I did somewhat struggle to get into it at the beginning; it felt quite repetitive and I just didn't really like it; however, after about 50-ish pages I did somewhat struggle to get into it at the beginning; it felt quite repetitive and I just didn't really like it; however, after about 50-ish pages I started liking it more and more, and towards the end I really liked it! It's quite an interesting set-up: a compilation of small essays all about desire that feed into and follow up on each other, but also are distinct considerations of eros/desire/love....more
Ik was toevallig het eerste boek (denk ik althans?) van Fransen tegengekomen en daar was ik echt helemaal weg van ("Brieven aan Koos", nog steeds een Ik was toevallig het eerste boek (denk ik althans?) van Fransen tegengekomen en daar was ik echt helemaal weg van ("Brieven aan Koos", nog steeds een ontzettende aanrader!). Toen ik dus, wederom toevallig, deze in een boekwinkel zag hoefde ik niet lang te twijfelen voordat ik wist dat ik deze ook wilde hebben.
In tegenstelling tot dat andere boek is dit boek echt veel meer een essay en veel 'academischer' (ja sorry, ik vind het ook een vervelende omschrijving, maar het best waar ik nu op kan komen). De brieven waren veel meer zoals Fransen ook op het toneel is: de filosofie is zeker aanwezig, maar wel vervlochten met grapjes en anekdotes. Hier zijn er veel minder anekdotes en grapjes. Dat maakt het boek er niet minder op, maar het is dus wel een heel ander boek.
In dit boek zet Fransen namelijk uiteen wat volgens hem het 'doel' (of in ieder geval 'een doel') is van humor. Dat dat soms juist de dood van humor is erkent hij zelf ook, maar desondanks weet hij er een interessant verhaal van te maken waarin hij overtuigend beargumenteert dat we juist in komedie al onze gebreken als mensen en de mensheid onder ogen kunnen zien....more
Het was een toeval dat ik dit boek tegen kwam in een boekenwinkel toen ik met wat vrienden een weekendje in Groningen was. We waren al bijna uitgeshopHet was een toeval dat ik dit boek tegen kwam in een boekenwinkel toen ik met wat vrienden een weekendje in Groningen was. We waren al bijna uitgeshopt maar moesten nog even wachten, dus besloot ik langs de filosofie/reis/economie en dergelijke schappen te lopen. Daar zag ik tot mn verbazing opeens een boek van Tim Fransen! Ik ben groot fan van zijn voorstellingen en wist dus dat hij ook filosofie heeft gestudeerd, maar wist niet dat hij ook een boek had geschreven. De eerste pagina's waren erg leuk, dus ik had stiekem nog een boekje aan m'n stapeltje toegevoegd (had er eigenlijk al meer dan ik met mezelf had afgesproken, maar goed, dat hoort er ook bij).
Het boek was dus ook erg goed (te zien aan de 5 sterren haha)! Het is eigenlijk vooral een verzameling brieven (zoals de titel ook aangeeft) waarin Tim Fransen van alles omschrijft: van zijn reizen tot aan zijn (filosofische) ideeën en andere mijmeringen. Het leest erg makkelijk en snel en zowel geschikt voor mensen die al iets weten van filosofie en zij die dat niet doen.
Als je al fan bent van de shows van Tim Fransen raad ik dit boek zeker aan, maar ook als je hem (nog) niet kent, zou ik dit boek zeker aanraden! ...more
Okay I know I know I know, I have said countless time that I don't like Plato and that I don't like dialogues... Apparently, I do like the Sophist...
IOkay I know I know I know, I have said countless time that I don't like Plato and that I don't like dialogues... Apparently, I do like the Sophist...
I'm not going to try to go into too much details about why I did like this book in contrast to my general opinion on Plato's dialogue, but I think it has something to do with the fact that this dialogue was so clearly rooted in issues of language, semantics and linguistics which is something that plays out best in the act of it. I'm still not completely sold on the idea of dialogue as a feasible philosophical method, but I do think it worked in this case. And the fact that it was about Parmenides' being and not-being and how both being and negation work - subjects I already found very interesting - probably helped with me liking this one.
Definitely recommend this to anyone interested in a dialogue about the meaning and expression of being and not-being!...more
I just don't really like Plato?? I don't like his style (I've just never appreciated dialogues as a clear - or good - form of philosophy) and I don't I just don't really like Plato?? I don't like his style (I've just never appreciated dialogues as a clear - or good - form of philosophy) and I don't like most of his ideas - especially like his premises are just ones I can't get behind on. That being said, I know he has had an enormous impact and I'm not saying that people (or even I myself) should just ignore him and his philosophy. I'm just saying I really don't like it! I do find the way Plato (and/or Socrates) forms and furthers his arguments interesting, although at times it can be a lot like the verbal twists he says himself to dislike in favour of "dialecticism"... Anyway, there definitely were some interesting tid-bits, allegories and ideas, which is why I'm giving it two stars!
Even though I didn't like it, I'd still recommend this to anyone interested in (ancient) philosophy!...more
The first time someone described 'Fireborne' to me, I think they described it as Plato's Republic, but then with dragons, which I must see really intrThe first time someone described 'Fireborne' to me, I think they described it as Plato's Republic, but then with dragons, which I must see really intrigued me. Now I must say, I'm not the biggest Plato fan, but I did really like the premise of Plato's very idealistic (and problematic) society mixed in with dragons. Furthermore–which I only found out once I finished the novel in the acknowledgments�, the story is also inspired by Virgil's Aeneid about destruction of cities and the ensuing flight from home to a new society. (There's definitely also some Russian Revolution in there, but since that's not really my thing I don't know a lot about it and probably didn't notice all the hints/references).
So, I was intrigued. But at the same time a bit hesitant, because it sounded a bit too ambitious to combine it all. But! I was happily surprised, it actually worked really well! I really liked the book! It was a good combination of introspection about politics and the meaning and purpose of states, while also being fun and entertaining with the dragons. It did not feel as if the dragons were added to save the plot or to give the plot something beyond the politics; it was very well-integrated into each other. The characters too were well-written and interesting both by their similarities and dissimilarities.
Some reviews mention that this book is quite slow, and that's true. It's not very fast-paced and a lot of action is more build-up for the sequels I think. Nevertheless, this didn't bother me. On the contrary, I liked the slow pacing, it allowed the novel to focus on the characters and the politics of it all.
Anyway, would definitely recommend if you like dragons or Plato (never thought I'd say that!), or just looking for a good, somewhat politically focused, (fantasy) book!
A lovely collection of 40 different stories of what constitutes the afterlife. You might not expect forty different version to all work and to all be A lovely collection of 40 different stories of what constitutes the afterlife. You might not expect forty different version to all work and to all be interesting, but they really are! Most of them are so well-written and so interestingly thought out that the whole collection will definitely blow you away! So definitely a recommendation for everyone!...more
Since I first heard about Berkeley's subjective idealism I has grabbed my intention. The notion that to be is to be perceived was so strange, yet at tSince I first heard about Berkeley's subjective idealism I has grabbed my intention. The notion that to be is to be perceived was so strange, yet at the same time so difficult to counter that it blew my mind.
Now, a few years later I'm still very interested by his subjective idealism. I don't think he's right (at all), but it's a very interesting theory and I think he's on to something (the fact that we can't imagine anything without its properties for example).
These dialogues were very long and it took me longer than anticipated to read and finish them, but I do think it was worth it. When studying philosophy you sometimes gloss over the orginal texts, or you only look at a part of someone's thoughts and findings. I understand why completely of course, but it's still interesting to find out more about it yourself.
Berkeley's objective idealism is something that made me sigh out loud when I first heard it. Personally I really hate it if philosopher start bringing God(s) into their theories, literally a 'deus ex machina'. It's just that everytime a problem arises that's too big for a philosopher to tackle or something that undermines their philosophy they yell "BECAUSE GOD!" and then they are supposedly done.. sigh... At one point, Hylas (the 'scientist) asks Philonous (Berkeley) about God and how something can be a certain way, and Philonous replies that we shouldn't try to understand God's powers because he's divine, but Philonous himself uses God's powers all the times to explain things and that just drives me mad.
Also, Philonous seemed not that fair to me. In the third dialogue he constantly stresses that the way words are used by the 'common folk' is not necessarily it's true meaning, but in the first he constantly tries to trick Hylas with common meanings of words.
In conclusion, this was a very interested read, and I recommend it to anyone who likes (metaphysical) philosophy, but don't expect to have your mind changed completely upon finishing it!
For a book that is a little longer than 400 pages, this dragged on for what felt like 4000 pages...
In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance there For a book that is a little longer than 400 pages, this dragged on for what felt like 4000 pages...
In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance there are two/three stories: our main character who goes on a long road trip with his son, the philosophical contemplations (or "Chautauqua") and the back story of our main character (he used to be "Phaedrus": a man obsessed with the idea 'quality' and ended up in a mental hospital). Each of those stories has the ability to be interesting, yet they are all incredibly dull because either they're executed poorly or the author just wanted to do too much in one book.
Yet the main part of my annoyance with this book is the main character. I have never ever read such a prime example of a white, middle-aged man who feels like he has figured everything out and that the rest of everyone is dumb or just not living like they're supposed to.
But okay, let's talk about the three stories and why they just didn't work: the motorcycle-road-trip story line is not that much of a road trip. It's reduced to a couple of lines and the start and end of each chapter, telling the reader that they arrived at another village or that our MC checked his cycle again and then he's off telling the reader about what idea interests him today.
The philosophy part was the part that I was most excited to read about. I really like philosophy and I know a little about it, and a problem of this book was that sometimes the philosophy was too applied? In the sense that, the explaination in that certain situation was okay, but it didn't compass all the factors of that certain philosophical idea. Another thing that was very bothersome was his approach to philosophy. I'm convinced that to learn about philosophy you need to have an open mind, even if you're probably going to disagree with those ideas you have to have an open mind at the beginning. Our MC certainly didn't have an open mind and during his 'teachings' of different ideas he wasn't really thinking them over or thinking what they mean, he was only trying to explain those theories and why they were(n't) good, because they did(n't) fit into his own ideas.
I was very interested by his ideas about Quality and I actually wish the author could have just written a book (or essay) about quality, because that would have been much shorter and much more interesting than this book.
The Phaedrus story line was actually very interesting and I really liked reading about it. Sadly enough, Phaedrus' story line wasn't that big in the book. Our MC mentions him constantly and there are hints to him since the beginning, but you don't really know anything about it for 3/4 of the book.
I don't think I'll ever recommend this book to anyone (except maybe annoying self-obessed people who think they've figured everything out about life), and I'm disappointed that this is the book that's used by the English department of my school to teach us philosophy.
I borrowed this book from my teacher, after he asked what I thought about Pooh. And to be perfectly honest, I didn't really have an opinion about him,I borrowed this book from my teacher, after he asked what I thought about Pooh. And to be perfectly honest, I didn't really have an opinion about him, sure, I probably enjoyed it when I was a child, but I just didn't really have an opinion about it. My teacher apparently saw this as a challenge, and that's why I've read this book.
Do I have an opinion of Pooh now? Naah, not really. Do I have an opinion of Taoism now? Definitely. Is it a good one? Not really.
This book was okay. I liked how it explained the basic principles of a big philosophical idea with something as simple as a children thing like Winnie the Pooh. On the other hand it was, at times, too simple, too black and white to correctly relate it to our own day-to-day life.
Besides, I'm not a fan of Taoism. Especially the notion that you can enjoy something more with a clear mind, seems wrong to me. For example, I went on holiday to Greece with my family 2 years ago. I know quite a lot about the classical civilizations, but my little brother doesn't. So in Greece we saw many ruins, which to me were absolutely magnificent and beautiful because I knew what they meant in that time and what they represent. After a while it all became "just stones" for my brother, who didn't know their back story. For me, back story gives you a broader and better experience than a 'clear' mind.
In general I'm all for education and I think it's really useful. Sure, it has some downsides and some people abuse it by denying others their education, but education itself is really important to understand the world and also other people. This book also tries to make the point that ignorance is a good thing, while to me it's definitely not? So many conflicts have started because of ignorance, and I really don't understand while it's a good thing.
Another thing that REALLY bothered me, was that it once mentioned that "you can choose to be happy". I'm not even going to explain what an ignorant (it's starting already) and ridiculous statement that is.
Although it may seem that way, I don't have Taoism. I do like their views on trying to enjoy life, and I don't think people who do live this way are stupid. It's just not something for me....more
![Huis clos [suivi de] Les mouches](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1399735472l/22063592._SY75_.jpg)
Loading...
