books

[Anonymous No.9989843]

share books you've enjoyed reading

[Anonymous No.9989845]

>>9989843
not the whole thing

[Anonymous No.9989849]

[Anonymous No.9989875]

>>9989845
I love this part of the Bible, where Jesus said:

"My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28)
“My Father,..., is greater than all.” (John 10:29)
"By myself I can do nothing." (John 5:30)

[Anonymous No.9989903]

[Anonymous No.9989926]

[Anonymous No.9989991]

>>9989843
>Kahneman
Give me one reason to read a 500-page book that literally says nothing more than "if sumtin activates ur almonds u need to think."

[Anonymous No.9990810]

Only found out the author was a staunch socialist after I finished this.
Can anyone recommend a maths learning book written by a conservative author? I'm curious to see how their teaching methods vary.

[Anonymous No.9990816]

>>9989926
mah nigga
finally someone posts the good shit

[Anonymous No.9990826]

Actually enjoyed this book and prefer it immensely over the sadomasochistic Jackson. Only thing I don't like is the imaginary time convention for special relativity.

[Anonymous No.9990828]

>>9990810
There's not going to be any conservative mathematicians. Mathematics has historically been viewed as liberal heresy. The unabomber guy is probably the closest you'll get but he never wrote anything substantial.

[Anonymous No.9990990]

[Anonymous No.9990994]

[Anonymous No.9991207]

>>9990828
Von Neumann, Gauss and Euler are all high-profile conservative mathematicians you imbecilic fuck.

[Anonymous No.9991243]

>>9989991
It's it going over the cognitive biases and heuristics that he invented?

[Anonymous No.9991245]

>>9991207
>contemporary largely liberal american conservatism is the same as men who are long dead in different times and places

[Anonymous No.9991287]

>>9990810
>>9990828
Liberal and conservative have becoming meaningless words.
You'd think mathtards would know how categorize

[Anonymous No.9991291]

>>9989875
>can't read in context
>can't even read the whole sentence

kek

>John 5
>16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
>19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.
>24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.
>28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. 30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

[Anonymous No.9991293]

Azimov's Foundation series is great, and the protagonist is a mathematician!

[Anonymous No.9991325]

>>9991291
Think Tank?

[Anonymous No.9991464]

>>9991207
Von Neuman lived a sheltered, fear-driven life and held a believe in a god. If that is enough to catgeorize him as a conservative then so be it. That, for me, doesn't make the cut, it just makes him an idiot.

>Gauss and Euler

Again, you might look at some personality traits and life circumstances but neither is good enough for me to categorie them as conservatives.

Conservatives oppose scholarship and lives spent chasing scholarly advances. That's a core part of conservative doctrine. So for me, no scientist or mathematician is conservative in a meaningful sense.

[Anonymous No.9991492]

>>9991291
>Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself;
>Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son
>And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.
>By myself I can do nothing
So...what are you trying to say? Do you even read the context. The Father GAVE authority to the Son. I can’t give you your car nor I can give you your house. The Son have no power before the Father gave it to him.

[Anonymous No.9991501]

>>9991464
>Von Neumann
The man was like a mini-MacArthur in his desire to nuke the Soviet Union and stop the looming threat of Communism. He ardently advocated for fucking nuclear war and was embedded in the defense community for most of his life. He was a cold pragmatist with a brilliant mind at his core, but he was a war-hawk and was enthusiastic in utterly demolishing Communism. Per his own words: "If you say why not bomb [the Soviets] tomorrow, I say, why not today. If you say today at five o'clock, I say why not one o'clock?"

>Gauss
A staunch monarchist who was firmly against Napoleon and the liberal ideals he carried across Europe. The spitting image of grumpy old man trying to get kids off his lawn.

>Euler
You have to be a willing retard and troll to pretend that he wasn't a conservative. He was deeply religious and was at odds with more progressive contemporaries.

[Anonymous No.9991520]

>>9991293
seldon is a good character, as are yugo amaryl, raych, and many others. all the foundation books comprising of short stories (merchant princes, psychohistorians) are really great too. prelude to foundation is one that most people dislike because it expanded upon daneel's entry into the series and people didn't like daneel being there. but if you look at prelude alone it's really good and gives an awesome look into trantor and some more of the specifics of the imperial decay.
the chronologically later foundation books are not as good (by that I basically just mean the last 2), and I would call foundation and earth straight up shit. golan trevize is forgettable as fuck and had no personality, and I don't even remember his sidekick's name. the whole thing with gaia came out of completely nowhere. it didn't make sense that golan's mind was special and that he just "knew" things. felt forced and strange.

[Anonymous No.9991549]

>>9991501
>implying a couple of nukes wouldn't have saved lots of lives in the long run

[Anonymous No.9991614]

>>9991549
I'm not bashing his viewpoints. No matter how much I hate commieshits, I don't think a nuclear war is ever going to be desirable. Had we nuked China and Russia, we would have had retaliations on a similar scale. The cultural loss from even a limited exchange of nuclear weapons would be horrifying. The thought of places like Berlin, Moscow or Boston burning in nuclear fire bothers me more than the places that would escape such devastation - irrelevant shitholes in Africa and LatAm.

Book recommendation for anyone looking to dive into math with ambiguous feelings over the subject : Mathematics for the Nonemathematician by Morris Kline

[Anonymous No.9991619]

>>9991549
not really. nukes are shitty terror weapons that are utterly lack luster against a hardened populace. the only reason they did so much damage at hiroshima and nagasaki is because both cities were made out of literal sticks and paper.

nuclear weapons were purposefully hyped to keep trigger happy numbskulls from believing they could win.

[Anonymous No.9991712]

>>9991243
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow#Summary
So, literally a 10-minute read of stuff you already know 80% of since you are initiated in critical thinking?

[Anonymous No.9991744]

>>9989843
Fuck this book
>>9991243
Fuck those cognitive 'heuristics.' Some people want to build these into algorithms, to 'make them think like people.'

[Anonymous No.9991760]

Pic rel
Currently reading The master an his emisarry, highly recomend that too

[Anonymous No.9991766]

>>9991760
It's early

[Anonymous No.9991813]

>>9989845
>>9989875
>>9991291
>>9991492

Discuss theology somewhere else please desu.

[Anonymous No.9991827]

>>9990810
Apparently he's an AIDS denialist too. wut.

[Anonymous No.9991836]

>>9991464
>anon thinks von Neumann was an idiot
Just look at this retard

[Anonymous No.9991838]

>>9991464
>Conservatives oppose scholarship
Citation?

[Anonymous No.9992222]

>>9991464
>Von Neumann.. it just makes him an idiot.
Kek.

[Anonymous No.9992318]

>>9991492
You're looking too hard for gotchas and can't see the forest for the trees.

>Jews accuse Jesus indulging himself on his own whims and not on a mission from God
>Jesus rebukes that he never fucks around and always does God work and can't do anything but since his will and God's will are one and the same

There's nothing meme worthy there.

>GAVE
>no power before the Father gave it to him.

You're misreading "given" like a present perfect verb and inferring a starting point in the past. "The laws of physics have given the universe its order" doesn't mean there was a time before the universe had laws. "Given/gave" is a preposition here like as a reversed "from". Eg "The universe's order is from the laws of physics".