What are you reading?

[mdsimpson92]

Just to get a new topic started. I'm currently reading Michael Sandel's "Liberalism and the Limits of Justice" critiquing John Raws (haven't got to that part yet). The next book I got coming up is a biography on Marcus Aurelius.

[Metacrock]

Unfortunately to answer this I have to refer to the perennial struggle bewteen atheism and tehsim.

I have been reading the God Delusion by Dawkins and God the failed Hypothesis by Stinger. I'm using both in my book on how new atheist screws up science: God, Science, and Ideology.*(working title).

both of those books are such jokes. I don't see how they got their reps among athesits.

well I do realy but it just underscores the bancrupcy of that movement.

I have also been reading a book on brain/mind issue the best In my view ever. It's called Irreducible Mind.

this link opens to fn so scroll up to the cover.

http://books.google.com/books?id=6gS_Lc ... e&q&f=true

It's a huge compendium written by a neurologist and his daughter, who is also a neurologist. It' a compendium of research and studies documenting all kinds of things both normal and paranormal. all of it worked into a giant arguemnt that the mind is not reduce able to the brain. that is such a complex issue the literature is so voluminous that chapter in my book is really hard to write.

[mdsimpson92]

I have been reading the God Delusion by Dawkins and God the failed Hypothesis by Stinger. I'm using both in my book on how new atheist screws up science: God, Science, and Ideology.*(working title).both of those books are such jokes. I don't see how they got their reps among athesits.

Every group has their lowest common denominator/demagogary (mispelling). The smart ones are generally too polite for quasi-political rallying.

"I have also been reading a book on brain/mind issue the best In my view ever. It's called Irreducible Mind."

Be sure to bring it up when your done. (in summaries of course).

[Metacrock]

I have been reading the God Delusion by Dawkins and God the failed Hypothesis by Stinger. I'm using both in my book on how new atheist screws up science: God, Science, and Ideology.*(working title).both of those books are such jokes. I don't see how they got their reps among athesits.

Every group has their lowest common denominator/demagogary (mispelling). The smart ones are generally too polite for quasi-political rallying.

"I have also been reading a book on brain/mind issue the best In my view ever. It's called Irreducible Mind."

Be sure to bring it up when your done. (in summaries of course).

It's hard to summarize because there's so much there. They trace the whole history of the issue going back to William James. James dealt with a kind of reductionism that was much like Dennett and the new atheists being deal with today. Ralph Hood, the researcher I quote so much on the mystical experience topic, has always been telling me that.

[mdsimpson92]

For me, Michael Sandel is currently just giving a summary of Rawls' Deontology and his use of the original position. He hasn't gotten to the criticism yet. With Marcus Aurelius. . . .yeah, I really like the guy. He definitely deserves the title of philosopher king. Hell, even in his younger years I sympathize with him. Hadrian was a total asshole. In fact I am begining to find the whole idea of the "five good emperors" to be a real misnomer. The only morally good ones were Marcus Aurelius and Atonius Pius. The only other one that was decisively good for the Empire was Trajan, and I still question his invasion of Iraw.

[mdsimpson92]

For me, Michael Sandel is currently just giving a summary of Rawls' Deontology and his use of the original position. He hasn't gotten to the criticism yet. With Marcus Aurelius. . . .yeah, I really like the guy. He definitely deserves the title of philosopher king. Hell, even in his younger years I sympathize with him. Hadrian was a total asshole. In fact I am begining to find the whole idea of the "five good emperors" to be a real misnomer. The only morally good ones were Marcus Aurelius and Atonius Pius. The only other one that was decisively good for the Empire was Trajan, and I still question his invasion of Iraw.

[Metacrock]

For me, Michael Sandel is currently just giving a summary of Rawls' Deontology and his use of the original position. He hasn't gotten to the criticism yet. With Marcus Aurelius. . . .yeah, I really like the guy. He definitely deserves the title of philosopher king. Hell, even in his younger years I sympathize with him. Hadrian was a total asshole. In fact I am begining to find the whole idea of the "five good emperors" to be a real misnomer. The only morally good ones were Marcus Aurelius and Atonius Pius. The only other one that was decisively good for the Empire was Trajan, and I still question his invasion of Iraw.

i would love to be able to read stuff like that now. I should because i have the time, but I don't really have the time if I keep to my written scheduled and do things I need to do. I also waste a lot of time watching old tv shows an longing for the 60s.

what I mean about the having time is in terms of work. I am basically retired. I'm hoping to work my books into a source of income. so in job terms I can set my own hours. Yet I want to get the publishing/writing work done do I push myself.