Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: What's the "best" book you've ever read?

news.ycombinator.com

931–940 of 980 posts

Re: Ask HN: What's the "best" book you've ever read?

#931

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes pretty much or at least a wanna be one. Who start reading "mein kampf" beside scholar anyway?

I read books that have contrary opinions to mine so I can understand their ideological underpinnings and mistakes. People who only read things they agree with means they're blind to the problems with it, and fold like wet cardboard when they try to argue it.

Or even more likely, as soon as you make a point even slightly against their beliefs they call you a socialist/communist/fascist/Nazi/whatever cliche they hate the most that particular day.

Re: Ask HN: What's the "best" book you've ever read?

#932

The best book I've ever read is perhaps "cheating" because it's "The Next Whole Earth Catalog" and, as the name says, it's a catalog of (mostly) books. (You can see it for yourself in all it's glory here: https://www.wholeearth.info/p/the-next-whole-earth-catalog-f... ) Other than that I'd have to say the Tao Te Ching. (The best fiction book I've read is almost certainly "The Book of the New Sun" by Gene Wolfe. It's…

Indeed

;-)

Re: Ask HN: What's the "best" book you've ever read?

#933
post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, am I to understand that prime beach real estate is to be taxed the same as a plot in a desert or swamp? Why would that be the case? A beachfront plot would likely have a higher value than a plot in a desert or swamp, so the tax levied on the beachfront plot’s value would, of course, be higher. It’s a tax on the land’s value , not a tax on the size of the plot.

The value of land is largely subjective. It is based on demand, among other things. If the government assigns arbitrarily high or low value to land based on hypothetical worlds where the land could be used for high rises, factories, or whatever as opposed to what economics has proven is the best actual use of the land and its best estimated price, that is just a terrible version of the same thing we have now.

Assessors observe market activity. The 'purchase price' when you buy land is based on the highest and best potential use of land. The "Land Value Tax" merely appropriates this observed value for public expense (and potential dividend distribution).

The fact that you compared 'prime real estate' to swampland or desert demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of ad valorem taxation and land rent generally. While the rate should be the same (ideally as close to 100% as we can get without causing issues) the actual -value- would be dramatically different.

Under your hypothetical question, the desert and/or swampland could very well have 0 rental value, which means the tax would collect 0 from these locations. 100% of $0 = 0.

Re: Ask HN: What's the "best" book you've ever read?

#934
post #14

Godel Escher Bach is the best book I've read. Very interesting topics and the sheer creativity of the writing is amazing.

I think he misrepresents Russell and also Godel in ways. I enjoyed the book when I was young and it did launch my interest in logic but reading Godel’s personal writings, he had great respect for Russell and literally wrote in a paper defending Russell that he would not have made his discovery without the Principia Mathematica, because it showed him an instance of a consistent language and then he took the further step of noticing you could do this infinitely. My recollection was Hasshelhoff thought Russell was a kind of dunce who didn’t know what he was doing. He was putting in the fucking work for others to build on, and it was incredibly hard work if you read Russell’s autobiography of that time.

Re: Ask HN: What's the "best" book you've ever read?

#936
"The Passenger" and "Stella Maris" by Cormac McCarthy are fantastic. In general, I enjoy McCarthy's work because I believe he manages to present interesting ideas drawn from philosophy and religion, and if you read between the lines of his work, there is a fairly elaborate cosmology behind them. With these final works, he manages to combine this tendency with his decades of residence at the Santa Fe Institute and work with researchers in complexity science, mathematics, physics, etc. Moreover, he does so without the more trite ways non-scientists often draw upon science (for instance, just crudely using quantum mechanics as a stand-in for the supernatural). I think you could probably write a thesis on the way he integrated advances in complexity science and mathematics/physics with philosophy/religion/mythology with a close reading of his work. I mention this first and with particular emphasis because I believe it is chronically under-discussed and deserves a systematic study by someone who understands philosophy and modern physics and complexity science much better than I do. There is a hauntingly dark and beautiful cosmology behind this work, in a way even darker than his earlier works like "Blood Meridian."

I can also see the works of Arthur Schopenhauer being of great interest to many HN readers. His reconciliation of Western philosophy (especially Kant and British Empiricists) with Buddhism and Hinduism is unique and for me the most interesting overall system. His work is entirely worth reading for the quality of writing alone. For me, his works evoke the experience of mathematical beauty. I would recommend gaining a basic understanding of Kant, Buddhism, Hinduism, and then reading his work "Essays and Aphorisms," followed by "The World as Will and Idea."

"Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes" by Jacques Ellul is the book I have read that best explains the human experience in the modern media environment. Like "The World as Will and Representation," it also forms a sort of complete system, which can be read as an organic whole as well as with self-referential parts. I believe most of the "alienation" we experience from technology, which is often blamed on the internet, is really a much older and broader phenomenon, which Ellul attributes to the development of the radio, "technique," and broader phenomenological experience within 20th-century totalitarian societies.

"Simulacra and Simulation" is another that I have enjoyed. It is the work I have read that, in my opinion, best provides a model for living in a post-modern, post-industrial society, and my intuition is that it will also prove authentic in the age of artificial intelligence.

Re: Ask HN: What's the "best" book you've ever read?

#937
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The best book I've ever read was Atlas Shrugged I didn't read it until I was well into my 30s, but I very much enjoyed it. Not the best I've ever read, but I have read it a few times now. I don't agree with a lot of it, and I can't relate to some of the characters personally, I just think it is extremely well written. The characters and their motivations are very well laid out, and we get to go on a journey with th…

I was pretty similar. I heard so much about it that I figured I should read it, but that wasn't until my late 20s. I feel weird telling people I liked it because of how it's used as a categorizer. It's obviously a flawed philosophy and I don't agree with huge chunks of it -- but its a book that just sticks in your head and the ideals it espouses are attractive. Honestly I think of it as a piece of media similar to su…

Regarding the last paragraph, I'd recommend the feature film "Mystery Men" and the graphic novel series "Astro City." The Amazon TV series "The Boys" also covered this ground but did it a little too ham-handedly for my liking.

Re: Ask HN: What's the "best" book you've ever read?

#938

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a similar vein, when I first got an e-reader I downloaded the old English version of Adam Smiths The Wealth of Nations. It was eye opening. While I’ve forgotten a large amount of the detail the overall themes are embedded in my mind.

How is Wealth of Nations surprising for a modern reader? My (perhaps incorrect) intuition is that these sorts of old foundational books tend not to be too surprising because their ideas have permeated society already, which is why I’m curious to hear your take.

It was eye opening to me at that point in my life as I hadn’t given too much thought to the detail in the world around me, in my own life and the economy.

It was a strange experience to read ye-olde-English that outlined observations that still apply today.

To simplify it, in my mind it was like going to the moon (boring old economics book) and discovering someone else’s flag (we beat you to it, and everything we explain is still relevant)

Re: Ask HN: What's the "best" book you've ever read?

#939

Catcher in the Rye was the right book for me at the right age. It really set a North Star for me as to what I wanted to be when I looked at myself in the mirror. Funny how as I grew older, I found myself understanding more and more about what the older characters were saying, without me sacrificing what made what Holden Caulfield ring so true to me. Fun fact: in university at the bookstore they had a written poll as…

Out of curiosity, when did you read it? It's one of those books that everyone's heard about, but I find not many people have read. I myself hadn't read it until about six years ago (in my late 30s). I was underwhelmed by it. Maybe the book hit a lot harder when it came out than it does in modern times?

I also read it when I was 16, and throughout my 20s. I haven't read it in 10-15 years now. It's something that speaks to you as a teenager more than it does as an adult, because at least for me it put into words what I hated about the world, ex. phonies, and how I wanted to hold myself to that. I'm in my 50s and I'm not a phony so it won't hit me as hard, but I still remember how much it meant to me.

Re: Ask HN: What's the "best" book you've ever read?

#940
post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the best books are "A Canticle for Leibowitz", "Neuromancer", and "The Dying Earth".

A Canticle for Leibowitz I found Canticle kinda "meh" personally. It was a great premise, and the 1st third was somewhat interesting, but the rest fell flat for me. I'd say it was a book I wanted to like a lot, but the execution let me down.

I loved it, but I think I know what you mean. I feel like there's a lot of unrealized potential.
Post reply on HN