Human Stuff

By -
First I read Mises's Human Action. Then I read Oakeshott's On Human Conduct. Then I read Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition. And now I'm reading Stephen Toulmin's Human Understanding. So what other books with 'Human' in the title should I read to complete this tour?

Comments

  1. Anonymous7:57 PM

    This will do it:

    Nim Chimpsky: The Chimp Who Would Be Human

    by Elizabeth Hess

    ReplyDelete
  2. John Goes8:57 PM

    The Human Zoo: A Zoological Study of the Urban Animal

    by Desmond Morris

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous9:01 PM

    Love and Sex with Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships

    by David Levy

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous10:06 PM

    Economics for Real Humans

    ReplyDelete
  5. gcallah12:56 AM

    Hey, I think maybe I'll write that last one!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous9:12 AM

    Yeah, write it and send it to LRC to be published.

    ReplyDelete
  7. gcallah9:19 AM

    Hmm, theey don't publish books on paper, but maybe they'll serialize it!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bob Murphy12:46 AM

    Human Anatomy.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous10:58 PM

    Human Scale, by Kirkpatrick Sale

    ReplyDelete
  10. David9:19 PM

    W. Somerset Maugham, Of Human Bondage

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more