Freedom From the Known, by J Krishnamurti (recommended this to gustavopacho in his PC discussion thread). One of the best philosophical works you will read to keep you sharp.
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins (still not done with it, but very engaging book)
Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman! by Richard Feynman - awesome look into the fascinating life and mind of the famous physicist (with no physics involved!)
Fiction? Must pay homage to my literary hero, Gabriel Garcia Marquez:
Love in the Time of Cholera (slow, but good)
100 Years of Solitude (faster but less memorable imo)
Of Love and Other Demons (good intro to his style, short book)
I wanted to address each of your points as I hate when people skip replying to my entire posts.
Do you now?[/quote]
What I meant was when someone takes one point of a reply and ignores all of the others because they cannot deny or refute what has been said in the other points. I find that many people do this so that they can continue an argument even though they are actually just being an ass. Then when the original poster gives up trying to get through to them they just walk away feeling like they were right even though they know they are full of shit (at least I hope they know they are full of shit).
In other words it is better to get no reply then a partial reply that ignores most of what a person has said. I don�??t like to argue for the sake of being an ass I enjoy arguing with the hopes of reaching understanding where each person is coming from.
I wanted to address each of your points as I hate when people skip replying to my entire posts.
Do you now?
What I meant was when someone takes one point of a reply and ignores all of the others because they cannot deny or refute what has been said in the other points. I find that many people do this so that they can continue an argument even though they are actually just being an ass. Then when the original poster gives up trying to get through to them they just walk away feeling like they were right even though they know they are full of shit (at least I hope they know they are full of shit).
In other words it is better to get no reply then a partial reply that ignores most of what a person has said. I don�??t like to argue for the sake of being an ass I enjoy arguing with the hopes of reaching understanding where each person is coming from.
[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
Discussions work better than arguments if you’re looking to come to a mutual understanding.[/quote]
Agreed. If it is a terminology issue for some then discussion. Argument is not an emotional interaction for me it is more of a discussion in which two parties are not in agreement. As long as this is the case then mutual understanding does not leave the realm of possibility. Would you ever call a heated discussion and argument for discussions sake?
I wanted to address each of your points as I hate when people skip replying to my entire posts.
Do you now?
What I meant was when someone takes one point of a reply and ignores all of the others because they cannot deny or refute what has been said in the other points. I find that many people do this so that they can continue an argument even though they are actually just being an ass. Then when the original poster gives up trying to get through to them they just walk away feeling like they were right even though they know they are full of shit (at least I hope they know they are full of shit).
In other words it is better to get no reply then a partial reply that ignores most of what a person has said. I don�??t like to argue for the sake of being an ass I enjoy arguing with the hopes of reaching understanding where each person is coming from.
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
JokerFMJ wrote:
Discussions work better than arguments if you’re looking to come to a mutual understanding.
Agreed. If it is a terminology issue for some then discussion. Argument is not an emotional interaction for me it is more of a discussion in which two parties are not in agreement. As long as this is the case then mutual understanding does not leave the realm of possibility. Would you ever call a heated discussion and argument for discussions sake?[/quote]
No, because heated discussions happen with people I don’t dislike while arguments happen with those I do dislike. =D
[quote]JokerFMJ wrote:
BlakeAJackson wrote:
JokerFMJ wrote:
Discussions work better than arguments if you’re looking to come to a mutual understanding.
Agreed. If it is a terminology issue for some then discussion. Argument is not an emotional interaction for me it is more of a discussion in which two parties are not in agreement. As long as this is the case then mutual understanding does not leave the realm of possibility. Would you ever call a heated discussion and argument for discussions sake?
No, because heated discussions happen with people I don’t dislike while arguments happen with those I do dislike. =D[/quote]
Your a better person than most. I find that I argue more with my family then I do with strangers, and I do not dislike my family. With family you have much more exposer to get in to arguments, like them telling you to do something on their time schedule instead of your own for example. This will lead me in to an argument because neither party wants to hear what the other person has to say.
“The temptation for the writer of this kind of book is to lapse into some large all-encompassing theory about the development of humanity. History is driven by climate, disease, technology, religion, or “modes of production.” Human societies are either “communities of will” or “communities of obedience.” (That was H.G. Wells.) The great despotic empires were “hydraulic” in origin, organized around the need to mobilize great masses of manpower for water-management projects in regions of unreliable rainfall. (Karl Wittfogel.) History is the working-out of divine Providence (Raleigh), or it is the unfolding of a metaphysical dialectic (Hegel), or it is slow-rising cycles of civilizational rise and decline (Toynbee), or it is chance encounters between human societies and domesticable fauna (Jared Diamond).”
Knew a lot about history, then read the book and could not figure out how the Mongols conquered the biggest land connected empire in history and I never heard of them.
Cool book, excellent battle stories about people, empires and countries you never even knew existed.
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
JokerFMJ wrote:
BlakeAJackson wrote:
JokerFMJ wrote:
Discussions work better than arguments if you’re looking to come to a mutual understanding.
Agreed. If it is a terminology issue for some then discussion. Argument is not an emotional interaction for me it is more of a discussion in which two parties are not in agreement. As long as this is the case then mutual understanding does not leave the realm of possibility. Would you ever call a heated discussion and argument for discussions sake?
No, because heated discussions happen with people I don’t dislike while arguments happen with those I do dislike. =D
Your a better person than most. I find that I argue more with my family then I do with strangers, and I do not dislike my family. With family you have much more exposer to get in to arguments, like them telling you to do something on their time schedule instead of your own for example. This will lead me in to an argument because neither party wants to hear what the other person has to say. [/quote]
Ahh, that explains it. I ignore my family as much as possible and considering I live on the other side of the country, that’s quite a bit of ignoring. =D
“The temptation for the writer of this kind of book is to lapse into some large all-encompassing theory about the development of humanity. History is driven by climate, disease, technology, religion, or “modes of production.” Human societies are either “communities of will” or “communities of obedience.” (That was H.G. Wells.) The great despotic empires were “hydraulic” in origin, organized around the need to mobilize great masses of manpower for water-management projects in regions of unreliable rainfall. (Karl Wittfogel.) History is the working-out of divine Providence (Raleigh), or it is the unfolding of a metaphysical dialectic (Hegel), or it is slow-rising cycles of civilizational rise and decline (Toynbee), or it is chance encounters between human societies and domesticable fauna (Jared Diamond).”
I over-simplified when I said everything. What I meant was, his explanations of the various subjects that he had to cover to create his theory, like pathology, plant and animal domestication, the spread of agriculture, the invention and spread of writing, were easy to understand and acctually a pleasure to read. As far as his over-all theory of history I recall that he stated many times that he wouldn’t claim it was perfect or would ever explain everything.
But I do think that he accomplished the two goals that he set out in the begining of the book. First, to dispel the myth that certain cultures succeeded because of racial superiority. Second, to explain why some societies wound up richer in material terms than others.
Of course everything should be read with a grain of salt.