Books That Allow You To Speak

Have you ever discovered a book which analyzed ideas you believed but could not communicate to others? Let me explain



I recently was recommended One-Dimensional Man by a professor at my Uni. He gave me it because I had asked him if my contributions in class discussions were nonsense (It is a seminar, I'm not obnoxious ). No one affirmed or denied what I was saying. Truly, no one even responded, I assume because they did not understand the "angle" I was approaching the topic. Obviously when you find yourself in a situation like this you suspect you might be dumb. But... I opened up the book and sat paralyzed in the library. It was like I was reading my own thoughts and feelings. I couldn't believe anyone actually understood what I had been trying to communicate, and developed my notions into actual arguments.

I haven't finished the book yet and I'm still in shock because no book has ever allowed me to communicate better, given me the words and tools to convey my idea.

(In class I was the only person who thought society could resist over-reaching technological surveillance, at least surveillance systems born from the economy. I said that their reasoning up to that point, and objections to "privacy" intrusions, could be solved or negated by a different way of organizing society. That machines do NOT have control over humans, and in many cases their existence is guaranteed by the drive for new unnecessary products. By changing this consumerism we could avoid many encroachments into our "privacy". It's hard to jump in on the convo and I'm just a sophomore, but you can imagine my frustration when people just kept saying, "People like facebook, they like to buy cell phones. Why would they stop buying cell phones? We should just submit to this inevitable dominance of surveillance technology")

P.S. I also was recommended the author James Scott and Torin Monahan IIRC, but I haven't picked up any of their stuff yet.

University is a place where you get graded, it's not a place to discuss ideas. I guess it depends where you go but I had no such luck.

I want to read some of Marcuse's stuff, will add to my list.

Originally Posted by Maverick

University is a place where you get graded, it's not a place to discuss ideas. I guess it depends where you go but I had no such luck.

...

Wasn't the original idea of universities precisely that? It's the reason professors have such a high reputations and usually great leeway on what they are actually doing there.

You don't need books to discuss ideas. Ask the Creator to open your mind and fill it with all kinds of supreme ideas, that will bring you joy, peace and harmony. Thank you.

I think that is why people have favorite books and philosophers because those people eloquently frame very personal thoughts, in ways only a scholar could--- this is the purpose of learned men and how they spread that wealth to less capable men.( of framing those thoughts into words I mean )

im not sure if ive had the same experience as you with allowing you to speak, but i've had similar. Reading On the Road when i was 15 and Timequake by kurt vonnegut when i was 22 really affected me, and changed the way i saw the world each time.

Originally Posted by Dunecat

Have you ever discovered a book which analyzed ideas you believed but could not communicate to others? Let me explain



I recently was recommended One-Dimensional Man by a professor at my Uni. He gave me it because I had asked him if my contributions in class discussions were nonsense (It is a seminar, I'm not obnoxious ). No one affirmed or denied what I was saying. Truly, no one even responded, I assume because they did not understand the "angle" I was approaching the topic. Obviously when you find yourself in a situation like this you suspect you might be dumb. But... I opened up the book and sat paralyzed in the library. It was like I was reading my own thoughts and feelings. I couldn't believe anyone actually understood what I had been trying to communicate, and developed my notions into actual arguments.

I haven't finished the book yet and I'm still in shock because no book has ever allowed me to communicate better, given me the words and tools to convey my idea.

(In class I was the only person who thought society could resist over-reaching technological surveillance, at least surveillance systems born from the economy. I said that their reasoning up to that point, and objections to "privacy" intrusions, could be solved or negated by a different way of organizing society. That machines do NOT have control over humans, and in many cases their existence is guaranteed by the drive for new unnecessary products. By changing this consumerism we could avoid many encroachments into our "privacy". It's hard to jump in on the convo and I'm just a sophomore, but you can imagine my frustration when people just kept saying, "People like facebook, they like to buy cell phones. Why would they stop buying cell phones? We should just submit to this inevitable dominance of surveillance technology")

P.S. I also was recommended the author James Scott and Torin Monahan IIRC, but I haven't picked up any of their stuff yet.

But your arguments were incorrect. It isn't a question of whether products are necessary, but how convenient they are. People will cheerfully sacrifice any degree of personal privacy in exchange for a convenience if they think everyone else is doing it, and they will think everyone else is doing it if they see marketing telling them that this is so. This is perfectly obvious. It cannot be prevented. You were right the first time - people weren't responding to you in seminars because what you were saying made no sense.

Originally Posted by Cluny the Scourge

But your arguments were incorrect. It isn't a question of whether products are necessary, but how convenient they are. People will cheerfully sacrifice any degree of personal privacy in exchange for a convenience if they think everyone else is doing it, and they will think everyone else is doing it if they see marketing telling them that this is so. This is perfectly obvious. It cannot be prevented. You were right the first time - people weren't responding to you in seminars because what you were saying made no sense.

This is part of what I was arguing we could avoid, correct.

*EDIT*-

People will cheerfully sacrifice any degree of personal privacy in exchange for a convenience if they think everyone else is doing it,

This I disagree with though, but some research done on it purposefully refrained from using the term "privacy" and emphasized informal interviews over statistics, so it is hard to just cut+paste on here. The method was exactly a rejection of the surveillance assumptions of the state, and a critique of their limits. Meaning: conventional assumptions of the state to be able to take a "snapshot" and poll society are mistaken, and people without power resist surveillance without concious knowledge of "rights", "privacy", or "surveillance".

It is my opinion that the tools of "privacy" have failed us and will not save us from a more heavily-surveilled and rationalistic state, and that revolution of power and wealth will bring about the right change of psychology and values. (Protecting society from the over-reaching and eventually oppressive state)

*EDIT*- Convenience = (false) necessity

World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max Brooks taught me how to plausibly explain the possibility of the US Army being defeated by a horde of shambling zombies.


It even predicts the future for you!