The Illusion of Technique

With plenty of time, we ought to read this book. Otherwise, move on. Barrett introduces existentialism ideas mixed with his own interpretations and explorations. At times, the book has very good writings among the very slow one that drove me to despair.

Barrett presents the West as swimming in the shallow pond of consumerism created by worshiping at the knees of Technology. I think that the problem is much deeper than that. Two facts come to mind. First, sport events today have substituted attending to Sunday school; and the impact of globalization have destroyed most Western local communities.

What I learned? I came to the conclusion that Heidegger and the Existentialism do not have much to offer about living a moral life. Heidegger suggestion of nature as a refuge is not enough; it looks more like an escape than liberation. Sartre’s Absolute freedom -understood as our ability to say 'No' and not to commit ourselves- does not feel sufficient either. My intuition tells that I should look someplace else as guidance for a moral life.

I believe that we lost God as our psychological support. A return to mysticism might bring back that support. And that is a very unlikely event.

Irrational Man

Unclear and unbalanced. These are the best 2 words that describe this book. Unclear, because Nietzsche and the Arts are not well presented. Unbalanced because I sensed that the author has a very strong bias toward Heidegger even though Kierkegaard is so well presented that I must place the Danish in the list of the to be read one.

Besides the chapter on Kierkegaard, the section on the sources of Existentialism is worthy reading. I found enlighten his contrast between Hebraism and Hellenism. The first is shown as an ideology of faith and the second, as one of reason. The Faith-Reason tension impels Western thought forward into the future and creates a permanent source of agony and uncertainty.

However, I did not found this book to be a good introduction to Existentialism because of the author’s bias toward a Nazi –Heidegger. - How could I take Heidegger seriously when I believe that ‘you will know them by their deeds’? If the most important questions are questions of values –I mean, Why not to commit suicide? how should I live my life? How should I deal with the other? Etc. –, how could I take Heidegger –a Nazi- and Sartre –a darn communist- seriously? No. Because their philosophies did not save them from evil, their philosophy is highly suspicious.

German Philosophers

I am glad I read this book. Not because I found it easy to read –which it is not but soporific at times- but because these 4 philosophers belong together. Kant feeds into Hegel, who is quenched by Schopenhauer, and found their total rejection in Nietzsche. I explain.

Kant sets the limits of knowledge: we cannot know reality but through the colors of reason. Hegel comes and tells us that we are historical objects defined by an absolute reason operating in time. Schopenhauer then says that it is not reason but an unconscious thing –the will- that makes slaves in its drive to procreation. Finally, Nietzsche appears and tells us that all this is rubbish, that this line of questioning is an exercise in futility when we live as vicious animal.

Kant? Read only the Critic of Pure Reason. The rest is junk because a rational life is really not worth living. Hegel? Do not bother because he confuses correlation with association –if reason and the real come together, how come reason originates the real. How did he come to that knowledge? Intuition? Etc. - and in his madness creates a logical dialectical system without soul. Hegel is the best example for 'History tells the man.' Of course Hegel is important. Many millions are dead because of his insanity.

Schopenhauer? Read only if you want to get depressed. To follow Scho is to turn blue. A wealthy man, he did not work but passed his time complaining about his lack of fame and attending the theater. That explains a lot about his views. There is no hope nor freedom in the man.

Nietzche? The master key to understand the misery of our times. Start with ‘Beyond Good and Evil’ and then go deeper. Get ready for the heroic or cry in your loneliness.

That is what I learned with the book. Worthy reading.

Philosophy made simple

A real stroll in the philosophical park! Easy reading and well-organized book. Marketed as an introduction to philosophy, I found its style uneven and boring sometimes. I hated specially the broken sentences with the PC tendency of one of the writers of using ‘she/he.’ It dumb pretension of satisfying the feminists in total disregard of its awkwardness. Better to go for the ‘one’ than writing terrible English.

Still I believe the book was worthy reading and I would recommend. It paints with wide strokes the philosophical ideas that we in the West have been considering for thousand of years. The first 2 chapters on ethics and political philosophy as well as the last one are the best. The worst is chapter 3 on metaphysics –you’d better have a lot of coffee for that chapter. An unnecessary chapter is the one on logic: boring as hell!

What will I remember about this book? It definitely woke up the desire of reading Jean Paul Sartre and swimming into Nietzsche’s psychobabbles. Regarding Sartre, the authors say “…we are confronted with our ‘dreadful freedom,” recognizing that we are completely free to choose our world view, our way of living in the world.” True, we might have that feeling but that is not true –if you do not believe me talk to someone that is involved in a religious or political cult or consider an inhabitant of North Korea or a Christian living in Saudi Arabia. They definitely do not have the choice of worldview.

It seems to me that the only freedom that we surely have is the freedom of choosing life. Why should I choose life when I could as well choose death? Why not commit suicide and end a life of uncertainty? That is the question.

The west and the rest

A pleasure to read. I enjoyed the first 3 chapters that present a theory for society and how membership holds the nation together.

This is the second book of Roger Scruton I have read and found that the initial chapters are much better than the last ones. However, I was very impressed with it and I even plan to reread the chapter on ‘The social contract’ and ‘Enlightenment, citizenship, and loyalty.’ The other chapters did not bring much and tasted shallow as if Roger had run out of steam.

I think that there is a good excuse of the weak ending. If Roger is correct, -and I think he is- the West is in real trouble and truly there is no way out. Several titanic forces are converging in Europe today: European lack of fertility, Muslim emigration, and the death of that nation state. Europeans are not having children, their cities are being taken over by Muslims that cannot be nor want to be integrated into the society, and there is no and over arching ideology –‘God is dead,’ etc.-holding the European together. On top of this, ruling elites guide toward the silliest integrations of nations that do not have much in common. –I feel like Cassandra, ‘Winds of war are rising in the West.’

His proposal to address the problem are really impossible to implement. Who will be able to stop globalization? Who care rebuild the lost faith of the hedonist european? Who can made them have more children? It is over, finito, kaputt for Europe.

Let me say, what Roger was not willing to say, ‘Nothing could stop this train. What can we do but to watch a train running into a thick wall? Hold yourself tight and pray for a quick ending it you still believe in God.’

Philosophy: principles and problems

Easy reading for those with some background in philosophy -at least for those who have read some history of philosophy and will not feel embarrased on hearing the names of Kant and Hegel dropped in without much explanation. I found the chapters about Time and God real joys to read.

This book is not an introduction to philosophy and does not teach philosophy. It presents Scruton's views about several philosophical themes. Would I purchase the book again? Probably. Why? I loved it. The chapter about time is a real pleasure and his treatment of God, though incomplete, will be with me for quite some time. His prose is at times poetic without becoming vane.

Scruton arose in me a deeper desire of learning more about Kant 's philosophy. He helps me understand a little better the concept of sacred as based on the subject. I think that looking into the philosophy of religion might be worthwhile even for those who call themselves atheist!