Scan barcode
quello_che_fu_silvia's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
5.0
jodyjsperling's review
2.0
Certainly, some of my negative feelings toward this book originate in my lack of education especially as regards philosophy. However, in terms of argument, I found it difficult to synthesize information based on Eco's constant obfuscation. He seems constantly to be juggling three or more points simultaneously. This made it hard to track any one argument. I believe he could have done more by saying less.
inquiry_from_an_anti_library's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
tense
medium-paced
3.0
Overview:
The essays are united in their randomness. Provoking curiosity in a variety of topics, that otherwise might not have been provoked. Encouraging reflection on otherwise ignored topics. Each topic has ideas in contrast with others, as ideas identify their value in contrast to other ideas. By being challenged in the presence of opposition, can the errors of the ideas be identified. By overcoming the errors, do ideas become better.
To learn about contradictions within the ideas requires individuals to be willing to learn information that is not yet believed. To interact and acknowledge the differences. To try and understand the complexity of information rather than just the stereotypes. Conflicts arise when being challenged, but to overcome the conflict would require communication. Communication depends on listening, and having silence to hear others. But the ubiquitous constant distractions prevent silence that is needed for communication.
Enemies:
An enemy provides a contrast to one’s own values, which define an identity. Enemies behave differently, and have different values. An enemy provides a challenge to values, in which not only do the values becomes measured but also demonstrate their worth in overcoming the challenge. As the identity is built in the presence of others, differences are found even if they do not matter. Enemies are invented even when there are no enemies. Although others are needed, they are also in some way intolerable because of their differences. Turning the other into an enemy creates conflict that can lead to self-destruction.
Threats to one’s own values are the real threat. What becomes threatening is the differences between one’s values and the oppositions values. The different sides view the other as a homogenized group, and obtain negative characteristics. The opposition becomes evil and characterized by negative attributes such as ugliness. Alternatively, everyone identified as supporters become defined as good and have positive attributes such as beauty. Civilization seems to depend on having enemies. If not a human object, then the threat comes from nature or social force that needs to be defeated.
When dealing with the enemy, morality facilitates an understanding of the enemy, rather than pretending that there are no enemies. An even greater challenge than the challenge posed by the enemy, is to understand other people in their complexity rather than by stereotype. Complexity that acknowledges and interacts with the differences. Normal behavior tends to simplify the opposition into a homogenous caricature, while seeing supporters are complex.
War depends on having an enemy. There are those who claim there are benefits to war, as there are features of war that facilitate a harmonious human society. War enables effective governance, and reduces supply pressures. Nations develop their identity through war, and the legitimacy of its governance. Creates an equilibrium between classes. Provides a validating reason for exploiting antisocial elements of society, and direct delinquents to effective behavior.
Absolute, and Relative:
That which does not depend on something else is usually referred to being absolute. The absolute has motivations and reasons without external influence. While cognitive relativism sees objects as being determined by human faculties. Which creates an interesting irony as the theory of relativity would not be labeled under relativism because motion would be valid for everyone in every time and place. Without absolutes, there are only interpretations. Which would also require interpretations of interpretations, but cycle of interpretation would require something to begin the process.
Caveats?
The essays have varying qualities. The essays have very little connection to each other and are random curiosities. Curiosities that can inspire further consideration of the topic, but that would depend on the reader’s interests.
The essays usually make a claim, and then provide a variety of examples. The amount of examples can be overwhelming, and might not add much addition content to the claim other then as further proofs of concept.
hannahreads_'s review against another edition
4.0
Puntuale, lucido e significativo. A tratti, spassoso.
epictetsocrate's review against another edition
4.0
Cu ani în urmă, la New York, am dat din întâmplare peste un taximetrist cu un nume greu de descifrat, care m-a lămurit că era pakistanez. M-a întrebat de unde vin şi i-am spus că din Italia. M-a întrebat câţi suntem şi a fost surprins că suntem atât de puţini şi că limba noastră nu este engleza. În fine, m-a întrebat care sunt duşmanii noştri. La replica mea "Poftim?", a explicat răbdător că voia să ştie cu ce popoare ne aflam de veacuri în război pentru revendicări teritoriale, uri etnice, veşnice violări de graniţe şi aşa mai departe. I-am spus că nu suntem în război cu nimeni. Tot răbdător mi-a explicat că voia să ştie care sunt adversarii noştri istorici, cei care ne omoară pe noi şi pe care noi îi omorâm. I-am repetat că nu avem aşa ceva, că ultimul război l-am purtat cu mai bine de o jumătate de secol în urmă şi că, între altele, l-am început cu un duşman şi l-am terminat cu altul. Nu era mulţumit. Cum e posibil să existe un popor care nu are duşmani? Am coborât lăsându-i doi dolari bacşiş ca să-l despăgubesc pentru pacifismul nostru indolent, apoi mi-a trecut prin minte ce trebuia să-i răspund, şi anume că nu-i adevărat că italienii n-au duşmani.
epictetsocrate's review against another edition
4.0
„De ce exista ființă mai curând decât nimic? De-aia. Acesta e un răspuns ce trebuie luat cu maxima seriozitate, nu ca o simplă poantă. Faptul însuși ca ne putem pune intrebarea (pe care n-am putea să ne-o punem dacă n-ar exista nimic, adică nici măcar noi cei care ne-o punem) înseamnă că condiția oricarei intrebări este să existe ființa. Ființa nu e o problemă de simț comun (sau simțul comun nu și-o pune ca problemă) pentru ea e condiția însăși a simțului comun. La începutul scrierii De veritate (1.1), Sf. Toma spune: „Illud autem quod primum intellectus concipit quasi notissimum, et in quo omnes conceptiones resolvit, est ens". Faptul cal exista ceva este primul lucru pe care intelectul nostru il concepe, drept cel mai cunoscut și evident, iar tot restul vine după aceea. Sau, altfel spus, n-am putea gândi clar pornind de la principiul (implicit) că gândim ceva. Ființa este orizontul, sau baia amniotică în care în chip firesc se mișcă gândirea noastră...”
cjdavey's review against another edition
4.0
Not an easy read - I had to take this in small chunks and reread quite a lot; even then I'm not sure if I understood all of it. Fascinating stuff though, and when Eco illustrates his points with down-to-earth examples it all springs into more lucidity.
bungaku_shoujo's review against another edition
4.0
ყველაზე მეტად მომეწონა:
- მტრის ხატის შექმნა
- ემბრიონები სასუფეველს მიღმა
- ჰიუგო, hélas! სიჭარბის პოეტიკა
- "ველინები" და დუმილი
- წარმოსახვითი ასტრონომია
- რატომ ვერ პოულობენ კუნძულს
- მტრის ხატის შექმნა
- ემბრიონები სასუფეველს მიღმა
- ჰიუგო, hélas! სიჭარბის პოეტიკა
- "ველინები" და დუმილი
- წარმოსახვითი ასტრონომია
- რატომ ვერ პოულობენ კუნძულს
More...