If you like hero with 1000 faces, you might like “7 basic plots” by Christopher Booker. He takes jungian/campbellian archetypes and applies them to movies and literature to illustrate the 7 universal plots and how they fit in our stories. Hermeneutics is great for interpretation and Scalia, Easterbrook, and Posner have very well written works on legal interpretation
@@garryrus8557 Posner is a name I haven't heard in a while!!! I only ever read Scalia's opinions on some of the debates around the 2nd amendment. Never occurred to me that he might have books. I know of Posner's books. I'll look of Easterbrook and Scalia. I like the sound of 7 basic plots. I actually developed an appreciation for story writing and screen plays as a result of RUclips, so books like that are great.
@@IdeasInHat “a matter of interpretation” is a well written short read by Scalia on the principles of legal interpretation and textualism, can compliment the Oxford handbook.
I was not expecting (but was impressed by) the very in depth analysis of shame and its moral underpinning. I am currently flipping through the Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (at a pretty slow pace), but am enjoying it quite a bit. It alternates seemingly between Philosophy, Logic, Psychology, and Neuroscience in a way that seems very varied, but intertwined in a coherent way. So far my favorite chapter was one on the neurogenetics of working memory and attention. There's obviously a lot more to both processes than that, but it was very in depth. The last chapter I read went into the Dual Process model of thinking (like Thinking Fast and Slow, but more academic and from the 80s) and how it has quite a bit of validity from a behavioral standpoint, but is also a gross oversimplification from an anatomical/neuroscience standpoint. I am liking the book quite a bit at the moment and am looking forward to reading more of it.
Alot of the cognitive models for cognition don't map perfectly well onto the brain. There's always exceptions. I think as long as the models can predict or explain, however, they are useful to know. I really like cognition literature, it's quite fun. I'll look up that handbook.
Oxford Handbook of Reasons and Normativity was real good. It’s over 1100 pages only $50. I got it from The RUclips channel ‘to readers it may concern’ -talks a lot about it
I've been reading Epictetus Discourses Fragments Handbook translated by Robin Hard and so far it is quite enlightening. I admit that at certain points I do become a bit lost but all his lessons really do make me think so overall it's worth the time. During College I took an Introductory Philosophy course so I at least have a bit of experience with the subject though not Stoicism specifically it was more Plato and Socrates. My only critique would be that I wish it was available as a Hardcover rather than soft but I'm still glad to own it regardless. Best of luck with your upcoming book sessions.
For me, it's just re-organizing my view of life, and then being brutally honest. For instance, if my notion of a good person is someone who gives to charity every year, and I do not, then I should feel some level of guilt. But if I not only fail to give to charity but also spend money on stupid things, then I should feel shame. So, in that case, some sort of generalizable principle would be "not only did I not meet my standards of being a good person, but I actively engaged in stupidity; therefore, I should be ashamed".
I don't think you're using shame in the correct way - I would seek out writing on trauma theory and psychologists on trauma (Peter Levine and Richard Schwartz are a great start). Guilt and shame are not separated by degree or intensity, they're separated by type - guilt being "I did something bad" as opposed to "I am bad." Shame is one of the most destructive things to us as humans and I think it's dangerous to spread the idea that shame should be a part of every day life.
@lukejackson3901 I mean, you can just adopt your own definition of shame and say I am wrong, but that would be really silly, no? Lol. I don't see anything that makes the ordinary dictionary definitions of those two words mutually exclusive. You are going to have to axiomatically declare that shame and guilt are entirely exclusive. And you are welcome to, tbh. But then you would be missing my entire worldview and having a conversation with yourself about semantics. In my day to day life, I do consider guilt and shame interchangeable when describing mental states. For example, "I feel shame for not having tried hard enough" would mean nearly the same thing as "I feel guilt for not having tried hard enough". They are both empty symbols that derive their meaning from the same mental state. But as I was referencing in this video, it seems shame is culturally more loaded than guilt. And that I find the idea of using that stronger association as a tool for behavior modification quite interesting. Your focus on semantics is not only really off topic, it's also just a priori enforcement of your metaphysics of language onto someone else. I don't find debating metaphysics at all useful, so I won't devle down that line with you.
What are some books you are excited to read?
I have a hardback of Fitzgerald's Odyssey I want to read one day.
If you like hero with 1000 faces, you might like “7 basic plots” by Christopher Booker. He takes jungian/campbellian archetypes and applies them to movies and literature to illustrate the 7 universal plots and how they fit in our stories. Hermeneutics is great for interpretation and Scalia, Easterbrook, and Posner have very well written works on legal interpretation
Now, it’s the Oxford handbook of legal interpretation, thanks!
@@garryrus8557 Posner is a name I haven't heard in a while!!!
I only ever read Scalia's opinions on some of the debates around the 2nd amendment. Never occurred to me that he might have books. I know of Posner's books. I'll look of Easterbrook and Scalia.
I like the sound of 7 basic plots. I actually developed an appreciation for story writing and screen plays as a result of RUclips, so books like that are great.
@@IdeasInHat “a matter of interpretation” is a well written short read by Scalia on the principles of legal interpretation and textualism, can compliment the Oxford handbook.
You are a very intelligent young man, and I enjoy you content very much. Keep up the good work.
Haha, I haven't had anyone call me a young man in a while. Thank you for the kind words!
I was not expecting (but was impressed by) the very in depth analysis of shame and its moral underpinning. I am currently flipping through the Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (at a pretty slow pace), but am enjoying it quite a bit. It alternates seemingly between Philosophy, Logic, Psychology, and Neuroscience in a way that seems very varied, but intertwined in a coherent way. So far my favorite chapter was one on the neurogenetics of working memory and attention. There's obviously a lot more to both processes than that, but it was very in depth. The last chapter I read went into the Dual Process model of thinking (like Thinking Fast and Slow, but more academic and from the 80s) and how it has quite a bit of validity from a behavioral standpoint, but is also a gross oversimplification from an anatomical/neuroscience standpoint. I am liking the book quite a bit at the moment and am looking forward to reading more of it.
Alot of the cognitive models for cognition don't map perfectly well onto the brain. There's always exceptions. I think as long as the models can predict or explain, however, they are useful to know. I really like cognition literature, it's quite fun. I'll look up that handbook.
Oxford Handbook of Reasons and Normativity was real good. It’s over 1100 pages only $50. I got it from The RUclips channel ‘to readers it may concern’ -talks a lot about it
I'll look it up. Sounds like a fun book!
😂 Not sure that I'm that excited about it but I'm reading and enjoying The Republic and have gotten further than previous attempts. In book IV now.
Good stuff. Thanks
I've been reading Epictetus Discourses Fragments Handbook translated by Robin Hard and so far it is quite enlightening. I admit that at certain points I do become a bit lost but all his lessons really do make me think so overall it's worth the time. During College I took an Introductory Philosophy course so I at least have a bit of experience with the subject though not Stoicism specifically it was more Plato and Socrates. My only critique would be that I wish it was available as a Hardcover rather than soft but I'm still glad to own it regardless. Best of luck with your upcoming book sessions.
@@Manuel421 Epictetus is a great writer! I loved his writings!
I have the Campbell book. Haven't cracked it open yet.
I have like 7 Campbell books. lol. I just cannot keep my tbr list in check.
What steps would you take to inculcate shame in yourself?
For me, it's just re-organizing my view of life, and then being brutally honest. For instance, if my notion of a good person is someone who gives to charity every year, and I do not, then I should feel some level of guilt.
But if I not only fail to give to charity but also spend money on stupid things, then I should feel shame.
So, in that case, some sort of generalizable principle would be "not only did I not meet my standards of being a good person, but I actively engaged in stupidity; therefore, I should be ashamed".
I would say, above all, the brutal self-honesty part is key.
Truman biography by David McCullough
I want to read his 1776 book and his John Adams book. I will look up the truman one.
Where do you get all of your penguin press books?
I don't think you're using shame in the correct way - I would seek out writing on trauma theory and psychologists on trauma (Peter Levine and Richard Schwartz are a great start). Guilt and shame are not separated by degree or intensity, they're separated by type - guilt being "I did something bad" as opposed to "I am bad." Shame is one of the most destructive things to us as humans and I think it's dangerous to spread the idea that shame should be a part of every day life.
@lukejackson3901 I mean, you can just adopt your own definition of shame and say I am wrong, but that would be really silly, no? Lol.
I don't see anything that makes the ordinary dictionary definitions of those two words mutually exclusive. You are going to have to axiomatically declare that shame and guilt are entirely exclusive. And you are welcome to, tbh. But then you would be missing my entire worldview and having a conversation with yourself about semantics.
In my day to day life, I do consider guilt and shame interchangeable when describing mental states. For example, "I feel shame for not having tried hard enough" would mean nearly the same thing as "I feel guilt for not having tried hard enough". They are both empty symbols that derive their meaning from the same mental state.
But as I was referencing in this video, it seems shame is culturally more loaded than guilt. And that I find the idea of using that stronger association as a tool for behavior modification quite interesting.
Your focus on semantics is not only really off topic, it's also just a priori enforcement of your metaphysics of language onto someone else. I don't find debating metaphysics at all useful, so I won't devle down that line with you.
Books about history of middle East
@@Yosoyaabid any in specific?
@IdeasInHat A History of the Modern Middle East by cleveland and bunton you also suggested this book❤️
@@Yosoyaabid amazzzzing book. And I absolutely love that he keeps updating it!
@@IdeasInHat ❤️
@@IdeasInHatyea I actually just bought that one last week. 7th edition July 2024 only $36 🔥