Reviews

Written by Jordan Peterson’s daddy himself this book was really quite enjoyable. I preferred it over some of the books I’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’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’d highly recommend, it’s given me much to think about and I will definitely be returning to re-read later on. ...

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’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’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 “human nature” 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 ...

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: ...

Summary Antoine Roquentin, an isolated aspiring biographer, inhabits Bouville (mud town) like a ghost. “Nausea” by Sartre is not so much a story as it is an attempt to let the reader have an experience. Roquentin’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. Thoughts This 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’t know when to stop asking questions, this book will give you a few more. ...

Summary Llewelyn 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. Thoughts This is the third Cormac McCarthy book I’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’s least “fancy” book, you aren’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’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 “old timer”, but he secretly knows he is not. He’s got all the common sense of the older generation but can’t manage to have the same beliefs, and this bothers him to no end. Bell’s wife acts like Dante’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. ...

Summary This book follows the careers of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, focusing on the second half of FDR’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 “New Deal,” which was essentially a labor reform agenda that emerged during the Great Depression. ...

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… ...

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

The only surviving work of the Roman Poet Lucretius, ‘On the Nature of things’ 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 “how far we’ve come” it kept making me feel like we haven’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’t actually definitions. They act instead as boxes that hide things we don’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’t fully understand. As foundational of a text as this is, I wouldn’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’ve probably forgotten some things.

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.