/lit/ - Literature

why is l'etranger and atlas shrugged in philosophy?

why haven't you read anything in row 3?

why is row 4 named "science" but contains no actual scientific works?

anyway, better angels, major works and nausea, brothers kamarazov and rye are my suggestions

i ignored your instructions btw

>>3337280

Fair enough.

Again, it was a loose grouping. The reason I haven't read anything in row 3 is because... well... there has to be a first time, I guess.

I have most important "real" scientific works already, along with hard science textbooks. Those, again, are a loose grouping.

Thanks for the suggestions though! I shall put a tally down for them.

>Guns, Germs, and Steel.
I look forward to you pretending to know about things OP.

Guns Germs & Steel, The Prize, Foucault, Wittgenstein, Infinite Jest, Brothers Karamazov, Wonderful Life, Godel Escher Bach

Enjoy OP!

>>3337307

Well the point of this thread is to get help deciding what to get... so it is also important to have feedback about what to avoid, too.

>>3337312

Thanks for the reply! Noted!

Row 4 would be best to get Catch-22 because it's the best combination of accessibility, entertainment, and literary merit. (Personally my favorite from the list is Gravity's Rainbow but considering the other books from the list it looks like you shouldn't start with that one)

>row 1
no
>row 2
Foucault, Camus, Wittgenstein
>row 3
IJ, GR, Ulysses, Hemingway
>row 4
no

>>3337270
Row 3 needs to be read. Maybe not all (W&P?) but as much as you can
Foucault, Wittgenstein, Arguably in addendum.

>>3337317

Righto, well noted. I am obviously lagging in my literature reading, and really need to knock some stuff off my list. Thanks for the input!

>>3337331

Noted, thanks!

>>3337339

Noted as well, thanks! I would love to read everything on the page, but these cards only give me so much leeway (and I have large interests).

Still, it is sounding like I need to dip a little deeper into the third row than just 2.

GG&S, Freakonomics
Nausea, Major Works of Wittgenstein
For Whom the Bell Tolls, Brothers Karamazov
GEB, Astonishing Hypothesis

I'd suggest Outliers over Freakonomics any day.

Also Godel, Escher, Bach is good but very outdated.

>>3337351

Noted, thanks!

Catch-22

>>3337353

I'll look into it, thanks for the lead.

Also noted as well, thanks

Row 1 and 4 SUCK. Why would you choose those books? Those are straight pop-science/inadequate historical study. I'd re-consider those completely if I were you.

>>3337356

noted

>>3337368

Fair enough. The reason I choose them is because they often do have basic information which I was unaware (I usually double check).

That said, I have been evaluating and re-evaluating since xmas ended. It is looking like the general consensus is heading towards putting more interest into rows 2 and 3.

Read everything in Row 3 minus Catcher in the Rye.

Catch-22 and For Whom the Bell Tolls are two of my favorite novels, and they're both very accessible. Everything else is good, but it might be worth looking into some other works before you jump into some of these.

For example, if you've never really read any russian lit, I might advise against going straight for Brothers Karamazov or War and Peace. Maybe start with one of the shorter novels by either author to get used to the prose and context.

Just my two cents.

>>3337378
>It is looking like the general consensus is heading towards putting more interest into rows 2 and 3.
That's because you posted this on /lit/.
/sci/ would have the opposite response.

Guns Germs and Steel
Arguably: Essays

The Stranger
Major Works

For Whom the Bell Tolls
Infinite Jest

Wonder Live
Godel, Escher, Bach

>>3337385

noted! I have nothing of Tolstoy, but I have read Dostoevsky's "Notes from the Underground". I was suggested "For Whom the Bell Tolls" in high school due to my interest in literature back then, so it has been on my to do list (I have spent most of my reading time on major works in philosophy and science instead).

Thanks for the comment! I appreciate them all

>>3337387

Yeah, I spend a lot of time in /sci/ as well (I am a dual major in Physics and Philosophy). I already have mountains of works in philosophy and hard science. Due to this, I have asked /lit/ since people here are the most likely to have read anything I have been looking into.

>>3337388

Noted, thanks for the feedback!

Row 3 is best row. Probably should just read all of those. But, to your request:

1:Guns, germs, and steel and whatever you want. (Freakonomics?) Jared Diamond is a good biologist and probably a pretty good popular science writer.

2:Camus and Foucault. never read either. Atlas Shrugged was long, mediocre, but if you want to understand the Tea Party, you could read it. the plot is alright, the underlying politics boring.

3:Any, but if you get Catcher in the Rye you better not side with Holden. He's a stupid brat.

4:Get the Gould book. SJG is a brilliant writer. I never read the Darwin book, but might I recommend "What Evolution Is" by Ernst Mayr or "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne? "One Long Argument" by Mayr is very specifically about Darwin and the Origin and is good as well, but the other 2 are more about evolution in general. Mayr is wrong about dinosaurs, btw. WEI is from 2000, though, so he's to be forgiven for it.

>>3337408

Noted. Thanks for the comment!

The reason I split it up like that is because I don't want JUST literature. I would probably get bored pretty quickly. Most everything on there is on my to-read list sooner or later, just deciding what to get now with these xmas cards.

When it comes to biology... I have read a lot of stuff by Dawkins (inb4 haters) and Darwin, but have been wanting to read stuff by Gould and heard that this book was good.

>>3337423
Dawkins has haters for a good reason. I feel he is unnecessarily combative and derogatory. Gould is tolerant and approachable, while still being often (but not always) in line with mainstream biologists. His popular science books are all good; his scientific tome, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory", is, I'm told, very good and quite correct (besides his part on Punctuated Equilibrium, which is generally considered incorrect but still has some merit); it is on my to-read list but is LONG and so I haven't yet. I would recommend it if you want a HIGHLY detailed yet correct (and accessible) book on evolutionary biology.

>>3337430

That Tome has been something I have looked into myself, but I have browsed through it myself and it seems like Dawkins' "The Greatest Show on Earth" (which is also basically an updated "Origin of Species") is somewhat of a TL;DR of it. Still, I do want that tome because it looks like it is a LOT more in depth with more of the hard science behind it.

I feel like Dawkins' work is actually very very good, and I also feel like he is often misunderstood. I have watch hours of debates with him in it and he seems like a very friendly guy who is generally respectful, though he often is combative (though usually with some sense of humility).

>>3337439
Dawkins' Greatest Show is a popular science book; it's probably good, I haven't read it. My problem with him is he confuses science with religion, and advocates atheism to a fault. Religion and science are not conflicting, and I like that Gould understands that in a way Dawkins refuses. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory is NOT a popular science book. It's made to stand as a reference for practicing scientists, in contrast to almost all of Gould's other works. That's why, if you REALLY want to get into evolutionary biology, it's great; Mayr's book is what I read to prepare for a Darwin class before I had taken evolutionary biology and it was very informative and good. Coyne's book is highly recommended by my evolution professor, but I didn't read it, even though I was supposed to; I own it, though.

If you need general evolution info, get What Evolution Is. If you want info about Darwin and the history of science, get One Long Argument or The Darwinian Revolution, although I've heard good things about Dennet's book. Get Wonderful Life or any Gould book regardless; he's great for all levels. If you REALLY want to understand evolution, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" is about as detailed as you can get, although Futuyma's "Evolution" textbook is probably just as good.

>>3337475

Actually I feel that people misunderstand Dawkins' position towards science compared to religion. The only thing he really goes over the bounds epistemically on are his argument for evidence based reasoning (which is somewhat hard to work with, unless you accept the premise that "frameworks that can predict the outcome of an event are therefore correct").

I feel like most of the hate against Dawkins is usually emphasized only by religious people who really don't care about what he has to say anyways. Still, this is just my take on the Dawkins situation anyways. Regardless, I want to take a look into Gould's stuff for a change.

When you emphasize that the SoET is for professional biologists, that only makes me really want to get it badly and put it proudly next to my copy of Feynman's lectures. The one thing I hate MOST about pop-science is that you have to take the facts asserted at face value, without any kind of demonstration to back it up.

Thanks for these great recommendations, I will certainly take a note and look at them!

Just get all of row 3. I know that's not what you're asking for, but the other 3 rows are just meh.

>>3337475
>My problem with him is he confuses science with religion, and advocates atheism to a fault.
I agree that Dawkins does that. With his books, though, I think it's important to acknowledge that, whether or not Dawkins himself says this, their primary audience is people for whom religious views bleed into scientific views. i.e., Dawkins's books are fueled primarily as a reaction to ludicrous amounts of people still calling bullshit on evolution - and getting away with it..

honestly i would go for the heisenberg book, geb, and ulysses, or the ayer and wittgenstein anthology
the rest you'll only read once and will regret buying

>>3337489

Fair enough, though I really don't want to overburden myself all at once with a pile of deep literature. The books in row three have had my interest for a while and are still on my to-read list... I am simply seeing which I should knock out of the way first and if anyone has recommendations from the other rows.

>>3337508

Meh, perhaps. I am not entirely sure what audiences are interested in Dawkins' books. I picked them up because of my ignorance in biology and have found them to be absolutely incredible at instructing in the subject. MOST of his books have absolutely nothing to do with religion, the latest only coming around after the start of the "New Atheism" movement. Of the 4 horsemen of New Atheism, their publications go in the order of:
-End of Faith (Harris) 2004
-Breaking the Spell (Dennett) 2006
-The God Delusion (Dawkins) 2006
-god is Not Great (Hitchens) 2007

Dawkins arguably joined the bandwagon -for whatever reason- later on. In general, most of his best work is strictly in biology (only The God Delusion is non-scientific, though The Magic of Reality and The Greatest Show on Earth are inspired by religion (both written after the God Delusion, with the exception of The Blind Watchmaker).

Really what should be looked at for Dawkins is The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, and The Ancestor's Tale.

>>3337515

Noted! Thanks!

----------
That being said, I am going to bed. I'll bump the thread in the morning (if it is still around). Thanks for the comments!

>>3337508
True, but Dawkins will not win selling evolution with atheism. Evolution stands on its own merits and is compatible with the majority of religious beliefs; this will convince a lot more people than staunch atheism.

Sure, Christians have done a lot of bad shit but so have atheists. Christianity isn't the problem; willful ignorance and stubbornness is.

What a load of predictable freshman horseshit in this thread.

>>3337486
In case you look once more before bed- I should restate that "Evolution", the textbook by Futuyma, is more readable and probably just as good in almost every way as SoET by Gould. But Gould's tome is also good, just probably about 1000 pages too long.

>>3337570

hah, I did check one last time after finishing up getting ready to go pass out. I took note and will look into his text as well! Thanks!

OP, i suggest killing yourself.

>Hitchens
>Pinker
>Freakonomics
>Sartre
>Atlas Shrugged
>Camus
>mumbles something about the neo-atheists

and lol at putting Wittgenstein along with these; screams for
irremediable faggotry of supreme edginess altogether

just another edgy teen on the /lit/ horizon

>>3337439
>I have watch hours of debates with him in it and he seems like a very friendly guy who is generally respectful

there are no words

B&N are shit books.
They do look nice, but that's about it.

This is like the ultimate facebook/reddit snowflake's reading list.

You're me three years ago.

This is the average person praising IJ on lit

>>3337589

>just another edgy teen

It's like you totally forgot you just had a sperged-out angst seizure a few lines back.

Comedy gold.

>>3337844

I'm one of those people.

No it's not.