I need another $10 on Amazon to qualify for free shipping. Obviously, I need to buy some books. Any recommendations in that price range?

indifferentwindmill · 2 days

That is a surprisingly interesting read. I'm not going to buy it, because it holds little appeal for me, but it was certainly not bad.

hayduke · 2 days

I'm so glad I do not watch television.

awaywethrow1982 · 2 days

I'm not kidding, the synopsis, the terrible cover, and the fact that you're recommending it, makes me really want to read this. Added to my list; will let you know what I think.

WIDE_OPEN_BEAVERS · 2 days

First picture is Yukio Mishima--that's pretty awesome.

noogin · 2 days

Shakespeare, just like any good literature, is about the language. What does that mean? Well, someone could quite easily not see the depth of the "to be or not to be?" speech in Hamlet, but that's because they're not looking at the language, or giving any in-depth analysis to what he's really saying. The question is whether life is worth living at all (to be, or not to be). At the heart of this is the existentialist dilemma that people, such as Sartre, grappled with centuries later.

There is some serious depth to Shakespeare, but you really have to do some close reading and understand what it is he's trying to say.

Mattycore · 2 days

What are your thoughts on Nozick's rebuttal to Rawls? How do you think his arguments stack up?

Why these selections? They're pretty terrible.

HlynurBjorn · 3 days

Am I the one who put forward a counterpoint to what they had said? Did I force them to reply to me? If you're going to attempt to argue, at least have a solid argument, or be ready to put forward a solid argument, supporting the things that you believe. If I argue with a point that someone has made, I am not simply going to say, "You are wrong," without at least telling them why and how they are wrong.

HlynurBjorn · 3 days

Is it a good point to say, "You're both wrong." without any argument whatsoever backing that statement?

HlynurBjorn · 3 days

I love when someone comes along and says, "You're not right," with absolutely no argument or reasoning against what the person has said. That's a great point you've made; thank you.

HlynurBjorn · 3 days

Obviously you didn't understand the allusion to "Annabelle Lee" and "William Wilson" or the importance of Humbert's childhood, which means, really, that you didn't understand Lolita at all. The fact that you think I am talking about his love for Dolores says volumes about your understanding of the book.

HlynurBjorn · 3 days

It's tied with The Brothers Karamazov for my favorite. Nabokov has an incredible way with words that no other writer I have read can match. As well, the book does an incredible job exploring unrequited love, the impact it has on one man, and I love the fact that he took a poem from its end and carried it further. It's not a deep book by any means, but it's an excellent piece of literature, and Nabokov is a great icon for any aspiring writer.

ender17 · 3 days

Have you read it, or even attempted to do so? What is it that you didn't like about it? What kind of books do you like? Hunger Games, Twilight, and Harry Potter?

ender17 · 4 days

I've read it twice, and it's easily one of my favorite books. Also, opposed to what most people make it seem like, it's actually a pretty easy read. I tried to start a thread here, but I didn't want to give away any spoilers regarding the ending, so I wasn't able to ask the question I really wanted to ask. It's incredible the amount of philosophy in the book--the reaction to Hobbes/Rousseau's view on the state of nature, Heideggarian aspects of time, and so on. It makes it easier knowing a good deal about philosophy, but it's certainly not necessary. Though, there's probably a lot of aspects you're going to entirely miss, but at least you won't really be aware, and you're still getting an incredible story.

awaywethrow1982 · 4 days

Thank you! It means so much to me to know that somebody cares.

awaywethrow1982 · 4 days

I live on the 14th floor of a building, and nobody ever comes to visit me. I wake up alone, don't turn on any lights, and I sit in this room day in, and day out. I don't own a cell phone, because what's the point if nobody calls. I have never had any friends, and nobody has ever liked me. Some days I sit in this room, look out my window and just think about making that leap. Life is hard for me, and my only release--the only thing that makes me feel better--is getting on Reddit and making myself feel superior. You're going to make a fantastic psychologist when you graduate college, and I seriously foresee you being on the board of the APA some day.

I didn't say that's what makes me smarter than anyone. There's quite a difference between education and intelligence, trust me, I know. Please, direct me to one instance where I said education is synonymous with intelligence.

awaywethrow1982 · 4 days

The comments may be unprovoked, but most of you people make me absolutely sick with your stupidity. To live in a world surrounded by morons almost completely incapable of intelligent thought gets a bit old, and it becomes quite a bit of fun pointing out your stupidities, and intellectually destroying you people. I am far more intelligent than most (not all) of you, and I take pleasure in pointing this out. I am narcissistic, but I don't meet the criteria set forth in DSM-IV for Narcissistic personality disorder.

c0wboigreas3 · 4 days

How old are you? What political philosophy have you read? I will give you my perspective in a bit, as soon as I get back from grocery shopping.

awaywethrow1982 · 4 days

For example, you're listening to a melody, from the phenomenological perspective: how do we know what comes next, or remember what came previously? Heidegger deals with this issue by saying that time is Dasein independent but there exists intersubjectivity. He deals with individual temporality by saying Dasain equals openness, and openness constitutes being shared, thus intersubjective time is there from the start. But for Husserl time becomes a serious problem. There is no intersubjectivity, and time is fully dependent on our phenomenological perspective. As I can understand it, Husserl seems to say that there is a schmear from the present into the past and the future, like a small paint brush, but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Another example, how does a piece of art change for us upon reflection? I don't fully understand how Husserl deals with time from a phenomenological perspective.

EDIT: I understand Husserl's views on time, but I have a difficult time understanding how he reconciles his view of time with the fact that we have memory, and especially shared experience.

awaywethrow1982 · 4 days

But are you going to answer the question?

awaywethrow1982 · 4 days

I was thinking more a discussion here. I mean, I can easily Google things, but I'd rather discuss with other people who've read the book what their interpretations are.

awaywethrow1982 · 4 days

Does it have anything to do with when they are in the UofA office talking to the guys about his admissions? I feel like there's a lot in those pages that has a lot to do with the end, but I keep feeling a bit lost when thinking about this one aspect.

LindyJayne · 4 days

I read The Very Persistent Gappers of Fipp to my son and he loves it. It is directed toward an older audience, but the illustrations are so captivating that it doesn't seem to matter. I think it's a story you'll enjoy--at least the first 5 times you read it.

awaywethrow1982

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login