What's the most radical book you've read?
By radical I refer to ideas/frameworks/ways of seeing life that are dramatically different to what you think/am.
56 comments
For me it was Jack London's fiction The Sea-Wolf. I was/am interested in philosophical ideas/frameworks but the simple direct materialistic philosophy espoused by Wolf Larsen in the above book made me question everything i had read.
Here are the relevant excerpts : https://old.reddit.com/r/books/comments/1jqpar/what_book_sin...
We are mere "Animals" with a far more complex social structure than any other species which is why we invent all sorts of "subjective meanings" to "objectively meaningless" life. How to reconcile both is the eternal "Human Condition" problem.
See also : Philosophy in a Meaningless Life: A System of Nihilism, Consciousness and Reality by James Tartaglia. Free pdf at - https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph?docid=b-9781...
Here are the relevant excerpts : https://old.reddit.com/r/books/comments/1jqpar/what_book_sin...
We are mere "Animals" with a far more complex social structure than any other species which is why we invent all sorts of "subjective meanings" to "objectively meaningless" life. How to reconcile both is the eternal "Human Condition" problem.
See also : Philosophy in a Meaningless Life: A System of Nihilism, Consciousness and Reality by James Tartaglia. Free pdf at - https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph?docid=b-9781...
Nihilism strikes me as a very specific commitment. There is a difference between "there is no meaning", and "we don't know the meaning", or a myriad other recall/precision related questions such as "can we know the meaning", "is one of the following candidates potentially the meaning", and so on.
I can see why for practical reasons some may lean into it, but I don't see it being epistemologically well founded.
I can see why for practical reasons some may lean into it, but I don't see it being epistemologically well founded.
You have to give up your preconceptions and "think outside the box" as it were. Think of Nihilism as the canvas background against which you paint your chosen philosophy/religion/beliefs. Life "objectively" (i.e. from outside in) is meaningless (applying Occam's razor) but lived "experientially and subjectively" craves meaning. You have to keep both these distinct and separate viewpoints simultaneously in mind while treading your own path. Modern Science has so advanced our objective understanding of the world and ourselves that we can no longer cling to beliefs from the past unconditionally (eg. organized religion) without validating and re-interpreting them in the current context.
Here some of the Hindu schools of philosophy are of great help since many(eg. Carvaka/Samkhya/Yoga/Buddhism/etc.) don't subscribe to the idea of a omniscient "God" but merely construct a experiential worldview based on perception and inference. It is like a mathematical formal system with concepts/symbols/rules/etc.
Here some of the Hindu schools of philosophy are of great help since many(eg. Carvaka/Samkhya/Yoga/Buddhism/etc.) don't subscribe to the idea of a omniscient "God" but merely construct a experiential worldview based on perception and inference. It is like a mathematical formal system with concepts/symbols/rules/etc.
I think that "life is objectively meaningless" is an unfounded statement. You should start by proving that to be true. I also think it preferentially loads words like "objective" and "existence". It also doesn't correspond to any common sense meaning of the word "meaning", since a servile dog's life is meaningful, a doctor's life is meaningful, and so on, in normal speech.
If you mean to say something like "all existence is objectively meaningless, and it is not objectively 'better' than nothingness", then it becomes another statement you need to usefully prove in order to go on with your argument.
If you mean to say something like "all existence is objectively meaningless, and it is not objectively 'better' than nothingness", then it becomes another statement you need to usefully prove in order to go on with your argument.
There is nothing to "prove" here. I mentioned "Occam's Razor" to imply that among competing hypotheses the one with the fewest entities/assumptions is to be preferred. Here that is "life is objectively meaningless" over other competing hypotheses. There is also some inferential reasoning/evidence here since we know that from the pov of the objective Universe our existence on this planet makes not an iota of difference to its functioning i.e. our species could disappear and beyond some local disturbances the Universe will continue its course. That is why i also used the phrase "from the outside in". Note also that the word "Life" is used here in the sense of objective "Existence" since the pov is from external.
The usage (without quibbling too much) of the word "meaning/meaninglessness" is in the commonly understood sense of "purpose/calling/life-objective/etc.". All these are human-defined and therefore "subjective" as life is experienced and lived. There are numerous ways of doing this as is evidenced by the various schools of philosophies/religions/cults/groups etc.
The two viewpoints i.e. 1) Objective view of Life/Existence from the "outside in" vs. 2) Subjective Experiential "inside out" view of Life need to be carefully disambiguated in one's mind.
The usage (without quibbling too much) of the word "meaning/meaninglessness" is in the commonly understood sense of "purpose/calling/life-objective/etc.". All these are human-defined and therefore "subjective" as life is experienced and lived. There are numerous ways of doing this as is evidenced by the various schools of philosophies/religions/cults/groups etc.
The two viewpoints i.e. 1) Objective view of Life/Existence from the "outside in" vs. 2) Subjective Experiential "inside out" view of Life need to be carefully disambiguated in one's mind.
But we don't have an "outside-in" view? You have an inside + "guess the outside" view. Just because we can imagine an "outside-in" view, it doesn't mean we have it.
If there is an "objective" meaning to our lives which is without recourse to an inside-out view, then we have no access to it.
Occam's Razor, fewest entities/assumptions, etc is so problematic, because it is not invariant to being re-parameterised. I.e. under one description X is more complex than Y, and under another Y is more complex than X.
Here is Roger Penrose talking about the fine tuning of the Universe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDqny7UzyR4
Many use these observations to argue for design. Say it became a scientific consensus that design was the strongest hypothesis, because it just kept making good predictions. Design implies purpose. Would life still be meaningless?
Is this all just a regress to "nothing is just as good as something therefore all life is meaningless"? I think that's where you have to end up to defend Nihilism.
If there is an "objective" meaning to our lives which is without recourse to an inside-out view, then we have no access to it.
Occam's Razor, fewest entities/assumptions, etc is so problematic, because it is not invariant to being re-parameterised. I.e. under one description X is more complex than Y, and under another Y is more complex than X.
Here is Roger Penrose talking about the fine tuning of the Universe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDqny7UzyR4
Many use these observations to argue for design. Say it became a scientific consensus that design was the strongest hypothesis, because it just kept making good predictions. Design implies purpose. Would life still be meaningless?
Is this all just a regress to "nothing is just as good as something therefore all life is meaningless"? I think that's where you have to end up to defend Nihilism.
> But we don't have an "outside-in" view? You have an inside + "guess the outside" view.
This is not quite true. There is an Objective Reality consisting of physical laws (invariant in our Universe), Evolutionary evidence explaining the plethora of flora/fauna etc. We are but one species amongst the many that populate this planet. There is nothing "special" about Homo Sapiens (we simply occupy our own niche in the evolutionary tree) except for our different brains resulting in a greater degree of "self-awareness" and more complex social structures than other species.
> If there is an "objective" meaning to our lives which is without recourse to an inside-out view, then we have no access to it.
Not true at all. The whole of Modern Science is founded on trying to find out Objective Reality independent of us and has been quite successful at it.
This is not quite true. There is an Objective Reality consisting of physical laws (invariant in our Universe), Evolutionary evidence explaining the plethora of flora/fauna etc. We are but one species amongst the many that populate this planet. There is nothing "special" about Homo Sapiens (we simply occupy our own niche in the evolutionary tree) except for our different brains resulting in a greater degree of "self-awareness" and more complex social structures than other species.
> If there is an "objective" meaning to our lives which is without recourse to an inside-out view, then we have no access to it.
Not true at all. The whole of Modern Science is founded on trying to find out Objective Reality independent of us and has been quite successful at it.
You should then be able to show that objective reality exists without recourse to subjective experience.
I’m all ears :-)
I’m all ears :-)
Huh? It is almost as if you have not read/understood what i had implied w.r.t. Modern Science in my comments above. I had even specifically mentioned "Physical Laws", "Evolution" etc. Notwithstanding the fact that it is our "Consciousness" which "perceives Reality" through "Subjective Experiences" we have managed to remove a whole lot of subjectivity (biases, emotions etc.) through the application of rigorous Scientific Methods to understand a "Objective Reality". All of your Physical Sciences/Technology is proof of that.
Some readings;
1) Objectivity in Science - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)
2) Subjectivity and Objectivity in Philosophy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity_and_objectivity_(...
PS: In the Samkhya/Yoga school of Hindu philosophy there is a neat assertion which goes - Objective Reality exists because it is common to others besides oneself.
Some readings;
1) Objectivity in Science - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)
2) Subjectivity and Objectivity in Philosophy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity_and_objectivity_(...
PS: In the Samkhya/Yoga school of Hindu philosophy there is a neat assertion which goes - Objective Reality exists because it is common to others besides oneself.
Occam's Razor isn't proof, though. It's a rule of thumb for how to create the most useful hypotheses.
A more complex hypothesis isn't useful until you come up with a method of testing that will distinguish it from the simpler hypothesis. That doesn't mean you have disproved the more complex hypothesis; just that you shouldn't use that hypothesis until you actually have a need for it.
A more complex hypothesis isn't useful until you come up with a method of testing that will distinguish it from the simpler hypothesis. That doesn't mean you have disproved the more complex hypothesis; just that you shouldn't use that hypothesis until you actually have a need for it.
I have already said that there is nothing to "prove" (i.e. no proof) but that it is a necessary corollary of applying the heuristic of Occam's Razor(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor).
> A more complex hypothesis isn't useful until you come up with a method of testing that will distinguish it from the simpler hypothesis.
No, the condition is even stronger; a more complex hypothesis should not even be considered until the simpler hypothesis fails for some data/evidence.
It is one from a set of heuristics called philosophical razors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_razor) and uses Abductive reasoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning).
> A more complex hypothesis isn't useful until you come up with a method of testing that will distinguish it from the simpler hypothesis.
No, the condition is even stronger; a more complex hypothesis should not even be considered until the simpler hypothesis fails for some data/evidence.
It is one from a set of heuristics called philosophical razors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_razor) and uses Abductive reasoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning).
Yes, this section of Wikipedia is spot on in my opinion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor#Controversial_as...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor#Controversial_as...
The most radical book I’ve read is the Bible. But dramatically different…Discover of Freedom by Rose Wilder Lane perhaps. I don’t agree with everything she wrote but she had some interesting ideas.
Suppafly(2)
Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid
A unique synthesis of aesthetics and mathematics that completely formed my worldview.
Perhaps slightly dated, because it was written very early in the computer revolution. Had it been written today, the Artificial Intelligence chapters would be very different.
A unique synthesis of aesthetics and mathematics that completely formed my worldview.
Perhaps slightly dated, because it was written very early in the computer revolution. Had it been written today, the Artificial Intelligence chapters would be very different.
> that completely formed my worldview.
How?
How?
I was afraid somebody would ask that question. I don't have a simple answer to that question. As best as I can explain it, GEB provides an intentional stance that makes it much easier to exist in a chaotic world that we know little about.
The lynchpin around which that stance revolves is Goedel's proof that classical reasoning systems are necessarily incomplete. In short, that there are true things we can never prove to be true, and false things that we can never prove to be false, and an entire category of statements that are neither true nor false.
Coming to terms with the provable fact that knowledge is incomplete is enormously liberating. Once you do, the consequences spiral outward.
Examples, some of which GEB deals with explicitly, some of which falls out relatively easily:
- We can't know everything.
- Sometimes "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer.
- Sometimes "the premise upon which your question is based is flawed" is a perfectly valid answer.
- All knowledge about objective reality requires (at a minimum) use of some form of Bayesian/probabilistic reasoning.
- Finite rules-based ethical and legal systems are (almost definitely) incomplete. Deeply distrust anyone who attempts to tell you otherwise.
At the broader end of the domino chain of consequences, there are things like this:
- There are no rules for what is beautiful.
- Falling in love is a dreadful way to select a mate. But do it anyway. You won't regret it.
- Hard materialism is not incompatible with experiencing awe and wonder.
- We live in a chaotic universe that doesn't care about us at all. There are ways to deal with that.
- Embrace chaos.
- That consciousness is an emergent property of a complex universe is a perfectly valid alternate explanation to "Gods did it".
- Having a materialistic worldview does not preclude having a rich inner life.
The lynchpin around which that stance revolves is Goedel's proof that classical reasoning systems are necessarily incomplete. In short, that there are true things we can never prove to be true, and false things that we can never prove to be false, and an entire category of statements that are neither true nor false.
Coming to terms with the provable fact that knowledge is incomplete is enormously liberating. Once you do, the consequences spiral outward.
Examples, some of which GEB deals with explicitly, some of which falls out relatively easily:
- We can't know everything.
- Sometimes "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer.
- Sometimes "the premise upon which your question is based is flawed" is a perfectly valid answer.
- All knowledge about objective reality requires (at a minimum) use of some form of Bayesian/probabilistic reasoning.
- Finite rules-based ethical and legal systems are (almost definitely) incomplete. Deeply distrust anyone who attempts to tell you otherwise.
At the broader end of the domino chain of consequences, there are things like this:
- There are no rules for what is beautiful.
- Falling in love is a dreadful way to select a mate. But do it anyway. You won't regret it.
- Hard materialism is not incompatible with experiencing awe and wonder.
- We live in a chaotic universe that doesn't care about us at all. There are ways to deal with that.
- Embrace chaos.
- That consciousness is an emergent property of a complex universe is a perfectly valid alternate explanation to "Gods did it".
- Having a materialistic worldview does not preclude having a rich inner life.
Second Nietzsche - Beyond Good & Evil + Thus Spake Zarathustra.
TPZ is really a poetic/mock religious text version of BG&E.
The first few chapters of BG&E ask the question: why we humans seek knowledge at all? What drives the will to knowledge. . .feelings? A question most scientists never even think to ask. . but that seems the most radical question of all (as in getting to the 'root' of it all).
TPZ is really a poetic/mock religious text version of BG&E.
The first few chapters of BG&E ask the question: why we humans seek knowledge at all? What drives the will to knowledge. . .feelings? A question most scientists never even think to ask. . but that seems the most radical question of all (as in getting to the 'root' of it all).
The Bible, specifically the New Testament, and more specifically，The Gospels. The reason that it's radical is that Christ overturns traditional notions of morality. Greco-Roman thought saw the rich and powerful as close to the divine but Christ's message is that the meek and poor are prefered by God.
Coming in at #2, I would argue for Marx, maybe Capital. It's radical because it shows that Capitalism is not a "natural" state of affairs (as much as it would like us to believe that it is).
Coming in at #2, I would argue for Marx, maybe Capital. It's radical because it shows that Capitalism is not a "natural" state of affairs (as much as it would like us to believe that it is).
Agreed. I love the Old Testament too, as it is so raw and real. Murder, betrayal, sex, prostitution, and war. Interwoven with the hope of a new start with Christ coming to earth, and a new beginning when he returns.
Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered (1973) - E. F. Schumacher
By that definition of "radical": painful and difficult to read, but
yielding enormous positive transformation, then for me Aldous Huxley's
"Heaven and Hell" (which contains "Doors of Perceptions"), Erich
Fromm's "To Have or to Be", Lewis Mumford's "Technics and
Civilization" and his "The Myth of the Machine". YMMV, but for me all
of these were "radical" in challenging my purely rational,
instrumental, and I think very limited ideas of knowledge, technology
and "progress" that I held as a younger scientist/engineer.
Almost every book by Nietzsche. For example:
Thus Spoke Zarathustra The Gay Science Human All Too Human
Thus Spoke Zarathustra The Gay Science Human All Too Human
> Human All Too Human : A Book for Free Spirits to give its full name
For some reason i don't often see this book mentioned. Perhaps i am biased (this was my introduction to Nietzsche) but i have always found this to be more nuanced, incisive, insightful and less polemical than his other works. Also the fact that it is basically a set of aphorisms (of varying para lengths) on very many topics means that you can read it from any page for short periods of time and still find something of value.
For some reason i don't often see this book mentioned. Perhaps i am biased (this was my introduction to Nietzsche) but i have always found this to be more nuanced, incisive, insightful and less polemical than his other works. Also the fact that it is basically a set of aphorisms (of varying para lengths) on very many topics means that you can read it from any page for short periods of time and still find something of value.
And, almost as a contrary, Tolstoy, My Religion. For example, he claims that
- the teachings of Jesus are a reflection of human needs; break them and you will suffer,
- every form of oath taking is forbidden; every time you align yourself with some external authority, you will suffer or do evil,
- no form of judging another is ever allowed; even the criminal justice system is against the teachings of the Christ,
- any form of non-monogamy leads to suffering; even just fantasizing about a woman who is not your wife will lead to suffering.
There’s more.
I’m not a Christian or religious. But this is radical. And interesting.
There’s more.
I’m not a Christian or religious. But this is radical. And interesting.
Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge by Paul Feyerabend
I've got a whole list of books like this sitting somewhere on my hard drive called "Well-Argued Ideologies Very Different From My Own". Covers the whole gamut, from anti-natalism to Z-theory.
The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life would be my go-to. It's all about how people's motives are a lot more self-serving than you might think, including your own.
If you liked that, and then really want to go off the deep end, try The Enigma of Reason.
The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life would be my go-to. It's all about how people's motives are a lot more self-serving than you might think, including your own.
If you liked that, and then really want to go off the deep end, try The Enigma of Reason.
The Master and His Emissary by Ian McGilchrist
Why Materialism is Baloney by Bernardo Kastrup
The first one really opened my mind to alternate modes of thought. The first half of the book is especially interesting, the second half is skippable. I don't think I could have appreciated the second book if I hadn't read the first.
The Dictator's Handbook by Bueno de Mesquita and Smith is another good one. Afaik, the first successful attempt to create a true theory of politics.
Why Materialism is Baloney by Bernardo Kastrup
The first one really opened my mind to alternate modes of thought. The first half of the book is especially interesting, the second half is skippable. I don't think I could have appreciated the second book if I hadn't read the first.
The Dictator's Handbook by Bueno de Mesquita and Smith is another good one. Afaik, the first successful attempt to create a true theory of politics.
Love de Mesquita's The Logic of Political Survival and selectorate theory in general as well. What a meaty concept, with a lot of counterintuitive explanations.
"Rules for Radicals" by Saul D. Alinsky.
On how to organize revolutions and how to be careful about what you wish for.
On how to organize revolutions and how to be careful about what you wish for.
Atlinsky is nice but he's kind of tepid and Western anti-violentist/ Western nationalist. So he can't speak about situations where military resistance is necessary, such as resistance against fascism or dictatorship. These can inoculate themselves against alinskian shock provocation tactics by using brutality and propaganda.
In order to understand the proper use of violentism/militarism and the, ethical high ground against a dominant enemy, I recommend Che Guevara's "Guerilla Warfare". It introduces the moral high ground, the national good, the organization, the economics, and the field tactics of strike and retreat, giving units quotas of cane crops to burn, etc.
Please read Che's letters as well - "I Embrace You with All My Revolutionary Fervor: Letters 1947-1967". They will show the human behind the tactics.
Both books are on the audiobook bay, along with alinsky. They provide a perfect counterpoint to alinsky.
As we enter an era of American nationalist fascism, alinskian tactics might need to give way to queer inclusivist cyber guerilla tactics. For a Just and Libre Society! We can win!
In order to understand the proper use of violentism/militarism and the, ethical high ground against a dominant enemy, I recommend Che Guevara's "Guerilla Warfare". It introduces the moral high ground, the national good, the organization, the economics, and the field tactics of strike and retreat, giving units quotas of cane crops to burn, etc.
Please read Che's letters as well - "I Embrace You with All My Revolutionary Fervor: Letters 1947-1967". They will show the human behind the tactics.
Both books are on the audiobook bay, along with alinsky. They provide a perfect counterpoint to alinsky.
As we enter an era of American nationalist fascism, alinskian tactics might need to give way to queer inclusivist cyber guerilla tactics. For a Just and Libre Society! We can win!
Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions
The Human Zoo, Desmond Morris
I like the question. Bible aside, here are some other options:
Where is my Flying Car?
Zero to One
Paradise Lost
East of Eden
Where is my Flying Car?
Zero to One
Paradise Lost
East of Eden
I second the Bible as the most radical.
Max Weber - The Sociology of Religion
Post Office by Charles Bukowski
"The reign of quantity and the signs of the times" - Rene Guenon
In this political climate:
Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson
Prometheus Rising, for certainly being rather radical and refreshing.
Atlas shrugged
The Screwing of the Average Man
Steal This Book by Abbie Hoffman
A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn
Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner
On the Genealogy of Morality by Nietzsche
Zero to One by Peter Thiel and Blake Masters
Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner
On the Genealogy of Morality by Nietzsche
Zero to One by Peter Thiel and Blake Masters
Medical Nemesis by Ivan Illich
The Rose of Paracelsus
Alphabet