McSweeney's • Created in Darkness by Troubled Americans Created in Darkness by Troubled Americans ed. McSweeney's
Publisher: Knopf
Year: 2004
Pages: 256
Bill Bryson • A Walk in the Woods A Walk in the Woods by Bill Bryson
Publisher: Broadway
Year: 1999
Pages: 304
Audrey Niffenegger • The Time-Traveler's Wife The Time-Traveler's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger
Publisher: MacAdam/Cage
Year: 2003
Pages: 525
Chuck Palahniuk • Invisible Monsters Invisible Monsters by Chuck Palahniuk
Publisher: W. W. Norton
Year: 1999
Pages: 278
William Goldman • The Princess Bride The Princess Bride by William Goldman
Publisher: Ballantine Books
Year: 1973/1998
Pages: 416
Linus Torvalds • Just For Fun Just For Fun by Linus Torvalds
Publisher: Collins
Year: 2002
Pages: 288
Rex Pickett • Sideways Sideways by Rex Pickett
Publisher: St. Martin's Griffin
Year: 2004
Pages: 368
Susan Jacoby • Freethinkers Freethinkers by Susan Jacoby
Publisher: Metropolitan Books
Year: 2004
Pages: 432
Arundhati Roy • The God of Small Things The God of Small Things by Arundhati Roy
Publisher: Harper Perennial
Year: 1998
Pages: 336
Joseph Conrad • Heart of Darkness Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad
Publisher: Hesperus Press
Year: 2001
Pages: 152

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

§549 · April 1, 2005 · Tags: , , , ·

9 Comments to “52 Books in 52 Weeks, 2005”

  1. Brady says:

    Did you raid my bookshelf? Because if you haven’t yet, I’ve got the Russel book and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

  2. Ben says:

    Yeah, that’s where I got them from. I’ll also probably read the philosophy of the Matrix book.

  3. sasha says:

    hi, found this site searching something on google, but aynways, ive read a book on the philosophy of the matrix, and if youre talking about the same one, it wasn’t very good. Some good points in teh beginning, but the rest of the book is really repetitive.
    anyways, cool site

  4. […] Following the lead of Heliologue, who is himself following Jason at Negro, Please, I will also make a move to read 52 books in 52 weeks and review them. It will be monstrous but I admit that I will enjoy it. Plus, it will – or at least should – motivate me to keep the site updated frequently with my musings. […]

  5. no need to study the philosophy of the Matrix, it can all be summed up in one concise story:

    Plato’s Parable of the Cave (Also known as the Allegory of the Cave)

    That’s it and that’s all. Though, that paved the way for many future philosophic/psychoanalytic theories—Like Althusser’s Ideolgical States and Ideological State Apparatusses, or Lacan’s “Mirror Stage as a Formative Function of the I”

  6. Ben says:

    If that were true, the series wouldn’t have been as bad as it was. The problem was, they started with Plato’s cave allegory, but then threw in an omnium gatherum of other, unrelated philosophies.

  7. grindbastard says:

    The problem with the philosophy of the Matrix is that not everyone is a raging pothead and therefore won’t find it so mind blowing.

  8. Ben says:

    “Like, what if the world we think we see… [dramatic pause] isn’t there?”

    “Dude, that’s deep.”

  9. david says:

    i always thought the “deeper” philosophy of the matrix were the moral implications of artificial intelligence.

    if you create self-aware, free-will beings such as the computer programs, beings that can see the wrongness/rightness of their actions (think the program at the train station who makes sacrifices for his daughter-program in order to give her a better “life”/existence), then this “artificial” intelligence would have the same moral value as a human being. that’s why the movies had to end with the “copout” resolution of peace. for either side, humans or machines,to wipe out the other would be to commit genocide in a sense. to create artificial intelligence—truly self-aware artificial intelligence—would be to create something on an equal metaphysical plane of existence with ourselves.

    would we be gods? perhaps.

    and if that’s true, kind of gives you a whole new perspective on what happens after death. pull the plug on a “computer program,” and we all know it ceases to be. pull the plug on a human? philosophers and theologians have been guessing at that for… well, forever.

Leave a Reply