What's on your night stand that's good to read?

[John McVey]

Did you finish reading "Markets Don't Fail!" yet? What do you think of it?

Yarp. Good book, informative content. The style was slightly off-putting, though. It seemed forced, almost as though the reader were being talked down to, but not deliberately. Reads like what it is - a book by someone who isn't all that used to writing for a more general audience. I noticed that Dr Simpson is an ex-engineer, which explains things there. Still, I have recommended it to a couple of people already. I'll do a better write-up when I get some time.

JJM

[DarkWaters]

I recently finished Breaking the Banks by Richard Salsman. I am currently working on Money Mischief by Milton Friedman. In addition, I just received both Eurabia by Bat Ye'or and Vienna and Chicago: Friends or Foes by Mark Skousen from Amazon.com. Moreover, I also have Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism checked out from the library. Lastly, I also have a Barnes and Noble biography on George Washington which I read intermittently ($2 well spent for a 500+ page bargain book).

[John McVey]

I just finished Hitchens' "God is not great". It's a fascinating read, and it's not at all hard to see why he left the left so acrimoniously. I recommend it if you have the time. Next up is re-reading Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker", a copy of which I now own.

I also finished "Carnival on Wall Street" by Hughes and MacDonald for my Global Markets subject this trimester (finished first assignment last night after 4 weeks' work). Had some interesting things, but I was annoyed by some of the biases in it. I ended up thinking it was a waste of money overall, not at all worth the $A55 price tag on it were it not required reading.

Goodkind's Confessor wont be too far away now, I have that on pre-order on Amazon

JJM

[brian0918]

I'm definitely going to add some of these suggestions to my list.

Currently:

• Atlas Shrugged
  

Recently finished:

• The Road -- Cormac McCarthy
  
• No Country for Old Men -- Cormac McCarthy
  
• Lots of Vonnegut:
  • 2BR02B ("to be or not to be" - short story)
    
  • God Bless You Mr. Rosewater (a lone altruist gone to the extreme)
    
  • The Sirens of Titan
    
  • Cat's Cradle
    
  • Slaughterhouse-Five
    

  [*]No Exit -- Sartre

  [*]Waiting for Godot -- Beckett

  [*]The Stranger -- Camus

  [*]Treatise on the Gods -- Mencken

  [*]The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

  [*]God is not Great -- Hitchens

Next up:

• Freedom Evolves -- Dennett
  
• The Forgotten Man -- Shlaes
  
• Darwin's Dangerous Idea -- Dennett
  
• Consciousness Explained -- Dennett
  
• More Vonnegut
  
• More McCarthy
  
• More Rand
  

Edited July 29, 2008 by brian0918

[KevinDW78]

I don't think most people would be interested in the reading material that appears on my nightstand. j/k

I think everyone should read Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World. I think it should be required reading in early high school.

[TheEgoist]

Currently reading " Watchmen ", the comic by Alan Moore.

Also reading Fyodor's " Notes From The Underground "

[brian0918]

Also reading Fyodor's " Notes From The Underground "

What do you think of it? I remember thinking I was the underground man when I read it (going through a nihilistic phase).

[adrock3215]

• The Road -- Cormac McCarthy
  

I just finished this book recently as well. It was an interesting read, but I wouldn't call it a good book. What did you think?

[brian0918]

I just finished this book recently as well. It was an interesting read, but I wouldn't call it a good book. What did you think?

I liked it, although there were a few parts that just seemed laughable when the author was trying to be serious. The ending was a little rushed. I like his writing style though, and have lined up The Orchard Keeper and Blood Meridian to read next.

The movie for The Road should be interesting. All the desolate parts were shot in Western Pennsylvania at the beginning of May. I was tempted to drive over there (not too far away) and try to find where they were filming.

[adrock3215]

I liked it,

What in particular did you like about it? I can't stand his writing style; he is a modern day Faulkner in my estimation. Of course, I know the English departments are all over this guy like he's the greatest thing right now. I suspect in 100 years no one will ever have heard of him, despite what Harold Bloom says.

[brian0918]

I can't stand his writing style

Sometimes it is difficult, but I like how he basically cuts out all the unnecessary words.

I know the English departments are all over this guy like he's the greatest thing right now.

I figured it would be the opposite, particularly because of his lack of punctuation.

[adrock3215]

I figured it would be the opposite, particularly because of his lack of punctuation.

In modern day English departments this is seen as a plus. That's why they drool over Faulkner and Joyce. I don't know if you have read Absalom! Absalom! by Faulkner, but it is not uncommon for the sentences to last several pages, or for a parentheses to be established inside another parentheses, inside another parentheses. At one point while reading it I forgot that I was in a parenthetical passage and when I saw an end parentheses I was perplexed. I went back about 15 pages and I found where the orginal parentheses had begun. It was genius!

I remember reading Yale professor and literary critic Harold Bloom drooling over McCarthy. In some ways I respect Bloom, as he is the most well read individual on earth, and he has a deep understanding of the Western canon, and one of the foremost Shakespearan scholars alive. (He also wrote a great deal on Hugo. And he has a great book out called "Where Shall Wisdom Be Found?" that I recommend to everyone. ) But his claim is that in the future McCarthy will be included in the Canon, and I am saying I don't think so.

Anyhow, McCarthy is similar to Faulker. My issue with him is his writing style and nonsensical stories.

Ok, the world is coming to an end. Why? What happened? _________. Don't expect an answer in The Road, because you will not be given one. That's the point though I guess, for whatever reason. It doesn't matter what happened or why it happened, what matters is two unnamed people trying to do _____. No answer there either. Why? In this world McCarthy has created, the characters cannot achieve their values, other than surviving on a day-to-day basis. I suppose that is an interesting topic to think of in passing, but what implication does that have for my life here on earth, on which I can achieve my values? There isn't much reason to even contemplate such a world, is there? Side note: There were some aspects of the book I found enjoyable, such as the man's dedication to the boy.

Edited July 30, 2008 by adrock3215

[brian0918]

Anyhow, McCarthy is similar to Faulker. My issue with him is his writing style and nonsensical stories.

Ok, the world is coming to an end. Why? What happened? _________. Don't expect an answer in The Road, because you will not be given one. That's the point though I guess, for whatever reason. It doesn't matter what happened or why it happened, what matters is two unnamed people trying to do _____. No answer there either. Why? In this world McCarthy has created, the characters cannot achieve their values, other than surviving on a day-to-day basis. I suppose that is an interesting topic to think of in passing, but what implication does that have for my life here on earth, on which I can achieve my values? There isn't much reason to even contemplate such a world, is there? Side note: There were some aspects of the book I found enjoyable, such as the man's dedication to the boy.

For the first blank, there is no answer, because I don't think that was the point of the story. It is just the reality of their world. For the second blank, I believe the answer is to

carry on "the fire", which I interpreted to mean either reason, or at least a moral code. Everyone else has discarded their principles and turned to cannibalism. They're nothing more than animals. They even eat their babies. The main characters, however, are trying to adhere to morality despite the unlivable world they are now surrounded by. The man has made it his purpose to keep his son alive, and teach him what is right and wrong. They are not so much "surviving on a day-to-day basis" as "keeping alive reason from day to day."

It is obvious from the beginning that the man is dying, so it is obvious that his only purpose is to get his son to safety, or at least in the hands of sane individuals, thus keeping "the fire" alive.

I haven't read any of the rave reviews regarding the book, or anything else that you mentioned. For me, it was almost a turn-off to see that the book was labeled by Amazon as being part of "Oprah's Book of the Month" . But, I liked No Country for Old Men (much better than the movie), so I figured I'd read it anyway.

Edited July 30, 2008 by brian0918

[adrock3215]

For the first blank, there is no answer, because I don't think that was the point of the story. It is just the reality of their world. For the second blank, I believe the answer is to

carry on "the fire", which I interpreted to mean either reason, or at least a moral code. Everyone else has discarded their principles and turned to cannibalism. They're nothing more than animals. They even eat their babies. The main characters, however, are trying to adhere to morality despite the unlivable world they are now surrounded by. The man has made it his purpose to keep his son alive, and teach him what is right and wrong. They are not so much "surviving on a day-to-day basis" as "keeping alive reason from day to day."

That's a good point. While I was reading, I didn't take "the fire" to mean reason, but rather some remnant code of an aging morality. I don't think McCarthy ever explicitly stated what exactly "the fire" was. But there are so many questions about this. Why are they carrying "the fire", while few others are? Why have they been placed in this impossible hypothetical world? Why did the mother commit suicide? Every time I saw the fire referenced I thought of the Prometheus myth. Though I'm not sure if there is any connection there, it presented an interesting thought to say the least.

[RicardoSmith23]

What are your thoughts on 1776? I've been pretty impressed by McCullough as a biographer. The founding is a period of interest for me (I have Founding Brothers and Chernow's Alexander Hamilton, also "on deck")

To interject, I thought 1776 was a joy to read. He selects some of the greatest Washington stories and dialogues that he could've possibly selected. He romanticizes Washington to a great extent, which probably hurts his posture with regard to mainstream academia but is absolutely perfect for my taste. I'd recommend it, it's a very vivid discription of a very tumultuous time. My favorite part was when, towards the start of the war, General Howe meets with Washington in person and says, in effect, "Let's not let this go on. Just apologize and we can cut some kind of deal." Washington says, "Innocent men have nothing to apologize for" and flatly refuses to comprimise, even though they were outnumbered and outcommanded to a ridiculous extent. McCullough makes it clear that this surprising underdog victory was made possible by an ideological commitment to freedom, as well as the brilliance of certain commanders. I'd recommend it.

Ellis, on the other hand (Founding Brothers, American Creation, American Sphynx, etc) is a disgrace. He's overly verbose, he jumps around, and he loves to talk about how stupid and ridiculous the founders were. He also mentions, as a matter of fact, how absurd, impractically idealistic and Platonically phony the ideals of the declaration were. He seems to talk down to the founders, treating them as loveable little children who were basically complete boneheads with regards to everything. It's insulting. He also takes massive speculations with regard to Jefferson, his favorite target. He slips little insults in here and there, almost as if he were trying to brainwash the reader into thinking, "Man, this Jefferson is a nut job" without providing any real evidence for it. Ellis's intentions are plainly clear when you read his books---he has a blatantly anti-Jefferson, pro-Madison agenda. But the most annoying aspect is his pragmatism, which seeks to insult Adams, Jefferson and various others for having convictions, while putting Madison on a golden pedistal for having none and just trying to "solve" things. He essentially laughs at the cute, childish, little idea of having rigid principles and paints Madison as the matured adult who intervened to take care of things in an adult, pragmatic fashion.

[John McVey]

I've almost finished reading Sir Richard Branson's latest book, Business Stripped Bare. It's a very interesting read, both for its business advice and as an insight into the man. Anyone who has interested in starting their own business should get it. A review is in the works.

JJM

[KendallJ]

A review is in the works.

Thanks for the recommendation! I look forward to the review.

Speaking of which, since John bumped the thread. Any other recommendations?

[D'kian]

I've begun reading "Physics Of The Impossible." It's by a phycisist whose name escapes me, I'll post it when I'm home.

The idea is to take a rigorous look at science fiction staples to determine how they could be made real. So far I've learned some form of forcefield is possible, but powerful, hand-held lasers are not (laser weapons as such being a different matter).

The book's well-written and the scientific explanations are easy to follow. Plus it's divided in many chapters, each with many sub-divisions, that one can put it down almost at any time and re-take it later (a concern for the bed time reader).

[James I]

Currently reading "Objectivism in One Lesson" by Andrew Bernstein

After that I've got:

"The Naked Jape" by Jimmy Carr

"Getting Things Done" by David Allen

"Precision Nutrition" by John M. Berardi

ITOE and OPAR

Incidentally I've noticed that a few of you read more than one book at the same time. Do you find that it's more beneficial that way and if so why?

[UptonStellington]

Has anyone read "Capitalism at Work"? It's all about Enron -- how its failures are always blamed on the free market, but how its downfalls were actually a result of political medelling (how do you spell that word?!) by people like Ken Lay.

I actually came across this video on YouTube, where the author, who had worked as Lay's speechwriter, mentions the parallels between Lay and an Ayn Rand villain. If anyone has read it, I'd like to know whether it's worth the read....

[TheEgoist]

I've begun reading "Physics Of The Impossible." It's by a phycisist whose name escapes me, I'll post it when I'm home.

The idea is to take a rigorous look at science fiction staples to determine how they could be made real. So far I've learned some form of forcefield is possible, but powerful, hand-held lasers are not (laser weapons as such being a different matter).

The book's well-written and the scientific explanations are easy to follow. Plus it's divided in many chapters, each with many sub-divisions, that one can put it down almost at any time and re-take it later (a concern for the bed time reader).

I think the History channel has shows on like that.

I'm currently reading, though I haven't gotten far, "Freedom Evolves" by Daniel Dennet.

[adrock3215]

Currently I am reading various sections of the Old Testament.

I will be reading the following books next:

Toilers of the Sea by Hugo

Intruders in the Dust by Faulkner

How to Read and Why by Bloom

Einstein by Neffe

Robinson Crusoe by DeFoe

Look Homeward, Angel by Wolfe

Thoreau: A Life of the Mind by Richardson

The Last Days of Socrates by Plato

[softwareNerd]

Right now, I'm reading "Money of the Mind", by James Grant. Each chapter describes an episode in the history of U.S. banking/credit-markets.

Grant's books tend to be non-theoretical, which has it's pros and cons. The most important pro is that too many economists write in a rationalistic fashion, and people like Grant offer the opposite. The con is that without theory and unifying commentary, specific examples have little use unless one does the abstracting for oneself. I like it enough that I think my next book might be Grant's more recent one: "Mr. Market Miscalculates"

(Aside: On the subject of books, I wonder if there is any interest (here on OO.net) to do some form of reading groups... where two or more people read the same book, during roughly the same time frame (say a quarter) and discuss it? The primary reason would be to gain from such discussion. I don't want to side-track this topic, and intend to post more fully on this. If anyone is really keen, and wants to respond, please start a new topic.)

Edited December 8, 2008 by softwareNerd

[~Sophia~]

I just started (40 pages in 550) Logic: An Introduction by Lionel Ruby and so far I like it a lot. The book has three sections: use of language, deductive reasoning, and scientific method and inductive reasoning.

[Tenure]

I just started (40 pages in 550) Logic: An Introduction by Lionel Ruby and so far I like it a lot. The book has three sections: use of language, deductive reasoning, and scientific method and inductive reasoning.

Sweet, I want to get my mits on that book. Give us a good review when it's done.

• Consciousness Explained -- Dennett
  

I read Beenfeldt's (an Objectivst Philosophy Graduate at Oxford) paper on Heterophenomenology, and got the impression that the whole theory just begs the question of how one justifies all the 'data' that Dennett wishes to treat materialistically. From my understanding, the whole thing is very silly. How have you found his theory? Does it have any merit whatsoever?

Also reading Fyodor's " Notes From The Underground "

I have had several aborted attempts at trying to read this. How have you found it?