![]() Compared to my previous readings that promote an end to animal cruelty, I feel like this one would be less convincing than "A Plea for the Animals," and has a greater chance of resulting in some antagonism from the layman. As a vegan, and self proclaimed animal rights advocist, I did enjoy the book. This is mostly in the sense that it feels very validating to hear your philosophies expressed so passionately. I don't mean to put myself in an echo chamber, but really the only person I ever surround myself with that expresses my same feelings for the subject is Alex. Yes - he is my boyfriend and the individual I spend most of my time with, but it would be hard to disagree with my significant other on such a imperative and obvious moral standard. I appreciate this book to its scientific approach in explaining the rights violations of animals. To avoid biases, Singer utilizes reports from the violators themselves. It is often that the horrid conditions of these animals are mentioned positively for their cost saving benefits - but this does not mean that the average person will read this reports and see them as a good thing. In fact, it is the opposite. Finding out that such cruelty is done on the grounds of profits is heartbreaking. This is why so many meat-eaters like justify eating meat through discussions of human-nature, mutualism, nutrition, etc. None of these are the reasons behind the inhumane treatment of these farm animals. Inhumane. What an ironic word we use to describe ethical behavior, when humans are the most cruel and unnecessarily violent species on the planet. Humans engage in unnecessary cruelty, simple as killing animals for the taste satisfaction, or in slavery, torture, revenge. These are very uncommon in the rest of the animal kingdom. Peter Singer mentions this, how we justify our meat consumption by comparing ourselves to lions and bears, but we only do so when convenient. People don't bring up bulls, rhinos, or elephants though - all very strong and powerful animals that are herbivores. Though, humans like to describe themselves as animalistic when they aim to justify behavior that really has no good defense, behavior that is based on sensory satisfaction and impulse. Just like when justifying sexual harassment, people level themselves with animals to justify themselves. But when it comes to exerting dominance and superiority, humans maintain a superiority over other animals. Humans like to say that animals like cows and pigs don't deserve respect or rights because they are dumb creatures, but they don't want to recognize the moral gap in logic when it comes to pets. If you are not vegetarian and claim to be an animal lover, you are probably just a pet lover. If you want to be morally consistent, please consider the ethical philosophies of veganism, many of which you can learn from this book.
0 Comments
![]() I don't even know where to begin with this book, much like the author. I can't remember who specifically mentioned this book to me, but it was described as very high level. Maybe I had built up such an excitement to read it because I felt it would be a good challenge, or perhaps it was the description as psychedelic and trippy. I won't lie - a big selling point was the very cool cover. Ultimately this book was a major let down, to the point where I did not even finish it. I really did give it a good shot, but I found myself over halfway through the book feeling lost, but not because of the complication of the plot, but the overly dramatic language that aimed to make the most meaningless thoughts come across as profound. Nothing ended up coming across as profound. There was potential in writing a book about a apocalyptic dystopia where humanity went to far with technology. With animalistic and mythological gods, and main characters that were uniquely given different background and powers, you would think that the plot was set up for success. Instead, the book jumped around between settings, emotions, and perspectives that had you not really rooting for anyone or anything. I really did not care for where the story would go, nor was I curious. For this reason, I felt encouraged to abandon it. I found that many people had similar sentiments about this book, but there remains many who admire it. I think I need to read Jeff Vandermeer's previous books to understand him as a writer. Then, maybe I can understand his point a bit more. I can culminate my impression of this book in one hyphenated word: fake-woke. Maybe it was just too high level for me, or maybe it was just boring. Regardless, I would not recommend. ![]() I am disappointed to say that I am so relieved to finally be finished with this book. Now, when you get engulfed in a series or a universe, whether it's a book or a movie or a show, you find yourself enjoying to be present in that universe no matter the story. That element still remains, and I really enjoyed learning more about Frank Herbert's universe, but the story aspect of this book was tremendously missing. I was optimistic at the start, as the introduction of new characters had me intrigued to learn more about the different perspectives his this world. Unfortunately, we did not learn much about any new characters, I think Frank was stuck in the stories of those more familiar. Despite this, they familiar characters were not familiar at all. I am not going to give any spoilers that, even for those who haven't read any of the books, but the structure of this story was very different. Upon reading discussions, I was surprised that many actually loved this book. I think this has more to do with the buildup of Heretics of Dune. With that, I feel like we can compare this book to the first third of Dune in that it sets up the story more so than tells one. A lot of this book attempted to explain some philosophical and political messages rather than do so through a plot. It was very direct, but it felt (as Alex and I said at the exact same time) "fake woke." Regardless, I will be sure to read the next book, but I am less eager than I was to read this one after the previous. Hopefully a reading of the next book and potentially a future reread will have me understanding how this book wasn't largely a waste of 500 pages. ![]() My friends and I decided to start some sort of book club together, and reccomended by Matthew (and voted by the rest of us), we chose to first read Catcher In The Rye by J.D. Salinger. I want to call out and partially shame Matthew, because last I checked he hasn't even started the book, and Brian also bailed, hmph. But the rest of us have been reading on, and to be honest, the premise of a book club is confusing. Are we to read at the same pace, and how often are we suppose to discuss the book? I am not sure, and if anyone has any tips, please let me know. Anyway, the book follows angsty sixteen year old Holden Caulfield, a boy who has just been expelled from his boarding school and adventures New York City before he has to return home to disappoint his parents. The main character is immature even for a teenager, and is quick - almost eager - to admit that about himself. Consequently, the book is written in a voice that is extremely crude and unsophisticated. This is not to say that books written as so are lesser for it, but for some reason, reading it just makes me feel like I am losing braincells. I guess that is sort of the point, hearing the inner thoughts of an immature and sort of crazy 16 year old will do that to you. I have also been listening to it as well, which I prefer over reading, because doing so just intensifies the childlike nature of the book for some reason. Overall, this book kind of felt like a dud. I feel like it had so much potential and build up but did nothing with it, but I guess that is like the main character. Although, his potential was kind of the opposite, the lack of potential gave him the freedom to do anything he wanted, which he almost did. I feel like although he was close, he was never actually going to run away. It took talking to Alex prior to reading the final three chapters to realize how depressed Holden actually was, but the depression felt sort of unexplained and downplayed. I think the saddest part of the book regarded the perverts that he had to deal with throughout his life, but the extent of the effect of this trauma on his 16 year old state was unclear. I think the desire to abandoned structured life is common, but this was enlightening to see the trouble it brings to those who do not fit the demanding structures of society. I, for one, can relate with some of the frustrations of Holden, but I recognize that I remain privileged in that I adhere to the social structure without feeling that it goes against the person I am. I fit the mold quite well, Holden does not. Why should he be doomed to a depression for it? Life is unfair, and sad. ![]() I hopped into this read quite quickly, mostly because it was on my list and I recently discovered it was free on audible. I do not even have the physical copy of this book, but staying engaged to the story through the audiobook has been impressively easy. This isn't impressive in terms of me, the listener, but George Orwell, the author, for writing such a captivating story. A classic book by a classic author that had some how been left out of my adolescent education. Perhaps this was in part because of the very theme the book explores: censorship. Joking, of course, I obviously don’t think that George Orwell was removed from the experiences of my public education because of censorship, as many of my peers have enjoyed “Animal Farm,” and even this novel I am sure. But the thought does make you wonder… This book explores what I am sure Orwell feared to be a potential future path of humanity. Living in London, Winston was surrounded by people, but it was not the many individuals he say that came across as suffocating. It was rather the government, which interestingly enough, rarely took on any sort of physical presence in the book. The ideas and demands of the Party was mostly in through the propaganda conveyed to us through Winston’s thoughts. Other Party inclement came from public announcements, Hate week, the notable and grand (and the working for) the bureaucratic buildings, or the presence of cameras, microphones, and telescreens. We did not often see regular interaction with law enforcers or soldiers, the manner of overbearing political control that I would suspect someone to write about in 1949 when indirectly condemning strong government. He seems ahead of his time, as the status quo conveys these same concerns but though capitalistic control. Rather than the government overtly spying on us and feeding us propaganda, we have these corporate powers quietly monitoring and surveillancing all of our digital (and sometimes non-digital) existence. Furthermore, all the information we absorb comes to us from one of the media conglomerates, once again indirectly controlling and managing our thoughts in a way that could be described as censorship. Of course we can often discuss what we would like, but whether or not our word will have worth and the capacity to spread and it is largely up to the businesses which are necessary mediums of communication (social networks, news companies, publishers, and more). How can we stray away from this? (SPOILER IN THE NEXT SENTENCE AND FOR THE REST TO FOLLOW). How far away are we from being the skeptical Winston at the beginning, the revolutionary in the middle, or the puppet at the end? Perhaps we are all doomed to this fate, that we must accept this control or we cannot participate in this life, as it is life of coercion or death. One of the aspects of the book that I found most intriguing was the notion of truth. If everyone believes 2 + 2 is 5, then is that the reality? Do we have to reconstruct the fundamentals of mathematics to allow this to be true, or is it simple what is in the human mind that exists. What about human history, dinosaurs, dead relatives, childhood memories, are these only real just because it exists in the minds of humans? Or is there some ultimate reality out there that we are limited to understanding because of the constraints of human perceptions. This “fallacy,” was one of the most enjoyable and frustrating inner-dialogues shared with readers (p. 278). Another fascinating dialogue (p. 270)explores the principal of moral superiority that comes with increased understanding. My initial thought is to refute this, at is often an argument I hear people make to justify the eating of animals. That is, that humans are superior because they are more intelligent (to human standards, might I mention) so it is okay that they subject animals to cruelty for their unnecessary pleasures. Regardless, I want to explore - even just on the basis of humanity alone, - are people really better than others just because they lack ignorance? I can imagine a world where ignorance can be good, where acting without knowledge would result in more ethical actions than otherwise. So I doubt the idea that being more aware inherently makes the individual more valuable. On the other hand, knowledge is power/valuable, and having such information in the hands of one can still permit the exclusion of that information to others, thus controlling the benefits to ignorance from a managerial sense. So what am I saying, that censorship is good? I mean, of course! But also no. It is so hard to say, I want to know as much as I can but I also believe that withholding information from some (or perhaps the masses) can be the more ethical route. I guess all this means is that I subscribe to consequentialism. I wonder if deontologists believe that like being untruthful is always wrong, that not being completely (and ever absurdly) truthful is also always wrong. If there are any deontologists out there, of even someone who enjoys playing devil’s advocate, leave a comment below. Although this review does not applaud or discuss the powerful storyline and plot building as this book deserves, I stress the quality of this piece of nonfiction work. It tells a story that can be timeless to any society, exploring themes of love, hate, passion, rebellion, coercion and more, while also providing in intriguing story which subtly suggests moral and philosophical qualms with the way of political and social life. Admittedly, this becomes less subtle at the end, but the quick switch of the direction of the plot makes for a compelling story that makes more transparent in the lessons and thoughts it aims to provoke in the readers mind. I cannot stress this book recommendation enough, as it hits all the marks. I would say it is a hard book to put down, but being that I consumed it mostly through audio (which was free by the way), I would say that this is a book you won’t want to pause. ![]() Perhaps I should not admit this, but I was not aware of this book and it's stature when I came across it at Half-Priced Books. I was captured by the obviously intriguing name, and was immediately interested upon reading the premise of this book. Now - it is clear that this book is one I would have naturally come across in the pursuit of politically philosophical knowledge. It was also free an audible, which is always a plus. Unfortunately, the translations are quite different, making the portions where I read it quite different experiences from when I listen. I don't mind this, as it adds spice to the experience. The first chapter discusses the ethical response to thievery, and Raphael praised the Polylerits of Persia for how they force them into underpaid labor as punishment rather than sentencing them to death. This is an easy premise for me to follow, but apparently not for those around him until Raphael explains this. Then Peter and Raphael disagree on essentially whether or not you can have a government with only just people, or if it is impossible for such a state to exist. Raphael says it is possible and that it does. Let me guess, this place will be the island of Utopia. I hope this book is not meant to be satirical of political solutions that seem so obvious but unattainable, because when certain ways of life are conveyed, I can't help but think, "See, it is just that simple!" This ideas include that people serve the public good, particularly the political leader, and that wealth is of no goal to rulers. In fact, they suggest that the poorest person should be the king, since a rich man controlling the poor is closer to slavery than government. They reject the right to property, as I find necessary to a just world but also find unappealing to individual rights. This, and many other aspects of the society draw from Plato's Republic, which I am have glad to read prior to this. Similar to myself, Peter see's this a Something I appreciate is how the notion of work is praised, and to put it frankly, being lazy is condemned. Everyone has to have some job, or as I like to phrase it, a regular contribution to society. Despite this, the work day is limited to no more than 6 daily hours, which I see as reasonable. There is no rich or poor class, everyone dresses "simply" and has all of their modest needs met (because luxury is NOT a good thing here). People can freely choose what they do with their spare time, but they must preform some for of exercise. This is not necessarily physical, and includes music, art, learning, reading, etc. It is interesting because they word is as if this is in opposition to the luxury of "idleness," but I find idleness extremely unappealing. The freedom to pursue a mental exercise seems much more pleasant to me. Let's not forget one outstanding flaw of this island, they have slavery, in fact, every family has two slaves. Clearly this is not an ideal state for all. Funny enough, there is only murder for food consumption. They eat animals but only the slaves are permitted to kill them, since allowing the citizens to do so would rid them of pity and compassion. Is there something to learn from this? Two huge flaws of society intertwined. I find the notion of slave ownership corrupts every other successful element to this society, as all things problematic are oversimplified by the outsourcing of the issue to slaves. It is justified by the source of slavery, as often they are saved from death sentences. They phrase it as such a positive thing, since they are given the opportunity to redeem themselves. This is still extremely flawed to me, but at least no one is born into slavery? Along with this comes the restrictions of roles to gender, age, and somewhat class. If you are a women you have confined norms, although they are anomaly. So - there are social constructs for gender but they are not restricting. Is that natural? Another thing of note, I really like how they explained the notion of having souls in the portion about the religious life in Utopia. He says, paraphrasing, that it would be naive to believe that the extend of our existence is limited to what humans are capable of seeing. Well said, Thomas more. Overall, this book was a very short read/listen and very insightful. It provides a great depiction of the ideal and just state that ancient greek philosophers spoke of, particularly Socrates. Seeing it employed through a fiction story results in a different perspective of such ideas, and I think it does a good job in forcing the audience to reflect on their own ideologies. This book is fun, do not be intimidated by the subject matter, it is an easy read. I think everyone should take time to reflect on their own political ideologies, and Utopia does a good job inspiring readers to do that. ![]() A book recommended by Alex that explains a novel definition of wildlife that reshapes perceptions on conversation politics. This is particularly relevant to my interests and career interests, but it utilizes a scientific voice that made me feel a bit under qualified as a reader. In fact, it provoked this need to educate myself on the biological and geological aspects of environmental science, as the author expresses such expertise. I do not believe that such knowledge is a prerequisite to participating in the environmental political field, but it sure would help. It would alleviate the discomforts of inadequacy that this book often brought. This is not particularly noted to criticize the book, although it sure could use some revisions if it is meant to be approached by the layman, but to explain my takeaways. Concepts such as dramatic, shocking, and horrifying and imagery and campaign strategies is something that I have previously studied. I agree with Jamie Lorimer that although it is effective at grasping attention, it motivates apathy and pessimism that is counterproductive. In fact, I wrote a paper on the environmental communication strategies of PETA that explores this idea, I will make sure to link that at the end of this post. But to continue, I enjoy the commentary on the commodification of wilderness that may lead to advances in conservation, but still are "masking the socially and ecologically disastrous relations of their production," (133). Such is why I implore conservation and environmentalism through ecological altruism, but I am not certain Lorimer agrees (although I am confident the foundations of his ideology are similar). This book has made me even question my own ethical perspectives, particularly when discussing the criticisms of the management of the OVP in The Netherlands. Animals were introduced to an human-made island, a form of rewilding, in conservationist. My initial reaction was positive, but the author explains the international criticism it faced from animal rights groups that detested how these animals were left to die of starvation since they did not come to this habitat on their own volition. Advocates believed that these animals should be given the same rights as those in farms, zoos, or laboratories. Initially, I agree, but what if it is for the greater good of the global ecological community? I wonder if anyone will be able to make that call. I found myself more comfortable in the later sections of the book, where the author employs ideas of exploitation using through Marxist theories to explain our relationships with other species. The commodification of charisma in species plays an interesting role on their domestication, treatment, and advocacy. I wonder why certain charismatic animals, such as cows, seem to be an exception. He says that less captive, captivating charismatic species "might fare better than their non-charismatic, undomesticated, or non-resilient kin," but what does it mean to fare better (156)? Is that relative to treatment from humans or their existence, which is quite subjective. The notion of charisma and encounter value makes sense conceptually, but I find too many gaps in the argument when I think of animals we consume. Overall, this book provides a different outlook on what it means to be natural and wild, particularly in the context of the developing world. We cannot over simplify the multilateral nature of wildlife, but the complex care of the subject seems much more difficult the the author makes it seem. The cosmopolitics, as it is called, of the dynamic process of conservation is going to inherently be flawed to the perspective of the researchers and spectators. The role of capitalism mentioned is what I found most compelling, but the recommendations provided seem to ail the symptoms of the issue at hand rather that suggest an overarching solution. Perhaps that is too big picture of me, and these are the suggestions for those involved in the conservation politics of the status quo. I look to shift the entire structure which biopolitics exists on, how daring of me. At least now I can understand the complexities that exist in the now. ![]()
![]() Great things come in threes, the the first three books of Frank Herberts "Dune" series exemplifies that pattern. Alex and I began this series on our road trip almost a year ago. I was quite hesitant to the idea, resistant to the imitation of this book. I was one of the few individuals who had not been aware of the reputation of this novel and series, so I had little reason to be excited. Upon hearing the praise and impacts of this created universe, I was willing to give it a shot. Now, the first half of the first book is discouragingly slow (or perhaps too fast and filled with unfamiliarity that it feels slow), but once you cross over that bridge you are launched into the most magnificent realm of fiction. This has continued throughout the books I have read thus far, the sequel, "Dune Messiah" and "Children of Dune." It is hard not to claim that I prefer the sequels to the original, but it makes sense. Once you fall in love with the world and characters that Herbert created, you do not want to stop enjoying the fiction. Just like the rest of my experiences with the series, I listed to this as an audiobook, which I feel is perfect to absorb the dialogue and dynamics of the story. Being that this is the third of the series, it is difficult to discuss content without giving anything away, and I cannot express enough how much I urge everyone to read these books. Although sometimes I feel like the foreshadowing in this novel is too obvious, The twists and turns culminated in the last few pages of the book left my heart racing. I am very eager to move on to the next book of the series. The author does an impressive job of moving the story forward through the introduction new story elements, but satisfies fans by not letting go of the original themes, characters, and settings. I enjoy how each chapter functions so differently in terms of plot progression, but without being explicit, tie the story together so well such a way that satisfied the reader for connecting such storylines into one grand tale. I do not think it will be long until I am reading Frank Herberts work again, and I hope the same goes for everyone reading. |
Categories |