Finished reading Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
book
Rated Zwart kwartier 5/10
Edited 37d ago
Rated 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos 6/10
I would describe "12 Rules for Life" as a self-help book plus: The 'rules' Peterson shares with the reader are encapsulated in rich essays and (autobiographic) stories. Additionally, the book is a critique of nihilism ('Any idiot can choose a frame of time within which nothing matters'), an appeal to humility and - drawing to the end - a political disquisition. Then again, it is also a self-help book in the sense that there are a lot of useful lessons to be learned from the book, which can be implemented in your day-to-day life. <br><br>My favourite rule is no. 2 (Treat yourself like someone you are responsible for helping), which I find best caught with the following quote: "Furthermore, there is little difference between standing up and speaking for yourself, when you are being bullied or otherwise tormented and enslaved, and standing up and speaking for someone else." Which I have simply interpreted as: You are just as much obliged to help yourself, as you are to help others.<br><br>In the beginning of reading this book, having arrived at the 2nd chapter or so, I would have given this book a 5-star rating. A 2-star deduction is, however, inevitable, since the book does contain a lot of flaws.<br><br>First of all, Peterson argues against ideology - and compellingly so - but glances over his own hypocrisy. According to Peterson, there is a universal truth, and it is this: "Consider then that the alleviation of unnecessary pain and suffering is a good." However, as far as I know, by this, Peterson only refers to <i>human</i> suffering. No mention of the greatest suffering of our time, animal suffering, at all.<br><br>Later in the book, Peterson writes the following: "No one in the modern world may without objection express the opinion that existence would be bettered by the absence of Jews, blacks, Muslims, or Englishmen. Why, then, is it virtuous to propose that the planet might be better off, if there were fewer people on it?" Well, here I simply have to disagree, because these are completely different things! To say that a certain group should not be around, because they are regarded as inferior, is not the same as saying that the carrying capacity of the world has its limits, and that it might be best to voluntarily try to avoid reaching these limits. Here, Peterson seems to hint towards a somewhat negative attitude towards environmentalism, which doesn't seem to be grounded in much argumentation. <br><br>Furthermore, there are certain parts of the book that don't sit well with me. For example, the idea that the most viable family composition is one of a father and mother ("Parents should come in pairs so the father of a newborn can watch the new mother"), which hints against the concept of same-sex marriage and child-raising. Later in the book, Peterson mentions a few statistics on children raised in father-absent homes: "Children in father-absent homes are four times as likely to be poor. That means their mothers are poor too. Fatherless children are at much greater risk for drug and alcohol abuse. Children living with married biological parents are less anxious, depressed and delinquent ..." and he continues a bit. I haven't checked the sources myself, but I'm afraid this is a proper example of confusing <i>causation</i> with <i>correlation</i>, which is even more culpable for a university professor. <br><br>Finally, Peterson clearly has a theist perspective on life, which not only becomes clear from the tedious amount of Bible quotes thrown in here and there, but also from his idea that man is different from animal: "Sometimes, animals act as if they are working, but they are really only following the dictates of their nature. Beavers build dams. They do so because they are beavers, and beavers build dams." (Well, yeah. And humans do human stuff because they are humans?) Without this theist perspective, I would say it is more difficult to consolidate with the definition Peterson gives to a meaningful life. That is not to say, however, that the reader without this perspective cannot take anything away from the book in this regard. <br><br>Overall, it's a worthwhile read for sure, engaging and wittingly written.<br><br>"You are, on the one hand, the most complex thing in the entire universe, and on the other, someone who can’t even set the clock on your microwave. Don’t over-estimate your self-knowledge."
Rated The Unpersuadables: Adventures with the Enemies of Science 8/10
Will Storr takes the reader along on a journey among people with unconventional ideas about the world, meeting with a infamous holocaust denier, homeopaths and alien abductees. As the book progresses, Storr does a good job at showing how fuzzy 'truth' and 'facts' can actually be. The story is guided by the principle of 'audi alteram partem', and he makes sure to always show both sides of the case (how ridiculous something might seem). I agree with Storr's final conclusion that whenever a story - because that is simply how we as humans conceptualize the world - is too coherent, i.e. everything can be explained by causal relationships, we should be skeptical. In that sense, this could be both a conspiracy theory but also a scientific 'theory of everything' that aims to explain everything in a clear set of unbreakable rules. The book is also a good reminder that we should always at least empathize, although not necessarily sympathize, with those who differ in opinion. Everyone thinks that their set of believes is correct, but we are all prone to err, bias, and short-sightedness.
Edited 37d ago
Rated De Cock en een strop voor Bobby 4/10
Edited 48d ago