Reviews

Summary We are all familiar with the scientific method: observe, theorize, experiment, and repeat. This algorithm is humanity’s most effective tool for understanding the universe. However, Bill Hammack introduces readers to what he calls the “engineering method.” While it’s commonly believed that scientists create knowledge and engineers apply it, Hammack argues that this perspective greatly underestimates the engineer’s role in discovery. He asserts that engineers must be the ultimate pragmatists, unable to wait for perfect knowledge. Instead, they often operate by “rules of thumb” 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 ‘100-year wind’ 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’s worth of wind data for an area, forcing engineers to rely on modern “rules of thumb,” 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. ...

Another suggested book that I probably wouldn’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 “almost within reach feel”. Where you could imagine some of the inventions described being created in our lifetimes. All in all, very light reading but pretty entertaining.

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’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’ recommendation, and I can see why he liked it as one could imagine the book ‘The Outsider’ as being a descendant of ‘The Trial’. The last words of Joseph K. “like a dog” have stuck in my head ever since. People/Franz Kafka Albert Camus

I had been meaning to read Wendell Berry for a while as he lives less than 30 minutes away. Without much research I chose ‘The Unsettling of America’ 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: ...

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’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’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 ...

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’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.

Summary Mayer 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. ...

Happiness or freedom, which would you choose? Summary Levin tells a story about a community known as “the family” which is comprised of a group of members who are sedated and regulated by a computer known as “uni”. 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. Thoughts It 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’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’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’s in general. The main character Chip agrees with Dostoyevsky’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. ...

Summary America’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’s presidency, making him one of the most effective political operatives in American history. Meacham gives a full view of Jefferson’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 “men” 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’s other premier intellect, Alexander Hamilton. This disagreement ended up forming the first political parties in the US, the Federalists (Hamilton’s party) and the Republicans (Jefferson’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’s first cabinet. It is also a testament to Washington’s leadership that such a cabinet could exist for as long as it did. Always sure that Washington was Hamilton’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 “protesting too much.” 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’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’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. ...

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’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, “Thus spoke the devil to me, once on a time: “Even God has his hell: it is his love for man”. And lately did I hear him say these words: “God is dead: of his pity for man has God died”. 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 “find himself”. He thus returns to his enlightened state of supreme joy and happiness. After some time, some “higher men” 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 “enlightened” character seemed to mirror Nietzsche’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. ...