Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.39 AVERAGE
3.39 AVERAGE
Not as compelling as his previous book. This one is essays on hope, religion, ideology, and related topics, with some cheesy passages imagining a female friend of Nietzsche. I stopped about halfway.
What a quirky, helpful, book. I get it. Playing out the worst scenario can make way for the best.
medium-paced
emotional
hopeful
informative
fast-paced
challenging
funny
informative
reflective
fast-paced
funny
hopeful
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
challenging
funny
hopeful
reflective
fast-paced
Nope. Big fat nope. The only reason I am giving this 2 stars is that I am aware that there are SOME passages here that could potentially help SOMEONE. I was also not like hate reading it or anything.
Apart from that, I just don't understand what this book was trying to do.
Why was this even published?
I don't intend to sound mean but I just genuinely do not understand. Who is this for?
This just felt like (a way to long) ramble with no clear outline, structure or endpoint. To me, it read like someone who tried to talk about a concept (Hope) without actually having anything meaningful and substantial to add. So he thinks he is being all deep and shit but what he actually does is tackling it in the most simplistic, superficial and repetitive way possible. Every time he said anything about hope, he just repeated himself with different examples.
Also since he has to sound clever and like he knows his shit, he throws a bunch of philosophy and household names in your face. There wouldn't have been anything wrong with that (i luv me some philosophy), but the issue was that those popular theories by Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Plato, etc. did often not even connect or make sense in any sort of way in regards to the overall "argument" he was trying to make. I'm putting quotation marks because, again, I can only speculate if there was an argument at all.
There are some passages (99 percent of them not related to hope) where I genuinely got the feeling that he was only writing that book so that he could get those very specific rants/ideas out in the world.
Listen, this would be fine if it were a collection of essays. If it didn't try to be more than it actually is. It would be a nice book to read for younger readers I believe because it introduces them into idk basic philosophy and its thinkers but also basic but important concepts? I think I sound very rude and conceited right now but I don't mean to be. There is an audience for every book and the marketing and construction of this one is preventing it from reaching an audience that would get more out of it.
Apart from that, I just don't understand what this book was trying to do.
Why was this even published?
I don't intend to sound mean but I just genuinely do not understand. Who is this for?
This just felt like (a way to long) ramble with no clear outline, structure or endpoint. To me, it read like someone who tried to talk about a concept (Hope) without actually having anything meaningful and substantial to add. So he thinks he is being all deep and shit but what he actually does is tackling it in the most simplistic, superficial and repetitive way possible. Every time he said anything about hope, he just repeated himself with different examples.
Also since he has to sound clever and like he knows his shit, he throws a bunch of philosophy and household names in your face. There wouldn't have been anything wrong with that (i luv me some philosophy), but the issue was that those popular theories by Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Plato, etc. did often not even connect or make sense in any sort of way in regards to the overall "argument" he was trying to make. I'm putting quotation marks because, again, I can only speculate if there was an argument at all.
There are some passages (99 percent of them not related to hope) where I genuinely got the feeling that he was only writing that book so that he could get those very specific rants/ideas out in the world.
Listen, this would be fine if it were a collection of essays. If it didn't try to be more than it actually is. It would be a nice book to read for younger readers I believe because it introduces them into idk basic philosophy and its thinkers but also basic but important concepts? I think I sound very rude and conceited right now but I don't mean to be. There is an audience for every book and the marketing and construction of this one is preventing it from reaching an audience that would get more out of it.
This book said so much yet also nothing at all. I kinda forgot how like fine the other one was. This one was less fine. I get the point is like there’s no hope so like make hope but like yeah everything is effed but also like stop complaining to me (I willingly opened this book).
I'm not sure what to think about this book. Manson has some interesting ideas and he makes some very good points about modern-day political and philosophical crises. But his 'popular' way of writing is sometimes distracting.
At times, Manson addresses the reader way too infantile, not taking his audience (nor himself as a writer) too seriously. ('Thinkin brain and Feeling brain driving the conscious car').Sometimes his descriptions of an idea or concept go on and on, even when it's already super clear, which made me skip certain passages.
Nor was it a book about hope in my opinion. It is a book about our crises with purpose, with integrity, with freedom. Important stuff too, nonetheless but not really about hope.
In the book, Manson makes the point that our actions are way too often determined by our emotions gone crazy. That might be true, but in my view it's often a LACK of emotions that makes us make the wrong choices. i.e.: eating a steak without thinking about the consequences might be an emotional decision ('I just feel like it'). But if we really open ourselves up we might be even more emotional and get upset if we would see where the steak really come from, and make a different decision (if slaughterhouses had windows, everyone would be vegetarian). So, I agree we have a crisis with emotional actions, but I wouldn't plea for a more rational approach, but for DEEPER and REALER emotions and feelings, because if we would look really deep down, we would allign our actions with our deepest feelings.
I won't spoil, but the latest chapter is really weird and disappointing.
That being said, he is a smart thinker and he's got some interesting ideas that are worth reading. The book is enjoyable overall and I'm looking forward to his next writing.
At times, Manson addresses the reader way too infantile, not taking his audience (nor himself as a writer) too seriously. ('Thinkin brain and Feeling brain driving the conscious car').Sometimes his descriptions of an idea or concept go on and on, even when it's already super clear, which made me skip certain passages.
Nor was it a book about hope in my opinion. It is a book about our crises with purpose, with integrity, with freedom. Important stuff too, nonetheless but not really about hope.
In the book, Manson makes the point that our actions are way too often determined by our emotions gone crazy. That might be true, but in my view it's often a LACK of emotions that makes us make the wrong choices. i.e.: eating a steak without thinking about the consequences might be an emotional decision ('I just feel like it'). But if we really open ourselves up we might be even more emotional and get upset if we would see where the steak really come from, and make a different decision (if slaughterhouses had windows, everyone would be vegetarian). So, I agree we have a crisis with emotional actions, but I wouldn't plea for a more rational approach, but for DEEPER and REALER emotions and feelings, because if we would look really deep down, we would allign our actions with our deepest feelings.
I won't spoil, but the latest chapter is really weird and disappointing.
That being said, he is a smart thinker and he's got some interesting ideas that are worth reading. The book is enjoyable overall and I'm looking forward to his next writing.