@damian:

Yes.

Ralph Waldo Emerson AND Henry David Thoreau, the key figures of perhaps America's only great philosophical movement to date, Transcendentalism.

And this is an occaision where I--GASP!--disagree with Nietzsche in part.

HE states in "Beyond Good and Evil" that the whole movement seems nonsense to him, that while there may be some value to caring about and seeing beauty in nature, to commune with it as Emerson and Thoreau wish strike him as ultimately a bleeding-heart, feel-good, do-nothing system, and as both felth that communing with Nature--and yes, the capitalize the "N" in the word themselves, so you know where this is going--is a way to link with whatever divine entity there is...

Well, Nietzsche's famous for, among other sayings and ideas, "God is DEAD," isn't he? ;)

I agree with Nietzsche that taken to its extreme this is, as he said, a feel-good, bleeding-heart, do-nothing piece of crap feeling and non-thinking, but I think there's a way to read a certain amount of Spinoza ino those works and his idea of a "God" which is "existence itself," and I agree with THAT to some degree (to enough of a degree I wrote a paper on that, and not only got an A but topped everyone, including a guy a semester in front of me who's an English Valedictorian now...)

So they have decent enough ideas--Emerson's concept of the "trancendental eyeball" in particular seems a prelude to some of the greater works of the 20th century--but sadly enought I think their main "followers" are tree-huggers who take their philosophy to the extreme Nietzsche feared and scorned.

@Draug

Although having skimmed the wiki page, it looks pretty cool.

What I'm reading now, and would recommend to you, is the Dresden files. Have you read those?

@Abe, I haven't actually finished anything by him. However a number o quotes from his essay were written on and expanded into an enlightening post by on of my favourite writers and what I've read so far of it seems to be the ideas I often try and live by.

Perhaps he said it first, however I consider it an interesting piece of work in that it lets me explore something that I already considered to be a part of me rather then allowing it to mould me.

The idea of not being ashamed of your ideas and just being you. Definitely the right idea to be pursuing.

@Obi Being well, not a follower of english literature, I appreciate the background you provided on the era. Though I will say I kinda like the ideas that I've been told are expressed in Emersons work about divinity. He looks at it more from a spiritual side less of a dogmatic one, which I think is the best way to view faith of any kind.

@damian

I guess, but getting approval from an essay to just be you? I don't know, the whole thing seems suspect.

@damian:

Transcendentalism comes out of the 19th Century, also known as "The Century Where The Shit Hit The fan Most Until The 20th Century!" ;)

And Emerson and Thoreau are slightly BEFORE Nietzsche's time--think more Kierkegaard's time to about the Civil War and then Reconstruction, so Schopenhauer and then Nietzsche literally follow on the philosophic heels chronologically.

And that is his great strenght, that he looks at things spiritually and not in a dogmatic way...

But that has two Achilles' Heels, both of which are major impediments:

-If you're like Nietzsche or Hume, and God and the Divine is dead to you--or never existed--then this cry to treat something as being a way to commune closer and better with the divine is going to run up agaisnt some sort of a wall, as even if you take this at an atheistic, "nature is good" approach, that's not respecting what Emerson adn Thoreau mean, as they truly want you to treat Nature as if it IS some sort of deity or deified force unto itself.

-A lack of rules or outlines to their system of belief, unfortunately, does and has led to arguably more of what Nietzsche despised, bleeding-heart bullshit with no substance, than any true attempt to treat Nature as a deified force...in addition, the lack of inherent rules mean you could, theoretically, just plug in your owm, making what was designed to be free of dogma instead just championing YOUR dogma...

"A lack of rules or outlines to their system of belief, unfortunately, does and has led to arguably more of what Nietzsche despised, bleeding-heart bullshit with no substance, than any true attempt to treat Nature as a deified force...in addition, the lack of inherent rules mean you could, theoretically, just plug in your owm, making what was designed to be free of dogma instead just championing YOUR dogma..."

Says the man who can't do math : )

@Abe: Who said I needed an essays approval? It's just an interesting exploration of the topic, provides a fresh view point to consider.

@Obi

Ah, thanks for the timeline helps add some perspective.

As for your two points, I can see where either can go wrong but neither is necessarily an impediment. If you choose to take the belief that God is Dead his views become a lot harder to take seriously, however if you take the idea that god is an important part of our lives Nietzsches work can run into a wall as well. Honestly I don't know to me it seems that the random nature of the world isn't really as random as it seems. So perhaps nature isn't just a chaotic force and the reverence of nature as the controlling force in our lives isn't out of place.

-The second yeah, that is a problem... a problem with people and their choices in deciding to try and put in their own dogma when it was removed for a reason. Care to clarify what you classify as bleeding heart nonsense? Since I really don't see anything wrong with it as it stands.

I'm not saying *you* do, I'm saying I felt like he was trying to give it to me as I read it.

Ugh, not to kill all your arguments, but am I the only one here who feels like this thread is just obiwan jerking himself off even more than usual. "Look how many fancy intellectual books I've read! They all inspire me!" Sorry obiwan, I actually quite like you most of the time, but this time it's getting on my nerves.

@Abe Fair enough your interpretation is as valid as any other. :P. After all nothing better then speaking your own beliefs with conviction. (Irony here derives from this being an indirect quote from the essay.)

I can't provide a complete opinion on it as I'm about half way through but so far it hasn't felt to me much like was trying to give me permission.

@abgemacht:
There's a difference to some structure and so much strucutre there's only one damned answer...to be known and praised as THE answer...

Math is FACIST! ;)

@Abge - Harry Dresden is on my list of must reads. I enjoyed the short lived TV series so definitely want to get to them.

" Math is FACIST! ;) " - please stop Obi, we're all embarrassed for you.

On topic, I recommend you read The Essays, by Michel de Montainge.

I for one love
-"1984" by George Orwell
-"Heart of Darkness" by Jospeh Conrad
- and my personal favorite book of all time is "East of Eden" by John Steinbeck.

those three titles are deep and written so extraordinarily well that they should be taught in high school literature classes. I mean they are exciting, ridiculous, and just deep.

mafia +1

....for waking up.

Oh, and the word is "fascist", Mr. English Tutor.

While I'm pulling obi's pants down YET AGAIN, does anybody else notice how embarrassingly SHALLOW his Shakespeare knowledge actually is?

Blathering pretense from start to finish.

@ Mafia

I'm beginning to agree; however I haven't lost all hope and it doesn't prevent *us* from having good discussions.

There are numerous Marxist texts - particularly Problems of Leninism and German Ideology, which inspire me, but that's probably not very interesting.

Ideas for the Philosophy of History of Humanity - Johann Gottfried Herder
Poetic Edda
Faust - Johann Goethe
Brothers Grimm Stories
Nibelunglied
Beowulf
Ossian

The Aeneid (and by extention the Homeric stuff)
Tolkien's works
The Once and Future King
Dinner with Tramalchio
Eugene Onegin
The Underground Man
Dune (1st book only)
The Cask of Amontillado (it's just cool)

@obi: I think we're being too hard on you. The issue is that your list is sophomoric. It sounds to me like you're in the first stages of discovering this incredible world of ideas. But the books you're referencing aren't really the ones that will change your life--they're the ones that open the doors to those life-changing books, which you haven't read yet.

I'm not certain I have any books I really look to when I need guidance, but since others seem to just be listing favorites, I'll try to list some of mine that might be less popular.

Empires of the Word, by Nicholas Ostler. An awesome history of languages across the world. If you're at all interested in language histories, this is incredible.

The Asian Mystique, by Sheridan Prasso. Basically a study of how Westerners, especially Americans, view and have viewed East Asians, especially Asian women. I really loved it, but I'm married to a Chinese national, so I admit I'm biased. But still, it's a good read for anyone, I feel.

And I really enjoyed reading Diodorus Siculus for my thesis. Also, Polyaenus is just hilarious, since he discusses ancient tricks, most of which are just stupid evil.

@pastoralan, and by extension @ obiwan, I think I agree. I'm not big on philosophy so I can't comment on those choices, but I am big on theatre and drama, and Hamlet is just such an obvious choice (not that you need to be big on theatre and drama to really realize that). Perhaps Hamlet is what got you interested in theatre obiwan, but surely you're read or seen or acted in something since then that you have some greater connection with. Even within Shakespeare I prefer King Lear, Julius Caesar and Richard III to Hamlet, and even they aren't among my favourite plays ever. I think I prefer the social-minded works of German Socialists like Bertolt Brecht or Peter Weiss, (I have a particular soft spot for Weiss' "Marat/Sade", but that's because I was once in it). Or maybe something contemporary, like the quirky, modern works of someone like Sarah Ruhl (The Clean House, Dead Man's Cell Phone, Melancholy Play or Eurydice perhaps?). I think I've digressed however. My point, and this is important, my point is that choosing Hamlet makes you sound like someone who's said "People like Shakespeare right? What does everyone know by him. Hamlet! That's it! That's my favourite play! Hamlet!" It makes you sound like a poseur. Granted perhaps Weiss and Ruhl are more obscure choices than Shakespeare, but I'd rather err on the side of hipster-ism than poseur-ism. Make a controversial choice! Make a choice you'll actually have to defend Obiwan!

This Wheel's On Fire - Levon Helm
The Wrong Stuff - Bill "Spaceman" Lee

Hugely inspirational autobiographies.

I must admit a fondness for Hamlet as well, but I think the grandiose spectacle that is Branagh's rendition is what got me hooked. As a story, I like Othello better as it feels more real to me. Plus I like a good, active villain and Iago is just so actively evil...

I always viewed Shakespeare as a House of Tudor propagandist, so my view of him is tainted by that. Especially Richard III, which is an utterly unfair depiction of the last Plantagenet King.

@ Draugnar - Don't get me wrong, Hamlet is still a great play, I'd never argue otherwise it's just, it's been so many things, so frequently reinterpreted that if SOME production of it doesn't speak to you, then you just haven't seen the right production of it. I think the point of a conversation like this is to make a choice that says something about you, specifically as a human being, rather than simply saying "I happen to be a fan of the most well known and widely celebrated work in the entire canon of English literature."

@ Putin - Yes, Shakespeare did end up writing propaganda, but he had to stay on the good side of the royal family. The historical context in which he wrote is at least as interesting as his actual writing. I think it's pretty narrow to say that you can't enjoy his work because of the political context. I understand there are larger issues at stake than just whether or not you enjoy this play or that play, but I think you need to have interests beyond your politics. That's what separates extremists from everyone else. (You can in fact be an extremist without blowing anything up.)
And yeah, in defense of Richard III, obviously it's a ludicrous caricature, unfairly slandering a real person, but if you take Richard III, as a character in a play, and remember to keep him separate from the actual historical person, the play itself is still excellent and still contains some of Shakespeare's best passages and soliloquies.

When I'm feeling like I have no place else to go, when I feel that all is wrong in the world....

I usually log in to webdip and read some of obi's masterful tomes. That shit is amazing.




Yeah but seriously I really like Kurt Vonnegut, who seems to know what's up.

I for one love
-"1984" by George Orwell
-"Heart of Darkness" by Jospeh Conrad
- and my personal favorite book of all time is "East of Eden" by John Steinbeck.

those three titles are deep and written so extraordinarily well that they should be taught in high school literature classes. I mean they are exciting, ridiculous, and just deep.

@fiedler:

Everyone's embarassed by my saying math is fascist? (NOW with the proper spelling...yeah, spell-check helps a bit when you're typing fast, otherwise you leave out a letter and an Internet troll makes an unrelated and totally-absurd comment about one's Shakespeare knowledge even though that has nothing to do with the spelling of the word "fascist," I'm sure that's all happened to all of you before..." ;)

@pastoralan and associates:

Well, if you mean my list is made on a short amount of experience...well, yeah, I only HAVE a short amount to go with! :) So for all I know, ten years from now I could be saying David Hume's a complete moron or Plato was an over-important asshole...on the other hand, it could turn out that, like "The Odyssey" and "Le Morte d'Arthur," I remember and draw inspiration from the sayings and ideas even years later, as I read those books young--didn't exactly get out much as a kid...yeah, dead giveaway, I know, I was a sickly kid and my dad likes mostly weight-lifitng and country music and the sorts of things I dislike, so I spent and spend more time reading and with friends--and they STILL matter to me.

To adress one of my five in particular, though, that someone mentioned...

I don't just love "Hamlet" because it got me into theatre because...well, it didn't, I'd been doing theatre for a while when I first read and did the play, and I'd already read and done some otehr Shakespeare works before reading "Hamlet" as well--Othello, Julius Caesar, a few poems, and romeo and Juleit come to mind--so that wasn't even my introducer to Shakespeare.

I love and use "Hamlet" as often as I do because...well, again, for about a hundred reasons, and unless someone's REALLY curious and a glotton for punishment, I'm not going to list them all.

But for just one...believe it or not, I find Hamlet's act IV speech--"Alas, poor Yorick," to be truly inspirational, on down the lines, and one in particular, one many, I'll bet, meet and see as gloomy: "Imperious Caesar, returned to clay," or something like that (if that's not word for word, don't worry, even though I admit to paraphrase and not just ripping off the quotes here, mapleleaf will be along to correct and troll that in a moment.)

At first that sounds really depressing, and Hamelt seems to treat it as something depressing...but in all honesty, what he goes onto say almost lends itself to humor, that perhaps that clay Caesar's returned to is now patching up a hole somewhere.

Think of it--for all you know the dust you're walking on could have once been part of the remains of a great warrior or leader who time forgot! Heck, the wind swirls so much whre I live, maybe Jesus blew in form across the sea! :p

But I like that idea, that even in death--which obviously is a big deal for Hamlet and myself--you're not actually GONE, your body becomes part of nature again or is utilized to, well...maybe patch up some hole? ;) You're not just GONE, or out of the link, so to speak, you're done being a conscious part of the game, but you're still in the game, so to speak...besides which--"Imperious Caesar" is, I think, an important bit...after all, who remembers Bob, the Great Leader of Nowhereland! But CAESAR...he lives on in the minds and imaginations of people...and yet at the same time, he and Bob share the same fate--counfounded to dust.

So on the one hand, you may be rewarded for exceptional work on Earth through favorable rememberance, and on the other hand, everyone's equal, birth to death, in a away, even a Superman and Bob are equal in the end, they're both just dust!

And...I find those two ideas, put together, rather inspirational. :)

And that's just one of many reasons I find "Hamlet" inspirational."

And maybe that'll change someday with age, but I doubt it, and for now, anyway, it's in my Top 5.

and it's REALLY improper grammar to have "and' begin a sentence, especially four times in a row, so before mapleleaf has an anneurism--I don't care if that's spelled correctly or not, I'm off to look for a job--I'll stop. :)