|
I suppose firstly I should explain that I've never really done anything like this, talking about something I'm reading. I hope you can follow me even though I can be a bit scatterbrained about books.
So, I honestly had no idea what to expect from this book. It seems to be heading toward an eventual intricate philosophical discourse, but who knows. The beginning of this section was good, I liked it in that it lays out what I hope is going to be a main theme. That of the two opposite viewpoints in relation to technology, his classical versus romantic viewpoints. He sets us up for John as the romantic and himself as the classic, which is an ok thing to do. I really like that the time was taken to talk a bit in depth about 'classical vs. romantic' away from the narrative, it's what gives me the hope I mentioned above about an intricate discourse.
...and then there is this Phaedrus bit. Just isn't doing it for me. It was ok at first, the sort of hazy flashback relationship, but the mental hospital/new personality bit just kind of threw me. Jumping the shark a bit, I think, for now. Hopefully it will have some important relevance later that requires it to be told in the way that it is (which if I remember correctly is what was stated explicitly by the narrator).
I also thought it was interesting to not that he's seems to me to be a sort of loose Cartesian dualist, that of a mind/soul inhabiting a body as though it was a separate entity. Anybody else get the vibe from the bit in the hospital?
It also reminds me of that old philosophical chestnut that asks what you call it when two people switch brains (literally in a sci-fi sense). If you call it a brain transplant, then you would see a persons body as the main component of their identity and the brain as a part. If you see the brain/mind being the main component of self then you ought to call it a body transplant.
__________________
The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.
|