Most influential book [Archive]

HLGStrider

07-14-2005, 11:38 PM

Gosh. . .well, first off the Bible.

After that, I am not sure which of the titles, but probably something in Richard Mayberry's government series. My teenage years were my libertarian/economic years, and I devoured Bastiat, Sewell, and Hazlett. I never got into Hayeck, I didn't get that into it, but all those books made a huge dent in my political and personal philosophy.

Anything by C. S. Lewis in the way of philosophy as well. I ate those up and I still attempt to copy his logical style in my debates.

Then comes the odd duck in the list The Little Prince. I adore this story. Everyone should read it. I think that book went straight for my heart, and I think it prolonged my whole "Marine" problem, which is a huge result. The ability to love that way, so open heartedly, to be tamed, to know pain and not care because you love so much, I think I'd like that to be the single driving force of my life. Somehow it makes sadness into joy.

Then it was Kate DiCamillo who convinced me I was wasting my time trying to write the great American novel. Because of Winn-Dixie and The Tale of Despuereux sent me straight back into children's books as a writer. I fell in love with the genre.

Gosh, there are probably a ton of others.

Warrior93

07-14-2005, 11:54 PM

Yea, and also J.K Rowling's Harry Potter. How she makes theose strong bonds of friendship between Ron, Hermione, and Harry.

HLGStrider

07-16-2005, 07:10 AM

I enjoyed the Little Prince very much too, almost as much as the story of the "John Livingstone albatross" (sp). Do you reffer to the marine motive as the sea?

Search under HLGStrider and Marine and you'll find I have a certain obsession with a certain tall, dark, and handsome member of the US Armed forces. He is my Marine problem.

I don't see unconditional love as a feminine quality. I see it as a divine qualitity, the expressions of which I think females are more comfortable with, generally speaking, but no.

You did mean unconditional, didn't you? I just looked it over, and you could have meant unconditioned, which would be a new phrase for me, but I can think of some meanings for it, so it is possible you meant that.

ingolmo

07-16-2005, 12:45 PM

Definitely, Paulo Coelho's The Alchemist. That book was pure genious, with wonderful insight and inspiration. All of Paulo Coelho's other books are great and influental too.
And Warrior93, I think you have the honor of being the youngest TTFer that I've seen here so far.

Warrior93

07-16-2005, 03:51 PM

Cool, I think, I was sent hear by Caelin, Some guy said this would be like the best place for Lotr lovers to go.

Kementari

07-17-2005, 12:54 AM

For me, it was (and is) the Book of the Way and Virtue, though I must confess I first understood it in a rather ... western way.

My reading prefferences primarily include (eastern) religion / philosophy, and some advanced science topics. I somehow miss the gymnasium years, when I was reading folk stories by the ton; I am not much into great novels and writers, unless it is about fantasy / sci fi (what do you want, I am an Aquarius).

Thorondor, you and I seem to have alot in common, i am very interested in eastern religion (hence my "avatar" the word works in two ways). The book that influenced my life the most was the Bhagavad Gita. Reading it is so comforting and fullfilling, kindof like food for my soul. Certain parts still fill me with awe and give me chills after reading them over and over. I am also an Aquarius too :D

LotR (obviously) has also had a profound effect on me, in a very real sence because i met my best friend through the books

And Elgee i completely agree with your views on unconditional love (my "problem" is also a soldier), you expressed it very well

HLGStrider

07-18-2005, 06:25 AM

Thor, do you mean is unconditional love less reciprocated than conditional love? I think unconditional love is very rare in humans. It takes work and heart break to get there. By the time my love for Matt became unconditional, I had already thrown myself pretty much at his feet and had him walk away from me. Before this point I had always expected him to reciprocate and I wanted many things from him in return, mainly a wedding band and a daughter.

Towards when I had my "letting go" when I could love him but not feel I need him to return it, I had basically given up on ever receiving reciprocation. I had no more expectations.

Now Matt and I are on "friendship" level again, and I have found myself falling for him selfishly again, so my unconditional bit didn't last very long.

Unconditional love takes work. I imagine many couples never reach it. I think it takes decades of marriage before two people can live with each other and love each other for the sake of the other, rather than for the sake of themselves. I don't think any human starts out loving unconditionally. They start out loving because they want something, generally love in return.

HLGStrider

07-18-2005, 07:57 PM

No. I think attachment is a necessary and healthy part of love. However, hoping for or wanting something that someone is either incapable or unwilling to give is hopeless and can quickly reach unhealthy levels.

Love needs an object. Being in love with love is walking in circles. Love needs the other. It is healthy to love another being without expecting anything in return. It is the topping on the cake when you get something. It is not healthy to live in misery because there person you love will not return. It just doesn't work out.

Hammersmith

07-18-2005, 09:59 PM

I was most influenced in my writings by Rosemary Sutcliff and Brian Jacques (at first), with The Hobbit the book that drew me into fantasy. I'd also list Lewis Carroll as very influential for me.

HLGStrider

07-19-2005, 12:16 AM

Thor, do you mind me asking your first language? I have noticed you are translating book titles because I know the book you are referring to as Jonathan Livingston Seagull, rather than Albatross, and usually that means you originally read it in a langauge other than English and the title came across differently in translation. Am I right?

HLGStrider

07-19-2005, 07:14 PM

How would you define relationship without attachment? To me the words are entertwined.

Now by attachment, I don't mean dependence. I mean that lives become bonded, entertwined, and part of each other. What else is there to relationship? Anything else is merely a convenience arrangment.

Now, there is the sort of love that is for everyone, but this is not personal and doesn't involve attachment or relationship.

Inderjit S

07-19-2005, 10:36 PM

I would say Freidrich Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom", Alexis de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America, Fareed Zakaria's "The Future of Freedom" and Aristotle's "The Politics" are the books which have influenced me the most politically.

"Lord of the Rings", Gabriel Garcia Marquez's "One Hundred Years of Solitude" and "Love in The Time of Cholera", Franz Kafka's "The Trial", George Orwell's "Animal Farm", Miguel Cervante's "Don Quixote", Gustave Flaubert's "Madame Bovary" (who was the Don Quixote of romance novels), Goethe's "The Sorrows of Young Werther", Vladimir Nabokov's "Lolita" and Joseph Heller's "Catch-22" are the books which most influenced me, though as you can see by my inclusion of Don Quixote and Madam Bovary I don't think you should let books be a total guide on how to run your life nor should you base your decisions on what this or that character did in a certain situation.

I see nothing wrong, personally with a degree of possesiveness when it comes to love, though I guess to much is a bad thing, I guess love is different for different people-there certainly is not a uniform concept of what love consitutes.

Hammersmith

07-20-2005, 05:53 AM

I can't help but disagree totally with Thorondor.

HLGStrider

07-21-2005, 07:38 AM

I also think a bit of "ownership" is needed in love. Not necessarily possessiveness. Possessiveness to me implies an inability to let go, but I think the word "mine" is a term of endearment. I always thought this was more of an American thing, but I must've been wrong if Jr. agrees with me.

I think attachment, commitment, and ownership are what makes a relationship and provide a healthy groundwork for love.

HLGStrider

07-21-2005, 09:57 PM

Well my definition of true love involves "forsaking all others."

HLGStrider

07-22-2005, 12:16 AM

Selfish I define as putting itself before others. Jealous I define as anger based on possesiveness.

I think when you love someone you have to put them before your own wants which will mean the exclusion of others in several cases.

Now, we are here dealing with one sided love. Ideally love is mutual. Not only should love not be jealous but the other half of love should do nothing to provoke jealousy. Now here we are not going into the insecure sort of jealousy based on nothing (GASP! You LOOKED at that woman. . .Why were you talking to Ed just now? etc.), but the sort that is provoked. A person who loves would not intentionally do things that would cause jealousy in a normal person.

Duel sided love should have both parties being unselfish. Never happens completely, but it should. If both parties are being unselfish, it takes away a lot of the trouble.

However, specific attachment is a clear teaching of quite a few religions/philosophies. In most it is good to love all folk but it is better to love your family. Parents are given special consideration. So are spouses. So while we must love all, we may and should love these more. For one thing, they care more. A stranger on the street doesn't care if I love him or not in most cases. I should love him but for my sake and for God's sake, not for his. Family, on the other hand, we love for their sake as well, in someways more than for our sake, and so that is a special sort of love, a stronger sort, an attached sort.

Sherry

07-22-2005, 04:26 PM

Hello!
I like reading myth very much and I think the "Chinese myth" influenced me most.Than I like TLOR and HP.In fact,many Chinese classic poems are very beautiful.But the translators haven't found a better way to translate them.

Well,I don't know how to say about love.But I believe love is a kind of feelings.In my opinion,if you really love someone,you should do your best to make him or her feel happy,even if you are in one sided love.In China,there is a popular saying"Your happiness is my happiness":)

Kementari

07-23-2005, 02:16 AM

Thor in answer to your question im going to have to say Bhumi is probably most like Kementari...

HLGStrider

07-23-2005, 06:53 AM

Hm... I would say that ideally, one should love wholeheartedly. In such a case, it makes little, if any, difference if love is shared, as, in full love, one is complete.
If love were, as Sherry has it, an emotion, then you may have a point, but love is action.
Love includes respect and care. Love is respect in care. So giving more of those to your family is infact giving them more love.

AraCelebEarwen

07-24-2005, 01:53 AM

In my way of using the word 'love' I find that I use it too loosely at times. Love is an emotion and an action. If you say to someone 'I love you', it can mean that you want to pursue a relationship. When talking to friends I say 'love ya' or 'I love you' as a way of showing friendship. *looks at the title of the thread* OH! First, the Bible! Then LOTR and a few others... I think :D

HLGStrider

07-24-2005, 06:25 AM

"If love were, as Sherry has it, an emotion, then you may have a point, but love is action."
Hm... what do you understand by love being action?
"Love includes respect and care. Love is respect in care. So giving more of those to your family is infact giving them more love"
I think that what you are refering to is "philia" which is different from eros/agape. As Plato said "eros helps the soul recall knowledge of beauty, and contributes to an understanding of spiritual truth"; respect and care can exist independently of love and are not as deep as it.

Respect and care can, with a struggle, exist independently of love, but love cannot exist independently of care and respect. If it is lacking these qualities, it is not love.

Actually, I was dealing mainly with agape. Love is an attitude/action. If love were simply an emotion it would not be an honorable thing but simply a pleasant thing, well, a mostly pleasant thing. Eros can be extremely uncomfortable at times and agape takes work. . .But the reason agape takes work is because it is an action.

I agree with Plato that part of the purpose of Eros is revealing beauty.

Now specific love, as I put it, has a lot to do with Eros and Phila, but Agape should overshadow all.

HLGStrider

07-25-2005, 05:31 AM

Actually, I, being still quite young and very much unkissed, have only experienced Eros once, so I am dealing off a very small sample. I would say that, yes, my experience did eventually hit agape, which I do very much try to excercise towards everyone, anyway, but there was a time with M. the Marine that I did actually surrender Eros (because I thought he was involved with someone else, and the part of jealous, spurned former friend didn't suit me. . .it turned out the girl I thought he was involved with he wasn't, so I immediately reverted to my old ways and have kept up at a ridiculous rate wanting him). When I actually managed to pray that he found happiness with someone else was when I think I hit my high point of it.

I think agape is a mix between a state of mind and action and that one is pretty much worthless without the other. There are times when Agape is "bound" and you really can't do anything but pray for someone, which in itself is an action, I suppose. However, it comes down to saying God bless you but ignoring a physical need of the person. It is worthless and hypocritical, and that is not love.

A true lover (agape) will act, or else their love is simply pretext. Emotion may lead to action, but love in itself is dead without action.

This is true especially for phila and agape. I think Eros is unique in being the exception to this rule. It can survive on nothing.
I think pain can come from the other and from the self in Eros. In Eros you need to be willing to put the beloved first, but you must keep a good grasp on self otherwise you can end up abused, mentally, emotionally, or physically. You need to know where you begin and the other ends.

Love is honorable. Self-sacrifice is honorable. It is not honorable to put yourself constantly as a stepping stool for the beloved. And honestly it doesn't help the beloved much either.

HLGStrider

07-26-2005, 05:51 PM

Well, if you view inaction as an action, as a conscious choice acted upon, I would say, yes, we can't not act, but I do think agape without action is useless.

We really can't commune with unwilling or unknowing people, however, and we can love them through action without their coopperation. Communion is sort of a mutual deal. Love doesn't have to be.

HLGStrider

07-28-2005, 06:12 AM

If agape is amoral than it is unworthy of persuit. If it is, on the other hand, good, then we should pursue it, for why should we persue something that is morally nuetral?

If something morally nuetral is pursuit worthy, isn't it therefore good, if not, why is it worthy of pursuit?

Same with God, for that matter.

Unless there is no such thing as good and evil, and so it cannot be either, but if so, why do we pursue it? After all, pursuit takes effort.

HLGStrider

07-30-2005, 06:42 AM

If there is something beyond good and evil, I don't see how they could exist even at the personal level. If good and evil are something to be superceded once we reach a different point, then how can it be good to supercede them, and why would we want to if it isn't good?

I don't see why growth should be encouraged if it isn't good anymore than I see why love should be.

My question still applies either way. It matters not whether agape is beyond good and evil, or amoral. In someways they come down to the same thing. If there isn't good in agape, why pursue it?

The only reason I can see for superceding good and evil is because they are so dang inconvenient at times, which would mean superceding them so I could do what I want, rather than what is right. If so, I wouldn't encourage people to do this because we'd end up killing each other.

HLGStrider

08-04-2005, 06:44 AM

There is also the "Save the Earth, Kill yourself" slogan. . .:rolleyes:

So, in your mind happiness is the goal and we should put aside ego to achieve happiness? Not exactly a noble goal. Not exactly a garanteed one either, nor one that holds up from my personal experiences.

I never assumed it was the goal of human life to be happy. For one thing, I think it is impossible for humans to be what humans consider happy. For another, to become happy, humans often have to make other humans unhappy, which is either jungle law or self defeating depending on your outlook.

And what is the point of love in this at all, then, if we are only to remain unattached? Just that love can bring happiness. How many times have you been in love? I have once. I have also observed enough couples in love, and I think being in love increases unhappiness as far as "time spent unhappy as opposed to time spent happy" goes. On the other hand, I think the time spent happy is better than it would be otherwise.

Beleg

08-04-2005, 12:43 PM

'The Complete ABC book for toddlers'

HLGStrider

08-04-2005, 09:58 PM

I too believe in love as a goal, but because I believe love is good not because I have any idea of it making me "happy."

How can the pursuit of happiness be noble, if there is no such thing as good? What exactly is noble? Why should we pursue it?

Sounds like more of a mental state of denying reality to me.
I've always had more anxiety about being like other people than unlike them, but that's just me and I know people with the opposite tendencies. However, I can think of no case where I have experienced happiness as you describe it.