Ask HN: Good books?
I just finished reading Atlas Shrugged, which I thought was a fantastic book. I'm reading Another Roadside Attraction now on the recommendation of a friend, but I think I want to read some non-fiction next, or at least eye-opening fiction. I'm thinking about some Bertrand Russel, Richard Feynman, or books on philosophy, human behavior, or economics.
What are some good books that you've read that are ground breaking, thought provoking, or changed the way you think/look at things?
ps: you can check out my shelf at shelfari.com/herms
169 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 245 ms ] thread"From Heaven Lake" is a really good non-fiction book that reads like a fiction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f61KMw5zVhg
http://niyazpk.tadalist.com/lists/1629487/public
The list contains fiction as well as non-fiction. My pick: Shantaram by Gregory David Roberts - One of the best books I read last year (fiction).
You should consider signing up at shelfari. It's a cool site for tracking the books you've read, own, want to read, etc. You can also maintain a nice list and share with others. From a developers standpoint, it's pretty cool too, with a nice UI, some cool features, and a decent revenue model (Amazon affiliate).
Harris, who has trained both as a philosopher and a neuroscientist, argues against the popular notion that science can have little or nothing to say about morality. Necessarily, he confronts related ideas like moral questions having no objectively right answer and science and religion being "nonoverlapping magisteria". Basically, he says that all moral questions must relate to maximizing the wellbeing of conscious creatures, and that what increases or decreases a creature's wellbeing can be studied scientifically at the level of the brain.
I just started reading it. Even if I'm not yet sure that I'm going to be completely convinced of the claim that "science can determine human values," I'm finding Harris to be a very clear thinker, as well as an amusing writer.
If you want a taste of his ideas and style, you can watch his TED talk, "Science can answer moral questions."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Valu... (It isn't available from Amazon until October 5; I bought my copy in a bookstore.)
I haven't watched his TED talk yet, but I'll be checking it out asap.
The idea of "evolutionary morality" is covered in depth by Richard Dawkins quite often and really makes sense when you look at it. A society that avoids immoral behavior (moral meaning there is a victim, not religious-based moral ideals) benefits mutually. It's basically a moral version of the prisoners dilemma. I personally would rather have a society that bases morality on logic, reason, and thought than on fear of retribution from an angry man in the sky :)
The core question for most prescriptive action is often simply determining the limits of the self, that is, how do we delimit the boundary between the self vs. the other, and what are the bounds that we choose to extend empathy to?
Is the near-self or that which empathy extends to everything that biologists have classified as homo sapien? Is it confined to ourselves and a handful of close friends? Is the boundary defined at humans sharing similar values, goals, and culture? Is it extended to all animals with a central nervous system? How can we determine what this value ought to be scientifically?
"The seperation between science and human values is an illusion, and actually quite a dangerous one at this point"
This seems to ignore historically that, more often than not, science is used as ex post facto justification. Darwinism and natural selection is a true scientific observation with mountains of supporting evidence. It was also later adopted as a central logical doctrine for the most abhorrent policies of Nazism. A logical argument for eugenics could be made, but remains abhorrent because in Nazism, the near-self vs other distinction drops off in a freefall across subsets of humanity. This contrasts strongly with today's average definition of near-self considered to be the set of all that is homo-sapien.
The set, degree, and unit by which we extend empathy in the self vs. other distinction IS the core of human values and he does not offer a derivation.
I suppose I should reserve final judgement until I investigate his book you mentioned more thoroughly.
But only recently did I watch a documentary (hmm, probably on hulu.com) which was completely based on that book.
VERY GOOD.
"A Thousand Plateaus" by Deleuze & Guattari. A psychedelic philosophy of complexity. Not exactly an airtight philosophical system, but it will blow your mind several times per page.
"Being & Time" by Martin Heidegger. An intense, logical investigation of individual existence. A deeply nuanced philosophical take on death, being, and temporality. This is the book to grapple with your inevitable annihilation.
Read The Gay Science first. Will to Power is a posthumous publication of, essentially, Nietzsche's notes. It's not clear he ever meant to publish it and it doesn't really present a cogent statement of his beliefs.
I do think you'll like Nietzsche if you like Rand though. They're probably equally mercurial and narcissistic. At least Nietzsche's a little more rigorous (which isn't saying much, Rand is like Fisher Price philosophy).
"Being & Time" by Martin Heidegger. An intense, logical investigation of individual existence. A deeply nuanced philosophical take on death, being, and temporality. This is the book to grapple with your inevitable annihilation.
Arguable. It depends on whether or not you're reading it as a serious philosophical work or to see Heidegger's perspective. Phenomenology doesn't have a whole lot of respect amongst most modern philosophers.
You may remember Pausch as the computer science professor at Carnegie Mellon who was told that he had but a few months left to live (cancer). This book doesn't stray from its topic: "What wisdom would we impart to the world if we knew it was our last chance?" If you're looking for motivation and an "out of the box" approach to analyzing daily life then this is it.
Here's the book: http://www.amazon.com/Last-Lecture-Randy-Pausch/dp/140132325...
Here's the famous speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo
1. <em>Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience</em> by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi
2. <em>The Guide to Getting It On</em> by Paul Johannides [sp?]
3. <em>The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature</em> by Geoffrey Miller
4. <em>Hackers & Painters</em> by Paul Graham
5. <em>Man's Search for Meaning</em> by Viktor Frankl
6. <em>Stumbling on Happiness</em> by Daniel Gilbert
In all cases, I think these books profoundly shaped how not only I think, but I think others can learn to think too. All suddenly revealed new connections and ideas about the world I'd never experienced or expected to experience before.
Granted, no book can be removed from its context, and its possible that if I'd read some of the books above as a younger person I wouldn't have been ready to appreciate them. But <em>Flow</em> seems by far the most valuable of the choices listed above because it engulfs more of the content of the others than any other choice.
Steven Berlin Johnson's new book Where Ideas Come From looks promising: http://www.amazon.com/Where-Good-Ideas-Come-Innovation/dp/15... .
Phillip K. Dick - Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep, Scanner Darkly.
If you really love reading - Orhan Pamuk - Black Book and My Name Is Red. ^_^
Ostensibly it's about this sophisticated game played in a monastery that abstracts over the sum of human knowledge. To me it presented a very potent argument for the value of academia in a commercially-driven world.
If nothing else, it nicely counterbalances the monomaniacal ambition and stress of tech startup land in a way that us geeks can appreciate.
The main character tries to find true meaning, then dies a sudden death, unfit for life when confronted with it.
It's that perception of 'useless' that The Glass Bead Game addresses for me, at a personal level. YMMV.
HN is cleansing the apostrophe in the url. It is god's rather than gods.
You're welcome :)
One more suggestion for fiction: Rohinton Mistry's <i>A Fine Balance</i>. This will FOREVER change your perspective on hardship while giving one a fantastic appreciation for living. I'm always giving copies of this rare gem as a gift and I have heard nothing but rave reviews from those who have been touched by its power.
Science from a new perspective is excellent, but it's also such an interesting window on the many people who have struggled against really difficult problems to move humanity forward.
Also, make sure you go play Bioshock (the first one) for a sobering counterpoint on Randian thought. Atlas Shrugged is awesome, until you remember that you can't trust any group of people to maintain their rational behavior in the face of personal gains. Great story, and it'll drag you back from Randroid town (it did me, anyway). Either way, the kid in me would still love to have dinner in Galt's Gulch.
If you'd like to read eye-opening fiction, I heartily recommend The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, by Robert Heinlein. It's an incredible exploration of what it is to be free and how modern societies evolve at the expense of their citizens' personal liberties. One of the most thought-provoking pieces of fiction I've ever read, and lots of fun character-wise as well. (Incidentally, Heinlein was a fan of Ayn Rand, so if you liked Atlas Shrugged, you may find this even more interesting.)
I really enjoy Atlas Shrugged as well, I've read the whole book twice, actually. But I don't believe it is a good code to live by. My favorite quite about her books comes from The Daily Show. On the back of America The Book there is a fake blurb from Rand: "just like one of my books, reading this book will make you an asshole for two weeks."
Her books are seductive because they intentionally oversimplify life. Her characters are not realistic and are completely binary. Everyone is either a superhero or a weasel. This makes for entertaining reading, but not much else.
Read "Crossing to Safety" by Wallace Stegner. It is a brautiful book about an intense relationship forged between two couples. It's my favorite thing I've read recently.
Reading Atlas Shrugged made me an asshole for at least 2 weeks - I remember some stormy arguments with my flatmates over drinks.
As polemic it's amazing; as a moral code it's callous.
Moon feels much more cohesive and internally consistent. It's my favorite work of Heinlein's. Citizen of the Galaxy is also outstanding, even though it was written for the "juvenile" market.
The neatest thing about Bryson is that he's a travel writer. It works out really well for a science book, though, because he takes nothing for granted and describes everything with such loving flourish. It's a travelogue through the history of science and it's funny, and fun, while still respecting the subject matter.
The Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Ebb and Flow of History. David Hackett Fisher.
This book is incredibly, incredibly prescient. Written in 1997, almost predicts the current financial situation. If you want to have an idea where, based on 1000 years of history, our economy and the state of the world is going, then you should read it. It didn't change my perspective (I called the crash of 2008-2009 a few months before it happened) but it really gave me a firmer understanding behind why I was correct to have felt like that was going to happen. It's also a page-turner. Fisher is an incredibly good writer and wrote a fascinating picture of revolutionary america in "Paul Revere's Ride".
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Wave-Revolutions-Rhythm-History/...
Malcolm Gladwell's books are good, too, but my position on them is that the insight is all stuff you should have figured out - sometimes you just need gentle reminding. I noticed outliers and tipping point on your shelf, those will go very very far in helping you come up with entrepreneurial strategies. Outliers got me off my butt and got me programming android (I hadn't touched computer programming in 4+ years)... I would suggest popping the gladwells to the front of your queue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books_of_the_Western_Worl...
The Notebooks of Malte Laurids Brigge (Rilke)
The Age of Extremes: A History of the World, 1914-1991 (Hobsbawm)
Bhagavad Gita
Upanishads
Crimes Against Logic: Exposing the Bogus Arguments of Politicians, Priests, Journalists, and Other Serial Offenders (Whyte)
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (Wittgenstein)
edit: added 2 more & author names
That being said my additions to the mix are:
Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse
Dhammapada
Tipitaka (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/index.html)
Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley
Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault
Philosophy in the Flesh by George Lakoff
Always find something useful for me there.
<something irrelevant> I am shocked that in 26 comments till now nobody has mentioned Godel Escher Bach by Douglas Hofstater. Apart from everything else it has accomplished it is always the best seller in the "Nobody reads but everybody recommends" category, or at least the close second or draw to Art Of Programming by Knuth. </something irrelevant>
I mean, not even Greek gods were perfect if you know basic mythology. Yet, you want me to believe that Hank Rearden will just give up "his true love" just because he sees value in Galt? And what happens with Rearden's self-interest? (as in, I want the girl, dammit!)
Acting out of self-interest in only valid when dealing with money? Stupid!
Besides, talking about the "Philosophy of Ayn Rand" is no different than talking about the "Theology of L. Ron Hubbard."
I think generally libertarian philosophy is inclined towards voluntarism as the broad umbrella. In other words, altruism - I hesitate to use this word so how about charity - is not to be forced upon people by the hand of the government, which is coercive. Personally, I believe that there are genuinely people, who through no fault of their own, are unable to help themselves. Like the electric-wheelchair-bound multiple gunshot wound victim who was one of my low-income food-delivery clients in DC. That could have been anyone. And if it happened to you, you woudn't be able to care for yourself. And you'd want someone to, out of the goodness of their hearts (or hell, for whatever screwed up reason they might have) to reach out help you.
But that isn't the same as someone "putting a gun to your head" and telling you you'd better help that person, at the threat of arrest.
"My characters are persons in whom certain human attributes are focused more sharply and consistently than in average human beings"
I agree with you on the Rearden vs Galt issue though...that doesn't make sense.
1) Hank Reardon wouldn't tolerate a life of (self) deception; knowing Dagny wanted Galt, and accepting that truth, was the only internally consistent course available.
2) Hank Reardon loved and respected Galt. If he had to give up Dagny to be able to continue to be a part of Galt/D'Ancona/Dagny's life, then his rational response was to do that.
3) Hank Reardon embodied the self-confidence that allowed him to see Dagny's preference for Galt was not a rejection of Hank, nor did that diminish Hank Reardon (e.g. your value isn't shaped by others).
That's intentional. The effect is Brechtian - the characters are designed to force you to think about and self-rationalize the concepts they represent. They're not there to populate a fictional world you can lose yourself in.
[1] See The Fountainhead's introduction in one of the recent editions.
only individual freedom matters -> libertarianism
only equality matters -> communism
only arbitrary values and efficient pursuit of them matter -> fascism
behind every form of government lurks an oligarchy that has to make workable tradeoffs between those ideals, while of course pursuing their own interests