CC1981 Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 However, when reading early science fiction, I cant help but find it primitive when compared to the work we have today.Agreed, though i think the style Verne wrote in targets the young/teen-age population. Whichever era it may be, i think his novels are still thrilling and riveting reads for 12-13 year olds. Couple of his works i think are good enough for an adult audience even today, Around the World in 80 days being the best example of one. Don, i think your taste in literature is brilliant. Dumas & Hugo were one of the best ever authors ever in my books. If you liked Dumas's theme ( political backdrop, class struggle, rags-to-riches, burgueoese mentality, etc), i recommend Leo Tolstoy. IMO, he was the best Author of 1800s by a fair margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted June 3, 2007 Author Share Posted June 3, 2007 Not reading any particular book now ( reading a booklet by David Fontana about meditation) but three book i've read in recent times ( last six months- yes, i am not a very avid reader) that i consider extremely well written are: 1. Thus Spoke Zarusthara ( by Nietzche) : A seminal piece by the greatest western philosopher of the last 2000 years, it is a very robust critique of the moralities of mankind. Ultimately, Neitzche examines all the major religions of mankind (prevalent in his days that he knew about, ie, Abrahamic faiths, hinduism,zoroastrianism & buddhism) and his contrasting of the Abrahamic faiths with the Dharmic one truely underlines how laughably misguided the Islamic/Christian/Jewish mentality is, rooted in revenge and dictatorship. While Neitzche is far more praising of Buddhism, ultimately, his message (written eloquently imbibing zarusthara) is distinctly hindu in its core : Ultimately 'reality' is a dream and our ideas of morals/reality are far removed from the empiric reality. He was indeed probably the most important western philosopher since Descartes first questioned the dogma of medieval Christian philosophy, opening the door for all subsequent enlightenment era philosophy. The reason is, he gave modern philosophy the cocept of creating one's own ideals - something we take for granted today - but which was a true revelation at the time. Having said that - I dont believe in any of his solutions to nihilism, because I believe that nihilism is the most honest philosophical position, and that it dosent neccecarily have to be 'solved'. Creating one's own ideals is as much an invitation to dogma, as the dogma of religion which he critisised so much. At least thats how I feel - all ideals are falsehoods, whether they preach about god or the ubermench. Communism illustrates this well - it was an ideal that in the finest tradition of Neitzche, rejected previous dogma, and strived for a brighter future - only to replace the opium of the people with a new opium, and new dogma - spiritual paradise being replaced by the promise of socialist paradise, etc. BTW - you said that you dont read much these days - you might enjoy Japanese manga - its quick to read - available for download online - and contains some utter gems, that can explore whatever a book can... ...and often do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 because I believe that nihilism is the most honest philosophical position, I disagree with the Nihilist position partially. As a buddhist, i agree with the base premise of nihilism - which argues that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without any objective truth or purpose but i disagree with the conclusions set by nihilism that therefore no action is prefferable to another and secular ethics cannot exist. This is because quite clearly, a prefferntial path exists from the perspective of what is benificial to mankind/its eco-system when applied to our world. Universal nihilism is just as baseless as universal absolutism ( ie, deities or God) because ultimately, the only justifiable position on universal ethics, based on evidence we have, is agnosticism. For in my view, a logical and empiric discourse on any morality can neither prove or disprove the existance of God or Gods. BTW - you said that you dont read much these days - you might enjoy Japanese manga - its quick to read - available for download online - and contains some utter gems, that can explore whatever a book can... ...and often do. I do watch some manga/anime - particularly the Hellsing series ( original mini-series) and its pretty nuts. Thanks for the recommendation, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted June 3, 2007 Author Share Posted June 3, 2007 For a semi-serious argument in favour of nihilism that I made earlier today, check out this thread: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=4851 :haha: Basically, I think that the secular systems of philosophy that you mentioned, are not any more or less prefferential to one another - you mentioned that some are more beneficial to humanity - but in the end, your definition of beneficial is itself relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 but in the end, your definition of beneficial is itself relative Everything is relative. That points towards a relativistic existance rather than a nihilistic one because i don't think the idea that relativism being non-absolute equals pointless has any merit to it. What is benificial and what isnt for society/ecosystem can be relativey but very succintly defined i think. Anyways, i will check that thread out later and comment on it- though i must say, i not ill-equipped for this debate as i cannot argue anything beyond the negetive results of following a nihilist policy from a societerial perspective ( ie, if nihilism is applied to society in one of it fundamental tenets, that no action is any more favourable/disfavourable than another, then murder = adoption and society clearly breaks down). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted June 3, 2007 Author Share Posted June 3, 2007 Everything is relative. That points towards a relativistic existance rather than a nihilistic one because i don't think the idea that relativism being non-absolute equals pointless has any merit to it. What is benificial and what isnt for society/ecosystem can be relativey but very succintly defined i think. But then, we can move onto whole other arguments - such as "who says benefitting the ecosystem/society is any more preferable to destroying it?" ( ie, if nihilism is applied to society in one of it fundamental tenets, that no action is any more favourable/disfavourable than another, then murder = adoption and society clearly breaks down). I dont think that would be the case. Im a nihilist, but I abide by the law soley because it allows me to enjoy myself more - if I was killed or imprisoned, I could no longer get high on brain chemicals as often - if there was no threat of this (if I was invincible and omnipotent), and if I lacked biological feelings of compassion which were evolved to benefit herd politics (they can be overcome I guess), then I would gladly murder and rape to my heart's content - and so would you. But in practice, no human will ever have that much power (barring dictators and stuff) - which is why nihilism is not at all dangerous - and besides, its not like one can help an omnipresent reality - one dosent choose to be nihilist as if its a system, but rather concludes that is what reality amounts to. In this respect, a number of utilitarian type philosophies are usefull for appealing to humanity's selfish desires - but even they arnt comprehensive, since they wouldnt work on someone who wasnt afraid of jail or death or getting caught (and indeed thats the story with all criminals). And even they are not really inherently right - they are a practical consensus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted June 3, 2007 Author Share Posted June 3, 2007 Few more books for the list, this time some science fiction and fantasy: George RR Martin's 'Song of Ice and Fire' series is probably the best European style fantasy around today. There have been other series as long, but none have retained the level of this series so far. Alistair Reynolds might be one of the best science fiction authors right now. This book of his, and its series, are high concept, and yet well written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted June 3, 2007 Author Share Posted June 3, 2007 The Mars Trilogy is a modern classic of science fiction - the most detailed and realistic account of the colinization of Mars yet written. Dune will of course always be a classic, and need no introduction. The 'His Dark Materials' trilogy is going to be made into a film trilogy, and has gained quite a reputation, alongside Potter and of course Middle Earth. Altered Carbon had its film rights bought for $1mn upfront, and is the most recent cyberpunk classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurav Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 I haven't read many lately but these were the last 3 I read. Most books I read these days are mainly work related. I enjoyed all of them :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhondy Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 I think nationalism itself is just another pointless and potentially fanatical ideal - one which Tagore thought would ultimatly leave generations of Indians closed to ideas and culture which they thought was 'foreign', in a world where such divides are purely artificial. He was right - the independence movement glorified nationalism - so that even today the rejection of 'foreigness' is fashionably 'patriotic' - and so that socialist ideas that held India back were supported by the idea that global capitalism was not 'swaraj'. And the myths surrounding 1857 are the worst example of this - India's very own nationalistic founding myth, just like how the Soviets glorified the Oktober revolution, and the Americans glorified the war of independence. That's absolutely correct. Tagore's thinking was way ahead of his peers. He said more than once that if there was a choice between nationalism and humanity, he would choose humanity every time. The point you and Lurker make about the 1857 mutiny is so true. It's shameful to learn how Indian soldiers indiscriminately slaughtered British women and children. The British response was brutal as well, but at least they have the mitigation that they were provoked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurav Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 Abhe CC dump your Buddhist stuff. You don't need it mate. I think you are lot smarter than that. Gorah_pindu I like your thinking. Apart from the "fake photographer" thing I am starting to like you :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted June 3, 2007 Author Share Posted June 3, 2007 As an infidel, I think Dawkins book suffered from one major problem in my mind - it aint just religion that creates fanatics, it is any idealistic belief - including well reasoned ones. He should have rejected belief in everything :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurav Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 As an infidel' date=' I think Dawkins book suffered from one major problem in my mind - it aint just religion that creates fanatics, it is any idealistic belief - including well reasoned ones. He should have rejected belief in everything :)[/quote'] Gorah don't be a wise @ss :hysterical: :wink_smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted June 3, 2007 Author Share Posted June 3, 2007 Ow - ruining my fun :-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 That's absolutely correct. Tagore's thinking was way ahead of his peers. He said more than once that if there was a choice between nationalism and humanity, he would choose humanity every time. The point you and Lurker make about the 1857 mutiny is so true. It's shameful to learn how Indian soldiers indiscriminately slaughtered British women and children. The British response was brutal as well, but at least they have the mitigation that they were provoked. It all depends on how one defines "provoked". Is not forcing millions to starvation through the britain-first policy enough provocation. Yes the trigger of 1857 mutiny was not the british socio/econmic policy but those were reason enough for Indians to feel provoked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted June 3, 2007 Author Share Posted June 3, 2007 Yeh - I wouldnt say the British were any more justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 Abhe CC dump your Buddhist stuff. You don't need it mate. I think you are lot smarter than that. Gorah_pindu I like your thinking. Apart from the "fake photographer" thing I am starting to like you :hysterical: What do you know of Buddhism or any other -ism to judge it and say someone is smarter/dumber than that ? Personally, the ideas given in buddhism are the fundamental basis of hinduism or any civilized existance. PS: Gorah- i think that debate is best left to the nihilistic thread. But lets just say that saving our ecosystem is more prefferential than destroying it because i'd rather survive and have humanity survive and therefore, conditions hostile to my goal is an undesirable thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted June 3, 2007 Author Share Posted June 3, 2007 In other words, you are as nihilistic as me :) (Because you are only preserving the world for your own pleasure). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambit Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 Good thread. I love reading books whenever I get the time. Not a big fan of history/non fiction though. But I do like reading autobiographies. Loved Khuswant Singh's and Feynman's. Have got "The Argumentative Indian" lying around but haven't read it yet. The authors that I have most enjoyed reading are Agatha Christie and AC Doyle. Among Indian authors, I am a big fan of Vikram Seth. I prefer reading fiction. "A Suitable Boy" is one of my all time favourites. Among others, I liked "The Namesake" but it was slightly depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted June 3, 2007 Author Share Posted June 3, 2007 Im suprised by the amount of fans of old European fiction there are - ive never been into Agatha Christie or Arthur Conan Doyle, or the French authors mentioned earlier - although I am trying to read things like 'War and Peace', 'Ivanhoe', classic science fiction, and older things like the Norse Sagas. In terms of fiction, I mainly stick to modern and post-modern stuff - authors of previous eras perhaps dont appeal to me as much because they were still bound by the limitations of the era to some extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts