What's the most radical book you've read?
By radical I refer to ideas/frameworks/ways of seeing life that are dramatically different to what you think/am.
Here are the relevant excerpts : https://old.reddit.com/r/books/comments/1jqpar/what_book_sin...
We are mere "Animals" with a far more complex social structure than any other species which is why we invent all sorts of "subjective meanings" to "objectively meaningless" life. How to reconcile both is the eternal "Human Condition" problem.
See also : Philosophy in a Meaningless Life: A System of Nihilism, Consciousness and Reality by James Tartaglia. Free pdf at - https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph?docid=b-9781...
I can see why for practical reasons some may lean into it, but I don't see it being epistemologically well founded.
Here some of the Hindu schools of philosophy are of great help since many(eg. Carvaka/Samkhya/Yoga/Buddhism/etc.) don't subscribe to the idea of a omniscient "God" but merely construct a experiential worldview based on perception and inference. It is like a mathematical formal system with concepts/symbols/rules/etc.
If you mean to say something like "all existence is objectively meaningless, and it is not objectively 'better' than nothingness", then it becomes another statement you need to usefully prove in order to go on with your argument.
The usage (without quibbling too much) of the word "meaning/meaninglessness" is in the commonly understood sense of "purpose/calling/life-objective/etc.". All these are human-defined and therefore "subjective" as life is experienced and lived. There are numerous ways of doing this as is evidenced by the various schools of philosophies/religions/cults/groups etc.
The two viewpoints i.e. 1) Objective view of Life/Existence from the "outside in" vs. 2) Subjective Experiential "inside out" view of Life need to be carefully disambiguated in one's mind.
A more complex hypothesis isn't useful until you come up with a method of testing that will distinguish it from the simpler hypothesis. That doesn't mean you have disproved the more complex hypothesis; just that you shouldn't use that hypothesis until you actually have a need for it.
> A more complex hypothesis isn't useful until you come up with a method of testing that will distinguish it from the simpler hypothesis.
No, the condition is even stronger; a more complex hypothesis should not even be considered until the simpler hypothesis fails for some data/evidence.
It is one from a set of heuristics called philosophical razors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_razor) and uses Abductive reasoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor#Controversial_as...
If there is an "objective" meaning to our lives which is without recourse to an inside-out view, then we have no access to it.
Occam's Razor, fewest entities/assumptions, etc is so problematic, because it is not invariant to being re-parameterised. I.e. under one description X is more complex than Y, and under another Y is more complex than X.
Here is Roger Penrose talking about the fine tuning of the Universe:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDqny7UzyR4
Many use these observations to argue for design. Say it became a scientific consensus that design was the strongest hypothesis, because it just kept making good predictions. Design implies purpose. Would life still be meaningless?
Is this all just a regress to "nothing is just as good as something therefore all life is meaningless"? I think that's where you have to end up to defend Nihilism.
This is not quite true. There is an Objective Reality consisting of physical laws (invariant in our Universe), Evolutionary evidence explaining the plethora of flora/fauna etc. We are but one species amongst the many that populate this planet. There is nothing "special" about Homo Sapiens (we simply occupy our own niche in the evolutionary tree) except for our different brains resulting in a greater degree of "self-awareness" and more complex social structures than other species.
> If there is an "objective" meaning to our lives which is without recourse to an inside-out view, then we have no access to it.
Not true at all. The whole of Modern Science is founded on trying to find out Objective Reality independent of us and has been quite successful at it.
I’m all ears :-)
Some readings;
1) Objectivity in Science - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)
2) Subjectivity and Objectivity in Philosophy - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity_and_objectivity_(...
PS: In the Samkhya/Yoga school of Hindu philosophy there is a neat assertion which goes - Objective Reality exists because it is common to others besides oneself.
A unique synthesis of aesthetics and mathematics that completely formed my worldview.
Perhaps slightly dated, because it was written very early in the computer revolution. Had it been written today, the Artificial Intelligence chapters would be very different.
How?
The lynchpin around which that stance revolves is Goedel's proof that classical reasoning systems are necessarily incomplete. In short, that there are true things we can never prove to be true, and false things that we can never prove to be false, and an entire category of statements that are neither true nor false.
Coming to terms with the provable fact that knowledge is incomplete is enormously liberating. Once you do, the consequences spiral outward.
Examples, some of which GEB deals with explicitly, some of which falls out relatively easily:
- We can't know everything.
- Sometimes "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer.
- Sometimes "the premise upon which your question is based is flawed" is a perfectly valid answer.
- All knowledge about objective reality requires (at a minimum) use of some form of Bayesian/probabilistic reasoning.
- Finite rules-based ethical and legal systems are (almost definitely) incomplete. Deeply distrust anyone who attempts to tell you otherwise.
At the broader end of the domino chain of consequences, there are things like this:
- There are no rules for what is beautiful.
- Falling in love is a dreadful way to select a mate. But do it anyway. You won't regret it.
- Hard materialism is not incompatible with experiencing awe and wonder.
- We live in a chaotic universe that doesn't care about us at all. There are ways to deal with that.
- Embrace chaos.
- That consciousness is an emergent property of a complex universe is a perfectly valid alternate explanation to "Gods did it".
- Having a materialistic worldview does not preclude having a rich inner life.
TPZ is really a poetic/mock religious text version of BG&E.
The first few chapters of BG&E ask the question: why we humans seek knowledge at all? What drives the will to knowledge. . .feelings? A question most scientists never even think to ask. . but that seems the most radical question of all (as in getting to the 'root' of it all).
Coming in at #2, I would argue for Marx, maybe Capital. It's radical because it shows that Capitalism is not a "natural" state of affairs (as much as it would like us to believe that it is).
Thus Spoke Zarathustra The Gay Science Human All Too Human
There’s more.
I’m not a Christian or religious. But this is radical. And interesting.
For some reason i don't often see this book mentioned. Perhaps i am biased (this was my introduction to Nietzsche) but i have always found this to be more nuanced, incisive, insightful and less polemical than his other works. Also the fact that it is basically a set of aphorisms (of varying para lengths) on very many topics means that you can read it from any page for short periods of time and still find something of value.
The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life would be my go-to. It's all about how people's motives are a lot more self-serving than you might think, including your own.
If you liked that, and then really want to go off the deep end, try The Enigma of Reason.
Why Materialism is Baloney by Bernardo Kastrup
The first one really opened my mind to alternate modes of thought. The first half of the book is especially interesting, the second half is skippable. I don't think I could have appreciated the second book if I hadn't read the first.
The Dictator's Handbook by Bueno de Mesquita and Smith is another good one. Afaik, the first successful attempt to create a true theory of politics.
On how to organize revolutions and how to be careful about what you wish for.
In order to understand the proper use of violentism/militarism and the, ethical high ground against a dominant enemy, I recommend Che Guevara's "Guerilla Warfare". It introduces the moral high ground, the national good, the organization, the economics, and the field tactics of strike and retreat, giving units quotas of cane crops to burn, etc.
Please read Che's letters as well - "I Embrace You with All My Revolutionary Fervor: Letters 1947-1967". They will show the human behind the tactics.
Both books are on the audiobook bay, along with alinsky. They provide a perfect counterpoint to alinsky.
As we enter an era of American nationalist fascism, alinskian tactics might need to give way to queer inclusivist cyber guerilla tactics. For a Just and Libre Society! We can win!
Where is my Flying Car?
Zero to One
Paradise Lost
East of Eden
Legacy of Ashes by Tim Weiner
On the Genealogy of Morality by Nietzsche
Zero to One by Peter Thiel and Blake Masters