The PWI Required Reading List

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
1984 was not about the future. It was set in the future but it wasn’t a warning about the future. Proper (as in good) fiction, for the most part, whether the setting is the past or future, is a commentary on the present (in this case 1948). So when 1984 actually came and went you had people saying that Orwell was wrong with his “predictions” when the fact is that he based his novel on what was already going on and had been going on throughout human history. Orwell had the “unperson.” The Romans had “Damnatio memoriae.” [/quote]

Yes, it was a commentary on totalitarianism contemporary to him. And no, it was by no means a “prediction”–the title is most likely a simple reversal of the last digits of the year 1948, the year in which it was written.

Btu it most certainly was envisioned as a cautionary tale–a tale about what could be, if it were let to be.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

…has just about nothing to do with Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Orwell went so far as to declare that every serious word he wrote after 1936 had been written for the cause of democratic socialism.

[/quote]

It is true that Orwell considered himself a socialist however 1984 was aimed squarely at the Soviet Union. Orwell hated Stalinism and the Soviet Union. During the Spanish civil war Orwell jolned a small socialist para-military group in Spain. He ran late for one of their meetings and found that Stalinist agents had murdered the entire party. He would have been amongst them if he had not been late.

I am surprised you have such a simplistic understanding of Orwell. People on the left and the right both make claims about what Orwell would’ve thought about this and that. The truth is we don’t know. He died very shortly after the Second World War when the Cold War was just getting started. In the years before his death his politics had changed greatly due to his disilllionment with the Soviet Union and Communism. One could just as easily argue that he would hold conservative sentiments today, however a serious observer would have to admit that we just don’t know.

Ridiculous analogy. Not to mention that Obama brought birtherism upoon himself by deliberately hiding everything about his past including his academic records, social security history etc.

Twisted liberal logic. It requires the belief that America started the wars and wants them to go on indefinitely. You need to write AQ and sponsor states out of history and pretend they don’t exist.

It’s been a taboo in every civilised nation/citystate on the face of the earth. Let’s not start on the ‘monkeys and jellyfish bugger each other so we should too’ please.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Here’s 2 others, one of which I am surprised that nobody has yet mentioned.

  1. The Prince. Absolutely still valuable today as it was in it’s own day. Provides perspective that is more ruthless and no less practical (in certain ways) for being ruthless. Also plays counterpoint in terms of principles of governance to the more modern “2nd Treatise” and Founder’s opinions.
    [/quote]

The Prince is good but Discourses on Livy is a much more important work. Amongst other things it contains the first exposition on mixed constitutions since the ancient world. It is commonly wrongly attributed to Montesquieu.

[quote]
2) The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Not only a classic of history and non-fiction literature in general, but Gibbon’s writings serve up alarmingly accurate portraits of modern culture in a number of aspects, specifically the USA and Britain.[/quote]

The unabridged version is nearly 5000 pages. Fortunately the chapters can be read individually. Gibbon had a serious dislike for Christianity which must be taken into account when reading.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
1984 - Orwell - Very good social commentary as it pertains to blind political allegiance. Every time I see some wingnut on facebook or the news talking about jailing political opponents of theirs I cannot help but think of this book[/quote]

1984 and Animal Farm are great books when you’re in high school but an adult isn’t going to get much out of it.

If you want to look into blind political allegiance I would probably read something like “Survival in the Killing Fields” by Ngor.

james

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

The meat of his work was in Das Kapital.

james

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The Prince is good but Discourses on Livy is a much more important work. Amongst other things it contains the first exposition on mixed constitutions since the ancient world. It is commonly wrongly attributed to Montesquieu.[/quote]

Absolutely true. The Prince really just touches on the ideas presented in Discourses. I had to read both together and didn’t really think anyone read them separately.

I would read The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn. If you want to understand about how power corrupts and understand more about the Soviet Union then this is most definitely required reading.

The Other Side of the Mountain and The Soviet Afghan War: How a Superpower Fought and Lost by Grau et al. are both very interesting reads.

Confidence Men by Suskind is a really objective look into the failures of Obama and the Obama administration going into the financial crises.

james

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

…has just about nothing to do with Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Orwell went so far as to declare that every serious word he wrote after 1936 had been written for the cause of democratic socialism.

[/quote]

It is true that Orwell considered himself a socialist however 1984 was aimed squarely at the Soviet Union. [/quote]

Of course it was. This changes nothing of what I wrote.

[quote]

I am surprised you have such a simplistic understanding of Orwell. People on the left and the right both make claims about what Orwell would’ve thought about this and that. The truth is we don’t know. He died very shortly after the Second World War when the Cold War was just getting started. In the years before his death his politics had changed greatly due to his disilllionment with the Soviet Union and Communism. One could just as easily argue that he would hold conservative sentiments today, however a serious observer would have to admit that we just don’t know.[/quote]

Of course we know nothing about what his opinions might have evolved into by the mid-50’s. That isn’t the point. We know very well what they were. In other words, you’re the one taking the leap here, offering a counterfactual vis-a-vis what may have happened had he lived longer. Maybe he becomes a conservative…I mean, why not, it’s unprovable. Maybe he becomes a Jain. Or a fascist. Maybe he overthrows Stalin and sets himself up as the Soviet strongman. Maybe he falls desperately in love with a turtle. No way to know.

But, being as he was a writer, there is most definitely a way to know what he was like before his death. And no matter what you do, I promise you that you’re not going to claim him for “your side.” He was staunchly and unwaveringly income-equalitarian. His views were in fact very well aligned with what the smarter few members of the OWS crowd were spouting. And the filth? Boy, was he alright with that. Read an essay or two about breadlines, or Paris and London. The man was a socialist through and through, and said so himself. There isn’t a way around this. And, as I said, he’d have loved the ACA.

Not ridiculous at all. Lying about the past as an analog to…lying about the past? Yes, seems to fit well enough for me.

Oh, and he produced his birth certificate early in the summer of 2008. So he really didn’t “bring it upon himself.”

America most certainly started OIF, which was what I was referring to. Afghanistan does not apply.

[quote]

It’s been a taboo in every civilised nation/citystate on the face of the earth. Let’s not start on the ‘monkeys and jellyfish bugger each other so we should too’ please.[/quote]

“Taboo in every civilized nation/citystate”–gross exaggeration, and, more importantly, entirely irrelevant. If the best you can do is, “they did it too!!!”–then you’re on laughably shaky ground. No law is justified by the sole virtue of its having been used elsewhere. Not a single one.

It’s got nothing to do with monkeys and jellyfish. No man has the power to tell another man whom he can and cannot have consensual sex with. If you are comfortable with government holding that kind of authority in its greasy little paws, then you might consider looking into a timeshare in Airstrip One.

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
1984 - Orwell - Very good social commentary as it pertains to blind political allegiance. Every time I see some wingnut on facebook or the news talking about jailing political opponents of theirs I cannot help but think of this book[/quote]

1984 and Animal Farm are great books when you’re in high school but an adult isn’t going to get much out of it.
[/quote]

Anyone can get something out of most books, and this is certainly so with regard to one of the greatest English-language works of fiction in the last few centuries.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Anyone can get something out of most books, and this is certainly so with regard to one of the greatest English-language works of fiction in the last few centuries.[/quote]

What would an adult who keeps up with current political events get out of reading the book now? Would there be some sort of sudden epiphany about political theory? You’re right, it’s a great book and worth reading. But it’s not going to give anyone any insights that they don’t already have.

In my opinion, your mileage may vary, etc.

james

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Anyone can get something out of most books, and this is certainly so with regard to one of the greatest English-language works of fiction in the last few centuries.[/quote]

What would an adult who keeps up with current political events get out of reading the book now? Would there be some sort of sudden epiphany about political theory? You’re right, it’s a great book and worth reading. But it’s not going to give anyone any insights that they don’t already have.

In my opinion, your mileage may vary, etc.

james[/quote]

The OP was not about the learning of information so much as it was about foundational philosophy and literature. This is why I include Orwell–because he is a fantastic place to lay a foundation stone.

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

1984 is about the control of information and manipulation of the language to create truths since things are defined by what they are called. [/quote]

You are significantly smarter than this.

Stop limiting your understanding of the world around you be insisting that things are “about” this one thing or that. There is quite a bit in that book that you are completely missing because you focus on one of several themes.

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
What would an adult who keeps up with current political events get out of reading the book now? [/quote]

Self reflection for one.

I’m curious with your dismissal of this book if you have read it as an adult and parent.

Maybe not, maybe. It isn’t like the work is restricted to commentary on political thought. There is quite a bit in that work that is explored.

[quote]You’re right, it’s a great book and worth reading. But it’s not going to give anyone any insights that they don’t already have.
[/quote]

I disagree, but tend to see more in those pages than others apparently.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

1984 is about the control of information and manipulation of the language to create truths since things are defined by what they are called. [/quote]

You are significantly smarter than this.

Stop limiting your understanding of the world around you be insisting that things are “about” this one thing or that. There is quite a bit in that book that you are completely missing because you focus on one of several themes. [/quote]
Obviously there is more in 1984 than that but it is the main theme and is what inspired Orwell to write the novel. It is the methodology of a totalitarian state to gain, justify, enforce and maintain its control. It isn’t coincidence that the main protagonist’s, Winston Smith, job is to revise history.

[quote]atypical1 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Anyone can get something out of most books, and this is certainly so with regard to one of the greatest English-language works of fiction in the last few centuries.[/quote]

What would an adult who keeps up with current political events get out of reading the book now? Would there be some sort of sudden epiphany about political theory? You’re right, it’s a great book and worth reading. But it’s not going to give anyone any insights that they don’t already have.

In my opinion, your mileage may vary, etc.

james[/quote]
Why read anything in that case? Besides, looking at 1984 as a “political” book is pure ignorance. And if people were so insightful so as to not need these books then why do they continue to demonstrate their lack of insight?

I would also encourage people to read stuff outside of their current political views or leanings. If you’re to the right when’s the last time you read a book completely about the other side? If you’re to the left when’s the last time you did that? I strongly believe their is value and understanding when it comes to multiple perspectives. I don’t understand why some people are so afraid to dig into what someone who has a difference of opinion may say.

At the very least you may help lessen “the backfire effect.” The backfire effect scares the hell out of me in these partisan times. It seems as if people won’t allow themselves to think differently no matter the evidence. It’s the absence of reason and rational thought that scares me. If you’ve never changed your mind in the face of evidence then you’re truly stupid.

[quote]In 2006, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler at The University of Michigan and Georgia State University created fake newspaper articles about polarizing political issues. The articles were written in a way which would confirm a widespread misconception about certain ideas in American politics. As soon as a person read a fake article, researchers then handed over a true article which corrected the first. For instance, one article suggested the United States found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The next said the U.S. never found them, which was the truth.

Those opposed to the war or who had strong liberal leanings tended to disagree with the original article and accept the second. Those who supported the war and leaned more toward the conservative camp tended to agree with the first article and strongly disagree with the second. These reactions shouldn?t surprise you. What should give you pause though is how conservatives felt about the correction. After reading that there were no WMDs, they reported being even more certain than before there actually were WMDs and their original beliefs were correct.

They repeated the experiment with other wedge issues like stem cell research and tax reform, and once again, they found corrections tended to increase the strength of the participants? misconceptions if those corrections contradicted their ideologies. People on opposing sides of the political spectrum read the same articles and then the same corrections, and when new evidence was interpreted as threatening to their beliefs, they doubled down. The corrections backfired.

Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do it instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you.

Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead. Over time, the backfire effect helps make you less skeptical of those things which allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper.[/quote]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m curious with your dismissal of this book if you have read it as an adult and parent.[/quote]

Probably mostly because it’s a work of fiction. It’s the basis of a lot of theory (and a good read in general). But, by the time you’re old enough to be hanging out in PWI you’ve either already read it or have gotten the basic theory that the book expounds on.

This thread is PWI required reading list, and I’ve made some general assumptions about the audience here. Do I want my son reading it? Of course I do. Would I necessarily recommend it here? Probably not because there are a lot of non-fiction books that would serve this group better. Which is why I suggested the book I did. It’s a practical and real example of when people follow power blindly.

james

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
But, by the time you’re old enough to be hanging out in PWI you’ve either already read it or have gotten the basic theory that the book expounds on.

james[/quote]

Not saying you are one of them, but I see people post here every day that could use a couple hours reflecting on their own human relationships after reading about the interactions between Winston and his first wife, and how his “re-education” changed the way he felt about Julia.

Politics aside, have you ever sat back and thought about if you could be “broken”? If “they” could break you, and how they would do it? Did you ever examine your allegiance and love of another?

Fiction or not, the book is thought provoking, and that is why I would recommend it.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Not saying you are one of them, but I see people post here every day that could use a couple hours reflecting on their own human relationships after reading about the interactions between Winston and his first wife, and how his “re-education” changed the way he felt about Julia.

Politics aside, have you ever sat back and thought about if you could be “broken”? If “they” could break you, and how they would do it? Did you ever examine your allegiance and love of another?

Fiction or not, the book is thought provoking, and that is why I would recommend it. [/quote]

I certainly have to concede that point because it’s certainly valid. There are a lot of books that gave me that sort of reflection. I would say that “Foundations Moral Obligations” by Brennan has done more for me in that regard though.

But since this is PWI are we more looking at the political side of these books because I certainly was/am. Are we broadening that scope out more?

james

I personally enjoyed 1984 but it was not great . Yes if you stretch your imagination you can see some similarities to today

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Are we broadening that scope out more?

james
[/quote]

Eh, good point, I’m probably hijacking a bit, lol.