Silk Road forums
Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: Drone75blackbird on January 07, 2012, 03:59 am
-
Couldn't find this topic so I thought I'd begin it. I am interested in seeing what has influenced some of the most interesting people on the internet. Please limit to one (if possible) or just a select few.
Anyway, by far mine is Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer (minus the chapters about the author).
-
48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene
-
I wouldn't fix to a single book written by him, but the author which influenced me most was Robert Anton Wilson.
If I would really be forced to choose one of his book i think i'll take "Cosmic Trigger"
Also Leary and the "Little Prince" did very much on me
-
48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene
this
-
Marilyn Mansons autobiography... nuff said... lol no matter how hard i scrubbed the stench wouldnt go away. my fingers smelled of .... for like 2 weeks....
he a scrawny gangster but a gangster none the less...
-
ENDGAME: Derrick Jensen
-
"The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine.
I was suffering over doubt of my faith for years, and the book is an honest critique of Christianity and the Bible. It helped me realize I was avoiding asking the hard questions over fear of losing my religion. I faced them, and haven't felt better since.
-
L’Étranger by Albert Camus
-
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by the late, great Hunter S. Thompson.
-
Wow, that's hard to choose from. But I can list my Top Five in no particular order.
Lord of the Flies, by William Golding;
Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand;
Crime and Punishment, by Fyódor Dostoievsky;
Demian, by Hermann Hesse; and
Stranger in a Strange Land, by Robert Heinlein.
Taken together, they paint what I feel is a very accurate picture of human nature, especially if you know a bit about each author's biography when reading these works of fiction. I'm constantly going back to these books and they have most certainly shaped my way of thinking to a huge degree.
-
Not sure if I can pick just one ... but if I think about books that have influenced my way of thinking in some great fashion or really made me stop and wonder, I'd go with these, in no particular order.
The Kybalion - Three Initiates
For Us, The Living - Robert Heinlein
The Rama Trilogy (ok, that's 3 books - but books 2 and 3 are better than the first one) - Arthur C. Clarke
-
its been about 10 years since i tried reading "Crime and Punishment". i made it about half-way through before i gave up. Now that i'm a little older, maybe i'll give it another try.
-
its been about 10 years since i tried reading "Crime and Punishment". i made it about half-way through before i gave up. Now that i'm a little older, maybe i'll give it another try.
Do try again! :) It's a tough book... I distinctly remember my urges to bash it against a hard surface the first two times I read it.
-
BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley.
^ An incredible depiction of what will happen if we don't push back the government's advances!
-
BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley.
^ An incredible depiction of what will happen if we don't push back the government's advances!
sounds similar to the book i mentioned "Endgame" by derrick Jensen. will check it out.
one of my many favorite quotes from the book Endgame: "dogmatic pacifists are the most selfish people, because they place their moral purity-or to be more precise, their self-conception of moral purity above stopping injustice"
-
"Brave New World" is a classic. Going to have to check out "Endgame" now.
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned "1984" yet.
-
SMACK.
-
Be here now by Ram Dass
-
"The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine.
I was suffering over doubt of my faith for years, and the book is an honest critique of Christianity and the Bible. It helped me realize I was avoiding asking the hard questions over fear of losing my religion. I faced them, and haven't felt better since.
Hope you meant you have felt better since. I'd hate to read a book no matter how challenging that made me feel like crap for the rest of my life.
-
Maybe most influential books in last year, not entire life:
"Steppenwolf" by Hesse and "Nausea" by Jean-Paul Sartre
-
one of my many favorite quotes from the book Endgame: "dogmatic pacifists are the most selfish people, because they place their moral purity-or to be more precise, their self-conception of moral purity above stopping injustice"
I've thought about a similar thing... after learning about the different international relations theoretical perspectives... basically, because altruists look to get satisfaction, fulfillment, etc, from their deeds, aren't they in fact being selfish? When the united states acts "altruistically" by giving aid to the third world, they are also looking to further their own security through this generosity.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. This is especially true of both altruism and dogmatic pacifism, that in theory work, but in the real world, ESPECIALLY when taking into account human nature, contradict themselves.
-
Mein Kampf
jk!!!!!!! :D
Books usually don't influence me, though I greatly enjoy reading them.
-
"The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine.
I was suffering over doubt of my faith for years, and the book is an honest critique of Christianity and the Bible. It helped me realize I was avoiding asking the hard questions over fear of losing my religion. I faced them, and haven't felt better since.
Hope you meant you have felt better since. I'd hate to read a book no matter how challenging that made me feel like crap for the rest of my life.
Yeah that was a little confusing. I meant that I feel great now, like I haven't felt this good in a long time.
-
one of my many favorite quotes from the book Endgame: "dogmatic pacifists are the most selfish people, because they place their moral purity-or to be more precise, their self-conception of moral purity above stopping injustice"
I've thought about a similar thing... after learning about the different international relations theoretical perspectives... basically, because altruists look to get satisfaction, fulfillment, etc, from their deeds, aren't they in fact being selfish? When the united states acts "altruistically" by giving aid to the third world, they are also looking to further their own security through this generosity.
I don't know if I would say that altruists are being selfish - true altruism is doing something for someone with no expectation of reward - and if you're doing something nice for someone solely because you like getting the warm fuzzies out of it - then I'd say maybe you're not being altruistic.
But as far as US aid to the third world goes.... I'd absolutely agree. All state actors behave in ways that they (well, their leaders, anyway) believe are most likely to enhance their security and support the "national interest." Welcome to the realist/neo-realist perspective. =)
-
i love the type who like to advertise their altruisms in our media. the ophra winfreys of the world who televise their "deeds" on their own soapboxes as to portray how selfless, generous, devine, "better than everyone else" they are, when in fact if i give a bum some change on the street i am sacrificing the same percentage of my wealth that she is. i'll admit the bill gates and oprah winfreys may do some good in this world, but i wouldn't be suprised if it were only to bolster their own ego via pissing contest.
-
The Prescriber's Guide to Psychopharmacology
-DF
drugfather
-
Mein Kampf
jk!!!!!!! :D
Books usually don't influence me, though I greatly enjoy reading them.
How are you able to keep books from influencing you?
-
Mein Kampf
jk!!!!!!! :D
Books usually don't influence me, though I greatly enjoy reading them.
How are you able to keep books from influencing you?
Maybe they do. Perhaps we should define 'influence' in the context of reading books.
I've read memorable and intense books, but can't say they have influenced my life. I'm still the same.
Now drugs on the other hand....... ::)
-
.... THE DARK TOWER series by Stephen King
-
The Holy Bible (Inspiration for the movie 'The Life of Brian')
It made me see how those in power will concoct any amount of imaginary beings, preposterous fantasy, and sheer cow-shit to keep the halfwits trembling in fear lest the bogeyman burn them in a big bonfire.
It begins, as we all know, by condemning women to the lose-lose proposition between ridiculous chastity or shameful sluttishness for all eternity, and then the smite-ing, regulation, and condemnation just get worse from there on in...
Mongs and morons of every creed continue to lap up this nursery-level dreck to the continual profit and power of the higher orders.
Way to go padre! ;)
-
L’Étranger by Albert Camus
This. Alongside Nausea by Sartre.
Also, Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky.
-
The Holy Bible (Inspiration for the movie 'The Life of Brian')
It made me see how those in power will concoct any amount of imaginary beings, preposterous fantasy, and sheer cow-shit to keep the halfwits trembling in fear lest the bogeyman burn them in a big bonfire.
It begins, as we all know, by condemning women to the lose-lose proposition between ridiculous chastity or shameful sluttishness for all eternity, and then the smite-ing, regulation, and condemnation just get worse from there on in...
Mongs and morons of every creed continue to lap up this nursery-level dreck to the continual profit and power of the higher orders.
Way to go padre! ;)
Your right. I wish there were a way to convince the american population how absurd Christianity is. They are terrified of the fact that we do not know who we are or where we are going in this ocean of chaos.
-
I don't know if I would say that altruists are being selfish - true altruism is doing something for someone with no expectation of reward - and if you're doing something nice for someone solely because you like getting the warm fuzzies out of it - then I'd say maybe you're not being altruistic.
But as far as US aid to the third world goes.... I'd absolutely agree. All state actors behave in ways that they (well, their leaders, anyway) believe are most likely to enhance their security and support the "national interest." Welcome to the realist/neo-realist perspective. =)
If said altruist gets a warm fuzzy feeling out of it then he is breaking the cardinal rule of NO reward, is he not?
Ah, I love the realists. =) a.k.a. the no bullshit perspective. ;) Wonder if the realists will start putting less emphasis on security of the state any time soon. I feel that security (i.e. invasion, conquest, etc, rather than terrorism or other acts of violence) is not as much of an issue with the post-cold war era "responsible global community" watching over everything.
-
If said altruist gets a warm fuzzy feeling out of it then he is breaking the cardinal rule of NO reward, is he not?
If he's doing it because he likes that feeling, then yes, I think that's a fair statement.
Ah, I love the realists. =) a.k.a. the no bullshit perspective. ;) Wonder if the realists will start putting less emphasis on security of the state any time soon. I feel that security (i.e. invasion, conquest, etc, rather than terrorism or other acts of violence) is not as much of an issue with the post-cold war era "responsible global community" watching over everything.
"responsible global community" ? That sounds like a phrase an idealist would use. :-P Also, remember that national security isn't just physical/border security - economic security might well be more important in the post-cold war era than territorial security - but it still falls under the general "security of the state" headline.
The real question is whether or not the concept of the nation-state will continue to be central to IR - or if we'll eventually get into some sort of post-national global system where borders and national boundaries no longer really mean anything. What do you think? Are nation-states obsolete? I've yet to hear a convincing argument.
-
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by the late, great Hunter S. Thompson.
you beat me to it. but this and "no one here gets out alive"
-
"responsible global community" ? That sounds like a phrase an idealist would use. :-P Also, remember that national security isn't just physical/border security - economic security might well be more important in the post-cold war era than territorial security - but it still falls under the general "security of the state" headline.
The real question is whether or not the concept of the nation-state will continue to be central to IR - or if we'll eventually get into some sort of post-national global system where borders and national boundaries no longer really mean anything. What do you think? Are nation-states obsolete? I've yet to hear a convincing argument.
The term is slightly sarcastic :P but ever since R2P (responsibility to protect) there is usually some sort of intervention in most conflicts nowadays. I completely agree that economic security is just as important, or even more than, territorial security... after all compare our intervention in the middle east (which is all about OIL no matter what anyone says) to our failure to intervene in Rwanda because we simply had no economic motivation to do so. I liked the UN's excuse that their failure was because no one could agree on what the definition of "genocide" was...
The European Union was a noble experiment into the evaporation of national boundaries, but as we've come to see today it has basically failed. The list of reasons why it failed is long, and so I'll save that for a different discussion. :P
Moving on, the question of how the fate of the nation-state is affected by forces such as globalization is an interesting one. The emergence of non-state actors such as international NGOs or terrorist groups is often used to support the argument that the nation-state is in fact slowly becoming obsolete. However, I personally feel, and there is much evidence to support such, that the majority of non-state actors merely ADVANCE the interests of nation-states (especially the american global hegemony!). For example, the UN supports and advances all of the United States' interests. The World Bank pretends to be committed to ending poverty when in reality it provides high interest loans to third world countries on the condition that they open their markets (as in to american exports), which usually wreaks absolutely havoc on their local economies.
Gosh I don't think nation-state will ever become obsolete. The supposed blurring of the boundaries separating them is really just an illusion. What it is that we're not seeing because of this illusion is the real question. Spill bilderberg blood!