I found it troubling and eerie at how much of today I see in the world Jackson Lears relates in his newest book Rebirth of a Nation, which chronicles the history of the United States from the end of Reconstruction to the end of World War I. Lears makes the similarities between then and now a theme throughout the book, pointing them out when they are especially telling. Rebirth of a Nation is not an important book because it paints a vivid picture of early modern American culture; it is a brilliant book because it reminds of how and why we have the federal government we do and the headaches and troubles earlier Americans faced to get us here. Various government institutions and policies (the FDA, for example) which we take for granted today, or worse denigrate, are explained in the context of which they were created, enlightening such issues as modern banking and its regulation, the Federal Reserve, the eight-hour workday, unions, a mixed economy, and more. Lears wraps all of that radical change in an American desire, both individual and societal, for a rebirth into a state akin to grace whether through war, social justice, or labor. Rebirth of a Nation is a must-read for lovers of American history.
If you’re a fan of history or the United States this is a great book that covers a pivotal period in US History as the country shifted from its original rural agrarian base to a urban industrial one.
So, if you’d like a free book. Just make a comment down below and you’ll be entered. One person, chosen at random, will win it next Friday.
No one gets up in the morning and continues living because they believe there is a God, they get up because they’re compelled to keep living by billions of years of evolution. They get up because life is, in general, pretty fucking amazing. They get up because they have a work they love doing, they have family and friends that care about them and that they care about.
I left you last at the beginning of Camus’ critique of other philosopher’s thoughts and rationalizations for suicide. Camus doesn’t deal with every philosophy, ever -ism, he takes up the only existential philosopher’s and only those who have directly dealt with the issue of suicide. This list includes: Chestov ( I haven’t read), Kierkegaard (I have), Jaspers (haven’t), and Husserl (have). Camus states in the very beginning that each and every one of them fails, they abandon reason and escape the problem of suicide by a leap of faith, “a forced hope.” Jaspers’ is the most forthright of the philosophers in this regard. After enumerating in how many ways Man fails to connect to the world around him, turns that failure is transcendence?! Unable to find purpose or meaning Jasper inverts it all and says that this is meaning, “That existence which, through a blind act of human confidence, explains everything, he defines as ‘the unthinkable unity of the general and the particular.’ Thus the absurd becomes god, and the inability to understand becomes the existence that illuminates everything.” How convenient for Jasper that when his reasoning got him in a tough spot, when it appeared he might have to say that the only logical thing to do in an absurd world is to kill yourself, he declares that the complete absence from reality of meaning or purpose is a direct sign that there is!
Chestov simply states that when we reach the absurd we have found God, that “we must rely upon him even if he does not correspond to any of our rational categories.” Faced with the absurd we must take the leap of faith and trust to God. Chestov rejects reason and hopes that there is something beyond it. Camus is quick to point out that reason and this world are all Humanity has to work with and that by making the absurd God and removing them from this world into a world beyond, they’ve both lost all meaning to mankind. Logic and reason, which if you remember were all Camus was going to use when he began his inquiry into suicide, is not these philosopher’s strong point as Camus repeatedly points out. They’ve abandoned it when they make the hopeful leap of faith, Kierkegaard does the same as Chestov if not more so turning the Christian God of his youth into a monster of a deity that requires a sacrifice of the intellect to satisfy it.
Camus rejects all of this, he wants to know if he can live with what he knows and with that alone. Camus dismisses the failed attempts of his predecessors with these words:
If in order to elude the anxious question: “what would life be?” one must, like the donkey, feed on the roses of illusion, then the absurd mind, rather than resigning itself to falsehood, prefers to adopt fearlessly Kierkegaard’s reply: “despair.” everything considered, a determined soul will always manage.
So what do I think about all this? I find that without me knowing it that my thoughts on life have been heavily influenced by Camus. The first time I read this I know there were parts that I didn’t understand and simply continued reading in the hopes of finding some clarity… I do not recall finding it, but rereading the essay it is clear I did. I haven’t sat down and mapped out my logic or reasoning, but I don’t need any other reason to live than that I have a life. In a conversation with a Mormon Bishop I was asked, “Without God why do you even bother getting up in the morning?” I honestly do not understand this question. I suspect that those who ask it don’t either. No one gets up in the morning and continues living because they believe there is a God, they get up because they’re compelled to keep living by billions of years of evolution. They get up because life is, in general, pretty fucking amazing. They get up because they have a work they love doing, they have family and friends that care about them and that they care about. I told him this and he seemed taken aback, and then asked “What about when you die?” I laughed out loud at that point, though I quickly apologized. I don’t remember my life before I came in to it and I don’t think I’ll remember it afterwards. Is your life, right now, only worth continuing if a eternity of existence is promised after you die? I doubt it. Living is its own reward… Camus’ thoughts are quite a bit more stylized than that, demanding that Man live life constantly rebellion against the fact that the world is absurd and that life must end…
I’ll be discussing and commenting on that in the next edition, which covers Camus’ “absurd freedom” and then moving on to the “absurd man”
I was going to do a simple “Top 10” list but I don’t really feel like channeling David Letterman right now, it hurts my jaw when I do that. Also I don’t know if I’ve deeply read ten philosophers. I’ve read more than ten, but just single works which really doesn’t give you constructed context in which they’ve created their works. Even with the philosophers whose works I’ve read completely it can be hard to see exactly what they were getting at. And, with philosophy it is never a monologue you read or listen and you take what is being said and filter it through you’re own experiences and what comes out is sometimes similar to what they said, but often it has changed, occasionally the changes are subtle and it takes awhile to recognize that what you thought the philosopher said is not at all what he did say other times it is completely different and you’ve constructed your own philosophy from the bones of their’s.
I believe it is because of this conversation philosopher’s have with us, the dialogue each one of them creates with the culture surrounding them and the individuals in it, philosophy has remained such a powerful force throughout the ages. But back to the topic at hand my favorite philosophers (so far):
1. Socrates – I could have started with a pre-socratic but why? You wouldn’t recogonize their name or their work, but everyone knows who Socrates is, sorta. We don’t have anything actually written by Socrates we only know him through the writings of two of his students and a Athenian comicwright. If you’ve never read philosophy reading Socrates’ dialogues by Plato are the best place to start. The books are affordable and well translated and it is easy to follow the flow of the argument.
2. Albert Camus – You figured Plato was going to be next didn’t you? Nope, Plato is an iconic philosopher but he isn’t one of my favorites. Albert Camus was a French Algerian born in 1913 and is most known for his novel The Stranger. Camus is often labeled a existentialist though he didn’t consider himself one. I think the label is appropriate as Camus wholly believes in a universe indifferent to humanity and each human is responsible entirely for creating meaning and purpose in their life. The label is very broad and many existentialists disagree on much. I love Camus because of his great works of fiction and the hope that infuses his philosophy.
3. August Strindberg – What is a 19th century Scandinavian playwright doing on my list? Mostly because his “autobiographical” work Inferno is one of the most mind blowing books I ever read. This is a man haunted by paranoia and persecution who formulates the belief that this life is hell. Everyone here failed in life and is now being punished, of course part of the punishment is not knowing we are being punished. I don’t agree with that philosophy but reading Strindberg was engrossing.
4. Friedrich Nietzsche – Probably still my favorite philosopher. I’ve read all of his works multiple times. Even so, I find new things in them and doubt I understand what he was trying to say. Nietzsche is also an existentialist, one whose reputation was largely destroyed by his self loathing and an overzealous and moronic sister (she is the one responsible for tying his philosophy to Nazism). Nietzsche’s finest idea in my opinion his his thought experiment “the eternal recurrence”, imagine that you have to live your life over and over again, forever. Every decision you make will be the same, as will every action, thought, etc., etc. You will live the same life over and over again. Will you be happy with this life? The person who can say yes is truly living their life, those who can’t need to re-evaluate themselves. The other powerful idea Nietzsche brings us is the idea of the overman and the last man. The overman is someone who has taken control of their life, has abandoned the rule sets of culture and forged their own, a person who sees joy and suffering as the same, an affirmation of living. The last man? is the pathetic degraded human who has willed away his life to others.
I can’t recommend a detailed reading of Nietzsche’s works enough. Start with something easy though like the Ecco Homo end with Thus Spoke Zarathustra
There are plenty of other philosopher’s to talk about but I think those four are sufficient for now.Investigate them,read and study the. let me know what you think. If you have a favorite philosopher pass them on to me. I like reading new things!
The Secret History of the World is a terrible book. A terrible 512 page book. I knew it was terrible by page 5, I continued to read it until I was 30 pages from the end. I really wanted to finish the book, despite how bad it was, when I pick up a book I intend to finish it. But I can only take so much, the mind can only handle so much garbage before it revolts and vomits into your brain pan…
So why would I pick up such a terrible book? Well, because the people who work at Borders don’t actually read the books they classify, yup they have no idea what the books are about when they decide what section of the store it belongs in. I imagine that the people in charge of this just read over the promotional material and then make their best guess as to where it goes. I found it in the World History section, and if you just look at the cover that makes some sense, the words “world” and “history” are in the title of the book. But you just have to read the dust jacket and the 2 odd page introduction to know that this is not a book about the actual history of the world. No, no this book is about the author’s delusions… which means that the book belonged in General Metaphysics or Speculation, next to such gems as Zecharia Sitchin, Sylvia Browne, and J. Douglas Kenyon.
I thought the book was going to be about the history of various real secret societies and the mythologies of those socities and how it related to their contemporary environment. But nope, that isn’t what you get instead Mr. Booth’s book just rambles on about things he doesn’t seem to know much about, pushing and cramming and jamming all sorts of mythologies and history together to make it fit his agenda. All using an obscure lingo and vocabulary that doesn’t make much sense. Oh, and he gets all sorts of history wrong… *sigh* He doesn’t seem to understand literature or art, but that doesn’t stop him from making things up to fit into any piece of art… *sigh*
I don’t even like talking about how bad this book is, so this is the end of the post.
