Scan barcode
ajmcwhinney's review
4.0
Fun! Really interesting look at the development of the concepts of "entertainment" and "passion" across cultures and through thinkers. I really wish the last chapter — where Han starts to talk about his own understandings of entertainment operating today as this totalizing force — was expanded upon. But overall a good introduction to the often fraught dichotomy between passionate and entertaining art, and what is taken seriously and what is not
alinabkl's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
2.5
jung's review
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.75
surprisingly digestible for a philosophy book. Not as easy as McLuhan, but still relatively so with enough patience. Definitely started to get increasingly difficult when Han transitioned into image and representation (in the philosophical semiotic sense), but that stuff has always bogged me down. i think that Han has a tendency to get too caught up in semantics of previous philosophers, particularly Kant, and at times spreads himself too thin without paving the logical groundwork required.
That being said, I think the general thesis, that entertainment (think fun / mindless activity) and passion (ie. working towards a goal, work) are not that different is solid and interesting. He does a pretty good job tracing the European / religious roots of the distinction between the two, which in turn demonstrates that the two aren't that different. Think of passion as deprivation, of viewing things in terms of resistance - and the mental reward as being filtered through concrete logic of the brain (sorry, it's difficult for me to describe haha). Han highlights the (spiritual, social) issues with viewing life as something that is purely functional, and something to be improved upon, worked towards. and in the end, this and what is perhaps derided as "mindless entertainment" by western culture often addresses similar needs.
three things I wish that had been more expanded upon is 1) the ways in which this drive for pleasure as deprivation (again, think of viewing your life in-terms of goals, of what we don't currently have) is used to control (in the Foucault-ian sense) and improve production (both in the capitalist sense and not). han touches on this a few times, but I think that's where he could have really gotten into it. 2) explaining moreso the positive impact of entertainment or other forms of leisure not based on deprivation. There are some notions of it, in a more general sense of values, societal good, but i didn't feel like this was particularly concrete, and 3) exploring it moreso without the lens of television, which I feel like the second half of the book fails to do.
It probably helped that I have been particularly interested in entertainment / life in relation to thought and experience. For instance, in Liveblog by Megan Boyle, she stops recording everything because it limits how much she can experience. The concept has been on my mind for quite some time.
Overall, a cool book that I think is great to read as often we think of philosophy is purely navel gazing invented by the greeks, but rather Han demonstrates a functional critique of modern society and perhaps the "spiritual" component (i use spiritual very loosely here) that we are missing, that i had not thought of in this way before.
That being said, I think the general thesis, that entertainment (think fun / mindless activity) and passion (ie. working towards a goal, work) are not that different is solid and interesting. He does a pretty good job tracing the European / religious roots of the distinction between the two, which in turn demonstrates that the two aren't that different. Think of passion as deprivation, of viewing things in terms of resistance - and the mental reward as being filtered through concrete logic of the brain (sorry, it's difficult for me to describe haha). Han highlights the (spiritual, social) issues with viewing life as something that is purely functional, and something to be improved upon, worked towards. and in the end, this and what is perhaps derided as "mindless entertainment" by western culture often addresses similar needs.
three things I wish that had been more expanded upon is 1) the ways in which this drive for pleasure as deprivation (again, think of viewing your life in-terms of goals, of what we don't currently have) is used to control (in the Foucault-ian sense) and improve production (both in the capitalist sense and not). han touches on this a few times, but I think that's where he could have really gotten into it. 2) explaining moreso the positive impact of entertainment or other forms of leisure not based on deprivation. There are some notions of it, in a more general sense of values, societal good, but i didn't feel like this was particularly concrete, and 3) exploring it moreso without the lens of television, which I feel like the second half of the book fails to do.
It probably helped that I have been particularly interested in entertainment / life in relation to thought and experience. For instance, in Liveblog by Megan Boyle, she stops recording everything because it limits how much she can experience. The concept has been on my mind for quite some time.
Overall, a cool book that I think is great to read as often we think of philosophy is purely navel gazing invented by the greeks, but rather Han demonstrates a functional critique of modern society and perhaps the "spiritual" component (i use spiritual very loosely here) that we are missing, that i had not thought of in this way before.
pjv1013's review against another edition
4.0
Tenho acompanhado a obra de Byung-Chul Han que se tem constituído para mim como um guião de entendimento da contemporaneidade. Esta obra acrescenta densidade a este guião potenciando o debate sobre entretenimento e hedonismo no espaço do ser/estar contemporâneo.
thegracexu's review
3.0
Han explores the role that entertainment plays by attempting to delineate its relationship to art, passion, and morality. Though he remains neutral in tone for the most part, I enjoyed how his book critiques (albeit mildly) false dichotomies set up by Western philosophers and explores Eastern viewpoints of complementary relationships (with an excellent passage on Ukiyo-e). As with many philosophy books, I think he relied too heavily on large blocks of citation instead of true deconstruction. I would've liked to hear more of his own personal thought.
More...