to the A or M Register You’ll notice that we have two bits that are discarded. Now remember, if this system was built with a 64 bit architecture we could be sending 64 instructions to the CPU which could hold much more data than our current instructions. But as it turns out, 16-bit is more than sufficient for our purposes and in fact we end up not needing two of those bits, so those will just be ignored. That gets us to the fourth bit from the left signified by the grey box. There isn’t anything complicated about this bit. The state of this bit dictates whether the instruction will operate on the A register or the M register. What is the A and M register? Well, without getting too far into the weeds, the A register is the address of the currently selected RAM and the M register is the contents of the currently selected RAM. Probably easier to picture a bank vault that has many safety deposit boxes. Well when you pull a safety deposit box out to inspect it, the A register gets set to whatever number that box is. At the same time the M register is set to the contents of that safety deposit box.\nALU Function Code The next 6 bits which have been grouped in blue are the meat of what the ALU is supposed to do with whatever number it is working on. Now if you read my post explaining how the ALU works, you will remember that part of the ALU’s construction was that it had six inputs. That is exactly how those bits are used. Here is how those bits are mapped:\nWell, almost exactly. With one little catch that is actually ingenious. You use the above table in combination with the A or M register chip to produce the following behavior:\nSo in general, if that A or M register bit is 0 then the ALU will operate on the A and the D register. Otherwise it will operate on the D and M register. What is this D register? Well it is the third and only other register used by the CPU. Whereas the A register holds the address of the selected RAM and M holds the contents of the selected RAM, the D register is just a general purpose register where you can hold whatever you want in it. It comes in really useful when updating variables and things such as that. But that also is information that belongs in a separate post. From the above image you can see the usefulness of the CPU starting to show itself.\nDestination Bits Now lets look at the yellow Destination bits. The value of these bits dictates which register, if any, should receive that value that the ALU will output after completing the function. As I said before, there are only three registers that store information in the CPU. There are the A, D and M registers. So based on whatever values you set those destination bits to be, it will then either write to all three registers or to none of them.\nSo say we wanted the ALU to perform the function 3+2, we then wanted to store those values in the M and D registers. We would give the appropriate ALU instruction then we would set the destination bits to be “011”.\nJump Bits Last but not least, lets look at the jump bits. Like the destination bits, we have only three values. But these three bits are a little more tricky than the destination bits in that they are conditional. Having this jump bit functionality provides the programmer with the ability to jump to any “line” or instruction. Say for example you were writing a program in which, when an error was encountered, you would want to jump to a safe part of the program. In order to do that, you would need to employ these three bits to achieve the desired effect. Having the ability to jump from one place in code to another place in code opens up huge opportunities like loops, switches and if-then logic. Lets take a look at the associated table that specifies the behavior.\nSo unlike the destination bits, these bits are set and then for the most part their behavior is dictated by the output of the ALU. It is important to note that you can set the bits to zero (this is most often the case) to indicate no jump or set all the bits to one for an unconditional jump. The word “out” in the diagram represents the output of the ALU. When using a “jump” statement it is assumed that the place where you want to jump to has been set in the A (address) Register. If the condition for jumping has been met, then the program will jump to the address currently stored in the A register.\nConclusion Now with all this knowledge in our heads, lets decipher the cryptic instructions that were at the beginning of this post. Lets take the first instruction which was:\n1110101010010000 Now lets drop it into our diagram to make it easier to read.\nThe first thing we see is that this command is a C instruction, so the following bits will not be associated with an address. Secondly, we note that the A or M register is set to zero. With that in mind, we refer to our ALU chart to find the command “101010.” What we find is that, when translated, those bits are telling the ALU to output a zero. Then looking to the destination bits we can figure out where we are sending that zero. Consulting the chart we find that “010” is setting the D register. So now we know that the first instruction was to set the D register to zero. Congratulations, you have just deciphered your first binary command!\nThe second command was all zeros which, as I pointed out before, sets the A register to zero. Which happens to be the address where we store our Stack Pointer, which I will discuss later.\nLets do one more and I will leave the last there for you to decipher at your leisure. The next command was:\nAgain we note that this is a C instruction that wants to operate on the M (contents of the currently selected RAM) register. Looking at the ALU code “110000” we match it up with function that outputs the contents of the M register. Now looking at the destination bits we see that “100” = A register. So effectively we are setting the A (address) register to whatever the contents of the M register are. If we remember the command previous to this was to select the RAM where our stack pointer was. So essentially what happened in those two lines of code was to select the Stack Pointer and then “go to” whatever address was stored in the stack pointer. But more on that when we look into Machine Language and how to actually write programs our new computer can understand. Here are the instructions left to be decoded.\n0000000000000000\r1111110111001000\r0001111101000001 ","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/posts/how-does-your-processor-process/","summary":"\u003ch1 id=\"how-does-your-processor-process\"\u003eHow does your Processor Process?\u003c/h1\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMarch 30, 2019\u003c/strong\u003e by thepigeonfighter\n\u003cimg alt=\"Background\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"processor.jpg\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"an-exploration-into-how-your-processor-works\"\u003eAn exploration into how your Processor works.\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn previous posts I have described how computers store information and how the special ALU chip can run elementary operations on that information. In this post I will endeavor to bring it all together into a cohesive overview of how your processor works. Before I dive into the details, I want to step back and talk about the overall architecture.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"How does your Processor Process?"},{"content":"How Computers Remember February 20, 2019 by thepigeonfighter A brief explanation of Computer Memory In the last post I explained how the ALU in your CPU works. As impressive as that is it doesn’t do very much good unless you can store the results. Which brings us to the problem of how can computers store memory. In general there are two types of memory that most computers employ. There is temporary memory and persistent memory. We will be spending our time explaining the temporary memory. Suffice it to say that persistent memory are things that are written to your hard drive or other storage device. Whereas the bulk of temporary memory is stored in your RAM(Random Access Memory). The difference is that when the power is removed from your RAM all the memory is effectively lost. With hard drives on the other hand the data persists even without power.\nThe RAM It turns out that sometimes by solving a problem at its smallest point you can simultaneously solve the problem at its largest point. So the smallest version of the problem of computer memory is how can we store a single bit? We need to be able to set a zero or one and for that zero or one to persist until we need it. It turns out there is a chip for that! It is called the single bit register. It uses mostly familiar parts with one new chip inside it.\nThe way this chip works is similar to other chips I have described. It has an input and a single control bit. If the “Load” bit is set to one the incoming bit from the “IN” input will be written to memory. The new chip that enables this to happen is the data flip flop chip. Before I explain to you what it is doing I have to introduce one more new idea which is the idea of having a clock. Up to this point I have described chips that react instantly without any concept of time. The Data Flip Flop Chip or DFF relies on this idea of a clock because it essentially stores it’s state for a single tick and then emits it out of the output. I am not going to dive into the details about how it is able to achieve this functionality because it gets a little too dry even for this post. But basically if you hand it a one for an input, in the next clock cycle the output will be one. Similarly if the output is one currently and you hand it a zero it will output a zero in the next cycle. This concept of “delay” allows us to hook up a sort of feed back loop where we can know what the state was last tick. The state of last tick will be pumped out of the DFF chip. We take that output and route it around to the A input of the Mux chip. That way if we are not loading anything this cycle that value will go through the Mux chip back into the DFF’s input. Conversely if the load bit is one the value from the B input of the Mux chip will be piped to the DFF chip thereby updating the value. As per usual this behavior will be easier to conceptualize with the following diagrams:\nLets think of it in steps. So lets say for the first step we set the inputs to the above values. At this point we don’t know the output of the DFF chip and since we don’t know it’s value we don’t know what the output for the single bit register is either.\nWe see there have been a couple changes to the chip from the previous step. The DFF chip now has a state of one and therefore the output of the single bit register is one. We also see that the Load bit has been set to zero and thereby routing the output of the DFF chip back into the input of the DFF.\nThe next step shows us that the output continues to be one even though the current input is zero. If you wanted you could keep it in this state for as long as you want. But lets update the value and see how the value propagates through the system.\nWe have now set the Load bit to one. Therefore the value being piped into the DFF is now from the input of the chip, which at this point is zero. But as you will notice the internal state is still one because it updates on a one step delay. Therefore the output of the chip is still one during this step.\nNow the DFF outputs the input from the previous step and therefore the output of the chip has now been updated to zero. This is how our system is able to store a single bit. This single bit register is the foundational building block of the RAM. From here the implementation details are trivial so I will spare you the detailed explanation and instead gloss over the details. The first step is to convert the above chip into a 16 bit register.\nWe then group those together into a group of 8, 16 bit registers.\nWhy stop there ? Why not make a group of 8 of these group of 8- 16 bit registers?\nThis makes a RAM64 chip. Make 8 of those into a group and…\nThusly the RAM512 is constructed. If this process is repeated again you will get a RAM4K and again gives you 32,768- 16 bit registers to store all the numbers! This is a supremely small RAM but gives you some sense of scale of what those little sticks of RAM in your computer are actually up to as well as solving the question “How do computers remember?”\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/posts/computers-remember/","summary":"\u003ch1 id=\"how-computers-remember\"\u003eHow Computers Remember\u003c/h1\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFebruary 20, 2019\u003c/strong\u003e by thepigeonfighter\n\u003cimg alt=\"Background\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"digital-brain-1.gif\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"a-brief-explanation-of-computer-memory\"\u003eA brief explanation of Computer Memory\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the last post I explained how the ALU in your CPU works. As impressive as that is it doesn’t do very much good unless you can store the results. Which brings us to the problem of how can computers store memory. In general there are two types of memory that most computers employ. There is temporary memory and persistent memory. We will be spending our time explaining the temporary memory. Suffice it to say that persistent memory are things that are written to your hard drive or other storage device. Whereas the bulk of temporary memory is stored in your RAM(Random Access Memory). The difference is that when the power is removed from your RAM all the memory is effectively lost. With hard drives on the other hand the data persists even without power.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"How Computers Remember"},{"content":"The ALU February 3, 2019 by thepigeonfighter The Arithmetic-Logic Unit All of mathematics solved with six bits. The ALU is the work-horse in the CPU. It is responsible for almost all computations. In previous posts I have described building various kinds of chips that have somewhat simple functionality. Each chip was required to have a specific behavior that can be repeated giving the same result every time. The last chip I described which was the Full-Adder was the first chip that had some immediate mathematical utility. Well this is the post where we bring everything together to create the most complicated chip we have made thus far, which will be able to do the following :\nALU -(Inputs x,y) 0 1 -1 x y !x !y -x -y x+1 y+1 x-1 y-1 x+y x-y y-x x\u0026amp;y x|y ALU Description So how does the chip know which function you want to execute? Well it employs the idea of control bits. This chip actually has 6 control bits that ingeniously tell the ALU which function to compute. Those inputs are named : ‘zx’, ‘nx’, ‘zy’, ‘ny’,’ f’, and ‘no’.\nSo what do these control bits do? Looks complicated but as with most things, when broken down it is super simple. The first four bits act directly on the x and y input. The ‘zx’ and ‘zy’ have the same functionality. They stand for zero-x and zero-y . As the name suggests if the ‘zx’ bit is set to one(true) then the x input will be set to zero. If the ‘zx’ bit is set to zero(false) then nothing will be done to the x input. The same thing happens with the ‘zy’ bit. It will either set the y input to zero or do nothing based on the value. The ‘nx’ and ‘ny’ stand for not-x and not-y. And……you guessed it! If the ‘nx’ bit is set to one it will ‘not’ the x input. If the input is zero then again nothing will be done to the x input. The ‘f’ or function control bit performs x+y if set to one. Otherwise it performs an ‘and’ operation on x and y if set to zero. Lastly, if the ‘no’ control bit is set to one then the entire output will be negated, otherwise it will be left as is. One last thing to note about this is that these functions are applied in order from left to right. So if the ‘no’ control bit is set to one the entire output will be negated only after all the other (if any) functions have been executed. So that’s all well and good but I am sure you are still skeptical about why this matters to you and your pursuit of mathematical superiority.\nCommands Well it turns out that if you wanted to add x to y you need only to feed the x and y inputs into the ALU and set the control bits to “000010”. If you refer to the illustration you would see that setting the control bits to that code would have disabled all control bits except for the ‘f’ bit. Which we have already said that if the ‘f’ bit is set to one then we perform addition to x and y. So that’s pretty awesome but also a little bit of a trivial example. Lets do something more complicated. Lets say we want to perform y-x. How would we do that?\nSo let’s see how this will work by defining our terms and running it through the ALU manually and seeing if the results match what we would expect. Let’s say that x=3 and y =5. At this point we would expect the output to be 2. Lets see what happens. First it looks like nothing happens until the ‘ny’ bit. So lets start by applying a ‘not’ operation to the y input. As we remember from before it simply just reverses the bits. One more thing to remember is that inputs are 16-bit. So even though there will be\n/5 in binary = 101\r//Convert it into 16 bits\r0000000000000101 //Not operation flips each bit.\r1111111111111010\r//Which is -6 in decimal\r//Since f =1 we need to add x to y\r//x = 3 or 11 in binary\r// or 0000000000000011 in 16 bit format. Which we now add together.\rx 0000000000000011 // = 3\r+ y 1111111111111010 // = -6\r1111111111111101 // =-3\r//Now since \u0026#39;no\u0026#39; is set to one we now negate the whole output.\r0000000000000010\r//Which in decimal is........drum roll please... 2!!! Now that we have proven that works perfectly I will leave you with a list of commands you send to the ALU to get desired results and I will leave you to run examples to prove to yourself that the desired behavior will be achieved.\nSo you can get any of those functions on the right-hand side of the table by feeding the appropriate values to the control bits. As shown on the left-hand side of the table.\nObservation Bits There are two outputs I have neglected to mention that complete the specification for the HACK ALU. Those are outputs ‘zr’ and ‘ng’. I call these observation bits because ‘zr’ will be one if and only if the output is equal to zero. While ‘ng’ will be one if and only if the output is less than zero. Why is that info important? Well with those magic bits we can now perform equality checks like greater than or less than. Knowing the equality of an object now allows us to have our first primitive condition. Having our first primitive condition allows us to implement jump commands (which I will talk about in a later post). With jump commands at our disposal we can take over the world. At this point in the past I usually would now dive into how you would design this chip using HDL. I wont be doing that in this post because of the level of complication. I feel as if the complete implementation would be dull. Instead I will leave you with this gorgeous schematic that you can inspect to see my proposed implementation of the ALU.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/posts/alu/","summary":"\u003ch1 id=\"the-alu\"\u003eThe ALU\u003c/h1\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFebruary 3, 2019\u003c/strong\u003e by thepigeonfighter\n\u003cimg alt=\"Background\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"74181-logic-diagram-themed.jpg\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"the-arithmetic-logic-unit\"\u003eThe Arithmetic-Logic Unit\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"all-of-mathematics-solved-with-six-bits\"\u003eAll of mathematics solved with six bits.\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe ALU is the work-horse in the CPU. It is responsible for almost all computations. In previous posts I have described building various kinds of chips that have somewhat simple functionality. Each chip was required to have a specific behavior that can be repeated giving the same result every time. The last chip I described which was the Full-Adder was the first chip that had some immediate mathematical utility. Well this is the post where we bring everything together to create the most complicated chip we have made thus far, which will be able to do the following :\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The ALU"},{"content":"In Addition to That… January 26, 2019 by thepigeonfighter This is where we learn how to do addition in the lowest levels of computer architecture. After completing project one you are left with five, 16-bit chips and no real idea where to go next, or why you made them. Luckily, you don’t have to be as smart as the guys who invented the computer in the first place, and you can always just continue on with the course. In project two you are commissioned to build five more chips. Four of them have to do with addition and the fifth one is the main ALU chip of CPU, which I will talk more about in a later post. One question you might have is what exactly do I mean by 16-bit chips. Well, in previous posts I have talked about the NOT and the MUX chip. Both of those would be considered single-bit chips, because you are feeding them one bit (a zero or one) at a time. So a 16-bit version of those can handle inputs of 16-bits at the same time. Why would you want to do that? Other than the obvious speed benefit when using 16 bits, all of the sudden you have the ability to start representing numbers greater than one. In fact, for an unsigned (only positive) 16-bit number can be as large as 65535, which is awesome because I don’t know about you but I am ready to get back to the real world where 1+1 = 2 despite what Boolean Algebra tries to tell you. But before we ascend to the world of comfort and normalcy that normal arithmetic offers, we must descend back into the weird world of binary. Let me give you a couple examples of how some of these 16-bit chips work.\n‘NOT’ 16-bit The single bit not chip is probably the easiest chip to comprehend it just takes what ever its given and returns the opposite. The 16-bit version does the same thing, it just does it 16 times.\nSingle Bit Not In 0 Out 1 In 1 Out 0\nNOT16 In 0101010101010101 Out 1010101010101010 As you can see there is nothing crazy about it. It is literally just going through one bit at a time (actually instantly) and flipping each bit to its opposite.\nMUX8WAY 16-bit This chip does vary a bit (another bad computer pun) from its single bit counter part but the general idea is the same. Instead of writing any binary examples it will probably just be easier to explain from a higher level.\nIf you remember, the purpose of the MUX chip was to – based on the position of a selector switch – return either input ‘a’ or ‘b’. Well, as I eluded to before, being able to handle more bits has given us the ability to handle more numbers. So now the selector switch that used to only have two positions has eight positions and eight inputs. On top of that, each of those single bit inputs has been upgraded to 16-bit. Based on the position of the selector it will return the associated input. For example, if the selector was at zero the chip would return input ‘a’ and if the selector is at position one the chip will return input ‘b’. Then if the selector was flipped all the way to position eight it would return input ‘h’. This will come in extremely handy in the future when we start discussing RAM architecture. Of course since this is a 16-bit chip each of those inputs are 16-bits. So whichever input is selected, a 16-bit value will be emitted. Now that you have an idea what I mean by 16-bit chips let me proceed in explaining the first chip that handles addition. Namely the “Half-Adder.”\nHalf-Adder The differences between adding binary numbers and the addition that you learned in the second grade have very few differences. Actually, adding binary is even more simple than what we are used to. Let me give you a couple examples.\nWhen adding binary you start from the right hand side and work left – just like we have learned before. On the far right we have 1+1. Since there is no symbol for ‘2’ in binary we carry the one to the next column. Just like you would if you were adding a ‘9’ and a ‘1’. Moving one column left we now see a 0+1 but we also are carrying a one so that gets changed to 1+1. Therefore we carry the one again, facing yet another 1+1 scenario. This results in one more carry, which leaves us with the result of 1000 in binary or 8 in decimal form (decimal form of course being the way we usually count). Easy! One thing to keep in mind is that we will build this “adder” chip with the idea of it being part of and limited to our 16-bit architecture. So when adding two 16-bit numbers together, if there is a carry into a 17th bit, then that bit will just get thrown away. Like this:\nAs you can see above, the extra one that we were carrying just gets tossed out because our system can only handle 16-bits. Now the very observant ones reading this would realize that the result of the binary addition comes out to 26,559. Which is nowhere near the actual 92,095. This is, of course, because we dropped the extra digit. What is interesting to note about this number is that it turns out to be the modulus of our 16-bit max, or in other words when you divide 92,095 by 65,536 (216 which is our max unsigned 16-bit number) you will be left with the remainder of 26,559. I’ll leave you to ponder the significance of this fact and to consider how inextricably intertwined the universe and we as individuals are.\nMoving Forward So how does one go about building a chip the provides this behavior? Well, lets take a closer look at our previous example and see if there are any observations we can make about the different states we encounter in the process of addition. Looking back at our first simple example:\nLet’s take it one column at a time. What do we need to communicate to successfully add two bits together? Well for the first number all we need to communicate is the sum, and then if there is any resulting carry or not. This is exactly the specification of the “Half-Adder” chip. The Half-Adder chip has two inputs and two outputs. The two inputs are the two bits that are being added together. One output represents the sum of the two bits, while the other output holds the value of the carry.\nWhile at first trying to imagine how to design a chip that could handle addition might have seemed daunting, when broken down into this simple little part it is actually quite simple. With the above definition we derive the following truth table that fully specifies the necessary behavior of this chip:\n| a | b | sum | carry |\r| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\r| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |\r| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |\r| 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | From there we can use the logic that I have previously described to derive the following formula:\nsum = (Not(a) \u0026amp; b) OR (a \u0026amp; Not(b))\rcarry = a \u0026amp; b It turns out that both sum and carry can be defined with one chip. The behavior of sum is described by the XOR (aka Exclusive Or) chip. This chip only returns true when the two inputs are different. So the resulting HDL file looks like this:\nBy now maybe you’ve figured out why this is called the Half-Adder. It is called this because it only handles half the functionality we need it to. Lets look at that example again.\nThe Half-Adder works perfectly for the first column but will it work for the second? No! It can’t work because there is no way for it to realize that the column before it had created a carry. Therefore in order to add two numbers together that are more than single bits, we will need a chip that has three inputs. One for the two bits that are being added together, plus a third to handle carries.\nThe behavior for this chip is slightly more complicated, and therefore results in a slightly more complicated truth table.\n| a | b |in-carry| sum |out-carry |\r| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\r| 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |\r| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |\r| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |\r| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |\r| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |\r| 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |\r| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | While we may be tempted to run off and try writing a formula that solves this table, it might be helpful to step back and remember what we are trying to do. We have already successfully created a chip that, as long as there are no incoming carries, will output a sum and resulting carry. So using that single chip we can chain that behavior together to add bits ‘a’ and ‘b’ together. From there we can take the sum of ‘ab’ and add it again to the ‘in-carry’ bit. Then we can define that out-carry bit by whether or not either of the first two sums had a carry bit.\nMaybe a visualization would help:\nNow the name Half-Adder makes sense. It takes two Half-Adders to make a full adder. The above chip will now be able to successfully add multi-bit numbers together. The only thing that is left to do is to convert this into a chip that can handle 16-bit calculations. To do that, you string together one half-adder and 15 full-adders together in a similar way to the above schematic. Resulting in a chip that is able to do 16-bit addition.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/posts/addition/","summary":"\u003ch1 id=\"in-addition-to-that\"\u003eIn Addition to That…\u003c/h1\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJanuary 26, 2019\u003c/strong\u003e by thepigeonfighter\n\u003cimg alt=\"Background\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"addition.png\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3 id=\"this-is-where-we-learn-how-to-do-addition-in-the-lowest-levels-of-computer-architecture\"\u003eThis is where we learn how to do addition in the lowest levels of computer architecture.\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter completing project one you are left with five, 16-bit chips and no real idea where to go next, or why you made them. Luckily, you don’t have to be as smart as the guys who invented the computer in the first place, and you can always just continue on with the course. In project two you are commissioned to build five more chips. Four of them have to do with addition and the fifth one is the main ALU chip of CPU, which I will talk more about in a later post. One question you might have is what exactly do I mean by 16-bit chips. Well, in previous posts I have talked about the NOT and the MUX chip. Both of those would be considered single-bit chips, because you are feeding them one bit (a zero or one) at a time. So a 16-bit version of those can handle inputs of 16-bits at the same time. Why would you want to do that? Other than the obvious speed benefit when using 16 bits, all of the sudden you have the ability to start representing numbers greater than one. In fact, for an unsigned (only positive) 16-bit number can be as large as 65535, which is awesome because I don’t know about you but I am ready to get back to the real world where 1+1 = 2 despite what Boolean Algebra tries to tell you. But before we ascend to the world of comfort and normalcy that normal arithmetic offers, we must descend back into the weird world of binary. Let me give you a couple examples of how some of these 16-bit chips work.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"In Addition to That…"},{"content":"Muxtopia January 26, 2019 by thepigeonfighter My last post introduced the trivial but necessary “Not” chip. Before I move away from the first project I would like to mention one last chip that I found intriguing and especially difficult to solve. That chip is called a “Multiplexer” chip, or a “Mux” chip for short. This chip has a much more complicated specification than the “Not” chip.\nHow it works The mux chip has three inputs which I will refer to as ‘a’, ‘b’, and ‘sel’ short for selector. The mux chip also has just a singular output. The functionality that we want from this chip is when the ‘sel’ input is 0 the out should equal ‘a’. If ‘sel’ is 1 the output should equal ‘b’. Therefore from that information we can derive the following truth table.\nMUX CHIP TRUTH TABLE\r| a | b | sel | out |\r| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\r| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |\r| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |\r| 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |\r| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |\r| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |\r| 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |\r| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | This is a more complicated table than the table that was generated from the “Not” chip. Because of this you probably won’t be able to come up with the solution just by looking at this table. You’ll need to break this information into chunks making it easier to digest.\nCombinational Logic vs Sequential Logic In order to break this problem down into chunks we must first understand the difference between these two forms of logic. As a programmer just about every problem we have faced has been sequential in nature. We apply filters that direct outcomes down different branches of logic. If we were to approach this chip with sequential logic it would look something like this:\n1. if(sel ==0)\r2. {return a;}\r3. else 4. {return b;} What makes this expressively sequential in nature is the fact that this logic has to be executed line by line, starting at the top and working towards the bottom. Therefore it has to have some sense of where it is currently and it also has to know where to go next. Essentially what is happening is the program starts at line one. If line one is true it will move to line two. If it is not true it will have to jump to line three. The problem with trying to build a low level chip with this type of logic is that we are working with voltage. Therefore for all intents and purposes there is not concept of time. Everything happens instantly. Well if sequential logic wont work then what do we need? This is where combinational Logic comes in to save the day.\nThese three discs are an excellent example of combinational logic. There is no sense of time or execution order. The color that you see is strictly based on the color or combination of colors that happen to overlap. So how can we take this logic and apply it to the mux chip? This is where we are forced to do some Boolean algebra. It’ll be fun though I promise.\nBoolean Algebra What is Boolean Algebra? Boolean Algebra is the a special kind of math that deals strictly with the numbers 0 and 1. Because the numbers have such a limited scope you will see that we can take complicated expressions and simplify them much more than would be expected.\nFirst lets take another look at that truth table and see if we can pull out some useful info.\nMUX CHIP TRUTH TABLE\r| a | b | sel | out |\r| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |\r| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |\r| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |\r| 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |\r| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |\r| 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |\r| 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |\r| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | What we need is some sort of formula that will match up with this truth table. The first thing you want to do when trying to derive a formula (or design a chip) from a truth table is to extract the scenarios where the output or result was equal to one. Doing that results in a far simpler table\n| a | b | sel | out | | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |\r| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |\r| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | From here we can design a formula for each line. An easy way of thinking about is looking at a line’s inputs and then re-writing the variables to so that it works as a long “AND” statement. As we know an “AND” statement only returns true if both inputs are true so the first line would be converted into something like this:\nSo in this case we know that if we take the “NOT” of ‘a’ then “AND” that together with ‘b’ and ‘c’ we would get the desired out.The HDL for that would look like this:\nIf we were only given that one line the above chip would work perfectly. But there are actually three different scenarios where the output is also one. So how do we get a formula that defines each those occasions? We do the same thing as we did above but then we just “OR” those statements together. Like so:\nAs you can see this is getting somewhat unwieldy at this point. But I’ll still convert this as is into HDL to show that it works as is.\nSure enough if you put the above code into the compiler and run it against the tests it passes with flying colors. But something tells me we can simplify this chip quite a bit. So lets go back and write out the whole expression that we have discovered so far. If we try to make it a single statement it would look like this:\n(Not(a) \u0026amp; b \u0026amp; sel) Or (a \u0026amp; NOT(b) \u0026amp; NOT(sel)) Or (a \u0026amp; b \u0026amp; NOT(sel)) Or (a \u0026amp; b \u0026amp; sel) “In Boolean Algebra to “AND” something is equivalent to multiplying it, because since the two numbers you are multiplying can only be a one or a zero the result of the multiplication can only be one if both numbers being multiplied are one. To “OR” something is equivalent to addition because similarly you will only get one if one of the numbers you are adding together is one. Lastly anywhere where you see a “NOT” you can replace it with a ‘-‘ symbol to make it easier to read. So lets re-write the above expression replacing the “AND” and “OR” operations with multiplication and addition as well as removing the all “NOT” operations.\n(-absel)+(a-b-sel)+(ab-sel)+(absel) If we look at the above formula you can see that there are several repeating factors that can be simplified. Lets start by removing ‘sel’ where ever possible.\n(-abSEL)+(a-b-sel)+(ab-sel)+(abSEL)\rsel(-ab+ab) + a-b-sel + ab-sel It turns out we can simplify “sel(-ab+ab)” even more by factoring out the ‘b’\nsel(-aB+aB) + a-b-sel + ab-sel\rsel(b(-a+a)) + a-b-sel + ab- sel Now we ended up with “-a + a”. Which will always equal one because if ‘a’ was equal to zero, then zero + NOT(zero) equals one and vice versa. Therefore we can simplify the expression even more.\nsel(b(-a+a)) + a-b-sel + ab- sel sel(b(1)) + a-b-sel +ab-sel\rsel(b) + a-b-sel+ab-sel So now lets do the same thing but focusing on removing “-sel” where we can\nsel(b) + a-b-SEL+ab-SEL sel(b) + -sel(A-b +Ab)\rsel(b) + -sel(a(-b+b))\rsel(b) + -sel(a(1))\rsel(b) + -sel(a) Just like that we have cut a huge expression down into something manageable. Now how do we convert this back into HDL? Lets remember that anywhere you see multiplication replace that with an “AND” anywhere you see a negative symbol replace that with a “NOT”. Anywhere you see an addition symbol replace that with an “OR”. Like this:\nsel(b) + -sel(a) (sel \u0026amp; b) Or (NOT(sel) \u0026amp; a) This is a much simpler expression which can be rewritten in HDL as follows.\nNow if you run through any of the values from the truth table above into this formula you will find that they all magically work. Thus a triumph in combinational logic has led us to the creation of the useful mux chip.\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/posts/muxtopia/","summary":"\u003ch1 id=\"muxtopia\"\u003eMuxtopia\u003c/h1\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJanuary 26, 2019\u003c/strong\u003e by thepigeonfighter\n\u003cimg alt=\"Background\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"triangles.jpg\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMy last post introduced the trivial but necessary “Not” chip. Before I move away from the first project I would like to mention one last chip that I found intriguing and especially difficult to solve. That chip is called a “Multiplexer” chip, or a “Mux” chip for short. This chip has a much more complicated specification than the “Not” chip.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cimg alt=\"Multiplexer\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Multiplexer2.png\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"how-it-works\"\u003eHow it works\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe mux chip has three inputs which I will refer to as ‘a’, ‘b’, and ‘sel’ short for selector. The mux chip also has just a singular output. The functionality that we want from this chip is when the ‘sel’ input is 0 the out should equal ‘a’. If ‘sel’ is 1 the output should equal ‘b’. Therefore from that information we can derive the following truth table.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Muxtopia"},{"content":"The Beginning January 17, 2019 by thepigeonfighter The Not Gate Recently I have started working on a project called Nand2Tetris. The idea of the project is to build a computer from first principles all the way to an OS that runs a Tetris clone. The course is totally open source and free to audit. Thanks to Noam Nisan and Shimon Schocken for all their hard work in putting this course together.\nIn the very first(technically second) project you are commissioned to build 16 basic logic gates. As someone who is fairly new to programming in general but especially to this bare metal low level implementation it took some time to get used to this new way of thinking. Let’s look at one of the very first gates that you must build, the “Not” gate. Which in its essence is simple enough to understand. When passed a zero you should return a one, and when passed a one you should return a zero. Simple enough right? Well there is one catch. At least it was a catch for me. There are no handy logic crutches that I had grown so used to by using higher level languages. Based on previous experience I would have approached this problem with some logic that looked like this:\nif(x==1)\r{\rreturn 0;\r}else\r{\rreturn 1;\r} The only thing you are given is the magical “Nand” gate with which to build the rest of the computer.\nWhat exactly is a “Nand” gate? Well it’s not an “And” gate that’s for sure (A bad computer joke). Basically it has two inputs and one output. If the two inputs are one it spits out a zero. Otherwise the output is always one. With each logic gate that you build there is an associated “truth table” that helps to describe what the expected behavior of the chip is. The ability to construct a truth table is unique to binary because in general a number can range from negative infinity to positive infinity, but since we are dealing with strictly zeros and ones it gives us the ability to quickly write out every possible input and output in a small digestible table called a truth table. The truth table of a Nand gate is as follows.\nNAND TRUTH TABLE\r| a | b | out |\r| 0 | 0 | 1 |\r| 0 | 1 | 1 |\r| 1 | 0 | 1 |\r| 1 | 1 | 0 | As you can see from looking at this table it truly is not an “And” gate . An “And” gate returns one if and only if both inputs are one. While a Nand gate does the opposite. So given that one chip with that specific behavior we now need construct the “Not” chip.\nA Quick Word about HDL Before I explain this anymore I have to say a word or two about how we go about describing the implementation details of chips in this Nand2Tetris course. The folks who put together this course were nice enough to define a language called HDL or Hardware Description Language that can be used for describing chips. This language is extraordinarily simple and efficient. The actual language isn’t very hard to grasp at all and can be almost completely understood in about 30 minutes. By the way, if you decide to do this course you can download the required software which will have these handy “stub” files to help you on your quest to Nand your way to the top. These stub files look like this\nCHIP Not {\rIN in;\rOUT out; PARTS:\r//Define implementation here Most importantly, this interface affords us a simple API to start working with and defining chips. If you think of the “in” and “out” variables as if they were wires it might help you wrap your mind around this. First, you have the CHIP section which defines what “wires” are going in and out of the chip. Then, the PARTS section is the place where we are supposed to supply our code. Which is going to be some combination of chips which when “wired” together supplies the desired outcome.It turns out we can define this chip in one line with our handy dandy Nand chip. The actual fully designed “Not” chip in HDL file looks like this:\nCHIP Not {\rIN in;\rOUT out;\rPARTS:\rNand(a=in, b=in, out=out);\r} What just happened? Well lets look at the Nand truth table and compare it with the truth table we expect to see from a not chip and we will see it is actually simpler than we thought. If you look closely at the Nand table you’ll see the answer was right in front of us the whole time.\nNAND TRUTH TABLE | a | b | out |\r| 0 | 0 | 1 |\r| 0 | 1 | 1 |\r| 1 | 0 | 1 |\r| 1 | 1 | 0 | We just need to feed the input into the Nand chip twice to get the desired result because if you feed two ones into a Nand chip you are going to get a zero. Whereas when you feed two zeros into a Nand chip you will get a one viola! The elusive “Not” chip. One down 15 more to go!\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/posts/the-beginning/","summary":"\u003ch1 id=\"the-beginning\"\u003eThe Beginning\u003c/h1\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJanuary 17, 2019\u003c/strong\u003e by thepigeonfighter\n\u003cimg alt=\"Background\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"FW9PY9UGX3M1G4Q.LARGE_.jpg\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2 id=\"the-not-gate\"\u003eThe Not Gate\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecently I have started working on a project called Nand2Tetris. The idea of the project is to build a computer from first principles all the way to an OS that runs a Tetris clone. The course is totally open source and free to audit. Thanks to Noam Nisan and Shimon Schocken for all their hard work in putting this course together.\u003c/p\u003e","title":"The Beginning"},{"content":"I am a developer in Shelbyville Kentucky who likes to learn more about people and the world through books. I enjoy synthesizing what I read into reviews, and occasionally writing essays.\nEmail: georgefabish@gmail.com\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/about/","summary":"\u003cp\u003eI am a developer in Shelbyville Kentucky who likes to learn more about people and the world through books. I enjoy synthesizing what I read into reviews, and occasionally writing essays.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmail: \u003ca href=\"mailto:georgefabish@gmail.com\"\u003egeorgefabish@gmail.com\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","title":"About"},{"content":" The Prize — 20th century history using oil as a lens. Notes of a Native Son — A collection of essays describing the experience of being a black intellectual in the 1960\u0026rsquo;s. A Hero of Our Time — A cynical Byronic hero written by Lermontov in 1841. The Internationalist — A good history that defends institutions even when they aren\u0026rsquo;t functional. Rebellion, Rascals, and Revenue — A good overview of the history of taxation and the various ways governments have gotten revenue throughout time. All the Shah\u0026rsquo;s Men — Covering the CIA\u0026rsquo;s invovlement in the 1953 Iranian coup The Jakarta Method — Horrific accounting of the slaughter of nearly 1M Indonesian civilians in little covered Cold War side theatre. Thinking Fast and Thinking Slow — A book discussing humans\u0026rsquo; 2 system approach to cognition, will be interesting to compare and contrast with Master and His Emissary. The Last Empire — Covers the final days of the USSR focusing on Gorby, Bush, and everyone\u0026rsquo;s favorite Boris. The Grid: The Fraying Wires Between Americans and Our Energy Future — A book written about the US grid and its deteriorating condition Mother Night — Vonnegut creates a fictional Nazi spy who\u0026rsquo;s loyalty is questionable. 12 A New World Begins — The French Revolution was a polarizing current event in young America. Popkin gives a good bird\u0026rsquo;s eye view. ","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/currently-reading/","summary":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Prize\u003c/strong\u003e — 20th century history using oil as a lens.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNotes of a Native Son\u003c/strong\u003e — A collection of essays describing the experience of being a black intellectual in the 1960\u0026rsquo;s.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eA Hero of Our Time\u003c/strong\u003e — A cynical Byronic hero written by Lermontov in 1841.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Internationalist\u003c/strong\u003e — A good history that defends institutions even when they aren\u0026rsquo;t functional.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRebellion, Rascals, and Revenue\u003c/strong\u003e — A good overview of the history of taxation and the various ways governments have gotten revenue throughout time.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAll the Shah\u0026rsquo;s Men\u003c/strong\u003e — Covering the CIA\u0026rsquo;s invovlement in the 1953 Iranian coup\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Jakarta Method\u003c/strong\u003e — Horrific accounting of the slaughter of nearly 1M Indonesian civilians in little covered Cold War side theatre.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThinking Fast and Thinking Slow\u003c/strong\u003e — A book discussing humans\u0026rsquo; 2 system approach to cognition, will be interesting to compare and contrast with Master and His Emissary.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Last Empire\u003c/strong\u003e — Covers the final days of the USSR focusing on Gorby, Bush, and everyone\u0026rsquo;s favorite Boris.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Grid: The Fraying Wires Between Americans and Our Energy Future\u003c/strong\u003e — A book written about the US grid and its deteriorating condition\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMother Night\u003c/strong\u003e — Vonnegut creates a fictional Nazi spy who\u0026rsquo;s loyalty is questionable.\n12  \u003cstrong\u003eA New World Begins\u003c/strong\u003e — The French Revolution was a polarizing current event in young America. Popkin gives a good bird\u0026rsquo;s eye view.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e","title":"Currently reading"},{"content":" Humanity from a Planetary Perspective — History as undirected evolutionary process. History of European Morals — A tremendous history of morals from a stodgy aristocrat. How History Gets Things Wrong — Rosenburg explaining how narrative history is a fiction we use to comfort ourselves. The Assassins\u0026rsquo; Gate — America in Iraq: motives, execution, and what came after. The Master and His Emissary — The risks of one side of the brain controlling human culture. The Selfish Gene — A book that changes the way you view the world whether you want it to or not. Balkan Ghosts — Kaplan’s travel-history written just in time to be read by Clinton attempting to understand the Balkans in the 90\u0026rsquo;s. Programming for technical writing, or Currently reading for books I\u0026rsquo;ve finished recently that need reviews 😅\n","permalink":"https://blog.georgefabish.com/favorites/","summary":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003ca href=\"/essays/humanity-from-a-planetary-perspective/\"\u003eHumanity from a Planetary Perspective\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e — History as undirected evolutionary process.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003ca href=\"/reviews/history-of-european-morals-from-augustus-to-charlemagne/\"\u003eHistory of European Morals\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e — A tremendous history of morals from a stodgy aristocrat.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003ca href=\"/reviews/how-history-gets-things-wrong-the-neuroscience-of-our-addiction-to-stories/\"\u003eHow History Gets Things Wrong\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e — Rosenburg explaining how narrative history is a fiction we use to comfort ourselves.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003ca href=\"/reviews/the-assassins-gate-america-in-iraq/\"\u003eThe Assassins\u0026rsquo; Gate\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e — America in Iraq: motives, execution, and what came after.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003ca href=\"/reviews/the-master-and-his-emissary-the-divided-brain-and-the-making-of-the-western-world/\"\u003eThe Master and His Emissary\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e — The risks of one side of the brain controlling human culture.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003ca href=\"/reviews/the-selfish-gene/\"\u003eThe Selfish Gene\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e — A book that changes the way you view the world whether you want it to or not.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003ca href=\"/reviews/balkan-ghosts/\"\u003eBalkan Ghosts\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e — Kaplan’s travel-history written just in time to be read by Clinton attempting to understand the Balkans in the 90\u0026rsquo;s.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003ca href=\"/posts/\"\u003eProgramming\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e for technical writing, or \u003cstrong\u003e\u003ca href=\"/currently-reading/\"\u003eCurrently reading\u003c/a\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e for books I\u0026rsquo;ve finished recently that need reviews 😅\u003c/p\u003e","title":"Favorites"}]