(Part 2) Best history of civilization & culture books according to redditors
We found 681 Reddit comments discussing the best history of civilization & culture books. We ranked the 122 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
Civil Rights in the 60's were bad for black people m'kay?
Feminism: A one stop train to becoming a prostitute and hating families!
Because people killing each other in the Middle East is a GOOD thing.
Only rich white people can write good things.
BRITISH EMPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRE fapfapfapfapfap
The USFG caused the Great depression. More specifically FDR.
Oh right, and capitalism had NOTHING to do with the Depression. At all.
The South WASN'T actually racist. Nope, they had Jesus on their side too. Also, you gave up your vacations in Cuba, you Yankee bastards.
Conservatives are the only real Americans! Everyone else is a dirty communist spy!
If you question the Bible, you question liberty and tolerance and reason.
Roman history is EXACTLY the same as US history. Also, the Middle Ages were the Age of Reason.
The Founding Fathers were conservatives. And totally supported the South in the Civil War, even though they were dead.
Evolution never happened!
And, of course... The US should be a Christian theocracy with slaves.
Brian Fagan actually talks about the possibility that the Mongolian invasions were related to climate change in his book The Great Warming: Climate Change and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations. It is well worth reading:
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Warming-Climate-Change-Civilizations/dp/159691601X
You should read The Perfectionists it's all about the history of precision measurement, telling stories centered around the 'leaps' (now able to measure to .1", now able to... etc.) and how it impacted the world.
He makes bad conclusions about history because he cherrypicked historical events and made unsubstantiated conclusions from them but I haven't seen much controversy with his claims on anthropology. His claims of how violent tribal society are repeated in other books I've read like The origins of political order and the creation of inequality.
Edit: Here's a askhistorians thread on some of Mr Diamonds anthropological writings.. In short, his work on anthropology is a quite a bit worse than I thought. "The creation of inequality" goes pretty depth about tribal violence and backs up his claims in Guns Germs and Steel so its safe to say that that part is accurate at least.
Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. Not exactly biology, but he is a professor of physiology that expanded into evolutionary biology. I find this book very fascinating.
this dude wrote "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization" and is 100% a white supremacist just going off of the blurb for that
The Bible (new international)
Guns, Germs, and Steel
The Lord of the Rings
http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-J-R-R-Tolkien/dp/0544003411/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348313203&sr=1-1&keywords=Lord+of+the+rings
http://www.amazon.com/NIV-Study-Bible-Zondervan/dp/0310443261/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1348313063&sr=8-3&keywords=niv+bible
http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Jared-Diamond/dp/1565115147/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1348313107&sr=1-1&keywords=guns%2C+germs+and+steel
> Of the many social and technological problems early humans would have encountered, I can imagine few which would not have involved deference to individuals with cultural prestige or privileged relationship to social norms, therefore the recognition of a right of certain individuals to command or decide in certain situations.
This here may be the problem, because it does not conform to what has been studied and observed or described by people who lived in our closest analogues to the types of societies that humans lived in for literally thousands of years. I really recommend reading this book, its very interesting, has pictures even lol, and is a super fun read with very little technical language. I think you may be very surprised to read the details of just how power/prestige worked in these societies. As well as the stories of how hierarchy (of the kind we think of as normal) evolved in different circumstances and how it came to dominate and was also resisted.
https://www.amazon.com/Creation-Inequality-Prehistoric-Ancestors-Monarchy/dp/0674064690
Even if from the outside it might look like a special person 'decided' something and then others obey, expressing power of a sort, that is not how it plays out or is experienced. Above all, it is most important that power NOT be seen to be exercised by a special person. It is a social game that we might say lies to itself about what is happening, but playing the game is what is interesting, how it works and why it is essential. Even if we could make the argument that some individuals in the group do have more decision making power or influence, it is important in the group that this is not evident in a way that exposes the powerful as powerful. Not because people are deluded, but because everyone understands the need to play the game and why they play it. Nothing is more important than the group and minimizing conflict within the group. Nothing is more harmful in the group than special people who think they deserve a bit extra based on a natural or earned ability/prestige.
You also state that the mechanisms of envy don't target authority figures, and I'm not sure where you would get such an idea when in fact it is usually the opposite in societies that are 'fierce egalitarian' in structure. It is precisely the management of envy among the group for those individuals who are smarter, better looking, better hunters, better gatherers, better story tellers, and in other ways unequal to their peers that matters for the group. Nobody is more aware of this than those talented people themselves, they must practice huge amounts of social intelligence to navigate the pitfalls presented by their 'superiority' in the eyes of their society. Boasting is probably among the greatest sins in these societies, and nobody knows the risks more than those who might feel they have reason to boast. Again, the two books I recommended are really fascinating in regards to these questions.
This is the best explanation I could find. And the Amazon reviews for the book are all ironic. But I don't remember if it was ever actually explained. Basically it seems like an inside joke between the Chapo guys that other people are pretending to be in on.
Nah, we evolved from those days. We are very much still frightened apes who are naturally prone to violence when faced with many situations.
I suggest reading 'Sapiens', to help come to terms with it.
Felipe Fernandez-Armesto (an Oxford professor of history) has written several books you might like.
The World - A History, a two volume work, is very well regarded in teaching circles. I have heard great things about this book, but I haven't read it myself.
I have read his Millenium - A History of the Past One Thousand Years and can highly recommend it. Looking at Amazon though, it looks like it might be out of print. He also wrote Humankind - A Brief History.
A Terrible Beauty - The People and Ideas that Shaped the Modern Mind. A History by Peter Watson may also be of interest; though it focuses exclusively on the 20th century. In it, the author attempts to provide a history of the twentieth century that does not focus on 'wars and dates', and that addresses an alarming lack of focus in many recent history books. As Watson puts it himself in the Introduction "In one recent 700-page history of the first third of the twentieth century, for example, there is no mention of relativity, of Henri Matisse or Gregor Mendel, no Ernest Rutherford, James Joyce, or Marcel Proust. No George Orwell, W.E.B. Du Bois, or Margaret Mead, no Oswald Spengler or Virgina Woolf. No Leo Szilard or Leo Hendrik Baekeland, no James Chadwick or Paul Ehrlich. No Sinclair Lewis and therefore no Babbit." (He was referring to Martin Gilbert's The Twentieth Century - Volume 1, 1900 - 1933). I highly recommend this book. Another example, but of a far more personal nature, would be Clive James's Cultural Amnesia, a fascinating collection of biographical essays on some of the 20th century's greatest thinkers, musicians, artists etc. James is justifiably famous (in the UK at least) for his prose and erudition, as well as his humourous critical columns.
Finally, the much lauded trilogy by Daniel Boorstin sounds like a good fit too. The Discovers, The Seekers and The Creators are excellent. Personally, Boorstin's style is not my favourite, but there is no arguing the value of these books; superb works of learning.
If you want more recommendations, just ask. :)
EDIT: Kenneth Clark's famous TV series Civilization may also interest you. It is primarily a history of western civilization and, by implication, a history of western art & culture. It's also from the 1970's so it is considered a little dated in some circles; Clarke certainly shows his western bias. But nevertheless, it is wonderful TV, remarkably interesting, well produced (though not HD!) and a fascinating subject.
I'm unsure if there are ever been a society void of altruism, but one theory that has been popular with a lot of anthropologists is that human societies began as egalitarian, and that rank and hierarchies are an invention. Under this system, there are mechanisms for maintaining egalitarianism, which include behaviors you might call altruistic or selfless. Joyce Marcus and Kent V. Flannery wrote a book in the last few years called The Creation of Inequality in which they argue for this theory using archaeological evidence. They're both pretty entertaining writers and it's worth a look.
Basically, I think they'd probably argue with you that it doesn't make sense that there would ever been a purely selfish, non-altruistic society.
I really appreciate your willingness to learn about this issue, I would like to admit that I am not the most knowledgable person in this regard, there are a lot of books on this matter, but I would recommend Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harrari as a must read if you wanna learn more about Human Organization.
In layman terms of what I understand, the Government is basically how the community wants to manage itself, throughout time these concepts have changed and how the tribe likes to be managed (inner group outer group, where to live, how to stay safe, how to hunt...) have changed as well.
Modern Government is an evolutionary system born from the former, it is by no means the end game but a step along the way.
People need to work together to survive, we are a creature that depends on others in our tribe/clan/community for safety, food, knowledge....
The purpose of Government is to do the above but on a millions of people scale.
Unfortunately, as humans we have inherent flaws that bleed in to biases, preferences, selfishness... . Our current systems of Government are not human proof, meaning that our biases and selfishness can get through and affect the way we govern.
Therein lies the problem with why our governments fail us
I am most familiar with the climate changes of the Medieval Warm Period (ca. AD 800-1200) and the Little Ice Age (ca. 1200-1900). Some great pop science books about those two have been written by Brian Fagan: 1 and 2. For modern climate change, if you are really wanting to get in depth, you can check out the latest IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. I realise that present-day climate change is an incredibly controversial topic among some sectors, so keep in mind that there are lots of competing viewpoints out there.
Please let me know if you want something less pop science-y about those two past events -- I've got some great textbook and article recommendations too for the specialist.
Sid Mukherjee's book does an excellent job discussing the history, science, and ethics of this issue. Highly recommended. It's a long but worthwhile read. His book on cancer is even better.
The Gene: An Intimate History https://www.amazon.com/dp/147673352X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_cpXGzbF6T4SXP
I went to one AA meeting when I first got clean and never went back. I understand people have found support and success in it but to me, personally, I felt it only increased the stigma of drug addicts as these broken hopeless people barely hanging on by a thread. It's an outdated system that relies on little science or attempting to progress the participants and relies more on holding people in place and focusing on the past. Instead I just worked towards becoming a normal person. Here are some of the resources I used:
r/Fitness - Getting Started: Exercise is probably the #1 thing that will aid you in recovering. It can help your brain learn to produce normal quantities of dopamine again as well as improve your heath, mood, well being and confidence.
Meetup: You can use this site to find people in your area with similar interests. I found a hiking group and a D&D group on here which I still regularly join.
Craigslist: Same as above - look for groups, activities, volunteer work, whatever.
Diet
This will be the other major player in your recovery. Understanding your diet will allow you to improve your health,mood, energy, and help recover whatever damage the drugs may have done to your body.
How Not To Die Cookbook
Life Changing Foods
The Plant Paradox
Power Foods For The Brain
Mental Health
Understand whats going on inside your head and how to deal with it is also an important step to not only recovery but enjoying life as a whole.
Feeling Good: The New Mood Therapy
The Emotional Life Of Your Brain
Furiously Happy
The Science of Enlightenment: How Meditation Works
Educational
If you are like me you probably felt like a dumbass when you first got clean. I think retraining your brain on learning, relearning things you may have forgot after long term drug use, and just learning new things in general will all help you in recovery. Knowledge is power and the more you learn the more confident in yourself and future learning tasks you become.
Illegal Drugs: A Complete Guide to their History, Chemistry, Use, and Abuse
Why Nations Fails
Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud
The Modern Mind: An Intellectual History of the 20th Century
Thinking, Fast and Slow
The Financial Peace Planner: A Step-by-Step Guide to Restoring Your Family's Financial Health
Continued Education / Skills Development
EdX: Take tons of free college courses.
Udemy: Tons of onine courses ranging from writing to marketing to design, all kinds of stuff.
Cybrary: Teach yourself everything from IT to Network Security skills
Khan Academy: Refresh on pretty much anything from highschool/early college.
There are many more resources available these are just ones I myself have used over the past couple years of fixing my life. Remember you don't have to let your past be a monkey on your back throughout the future. There are plenty of resources available now-a-days to take matters into your own hands.
*Disclaimer: I am not here to argue about anyone's personal feelings on AA**
I'm currently reading a book about muslim demographics and it has all the national statistics there.
>“But Islamic society is even more fragile. As Muslim fertility shrinks at the rate demographers have never seen before, it is converging on Europe’s catastrophically low fertility as if in time-lapse photography. Iranian women in their twenties who grew up with five or six siblings will bear only or two children during their lifetimes. Turkey and Algeria are just behind Iran on the way down, and most other Muslim countries are catching up quickly. By the middle of this century, the belt of Muslim countries from Morocco to Iran will become as gray as depopulating Europe. The Islamic world will have the same proportion of dependent elderly as the industrial countries - but one tenth the productivity. A time bomb is ticking in the Muslim world”.
I did a Google search and there's a book with that tile but not sure if it's what they were referencing.
I mostly found Diamond to be overly fatalistic. he seems to be of the opinion that human civilization is inherently not just a delicate system in need of care and maintenance but irrevocably and inexorably doomed and doomed within our lifetime. (a common theme among the aging boomers I know and read)
he's also focusing hard on the things that prove his points and not so much on the stuff that doesn't, a forgivable sin in a pop-sci author.
I recommend instead Dirt: the erosion of civilizations which is a bit more of a history/geology/geography/anthropology type of book and when it's speculative it's both a lot more hopeful, and a lot more helpful.
I'm also currently reading Niall Ferguson's civilization the west and the rest which is essentially a defense of the classic western-centric historical education in addition to a defense of a western-centric modernist mindset. it's good, it's dense, it's meaty, I'm not sure if I agree with it's conclusions, but you could do worse and he's very much a historian first.
I just start reading Written In Stone by Brian Switek, so far I'm really enjoying it. It's about paleontology, evolution, and how that relates to humans. Another amazing book in a similar vain is Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin, inspired a tattoo for me.
According to Murray's excellent survey, ~97% of key contributions to modern science originate from whites. Bringing up one exception doesn't prove the other guy wrong.
https://www.amazon.com/Geohell-Imagining-History-Contemporary-World-ebook/dp/B01N0K02CJ
It's not really a philosophy book, but I've really enjoyed reading it, and it may be along the lines of what you're looking for.
The Modern Mind: An Intellectual History of the 20th Century
You might like this book: http://www.amazon.com/Fields-Blood-Religion-History-Violence/dp/0307957047 From the synopsis: While many historians have looked at violence in connection with particular religious manifestations (jihad in Islam or Christianity’s Crusades), Armstrong looks at each faith—not only Christianity and Islam, but also Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Daoism, and Judaism—in its totality over time. As she describes, each arose in an agrarian society with plenty powerful landowners brutalizing peasants while also warring among themselves over land, then the only real source of wealth. In this world, religion was not the discrete and personal matter it would become for us but rather something that permeated all aspects of society. And so it was that agrarian aggression, and the warrior ethos it begot, became bound up with observances of the sacred.
In each tradition, however, a counterbalance to the warrior code also developed. Around sages, prophets, and mystics there grew up communities protesting the injustice and bloodshed endemic to agrarian society, the violence to which religion had become heir. And so by the time the great confessional faiths came of age, all understood themselves as ultimately devoted to peace, equality, and reconciliation, whatever the acts of violence perpetrated in their name.
Industrialization and modernity have ushered in an epoch of spectacular and unexampled violence, although, as Armstrong explains, relatively little of it can be ascribed directly to religion. Nevertheless, she shows us how and in what measure religions, in their relative maturity, came to absorb modern belligerence—and what hope there might be for peace among believers of different creeds in our time.
Try his other books as well. I've enjoyed the 2nd: Homo Deus and recently purchased the 3rd: 21 Lessons for the 21st Century.
> Have any of you hit this crossroads and had to completely uproot what you envision for your future?
Yes, multiple times. And each time it's been hard for me to find new goals that I can both achieve and be happy with.
It's hard to even write a response to this. I'm not the best example to go from, since I also have multiple sclerosis and other health problems. But even right now I'm still trying to find a way forward.
Which is better than willfully accepting being stuck in a rut. I did that for a few years too, and let myself get addicted to games and social media. That phase is mostly gone now, but finding ways to make money that is compatible with my many health problems is a lifelong challenge.
I've been reading a book called Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. It's been very eye-opening to see just how different our current world is from the world of our evolutionary ancestors.
DSPD is part of our genetic heritage. The mutations formed possibly hundreds of thousands of years ago and were passed down from parent to child, in an unbroken chain, until they were passed on to you and me.
But for all those tens of thousands of years, those genetic mutations impacted their carriers very little. It's been less than one hundred years since the widespread adoption of electric lighting. So we're among the first generation of carriers to suffer for it. (Although some of us may have inherited a spontaneous mutation that causes our DSPD, in which case we're the first carrier in our lineage.)
Additionally, the imperative to acquire money in our society is really very different from the food-gathering imperative of our hunter gatherer forebearers. Our genomes were shaped over tens of thousands of years to primarily succeed in finding food and socializing. So we find ourselves in control of a body and mind crafted for very different circumstances than what society demands of us now.
Even just forty years ago people were financially rewarded more for physical ability than being smart. But our society has quickly shifted to rewarding intellectual ability, primarily because of Moore's Law (not just the invention of computers, but the fact we can keep making them faster).
There's a possible universe out there where people with our particular genetic mutation happen to be the winners in the economy. But this isn't it. And like /u/eachna said, we're also not necessarily the losers. There is demand here and there for people who are unusually alert in the late evening hours.
Anyhow, none of the evolutionary past matters. We find ourselves in this situation, and complaining about it doesn't get you or me any closer to our goals. But perhaps it provides context, which can be invaluable.
Sorry for the rambling, but I want to end on a positive note. There is a chance that within the next 30 years we'll be able to cure DSPD. Gene therapy is becoming more feasible every year, and drawing lots of investment money. And companies are creating "Gene Therapy in a Box" to reduce the costs and increase the availability to end consumers.
To me, that means it makes sense to start saving money. The cost of getting your genome sequenced is dropping every year. It might be $100 in a few years, to give you an idea.
But that's just the first step of the process. Once the price is low enough, more people will get their genomes sequenced, which will lead to an explosion of genomic data. We're on the precipice of this happening, and companies like 23andMe are willfully trying to make it happen.
After that, for every genetic disorder there will need to be a specific fix created for it. This will need to be tailored to the individual. And so there will be companies offering genetic fixes for a large range of disorders. The prices will be high at first, as with all tech adoption.
I said thirty years, but it might take longer for the prices to come down for your average DSPD sufferer to afford it. I don't know when it'll be affordable, but at this point it's when, not if.
Rambling again, sorry. The point is, we may be able to fix our DSPD in the future, and it may not even cost that much. If anything, to me this greatly increases the importance of saving up maybe $10k over the next decade. Which works out to about $2.74 a day, every day, for the next 10 years.
> Have any of you hit this crossroads and had to completely uproot what you envision for your future?
Yes, and my new goal is to save up money, above and beyond anything else.
Haha, it was kind of a tongue in cheek suggestion, since the author (Matthew Kenner) is an extremely online fixture of various leftist twitter groups who also got lit up for stanning some edgelady nazi girl (also on twitter). I won't do the book justice with my own description since I've only read the first chapter (he has his own style and he packs a lot of info and ideas on the page) so here's the amazon link with the blurb.
https://www.amazon.com/Geohell-Imagining-History-Contemporary-World-ebook/dp/B01N0K02CJ
https://twitter.com/cutasterfee?lang=en looks like he pruned a lot of his content, followers, follows, etc. since I last saw. He's an interesting dude and would probably like to talk about his book.
That's an excellent question. If you'd like to broaden your thinking a bit, check out:
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Civilization-Reflections-John-Zerzan/dp/0922915989
My assertions are axiomatic, and quite obviously so, at that. This is not a wise battle for you to pursue, unless you wish to descend into colonial European notions of manifest destiny and the white man's burden.
>>Those people are just as advanced as any other
>
>No, they're not.
Tell me, then: in a contest of using indigenous medicinal plants, who would prove "more advanced" - you, or these tribespeople? In determining who has superior herding techniques, which party would be the victor? In a comparison of familial kinship and relations? Spearcraft? Long-distance hiking? Animal husbandry?
There simply does not exist any way to declare any of these criteria "unimportant" without making a subjective assertion of your own personal values. And the people we're talking about would most certainly have a different class of values about those things. Why would your values be "more objective" than theirs - or anyone's? The answer is that they cannot be. It is your own opinion, and with any degree of humility, all genuinely reasonable people recoginze that, as I hope that you will, too.
>>Civilization and technology are specific types of advancements, but they are not objectively superior to any others
>
>Yes, they are.
Funny - there sure seem to be a great many very well-reasoned arguments against civilization and technology, even from those who have experienced the very height of their "advancement".
I certainly see no evidence for an objective declaration, even just by examing the meta-issue of the debate itself, which is undeniably still open.
>>to add "culture" in there is frankly just plain racist.
>
>No, it isn't.
Yes, it is. You have virtualy no notions of these people's culture. The very definition of "culture" practically prohibits the very idea of it being declared "advanced" or otherwise. It is simply the collection of common and traditional practices of a given group. I would even go so far as to say that if one were to make judgments of "advancement," surely a culture that has been largely uninterrupted and un-usurped for a period of thousands of years has matured and "advanced" far more than a culture which is ever-shifting and highly dependent on technological advances that didn't even exist a generation prior. But even to make an assertion such as that is meaningless, because the criterion "advancement" simply does not make sense when applied to culture - any culture. The only role that such a declaration can fulfill is to demean and devalue another group of people completely arbitrarily, as to support a racist or otherwise xenophobic worldview.
>By what standard are modern Western civilization, technology, and culture objectively superior to barefoot African tribesmen? By the only objective standard of value: their success at meeting the requirements of human life.
And just what are those "requirements of human life?" These tribespeople might tell you some very different things than what you would tell them. Would either of you be "right?" Absolutely not.
As for the rest of your points, they are all similarly obvious - and highly subjective, though largely incontroversial in our demographic - subjective and personal value judgments. Adding the word "objectively" to your statements does not make it so. Even such criteria as you have mentioned - lifespan, "individualism," property rights (lol), etc., are not objectively "advanced." After all, what are the "objective" benefits of a long lifespan if it is filled with ennui, alienation and oppression? What is the value of "individualism" to a person who cherishes deep bonds and shared struggle with others? How can one declare "property rights" to be an objective good when the very concept of such has only existed for a few hundred years, and has arguably led to the greatest ongoing extinction of species in millions of years?
You see? Value judgments, all of it. And for someone who might call themself a "libertarian," you certainly seem not to understand the true spirit of the credo, "live and let live."
No ones mentioned it, but Niall Ferguson just brought a book out with a complementary documentary series.
It's called Civilization: The west and the rest
I'm sure an American version is out or will come out soon. He takes an alternative approach to Diamonds 'Geographic circumstances' thesis. He suggest that there are 6 killer apps that made the West succeed:
I think the beauty of his approach is that it makes available to younger readers of history. This is something that could easily be taught to 14 year olds. Whilst I disagree with parts of it (it would be hard not to find an individual that doesn't) I believe this History is not one that just encourages debate, but encourages participation from those who would have had no interest beforehand. Economic History is utterly fascinating and it's great to see a 6 part documentary on a major television channel here in the UK (channel 4).
If you are interested you can get it from amazon.co.uk (US version not out till November):
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1846142733 - book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Civilization-West-History-Niall-Ferguson/dp/B004LQG1AC/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1302889938&sr=1-1 - dvd
I'm reading Against Civilization, a compilation of essays by thinkers (from Rousseau to the Unabomber) edited by John Zerzan, cool guy and referent of the actual anarcho-primitivism movement. Reading it will give you an insight to the mindset of the anticivilization movement and probably encourage you to GTFO civilization ASAP.
Most people here say that you'll still need to trade with the nearest town at some point to get enough food (winter, etc). And that's the reason of why hunters-gatherers are nomads. So, maybe this shared fantasy of settling alone in a cabin in the woods has nothing to do with a natural/primitive/sustainable/possible way of living. Forget your cabin, your supplies, nomad is the way to go!
First off, I think a person can develop/maintain a robust spiritual outlook on life, even while being skeptical of unsubstantiated supernatural claims. On the more extreme side (for a secular person), is the author of Homo Deus, Yuval Noah Harari, who claims to meditate for 2 hours every day, and goes on a meditation retreat for a month or more, which he claims has helped him to achieve the kind of focus he needed to write his ambitious books. On the less extreme side, you have people like Noah Rasheta who tends to spend maybe 5-15 minutes in set-aside meditation a day (from what I can gather) and often practices mindfulness as part of his day-to-day activities.
---
What I do now (not as systematically as before, but when I feel like it) to cultivate useful spirituality in myself (mostly for how it can serve me and others, but to a lesser extent for its own sake):
There seems to be a propensity for a checklist mentality in LDS culture, and I've enjoyed not doing the above things in any checklist kind of way. I just do them, but mostly when I feel like it. It's not to say I don't push myself to do some things on schedule or that are difficult (I woke up before 6am this morning to play racket-ball, for instance), but I am less worried that I will fall into the clutches of Satan if I neglect something for a day or even a week. Even if I forget or am too busy to shower for a day or two, I still always end up showering; the same can be said for all these kinds of spiritual activities. I should note that much of my current mindset and activities were derived from watching or being with my wife and seeing how she does spirituality.
Also, I do almost everything barefoot (running, cycling, hiking, walking, racketball, around the house, driving, [but not mowing, because safety first] etc), which is a great way to connect with the world, at least for me. The thermo-tactile feedback as the world progresses through its seasons is really invigorating to experience on one's feet. Warning: if you choose to do this, please know it comes with risks (I broke a toe playing ultimate frisbee, and I've gotten frostbite running too long in the snow once--but the black tips fell off and my toes healed up very nicely) and give your feet time to build up to it (take it slow at first).
---
> I would also be interested in peoples theories on why prayer and scripture study can help you even if they are not "true".
They (can) emphasize free-will (encourage pro-activeness), the inherent worth of other humans (one of the pillars of moral conscience), help a person to become more aware of the short and long-term consequences of their day-to-day actions, and give examples of self-deprecating behavior which can help a person swallow their ego when it is necessary or helpful. Reading classic novels and meditating are likely to achieve similar ends.
---
Keep us posted on how your spirituality develops!
This book might interest you:
https://www.amazon.com/Perfectionists-Precision-Engineers-Created-Modern/dp/0062652559
How Emotions are Made, The Brain: The story of you, Incognito. Also maybe Gene.
This would be a good place to start - http://www.amazon.com/Seekers-Continuing-Understand-Knowledge-Trilogy/dp/0375704752/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_3
>So, if we can agree that being bereft of a shared language for discussing human dignity and flourishing is itself detrimental to human dignity and flourishing, then to that extent at least, I have made the case.
But you haven't. You're implicitly claiming that the center is, in fact, empty until and unless someone occupies it; while simultaneously claiming there is always, already a center.
From such a perspective, the statement:
>We can formulate the discrepancy as follows: the more the distribution of goods and status is centralized, the more vehemently we deny the existence of any center.
is reinterpretation of the lack of any such center's justification; or even more accurately, the meaninglessness of justification itself. This appears like Postmodernism 101.
>But the reliance of a political order on hysterical and escalating delusions is an indictment of that order.
According to whom? You're presupposing exactly what you've previously claimed doesn't exist:
>But we don’t have such a shared language, precisely because the effect of the direct relation between state and individual created by the system of rights makes any such shared language impossible: any assertion of shared values or virtues would inevitably privilege one group over others and therefore be the ground for a claim that the former were violating the rights of the latter.
In fact, assuming you agree with bobby’s statement:
>Language transcends the physical; we merely associate physical marks or sounds to "get" a meaning that inheres in nothing but shared conventions of attention.
This “shared language’s” absence is indicative of the dominance of your own perspective. Why would you expect language users to accept “shared conventions of attention” which mark such users as “hysterical” or “delusional?” Especially if these conventions prohibit the most grand resentment and desire.
The Rise of The West by William Mcneill. A grand narrative history of the entire human civilization. Very humane, thoughtful, and relevant (I am reading it for the second time these days).
> How about "Ideas: A History of Thought and Invention, from Fire to Freud"
There is also a "sequel" of sorts, The Modern Mind: An Intellectual History of the 20th Century that is worth considering.
I'm not in any way a historian so I was waiting to see what others said, but I would have suggested The Rise of the West by W. H. McNeill. Admittedly it's quite old (my edition was published in 1963) but I was wondering if proper historians would think of me as a dribbling shaved ape if I said I was impressed with it.
May I suggest that you read The Oxford Annotated Bible.
Once you are done with that ... may I suggest
All three of these books dissect imagination, creativity and the human existence. I encourage anyone who has been a JW to read these books. I was raised from infancy to be a JW and I struggled to understand mankind's history, achievements and appreciation to where we are today.
Mind you ... this is a meal literary Guinness with a steak dinner vs Bible is just a wine spritzer and salad.
I will check it out. I recently read "How Civilizations Die".
https://www.amazon.com/How-Civilizations-Die-Islam-Dying-ebook/dp/B005O2PMYI/ref=sr_1_1?crid=T36UPIQS7179&keywords=how+civilizations+die+and+why+islam+is+dying+too&qid=1568238359&s=gateway&sprefix=how+civilizations%2Caps%2C924&sr=8-1
> know a bit about humanity
Have you read Pinker's or Armstrong's latest on human nature? They are both on my list, but so far, I have only read reviews.
Here's a book for you: www.amazon.com/dp/0307957047/
There are arguments here you'll have to contend with if you're going to convince the world that religion is the root of so much violence. Enjoy reading. Cheers!
I found this in the woods.. https://www.amazon.com/Perfectionists-Precision-Engineers-Created-Modern/dp/0062652559/
This was a pretty good read regarding precision: https://www.amazon.com/Perfectionists-Precision-Engineers-Created-Modern/dp/0062652559/ref=sr_1_1
The Rise of The West is probably the best book on general history I've seen anywhere:
https://www.amazon.com/Rise-West-History-Community-Retrospective/dp/0226561410/ref=sr_1_36?keywords=history+of+west&qid=1572706758&s=books&sr=1-36
It does not talk specifically about the Russian revolution that much, but it goes very deep into analysing how the modern world became what it is, starting at the very beginning, at the time of primal hunters, and going all the way to the modern times. It is not an easy book to swallow, and you have to do a lot of thinking and reading suggested sources to start getting the whole picture. But the central message is this: very early societies split into two groups, free trade-based and crony market-based, and that split sent ripples throughout the history, affecting the evolution of every single society profoundly.
The author is absolutely impartial in his analysis, and while he demonstrates that free trade-based systems have significant advantages over crony market-based ones, he never really states it explicitly, letting the reader form their own opinion. This is another aspect making this book so amazing: no opinion is ever forced on you. The author lays down facts, states possible interpretations of them and lets you judge which interpretations are more reasonable.
In terms of the writing style, I would say that this book is somewhere between academic and popular writing. If you are a history major, the writing will probably seem a bit light to you, but you still can get a lot of information and ideas out of this book. And if you've never read a history book before, then the material might be a bit challenging, but you absolutely can read this book recreationally, as long as you don't mind putting in some effort.
This book is HUGE, over 800 pages, so don't expect to finish it in one weekend. :) But if you do go through all the material, your knowledge and understanding of history will have grown dramatically.
Read "The Modern Mind' by Peter Watson. Each of those subjects are talked about at length as they relate to the 20th century and more.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB925.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/illustr.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Some books:
Written in Stone: Evolution, the Fossil Record, and Our Place in Nature by Brian Switek
Primate and Human Evolution (Cambridge Studies in Biological and Evolutionary Anthropology) by Susan Cachel
The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans by G. J. Sawyer, Viktor Deak, Esteban Sarmiento and Richard Milner
The First Human: The Race to Discover Our Earliest Ancestors by Ann Gibbons (Apr 10, 2007)
Evolution For Dummies
Also see the books (and other resources) on evolution in our FAQ, and also the resources in the /r/atheistgems FAQ
--
edit: Oh, you might find this graphic I made interesting - it's of the evolution of brain size in humans (Homo).
There's a link to another graph at the bottom of that post that also includes Australopithecines, which uses color effectively (it's not on the log-scale though).
The brain sizes in the leftmost fossils in that second display completely overlap modern chimpanzee brain sizes (300-500 cc).
So over 3 million years or so, you see our ancestors brain sizes - through a number of species - go from pretty much exactly the size of a modern chimp's brain, to four times that volume, and then drop back a little (yes, our brains are actually smaller on average than our ancestors brains from a few tens of thousands of years ago).
Ah you should read 'The 10,000 Year Explosion' by Cochran and Harpending. They say that the large population allows more variation to arise, and spread back into the mainstream if it's advantageous. More experiments running at once. The explosion in the title is /evolutionary/ explosion btw, which they figured out via our genetic changes. And the 10,000 years is the most recent 10,000 years :)
Where? It's not even available in the US as a Kindle?! https://www.amazon.com/Homo-Deus-Brief-History-Tomorrow-ebook/dp/B01BBQ33VE/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=
Would be great for an intellectual discourse if you understood what you're talking about before opening your mouth.
Europe has dominated invention and scientific discovery, mathematics, literature, art, music from about the 16th century onwards, there is no debate about it.
Might I suggest some actual reading for you. You're welcome back when you actually know what you're talking about.
Massive immigration has never been a gain for the host society. In Roman society, they had both massive immigration AND accumulation of wealth at the top.
Have you read John Zerzan? He writes something similar like your quote.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Running-Emptiness-Pathology-Civilization-Civilisation/dp/092291575X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1368215938&sr=8-3&keywords=john+zerzan
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Against-Civilization-Reflections-John-Zerzan/dp/0922915989/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1368215938&sr=8-2&keywords=john+zerzan
Very good books.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000OVLJSC/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1
(Virtually everyone in this list is literate in a world which had a literate person in each VILLAGE. If not 1% they were at least in the top 10%)