Classics and the Western Canon discussion

There's still lots of great reading and discussion time left to enjoy Herodotus, but it's also time to think ahead to our next major read.

I promised the fab four (our fab four, not the mop heads) that I would put William James on the next nominations list, and I came close enough to promising to put Aristotle back on, too, so I decided this round to give the random number generator a rest and go with a "close but not quite" set of books that were runners up in prior polls. A selection of these, plus the moderator nominations, will be our next set of offerings. With that in mind, here's the group for our next read, for your discussion before the poll is put up. As always, alphabetical by author.

Aristotle, Ethics
Conrad, Nostromo
Darwin, The Origin of Species
deTocqueville, Democracy in America
Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment
Hobbes, Leviathan
James, William, The Varieties of Religious Experience

Like Patrice, I would like to read de toqueville. I read extracts of Democracy in America in my philosophy class at university. I remember thinking that some of it`s ideas were
still relevant. It should provoke some interesting discussions

Tocqueville would be very nice :)

Democracy in America is long but very much worth reading, even if one isn't American. That said, if it gets chosen, I might not participate much between major life transitions around that time (true for any book that gets picked), and having read most of it already several years ago.

Conrad, Darwin, and Hobbes all sound like excellent choices to me. Although I still want to read Aristotle, it would be nice to take a break from the classical stuff.

I'd like to read Conrad or Hobbes. deTocqueville is on my "must-read" list, but these days, I'd prefer something that doesn't remind me of American politics. :(

De Tocqueville was already on my "next read" list. It would be great to read it with you guys!

If there's no more interest in discussing the options, I'll put the poll up soon.

I'd love to read Crime and Punishment with this group, I remember really enjoying our War and Peace discussion.

I have read Hobbes and only last year reread Crime and Punishment. I would really like to read and discuss The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James.

Rosemarie wrote: "I have read Hobbes and only last year reread Crime and Punishment. I would really like to read and discuss The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James."

Although all are excellent classics, James on this list is the only one on this list that presently appeals to me, mainly because I perceive religion and spirituality as being two vital issues in today's world about which we carry on too little thoughtful (secular) discussion. It is my understanding TVoRE could be a vehicle for such discussion.

Lily wrote: "I perceive religion and spirituality as being two vital issues in today's world about which we carry on too little thoughtful (secular) discussion."

I've watched a few public debates on religion, and often wonder whether or not the two sides live in the same world and speak the same language. I'm reminded of a saying attributed to Aquinas, "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."

Nemo and Lily, I agree with both your comments.
We live in a world where spirituality is misunderstood.

Rosemarie wrote: "Nemo and Lily, I agree with both your comments.
We live in a world where spirituality is misunderstood."

Not advocating for any particular book, but I do think that it it's possible to discuss religion and spirituality in an open-minded, non-judgmental but serious manner, this is the group that can do it. And though I haven't read James, I understand that his book isn't doesn't advocate any particular religious faith, but is a psychological and philosophical discussion of what he at the time called "natural religion."

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has this to say:
Varieties is “A Study in Human Nature,” as its subtitle says. But at some five hundred pages it is only half the length of The Principles of Psychology, befitting its more restricted, if still large, scope. For James studies that part of human nature that is, or is related to, religious experience. His interest is not in religious institutions, ritual, or, even for the most part, religious ideas, but in “the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine” (V, 31).

So I suggest that anybody who might be concerned about a discussion of religious belief dissolving into a simplistic "I believe" "but I believe", exchange, they not worry about that but vote for whatever book they think will be most interesting and lead to the most interesting and valuable discussion.

That said, James is only one of the great offerings before us, any one of which would be a great choice.

My other choice would be Origin of Species, the classic everybody wants to have read, but nobody wants to read. But I have heard so much, and also thought and written much about it lately, that by the time next group read comes around, I'll have lost all interest in the topic already.

The poll is up. Will be open for one week. Usual expectation that if you vote for a book, you are intending to read and discuss it if it wins. Thanks!

Oh, dear...torn between two: Crime and Punishment and Democracy in America. The former just because I simply want to read it and the latter because I have that book already and it may provide interesting historical and some perhaps still relevant perspective especially in light of a most unusual election year in the States.

Sue wrote: "Oh, dear...torn between two: Crime and Punishment and Democracy in America. The former just because I simply want to read it and the latter because I have that book already and it may provide inter..."

I'm not going apologize for putting you in a dilemma! [g] I like it when there are enough good options that people have a hard time choosing.

I read bits and pieces of about every book on the list except Conrad and James, William. I can honestly say that any of them are good choices, although de Toqueville was quite challenging (but that can also be because I had to read that in French). But as I really want to read further in Dostojevski's 'Crime and Punishment' I'd go for that.

If the times were different, I would very much enjoy reading Crime and Punishment with this group, but at this juncture when prideful and murderous rage is rampant in the public forum, it seems a bit too redundant and depressing to delve into the psyche of a murderer.

I reread Crime and Punishment last summer very carefully. I had already reread all the Dostoyevsky before that. If you do choose Crime and Punishment, I will read the comments but not the book, again.

The result of the poll is as follows. Remember, weighted voting means votes from members with 0-99 posts are worth one point, those from members with 100-299 are worth two points, and those from members with 300+ posts are worth three points.

I have only calculated the weighted vote for the top two selections, which were well ahead.

Crime and Punishment: raw vote 13, weighted vote 22
Varieties of Religious Experience: raw vote 7, weighted vote 19.

Those weighted vote totals are close enough to merit a run-off poll.

That poll is now up, and will run through Sunday evening.

Nemo wrote: "If the times were different, I would very much enjoy reading Crime and Punishment with this group, but at this juncture when prideful and murderous rage is rampant in the public forum, it seems a b..."

Not only the current point in time but also the last hundred years of our “civilization”. What have the classics wrought to enlighten us? Perhaps a few but the “murderous rage” we have since Herodotus recorded his histories has multiplied exponentially.

In addition to the murderous range we have weapons powerful enough to destoy the planet.
After reading Crime and Punishment I was struck by Raskolnikov's bewilderment, rather than his rage.
That being said, I haven't read the James book for a long time and would really enjoy discussing with this group.

Can we do both?

Dianne wrote: "Can we do both?"

If you know who to bribe. :) Have you got warm chocolate cookies and milk?

Seriously, I wouldn't mind doing both.

Put the loser into the poll for next time and see if people still want to read it.

I make a mean cookie :) I'd be up for both ifvthe group wants to split or some do both, putting James in next poll also sounds good if that sounds too insane ;)

I'm working on being straightforward:

Are the runoff results weighted or one-man-one-vote?

The results are weighted. As best I can make out, James will be the next read, with the following one yet to be decided. I'm sure Everyman will be along shortly to make an official pronouncement.

Thank you, Thomas. I read the introduction to Varieties. I had wondered if I should wait until May to start reading the book with the group, or, if it wasn't going to be a Goodreads read, I'd simply read it on my own. Thanks for the info.

You're welcome. Straightforward is good. :)

The poll is over. It's one of the closest in quite awhile.

The official results are:

Crime and Punishment: raw votes 11, weighted vote 19
Varieties of Religious Experience: raw votes 9, weighted vote 20

So Thomas was correct [post 33], on a weighted vote basis, James is our next read.

Lest the idea of reading a religious book might discourage anybody, my understanding is that the work is a psychological study, not a religious exposition. It is not about organized religion, but about the private religious experiences of individuals.

Here's the summary of the work from the Goodreads page on it:

"I am neither a theologian, nor a scholar learned in the history of religions, nor an anthropologist. Psychology is the only branch of learning in which I am particularly versed. To the psychologist the religious propensities of man must be at least as interesting as any other of the facts pertaining to his mental constitution. It would seem, therefore, as a psychologist, the natural thing for me would be to invite you to a descriptive survey of those religious propensities."

When William James went to the University of Edinburgh in 1901 to deliver a series of lectures on "natural religion," he defined religion as "the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine." Considering religion, then, not as it is defined by--or takes place in--the churches, but as it is felt in everyday life, he undertook a project that, upon completion, stands not only as one of the most important texts on psychology ever written, not only as a vitally serious contemplation of spirituality, but for many critics one of the best works of nonfiction written in the 20th century. Reading The Varieties of Religious Experience, it is easy to see why. Applying his analytic clarity to religious accounts from a variety of sources, James elaborates a pluralistic framework in which "the divine can mean no single quality, it must mean a group of qualities, by being champions of which in alternation, different men may all find worthy missions." It's an intellectual call for serious religious tolerance--indeed, respect--the vitality of which has not diminished through the subsequent decades.

Adelle wrote: "Thank you, Thomas. I read the introduction to Varieties. I had wondered if I should wait until May to start reading the book with the group, or, if it wasn't going to be a Goodreads read, I'd simpl..."

You can safely focus on Herodotus and hold off on James until May!

:-) With that assurance, I shall put James on hold until May!

Everyman wrote: "You can safely focus on Herodotus and hold off on James until May! "

Only three wee chapters to go... wait. Four wee chapters. I must have been focusing too hard.

I am looking forward to discussing James (or at least his themes--I know very little about the book), though as I mentioned there will be a lot going on for me starting in June, which is why I didn't vote. I've lately fallen behind on Herodotus and my other reading because of travel, but hopefully I'll be able to finish our current project with you all and start the next one.

I am very much a non-believer, but James has been on my TBR list for almost forty years now.

Even if not very urgently, I wanted to read the book because of an interest in the mental basis of religion. In the end were are all the same species, so what makes us so different in this respect? Or maybe we are not so different after all?

Is the religious experience in some way comparable with moral convictions, or the experience of art? But where do religious 'specifics' originate (holy texts, rituals, clothing, the certainty that God is a male with a long beard etc?).

Reading James may help to understand these questions a bit better, and reading with a group may help to understand James a bit better. Especially if that group represents a diversity of convictions and experiences.

Wendel wrote: "I am very much a non-believer, but James has been on my TBR list for almost forty years now.

Even if not very urgently, I wanted to read the book because of an interest in the mental basis of religion..."

I had similar interest when I was an atheist. You remind me of a candid conversation I once had with a Lutheran pastor. I asked him many questions about his belief, and vice versa. He also asked me whether I thought about God when I listened to Bach. I replied that I appreciated beauty but nothing beyond that. There are definitely differences in how we view things.

Reading James with a group is better, but I'm not so sure about the "diversity of convictions" in this group. :)

I'm sorry. March and April is driving me up the wall with the crazy schedule. I had to close Herodotus for the time being (I WILL come back to it!) but I'll definitely join in the discussions for James. Looking forward to it!

I'm Christian with a history of atheist -> agnostic -> believer. I still have tons of questions though (honestly, who doesn't?)

I too am a Christian with a very open mind. Many Christians have doubts at one point or another and reflect often and deeply about spirituality. One can be a person of deep spirituality without belonging to any organized religion. There is a tremendous difference between the tenets of organized religion and true faith.
I wanted to state that as a true Christian, my philosophy is not to try to "convert" anyone. One serves by example, not by spouting religious platitudes.
This will probably be the only time I will up front about my faith. At first I had my doubts about whethe to mention it and decided it would be cowardly if I didn't.

It will be interesting to see how James looks at the types of religious behavior in general. It is far more ingrained in our being than we often realize. Whether or not one believes in God has very little to do with it. The patterns are the same.
Lets look, for example, at 'scientism' or 'nutritionism.' In each case you have a very firm belief/understanding in the rightness/truth of the premise which must be defended. You have a "priesthood of experts" who tell you what is right and what is wrong. This classification determines the virtues and vices, i.e., fiber is good and cholesterol is bad, so eat more of the former and avoid the latter. And...anyone who challenges the established premise is called a heretic.

Kerstin, I agree with your comment.

Wendel wrote: "I am very much a non-believer, but James has been on my TBR list for almost forty years now.

Even if not very urgently, I wanted to read the book because of an interest in the mental basis of rel..."

Great questions -- should be a good discussion. Also, I have seen some writing recently proposing that there is a "God gene" in our genetic makeup. Haven't looked at this in detail, but the principle is that there is a specific gene that predisposes humans to spiritual or mystic experiences. Not to specific religions, but to the spiritual, which is what I believe James was focusing on. This might add a bit of possible scientific validation to James's 100+ year old theories. (Sort of like we found with Lucretius, that several of his idea have to at least some extent been validated by modern science.)

The best classic writers were a lot wiser than many people (though of course nobody here) give them credit for!

My relatively uninformed understanding is that James, as a pragmatist, believed in the religious or spiritual life not because he was impressed by its propositional claims, but because its truths (distinct from facts) have empirical "value," because they "work" as guidance for our lives.

The God gene thing got some interest because certain New Atheists trumpeted it for a while, but it hasn't got much if any scientific backing. Hamer, the author of the book, previously made (now discredited) claims to have discovered the gene for homosexuality. The popular idea that there are particular "genes" that determine individual traits--especially/including cultural traits--is problematic to begin with given the current scientific understanding of how DNA works.

I won't say more about James or the relationship of his work to the sciences until I have read him, but the book William James and the Science of Religions looks like it could be helpful.

Yes, I don't know if it is a gene per se, but certainly human awareness of mortality has something to do with it, along with our need to make sense of things
and cope.

If there is a need to believe, is it the same as the need to eat or the need to know?

I read James's The Will to Believe.. Relatively short. The Varieties' Introduction, I think, had suggested reading it before reading Varieties.

Said for those momentous decisions in life we have to believe or not believe w/o proof. That for some people, not making a mistake was the paramount need, and they want proof. For others, not wanting to miss out on a great truth is more important, so they choose to believe without proof.

Essay ended with a beautiful quote... Which i will have to copy and paste.

"...Fitz James Stephen; let me end by a quotation from him. " What do you think of yourself? What do you think of the world? . . . These are questions with which all must deal as it seems good to them. In all important transactions of life we have to take a leap in the dark.... If we decide to leave the riddles unanswered, that is a choice; if we waver in our answer, that, too, is a choice: but whatever choice we make, we make it at our peril. [....]Each must act as he thinks best; and if he is wrong, so much the worse for him. We stand on a mountain pass in the midst of whirling snow and blinding mist through which we get glimpses now and then of paths which may be deceptive. If we stand still we shall be frozen to death. If we take the wrong road we shall be dashed to pieces. We do not certainly know whether there is any right one. What must we do? ' Be strong and of a good courage.' Act for the best, hope for the best, and take what comes. . . . If death ends all, we cannot meet death better." [Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, p. 353, second edition. London, 1874.]

Was James influenced by the existentialists?

Thank you for the quote Adelle.

Adelle wrote: "I read James's The Will to Believe.. Relatively short. The Varieties' Introduction, I think, had suggested reading it before reading Varieties."

The Will to Believe and other essays is available on Gutenberg for reading on a computer or formatted for almost every reading device (except paper!)

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26659