Books that have changed your view on the world...

[miketheidiot]

atlas shrugged?

*facepalm*

 

[Lawlcaeks]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
atlas shrugged?

*facepalm*

The library of congress did a study back in he 80's and found it was #2 on the list of most influential books of all time, right behind the Holy Bible.

Rightly so IMO. I wish it were required reading for every high school graduate.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

The only other book I can think of offhand as a personal influence is "What is Life Worth?" by Kenneth Feingold, the lawyer in charge of compensating 9/11 victims.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: Lawlcaeks

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
atlas shrugged?

*facepalm*

The library of congress did a study back in he 80's and found it was #2 on the list of most influential books of all time, right behind the Holy Bible.

Rightly so IMO. I wish it were required reading for every high school graduate.

I think the point is that its kinda sad a book at crappy as Atlas Shrugged is so influential. But putting it on par wit the bible is exactly right imo, seems like people see it as a work of scripture more than a book. And I actually really enjoyed it and though it made a GREAT message, but even a person of average intelligence should be able to understand the gaping flaws in her reasoning.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: BrownTownI think the point is that its kinda sad a book at crappy as Atlas Shrugged is so influential. But putting it on par wit the bible is exactly right imo, seems like people see it as a work of scripture more than a book. And I actually really enjoyed it and though it made a GREAT message, but even a person of average intelligence should be able to understand the gaping flaws in her reasoning.

What did you think were the gaping flaws in Ayn Rand's reasoning?

 

[Possessed Freak]

Starship Troopers
Fathers and Sons

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: BrownTownI think the point is that its kinda sad a book at crappy as Atlas Shrugged is so influential. But putting it on par wit the bible is exactly right imo, seems like people see it as a work of scripture more than a book. And I actually really enjoyed it and though it made a GREAT message, but even a person of average intelligence should be able to understand the gaping flaws in her reasoning.

What did you think were the gaping flaws in Ayn Rand's reasoning?

You are asking this question during the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression after 8 years of laissez-faire government ???

I liked the book. There were neat elements (such as the 'Politics of Pull') which are appropriate today but the overall story was farcical and Rand is just not that great a writer. That said ...

"But the damned and the guiltiest among you are the men who had the capacity to know, yet chose to blank out reality, the men who were willing to sell their intelligence into cynical servitude..." - John Galt

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The Screwtape Letters, Cat's Cradle, Hiroshima, maybe The Handmaid's Tale.

Screwtape for the win, baby. That's an unbelievable book.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: BrownTownI think the point is that its kinda sad a book at crappy as Atlas Shrugged is so influential. But putting it on par wit the bible is exactly right imo, seems like people see it as a work of scripture more than a book. And I actually really enjoyed it and though it made a GREAT message, but even a person of average intelligence should be able to understand the gaping flaws in her reasoning.

What did you think were the gaping flaws in Ayn Rand's reasoning?

You are asking this question during the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression after 8 years of laissez-faire government ???

I liked the book. There were neat elements (such as the 'Politics of Pull') which are appropriate today but the overall story was farcical and Rand is just not that great a writer. That said ...

"But the damned and the guiltiest among you are the men who had the capacity to know, yet chose to blank out reality, the men who were willing to sell their intelligence into cynical servitude..." - John Galt

Don't knock servitude. "To obey is the proper office of a rational soul." - Montaigne II

 

[leingod86]

I find the fact that the majority of books presented in this thread are related to politics or religion rather than critical thinking or reasoning telling regarding the priorities of the average (American) person.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'd say the Bible is #1 and Animal Farm is #2. Both give great understanding and insight into the nature of man.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: leingod86
I find the fact that the majority of books presented in this thread are related to politics or religion rather than critical thinking or reasoning telling regarding the priorities of the average (American) person.

True, but I find that much of my reasoning and argument hinges greatly on the question of the nature of God. If there is no God, then my intellect is not only greatly changed, but largely thwarted.

I always thought one of my problems is this: I was raised a catholic, and still am a catholic. But I find I'm more interested in the philosophical implications of the existence or non-existence of God rather than going to mass and being devout. It's that problem that leads me to read apologistic works from Lewis, Chesterton, and Belloc, because they provide me with some guidance in that regard.

 

[leingod86]

Why? How does one deduce the nature of God? If one does somehow assess it, how does it affect the logical processes that were required to discover it?

 

[Jeffg010]

http://www.amazon.com/Have-Nic...&qid=1232642132&sr=8-1
Have a nice day!


Jeff

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Oceandevi
Ishmael

:thumbsup:

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: leingod86

Why? How does one deduce the nature of God?

We can't deduce the true nature of God, but I think we can deduce part of proof of his existence.

If one does somehow assess it, how does it affect the logical processes that were required to discover it?

[/quote]

If God doesn't exist, then nothing is meaningful. What's the point of anything, including logic, if there isn't a universal truth of some kind that we strive to understand?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
[ What's the point of anything

There doesn't have to be one Though my thinking on "the point of it all" is that we are just following biological imperatives. The rest is our own prescription.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Atreus21
[ What's the point of anything

There doesn't have to be one Though my thinking on "the point of it all" is that we are just following biological imperatives. The rest is our own prescription.

Why do we follow biological imperatives?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: leingod86

Why? How does one deduce the nature of God?

We can't deduce the true nature of God, but I think we can deduce part of proof of his existence.

If one does somehow assess it, how does it affect the logical processes that were required to discover it?

If God doesn't exist, then nothing is meaningful. What's the point of anything, including logic, if there isn't a universal truth of some kind that we strive to understand?

We create "Meaning". Long before "God" existed, "gods" gave "Meaning" to Egyptians and numerous other cultures. Somehow "Meaning' survived the massive culling of countless "gods".

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Atreus21
[ What's the point of anything

There doesn't have to be one Though my thinking on "the point of it all" is that we are just following biological imperatives. The rest is our own prescription.

Why do we follow biological imperatives?

I know where this is going, to which I respond

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

If my reply confused you, it is only that I thought a philosophical question, deserved a philosophical answer.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: leingod86

Why? How does one deduce the nature of God?

We can't deduce the true nature of God, but I think we can deduce part of proof of his existence.

If one does somehow assess it, how does it affect the logical processes that were required to discover it?

If God doesn't exist, then nothing is meaningful. What's the point of anything, including logic, if there isn't a universal truth of some kind that we strive to understand?

We create "Meaning". Long before "God" existed, "gods" gave "Meaning" to Egyptians and numerous other cultures. Somehow "Meaning' survived the massive culling of countless "gods".

I don't see how. Whether or not God exists seems to me to make quite a difference in how many of us would conduct our lives if we knew for certain one way or another.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Atreus21
[ What's the point of anything

There doesn't have to be one Though my thinking on "the point of it all" is that we are just following biological imperatives. The rest is our own prescription.

Why do we follow biological imperatives?

I know where this is going, to which I respond

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

If my reply confused you, it is only that I thought a philosophical question, deserved a philosophical answer.

I don't think I understand.

Nonetheless, this is a thread-jack, so I'll stop my argument here.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: leingod86

Why? How does one deduce the nature of God?

We can't deduce the true nature of God, but I think we can deduce part of proof of his existence.

If one does somehow assess it, how does it affect the logical processes that were required to discover it?

If God doesn't exist, then nothing is meaningful. What's the point of anything, including logic, if there isn't a universal truth of some kind that we strive to understand?

We create "Meaning". Long before "God" existed, "gods" gave "Meaning" to Egyptians and numerous other cultures. Somehow "Meaning' survived the massive culling of countless "gods".

I don't see how. Whether or not God exists seems to me to make quite a difference in how many of us would conduct our lives if we knew for certain one way or another.

As Dawkins has said, it's rather unnerving to think some feel that way.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

I find the fact that the majority of books presented in this thread are related to politics or religion rather than critical thinking or reasoning telling regarding the priorities of the average (American) person.

Why can't they be interconnected instead of mutually exclusive concepts? I'm sure alot of people are interested about the War on Terror, and I found Benjamin Wittes's book "Law and the Long War" an impressive and well-argued/well reasoned book which referenced some books I had previously read on the topic (ie Goldsmith's The Terror Presidency). I'm not fully convinced of Wittes' conclusion, but otherwise found the book insightful.

Similarly for the Intelligent Investor, anyone investing would benefit from adopting some sort of conservative approach to what is basically gambling; when one puts money in the stock market, commodities, bonds etc they are either buying with the expectation that it will increase in value and sell to gain a profit (or conversely short or bet against growth and benefit from a price/value decline). Common sense such as building in a "margin of safety" when making calculations to account for some fudging or unexpected disasters can change one's behavior.

And it seems to me that what you're asking for and what the title asks for can mean 2 different things to people.

 

[leingod86]

Originally posted by: ModerateRepZero

I find the fact that the majority of books presented in this thread are related to politics or religion rather than critical thinking or reasoning telling regarding the priorities of the average (American) person.

Why can't they be interconnected instead of mutually exclusive concepts? I'm sure alot of people are interested about the War on Terror, and I found Benjamin Wittes's book "Law and the Long War" an impressive and well-argued/well reasoned book which referenced some books I had previously read on the topic (ie Goldsmith's The Terror Presidency). I'm not fully convinced of Wittes' conclusion, but otherwise found the book insightful.

Similarly for the Intelligent Investor, anyone investing would benefit from adopting some sort of conservative approach to what is basically gambling; when one puts money in the stock market, commodities, bonds etc they are either buying with the expectation that it will increase in value and sell to gain a profit (or conversely short or bet against growth and benefit from a price/value decline). Common sense such as building in a "margin of safety" when making calculations to account for some fudging or unexpected disasters can change one's behavior.

And it seems to me that what you're asking for and what the title asks for can mean 2 different things to people.

While what you say is theoretically possible, when an individual claims the two most influential books are a religious text and a conservative politically charged novel, it is more likely that it would be more accurate to post in a thread called "Books that reaffirmed things you already believed" or "Books that have been the most influential in your life". Note, I do not say that it is impossible or that no one has ever experienced a lifechanging experience from "Atlas Shrugged", but in the vast majority of cases, I think it is safe to assume that there was little view changing as a result of the reading.

This is why I posted what I did. Books that change view points are ones that cause you to question your previous assumptions, not to reaffirm them or make you feel good. A book meeting the title's criteria should actually make you feel terrible upon completion. You should be shaken and disturbed, feeling as though everything you've based your life on to this point is up for review.

Sagan, Huxley, Hawking, Darwin, and others in that vein give you that feeling. "Atlas Shrugged" probably did when it was published, however the propaganda spouted by that novel has been overused to the point of being deadened to anyone that pays attention to modern politics. Religious texts could change your view on life if you've never been exposed to it, however the insistence on faith as to the origin of the author (God) which gives the text the necessary context, makes it and critical thinking mutually exclusive in my opinion.

Anyways, off my soapbox. Continue on.