/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7800690]

Since it's 800+ pages long, before I venture into reading this, I would like to know: is it philosophical, or is it more science/fact oriented? Is it hard to follow? Does it have an uplifting tone to it? Why is it so long (does it repeat its point, touch a lot of topics, need to lay out a lot of history on religion/race issues/etc before it gets into its thesis, etc)?

And, what books of shorter length touch similar topics (a history of violence, the extremes of mankind, ultimate fate of humanity in relation to ethics, etc)?

[Anonymous No.7800701]

>>7800690
it's pop-science

>Is it hard to follow?

lol no.

[Anonymous No.7800702]

ass

[Anonymous No.7800706]

>>7800701
Hmmm, I feared that. I was just going by the title, and some comments. Do you know if it's any good, then?

[Anonymous No.7800720]

>>7800706
if you're a liberal, then you'll like it. If you're a Nazi or a commie, you won't.

[Anonymous No.7800938]

>reading pop book by celebrity academic from luxury brand college

shgdg

[Anonymous No.7800991]

>>is it philosophical, or is it more science/fact oriented?

It's fact oriented, but also gets into philosophy. Locke and Kant, some Hobbes.

>>Is it hard to follow?

It's very clearly written.

>>Does it have an uplifting tone to it?

It is the most violent book that gets posted on /lit/. But only like three people have read it and can verify that. So, not really. Don't be fooled by the title.

>>Why is it so long (does it repeat its point, touch a lot of topics, need to lay out a lot of history on religion/race issues/etc before it gets into its thesis, etc)?

It tackles the history of human violence, so there's a ton of interesting stuff to get into. Humans are monsters, and there's something totally sad and banal about that.

>>7800720
It's really the opposite. Pinker is not a liberal. The book brought me over to the Leviathan's side.

All in all, OP, read the first chapter. If it doesn't pull you in, maybe it's not for you.

[Anonymous No.7801001]

>>7800991
>Pinker is not a liberal.

i read a pinker book once and it seemed like every couple pages he was whining about how rockstars get all the money and their chicks for free, i was like this is rather unbecoming for an academic

[Anonymous No.7801015]

>>7801001
http://www.theonion.com/article/noam-chomsky-announces-las-vegas-residency-52508

[Anonymous No.7801032]

>>7800720

From what I've read so far it's quite a conservative book.

>Praises marriage and child rearing
>Praises the involvement of the church in reducing violence in the United States
>praises self control and delayed gratification
>harshly criticizes the popular and academic culture of the 1960s
>criticizes indigenous people and the anthropologists who cover for them
>rejects cultural relativism
>scornful of critical theory
>harshly criticizes communism and communist intellectuals and students

He's pretty rough on the early church but he does warm up to them in their later history.

[Anonymous No.7801677]

Pinker is a moronic hack fraud

disgracing harvards once decent name.

[Anonymous No.7801693]

>>7801032
I know Pinker was influenced by Sowell in The Blank Slate.

[Anonymous No.7801728]

>>7801032
yeah and another one of his books The Blank Slate is essentially a totally comprehensive kick in the nuts to social constructionists. He's a nuanced thinker, but that doesn't make him liberal.

[Anonymous No.7801765]

>>7800690

>is it philosophical, or is it more science/fact oriented?

Other than a couple light references to Hobbes, not really.It's science for the layman, very easy to follow along.

>Does it have an uplifting tone to it?

I would say so, yes. Progressive improvement in human life and all that.

>Why is it so long

It could be way shorter, but isn't too repetitive.