I am just over halfway in the book and really enjoying it, but hoping no-one finds it too boring. Some of the reviewers claim it is boring and slow-moving because so much of it is like a philosophy class, but I really like those parts. I've read most of the philosophers (for political philosophy), but like the way they are described by Alberto and interpreted by Sophie.
Some quotes and ideas that have struck me so far:
From "The Garden of Eden"- The menagerie. Have any of you heard of a budgerigar before? I had to look it up. Why didn't they just call it a parakeet? Also, I like the idea of being someone else if we had a different name. What if I was Nora Zanderby? Or Betty Smith? Would I still be me?
From "The Top Hat"- Do you think the world has become a habit to you? It seems like adults try to behave like they are never surprised or in awe, even when they are. I tried looking at the world like a child, but it was difficult to do.
From "The Natural Philosophers"- Alas, few women philosophers. Can you imagine how philosophy and science would have been different if women hadn't been subjugated?
From "Democritus"- "When I see the moon, it is because "moon atoms" penetrate my eye." What a strange thought!
From "Athens"- Really? He used sophisticated enough technology (in the 1990s) to make him appear in ancient Athens, just to teach a 14 year-old-girl. Now I'm starting to wonder about this guy.
From "Two Cultures"- I liked the discussion of languages. I didn't realize that Farsi was considered an Indo-European language but Hungarian is not.
In general- Sophie's rather saucy, isn't she? And yet it doesn't seem to bother Alberto at all when she makes sassy comments back to him.
Well there’s a reason I didn’t take any philosophy courses in college.
I can’t say I enjoyed the book all that much. In the beginning I hated the Sophie/Hilde part and rather enjoyed the philosophy sections. Aristotle and Descartes are my heros (they are the math guys!) Then in the middle, I hated the philosophy part and found the Sophie/Hilde part interesting. Then at the end, um, it was a letdown.
I have been thinking though and I guess that’s the point. Here’s my thought: does philosophy drive science or does science drive philosophy? In either case, there is a curiosity to answer the book’s question – where does the world come from? Initially I think science was answering the philosopher’s questions, now I think it’s the other way around, science advances are coming so quickly.
Things I liked were the word origins (I always find that interesting). Parthenon – the Virgin’s place Philosopher –love of wisdom Atom – uncuttable
I really like the section in the Marx chapter referencing John Rawls. Devise a society, then die, to be reborn in it. That was very interesting but then there was so very little about that other than posing the question.
Finally got the book and started reading it. I have never taken a college course - never went to college - so I am finding this book interesting in a different sort of way. I feel like I am sitting in class listening to a professor who knows his stuff and knows how to hold his pupil's interest. I have heard of some of the philosophers he talks about but not as much as this book is telling me. At first I wasn't sure if I would enjoy the book because it felt like going to school, but it is growing on me, maybe because I can sit and learn at my own pace and don't have to take an exam - unless Melissa has one for us at the end.
I've finished, and unlike J, liked it to the end. It reminded me of Inkheart (I think that is the name of the book, anyway) where the characters can be read out of a book and into real life by certain people. I also thought the end was fitting. How else could it be?
As I mentioned before, I've read many of these philosophers before but really liked Alberto's take on them. It really summed up their response to the big questions quite well. However, toward the end it felt a little rushed in the discussion of the individual philosophers.
From The Enlightement- It seems that both Hilde and Sophie treat their mothers rather poorly. In both cases the mothers try to do nice things and they just brush them off. I liked the discussion of feminism in this chapter.
From Freud- Why didn't they bring up Freud's opinion of women as penis-envying? And did anyone else think of some of the current Republican politicians and pundits with the statement, "And someone who will not admit to being preoccupied with sex can be the first to be incensed at other people's sex-fixation."?
All in all, I'm glad I chose this book. I've recommended it to my colleague who teaches political philosophy at LSSU. Who knows, maybe he'll use it in his class. And don't worry, B, I don't have an exam for you at the end.
Finished the book. The end chapters made me chuckle. I enjoyed the father-daughter relationship - Hilde was self confident enough that she could "get even" with her dad and know he would accept it "all in good fun".
The final scenes of Alberto and Sophie after they escaped from the book were creative and fun to read.
The thought occurred to me that if what we see on the planets is already old then why are we trying to communicate with life there. Would they even be developed enough to communicate.
I must admit I did not figure out how the book would end until the fairy tale characters started showing up. The author had me puzzled.. of course I am not a good mystery solver so that was not too difficult to do.
The philosophy started getting to be a bit more than I could wrap my brain around at times, but on the whole I enjoyed the course.
And now that I have finished reading this book I have started reading a book about real people... oh wait a minute... the philosphers WERE real people..
I am really lagging on this book; already had to renew it twice and the library says "no no, no more!" so I have to finish by Oct 1. I'm in the Plato chapters now and just can't seem to get into it. Finally have given myself a threat - "no more sewing until the book is done." Hope that gets me motivated!
I've finally, finally finished! M, sorry to say that overall I didn't care for this book. The first half was ok, but the second half really lost me. The philosophy parts felt rushed: name, dates, major published works, Next Chapter! while at the same time the Sophie/Albert story line descended into.. well, I don't even know what to call it. I think I would have appreciated the book more at a younger age; perhaps when I was taking my first philosophy class (around age 19 maybe?). It certainly would have been helpful then to keep all of the ancient Greeks straight.
There were some bits that I did like, especially the part M mentioned from The Garden of Eden about having a different name. It reminded me of a couple of chapters in Freakonomics. I do agree with B, I truly enjoyed the notes/banners/demonstration that Hilde arranged for her father.
From Democritus: "A hydrogen atom in a cell at the end of my nose was one part of an elephant's trunk. A carbon atom in my cardiac muscle was once in the tail of a dinosaur."
From Two Cultures: "We said that the most important of the senses for Indo-Europeans was sight. How important hearing was to the Semitic cultures is just as interesting." I found the explanation and details that followed quite eye-opening.
From Kierkegaard: "..Christianity was both so overwhelming and so irrational that it had to be an either/or. It was not good being 'rather' or 'to some extent' religious. .. if he really did rise from the dead, if he really died for our sake - then this is so overwhelming that it must permeate our entire life."
A big part of why I didn't like reading this book was the weird, forced dialogue between Alberto and Sophie during his lectures. I think she came across rather snotty; the initial format of lectures-by-doggie-mail was better for me as a reader because my learning wasn't constantly interrupted by her interjections. Also, there were a lot of typos/grammatical errors in my copy, and the translation left some sentences really hard to follow. For example, from Hellenism: "And just as in Rome around the beginning of the Christian era one could come across Greek, Egyptian and Oriental religions, today, as we approach the end of the twentieth century, we can find in all European cities of any size religions from all parts of the world." I had to read that sentence so many times that I marked it for comment here.
Words I learned: Bagatelle Epicurean (I knew the meaning, but was glad to learn more about its origin. I rather like the Epicurean philosophy.)
Which philosopher is most closely aligned with your world view? I think I would have to go with Hume.
8 comments:
Ordered the book from the library. Waiting for it to come in so I can start reading it. In between books now feeling a bit lost.
I am just over halfway in the book and really enjoying it, but hoping no-one finds it too boring. Some of the reviewers claim it is boring and slow-moving because so much of it is like a philosophy class, but I really like those parts. I've read most of the philosophers (for political philosophy), but like the way they are described by Alberto and interpreted by Sophie.
Some quotes and ideas that have struck me so far:
From "The Garden of Eden"- The menagerie. Have any of you heard of a budgerigar before? I had to look it up. Why didn't they just call it a parakeet?
Also, I like the idea of being someone else if we had a different name. What if I was Nora Zanderby? Or Betty Smith? Would I still be me?
From "The Top Hat"- Do you think the world has become a habit to you? It seems like adults try to behave like they are never surprised or in awe, even when they are. I tried looking at the world like a child, but it was difficult to do.
From "The Natural Philosophers"- Alas, few women philosophers. Can you imagine how philosophy and science would have been different if women hadn't been subjugated?
From "Democritus"- "When I see the moon, it is because "moon atoms" penetrate my eye." What a strange thought!
From "Athens"- Really? He used sophisticated enough technology (in the 1990s) to make him appear in ancient Athens, just to teach a 14 year-old-girl. Now I'm starting to wonder about this guy.
From "Two Cultures"- I liked the discussion of languages. I didn't realize that Farsi was considered an Indo-European language but Hungarian is not.
In general- Sophie's rather saucy, isn't she? And yet it doesn't seem to bother Alberto at all when she makes sassy comments back to him.
Well there’s a reason I didn’t take any philosophy courses in college.
I can’t say I enjoyed the book all that much. In the beginning I hated the Sophie/Hilde part and rather enjoyed the philosophy sections. Aristotle and Descartes are my heros (they are the math guys!) Then in the middle, I hated the philosophy part and found the Sophie/Hilde part interesting. Then at the end, um, it was a letdown.
I have been thinking though and I guess that’s the point. Here’s my thought: does philosophy drive science or does science drive philosophy? In either case, there is a curiosity to answer the book’s question – where does the world come from? Initially I think science was answering the philosopher’s questions, now I think it’s the other way around, science advances are coming so quickly.
Things I liked were the word origins (I always find that interesting).
Parthenon – the Virgin’s place
Philosopher –love of wisdom
Atom – uncuttable
I really like the section in the Marx chapter referencing John Rawls. Devise a society, then die, to be reborn in it. That was very interesting but then there was so very little about that other than posing the question.
And “Next Chapter”? Tiresome.
Finally got the book and started reading it. I have never taken a college course - never went to college - so I am finding this book interesting in a different sort of way. I feel like I am sitting in class listening to a professor who knows his stuff and knows how to hold his pupil's interest. I have heard of some of the philosophers he talks about but not as much as this book is telling me. At first I wasn't sure if I would enjoy the book because it felt like going to school, but it is growing on me, maybe because I can sit and learn at my own pace and don't have to take an exam - unless Melissa has one for us at the end.
I've finished, and unlike J, liked it to the end. It reminded me of Inkheart (I think that is the name of the book, anyway) where the characters can be read out of a book and into real life by certain people. I also thought the end was fitting. How else could it be?
As I mentioned before, I've read many of these philosophers before but really liked Alberto's take on them. It really summed up their response to the big questions quite well. However, toward the end it felt a little rushed in the discussion of the individual philosophers.
From The Enlightement- It seems that both Hilde and Sophie treat their mothers rather poorly. In both cases the mothers try to do nice things and they just brush them off.
I liked the discussion of feminism in this chapter.
From Freud- Why didn't they bring up Freud's opinion of women as penis-envying? And did anyone else think of some of the current Republican politicians and pundits with the statement, "And someone who will not admit to being preoccupied with sex can be the first to be incensed at other people's sex-fixation."?
All in all, I'm glad I chose this book. I've recommended it to my colleague who teaches political philosophy at LSSU. Who knows, maybe he'll use it in his class. And don't worry, B, I don't have an exam for you at the end.
Finished the book. The end chapters made me chuckle. I enjoyed the father-daughter relationship - Hilde was self confident enough that she could "get even" with her dad and know he would accept it "all in good fun".
The final scenes of Alberto and Sophie after they escaped from the book were creative and fun to read.
The thought occurred to me that if what we see on the planets is already old then why are we trying to communicate with life there. Would they even be developed enough to communicate.
I must admit I did not figure out how the book would end until the fairy tale characters started showing up. The author had me puzzled.. of course I am not a good mystery solver so that was not too difficult to do.
The philosophy started getting to be a bit more than I could wrap my brain around at times, but on the whole I enjoyed the course.
And now that I have finished reading this book I have started reading a book about real people... oh wait a minute... the philosphers WERE real people..
I am really lagging on this book; already had to renew it twice and the library says "no no, no more!" so I have to finish by Oct 1. I'm in the Plato chapters now and just can't seem to get into it. Finally have given myself a threat - "no more sewing until the book is done." Hope that gets me motivated!
I've finally, finally finished! M, sorry to say that overall I didn't care for this book. The first half was ok, but the second half really lost me. The philosophy parts felt rushed: name, dates, major published works, Next Chapter! while at the same time the Sophie/Albert story line descended into.. well, I don't even know what to call it. I think I would have appreciated the book more at a younger age; perhaps when I was taking my first philosophy class (around age 19 maybe?). It certainly would have been helpful then to keep all of the ancient Greeks straight.
There were some bits that I did like, especially the part M mentioned from The Garden of Eden about having a different name. It reminded me of a couple of chapters in Freakonomics. I do agree with B, I truly enjoyed the notes/banners/demonstration that Hilde arranged for her father.
From Democritus: "A hydrogen atom in a cell at the end of my nose was one part of an elephant's trunk. A carbon atom in my cardiac muscle was once in the tail of a dinosaur."
From Two Cultures: "We said that the most important of the senses for Indo-Europeans was sight. How important hearing was to the Semitic cultures is just as interesting." I found the explanation and details that followed quite eye-opening.
From Kierkegaard: "..Christianity was both so overwhelming and so irrational that it had to be an either/or. It was not good being 'rather' or 'to some extent' religious. .. if he really did rise from the dead, if he really died for our sake - then this is so overwhelming that it must permeate our entire life."
A big part of why I didn't like reading this book was the weird, forced dialogue between Alberto and Sophie during his lectures. I think she came across rather snotty; the initial format of lectures-by-doggie-mail was better for me as a reader because my learning wasn't constantly interrupted by her interjections. Also, there were a lot of typos/grammatical errors in my copy, and the translation left some sentences really hard to follow. For example, from Hellenism: "And just as in Rome around the beginning of the Christian era one could come across Greek, Egyptian and Oriental religions, today, as we approach the end of the twentieth century, we can find in all European cities of any size religions from all parts of the world." I had to read that sentence so many times that I marked it for comment here.
Words I learned:
Bagatelle
Epicurean (I knew the meaning, but was glad to learn more about its origin. I rather like the Epicurean philosophy.)
Which philosopher is most closely aligned with your world view? I think I would have to go with Hume.
To sum up: Philosophy good, Sophie not so much.
Post a Comment