|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0882862367
| 9780882862361
| 0882862367
| 4.22
| 1,827
| 1871
| Jan 01, 1998
|
liked it
|
A Missed Opportunity for a More Peaceful Marxism? Overall Rating: 3.25/5.0 The Civil War in France contains three addresses by Karl Marx to the Internat A Missed Opportunity for a More Peaceful Marxism? Overall Rating: 3.25/5.0 The Civil War in France contains three addresses by Karl Marx to the International Workingmen's Association regarding the Franco-Prussian War and the subsequent Civil War in France, which arose from the Paris Commune of 1871. The book also includes an introduction by Fredrich Engels on the 20th anniversary of The Commune. As the speeches were given as the events were in progress or just days after they ended, they provide valuable primary source material regarding how Socialists reacted at the time. Reconsidering Germany's War-Obsessed Image Before reading this book, I knew almost nothing about the Franco-Prussian War other than "Germany won." Given that Germany started WWII and the consensus view when I was in school that Germany also shouldered primary responsibility for starting WWI, I was surprised to learn from reading this book that France was, in fact, primarily responsible for the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War. Indeed, although the pattern of who was the aggressor shifted as the French Revolution progressed, by the time Napoleon took over, it became clear that, between France and Germany, France was the more militarily aggressive nation during the 19th century. Although the notion that Germany was primarily responsible for WWI has been challenged, primarily under the notion that the complex system of alliances made the situation a powder keg in search of a match, learning more about the Franco-Prussian from this book led me to have more sympathy for why Germany, before 1914, may have thought it wise to have a plan to pre-emptively against France to try and knock it out of a two-front war early. Given the war-obsessed image Imperial Germany now has, other surprising information from the book is Marx's recount of Prussia's reluctance to occupy more than a token amount of Paris. (Indeed, looking more into Prussian history after Waterloo, after reading this book, it seems Prussia certainly did not relish its role as a sentinel to French aggression in the 19th century and took on, for example, reclaiming the Rhineland quite cognizant of the difficulty the developments, especially legal, during the French Revolution and Napoleonic era posed.) Broader Context In addition to recounting the proximate history of the Franco-Prussian war, Marx considers it in the broader context of class antagonism, which often turned violent in 19th-century France, including in 1830, 1848, and the 1860s. Marx describes the Second Empire as not representing the people's will but rather suppressing it, serving the bourgeoisie's interest and ripe with corruption. To further his point, Marx cites several statements by socialist organizations in both France and Germany stating united working-class opposition to the war. The Commune Marx's recount of the history of The Commune is broadly accurate. Of course, only a fool would expect Marx to give a completely dispassionate account, so it is wise to cross-check his history against other sources. An example of the not-completely-objective perspective is that although Marx mentions that The Commune intended to seize Church property, he only briefly mentions this before quickly moving on. Marx fails to consider whether this was a repeat of a critical failure of the French Revolution: its leaders' personal disdain for religion leading them to underappreciate how important religion remained in French life. Still, overall, Marx's broad picture is accurate. The Commune was acting relatively restrained. There were some, but not large-scale seizures of property and no Reign of Terror resulting in reprisals against prior enemies. Marx's key point that there was excessive brutality in putting down The Commune is accurate. He is also correct that The Commune posed little military threat to Prussia. The real concern was that establishing a Communist society would provide an example likely to lead to domestic unrest elsewhere. Thus, the Prussians stood by, allowed a French army to reband, and brutally put down the threat. Marx's Speaking Style Marx, of course, was one of history's most highly skilled propagandists and polemicists, and he was given much material to work with by the war and the suppression of The Commune. Thus, the book is valuable for those interested in studying propaganda and how persuasive polemics are written. (Here, I am using a definition of propaganda that does not exclude it from being largely accurate. Indeed, some of the best propaganda is highly accurate. Further, even the ultimate conclusions of the propaganda may also be largely accurate.) Foreshadowing Future Marxist Themes Marx's recount of the brutal and international nature of the suppression of the Commune provides some insight into future Marxist history. Indeed, the Bolshevists would remember The Commune as they seized power in 1917. There would, indeed, be an international effort to try and crush the Russian Revolution in its cradle by giving aid to domestic opposition so that the example would not spread. Bolshevists used this fear to further their notion that a Vanguard Party must be formed to protect the Revolution, although such a notion was a significant departure from Marx. From the book, we can also see early indications of what would become a key future concern among Marxists. Specifically, Marx recounts that the lack of rural support for urban Parisians was a critical factor in the failure of The Commune, although he, of course, feels that rural, poorer areas would have been important beneficiaries of a Communist revolution. The poor seeming to work against their interest by opposing Communism would puzzle, and to this day still does, many Marxist theorists who have come up with a myriad of theories to explain why. Conclusion and Contemporary Relevance The Civil War in France, being transcriptions of Marx's speeches, does not get deeply into Marxist theory. Instead, it is a largely accurate account of the Franco-Prussian War and the suppression of the Paris Commune. The emphasis is on the relative restraint of The Commune, juxtaposed with the viciousness and international cooperative nature of the response. It is a warning that future Marxists, especially the Russian Bolshevists, took seriously. Unfortunately, the book did not contain what I read it hoping to learn: Marx's own words on why he initially opposed the Commune. From other sources, we know that he thought violence at this stage would be counterproductive. More could be achieved peacefully in advanced capitalist countries. Marx also believed that the presence of the Prussian army just outside Paris made success highly unlikely, as did the lack of requisite organization by the leaders at the time. All this turned out to be highly prescient. Apparently, Marx decided not to play "told-you-so," but rather to seize on the opportunity presented by the martyrs. Thus, one wonders if he had instead emphasized both the brutality of suppression and why he initially opposed the Commune, Marxism could have evolved along a more peaceful path, especially in Russia and Eastern countries. Today, it is fascinating to ponder the fact that populist movements in the West are primarily conservative, while the established powers are more left-leaning—a reversal a little over 150 after The Commune. Although there is no evidence that it has happened yet, it is fascinating to wonder if these populist movements ever were to threaten Western left-leaning governments if there would be multinational efforts to crackdown. Thus, the reversal of the political situation leads to the rather amusing conclusion that modern-day conservatives may find Marx's speeches more applicable to them in the present-day situation than those on the political left. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Aug 20, 2024
|
Aug 24, 2024
|
Aug 20, 2024
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0593420144
| 9780593420140
| 0593420144
| 4.05
| 1,637
| May 14, 2024
| May 14, 2024
|
really liked it
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 26, 2024
|
Jun 02, 2024
|
May 26, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0387922997
| 9780387922997
| 0387922997
| 4.00
| 48
| 2009
| Jun 15, 2009
|
really liked it
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 19, 2024
|
Sep 02, 2024
|
May 19, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0593728637
| 9780593728635
| 0593728637
| 4.31
| 3,426
| May 21, 2024
| May 07, 2024
|
it was amazing
|
Overall Rating: 4.75/5.0 How a Book on a Controversial Subject Ought to be Written Johann Hari's Magic Pill addresses the hot and controversial topic of Overall Rating: 4.75/5.0 How a Book on a Controversial Subject Ought to be Written Johann Hari's Magic Pill addresses the hot and controversial topic of the new weight loss drugs. I found it exceptionally well written, to the point where I would say it exemplifies how a book on a controversial topic ought to be written. After reading some books, you feel you have got to know the author well enough that calling them by their first name seems more appropriate than by their last. To me, for example, Sam Harris is just "Sam." Such is also the case with Magic Pill. What makes the book an exemplar is that Johann does not shy away from discussing the deeply personal aspects of his experiences with using Ozempic for weight loss, but also the objectivity with which he writes. Books on controversial subjects, even by highly educated authors, tend to become propaganda these days. Although you would hope that being tied to scientific findings would mitigate this, controversies in recent years over things like climate change and mRNAs have disabused many of the notions that objectivity is possible. Johann's presentation of arguments for and against GLP-1's should, however, restore hope that objectivity is still possible. Overview of Contents Magic Pill is presented as a personal recounting of Johann's weight-loss journey with the help of Ozempic. Along the way, he describes his first awareness of the drug when he noticed that celebrities had actually lost weight during the Covid pandemic rather than gained it. Johann explains how his diet had been, to put it mildly, a poor fast food-centric one to the point of consciously flaunting how bad we know it is for you and, instead, diving, seemingly as deeply as he could, into consuming as much as he could, as extravagantly as possible, and even centering a friendship around this rebelliousness. Despite this, Johann was eager to learn as much as he could about the new drugs and, although with some ambivalence, try them himself. Johann takes us through the history of the first discovery of GLP-1, how obstacles to its natural deterioration after only a few minutes in the body were overcome, its early use with diabetics, and its slow approval for weight loss. Johann also liberally shares what he believes led him to become the junk food addict that he was. Johann believes that a combination of factors was at play with him: a conflict between his mother, who grew up in a processed/junk food culture, and his strict Swiss chef father, who was for decades enraged by the culture but ultimately succumbed to it to a degree himself. Johann also describes the processed food industry and how what you may think qualifies as food hardly deserves to be called that. Johann accounts how, far from being prepared in a" big kitchen," the ingredients are piped through a factory and mixed together. They have neither the color of food initially, nor the texture, nor the taste. Indeed, before additives, the taste is metallic. After recounting this, you will never see frozen lasagna and pizza in the same light again, and you will certainly have an incentive to avoid it! Next, Johann describes studies in rats showing permanent alterations to rats' feeding behavior after having been exposed to processed food. Although it is correct to note that it would be a non-sequitur to conclude that the same must happen to humans, very recent research is starting to show permanent alterations to human brains after they have been hooked on processed food. Indeed, this is consistent with the personal accounts of those who have been. The high calories just do not satiate. Although the exact mechanisms are unknown, Johann relates some conjectures that not needing much chewing (which perhaps the brain counts as part of knowing when to send satiated feelings), and low protein content are part of the problem. The book also discusses various research into the psychology of overeating. Some of the psychoanalytical conjectures, although unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with the approach, seem far-fetched. Others, such as those around evolutionary psychology, seem more plausible, although, even here, they only partially come together from the, perhaps, oversimplified presentation. Weaved throughout the book is the story of the conflicts Johann feels about taking the drugs. Mostly, this centers around the risks involved in very long-term side effects. Johann's concern here is that since most people gain back the weight rather quickly once they are off the medication, they are likely to need it for life. To support the notion this leads to unknowns, Johann explains that the mechanism for how GLP-1’s work is likely a combination of physiological and psychological. He gives the example of how it was not known when antipsychotics were introduced that they would lead to increased rates of dementia for those who needed them for life. Johann is only somewhat less concerned with the sociological effects the drugs will have. He is especially apprehensive about children and adolescents and teenage girls in particular. Will even those who do not have weight problems of significant concern or even any at all, or even those who are underweight, feel they should take them? The concerns are forcefully driven home by Johann's recounting of the story of his niece telling him that she wanted to take GLP-1s, even though she was very far from needing them. Johann also recounts the story of a tongue-lashing he received from a friend in London about her thoughts about Johann's true motivations for taking Ozempic. Was it really primarily a health concern for him since he is on the low end of the range of those for whom it is recommended, or did he just want to look good? The Book's Strengths As mentioned, the book's primary strength is its objectivity in presenting the differing points of view on the new drugs. Johann's recounting of the rebuke from the friend in London even helps the reader objectively evaluate Johann's own objectivity. When an author does that, it is always a good sign. In addition to presenting science and personal experience, the book is fast-paced and generally quite hilarious. This all while packing an impressive amount of information into a rather short length. The Book's Weaknesses The book's weaknesses are rather minor, and really, the only thing that comes to mind is that some of the stories seem like they may be somewhat embellished. For example, Johann relates a "vision" of the destruction of McDonald's outlets all over the world as he self-administered his first Ozempic injection. Indeed, the most famous McDonald's features are the most prominent in his vision. This, however, makes it all the more hilarious because how many even knew there are famous McDonald's restaurants throughout the world? Along similar lines, from Johann's description of his eating habits, you would think that he must have weighed closer to 300 lbs than the 200 he actually weighed. Conclusion Magic Pill is truly a masterful piece of writing: hilarious, serious, informative, objective, deeply personal, and thought-provoking all at once. Indeed, even for those uninterested in the subject (unlikely, given all the controversy), it may be worth reading solely to study how to write well. Although Johann avoids getting preachy, some fascinating philosophical questions are left for the reader to ponder. If processed foods truly permanently alter our brains, is the notion of free will and willpower in weight loss misunderstood? What does society getting to the point of processed foods causing so many problems for such a significant portion of the population say about the nature of capitalism cranking them out anyway? Is regulation necessary? Although Johann only hints at it, the relationship of Christian beliefs to the subject stuck out in my mind. In Christian theology, Satan is constantly tempting you, and you must exercise your free will to resist. Nevertheless, being human, you will fail, and only Jesus can redeem you from this. If there is a "magic pill" that just makes these "temptations" go away, then what are they? "Virtue pills"? I can't entirely agree with all of Johann's conclusions. For example, I am skeptical that once you have consumed too much processed food, you are condemned to GLP-1's for the rest of your life (in general). However, his empirical data regarding the real-world situation has to be taken seriously. Similarly, although I ultimately disagree that processed food is a failure story for unregulated capitalism, and, indeed, I see the rise of GLP-1's likely to be a great success story, Johann presents both sides of the story so well that the book is definitely worth 4.75 out of 5 stars. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 12, 2024
|
May 23, 2024
|
May 12, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0520294777
| 9780520294776
| 0520294777
| 3.70
| 324
| 2019
| May 11, 2019
|
it was ok
|
For Those Seeking Gossip on Rand and Tirades Against Neo-Liberalism Overall Rating: 2.25 / 5.0 It has been multiple decades since I read any books by Ay For Those Seeking Gossip on Rand and Tirades Against Neo-Liberalism Overall Rating: 2.25 / 5.0 It has been multiple decades since I read any books by Ayn Rand or about her. Through the years, I have, however, known a fair number of people her philosophy has influenced. I will, also, occasionally listen to episodes of New Ideal, a podcast in which members of the Ayn Rand Institute analyze current events from the perspective of her philosophy. Although I do enjoy long books and retain an interest in what Objectivists are up to, I would no longer, however, be willing to plunge into an enormous tome by her or about her or her philosophy. Since it weighs in at only 116 pages, however, Lisa Duggan's Mean Girl: Ayn Rand and the Culture of Greed seemed like it could, potentially, provide a reasonable return for the time invested. Summary of Contents Duggan's central thesis and exact goals in writing this book are a little unclear. Her stated thesis is to show that Ayn Rand is an enormously influential philosopher (at least at the popular level) up to and including the present day. Duggan does this by listing many people who claim to have been influenced by Rand. Citations are often missing, however, as is the case in which she says that Donald Trump saw himself as someone like Howard Roark. Anyone ever mentioning Rand positively seems to be Duggan's only criterion to get the numbers in the list up. Duggan does not, however, dig into how deeply they really subscribed to Rand's ideas. This is partly because Duggan does not describe Rand's ideas in any depth. Duggan perhaps feels that such an exercise is unnecessary since she describes Rand's novels as a "gateway drug" into right-wing ideologies that go beyond what can be considered centrist. Less dismissively, Duggan writes that Rand's main appeal is to people who consider themselves to innately be outsiders. Surprisingly, Duggan mentions that this includes a growing appeal among LGBTQ individuals. Another interesting key theme is that Duggan feels that Rand's work appeals mainly through her novels' sexual themes. Neo-liberalism, however, is what Duggan truly loathes, and she devotes considerable stretches of the book indulging in tirades against it, although simultaneously admitting that it is not something that Rand would support. Consistent with never spelling out exactly what Rand's ideas were, Duggan does not explain why Rand would oppose it. Indeed, Duggan's tirades seem to be red meat thrown to those who are already arch-enemies of capitalism, and, as such, no elaboration or justification is required. Duggan's other goal in the book, likely what most readers really came for anyway, is a brief discussion of Rand's life and digging up dirt. Although Duggan states that it is important to resist "crudely psychoanalyzing" Rand, this seems merely meant to provide some passive-aggressive cover for her. Duggan, in the very same sentence, for instance, suggests that others have concluded that Rand was either a sociopath or a malignant narcissist. It certainly is good that you are resisting the temptation to crudely psychoanalyze Rand, Ms Duggan, and are merely pointing out the conclusion that others who have came to! Indeed, the book contains considerable crude psychoanalysis, which is likely why most readers picked it up to begin with. Duggan's statement thus merely seems to read, "I am going to crude psychoanalyze; just do not expect me to be very rigorous about it." The best of both worlds! How Effective is the Book? The book does not effectively elaborate on Rand's ideas and why they are wrong. Duggan assumes this is all a given for her readers. Beyond the cost to fairness, however, there is a price to be paid in terms of understanding Rand's increasing isolation toward the end of her life. Why was there such hostility toward Libertarianism, which shares close to all of the same political conclusions Rand came to? Why did Rand fail to really gain any enduring influence over higher-quality minds such that others who did take a serious interest in her work seem to have only done so as a temporary stop on their journey through life? Duggan does hint that interest in Rand only seems to be among those who share some common conclusions with her. What Duggan does not dig into is that, for Rand, this was not enough. Rand thought she was one of the two greatest philosophers of all time. She claimed that she owed a debt to Aristotle and Aristotle only. Rand thought her contribution, whether she ever used the phrase or not, was solving Hume's "is-ought" problem. Duggan does not dig into why this would, if true, indeed have been one of, if not the greatest achievements in human history. Nor does Duggan discuss why Rand had, in fact, done no such thing, but why her insistence that she had is what ultimately pushed so many away. Discussing the underlying flaws in the philosophy would not be hard. For example, is Rand's notion of free will coherent? Does one need to have free will to reject the notion of free will? Is her idea of a law of causality compatible with Quantum Mechanics? Can one still appeal to it after Bell's Theorem? On a more intuitive level, Duggan could discuss whether Rand was right in her insistence that man has absolutely no obligations to others other than not to initiate violence and to abide by voluntary contracts entered into. An interesting scene in Atlas Shrugged is where hero Hank Rearden helps out an injured stranger. Is Rand hedging here? Rand's philosophy says Rearden could have just walked by or helped: the decision was up to him. But could he really have just walked by, perhaps because he did not want to be 15 minutes late to be somewhere else? Why is this scene in the novel? It is obvious that he could choose to help, but could he really choose not to? Conclusion Duggan's book is not a serious discussion of Rand's philosophy. Perhaps Duggan does not feel Rand's philosophy is worthy of serious debate, but if so, she never openly states that either. Instead, the book is just preaching to the choir. Rand is used as a vector to attack neo-liberalism, but the attacks are clumsy. Duggan, for instance, and to her credit, admits Rand would have opposed neo-liberalism but does not elaborate on why. Duggan also states that neo-liberalism has become an important philosophy of the right but fails to provide a convincing argument that there is even a single truly neo-liberal philosopher in existence: one who argues that we should have what appear to be free markets but with government deeply involved in stacking it all in favor of the rich and cutting off all aid to the poor. Although supposedly trying to resist psychoanalyzing Rand, Duggan does quite a bit of it. This is not without interesting results, either. For instance, Duggan speculates that Rand, who was Jewish, felt a profound contempt for the poor because of what she had heard about antisemitic pogroms in Imperial Russia, where she had grown up, and had this view clenched after seeing the violence of the November Revolution firsthand in Leningrad. Also, positively, Duggan's discussion of We the Living, although she does not explicitly state it, points out that Rand's first novel shows a capacity for portraying complex characters. Duggan then points out, as many have noted, that in Rand's most successful novels, however, her heroes become both perfect and black-boxes psychologically. If you are going to psychoanalyze, however, why not go all the way? Why did this happen? Did Rand, despite feeling she was history's greatest or second-greatest philosopher, know that she was not on par with her heroes? Another topic Duggan could have discussed is why Atlas Shrugged was a less dark novel than The Fountainhead. Was it because she felt happier because she was in a relationship with Nathaniel Branden at the time, although it would ultimately fail? Thus, the book succeeds at some level in providing gossip and "psychoanalytical" fodder regarding Rand's life, but if that was the goal, why hold back a little? Perhaps because Duggan also wants to cater to those who like attacks on neo-liberalism and feel they do not require elaboration? Finally, as far as the title Mean Girl goes, I never watched the movie but will state that Rand's characters do not seem to be actively cruel toward the poor but instead are simply trying to get away from them (the exception is the case of Ragnar Danneskjold who is reclaiming what the poor stole from the rich.) Whether Rand was ultimately actively cruel or not, Duggan does not make the case by offering explicit quotes from her novels. But, then again, the book is clearly not meant to be academically rigorous but rather a short bread and circus for those who already believe. There is, however, some irony, or perhaps it is cynicism, in this coming from such an apparently dedicated critic of neo-liberalism. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Apr 02, 2024
|
Apr 06, 2024
|
Mar 31, 2024
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1101985666
| 9781101985663
| 1101985666
| 3.97
| 2,116
| Feb 12, 2019
| Feb 12, 2019
|
really liked it
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Apr 07, 2024
|
May 08, 2024
|
Mar 03, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 158333467X
| 9781583334676
| 158333467X
| 4.29
| 15,839
| Aug 2015
| Aug 25, 2015
|
liked it
|
Past the Worst Misunderstanding but Not Yet at Much Understanding? Overall Rating: 3.25/5.0 Steve Silberman's Neurotribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Past the Worst Misunderstanding but Not Yet at Much Understanding? Overall Rating: 3.25/5.0 Steve Silberman's Neurotribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity deals with the history of the understanding autism and the many controversies it has entailed. Overall, a sense emerges that we are, thankfully, likely past the worst misunderstandings but that, unfortunately, we are only starting to understand what it is. Overview of Contents Silberman's primary focus in this book is on history. Although it is unsurprising that Hans Asperger is a prominent figure, what is likely more surprising is just how good and humane an understanding of autism the Vienna Children's Clinic had before the Second World War. As the book recounts, much of this knowledge was lost with the rise of Nazism, however. Silberman describes how, although researchers from Vienna found their way to America after the war, the knowledge they carried with them was mostly lost for multiple decades. This was due to a psychoanalytic theory that autism was "childhood schizophrenia," caused primarily by "refrigerator mothers" carrying the day instead. Unfortunately, for those with and those caring for those with autism, the demise of the notion of child schizophrenia was quickly replaced by what would turn out to be misguided searches to find cures for autism. Here, the focus was on conjectures regarding causes in the physical environment, people's diets, and what was going on in their guts. Silberman then recounts the history of the notion that vaccines were responsible for a significant number of autism cases and how this idea was debunked. Although this book was written before 2020, it is interesting and quite perplexing to note another experience in recent history where vaccines have inspired such fear and become the targets of such scapegoating. With the worst explanations hopefully behind us, although only shortly before this book was written, we are, hopefully, at a point where we can finally begin to understand what autism really is. Unfortunately, the final chapters show that we are not far along in this regard. For example, Silberman writes how attempts to isolate genetic factors contributing to autism have proved far less fruitful than hoped. The Book's Strengths The book's greatest strength is the balanced, down-to-earth perspective on autism that it provides. Although a significant portion of the book is devoted to discussing those with or who are conjectured to have had autism but who also had "superpowers," for example, physicists Henry Cavendish and Paul Dirac, along with the real-life "autistic savants" who inspired the movie Rain Man, the book is careful to echo Asperger's observation that, overall, in most cases, the detriments of being autistic outweigh the benefits. In some cases, there are few benefits at all. Early on in the book, a more typical case is presented, where the overall impairments are real, and how the family manages is presented. Another of the book's strengths is that it does not shy away from discussing some of the more troubling aspects of the history of autism. Even more than expected, there are some rather shocking and deeply disturbing aspects of the Nazis' eugenic program. For instance, one rationale for the eugenics program was a survey sent to parents of those with severe mental illnesses questioning when they thought euthanasia would be justified. The interpretation, later presented to Hitler, was that some parents seemed to secretly wish to be freed of their burden but wanted to be kept in the dark (e.g., there was a terrible tragedy at the hospital…) to maintain their consciences. Also distributing is the description of how the euthanasia bureaucracy operated. There was a committee in Berlin that rarely had immediate contact with those whose lives were at stake or even those caring for them. Instead, there were some forms where IQ was the primary factor in deciding who would or would not be allowed to live. Although, unsurprisingly, no other part of the book is quite as dramatic as discussing the Nazi era, the book, nevertheless, generally, moves along at a good pace. The Book's Weaknesses Although generally engaging, the book seemed more repetitive and, hence, longer than needed. Contributing to this was the recounting of the personal lives of the autism researchers. In the case of Kanner, who introduced the notion of childhood schizophrenia, this did seem warranted since it showed how his sense of grandiosity contributed to a setback in understanding. For others, however, these details could easily have been cut. Although the book makes clear that Kanner's theories were, without a doubt, a setback, Silberman also seems too completely dismissive of them. Although parents do not cause autism, there still might be a kernel of truth in Kanner's notion that if parents with autistic traits, specifically lacking much desire to socialize, are not careful, this could be less than ideal for their children. However, the biggest weakness I found with the book was that the focus is more on historical narration than on detailing what we do and do not know about autism. This is likely because the book was intended to reach a broad audience, so it avoided diving that deeply into technical details. Although this is good for promoting empathy for those with autism and their families, there is a cost in terms of understanding. For example, I would have liked to see some quantification of how severe impairment with autism is. Is it a bell curve? Skewed toward greater impairment? Flat? Is there a notion of a "middle"? Along similar lines, it would be interesting to provide specific examples of how the same autistic traits, e.g., systematizing, can be beneficial at one level of intensity but detrimental and even severely detrimental at another. The lack of technical detail also made it hard to understand how autism can have a strong genetic component, but, at the same time, the search for the genes responsible seems to be coming up nearly empty. A Deus Ex Machina? Going into this book, I knew that autism has a strong genetic component. Reading about the Nazi eugenic program made me think there might be great contemporary relevance. For example, many now believe that abortion should be legal in all circumstances, including for eugenic reasons. Already, we know that eugenics does play a role in abortion decisions. Fetuses who would otherwise go on to develop Down Syndrome are more likely to be aborted. Female fetuses are more likely to be aborted than males. It, thus, seems likely then that if there were a genetic test, those likely to go on to be autistic would be more likely to be aborted. Similarly, the emergence of the Medical Assistance In Dying (MAID) program in Canada makes it clear that, since autism is a spectrum, cases will emerge of those wanting to end their lives where it will not be clear if they can rationally make that decision or not. In the case of abortion, the book makes clear, however, that there might be a Deus Ex Machina that saves us from having to determine the correct ethics. Specifically, evidence and theoretical arguments are mounting that it will not be possible to devise genetic tests for autism, thus generally eliminating this possible future reason for abortions. Conclusion Silberman provides a balanced, empathetic, grounded, and mostly engaging discussion of the history of the understanding of autism while not shying away from disturbing aspects of the subject. At the same time, although there is some discussion of current theories regarding autism, the book's biggest weakness is that it is technically lighter than seems ideal. For example, I would have liked to see more discussion of what evolutionary psychiatrists have come up with regarding autism. Overall, after reading the book, I did not have a good understanding of what exactly autism is. Yes, in some cases, there is clearly serious dysfunction. Then, it is a disorder with a strong genetic component. Moving along the spectrum, however, it was not clear if we are still dealing with a genetic condition or if it then becomes blurred with a personality type that is not, however, likely to lead to severe impairment in one's children. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 2024
|
Apr 02, 2024
|
Mar 01, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0670785938
| 9780670785933
| 0670785938
| 4.39
| 208,259
| Jun 12, 2014
| Sep 25, 2014
|
really liked it
|
Of Developmental Trauma Disorder Overall Rating: 4.25/5.0 Subject Matter The Body Keeps Score is a book that deals broadly and deeply with the subject of Of Developmental Trauma Disorder Overall Rating: 4.25/5.0 Subject Matter The Body Keeps Score is a book that deals broadly and deeply with the subject of trauma. The book covers not only PTSD, which has diagnostic criteria that have been accepted into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), but also Complex PTSD, which relates to persistent trauma over a longer period, which has not. Although the term "Complex PTSD" is getting to be widely known, the author only uses it once. Instead, he argues that for society to best address the problems associated with trauma, a new diagnosis he proposes called "Developmental Trauma Disorder" (DTD) is in order. The Author Van Der Kolk has been involved in research into and treating trauma for decades. This started even before the diagnostic criteria for PTSD were established. Not only are his academic credentials similarly stellar, but, as he relates in the book, he was subject to familial trauma himself while growing up. This included his father keeping him locked in the cellar. The subject is, thus, far from academic for him, and he practices the treatment techniques described on himself. Combat-Related PTSD The book begins with a discussion of combat-related PTSD, with the author relating early experiences treating those who suffered from it. He describes how sufferers are prone to nightmares and flashbacks of traumatic experiences. The latter can be triggered, sometimes seemingly randomly, by environmental factors such as noises or smells that resemble those that occurred during the traumatic experience. Van Der Kolk discusses how those with PTSD have difficulty with concentration and relationships. They are apt to "blow up" when dealing with relatively minor frustrations in day-to-day life. Biological Changes Van Der Kolk then explains one of the book's most important themes: what has happened to these combat veterans is not something that is "all in their heads" or due to character weaknesses. Actual biological changes have occurred due to trauma, and there are now a myriad of objective ways to measure them. An example of physical change to the brain is that areas, such as language processing, are simply shut down when reliving the traumatic experiences. Van Der Kolk describes that this is key since, to those who have suffered trauma, what is happening in the brain is essentially indistinguishable from how the brain would respond if they were back in the actual traumatic situation. Thus, they are "reliving" the experience as much as is literally possible. Language Processing Shutdown Later, Van Der Kolk describes the devastating impact of the shutdown of language processing. Normally, the mere act of discussing a negative experience with others, such as family or close friends, will provide some relief. This, however, is not possible, however, due to the biological changes. This, then, wreaks havoc on relationships. Those with trauma feel that others simply cannot relate to what happened to them, and others feel pushed away. Additionally, in the broader scope, the difficulty in articulating what happened can make securing insurance coverage for treatment difficult. In the case of trauma caused by perpetrators, even more trouble awaits in the legal system where lawyers are ready to pounce, pointing out gaps, often due to difficulty mentioning certain things, causing a sometimes fragmented, or even inconsistent, description of what happened. Traumatic Re-Enactment Language processing is just one example of how Van Der Kolk explains the logic of how what is happening at the biological level leads to some seemingly bewildering behavior. For example, many who have suffered from trauma seem to be prone to seek dangerous situations, often resembling the source of trauma. Multiple things are going on here. One is that the possibility of danger triggers the release of analgesic chemicals, providing some relief from psychic pain. An explanation a little further removed from experimental verification is that the traumatic re-enactment is likely an attempt to revisit the situation, but this time, where one is in control and perhaps hoping to master it. Unfortunately, mastery does not occur, although an addiction to repeatedly trying to achieve it is likely. Differentiating Trauma Types Van Der Kolk discusses many different forms of trauma in this book, such as combat-related trauma, trauma related to witnessing "the annihilation" of others even if one was themself, at worst only minorly physically scathed, along with trauma due to sexual, physical, and emotional abuse. Overall, Van Der Kolk does an admirable job covering the broad spectrum of trauma. He shows not only the commonalities but also the differences. For example, combat-related trauma is different from others in barely responding to anti-depressants. Other differences are rather surprising: for example, those subject to neglect by, for example, a depressed parent turn out to have worse outcomes than those who suffered abuse. Less surprisingly, the age at which the trauma occurred impacts how it typically manifests. Van Der Kolk gives some explanation of why this is so. Normally, there are three ways of dealing with trauma: 1. Turn to others for help; 2. Failing that, fight or flight; 3. As a last option, shut down and often detach completely as a last resort. For children, abusers will typically have many strategies for preventing children from seeking help. Fight or flight is also impractical when dealing with a stronger adult and when a child is too young to run and survive independently. Thus, shutdown is common as is detachment. Van Der Kolk describes dramatic examples of children who have been abused, feeling they left their bodies and were looking down at the scene. Limited Efficacy of Drugs and Talk Therapy Van Der Kolk describes how talk therapy (such as CBT and, especially, psychoanalysis) typically offers little help to the traumatized. He also feels and provides statistics to show that drugs are of little marginal benefit over "just showing up" and receiving a placebo. Drugs, the author argues, will provide some symptom relief but do not address the underlying issue. As such, nothing permanent changes, and the minor benefits, which often, especially in the case of antipsychotic dulling curiosity, come at considerable cost, will cease as soon as drug use does. Alienated From Their Bodies Van Der Kolk describes how the fundamental issue is that the traumatized are cut off from their bodies. He provides a dramatic example of how abused children can be so cut off that they do not even recognize themselves in the mirror. Nearly as dramatic, he describes how adults cannot recognize objects placed in their hands: for example, a set of keys or a cup. Van Der Kolk describes how, even early on in his career, it was relatively easy for him to spot trauma sufferers: they are unable to live in the moment, and their bodies simply do not move freely. They are stuck at the moment of the traumatic event, failing to process it. Van Der Kolk argues that given the problems are fundamentally biological, talk therapy, thus, would be appealing to too high a level of the brain. In trauma patients, it has been demonstrated that lower levels are more in charge. Thus, treatment needs to start there. It begins by being aware of one's body and emotions and articulating what is going on. Physical activity accompanied by "mindfulness" is needed. Yoga receives high praise. Van Der Kolk also describes how regaining or, in many cases, gaining, for the first time, a sense of community is vital. Thus, physical activities involving others are particularly helpful with martial arts and dance specifically called out. Along similar lines, although not focused on exercises, Van Der Kolk makes a case for how effective theatre is. He provides fascinating anecdotes of how veterans particularly seem to enjoy, relate to, and benefit from participating in Ancient Greek dramas. Equally fascinating is how inner-city children, otherwise on track for the penal system, seem to particularly benefit from participating in plays by Shakespeare. Beyond physical/community treatment, Van Der Kolk makes the case that EDMR and neurofeedback hold particular promise going forward. Difficult to Read Early On Overall, I thought this was a great book. Naturally, some of the stories are hard to read as they recount some of the worst forms of abuse possible. This is especially so when it is describing children who have nowhere to turn since the abuser, the person who is supposed to protect them, is their enemy. Some days, I dreaded the time when I had to open and make progress on this book. Of course, reading about such trauma is nothing compared to those who had to endure it, however, so one simply plows through. Increasing Optimism Starting around halfway through the book, the reading becomes easier. This is because you realize that trauma is getting to be well understood, and many treatment options are available. This is even in the most extreme cases. Indeed, even though the extreme cases are difficult to read, they show how recovery, even then, was possible. Van Der Kolk makes the case that the path is not desensitization to symptoms but instead processing the trauma and, thus, making it only one part of a person's past, integrated and put into perspective with their life as a whole. Indeed, Van Der Kolk relates how his patients have moved on to successful family lives and careers. Generally, the results are nothing short of spectacular. The Worst Cases Until about the last third of the book, I found myself wondering if, perhaps, trauma was something that, for some reason, we merely did not evolve to be able to deal with. Perhaps, for instance, abuse by family members was something rare in the past, whereas nowadays it appears to occur for around 20% of the population. Although Van Der Kolk does not speculate on current versus past frequency, he firmly believes that the defense mechanisms that deal with trauma are not irrational. They do work. The individual is preserved, able to integrate, and then move on from the trauma. He even goes so far as to say that the defense mechanisms preserved them fully intact. Weaknesses I only found a couple of downsides with this book. The first is that EDMR is likely oversold. Indeed, Van Der Kolk's presentation makes it sound like a panacea. Heck, you do not even need to know any more than a few words of the patient's language, and the patient does not even have to mention the nature of the trauma they are processing! They just follow the therapist's finger movements with their eyes and listen for the occasional "notice that." Given that the book was written in 2015, it seemed to me that if EDMR was as effective as is claimed, those who suffered from trauma should have nearly all been permanently cured by now, or, at the very least, there would be considerable media coverage of the wild success and really, all left to do, was to make the public aware and get everyone in need to a doctor. The second downside was I would have liked to see a discussion of whether all these techniques might benefit those with subclinical trauma or anyone dealing with routine, everyday trauma. Van Der Kolk hints this might be the case when he describes dealing with news of funding denials for research but does not elaborate. Conclusion I, fortunately, did not suffer from childhood abuse. Additionally, I do not have personal familiarity with therapy; thus, I cannot bring that perspective to this review. Although some areas are greyer for me, I definitely know people who have been dramatically impacted by trauma. I have witnessed the shutdown response firsthand and was quite bewildered before reading this book. Nevertheless, I can say that: Bessel Van Der Kolk makes a strong case that trauma is now well understood and that many effective treatment options are available, even for the most extreme cases. His arguments for a new diagnosis called for DTD are compelling. Such an approach would be parsimonious and focus on underlying issues instead of manifestations of problematic behavior. Overall, Van Der Kolk has done an admirable job of finding the right balance between theory and case studies. Some treatments, however, are likely oversold. Indeed, medicine has had a history of falsely thinking it has found miracle cures or, finally, the one right approach. Nevertheless, after reading the book, the sense that trauma is now well understood, that effective treatments are available and that progress is rapid is inescapable. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jan 30, 2024
|
Mar 2024
|
Jan 30, 2024
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0674368304
| 9780674368309
| 0674368304
| 4.13
| 1,100
| Apr 17, 2017
| Apr 17, 2017
|
it was amazing
|
Social Minds: The Argumentative Nature of Human Reasoning Overall Rating: 4.5/5.0 Why do humans have well over one hundred cognitive biases? This is a q Social Minds: The Argumentative Nature of Human Reasoning Overall Rating: 4.5/5.0 Why do humans have well over one hundred cognitive biases? This is a question I asked while being interviewed for a hedge fund whose founder was obsessed with psychological and personality tests. Despite their strong interest in the subject, the only answer I got was that sometimes evolution gets minor things wrong, like the continued presence of an appendix in human beings. Like the authors of this book, the answer struck me as inadequate. Over one hundred cognitive biases do not indicate some minor imperfections that can be dismissed with a hand wave signaling to brush them away. In this book, Mercier and Sperber argue that the whole notion of human reasoning and why it evolved is off. Rather than being a bug, the over one hundred cognitive biases are a feature. Since my favorite books not only challenge ideas so widely accepted that they are rarely questioned but also offer credible alternatives, this book absolutely fulfills the criteria and makes the list of my most important reads ever. The Wason Tasks Mercier and Sperber's central thesis is that human reasoning is not ultimately based on a general reason module that functions by employing rules of logic to solve problems in general. They cite numerous experiments showing just how poorly people tend to perform when asked to perform tasks easily solvable by employing elementary rules of logic. A prime example cited is the so-called "Wason Tasks," an example of which is: Given cards that are known to have a letter on one side and a number on the other and which, face up, show "EK72," which cards would you turn over if asked to evaluate the claim "If 'E' appears on one side, then '2' appears on the other?" Only 10% of the general population can solve this problem, and the statistic rises to only 20% even when limited to a sample of students in top universities. Furthermore, training does not improve results on similar tasks, nor do monetary rewards. Turning the problem into something more "real world" only improves the results slightly. Evolutionary Psychology The Wason Tasks are just one example of much empirical research the authors cite, which casts doubt on whether human reasoning is ultimately based on employing rules of logic. Once presented, the authors then discuss why reasoning based on a general "module" for applying rules of logic seems unlikely evolutionarily. Nature, they argue, tends to prefer specialized modules which are more efficient. This, they argue, seems like it would certainly be the case unless the conjectured general logic module applied to something essential to flourishing across a wide range of tasks used routinely in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness. The authors, however, believe logic is most suitable only for what would have been primarily recreational puzzles. Instead of making inferences based on logic, they argue, our inferences are based, instead, mostly on regularities we have noticed in our environment and which we, thus, expect to repeat. If not Logic, What? If not based on logic, what then is going on? The authors argue that we possess a general module to produce and evaluate reasons. This, they argue, is vital to our hypersocial species. When we do something, we prepare reasons justifying it to others. At a social level, this allows others to know the norms we operate on, which we reject, and what to expect from us in the future. The authors argue that the reasons, however, are not why we do what we do. That, instead, is based on intuitions that tell us what we want to do. The reason module then attempts to find reasons as rationalizations. If we can find ones that seem like they would be acceptable when explaining to others, we go ahead with what we want to do; if not, we may decide not to. Provocatively, the authors argue that we do not understand the source of our own intuitions regarding what we want to do any better than we understand why others do what they do. Thus, they posit the same module exists both to attribute reason to ourselves and others. (This is not to say that we will attribute to everyone the same reason for doing something; individual variables such as what we imagine their competence to be are considered.) The authors believe that other key functions of the general reason module are to evaluate the reasons given by others and to produce reasons to try and convince them to take a course of action that we favor. In particular, the authors strongly believe in an "argumentation model" in which humans are best able to reason. Here, people are not reasoning on their own in pursuit of abstract, objective truth, but are reasoning in small groups through argumentation to reach conclusions. The authors present considerable empirical evidence to back this claim; for example, that performance on the Wason task rises to as high as 80% when performed by small groups, which come to their conclusion through discussion and argumentation. Writing Style Mercier and Sperber are excellent writers. Or, perhaps, more consistent with their theory, they have produced an excellent piece of writing by working together and through civil argumentation. Although the subject matter is on the cutting edge of philosophy and psychology, they present it in a way that is accessible to motivated non-professionals. They primarily do this by keeping it grounded in real-world examples. Starting about 30% of the way in, the book gets into some rather abstract and technical discussion. For example, they discuss reasoning about representations of representations. The examples keep it both accessible and engaging, however. That is not to say that the book is a breeze. Some parts will need to be reread. Although I usually prefer to listen to audiobooks, the denser parts made this unfeasible for about 25% of this book. Once about two-thirds through, however, it became suitable for audio listening again. Evaluation of Arguments The book makes a strong case logically, or, if you prefer, after reading it, in terms of reasons in addition to the empirical evidence it presents. I did, however, find a couple of problems: First, the authors seem to only discuss the alternatives of a generalized reason-producing and evaluating module versus a general logical inference module. I believe there are at least a couple of other explanations for all the biases worthy of discussion, even if not ultimately correct. One is that human biases tend to be in terms of overconfidence. It could be that confidence is just a trait selected for sexually because it is attractive to the point of losing grounding with whether the confidence is optimal in terms of truth-knowing. Another logical possibility for all the Myside biases is that humans fall broadly into "leaders" and "followers." For the latter, it might be best to just not generally question what leaders say or what the social norms are and, instead, accept any reason from them as good enough. The second weakness I detected with the book is that it tends to see the world of less formal, further away from rigorous logic through rose-colored glasses. For example, the authors argue for interpreting language in terms of common sense instead of literal and strict logical meaning. The problem is that, in practice, people often conflate something with an informal, well-understood, and uncontroversial meaning to something more controversial if applied literally and then make conclusions from there. For example, "a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body" is undoubtedly not controversial if an implicit "in general" or "nearly always" is assumed. Conflating the informal with the strict meaning and then concluding this statement trivially proves that abortion is justified is an example of a non-sequitur arising from a motte-and-bailey that many are prone to. Conclusion The Enigma of Reason presents a convincing case that human cognitive biases are not a mistake of evolution but something that exists, or at least existed, for good reason. Although many have speculated that social considerations are part of the explanation, the authors present a detailed conjecture about what the exact social explanations are. The same hedge fund I asked why the cognitive biases exist later gave me a psychological test showing that I was in the bottom 1% regarding trusting my intuitions. Although this was presented positively as being in the top 1% in terms of logical thinking, I have since learned that downplaying one's intuitions at critical times can be costly. This book helped elaborate on why that is and, thus, hit quite close to home. Even if it then goes slightly too far in making a case for intuition over logic, it does not throw logic out and indeed praises it as one of humanity's greatest achievements. Given the previous historical lopsidedness of philosophers arguing for logic as the ultimate base of human reason, this book is bound to be tremendously enjoyed by those with a serious interest in philosophy, psychology, and the intersection of the two. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 20, 2023
|
Jan 30, 2024
|
Dec 20, 2023
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| B01C9O33LC
| 4.35
| 1,010
| Nov 08, 2016
| Jun 22, 2017
|
really liked it
|
Pappe's Controversial Takes on 1967, Oslo, and More I was in high school in the late 1980s when the first intifada flared up. Luckily for me, my father Pappe's Controversial Takes on 1967, Oslo, and More I was in high school in the late 1980s when the first intifada flared up. Luckily for me, my father and I stopped in at a university bookstore around this time, where I stumbled upon a copy of The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict: Eighth Revised and Updated Edition. This was a collection of primary source material presenting both sides of the history of the conflict, which proved invaluable in helping me see through the propaganda of the day. Unbeknownst to me, also around this time, Israel's "new historians," including Ilan Pappe, were starting to uncover more evidence, in IDF archives, for instance, to substantiate challenges to the version of history pushed by Israel, which The Israel-Arab Reader had brought to my attention. My interest in the conflict waned after college, however, due to the breakdown of Oslo, and especially after 9/11. I thought maybe the Palestinians would just keep fighting forever, with unrealistic expectations of what Israel's military dominance meant they could ever hope for, whether they were right or not, in terms of a peace agreement. Israel's rhetoric after the appalling events of Oct 7, 2023, for instance, calling Palestinians "human animals" and saying that every inch of Gaza was a war zone, alarmed me and made me realize that I needed to revisit the conflict. To that end, Ilan Pappe's work has been tremendously helpful in getting me up to speed on what has been learned since the late 1980s. The Biggest Prison on Earth is essential to this work. It is particularly effective in challenging the common perspective about the causes of the 1967 War, the breakdown of Oslo, and whether or not peace initiatives have failed primarily due to inexplicable Arab aggression and intransigence. The Six-Day Way This book covers Israeli/Palestinian history, starting with the end of the War of Independence and continuing to the time the book was written: 2017, the 50th anniversary of the Six-Day War, which is a particular area of focus. Pappe makes the case that many Zionists in 1948-9 were disappointed that Israel did not take the West Bank when it could have. They harbored thoughts of using conflicts with Israel's neighbors after that as pretexts to correct this mistake. Pappe mentions 1963, in particular, as the beginning of meticulous planning in Israel on how they would go about occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip once a suitable pretext occurred. Pappe then dives into the proximate causes of the 1967 War. Pappe's thesis is that although there were some border skirmishes around this time and some saber-rattling by Nasser, it was nothing out of the ordinary and certainly nothing that called for a pre-emptive Israeli strike on its neighbors. Instead, Pappe believes that it was merely the pretext that Zionists had long been looking for but something that could easily have been managed back to peace had Israel been willing. Pappe argues, however, that Israel was not willing, largely due to its increased military prowess, especially in terms of its air force, which it had acquired thanks to a closer relationship with Washington, DC. The Occupation A substantial portion of Pappe's book describes how quickly Israel began to implement its occupation plans: a testimony to how systematic and thorough the planning had been. Pappe makes it clear that almost immediately, Palestinians were expelled from their homes. He puts the total for 1967 at around 180,000. Also, almost immediately, Israel began a program of moving settlers into the occupied territories. Pappe describes the extraordinary legal reasoning, sometimes blocked by Israel's Supreme Court, and how Israeli leaders such as Sharon sought to work around it by various subterfuge. This included the invocation of laws from Jordan, Mandatory Palestine, and even the Ottoman Empire to justify the land grabs. As the title implies, Pappe believes a prison model describes the situation well. He cites Israeli officials explicitly stating they want to use a carrot-and-stick model. If Palestinians were accepting of the situation, treatment would be better, an open-air prison, although expansion via settlements would continue. If Palestinians, however, were resistant, there would be a crackdown where freedoms were restricted: a maximum security prison. Pappe points out that although there are some imperfections with the analogy, for instance, Israel would love for all prison inhabitants to just leave for another country, it is a good description overall. Pappe sees the prison model as a strategy for dealing with the fact that Israel does not want to annex the territories, as that would mean making the Palestinians citizens. This, in turn, would mean Jews would no longer be a substantial majority in Israel. Along these lines, Pappe sees the peace process as a canard: Israel has no intention of giving up much of its gains in the West Bank, although it is less interested in Gaza. The occupation means that it does not have to grant citizenship to the Palestinians there. It can point to the unsurprising resistance, often provoked by Israel, as a reason to continue expansion and not make a serious offer regarding a two-state solution. Israel, Pappe argues, also points to the resistance as a reason not to seriously discuss the Palestinians' right of return. Another particularly fascinating aspect of Pappe's book is his discussion of the role of Ultra-Orthodox and other marginalized Jews in implementing the expansionist plan. Pappe describes how their religious beliefs mean they believe they are entitled to expand into the West Bank and engage in violence with Palestinians already there. They are further encouraged to do so by tax breaks and the understanding that Israel's government will leave them alone in creating religious communities even where there are some conflicts with laws in the rest of Israel. Strengths and Weaknesses The book is remarkably engaging, given that a substantial part deals with the laws and bureaucracy of occupation: something one would not expect to be the most riveting of subjects. Here, Pappe manages to find a good balance in providing enough detail to see the harm the bureaucracy did to the Palestinians while also not going into excessive details as The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine did in parts. The book also does a remarkably good job of discussing the critical events in the last 75 years in what is relatively short for a history book. Beyond just a raw recounting of events, however, Pappe generally makes a compelling case that there is a strategy behind it all dating back to the late 1930s. In addition, Pappe, in this book, does more to proactively address challenges to his admittedly controversial interpretations of history. An example of this is his dismissal of common arguments taken as evidence that Israel's neighbors' actions warranted a pre-emptive strike in 1967. In terms of downside, I was not ultimately convinced by Pappe's argument that Israel's policy turned into one of genocide in Gaza beginning around 2006. He claims that one needs to look beyond numbers and consider whether Israel wants to kill many people and otherwise wreak sufficient destruction to make the place is unlivable. This, of course, is logically possible. Still, it seems more plausible to me that Israel had no plan to deal with Gaza other than to maintain a tight blockade and accept that Hamas would fire some rockets and make some occasional raids necessitating "mowing the lawn" every few years. This was damage that, until Oct 7, they likely felt was small enough to live with. Conclusion This book, like The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, is invaluable in understanding the current conflict in Gaza. Specifically, it helps in analyzing whether pro-Palestinian protesters are correct in claiming that Israel is engaged in settler-colonialism, apartheid, genocide, and, of course, maintaining an open-air prison. Other than for genocide, I felt that Pappe made a convincing case. The book also substantially challenges the notion that Israel's pre-emptive strike in 1967 was necessary. This, of course, is controversial, and readers should compare it with Benny Morris's view, for instance, that although a pre-emptive strike was justified, the case is not as clear-cut as it has historically been made out to be. Pappe, additionally, makes a compelling case that it was not primarily Arafat and the Palestinians "never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity" that led to the breakdown of the Oslo Accords. Overall, I rate the book 4.0/5.0. This book is better written than The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine as it is more engaging and better at anticipating counterarguments. On the other hand, if you only wish to read one book by Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine is better as it discusses the origins of the fundamental issue: the history and aftermath of the Nakba, in greater detail. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Nov 14, 2023
|
Dec 02, 2023
|
Nov 12, 2023
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||||
| 0745327257
| 9780745327259
| 0745327257
| 4.18
| 71
| Oct 20, 2010
| Dec 20, 2010
|
really liked it
|
In the Eye of Controversy: Free Speech and Militarism in the Israeli Academy Ilan Pappe is a Jewish historian born in Israel who now lives and teaches In the Eye of Controversy: Free Speech and Militarism in the Israeli Academy Ilan Pappe is a Jewish historian born in Israel who now lives and teaches in the UK. He is one of the most controversial historians of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and, along with others like Chomsky, Finklestein, and Shlaim, one of Israel's harshest critics. In Out of the Frame, Pappe recounts the story of how his research and conclusions regarding Israel's War of Independence from 1947-9 caused his ostracism in the Israeli academic community and greater Israeli society, forcing him to ultimately leave the country. Along the way, Pappe describes what he feels it is about Israeli culture that led to these attacks on academic freedom and what it means for future possibilities of peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Given what is currently happening on US campuses with a claimed rise in antisemitism, Pappe's story provides an excellent reference point by bringing free speech issues to the forefront. Overview of Contents Out of the Frame is a set of memoirs focused on aspects of Pappe's life centered around his controversial academic career. He recounts early memories of growing up in Israel in the 1950s and ‘60s; his interactions with Palestinian students; his feeling that Israel was trying to be a cheap knockoff (my paraphrase) of Europe; his military service; and his subsequent academic career. He describes the path that led him to become one of Israel's "New Historians." Pappe was already skeptical of Israel's official story regarding what happened in 1948 after having written his doctoral thesis at Oxford on British policy towards Israel leading up to their withdrawal in 1948. He recounts how, after returning to Israel, he and others, such as Benny Morris, found evidence in Israel's military archives and elsewhere confirming that Israel had deliberately expelled many Palestinians from their homes in 1948. This debunked Israel's claims that most Palestinians had simply fled when asked to by Arab leaders under the notion that there would be a swift defeat of Israel and they could quickly return. Pappe describes how the work of the New Historians led to the brief emergence of a "post-Zionist" school of thought in academia in Israel, which spilled over, somewhat, into at least certain parts of the broader culture, such as artists. Pappe writes that "post-Zionism" even looked like it might impact the Israeli delegation negotiating the Oslo Accords, as some came with books showing that they had read the work of the New Historians. Pappe goes on to recount how neither he nor the Palestinians nor the Israeli government really trusted the Oslo peace process. For Pappe and Palestinians such as Arafat, this was because they saw a refusal of Israel to seriously confront the core issue of Israel's responsibility for the expulsions of 1948. Indeed, Pappe describes this as the main reason for the failure of Camp David in 2000. The Israelis, he writes, had gotten the false idea that Arafat was willing to relinquish the notion of a right to return when, in fact, Arafat had never actually backed away from this desire. Out of the Frame then describes how the bottom immediately fell out of any sympathy Israel had for the Palestinians and for research and teachings with a post-Zionism slant. A central theme of Pappe's book is that all important aspects of Israel's government, culture, and education system have always been dominated by militarism. Starting with the breakdown of Camp David and the beginning of the second intifada, Pappe argues there is essentially no restraint now, with the situation only getting worse year after year. For Pappe, personally, this resulted in attempts by Haifa University to censure him, along with a graduate school named Teddy Katz looking into a possible massacre at Tantura in 1948. Pappe describes this incident in detail, noting that although Katz was briefly intimidated into retracting his claims, the same people never dared bring a libel suit against Pappe himself. Pappe says this is because they knew that he would not back down and would, indeed, relish the opportunity to present the case against Israel's actions in 1948. Pappe wraps up the book by discussing what he thinks can be done about Zionism, Israeli militarism, and Israel's refusal to confront its past. Strengths and Weaknesses The book was insightful and engaging, especially considering that the inner workings of academia might not be expected to be the most riveting of subjects going in. Like his other books, Pappe keeps it down to a reasonable length by skillfully deciding the most important events and themes to discuss. He highlights the fundamental flaw with Zionism itself: Although it initially had admirable aims, it lost these when it turned its focus to Israel, where an existing population of people was already living and which it did not go to adequate lengths to work with peacefully. Pappe's description of militarism's permeation into all aspects of Israeli life is particularly valuable and, likely, less well-known to outsiders. Particularly fascinating is Pappe's description of how Israel's military has prepared itself for quick, grand nation-level battles and how this has had disastrous consequences when dealing instead with low-level, long-term urban warfare where civilian and military targets become blurred together. In terms of weaknesses, there are, unfortunately, some. One is that Pappe does not always provide references to check his most controversial claims. For instance, he claims that the British had made an offer to Zionists to make Britain a safe haven for Jews such that Israel would not be necessary. However, there is no reference to check this, and looking into it further, I found it appeared to be a shaky claim. Similarly, it is generally hard to know just by reading the book in isolation which claims are generally widely accepted and which are not since Pappe rarely bothers to describe the status himself. An equally significant weakness, in my view, is that in an important sense, and as Pappe acknowledges, the book does not go that far in answering the fundamental question Pappe was seeking an answer to. What was it about his situation that caused him to break from the strong grip Zionism and militarism have on Israeli society? Pappe feels that an important component was spending time outside the country while writing his doctoral dissertation. He hints, however, that this alone is not a sufficient explanation and that the break was actually also due to being raised with true Jewish values regarding a commitment to truth. I would have liked to see Pappe discuss this in more detail. Right now, there is only a sentence. Additionally, in mentioning this book in a recent interview, Pappe noted that he feels that Jewish exceptionalism plays a role in Israel being in denial about its past. Since there is no doubt that Jews are an exceptional group who, perhaps, have contributed more to human achievement than nearly any other of significant size, I would have liked to see how this, perhaps, sometimes comes at the cost of a darker aspect. Finally, I feel there are likely personality traits, not just his time abroad, which caused Pappe to break from Zionist culture and become one of its leading critics. Examining these would have been interesting and likely helpful to cultural critics in general. Hopefully, Pappe did not simply omit this discussion out of modesty. Conclusion In a relatively short book, Pappe does a commendable job of discussing his experiences as one of Israel's New Historians, bringing dark aspects of Israel's history to light. He describes how, after a brief flourish, this movement was essentially crushed in Israeli universities by rising militarism. Very relevant to today is Pappe's recounting of how Israel's playbook has always been to try and silence any criticism of Israel as antisemitic with frequent allusions to the Holocaust, the latter of which Pappe claims is a yardstick that much in Israel is measured against. Until the epilogue, Pappe's account discouraged me from the prospect of there ever being peace in Israel. In Pappe's ultimate analysis, however, he is hopeful. He thinks there is a strong resemblance with the history of apartheid in South Africa. Along these lines, Pappe thinks Israel is unlikely to change any time soon due solely to internal pressure. Rather, he sees the need for external pressure. He argues for support of the BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) movement in particular. This, of course, would require strong international pressure, and here, Pappe ends optimistically. Pappe argues that the true history of Israel is getting to be known in the West, and hence, there is growing support to put needed pressure on Israel. (Something we, arguably, see highlighted in the recent pro-Palestinian protests.) At the same time, Pappe acknowledges that Palestinians have had failures on their part, especially in describing what they would like the area to look like post-Zionism and articulating a desire for peace as opposed to revenge. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Dec 09, 2023
|
Dec 26, 2023
|
Oct 28, 2023
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 1851684670
| 9781851684670
| 1851684670
| 4.53
| 8,051
| 2006
| Nov 01, 2006
|
really liked it
|
What really happened during Israel's War of Independence? Ilan Pappe attempts to answer this question in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, which is, What really happened during Israel's War of Independence? Ilan Pappe attempts to answer this question in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, which is, without a doubt, the most controversial book I have read in my life. In it, Pappe presents the controversial thesis that Palestine has been subject to a systematic ethnic cleansing policy pre-dating Israel's Independence Day on May 14, 1948. This policy, Pappe argues, continues up to the present day. For this review, it is important to note, and Pappe clarifies right off the bat, that he is not using the phrase ethnic cleansing in the colloquial sense in which it is a synonym for genocide. Instead, Pappe refers to formal definitions in which ethnic cleansing's goal is to rid a geographical area of people of a specific, often ethnic, group. This contrasts with genocide, in which the goal is to wipe them out of existence. Pappe notes that although the goal of ethnic cleansing is different, it is also generally accompanied by massacres to scare the population into fleeing. Pappe argues this is precisely what happened in Israel/Palestine during the 1947-8 War. Indeed, in the epigraphs preceding most chapters, there is a running comparison to Serbian ethnic cleansing in the 1990s. A Cleansing Plan Pre-Dating the 1947 UN Partition Resolution? Before the late 1980s, there was a notion in much of the West that the answer to the question of where all the Palestinian refugees came from was that they were told to flee their homes around the time Israel's Arab neighbors invaded on the very day of Israel's independence. Pappe is one of Israel's "new historians" who was granted some access to the IDF's archives from the 1947-8 War and began to challenge the notion that those fleeing generally did so voluntarily at the request of Arab leaders. Some more moderate historians, like Benny Morris, found evidence of massacres of Palestinians by Jewish force but did not feel there was a systematic plan behind them and the forced expulsions. Pappe, by contrast, disagrees. Pappe concluded that there was a systematic plan centering around Plan Dalet by considering other sources such as the diaries of key Israeli leaders, interviews, and other oral history. According to Pappe's research, Zionist leaders, especially Ben-Gurion, had decided well before 1947 that they should try to capture much more of Mandatory Palestine than was likely to be offered. Pappe describes how the planning included detailed Jewish intelligence on every village following the 1936 uprising in preparation for this effort. The Zionists' main fear, Pappe writes, was having too small a majority in Israel to protect Jewish interests. This was because, at the time of the 1947 resolution, the Jewish state had about 60% Jews, while nearly all the rest were Arabs. Pappe quotes Ben-Gurion saying that 80% Jews was needed for stability. Pappe further argues that while Ben-Gurion publically accepted the UN partition plan, he only did so knowing Arabs would reject it. This, he realized, would allow Israeli leaders to not recognize Palestinian land as other than "disputed." Pappe further recounts how Ben-Gurion felt it was a problem that Arabs did not act violently enough to the 1947 partition plan. Indeed, they just resigned themselves to living under another "foreign" ruler as they had adapted to others for centuries before. According to Pappe, Ben-Gurion and a cabal called "The Consultancy" worked to increase provocations against Arabs, hoping for reactions that could be used as pretexts for attacks, expulsions, and inevitable massacres. Pappe portrays this as not having the success hoped, initially, and thus leading Israeli forces to become increasingly aggressive in their strategies and tactics, often deliberately crossing the line into war crimes. My Evaluation Evaluating this book is, unfortunately, rather difficult. The two main reasons are: - There is disagreement between Pappe and fellow new historian Benny Morris as to the proper historical methodology. Pappe criticizes Morris for confining his conclusions to IDF archives and treating them as gospel (or, perhaps, rather, Tanakh?) Morris, in turn, criticizes Pappe for over-reliance on oral history. Since Pappe, unfortunately, does not dive deeply into the methodological questions, it is hard for a non-professional to weigh the merits and detriments of the different approaches. - Much of Pappe's source material is not readily available, at least to non-professionals. This is either because it is IDF archival material, books that no longer appear to be in print, and interviews. Fortunately, there is much that Pappe and Morris, who draws more conservative conclusions, agree on. The main things are: - Many Palestinians only left their homes involuntarily in 1947-8; Israeli forces were definitely pushing many of them out - Jewish forces did commit war crimes One thing Pappe and Morris disagree on significantly is the number of Palestinians massacred. Morris puts the figure around 800, whereas Pappe has it around a few thousand. Even more significant, however, is whether it was all part of a systematic plan or not. Pappe's quotes, especially from Ben-Gurion's diary, do seem compelling, however. With regard to the massacres, Pappe admits there is no smoking gun in official documents regarding a central directive. Instead, he argues that it was implicitly understood that they would be tolerated and necessary in the case of stubborn resistance. Pappe points out how those involved were generally careful not to leave a paper trail behind. Is a Systematic Plan Believable? I do believe that Pappe makes a compelling case that there was a systematic plan. Adding to the believability is Pappe's discussion of how Palestinians were treated after the war. Much of this post-war treatment is more open to verification. Remaining Palestinians were moved from their homes; the property of those who had fled was confiscated through some extraordinary legal machinations; those of Arab descent did not receive equal treatment under Israeli law; Palestinian history was systematically erased. However, even if things were not part of a Zionist grand strategy to permanently claim 80% of Mandatory Palestine, it is remarkable that they worked out, in practice, as if that were the plan all along. Sympathizers of Israel will argue that Israel has simply wanted to live in peace, but their Arab neighbors keep attacking them unprovoked for no good reason. After reading this book, however, especially the parts most open to verification, and considering Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and denial of their right to return (or, if no longer practical, monetary compensation in lieu of it), the credibility of Israel claims regarding history fell into even greater doubt for me. The Book's Style and Weaknesses A little over two-thirds of the book is highly engaging reading. Nevertheless, the book took me about twice as long to read as expected. Part of the reason this is a difficult book to read is that it is a very somber subject. Nor is it so far removed from the present as to provide the usual degree of detachment that studying more distant history allows. That contribution to making the book difficult is inevitable, given the subject. However, some of Pappe's choices made the book difficult and were not inevitable. For instance: - The Jews seemed very concerned about Arab aggression, given what happened in 1936. Pappe does not detail 1936 enough to understand why they were worried. - Too many massacres are detailed even once one gets the gist of what happened overall. Likely, Pappe is trying to ensure that the victims are not forgotten. Still, unfortunately, it leads to an emotional numbing and time spent here that could have been better spent on issues such as what happened in 1936 and discussing the debate over methodology. Finally, Pappe is clearly biased. For instance, he correctly states that Palestinians objected to Israel being given the majority of the land in the 1947 resolution, even though they were only one-third of the population. What Pappe omits is the Jewish position that they needed more land because of the large number of immigrants into Israel expected. Conclusion Given the current war in Gaza, this book is vital reading to understand how we got to this point and what may lie ahead. Readers will be better able to evaluate whether the accusations of ethnic cleansing, genocide, and apartheid leveled against Israel are fair. At the same time, however, it is essential to check what sources Pappe uses, compare with others, and look up contrary interpretations of history, such as Benny Morris's. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Oct 21, 2023
|
Nov 08, 2023
|
Oct 21, 2023
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0262365235
| 9780262365239
| B08PCNCFCC
| 4.07
| 71
| unknown
| Aug 31, 2021
|
it was amazing
|
Challenging Assumptions: Unveiling Counterintuitive Insights in Politics and Cognition Overall Rating: 4.75/5.0 The Bias That Divides Us is an excellent Challenging Assumptions: Unveiling Counterintuitive Insights in Politics and Cognition Overall Rating: 4.75/5.0 The Bias That Divides Us is an excellent book for anyone interested in politics or psychology, but especially for those who love the counterintuitive. In the book, Keith Stanovich discusses Myside Bias (MSB), an outlier among the well over one hundred cognitive biases humans are known to have. It is an outlier since the vast majority of cognitive biases show a negative correlation with general intelligence, while MSB does not. MSB further fails to show a correlation with thinking dispositions. This is even true of open-mindedness, which, by its very definition, one would think would be certain to be negatively correlated with MSB. Stanovich's book is, thus, loaded with conclusions that will surprise many. At the same time, however, it also presents research confirming things that many who have discussed politics, philosophy, and religion with others will have suspected all along while not being aware of recent empirical research backing their conclusions. Overview of Contents Stanovich begins the book by describing what MSB is and how, although it has been assumed to be confirmation bias in the past, it is actually something different. This is because MSB deals with distal matters, i.e., ideological beliefs, especially in areas regarding morality that cannot be confirmed or falsified experimentally. Many have noticed that beliefs of this sort are highly resistant to change through rational discussion or otherwise. Stanovich presents research showing that people do not generally update their confidence in beliefs on distal matters optimally according to Bayesian modeling. Indeed, often, the opposite happens: they become more entrenched in beliefs even when contradicted by the evidence. Although it has been said that every equation a book includes cuts its readership in half, Stanovich does present the math. It should, however, be understandable by anyone who has taken an introductory course in probability. Even if not, the key theorem is ultimately explained clearly in terms as simple as multiplying fractions. Stanovich explains that an important point is that MSB does not necessarily mean that one has a strong belief on an ideological issue, but, instead, that one fails to update it appropriately in light of new evidenceor, relatedly, is not able to state arguments and evidence that run counter to their position. As a particularly interesting example, Stanovich presents research showing that people's reasoning on gun control and immigration by Muslims tends to demonstrate inconsistencies since, in Bayesian terms, some key questions seem very similar. Having shown that MSB seems non-normative or unreasonable, Stanovich then looks deeper at the research, questioning this conclusion. He shows that MSB may not be as irrational as it seems. A key result here is that if one's prior beliefs are mostly correct, letting them influence whether the new evidence is credible is correct. If, however, most of a person's beliefs are wrong, this merely gets them further entrenched in error. Stanovich then questions the very nature of the Bayesian model itself. Is it correct to interpret the search for truth as the only thing one should optimize for? What if this will come at a social cost? For example, what if it would cause a break in your close relationships and community? What if finding the truth came at such a high cost that you did not think it was worth paying for the potential gains? Stanovich concludes there is no right way to weigh these considerations. Naturally, however, most people will maintain that they are not letting these considerations interfere with their quest for truth when they, indeed, perhaps unconsciously or semiconsciously, are. Stanovich next goes on to describe what many will find counterintuitive. General intelligence and even thinking styles, for example, need to reason, which would seem likely to reduce MSB, do not, in fact, do so. Indeed, Stanovich presents fascinating results showing that the only thing that seems to predict MSB is the strength of belief going in. This is sometimes in conjunction with whether one is liberal or conservative leaning. Surprisingly, for about 80% of the population, MSB on one issue is not correlated with MSB on others. Stanovich's discussion of increased political polarization is particularly relevant regarding what many have noted about recent political trends. The results here are likely to surprise most: Most of the population (about 80%) is not getting more extreme in their belief. The 20%, however, who are are what Stanovich calls the cognitive elite, meaning scoring high on general intelligence. Stanovich explains that what seems to be happening is not that people are aligning more with their side's positions. Indeed, Stanovich notes there is little consistency across issues, but instead, people are expressing their disdain for the other side. Stanovich conjectures, and there is recent research on the effects of propaganda to back this up, that the cognitive elites have a greater need for consistency of ideas and ideologies tying it all together than most. This, however, negates what could be expected to be their advantage in avoiding MSB. Stanovich next goes on to elaborate on how MSB has led the very people we would expect to be least prone to MSB, namely psychologists studying cognitive biases, to be highly prone to it. Stanovich, for example, shows a long history of psychologists, a very liberal-leaning field, to have obvious methodological flaws in their research, leading to conclusions that conservatives suffer from intellectual or personality flaws as compared to liberals. An example of particularly egregious methodological flaws is defining conservative beliefs to be authoritarian, then doing surveys that show that conservatives tend to have conservative and, hence, only because of the researcher's definition, authoritarian beliefs. The book ends with a general and seemingly well-deserved tirade against wokeism in academia. What good are universities, the best places to prepare students to avoid biases, if they do the opposite: encouraging them to think in obviously biased ways? Strengths and Weaknesses The book does a good job of explaining its subject matter to non-professionals. The examples chosen are easy to follow and applicable to the current political situation. Stanovich has dug into to explain when MSB is not necessarily a problem even though, at first, it might seem the answer should be "always." In a book such as this, where there is some but not insurmountable complexity to the subject matter, there is always a tradeoff between stating things multiple ways so that the reader will get it and becoming too repetitive. Stanovich has done a respectable job of finding this balance. There are only a couple of real weaknesses. The first is that, in some places, not all concepts are explained in the text. Thus, if you do not know what a Spearman manifold is going in, you will have to consult a search engine or chatbot. The second weakness is that Stanovich does not get into many alternative conjectures about why MSB might exist; instead, he focuses on his favored explanation: memetics. Readers who lean more toward the political left may think Stanovich has a conservative bias. This is likely true given the last chapter's criticism of wokeism and academia. Considering that much psychology literature is left-leaning, however, and Stanovich does a good job showing how this has harmed objectivity, I do not consider it a significant flaw that the last chapter presents more of the conservative perspective. Even given this, most of the book does a good job presenting examples of MSB implicating both conservatives and liberals. The ultimate conclusion is that both sides are equally prone to MSB, may have genetic predispositions leading them to one ideology over the other, are equally intelligent, and tend to occasionally have slightly different thinking styles. The latter, however, is in a way that balances equally between conservatives having the more desirable ones and liberals having the more desirable ones. Conclusion The Bias That Divides Us is one of my two favorite books I read last year (the other being Why We Sleep: Unlocking the Power of Sleep and Dreams). It presents counterintuitive results regarding who is most prone to bias in the political arena and provides evidence confirming many things most will have already suspected. It does a good job of rescuing conservatives from the biased, incorrect beliefs academics have spread about them, along with pointing to research disputes on many dogmatic beliefs of the left. For example, are women really discriminated against when it comes to hiring and promotion in STEM fields? Most importantly, Stanovich provides advice on how to limit MSB personally. For example, when you encounter new evidence about a position based on an untestable ideological belief, assume that the direction the conclusion leads to has a 50/50 chance of being right, then evaluate the evidence on its own merit without bringing in prior beliefs to influence how credible you find it. You can then update your beliefs regarding the probability you were accordingly. Overall, the book is a must-read for anyone interested in the psychology behind how we process our ideological beliefs. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Oct 22, 2023
|
Dec 31, 2023
|
Sep 29, 2023
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||
| 0199546479
| 9780199546473
| 0199546479
| 3.97
| 217
| Sep 01, 2020
| Sep 01, 2020
|
it was amazing
|
Overall Rating: 4.75/5.0 A sentiment often expressed today is that the political situation in present-day America strongly resembles Weimar Germany. Th Overall Rating: 4.75/5.0 A sentiment often expressed today is that the political situation in present-day America strongly resembles Weimar Germany. This sentiment comes mainly from the left, where many fear that the rise of populism under Donald Trump is setting America on a course where it "could lose its democracy" and become a fascist state. The depth of this belief strengthens the further one goes out on the left. On the right, fears of similarities to Weimar are expressed less frequently but still exist, albeit cast differently. For those on the right who see similarities, there is growing moral and intellectual decadence, including a rise in sympathy for extreme leftist ideologies. For some, such as Christian Nationalists, they also see a political system not up to the task of saving itself from these existential threats. Robert Gerwarth's study of early Weimar is, thus, very timely. Gerwarth's central thesis is that Weimar was more resilient to existential threats than many now believe and that its ultimate fall to National Socialism was only foreseeable retrospectively. Indeed, Gerwarth suggests that without the singular event of the Great Depression, Weimar's demise would likely not have happened at all, despite all the other extraordinary challenges the Weimar Republic faced. WWI and Weimar November 1918 focuses on the period from about 1916 until the end of 1923. The coverage of WWI is particularly fascinating. Gerwarth discusses how, although Germany understood it was likely to draw America into the war, it felt it had to escalate submarine warfare; otherwise, it would slowly suffocate under the Allies' naval blockade. Critical to later Weimar attitudes, Gerwarth discusses the sudden swing of military fortunes in favor of Germany in late 1917. This began with Ludendorff's stunning victories in the east, Russia's withdrawal from the war and vast concessions of land in the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and the emergence of stormtroopers with tactics capable of breaking the years-long stalemate of trench warfare on the Western Front. From such near giddy heights, it is easy to see how Germans were shocked, and many later fell into denial about the complete reversal of fortunes on the Western Front. Gerwarth makes it clear, however, that there was no "stab in the back." At the time of the military mutinies and the November Revolution, Germany was indeed understood, including by Hindenburg and Ludendorff, to be beaten, even if its front had not completely collapsed. Indeed, Gerwarth argues that the mutinies and Revolution were due to the fact that, in Germany, it was widely recognized that Germany was beaten and, hence, needed to get out of the war before total annihilation. Gerwarth shows that the Weimar Republic was quite popular and that its most important leaders, though on the left, were utterly determined to prevent Bolshevism from spreading into Germany. Betrayal at Versailles Today, it is well understood that a primary reason for the rise of Hitler and the world's descent into a Second World War was the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles. Gerwarth discusses this in detail, emphasizing not only the treaty's harshness but the sense of betrayal Germans felt. They had believed Wilson would, at least to some extent, deliver on his promises of "peace without victory" if they changed their government from a rather militaristic monarchy to a liberal, constitutional Republic. Germany had fulfilled its end of this implicit understanding, but it seemed to scarcely matter. Unlike the Congress of Vienna, which dealt with the defeat of Napoleon and France and included France's input in the final decision, Germany had no input in drafting the Treaty of Versailles and, essentially, no option but to accept all of it. The Left's Sense of Betrayal Although it is well known that the German right felt that the country had been betrayed by the Revolution of November 1918, Gerwarth tells the less well-known story of how many on the left, even to this day, also felt the Revolution was a betrayal. They thought the Revolution presented a missed opportunity to create a government that was even more "of people," meaning especially labor, than what emerged. Although, from all the feelings of betrayal, left and right, it would seem that nobody liked Weimar, Gerwarth shows that the Revolution, in the direction of Social Democracy as opposed to Bolshevism, was very popular at the time and would remain so until the Great Depression. Weimar Culture In addition to his coverage of political and military events, Gerwarth spends some time discussing the culture of Weimar. This includes the emerging political power of women, early optimism regarding tolerance of gay people, and the backlash that these generated. Gerwarth vividly describes German soldiers' alienation after returning home as losers in a war they sacrificed so much to win. He discusses the rift between those on the front who often wanted to continue the fight and what they regarded as weak military elements in the rear who favored withdrawal. Gerwarth discusses how many found the way to deny losing the war was to fail to move on and continue "fighting the war" by joining extreme right-wing paramilitaries and other organizations. Most interestingly, Gerwarth discusses how the regions that initially saw the greatest success for the radical left experienced the strongest backlash from the right, with cities like Munich, for instance, later becoming their greatest strongholds. The Book's Strengths and Weaknesses Gerwarth's book provides a highly engaging, often vivid recount of the earliest days of Weimar. The reader can feel the sense of shock at the reversals in the fortunes of war; they can understand the sense of betrayal by the Treaty of Versailles and can easily see how these led many into a sense of denial. Gerwarth is quite masterful in tying this all together in what is relatively short for a history book: just a hair under 10 hours of listening time on Audible. In addition, Gerwarth has an uncommon take that Weimar's Democracy was quite resilient, as demonstrated by the fact that it survived severe challenges from the extreme left and extreme right early on and was able to bounce back from hyperinflation. The book's only real weakness is that, in being so short, most readers will likely feel some areas were not covered adequately. I would have liked to see more detail, for instance, on how the situation on the Western Front fell apart in 1918, and more specifics on why the right felt Weimar was morally decadent. Comparing Weimar and Present-Day America The great contemporary relevance of a book like this is that it allows us to see how many things in Weimar were quite different from what we see in contemporary America. This, in my view, if it does not shatter, at least dramatically undermines those who see powerful parallels between present-day America and Weimar. Yes, with a superficial look, there are some vague semblances. For instance, Hitler was a nationalist, and Trump is a nationalist. A similarity it is true. But what are the key differences? Although it has lost wars recently, America has suffered nothing comparable to German causalities in WWI. No Treaty of Versailles has been imposed upon us. We do not have a millstone of reparations around our necks. Although there was some extreme leftist violence in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the scale was much less than leftist violence in Weimar. There have been no comparable coup attempts. Some may argue Jan 6 was a coup attempt, but compare the death tolls and ask how many genuinely seem willing to die for the cause of a "stolen election" versus how many died in the name of extreme left and right-wing ideologies in Weimar. Additionally, no powerful foreign adversary is openly aligned with domestic extremists to the extent that the Bolshevists were aligned with German Communists. Compare America's military tradition, which has entailed strong domestic opposition to nearly all foreign wars resulting in significant American causalities and long engagements, to that of Germany pre-Weimar. Consider also that although there was street violence in and around 2020, it is orders of magnitude less than what was seen in Weimar. Although it was not an explicit intent of Gerwarth's book, a great strength is providing readers with the opportunity to see the differences between now and Weimar. Additionally, contrary to the beliefs of some on the right, the book clarifies that in extreme situations, where there is a mix of moderate and radical leftists, the more ruthless extreme left is not guaranteed to crush the weak Kerenskyist moderates. Weimar's Social Democrats were deeply determined to keep Germany from turning Bolshevist and were successful. Sometimes, emergency powers were used by the moderate left, but, in contrast to another common belief on the right, that such powers are never temporary and only ratcheted up over time, things did return to normal after the crises had passed. Conclusion Overall, I highly recommend November 1918 for providing a highly engaging and concise discussion of Weimar with an uncommon take that Weimar was a more resilient and popular Republic than many today imagine. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 16, 2023
|
Oct 19, 2023
|
Sep 16, 2023
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| B00541YJPM
| 4.02
| 8,065
| 1995
| unknown
|
it was ok
|
None
|
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 03, 2023
|
Dec 18, 2023
|
Sep 03, 2023
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||||
| 0142000655
| 9780142000656
| 0142000655
| 4.42
| 559,095
| 1952
| 2002
|
it was amazing
|
Although centered around the lives of just two families, John Steinbeck's East of Eden can be described as a novel of truly epic scope. Set in the per
Although centered around the lives of just two families, John Steinbeck's East of Eden can be described as a novel of truly epic scope. Set in the period from the United States Civil War until the end of World War I, the story follows the lives of three generations of the Trask family, from Connecticut, and their contact with the Hamilton family on the opposite side of the country in the Salinas Valley in California. For those who have not read the novel, I will give a brief evaluation before getting into more detail for those who have. Spoilers are included in the ‘In Detail’ section so you may not want to read past the quick evaluation if you have not read the book already! Quick Evaluation for those Who Have not Read It Starting from the opening chapter, Steinbeck's style is exceptionally vivid. You feel you are right there in all the beauty of the Salinas Valley. At the other extreme, when Steinbeck delves into sordid subjects, you also feel right there. The novel includes some of the most intensely developed characters in all of literature. Their interactions are complex and full of genuine dilemmas. You feel the character's happiness and their sorrow. You cannot help but root for some, hope for a demise that cannot come soon enough for others, and have no idea how things will turn out for the remainder. The themes covered are the most important possible: family, love, good and evil, happiness, sorrow, and the relationship or lack of it between these things and money and success. If these sound like themes of interest, and you are not queasy about a considerable percentage of the book delving into dark themes, then this book is highly recommended and will be hard to point down through most parts. Although, from the description on the cover, I worried that the book might become too overtly and excessively religious, this was not the case. Also, although the book is said to describe something distinctive about American culture, this seems like a stretch since nearly all themes have universal applicability. The only real weaknesses of the book are that, ultimately, some things that happen or fail to happen are rather unbelievable, and some things seem exaggerated compared to real life. These, however, are only minor dings on the overall brilliance of the story. In Detail [Spoilers Begin] Key Themes The key theme of the novel is family. Specifically, what a strong family makes possible and the destructiveness that absence of familial strength, or complete absence of family, can have. This is where the juxtaposition between the Hamilton's and the Trask's is most pronounced. We see that although the Hamilton family is not immune from tragedy, they are generally happy. For me, Samuel's humor and the Hamilton family’s gentle teasing of each other best demonstrate this, along with the scene where Samuel’s daughter Olive courageously takes to flying at an early airshow. Although Samuel has both had bad luck and never seriously set his mind to becoming wealthy, it seems safe to say that because of his devotion to his family, he is the richest man in the novel. With the Trask's, by contrast, there is general unhappiness, struggle, and uneven and even dubious love throughout. It is fascinating to ponder how this may have affected Adam's attraction to Cathy and Charles's repulsion from her. This is in addition to the more obvious replay of the Cain and Abel story through Caleb and Aron. Another central theme is the relationship between family and good and evil. The question of how much someone should worry about inheriting traits, especially undesirable or even evil ones, from their parents is particularly prominent. This, of course, is best exemplified by Caleb. He is already prone to worry that he is not good, and he begins to worry even more after finding out who his mother, Cathy, really is. (Although it is not mentioned in the book, the fact that he worries about this at all tells the reader that he is something much different from her and can avoid her course.) At the same time, although some children inherit traits considerably from their parents, others seem quite different. Caleb's difference from Aron shows this in the positive direction, while Cathy's difference from her parents shows an extreme in the other direction. Deeply Developed Characters Beyond the resonance of the themes, the book's other great strength is the depth of characters. As in real life, there are some very good people, like Samuel and Lee, one very bad one, Cathy, and many such as Adam, Charles, Caleb, and Aron, somewhere in between. All characters are completely three-dimensional. Samuel and Lee have had darkness in their backgrounds but emerge above it and become sources of love and light to those around them. Cathy, by contrast, seems to be a pure psychopath (meaning probably due mainly to genetics versus environment) or, at best, only a hair's width away from it. Despite this, Steinbeck is able to get readers inside her head convincingly. Cathy sees herself as stronger and smarter than others, something she realized very early on. Projecting, she can only see evil in others and their attempts to control her. In her mind, any attempt to control her warrants nearly any retribution, including murder. As she gets older, we even see glimmers of conscience in Cathy in the events leading up to and including her suicide. For instance, she worries that her arthritis is punishment for accepting the inheritance from Charles. Additionally, the reader wonders: did she leave Aron rather than Caleb her money because she ultimately realizes she is missing something Aron has? Nonetheless, even these glimmers of conscience do not prevent her from taking out Joe Valery with her last actions since he foolishly thought he could out-manipulate and harm her. Indeed, whether her decision to give everything to Aron was partly motivated by a desire to stir conflict among the twins is unclear. One even wonders if part of her motivation in committing suicide is because she realizes how weak she is becoming, both mentally and physically, compared to her youth. She can no longer be as competently evil as she once was. All these themes are woven together in a sick intensity in her suicide scene, which competes with the opening chapter for the most vivid in the novel. Some Minor Blemishes on a Great Novel Despite the novel's strengths: the depth of its characters, and the power and universality of its themes, some things in the book are blemishes on its greatness. For example, some things stretch the limits of believability. For instance, it stretches credibility that Adam could have such schizoid traits that learning from Cathy that Charles may be the twins' father does not lead to conflict with him. Similarly, given that Charles does not like Cathy, why would he leave half his money to her instead of giving it all to Adam or leaving it held in trust for the twins? Also stretching the limits of believability, why would Cathy, who seems all about vengeance, not get even with Edwards, who beats her within an inch of her life and leaves her for dead? Finally, although stories exploring good and evil on such a grand scale may inevitably have to take some liberties versus just recounting ordinary people's mundane day-to-day lives, the book overplays some things. One is just how prominent in American life brothels were. Was nearly everyone, married, unmarried, from laborer up to politician and lawyer, really visiting them regularly? To such an extent that nobody gets upset in the slightest upon learning that someone else has. Overall, there is quite a bit of somber reading to get through here. Nevertheless, the strength of the Hamilton family and the rise of Caleb and Abra into adulthood make the story, ultimately, a hopeful one. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Sep 2023
|
Sep 15, 2023
|
Sep 01, 2023
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 159184553X
| 9781591845539
| 159184553X
| 3.86
| 11,617
| Jan 01, 2012
| Jul 19, 2012
|
really liked it
|
Trading Up the Chain: Blogs, Bias, and the Dilemma of Delegated Trust In Trust Me, I'm Lying, Ryan Holiday pulls back the curtain to reveal what is goi Trading Up the Chain: Blogs, Bias, and the Dilemma of Delegated Trust In Trust Me, I'm Lying, Ryan Holiday pulls back the curtain to reveal what is going on behind the scenes of online "blogs." For the book, Holiday defines blog as any online site, from single-person operations up to the New York Times, which either purports to report current news or provide commentary. Holiday discusses how easy he found it to manipulate the blogosphere and how it ultimately creates a world of unreality, which, unfortunately, does intersect with the real world enough to cause massive destruction to the individual lives and businesses in the news. Summary of Contents Holiday's central thesis is that the blogosphere suffers from two major and interrelated problems: The first problem is that blogs suffer from fierce competition for table scraps of revenue. Since there is so little money to be made for most in blogging, bloggers race to publish first, most sensationally, and with complete disregard for the time required to ensure even reasonable veracity of their stories. The second related problem is that blogs seem to operate on a "delegated trust" model. Holiday argues that before blogs, news media had developed editorial standards that were about the same from publication to publication. This meant that if one outlet was reporting something, others had some confidence that the first had done their due diligence regarding the story's veracity. Holiday shows that there is now a wide variety of editorial standards, in many cases none, that break this model. Holiday relates numerous cases showing how he exploited the weaknesses in the blogosphere to feed false information into the monster and then "trade it up the chain." For instance, starting with the lowest level blogs, hungry for any traffic that could go viral, he could get them to publish wholly made-up "leaks" from "anonymous sources" that he says were never verified. From this, a buzz would be created on low-level blogs that he would then mention to higher-level blogs, asking, "How can you not be covering this?" Holiday claims that by using this basic method, he and others could get publications all the way up to the New York Times to report on information completely manufactured out of "whole cloth." Along with relating numerous instances of garbage information entering the system at the lowest levels and percolating up to the top, Holiday examines some of the underlying social science explaining why the system is so vulnerable to manipulation. Evaluation of the Book Given the amount of misinformation out there, which only continued to explode after the publication of the revised edition in 2017, this is the kind of book that any citizen of a democracy who interacts with online media or is affected by it (a long way of saying everyone) should read. Indeed, this book is now mandatory in many journalism schools and is required reading for new employees entering the news media to help their outlet avoid being victims of these manipulations. Although this book was a highly worthwhile read, it leaned a little too heavily toward numerous case studies instead of spending time on the underlying theory for me. In the preface, Holiday makes it clear, however, that this was a deliberate choice as he wanted to write a book on this critical topic that would be read instead of an academic treatise. He used all the techniques he learned from the blogosphere, including heavy media manipulation, to have the book reach as extensive an audience as possible. Some of this is clearly demonstrated in the organization of the book. The chapters are short. Each is further broken down into multiple short sections with very few blocks of text longer than even a couple of pages. It is all designed to be exceptionally easy to consume. Although presenting much interesting theory, for example, research on how little time viewers spend reading an article and how likely they are to immediately "bounce" from a page, the tilting more toward case studies came at the expense of making the stories repetitive after a while. I often read a story and wondered what new principle it was trying to establish versus what had already been established by the stories before it. The second significant weakness of the book is that although it does delve somewhat into politics, it could have gone much deeper into the underlying theories, such as "my side bias," of why people are so prone to political bias and how the media seems just affected by these biases or, perhaps, even more so, than everyone else. Although the book's conclusion is already bleak, Holiday underestimated just how extreme political polarization would become, a situation that events since 2020, especially, have laid bare. In addition to these two weaknesses, it was unclear how everything described comes together in some cases. For example, Holiday mentions that there are a number of low readership blogs that are read by some very important people and thus have influence far beyond what their reader count would suggest. At the same time, Holiday says that since these blogs are tiny and do not get much traffic, they are easily manipulated by scams offering them more traffic. This claim did not make much sense to me. First, how does Holiday know where these low-traffic but influential blogs are? Second, it seems that the only way that important, and presumably at least somewhat intelligent, people would pay attention is if they were publishing high-quality content, as opposed to any junk that would generate traffic. Conclusion Despite the weaknesses mentioned, I understand that the book was written the way it was for a reason: to make it as accessible as possible. Given that many feel, looking back at historical examples, that online misinformation is following a pattern that has a high chance of becoming a risk to American democracy, this book provides an excellent look behind the scenes at how the online misinformation sausage is made. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Aug 29, 2023
|
Sep 02, 2023
|
Aug 29, 2023
|
Hardcover
| ||||||||||||||
| 0226738868
| 9780226738864
| 0226738868
| 3.94
| 3,155
| 1927
| Jun 01, 1996
|
really liked it
|
Carl Schmitt was a controversial German political philosopher who lived between 1888 and 1985. Today, as the American political climate polarizes, he
Carl Schmitt was a controversial German political philosopher who lived between 1888 and 1985. Today, as the American political climate polarizes, he is receiving increased interest from both the left and right, with particular popularity among Christian Nationalists. The Concept of the Political is acknowledged as one of his most important works. It was first published in 1927 and then later revised and expanded in 1932 for publication just before Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor and the liberal Weimar Republic passed into history. The Scope of this Review Carl Schmitt is controversial for a very good reason: He would soon join the Nazi party and become one of its pre-eminent philosophers. Although there was a falling out in 1936 when the SS decided Schmitt was too Hegelian, he never seems to have wholly denounced the Nazis, even though he lived until 1985. Since I am not a Schmitt scholar, this review will treat the book in isolation, disregarding his future writings and pronouncements. For those wary, one thing from the book is clear: Although The Concept of the Political does make a case against liberalism, it does not make a case for the worst parts of Nazi ideology. There is no anti-Semitism or general endorsement of racism. Indeed, there is a strong argument, although it does not use that word, against eugenics. In the book, there is much sympathy for arguments that could, and perhaps were, made about equally by both Communists and National Socialists at the time. Indeed, taken in isolation, there is no endorsement of either of these two sides. Schmitt's Central Thesis Schmitt's central thesis is that the proper definition of the political is that which can distinguish friend versus enemy and which is willing to act to secure its survival. Schmitt spends considerable time discussing entities that cannot be political, such as religious institutions, and those promoting the economic interests of some of the state's members, such as trade unions. Schmitt argues that these institutions could, indeed, gain enough influence to determine friend versus enemy and either cause or prevent a war contrary to the state's wishes. At this point, however, Schmitt says that the state would cease to exist. Along similar lines, Schmitt argues that in addition to determining friend versus enemy and having the power to go to war, the state's primary function is to enforce law and order. Again, if this power is lost, the state ceases to exist. One consequence of Schmitt's definition of the political is that the state can allow the existence of multiple religions and economic interests. Indeed, religious tolerance is a historical trend that Schmitt sees as decreasing the ferocity of wars and allowing citizens to focus on other matters, such as intellectual enlightenment. After considerable time spent defining the political, Schmitt argues that liberalism is fundamentally anti-political. Schmitt cites Franz Oppenheimer as best exemplifying this, although Schmitt argues that Oppenheimer's conclusions follow out of logical necessity from any consistent exposition of liberalism. Specifically, Schmitt argues that under no consistent reasoning can liberalism ask a man to give his life to protect the state's existence. Schmitt is, hence, remarkably prescient in anticipating that future liberal thinkers, such as Milton Friedman, would come to realize and emphasize the contradiction and argue against conscription. Schmitt closes the book by arguing that although liberalism is not political by his definition and hence unable to distinguish between friend and enemy to ensure its own survival, it is, however, effectively quite war-like. Here, using arguments that would surely appeal to Marxists, Schmitt argues that liberalism's focus is almost purely economic (along with some interest in abstract political reasoning). Schmitt discusses how liberalism's economic domination and tools have little moral superiority over outright traditional warfare. This includes the effects of internal economic class warfare. Indeed, by euphemizing the potential for real harm from economic war with pacifist language, Schmitt argues that the wars are more ferocious since anyone who opposes the supposed pacifist objectives must be less than human. Present Day Relevance The book's greatest strength is that it deals with issues extremely relevant to present-day America. Specifically, we now hear incessantly from the left that if Donald Trump is re-elected, America "could lose its Democracy." Although mainstream right-wing media does not quite exude the same sense of urgency, many key political influencers on the right, such as James Lindsay and Chris Rufo, believe that America is on course toward becoming a neo-Marxist state. The book brings to the forefront the question of whether a liberal political system can survive the threat. Although Schmitt only makes a relatively brief oblique reference, a question on everyone's mind these days is whether America can protect the right to free speech while at the same time ensuring that deliberately weaponized and even inadvertent disinformation does not constitute an existential risk to democracy. Should America further distinguish and act against its enemies so that we do not become Weimar? In addition to these questions for moderates, readers will be forced to grapple with the possibility that Schmitt is correct: Perhaps liberalism cannot survive today's political polarization and what many regard as historical trends. The left sees itself as providing highly needed historical advancement but with conservatives trying to prevent it due to fear of previous dominant historical groups, like straight, white men, from losing political power. The right, by contrast, sees the left as having gone too far and on track to throw the baby of the Enlightenment out with the bathwater by making us a society dominated by post-modernism and neo-Marxism. Writing Style Another relative strength of the book is that Schmitt writes to be understood. He is not obscurationist as one, unfortunately, encounters all too frequently in philosophy. Some German philosophers, such as Hegel and Kant, are notorious for being extremely difficult for anyone but professional philosophers to understand. Although Schmitt is no Nietzsche in terms of style, for example, there is no humor and only a few flourishes beyond purely academic writing, this book should be easily understandable by dedicated non-professionals. The book, however, is by no means a breeze. Beyond comprehensibility, Schmitt is highly commendable for taking what he is arguing against seriously. There are no strawmen here. This is not a polemic. The best arguments for liberalism are taken on directly. The only stylistic mark against the book is that it spends excessive time belaboring the definition of the political on an abstract level instead of providing concrete examples. Even here, however, the situation is not that bad. Is it Logically Sound? The final question is whether the book is ultimately logically sound. It certainly is an admiringly well-articulated critique of liberalism. Nevertheless, I thought there were a couple of significant problems: 1. Although Schmitt's definition of the political seems logically consistent, it does not jibe with what most would more likely take to be the correct definition of the political. I would define the political as dealing with how society's laws are determined, including who is involved in creating laws, the process, and the axioms on which other laws will be based. Although effectively dismissing some alternative notions of what the political is, Schmitt does not discuss this notion. For Schmitt, the law merely reflects whatever the status quo is. 2. Schmitt seems content, at least in this book, at defining what the political is and arguing that a state should have a political system (by his definition) instead of an apolitical one. Unfortunately, he does not delve into what exactly that system should be. How can we know that the cure is not worse than the disease? Schmitt is correct in stating that liberalism provides primarily only a negative view of government: it must be restricted in these ways, e.g., making private property nearly sacrosanct. What does Schmitt think the way to fix this is without creating an even worse system? What specifically in Weimar should have been done regarding parties such as the Nazis and Communists, who did not believe in liberalism and were actively working to destroy Weimar's form of government, but whose existence was tolerated? Should their existence not have been tolerated? Today, a related question arises when considering Jordan Peterson's arguments that countries like the United States should not fund academics who are openly turning America into a post-liberal society. This is just one example of Schmitt's contemporary relevance. Summary The Concept of the Political is a highly relevant, classical political philosophy text. The questions it poses must be taken very seriously and are discussed in a way that should be highly accessible to motivated laypeople. The accessibility includes a low page count, although the book can definitely be described as having high information density. Schmitt is likely a philosopher who will be increasingly discussed publicly. Indeed, some near-mainstream right-wing media outlets have already begun to sympathize with some of the views he shares with Christian Nationalists. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Aug 20, 2023
|
Aug 29, 2023
|
Aug 20, 2023
|
Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0063227541
| 9780063227545
| B0BBGLZZSV
| 4.28
| 783
| Jul 18, 2023
| Jul 18, 2023
|
it was amazing
| The revolution did not run through the streets, Bell concluded, but through the faculty meeting and the seminar room. When listening to the rhetori The revolution did not run through the streets, Bell concluded, but through the faculty meeting and the seminar room. When listening to the rhetoric from those on the American left today, does it ever feel like they think we are still living in the 1960s? In this book, Chris Rufo argues that there is a good reason for this. His central thesis is that after the "Revolution of 1968" and the subsequent domestic terror campaigns by groups like the Weathermen and the Black Liberation Army failed, its leaders retreated into academia. Despite their violent acts and numerous bombings, these radicals astonishingly almost always avoided imprisonment. They recognized, however, the violence had alienated them from society and was counterproductive. Far from being a fatal setback, however, and mirroring Mao's resurgence after his 5,000-mile retreat, the radicals devised a new strategy of a "long march through the institutions." Rufo argues the strategy has been wildly successful, starting in academia but now expanding to capture most of present-day America's important institutions, including corporate America, the federal bureaucracy, and K-12. Biographies of Key Figures The book includes brief biographies of some of the key figures of America's radical left, with particular emphasis on - Herbert Marcuse, a neo-Marxist, head of the Frankfurt School, and "the father of the New Left." - One of Marcuse's most famous students: Angela Davis - Eldridge Cleaver, who was the leader of the Black Liberation Army, - Paulo Freire, a Brazillian Marxist who is generally seen as the most influential figure in modern educational theory, and - Derrick Bell who is known as the father of critical race theory. In the case of Marcuse, Davis, Friere, and Cleaver, Rufo emphasizes their rhetorical and charismatic gifts, their sharp intellects, and their sympathies toward violence. For example, in Marcuse's case, Rufo makes it clear that he directly supported and met with militant groups in the United States and Europe working toward violent revolution. His rhetoric was crafty enough to leave just enough ambiguity as to whether he was calling for violence: at least if you only took his statements in isolation. However, by looking at the overall picture, Rufo clarifies that Marcuse supported violence. Derrick Bell, unlike his counterparts, was not a proponent of violence. Rufo underscores Bell's noteworthy accomplishments as a Civil Rights lawyer and founder of CRT, juxtaposing them with his eventual plunge into pessimism and nihilism. Bell's inclination towards dystopian fiction is highlighted, with him envisioning scenarios where white Americans would buy rights to discriminate openly against black people and, in perhaps the most extreme and well-known example, even sold them to extraterrestrials. Particularly striking is Sowell's critique that Bell, feeling outmatched at Harvard, chose to maintain his relevance through outlandish fiction. The Capture of Academia Although Rufo's biographies are fascinating, Rufo's recount of the radical capture of America's colleges is equally intriguing. In particular, Rufo emphasizes Marcuse's insights into the need to turn away from violence which, sadly, he realized only after it has already burnt itself out. At this point, Marcuse realized that the key was to capture academia as a base and then expand into the rest of society from there. Remarkably, this aligned perfectly with the fact that most of the 1960s and 1970s radicals, including nearly all members of the Weathermen, were able to avoid prosecution, and many of the most prominent took up academic careers as their next stage in life. Among the book's most fascinating information, which is not currently well known, is that it was Marcuse's third wife who created the prototypes for the first DEI programs which were first instituted in academia. Rufo recounts how key components were modeled after the guilt-inducing struggle sessions denouncing whiteness and privilege that were rituals of the Weather Underground. Davis's preeminence in academia is also detailed, with Rufo, for instance, crediting her for articulating the key notions of intersectionality long before Bell's student Kimberley Crenshaw. Rufo additionally emphasizes that educational theory was the key focus of the radicals-become-academics. This included both post-secondary and K-12. Expansion Beyond the University Rufo details that critical theory, the main thread he sees uniting the radicals turned academics, was not content to remain confined to academia. Given the similarities between publicly funded education and government bureaucracies, Rufo details how the federal bureaucracy put up essentially no resistance to critical theory and DEI. The capture of Corporate America is only slightly more complex and occurred in large part through DEI programs. Rufo presents statistics regarding the explosion in critical theory jargon in NYT articles after the Great Financial Crisis. This he attributes to layoffs followed by hiring new graduates thoroughly indoctrinated into the critical theories now generally accepted by universities. Beyond ideological sympathies, Rufo explains how corporations have come to see alignment with critical theory as necessary to the bottom line. For instance, Rufo argues that it is treated as "protection money," or the cost of doing business and avoiding coming in the crosshairs of social justice activism. The Book's Strengths Even with some background in this field and prior knowledge of Rufo's work, I found this book enlightening. It offered fresh insights like Marcuse's shift toward non-violence and institutional infiltration and the early nexus between Critical Race Theorists and Gramsci. Because of the wealth of new information, Rufo's ability to recount fast-paced, engaging stories, and editing the book to the lower end of medium length, I never got bored. Another great strength of the book is its meticulous endnotes. Since they often lead back to primary sources, this makes it hard to deny things many on the left would like to. Specifically, Rufo's notes show that Critical Race Theorists are against free speech; they seek a suspension of property rights, first through a temporary suspension and redistribution, followed by ongoing interventions in the name of affirmative action. Rufo connects this opposition to free speech to Marcuse's writings, where he explicitly discusses a dictatorship of intellectuals who would determine what could be discussed and what could not. For example, free speech would be allowed for Marxists on the left but denied to fascists or even those whose words intellectuals worry could inadvertently promote fascism. The final strength to mention is Rufo's emphasis on how the modern left operates through psychological manipulation, primarily by inducing unwarranted guilt. Rufo provocatively sees this as a consequence of what he describes as a shift from failed masculine notions of capturing society through violence to more effective but covert and sinister feminine strategies. The Book Weaknesses Compared to its strengths, the book's weaknesses are relatively minor. The book does make some minor errors. For instance, it claims that a statue of Lincoln was torn down during the riots of 2020. Although there was a rally that made this seem imminent at one point, it never transpired. There are a few other minor inaccuracies throughout the book, with, unfortunately, probably enough for a pedantic critic predetermined to give the book a bad review a chance to cherry-pick out and make their focus. More seriously, Rufo's book omits a crucial CRT assertion: that formal equality alone cannot secure actual equality for minorities. He avoids elaborating on the details, although it presents a plausible claim: a person's success generally correlates with parental wealth. Hence, CRT could be correct in suggesting that generational wealth disparity, which resulted from horrific past injustices, might permanently impede black people's advancement. Rufo neither adequately presents nor counters this proposition. A final weakness from the conclusion is that although the book decries critical theory's inability to produce evidence that it leads to positive results, Rufo fails to address why black people should have hope that they can succeed without critical theory-based policy. Here, Rufo could have done better. He is clearly a fan of Thomas Sowell, who has argued that, through educational reforms, quite the opposite of those envisioned by critical theory, black people can overcome obstacles such as being born into poorer families. Indeed, Sowell gives examples of black people doing this starting immediately after the Civil War. Summary Out of all the books I have read since the 2020 riots, Rufo's "America's Cultural Revolution" provides the most concise and well-sourced account of the radical left's influence on present-day America. It is a fast-paced book providing short biographies of the key figures of America's radical left since the 1960s. It discusses how, after violence failed, they captured academia, expanded Marcuse's critical theory, and merged it with other acidic leftist schools of thought. The book then details how leftist radicalism expanded into the federal bureaucracy, corporate America, and K-12. Due to the wealth of new material, the book will fascinate those new to Rufo's thesis, along with those who already consider themselves well-versed. The book's weaknesses are minor: only enough to make it 4.75 stars instead of 5.0. There are a few relatively minor inaccuracies, although none on crucial points. This is even when Rufo presents what, initially, seem to be claims that those on the left would surely fight hard to deny but will not be able due to his meticulous endnotes. The final minor weakness is that the conclusion could contain more specifics. Rufo could have pointed to others, like Sowell, who have solutions to improve black people's lives and avoid the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of critical theory and its underlying nihilism. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jul 18, 2023
|
Jul 30, 2023
|
Jul 18, 2023
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||
| 1645720667
| 9781645720676
| B0BZ2FNYRF
| 3.80
| 10
| unknown
| Apr 17, 2023
|
liked it
|
As someone who works in Manhattan and who lives on Connecticut's Gold Coast, I had, even before reading this book, thought the best word to describe t
As someone who works in Manhattan and who lives on Connecticut's Gold Coast, I had, even before reading this book, thought the best word to describe the local culture is Mandarin. Since this is something I do not quite fit into, this book quickly drew my attention when I saw it mentioned, and it immediately resonated with me upon reading. The book's greatest strength is that it powerfully captures the repulsion that "The Ruling Class" and their arrogance generates in the rest of the nation. Although written in 2010, starting from this observation, it was amazingly prescient in correctly anticipating the rise of the phenomenon of Trumpism. Unfortunately, the book's weakness is substantial: it is a polemic rather than a rigorous analysis of class antagonism in the United States. The Book's Central Thesis The book's central thesis is that America has devolved into two classes: An arrogant "Ruling Class" who believes it is their birthright to control everything that happens in the country and a "Country Class" who just wants to live their lives and be left alone by the government. As exemplified by this excerpt: The other class' position is analogous to that of the frog that awoke to the fact that it was being slow-boiled only when getting out of the pan would require perhaps more strength and judgment than it had left. Codevilla believes the Ruling Class has expanded its power to control nearly everything. At the same time, the Country Class, who is reluctant to take an interest in politics, has put up little effective resistance. Codevilla argues that the Democratic party represents the Ruling Class well but that the Republican party does not represent the Country Class well. Indeed, Codevilla elaborates that Republicans are merely "junior partners" who seek to be members of the Ruling Class themselves one day. Codevilla thus argues that the situation is unsustainable and the emergence of a third party or, at least, a complete transformation of the Republican Party is inevitable. Key Themes A critical theme that Codevilla argues from cover to cover is that the fundamental problem with the Ruling Class is its arrogance. They feel that they ought to control everything because they are intellectually and morally superior to the Country Class, who are merely violent, racist, simpletons incapable of reason on any even mildly complex issue, and who are driven solely by irrational, generally religious (i.e., superstitious) fears and anxieties regarding change. As Codevilla puts it: Such people can no more believe that a Christian might be their intellectual and moral equal than white Southerners of the Jim Crow era could think the same of Negroes Codevllia argues that the Ruling Class, far from having great power of intellect, are mere conformists. What they learn in school is not actual knowledge but "the patterns of belief and behavior that make one fit to circulate among those already established in the ruling class." Codevllia further argues that with its arrogance, the Ruling Class has insulted the rest of the country to the point of irrevocably losing its trust. The Book's Weaknesses I believe the book's central thesis and key themes are essentially correct. However, I found several problems with the presentation. One of the most glaring is the lack of citations. This makes it hard to check some rather hard-to-believe but possibly valid claims. Along similar lines, the author makes it seem as though The Country Class, which he claims comprises 2/3 of the country, is opposed to abortion. This, of course, is simplistic. Since about 80% of the country takes some intermediate position on abortion, that is, neither no abortions nor full access to abortion at any time for any reason, by dropping the subtleties, you could disingenuously argue either way: they support abortion! No, they oppose it! In general, Codevilla is not inclined to get into much nuance in this book. Another instance of avoiding nuance is further demonstrated in his claim that Goldman Sachs effectively received an indirect bailout from the government that the Ruling Class supported but which Country Class opposed when AIG was "saved" during the Global Financial Crisis. Goldman Sachs, however, thought they had adequate risk control to survive an AIG collapse. If Codevilla pursued the argument, he would have to claim that if AIG collapsed, it would have taken the whole financial system with it. This is almost undoubtedly true, but it would undermine his argument that the Ruling Class never gave a clear argument for the bailouts. Finally, in focusing so intently on the perspective of the Country Class, Codevilla neglects the rationale and historical arguments of the Ruling Class. This omission is a considerable weakness. While Codevilla effectively critiques the arrogance and insularity of the elite, he fails to delve into why they believe the country cannot run on its own with minimal government intervention. Although there are many, one example that the Ruling Class may feel gives a historical sense of the need for government regulation is the slow adoption of automobile safety standards. Codevilla should attempt to at least address a few of the most common arguments for government regulation. Conclusion I found the book to be worth reading. It helped solidify some of the things I instinctively feel as a Country Class member who lives near a Ground Zero of the Ruling Class. The book's themes of the Ruling Class's simultaneous incompetence and arrogance are quite consistent with Thomas Sowell's in Intellectuals and Society. The book is also quite prescient in its predictions and provides much food for thought regarding the country's present state. In particular, and consistent with my reading of Robert Draper's Weapons of Mass Delusion: When the Republican Party Lost Its Mind, it seems likely that the Country Class is not done after Trump. After digesting the two books' perspectives, I must, sadly, conclude that the insatiable appetite for the most outlandish conspiracy theories has yet to be filled, as the conspiracy theories are undoubtedly a manifestation of the underlying class antagonism. Despite all the strengths, the book is lacking in rigor. You will either agree based on intuition or not be convinced. Finally, the prescriptions provided to remedy the situation are wanting. It is true that, as Machiavelli argued, we must either learn the art of politics or be subject to the whims of those not reluctant to learn them, but beyond that, the book lacks good realistic suggestions. After a weak concluding chapter, it merely ends with a copy of the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution included. The rest, I suppose, is left as an exercise for the reader... ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Jul 15, 2023
|
Jul 15, 2023
|
Jul 11, 2023
|
Kindle Edition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 4.22
|
liked it
|
Aug 24, 2024
|
Aug 20, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 4.05
|
really liked it
|
Jun 02, 2024
|
May 26, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 4.00
|
really liked it
|
Sep 02, 2024
|
May 19, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 4.31
|
it was amazing
|
May 23, 2024
|
May 12, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 3.70
|
it was ok
|
Apr 06, 2024
|
Mar 31, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 3.97
|
really liked it
|
May 08, 2024
|
Mar 03, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 4.29
|
liked it
|
Apr 02, 2024
|
Mar 01, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 4.39
|
really liked it
|
Mar 2024
|
Jan 30, 2024
|
|||||
|
| 4.13
|
it was amazing
|
Jan 30, 2024
|
Dec 20, 2023
|
|||||
|
| 4.35
|
really liked it
|
Dec 02, 2023
|
Nov 12, 2023
|
|||||
|
| 4.18
|
really liked it
|
Dec 26, 2023
|
Oct 28, 2023
|
|||||
|
| 4.53
|
really liked it
|
Nov 08, 2023
|
Oct 21, 2023
|
|||||
|
| 4.07
|
it was amazing
|
Dec 31, 2023
|
Sep 29, 2023
|
|||||
|
| 3.97
|
it was amazing
|
Oct 19, 2023
|
Sep 16, 2023
|
|||||
|
| 4.02
|
it was ok
|
Dec 18, 2023
|
Sep 03, 2023
|
|||||
|
| 4.42
|
it was amazing
|
Sep 15, 2023
|
Sep 01, 2023
|
|||||
|
| 3.86
|
really liked it
|
Sep 02, 2023
|
Aug 29, 2023
|
|||||
|
| 3.94
|
really liked it
|
Aug 29, 2023
|
Aug 20, 2023
|
|||||
|
| 4.28
|
it was amazing
|
Jul 30, 2023
|
Jul 18, 2023
|
|||||
|
| 3.80
|
liked it
|
Jul 15, 2023
|
Jul 11, 2023
|
Loading...
