Bruno

Einstein was a brilliant man. I strongly recommend all readers to watch the Genius series based on Albert Einstein after reading this book: it will be enriching. There is little to be said without giving spoilers about that man's accomplishments: he really was born with a purpose, and fulfilled it thoroughly, as he still is considered the epitome of intelligence.

House is inspired on Sherlock Holmes. The last-name initials H and W (Holmes, Watson) are indubitably present in the series (House, Wilson) and even personality traits are uncanny for both characters. This book attempts to analytically walk the reader through the logic of such a brilliant mind, when focused on medical cases. It is a nice introduction to multilevel thinking.

Interesting to see how some religious notions that still exist in modernist churches originated from this man. I believe the best approach to this book is one of neutrality. Do not search for an answer or proof. This book is philosophic, not scientific - it intends to show how ideas and thoughts evolved, and by which facts and premises they originated - doesn't imply any validity to it.

How to look at the world with no bullshit. A very realistic point of view, but very dangerous for people attempting to find reasons to justify their agenda. Machiavelli is not to be taken lightly, because it could either result in amazing work habits and life skills, tyranny and dictatorship, or both.

As a Doctorate in Biochemistry myself, I found this thesis fantastically refreshing and wish that modern day science writing adopted the old ways.
Madame Curie is able to very succinctly express all results, methodologies and discuss its implications in a very straightforward way.
For me, this thesis is a time capsule for how radioactivity was understood before it was understood. At times, Curie attempts to provide answers to such a complex enigma without all current knowledge of radioactive materials and advances in quantum physics, and is able to do so very satisfactorily.
Curie had good feelings about the nature of subatomic matter, and that is visible from her inferences.

I found it particularly funny how she nonchalantly describes measuring radioactivity both at midday and midnight in order to assess if radiation from the sun was the primary source of radioactive induction in radium. Although anecdotal, it provides a good glimpse of how us scientists may attempt the most simple (and sometimes, ridiculous) experiments just to understand these “black hole enigmas” where nothing is known and the little we know is confusing.

The philosophy of Locke brings a needed social adjustment to established dictatorship and rationalism. But while trying to oppose the extreme abstraction of Descartes, Locke loses himself and appears as equally extremist in trying to justify empirism, to the point that he contradicts himself. In this regard, Hume was much more moderate.

In trying to justify external objects as substances, Locke says we can't fully prove they exist. Well, if you can't prove something your sensations perceive exists, then your assumptions of the truthfulness of reality cannot be obtained empirically, and only possibly by rational means. I believe that self-doubting empirism is what originated solipsism. Hume contributes to empirism with skepticism, which is more moderate because it includes a probabilistic component. Science nowadays is based on gathering empirical evidence and suggesting a generalistic view of explaining reality by resource of reason. Locke missed this aspect: he intended science to be empirical, but forgot to account for probability. When we say something works like so in sicence, we do so because we repeatedly gathered so much empirical evidence that, in all probability, suggests a certain truth. It does not mean it is universally, objectively true. It is the best empirical based model that we have to rationalize reality as probably true.

Regardless of his lacking epistemology, his political, social and educational views are much more “common sense”. From those topics, you can see Locke was really trying to adjust society by creating better, more virtuous civilians which, despite his puritanism, involved backing the idea of decoupling religious entities from the state.

This was my first Dan Brown experience, and what a wowzer. The way he builds up suspense, while still being very informative on trivial subjects - I almost felt I was watching a movie. Dan has a very movie script-like writing, but his concise descriptions are amazing.

The cliffhangers at the end of every chapter left me hooked with interest in the pages that followed. I would say the most captivating is that all the mystery, puzzles and search for the hidden symbols in our History are actually based on real events. I would sometimes stop reading to just Google an image or to try and complete the puzzles on my own to see if I could find something by myself.

As an atheist and a scientist alike, this book - although semi-fictional - completely changed my once 100% negative view on religion because it gave me an identifiable logic with all the cultures around the world. The pure concept of faith and inner spirituality changed for me, and only Dan is the culprit.

I loved the Da Vinci Code, Angels & Demons and Inferno movies, so I bought the book to check out Dan's skill, and the moment I saw pictograms of puzzles, I instantly bought it.

As always, George was a visionary. His views and opinions are assertive, classy and surgical. His pieces will be considered timeless every time humanity undergoes societal dichotomies and judicial imbalance. One of a select group of comedians that will be remembered for ages, as stirred up controversial discussions, always aiming for the truth.

A saga of men and monsters, where we soon find men to be worse than monsters. The Witcher series presents a social criticism of the evil deeds humans can commit. Who knew that the bath scene between Geralt and Yennefer would be the biggest foreshadowing in all of the fantasy world. Also, I consistently asked myself if the “Witcher” that gives name to the series is actually Ciri, and not Geralt.

I also find poetic how the saga portrays parenthood as derived from deeds, and not blood. A sterile mutant (Geralt) and a converted sorceress (Yennefer), both biologically sterile, serve the role of parents to Ciri like their family could never had. Also, the role of Fringilla in this series cannot be overstated.

It's at the end of the series that we finally understand why specifically the Witcher 3 game is called The Wild Hunt.

More than the acceptance of death or living life with a purpose, I believe one trait of Marcus Aurelius that often goes unnoticed is its death-grip on intelligence as our most valuable asset, which gives us purpose and power of change. I believe it is without intelligence that its philosophy can easily fall into nihilism. He is also a very firm believer of a collective consciousness and intelligence, possibly deriving from his belief that we are all made biologically “equal” but have the possibility of fine-tuning ourselves into what we want to be.

During his whole 19 (?) years of being the Roman Imperator, he waged a constant war. Did not create it, but it befell onto him. I wonder if his meditative awareness arose from a grown humility during this warring period or was part of his personality all along.

Asimov can really captivate the reader with small high-impact chapters. The Foundation is a simple but brilliant story of a society which is led not by religious fate and death, but by the clairvoyance of Hari Seldon. This way, each main character has a sense of immediate purpose, giving the idea of great contribution to a common goal.

You know that feeling when you identify with a quote and frequently remember it as an universal basis for your moral values and daily behavior?

Well, this whole book is a big quote in itself on how to live a life deshrouded of uselessness. This book will definitely give you a good grip on reality and, if you allow, open your eyes to what really matters. Trust me, it had a practical effect on me. A raw masterpiece, with no need for fancy words or definitions.

I bought this book in a moment of my life that I actually needed to not give a fuck. I didn't even read to synopsis, I saw the title and I bought it. Did not disappoint.

Sartre had a constant struggle with the meaning of existence. He defended that existentialism must be accompanied by limitless freedom, but when we consider that other people also exist and have freedom of their own, we become limited. So, does total freedom require solitude from a species in which its existence is based on social behavior?

The Human Rights manifest states that our freedom ends where the freedom of anyone else starts. Sartre struggled contemplated this idea, adopting a position I would say to be deterministic: if we can't be totally free, then our existence is not fully controllable.

This determinism of Sartre was something he fiercely opposed, but felt he had no other choice.

I started this book bored and finished it mesmerized. Steinbeck writes in such detail that only a very particular group of readers will enjoy, but everyone will be able to empathize with the story in the end. It is the strenuous characterizing and detailing of the scenes that, while at first seems unnecessary, really makes the reader feel alive in each line of the scenes.

I started this book in the midst of a poor family, experiencing the downfall of losing their house and land. I journeyed through family losses, money scarcity, famine - all that could go wrong, did. But Steinbeck surprised me: the family was so simplistic, that each tragic loss just felt like a regular Monday at some point. Things like hope and optimism were never lost, because they didn't have anything in the first place.

My 3-star review only reflects an overall adequacy to my reading preferences, but now I understand why Steinbeck deserved a Nobel Prize.