Scan barcode
teresavh's review
5.0
I love Eugene Thacker, he changed how I see the world. This book took me a while to read because it got dense in some parts, but it didn't stop me from loving it.
haversam's review
4.0
I thought this was a much stronger work than In the Dust of a Planet was. I think that Thacker could have expounded his thoughts on nothing a little more with the Kyoto school of philosophers and perhaps even went farther back into Eastern thought with some Daoist musings.
simplyb's review
3.0
I'm slowly working my way through this Horror of Philosophy series as I like both horror and philosophy. It builds a little bit on the first book (which I read a very long time ago and so don't remember) where it originally introduced concepts of horror and philosophy. This second book in the trilogy looks then at how one can discover horror in philosophical thought and discourse, and how various philosophers have struggled with ideas of darkness and mysticism, negation, and nothingness, and how each and every one who has attempted to to stare into those depths and voids has either been scarred by it or chickened out and waved their hands in some cosmic or theological surrender. It ends on a plea to resist the thought-terminating conclusions of the pessimist, which is hard to avoid when one delves deep enough into this territory, and try to instead be humbled by the cosmic insignificance of it all, even if that fills us equally with awe and horror. Presumably this will then be the exact type of thinking to take into book 3, which is about how these topics are explored in horror films and literature.
I gave it three stars not because it was poorly written or reasoned, but mainly because it was a little more scholarly than advertised and probably written for a little more of a philosophy audience than a pop audience like myself, so I think there could maybe have been a little more explication and example-giving to bring the rest of us along. But I did enjoy what I could understand of it, and I think if I were to do another careful reading, or at least peruse some books on the source philosophers, I could emerge with more understanding.
I gave it three stars not because it was poorly written or reasoned, but mainly because it was a little more scholarly than advertised and probably written for a little more of a philosophy audience than a pop audience like myself, so I think there could maybe have been a little more explication and example-giving to bring the rest of us along. But I did enjoy what I could understand of it, and I think if I were to do another careful reading, or at least peruse some books on the source philosophers, I could emerge with more understanding.
variouslilies's review
3.0
There was more meat on this volume compared to the first one, but it was also still plagued by most of the shortcomings that haunted its prequel. Crossing my fingers for the third volume.
mobilisinmobili's review
3.0
Less punchy and incisive than "In the Dust of This Planet" (though the title is equally strong), here we dance through Kant, Hegel and Schopenhauer, and the history of philosophy. Interesting, but it didn't jump out at me as much. Only pick it up if you enjoy reading philosophy.
I did quite enjoy the section on darkness.
I did quite enjoy the section on darkness.
joebathelt's review
4.0
This book is part two of the Philosophy of Horror. Despite this link to the horror genre and an introduction that promises a reading of philosophical works as horror, the link is only occasionally established. This book is more of a history and extended argument of cosmic pessimism. I enjoyed reading it and found the text scholarly, stimulating, and very deep. However, it is, at times, very dense. I cannot claim to have fully understood all of the arguments in my first reading. There were plenty of thoughts to mull over to then get back to the text again in the future. Even though I enjoyed the book, I wished the author had made the text a bit more accessible. Sometimes, I read a summary at the end of the chapter that provided the basic overview for me to understand the many pages before. If this summary had preceded the section, I would have gotten much more out of the text.
Similarly, linking more clearly to the horror genre or other analogies from popular culture would have made the dense philosophical arguments clearer for the non-specialist reader. I think the previous volume “In the dust of this planet” was the more compelling book. Still, I’m curious to see how the author approaches the subject in the third volume of the series.
Similarly, linking more clearly to the horror genre or other analogies from popular culture would have made the dense philosophical arguments clearer for the non-specialist reader. I think the previous volume “In the dust of this planet” was the more compelling book. Still, I’m curious to see how the author approaches the subject in the third volume of the series.
notunlikecheckers's review
4.0
Slower reading than the first, but understandable
A really interesting look at philosophers such as Nietzsche, Kant, and Schopenhauer. This book focuses much more on philosophy itself than the first volume of the trilogy, "In the Dust of Planet". As a result it's a bit slower reading, but even if you don't have much background in philosophy at all it is still approachable.
A really interesting look at philosophers such as Nietzsche, Kant, and Schopenhauer. This book focuses much more on philosophy itself than the first volume of the trilogy, "In the Dust of Planet". As a result it's a bit slower reading, but even if you don't have much background in philosophy at all it is still approachable.