Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.91 AVERAGE
3.91 AVERAGE
At a Borders parking lot back home, it was spray-painted into the pavement "READ ISHMAEL"
That's basically how I first heard about it and read it. Especially since I parked over the spray-painted message time and time again.
Would people really read this book if it was called "Ricardo" or "Paul"...I say no.
So thanks for giving it this name that nobody has except for people obsessed with Moby Dick, which I have not come across.
I think intellectuals like to say that this book changed their mind on the way they thought about things.
It's from the perspective of the other side.
I liked it, but didn't love it.
Personally, I get agitated when people constantly pick this book or something like Herman Hesse as something that changed their life or their philosophy of things.
I can't explain why, but most people I know are really limited as to what they read and they read the SAME type of books.
I just want to stab them in the face since it's the same type of people who are wannabe intellectuals that say this.
I certainly am not an intellectual, but I try to be.
But there's a certain type of intellectual that I definitely make an attempt NOT to be.
And that is people like my ex-girlfriend. Ha. There you go. It finally comes out. My ex-girlfriend ruined this book for me and has caused me to hate a legion of people in the process. Thank you.
Anyways, this book was okay.
That's basically how I first heard about it and read it. Especially since I parked over the spray-painted message time and time again.
Would people really read this book if it was called "Ricardo" or "Paul"...I say no.
So thanks for giving it this name that nobody has except for people obsessed with Moby Dick, which I have not come across.
I think intellectuals like to say that this book changed their mind on the way they thought about things.
It's from the perspective of the other side.
I liked it, but didn't love it.
Personally, I get agitated when people constantly pick this book or something like Herman Hesse as something that changed their life or their philosophy of things.
I can't explain why, but most people I know are really limited as to what they read and they read the SAME type of books.
I just want to stab them in the face since it's the same type of people who are wannabe intellectuals that say this.
I certainly am not an intellectual, but I try to be.
But there's a certain type of intellectual that I definitely make an attempt NOT to be.
And that is people like my ex-girlfriend. Ha. There you go. It finally comes out. My ex-girlfriend ruined this book for me and has caused me to hate a legion of people in the process. Thank you.
Anyways, this book was okay.
adventurous
emotional
funny
informative
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
Ishmael is about a gorilla who talks at the narrator (and by proxy, you) about spiritual philosophy and human consumption practices. It's an interesting cross section of fiction and non-fiction, dishing out the least useful parts of both.
As a didactic work, it lacks any rigor. Most of what it has to say is in the form of a very specific set of tailor-made analogies. These analogies are simple to the point of being weightless. I could not recommend it as a source of knowledge or insight.
As a pure novel—something to read for fun—it's meandering, uneventful, and overall too preachy. The bulk of the content is lecture, rather than plot. I could not recommend it as a source of leisure or narrative pleasure.
So then, what is it?
Really, it's a series of coffee-table conversations and thought experiments shoved into a framing device that, by its length and prose style, attempts to borrow some literary legitimacy. The main ideas at play should be given as they are: straight analogies with the purpose of opening up thought and conversation. However, much like how you can't dress a gorilla in a business suit and call him a philosopher, you can't dress these shower contemplations in a gorilla novel and call it philosophy.
The value in this book does emerge, however, in the discussion. If you and your friends have read this, you can point at it and discuss some of the ideas inside rather easily, which is a big plus for the book. However, there are a multitude of other sources that address these talking points with greater knowledge, wisdom, respect, and labor.
(June 7th, 2024)
As a didactic work, it lacks any rigor. Most of what it has to say is in the form of a very specific set of tailor-made analogies. These analogies are simple to the point of being weightless. I could not recommend it as a source of knowledge or insight.
As a pure novel—something to read for fun—it's meandering, uneventful, and overall too preachy. The bulk of the content is lecture, rather than plot. I could not recommend it as a source of leisure or narrative pleasure.
So then, what is it?
Really, it's a series of coffee-table conversations and thought experiments shoved into a framing device that, by its length and prose style, attempts to borrow some literary legitimacy. The main ideas at play should be given as they are: straight analogies with the purpose of opening up thought and conversation. However, much like how you can't dress a gorilla in a business suit and call him a philosopher, you can't dress these shower contemplations in a gorilla novel and call it philosophy.
The value in this book does emerge, however, in the discussion. If you and your friends have read this, you can point at it and discuss some of the ideas inside rather easily, which is a big plus for the book. However, there are a multitude of other sources that address these talking points with greater knowledge, wisdom, respect, and labor.
(June 7th, 2024)
I blazed through this book, which had some fun passages and interesting ways of looking at things. It seemed like the main message was a rebuke of anthropocentrism when viewing the ecosphere as a whole, which is a good and solid message. Humanity has taken natural resources for granted and has degraded them harshly for millennia, and that is a story that deserves to be addressed. If I were younger, I think I would take the message at face value, say the book was a great philosophical work, and that I had no further notes.
However, the arguments centered around the means to achieve that end of a world where humanity behaved by the laws of nature seemed to harken back to Malthusian thinking, where there is a definite carrying capacity of humans on earth. Time and time again, and after scientific advancements, have proven that humanity’s carrying capacity is elastic, and the conditions of all people can be improved through effective altruism and efficient distribution of resources. Since we live in late-stage capitalism, it does seem like there is a carrying capacity to earth, that there are far too many people, and that there is just not enough resources to go around. That is just not true. Resources are hoarded by the wealthy, and the wealthy would much rather have us all believe that there are too many greedy poor people, not enough mouths to feed, and no better economic system for resource distribution. Calling for a return to the “rules of nature” does not account for the vast and varied cultures of humans around the globe, and frankly sounds a bit like eco-fascism.
However, the arguments centered around the means to achieve that end of a world where humanity behaved by the laws of nature seemed to harken back to Malthusian thinking, where there is a definite carrying capacity of humans on earth. Time and time again, and after scientific advancements, have proven that humanity’s carrying capacity is elastic, and the conditions of all people can be improved through effective altruism and efficient distribution of resources. Since we live in late-stage capitalism, it does seem like there is a carrying capacity to earth, that there are far too many people, and that there is just not enough resources to go around. That is just not true. Resources are hoarded by the wealthy, and the wealthy would much rather have us all believe that there are too many greedy poor people, not enough mouths to feed, and no better economic system for resource distribution. Calling for a return to the “rules of nature” does not account for the vast and varied cultures of humans around the globe, and frankly sounds a bit like eco-fascism.
Such interesting and provocative ideas, theories, and arguments. This is a book for a book group, a class - at least a couple of people and a bottle of wine. It reminded me immediately of “Sophie’s World” because of the heavy doses of philosophy , and “My Dinner with Andre” for the near lack of plot. The first made me revel in it, the latter nearly bored me to tears. Skip the preface. As an apology it includes spoilers, and as anything else it is self-congratulatory. The afterward is only slightly better.
“I’m saying that the price you’ve paid is not the price of becoming human. It’s not even the price of having the things you just mentioned. It’s the price of enacting a story that casts mankind as the enemy of the world.”
“I’m saying that the price you’ve paid is not the price of becoming human. It’s not even the price of having the things you just mentioned. It’s the price of enacting a story that casts mankind as the enemy of the world.”
Hard to know how to rate this. It had a big impact on me when I read it 25 years ago, but I'm not sure how much it would hold up to re-reading.
4.0 out of 5
4.0 out of 5
This book makes you think. And, should be a required reading for all intellectuals...or psuedo-intellectuals.
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
informative
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
How did humanity get to where we are today? And where are we headed next? What is the story we tell ourselves to explain who we are and why don't we acknowledge it more?
These are just some of the questions that are answered in this book. At the end of the book, I feel somewhat enlightened and more aware. However, I now have a slightly pessimistic outlook on the future. I'm left wondering if living with this newfound awareness and spreading it to others is enough to make the changes that are necessary for our future. I guess the only thing to do is be hopeful and maintain these ideas going forward.
These are just some of the questions that are answered in this book. At the end of the book, I feel somewhat enlightened and more aware. However, I now have a slightly pessimistic outlook on the future. I'm left wondering if living with this newfound awareness and spreading it to others is enough to make the changes that are necessary for our future. I guess the only thing to do is be hopeful and maintain these ideas going forward.