Lists

Picture of a book: Dracula
Picture of a TV show: The Sopranos
Picture of a movie: crazy, stupid, love
Picture of a movie: To Catch a Thief
Picture of a movie: Some Like It Hot
Picture of a podcast: Freakonomics Radio
Picture of a book: Self-Reliance
Picture of a book: The Prophet
Picture of a book: the little prince
Picture of a book: The Great Gatsby
Picture of a podcast: How I Built This with Guy Raz
Picture of a podcast: Welcome to Night Vale
Picture of a podcast: Philosophy Bites
Picture of a podcast: How Did This Get Made?
Picture of a podcast: Serial
Picture of a movie: Dirty Dancing

17 Movies, 16 Books, 15 Podcasts, 14 Games, 12 Shows

If It's Free, It's For Me

Sort by:
Recent Desc

With a lot of our favorite streaming platforms making content available for everyone right now, here is a list of some of our favorite Movies, TV Shows and more we've been enjoying lately

books
books

Self-Reliance

Ralph Waldo Emerson
\ \ 6.0 stars. This book seriously affected me in a very postive way. It's not really even a book but rather a long essay. Essay or book, it had a profound impact on me. In fact, I was utterly floored while reading this and it has become one of my "All Time Favorites." Other then gushing and throwing great heaps of praise on the work, I am not sure how best to describe the contents so as to do it justice. If I had to try and sum up Emerson's Self Reliance I would say that it is first and foremost the quintessential statement in support of the individual and the individual's right (and obligation) to think for themselves and to question EVERYTHING. Related to this first point, Emerson holds that you must never give in to the easy momentum of the status quo just because it is pulling you along. Rather you must investigate the world around you, take in the evidence of your senses and experience and use your own powers of reason to determine the correct path your life should follow. In short, it is an anthem to the individual and a battle cry to everyone to think for themselves. At first blush, this may sound a little like an appeal for anarchy, but that is certainly not the case. He is simply expressing the case for “individualism” and believing in yourself and not blindly following the herd because you "assume they knoiw where their going." Knowing that I could never do justice to Emerson's own words, I thought I would list of few of my favorite quotes from "Self Reliance" so as to hopefully provide some context for my review. \ Quotes # 1 and #2\ :\ “Speak what you think today in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today.”“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.”\ These quotes illustrate what I found to be the most important message of Emerson’s work, namely to always keep an “open mind” and be willing to question your own beliefs and ideas rather then feeling "boxed in" because you may have previously voiced a contrary opinion. These quotes may have had the most powerful impact on me. It is the twin goals or both being forceful with your beliefs and opinions while at the same time always being willing to question them and listen (not just hear) to contrary opinions and never be afraid to change your mind if you find an error in your thinking. \ Quotes #3 and #4\ :\ “Trust thyself: every heart vibrates to that iron string.”“Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles.”\ These quotes demonstrate the central concept in Emerson’s work, namely that you must be true to your instincts and beliefs and always willing to stand by what you (rather than others believe). Emerson felt strongly that “you” are the most important voice you will ever hear and you must trust yourself in your thoughts and endeavors. \ Quotes #5 and #6\ : \ “Society everywhere is in conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members.” “Insist on yourself; never imitate.”\ These quotes are an expression of what Emerson saw as the most fundamental obstacle against self reliance, namely the conventions and habit of life that everyone gets used to following without examination. I think it is important to note here that Emerson was not an anarchist or a hater of society and did not believe in an individualism of selfishness. Rather, he simply argued that the path to true happiness for any individual should be a unique journey and not one that follows the “unquestioned” paths of others simply because society or history tells us to do so. \ Quote #7 and #8\ :\ “In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts; they come back to us with a certain alienated majesty.”“To be great is to be misunderstood.”\ These quotes are examples of Emerson's belief that you should never be afraid to speak a “new” thought or one that goes against conventional wisdom if you believe it to be true. Emerson says that to often we are afraid to speak a thought and then later some “great thinker” will say something that was what we had previously thought but been afraid to speak. He talks of Jesus and Plato and Socrates as people who were terribly misunderstood and even persecuted in their own lifetimes but whose genius and “original ideas” came to shape the lives of millions. This work was brilliant, insightful and very, very powerful and one that will be given a permanent list on the most important works I have read. HIGHEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION!!!

Inspired by this list

Picture of a book: The Stranger
books

The Stranger

Albert Camus
I don’t know what to do with these stars anymore. I give stars to books and then I think, ‘god, you give five stars to everything, people will think you are terribly undiscriminating’ – so then I give four stars or even three stars to some books. Then I look back and it turns out that that I’ve given four stars to Of Human Bondage and honestly, how could I possibly have thought it was a good idea to give that book less than five stars? It is the absurdity of human conventions that has us doing such things.Now, that is what is called a segue, from the Italian ‘seguire’ – to follow. For the last thirty years I have studiously avoided reading this book. I have done that because for the last thirty years I have known exactly what this book is about and there just didn’t seem any point in reading it. In high school friends (one of them even became my ex-wife) told me it was a great book about a man condemned to die because he was an outsider. Later I was told that this book was a story about something much like the Azaria Chamberlain case. A case where someone does not react in a way that is considered to be ‘socially appropriate’ and is therefore condemned.But after 30 years of avoiding reading this book I have finally relented and read it. At first I didn’t think I was going to enjoy it. It didn’t really get off to the raciest of starts and the character's voice – it is told in first person – was a bit dull. He is a man who lives entirely in the present, how terribly Buddhist of him – although, really there doesn’t seem to be all that much to him.My opinion of the book began to change at his mother’s funeral. I particularly liked the man who kept falling behind in the march to the cemetery and would take short cuts. Okay, so it is black humour, but Camus was more or less French – so black humour is more or less obligatory.I really hadn’t expected this book to be nearly so funny as it turned out. I’d always been told it was a ponderous philosophical text – and so, to be honest, I was expecting to be bored out of my skull. I wasn’t in the least bit bored.A constant theme in my life at present is that I read ‘classics’ expecting them to be about something and they end up being about something completely different. And given I’ve called this a ‘constant’ theme then you might think I would be less than surprised when a read a new ‘classic’ and it turns out to be completely different to my expectations. I’m a little more upset about this one than some of the others, as I’ve been told about this one before, repeatedly, and by people I’d have taken as ‘reputable sources’ – although, frankly, how well one should trust one’s ex-wife in such matters is moot.I had gotten the distinct impression from all of my previous discussions about this book that the guy ends up dead. In fact, this is not the case – he ends up at the point in his life where he has no idea if he will be freed or not. The Priest who comes to him at the end is actually quite certain that he will be freed. Let’s face it, he is only guilty of having murdered an Arab, and as we have daily evidence, Westerners can murder Arabs with complete impunity. The main point of the book to me is when he realises he is no longer ‘free’. He needs this explained to him – because life up until then had been about ‘getting used to things’ and one can 'get used to just about anything'. But the prison guard helpfully informs him that he is being ‘punished’ and the manifestation of that punishment is the removal of his ‘freedom’. Interestingly, he didn’t notice the difference between his past ‘free’ life and his current ‘unfree’ one. The most interesting part of the book to me was the very end, the conversation with the priest. The religious often make the mistake of thinking that Atheists are one thing – I’ve no idea how they ever came to make this mistake, but make it they do. Given that there are thousands upon thousands of different shades of Christians – from Jesuit Catholics to Anti-Disney Episcopalians – it should be fairly obvious that something like Atheism (without any ‘organised’ church or even system of beliefs) could not be in anyway ‘homogeneous’.I am definitely not the same kind of Atheist as Camus. To Camus there is no truth, the world is essentially absurd and all that exists is the relative truth an individual places on events and ideas. This makes the conversation with the priest fascinatingly interesting. To the priest the prisoner who is facing death is – by necessity – someone who is interested in God. You can play around with ideas like the non-existence of God when it doesn’t seem to matter (life is long and blasphemy can seem fun) – but surely when confronted with the stark truth of the human condition any man would turn away from their disbelief and see the shining light.Not this little black duck. Now, if I was in that cell I would have argued with the priest too – but I would not have argued in the same way that Meursault argues. No, I do not believe in God, but I do believe in truth, and so Camus’ arguments are barred to me.Meursault essentially says, “Look, I’m bored, I’m totally uninterested in the rubbish you are talking – now go away”. Now, this is a reasonable response. What is very interesting is that the priest cannot accept this as an answer. The world is not allowed to have such a person in it – if such a person really did exist then it would be a fundamental challenge to the core beliefs of the priest. So, he has to assume Meursault is either lying to him or is trying to taunt him. But it is much worse – he is absolutely sincere, he is not interested in this ‘truth’.I don’t know that the world is completely meaningless, it is conventional rather than meaningless. That those conventions are arbitrary (decided by the culture we grew up in) doesn’t make them meaningless, it makes them conventional. I don’t think I would like to live in a world where people go up and kill Arabs pretty much at random and with impunity, but then again, we have already established this is precisely the world I do live in. My point is that it would be better if we did adhere to some sort of moral principles and that these should be better principles than ‘he should be killed because he didn’t cry at his mum’s funeral’. Camus is seeking to say that all of our ‘moral principles’ in the end come to be as meaningless as that – we judge on the basis of what we see from the framework of our own limited experience. And look, yes, there is much to this – but this ends up being too easy.The thing I like most about Existentialism, though it isn’t really as evident in this book as it is in the actual philosophy – although this is something that Meursault is supposed to have grown to understand (sorry, just one more sub-clause) even though this wasn’t something I noticed at all while reading the book, was the notion of responsibility. I didn’t think in the end Meursault was all that much more ‘responsible’ for his actions than he had been at the start. But I do think that ‘responsibility’ is a key concept in morality and one that seems increasingly to be ignored.Better by far that we feel responsible for too much in our lives than too little – better by far that we take responsibility for the actions of our governments (say) than to call these governments ‘them’. I’m not advocating believing in The Secret - but that if one must err, better to err on the side of believing you have too much responsibility for how your life has turned out, rather than too little.So, what can I say? I enjoyed this much more than I expected – but I’m still glad I waited before reading it, I really don’t think I would have gotten nearly as much out of it at 15 as I did now.
Picture of a book: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
books

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

Philip K. Dick
I could say that I love Dick, but that would be weird. I do very much enjoy Philip K. Dick's writing and though this is not one of his best, the "Pizza and Sex Rule" applies to him; ie. just as even bad pizza and / or sex is still pretty good, bad PKD is as well. And this is not bad at all. The first mistake that a new reader would make is to watch Blade Runner and expect a novelization of that film; it was LOOSELY based upon the book. I'm a big fan of the Ridley Scott film starring Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer, but the movie diverged from Phillip K. Dick's literature early on. The book is far more bleak than the film, if you can believe that, and much more intricate and complicated. Blade Runner benefits from a simplified storyline. The author was far ahead of his time both in the complexity of his story and the perspective from which he writes. There are elements of Brave New World, I, Robot, and Dune; but the author has a unique voice and the story is an original. It is not an excellent work, as there are gaps and inconsistencies and many loose ends that are never tied in, but the concept and provocation are superb.One element of the book that was completely left out of the film was a sub-plot involving a Christ-like messiah and a faith system based upon what could have been a hoax. First published in 1968, this was one of his more theological based novels, and a trend that would continue steadily becoming more frequent and invasive until the end of his writing.A MUST read for PKD fans as well as SF/F fans period.
Picture of a book: The Catcher in the Rye
books

The Catcher in the Rye

J.D. Salinger
The hero-narrator of The Catcher in the Rye is an ancient child of sixteen, a native New Yorker named Holden Caulfield. Through circumstances that tend to preclude adult, secondhand description, he leaves his prep school in Pennsylvania and goes underground in New York City for three days. The boy himself is at once too simple and too complex for us to make any final comment about him or his story. Perhaps the safest thing we can say about Holden is that he was born in the world not just strongly attracted to beauty but, almost, hopelessly impaled on it. There are many voices in this novel: children's voices, adult voices, underground voices-but Holden's voice is the most eloquent of all. Transcending his own vernacular, yet remaining marvelously faithful to it, he issues a perfectly articulated cry of mixed pain and pleasure. However, like most lovers and clowns and poets of the higher orders, he keeps most of the pain to, and for, himself. The pleasure he gives away, or sets aside, with all his heart. It is there for the reader who can handle it to keep. J.D. Salinger's classic novel of teenage angst and rebellion was first published in 1951. The novel was included on Time's 2005 list of the 100 best English-language novels written since 1923. It was named by Modern Library and its readers as one of the 100 best English-language novels of the 20th century. It has been frequently challenged in the court for its liberal use of profanity and portrayal of sexuality and in the 1950's and 60's it was the novel that every teenage boy wants to read.