What do you think?
Rate this book
What is Man?
Twain’in basılmaya hazır hale gelip gelmediğinden bir türlü emin olamadığı İnsan Nedir? anonim olarak yayımlanmış ve yazarın öngördüğü üzere, epey tartışma yaratmış. Biri genç, diğeri ihtiyar iki adamın sohbeti vasıtasıyla insan hakkında kimilerinin pek de hoşuna gitmeyecek tespitlerin aktarıldığı eser, günümüzde insanın akıl yürütme yetisini anlamak ve konuya farklı bir açıdan bakabilmek isteyen okur için değerli bir kitap.Düşünebiliyor olmak insanı gerçekten özel kılar mı, kişi nasıl akıl yürütür ve fikir sahibi olur, biliminsanı ya da sanatçı için düşünme süreçleri nasıl işler gibi sorular üzerinden yorgun ve bilge bir ihtiyarın gerçekçiliği ile bir gencin muhalefet olma tutkusu ve romantizmini çarpıştırıyor Twain. “İnsan nedir?” sorusuna yanıt arayışımız belki de hiçbir zaman son bulmayacak, fakat Twain’in karakterleri kulak vermeye değer...
116 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1906
About the author
Mark Twain
9,268 books17.5k followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author by this name in the Goodreads database.
Samuel Langhorne Clemens, better known by his pen name Mark Twain, was an American author and humorist. He is noted for his novels Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885), called "the Great American Novel", and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876).
Twain grew up in Hannibal, Missouri, which would later provide the setting for Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer. He apprenticed with a printer. He also worked as a typesetter and contributed articles to his older brother Orion's newspaper. After toiling as a printer in various cities, he became a master riverboat pilot on the Mississippi River, before heading west to join Orion. He was a failure at gold mining, so he next turned to journalism. While a reporter, he wrote a humorous story, "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County," which proved to be very popular and brought him nationwide attention. His travelogues were also well-received. Twain had found his calling.
He achieved great success as a writer and public speaker. His wit and satire earned praise from critics and peers, and he was a friend to presidents, artists, industrialists, and European royalty.
However, he lacked financial acumen. Though he made a great deal of money from his writings and lectures, he squandered it on various ventures, in particular the Paige Compositor, and was forced to declare bankruptcy. With the help of Henry Huttleston Rogers, however, he eventually overcame his financial troubles. Twain worked hard to ensure that all of his creditors were paid in full, even though his bankruptcy had relieved him of the legal responsibility.
Born during a visit by Halley's Comet, he died on its return. He was lauded as the "greatest American humorist of his age", and William Faulkner called Twain "the father of American literature".
Excerpted from Wikipedia.
AKA:
Μαρκ Τουαίν (Greek)
Samuel Langhorne Clemens, better known by his pen name Mark Twain, was an American author and humorist. He is noted for his novels Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885), called "the Great American Novel", and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (1876).
Twain grew up in Hannibal, Missouri, which would later provide the setting for Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer. He apprenticed with a printer. He also worked as a typesetter and contributed articles to his older brother Orion's newspaper. After toiling as a printer in various cities, he became a master riverboat pilot on the Mississippi River, before heading west to join Orion. He was a failure at gold mining, so he next turned to journalism. While a reporter, he wrote a humorous story, "The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County," which proved to be very popular and brought him nationwide attention. His travelogues were also well-received. Twain had found his calling.
He achieved great success as a writer and public speaker. His wit and satire earned praise from critics and peers, and he was a friend to presidents, artists, industrialists, and European royalty.
However, he lacked financial acumen. Though he made a great deal of money from his writings and lectures, he squandered it on various ventures, in particular the Paige Compositor, and was forced to declare bankruptcy. With the help of Henry Huttleston Rogers, however, he eventually overcame his financial troubles. Twain worked hard to ensure that all of his creditors were paid in full, even though his bankruptcy had relieved him of the legal responsibility.
Born during a visit by Halley's Comet, he died on its return. He was lauded as the "greatest American humorist of his age", and William Faulkner called Twain "the father of American literature".
Excerpted from Wikipedia.
AKA:
Μαρκ Τουαίν (Greek)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 428 reviews
November 1, 2015
"ما الإنسان؟"
رحلة فكرية شيقة في أعماق الإنسان من خلال
محادثة طويلة جدلية بين شيخ عجوز وشاب
حول عدة موضوعات مثل الارادة الحرة ،الضمير
الغريزة والتفكير والفطرة
يمكن تلخيص الكتاب في جملة واحدة
"إن الدافع الوحيد للإنسان ضمان إرضاء الذات"
____
"اقتباسات"
____
-من المهد إلى اللحد لا يقوم الإنسان بأي عمل إلا ويكون الدافع إليه أولاً وقبل كل شيء هو أن يضمن لذاته راحة البال وأطمئنان النفس.
-إن ضمائرنا لا تعنيها آلام الآخرين حتى تصل إلى حد تغدو فيه مبعثا لآلامنا نحن”
- “نحن مصنوعون بطريقة تجعلنا ندفع أي شئ ثمنا لإرضاء أنفسنا .”
- “إن أوتيت المال ولم تؤت الرضا زالت عن المال قيمته في نظرك .”
- “العقائد تُكتسب بينما الأمزجة تورث , العقائد عرضة للتبديل بينما المزاج لا يمكن تغييره أو تحويله .”
- “الإنسان هو دائم البحث عن ذاته أولا”
- “مجرد إدراك الإنسان للخير والشر يثبت تفوقه العقلي على بقيةالكائنات ، ولكن حين يذكرنا الواقع بأن الإنسان يمكنه أن يرتكب الشر ففي ذلك إثبات لانحطاط مداركه الأخلاقية عن مدارك أي كائن آخر يعجز عن عمل الشر..”
May 29, 2014
What Is Man?
Apparently man is a selfish prick that can't think for himself and relies on "outside influences". He is a chameleon. He is nothing but a mere machine. Well, at least according to Twain. Man is a fraud and only lives for himself. He is really driving home this point that everyone is selfish and acts out of selfish needs (big surprise?), even if viewed (publicly and personally) as a self-sacrificing person. My question is; who cares? If the end result is the same, what does the actions matter. Let's say, saving a woman from a burning house. Twain says you do this out of making yourself feel good and avoiding the pain of not saving the woman, nothing else; the woman comes second to your own need of feeling good. But regardless of how it makes you feel, you still saved the woman in the end. The good is still done, even though you did it for yourself. Forget how the action was achieved. What does it matter if we refer to this as "self sacrificing" or "selfishness". Answer me this question, Twain! THE ACTION REMAINS THE SAME!!!.... I feel this must have been written during a time when everyone was going around smugly proclaiming to be self-sacrificing do-gooders and self-proclaimed religious nuts while really being shitty people; which had to be the most annoying thing ever. I guess it feels a bit outdated and I think people who naively go around claiming that they are "self-sacrificing do-gooders" are simply laughed at in our post modern times as smug assholes who need to get off their high horse (high horse? who owns a fucking horse nowadays, anyways?). I feel it is pretty accepted now that those who do good are doing them for their own selfish gains and the view of acceptance by others, at least I think this is the case. I don't know cause I don't know do-gooders, everyone I know (including myself) are dicks and more concerned with their celluar phones and creating social dating websites on the internet in vain attempts to pick up chicks only to drink alone and desperately spend several hours harassing women on social dating sites until one, out of pity, decides to respond to your 50 private messages, which then they foolishly decides to set up a date with you; only for you to be disappointed and stood up; which results in more drinking and paying a "dancer" to give you a hand job behind the goodwill on a Saturday night....
Anyways, I feel "What is Man?" is really a precursor to Freud (also Dostoevsky and Nietzche are precursors) and the Ego, which is pretty impressive for the time, but again, it feels a bit dated. He is also repetitive about the same idea of man being selfish, which is annoying like this review...
Now he is on this kick about how man never thinks for himself. He is a chameleon conforming to whatever outside influences he puts himself in. This is pretty interesting stuff here. I apologize that these reviews have become rather flat. The amount of times I have used the word "interesting" to describe things in a vague manner is so blindly obvious and so boring, I can't believe I go on writing these things (and you keep reading them?!) Where is this going to get me, doing these shitty reviews? Does anyone care? Do I really care? I think I need a girlfriend (this is a cry for help)...Anyways, the book is psychological and philosophical or some shit... go read the goddamn thing yourself...I need a drink...
Sorry about that last paragraph, anyways, this could be one of the most easily readable and most underrated philosophical books ever. This is a read that delves into some deep thinking. Triggers the mind. In fact, my mind just got triggered. Why don't I just stop doing these reviews publicly and require people to pay me for reviews rather than willingly exploit myself as cheap and free entertainment? Why do I feel I need to keep doing these reviews? I am cutting myself short! Perhaps I would get more satisfaction out of keeping these reviews to myself? I don't know, who am I kidding... This is not entertaining the least and no person in their right mind would ever pay a dime for this drivel...I need another drink...
Jesus, I am sorry for this whole rant. This is a book review, not a therapy session...I guess I am having a bad day ...Sorry...This is all pathetic, this is all a very sad, sad self centered review...I have lost all my steam, as if I had much to begin with. Where did it all go wrong? When did it start? What has happened to me?
QUOTES
Because you have relied on these reviews as a crutch and a sort of "cliff notes" instead of reading the actual book yourself, here are some quotes (you lazy sons-of-bitches; PAY ME FOR DOING YOUR DIRTY WORK!) :
"Old Man- Yes. This is the law, keep it in your mind. From his cradle to his grave a man never does a single thing which has any first and foremost object but one- to secure peace of mind, spiritual comfort, for himself....the necessity of securing one's own self approval"
"Men pretend to self-sacrifices, but this is a thing which, in the ordinary value of the phrase, does not exist and has not existed."
"From the cradle to the grave, during all his waking hours, the human being is under training...He is a chameleon; by the law of his nature he takes the color of his place of resort. The influences about him create his preferences, his aversions, his politics, his tastes, his morals, his religion."
"In America, if you know which party-collar a voter wears, you know what his associations are, and how he came by his politics, and which breed of newspaper he reads to get light, and which breed he diligently avoids, and which breed of mass-meetings he attends in order to broaden his political knowledge, and which breed of mass-meetings he doesn't attend, except to refute its doctrines with brickbats."
"...until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather. If he was seeking after political Truth he found it in one or another of the hundred political gospels which govern men in the earth; if he was seeking after the Only True Religion he found it in one or another of the three thousand that are on the market. In any case, when he found the Truth he sought no further; but from that day forth, with his soldering-iron in one hand and his bludgeon in the other he tinkered its leaks and reasoned with objectors."
"A man is never anything but what his outside influences have made him."
"Admonition- Diligently train your ideals upward and still upward toward a summit where you will find your chiefest pleasure in conduct which, while contenting you, will be sure to confer benefits upon your neighbor and community."
"The human being always looks down when he is examining another person's standard; he never finds one that he has to examine by looking up."
"Young man: You think man is a mere machine?
Old man: I do
Young man: And that his mind works automatically and is independent of his control- carries on thought on its own hook?
Yes. It is diligently at work, unceasingly at work, during every waking moment. Have you never tossed about all night, imploring, beseeching, commanding your mind to stop work and let you go to sleep?"
"O.M. When your mind is racing along from subject to subject and strikes an inspiring one, open your mouth and begin talking about that matter- or take your pen and use that. It will interest your mind and concentrate it, and it will pursue the subject with satisfaction. It will take full charge, and furnish the words itself."
"Men observe and combine, that is all."
"Money is merely a symbol- it represents in visible and concrete form a spiritual desire. Any so-called material thing that you want is merely a symbol: you want it not for itself, but because it will content your spirit for the moment."
The Death of Jean
Garbage... comparatively to the other works...skip this....
Turning-point of My Life
Wow, just wow. Mark Twain is a Taoist? A God??? This book is a religious experience. Unreal?!?! I shit myself from reading it, unbelievable!!! Read these quotes. One of the best, one of the greats! He discusses Adam and Eve, oh, I can't stress how mind blowing this is...This is a turning-point of my life!!!!!!!
Sorry, I was apparently drunk when I wrote this, disregard everything.
"Now what interests me, as regards these details, is not the details themselves, but the fact that none of them was foreseen by me, none of them was planned by me, I was the author of none of them. Circumstance, working in harness with my temperament, created them all and compelled them all. I often offered help, and with the best intentions, but it was rejected- as a rule, uncourteously. I could never plan a thing and get it to come out the way I planned it. It came out some other way- some way I had not counted upon."
"Very well, Circumstances furnished the capital, and my temperament told me what to do with it. Sometimes a temperament is an ass. When that is the case the owner of it is an ass, too, and is going to remain one. Training, experience, association, can temporarily so polish him, improve him, exalt him that people will think he is a mule, but they will be mistaken. Artificially he is a mule, for the time being, but at bottom he is an ass yet, and will remain one."
"After a few days I was out of money. Then Circumstance arrived, with another turning-point of my life- a new link. On my way down, I had made the acquaintance of a pilot. I begged him to each me the river, and he consented. I became a pilot."
"I was fired with a longing to ascend the Amazon. Also with a longing to open up a trade in coca with all the world. During months I dreamed that dream, and tried to contrive ways to get to Para and spring that splendid enterprise upon an unsuspecting planet. But all in vain. A person may plan as much as he wants to, but nothing of consequence is likely to come of it until the magician Circumstance steps in and takes the matter off his hands. At last Circumstance came to my help. It was in this way. Circumstance, to help or hurt another man, made him lose a fifty dollar bill in the street; and to help or hurt me, made me find it. I advertised the find, and left for the Amazon the same day. This was another turning-point, another link."
"A nation is only an individual multiplied. It makes plans and Circumstance comes and upsets them- or enlarges them. Some patriots throw the tea overboard; some other patriots destroy a Bastille. The plans stop there; then Circumstance comes in, quite unexpectedly, and turns these modest riots into revolution." - Compare to Kant "what is enlightenment?" and also Writ Large by Plato....
How to make history dates stick
An interesting and witty article on how to make dates stick. You just draw little pictures and the dates. Visually it will stick easier, Twain thinks. Let say it is presidents. You would draw a picture. It can be a crude picture. Let's say of, Abraham Lincoln and a bullet passing through his head. Something signifying him and events surrounding him (his assassination). Then for each year, you will repeat the picture. So for Lincoln, it was 4 years (1861-1865). So you draw the picture on 4 little pieces of paper with 1861-1865 indicated at the bottom. You will then hang a line of these tiny pictures on a wall in consecutive order. Then you would go to the next president and do the same thing, connecting to the line on the wall. Seems like a neat trick! I might try it and decorate my walls with crude little pictures.
"This is called inspiration. It is an accident; you never know when it is coming. I might have tried as much as a year to think of such a strange thing as an all-around left-handed man and I could not have done it, for the more you try to think of an unthinkable thing the more it eludes you; but it can't elude inspiration; you have only to bait with inspiration and you will get it every time."
Memorable Assassination
He discusses the assassination of what goes on to trigger WW1 in Austria and sprinkles it with some rants inspired by this assassination... Pretty good stuff.
"And now we get realized to us once more another thing which we often forget- or try to: that no man has a wholly undiseased mind; that in one way or another all men are mad. Many are mad for money. When this madness is in a mild form it is harmless and the man passes for sane; but when it develops powerfully and takes possession of the man, it can make him cheat, rob, and kill; and when he has got his fortune and lost it again it can land him in the asylum or the suicide's coffin. Love is a madness; if thwarted it develops fast; it can grow to a frenzy of despair and make an otherwise sane and highly gifted prince, like Rudolph, throw away the crown of an empire and snuff out his own life. All the whole list of desires, predilections, aversions, ambitions, passions, cares, griefs, regrets, remorses, are incipient madness, and ready to grow, spread, and consume, when the occasion comes. There are no healthy minds, and nothing saves any an but accident- the accident of not having his malady put to the supreme test. One of the commonest forms of madness is the desire to be noticed, the pleasure derived from being noticed. Perhaps it is not merely common, but universal. In its mildest form it doubtless is universal. Every child is pleased at being noticed; many intolerable children put in their whole time in distressing and idiotic effort to attract the attention of visitors; boys are always 'showing off'; apparently all men and women are glad and grateful when they find that they have done a thing which has lifted them for a moment of obscurity and caused a wondering talk. This common madness can develop, by nurture, into a hunger for notoriety in one, for fame in another. It is this madness for being noticed and talked about which has invented kingship and the thousand other dignities, and tricked them out with pretty and showy fineries; it has made kings pick one another's pockets, scramble for one another's crowns and estates, slaughter one another's subjects; it has raised up prize-fighters, and poets, and village mayors, and little and big politicians, and big and little charity-founders, and bicycle champions, and banditti chiefs, and frontier desperadoes, and Napoleons. Anything to get notoriety; anything to set the village, or the township, or the city, or the State, or the nation, or the planet shouting, "Look- there he goes- that is the man!"
A scrap of curious history
Great fictional story of how reform movements start...
"Robert Hardy was our first abolitionist- awful name! He was a journeyman cooper, and worked in the big cooper-shop belonging to the great pork-packing establishment which was Marion City's chief pride and sole source of prosperity. He was a New-Englander, a stranger. And, being a stranger, he was of course regarded as an inferior person- for that has been human nature from Adam down- and of course, also, he was made to feel unwelcome, for this is the ancient law with man and the other animals. Hardy was thirty years old, and a bachelor; pale, given to reverie and reading. He was reserved, and seemed to prefer the isolation which had fallen to his lot. He was treated to many side remarks by his fellows, but as he did not resent them it was decided that he was a coward. So hardy was saved. Being insane, he was allowed to go on talking. He was found to be good entertainment. Several nights running he made abolition speeches in the open air, and all the town flocked to hear and laugh. He implored them to believe him sane and sincere, and have pity on the poor slaves, and take measures for the restoration of their stolen rights, or in no long time blood would flow- blood, blood, rivers of blood! It was great fun..."- Ah, probably best just to read the story...It is short!
Switzerland, the cradle of liberty
Skip this story, it sucks...But what do I know...
The Shrine of St. Wagner
Boring...Unless you find Operas (Parsifal and Wagner) amazing, which in that case you are boring and therefore will probably like this story. There is a short snippet about how people idolize princes and this can be compared to idol worship now of famous people. That was vaguely interesting, I guess...There is a part that Twain says Operas would be better without the acting and singing and just the music, I agree. He also sates "Whenever I enjoy anything in art it means that it is mighty poor. The private knowledge of this fact has saved me from going to pieces with enthusiasm in front of many and many a chromo. However, my base instinct does bring me profit sometimes; I was the only man out of thirty-two hundred who got his money back on those two operas". Maybe he did hate them, anyways, I was lost and found it boring.
"Sometimes I feel like the sane person in a community of the mad; sometimes I feel like the one blind man where all others see; the one groping savage in the college of the learned, and always, during service, I feel like a heretic in heaven."
William Dean Howells
Twain really likes this Howells guy. This would be definitely a literary criticism by Twain. Twain shows how much better Howells is and how much garbage existed even then! This chapter is quite interesting because he rips into a lot of writers and states where they go wrong. Twain views Howells as a constant inventor of new prose and style, keeping him fresh and expressing authentic emotion by focusing on originality. Good short chapter.
"In their poverty they work these sorry things to the bone. They say: '...replied Alfred, flipping the ash from his cigar.' (This explains nothing; it only wastes space.)
'responded Richard, with a laugh.' (There was nothing to laugh about; there never is. The writer puts it in from habit- automatically; he is paying no attention to his work, or he would see that there is nothing to laugh at; often, when a remark is unusually and poignantly flat and silly, he tries to deceive the reader by enlarging the stage direction and making Richard break into "frenzies of uncontrollable laughter.' This makes the reader sad.)
'...murmured Gladys, blushing.' (This poor old shop-worn blush is a tiresome thing. We get so we would rather Gladys would fall out of the book and break her neck than do it again. She is always doing it, and usually irrelevantly. When it is her turn to murmur she hangs out her blush; it is the only thing she's got. In a little while we hate her, just as we do Richard.)
'...repeated Evelyn, bursting into tears.' (This kind keep a book damp all the time. They can't say a thing without crying. They cry so much about nothing that by and by when they have something to cry about they have gone dry; they sob, and fetch nothing; we are not moved. We are only glad.)"
English as she is taught
Short read on how education works and it sucks.
"a large part of the pupil's "instruction" consists in cramming him with obscure and wordy 'rules' which he does not understand."
Concerning Tobacco
"To me, almost any cigar is good that nobody else will smoke, and to me almost all cigars are bad that other people consider good."
Is Shakespeare Dead?
Twain rips into Shakespeare. He compares Shakespeare to a "brontosaur with nine bones and six hundred barrels of plaster of Paris". This is because Twain questions how Shakespeare could have possibly wrote plays, learn law, travel the seas, come from illiteracy, and learned to write in a dialect he was unfamilar with all around the same time. Twain thinks Shakespeare is a fictitious character built up by historians throughout the years . He could be right. He contends Francis Bacon was really Shakespeare.
Apparently man is a selfish prick that can't think for himself and relies on "outside influences". He is a chameleon. He is nothing but a mere machine. Well, at least according to Twain. Man is a fraud and only lives for himself. He is really driving home this point that everyone is selfish and acts out of selfish needs (big surprise?), even if viewed (publicly and personally) as a self-sacrificing person. My question is; who cares? If the end result is the same, what does the actions matter. Let's say, saving a woman from a burning house. Twain says you do this out of making yourself feel good and avoiding the pain of not saving the woman, nothing else; the woman comes second to your own need of feeling good. But regardless of how it makes you feel, you still saved the woman in the end. The good is still done, even though you did it for yourself. Forget how the action was achieved. What does it matter if we refer to this as "self sacrificing" or "selfishness". Answer me this question, Twain! THE ACTION REMAINS THE SAME!!!.... I feel this must have been written during a time when everyone was going around smugly proclaiming to be self-sacrificing do-gooders and self-proclaimed religious nuts while really being shitty people; which had to be the most annoying thing ever. I guess it feels a bit outdated and I think people who naively go around claiming that they are "self-sacrificing do-gooders" are simply laughed at in our post modern times as smug assholes who need to get off their high horse (high horse? who owns a fucking horse nowadays, anyways?). I feel it is pretty accepted now that those who do good are doing them for their own selfish gains and the view of acceptance by others, at least I think this is the case. I don't know cause I don't know do-gooders, everyone I know (including myself) are dicks and more concerned with their celluar phones and creating social dating websites on the internet in vain attempts to pick up chicks only to drink alone and desperately spend several hours harassing women on social dating sites until one, out of pity, decides to respond to your 50 private messages, which then they foolishly decides to set up a date with you; only for you to be disappointed and stood up; which results in more drinking and paying a "dancer" to give you a hand job behind the goodwill on a Saturday night....
Anyways, I feel "What is Man?" is really a precursor to Freud (also Dostoevsky and Nietzche are precursors) and the Ego, which is pretty impressive for the time, but again, it feels a bit dated. He is also repetitive about the same idea of man being selfish, which is annoying like this review...
Now he is on this kick about how man never thinks for himself. He is a chameleon conforming to whatever outside influences he puts himself in. This is pretty interesting stuff here. I apologize that these reviews have become rather flat. The amount of times I have used the word "interesting" to describe things in a vague manner is so blindly obvious and so boring, I can't believe I go on writing these things (and you keep reading them?!) Where is this going to get me, doing these shitty reviews? Does anyone care? Do I really care? I think I need a girlfriend (this is a cry for help)...Anyways, the book is psychological and philosophical or some shit... go read the goddamn thing yourself...I need a drink...
Sorry about that last paragraph, anyways, this could be one of the most easily readable and most underrated philosophical books ever. This is a read that delves into some deep thinking. Triggers the mind. In fact, my mind just got triggered. Why don't I just stop doing these reviews publicly and require people to pay me for reviews rather than willingly exploit myself as cheap and free entertainment? Why do I feel I need to keep doing these reviews? I am cutting myself short! Perhaps I would get more satisfaction out of keeping these reviews to myself? I don't know, who am I kidding... This is not entertaining the least and no person in their right mind would ever pay a dime for this drivel...I need another drink...
Jesus, I am sorry for this whole rant. This is a book review, not a therapy session...I guess I am having a bad day ...Sorry...This is all pathetic, this is all a very sad, sad self centered review...I have lost all my steam, as if I had much to begin with. Where did it all go wrong? When did it start? What has happened to me?
QUOTES
Because you have relied on these reviews as a crutch and a sort of "cliff notes" instead of reading the actual book yourself, here are some quotes (you lazy sons-of-bitches; PAY ME FOR DOING YOUR DIRTY WORK!) :
"Old Man- Yes. This is the law, keep it in your mind. From his cradle to his grave a man never does a single thing which has any first and foremost object but one- to secure peace of mind, spiritual comfort, for himself....the necessity of securing one's own self approval"
"Men pretend to self-sacrifices, but this is a thing which, in the ordinary value of the phrase, does not exist and has not existed."
"From the cradle to the grave, during all his waking hours, the human being is under training...He is a chameleon; by the law of his nature he takes the color of his place of resort. The influences about him create his preferences, his aversions, his politics, his tastes, his morals, his religion."
"In America, if you know which party-collar a voter wears, you know what his associations are, and how he came by his politics, and which breed of newspaper he reads to get light, and which breed he diligently avoids, and which breed of mass-meetings he attends in order to broaden his political knowledge, and which breed of mass-meetings he doesn't attend, except to refute its doctrines with brickbats."
"...until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather. If he was seeking after political Truth he found it in one or another of the hundred political gospels which govern men in the earth; if he was seeking after the Only True Religion he found it in one or another of the three thousand that are on the market. In any case, when he found the Truth he sought no further; but from that day forth, with his soldering-iron in one hand and his bludgeon in the other he tinkered its leaks and reasoned with objectors."
"A man is never anything but what his outside influences have made him."
"Admonition- Diligently train your ideals upward and still upward toward a summit where you will find your chiefest pleasure in conduct which, while contenting you, will be sure to confer benefits upon your neighbor and community."
"The human being always looks down when he is examining another person's standard; he never finds one that he has to examine by looking up."
"Young man: You think man is a mere machine?
Old man: I do
Young man: And that his mind works automatically and is independent of his control- carries on thought on its own hook?
Yes. It is diligently at work, unceasingly at work, during every waking moment. Have you never tossed about all night, imploring, beseeching, commanding your mind to stop work and let you go to sleep?"
"O.M. When your mind is racing along from subject to subject and strikes an inspiring one, open your mouth and begin talking about that matter- or take your pen and use that. It will interest your mind and concentrate it, and it will pursue the subject with satisfaction. It will take full charge, and furnish the words itself."
"Men observe and combine, that is all."
"Money is merely a symbol- it represents in visible and concrete form a spiritual desire. Any so-called material thing that you want is merely a symbol: you want it not for itself, but because it will content your spirit for the moment."
The Death of Jean
Garbage... comparatively to the other works...skip this....
Turning-point of My Life
Wow, just wow. Mark Twain is a Taoist? A God??? This book is a religious experience. Unreal?!?! I shit myself from reading it, unbelievable!!! Read these quotes. One of the best, one of the greats! He discusses Adam and Eve, oh, I can't stress how mind blowing this is...This is a turning-point of my life!!!!!!!
Sorry, I was apparently drunk when I wrote this, disregard everything.
"Now what interests me, as regards these details, is not the details themselves, but the fact that none of them was foreseen by me, none of them was planned by me, I was the author of none of them. Circumstance, working in harness with my temperament, created them all and compelled them all. I often offered help, and with the best intentions, but it was rejected- as a rule, uncourteously. I could never plan a thing and get it to come out the way I planned it. It came out some other way- some way I had not counted upon."
"Very well, Circumstances furnished the capital, and my temperament told me what to do with it. Sometimes a temperament is an ass. When that is the case the owner of it is an ass, too, and is going to remain one. Training, experience, association, can temporarily so polish him, improve him, exalt him that people will think he is a mule, but they will be mistaken. Artificially he is a mule, for the time being, but at bottom he is an ass yet, and will remain one."
"After a few days I was out of money. Then Circumstance arrived, with another turning-point of my life- a new link. On my way down, I had made the acquaintance of a pilot. I begged him to each me the river, and he consented. I became a pilot."
"I was fired with a longing to ascend the Amazon. Also with a longing to open up a trade in coca with all the world. During months I dreamed that dream, and tried to contrive ways to get to Para and spring that splendid enterprise upon an unsuspecting planet. But all in vain. A person may plan as much as he wants to, but nothing of consequence is likely to come of it until the magician Circumstance steps in and takes the matter off his hands. At last Circumstance came to my help. It was in this way. Circumstance, to help or hurt another man, made him lose a fifty dollar bill in the street; and to help or hurt me, made me find it. I advertised the find, and left for the Amazon the same day. This was another turning-point, another link."
"A nation is only an individual multiplied. It makes plans and Circumstance comes and upsets them- or enlarges them. Some patriots throw the tea overboard; some other patriots destroy a Bastille. The plans stop there; then Circumstance comes in, quite unexpectedly, and turns these modest riots into revolution." - Compare to Kant "what is enlightenment?" and also Writ Large by Plato....
How to make history dates stick
An interesting and witty article on how to make dates stick. You just draw little pictures and the dates. Visually it will stick easier, Twain thinks. Let say it is presidents. You would draw a picture. It can be a crude picture. Let's say of, Abraham Lincoln and a bullet passing through his head. Something signifying him and events surrounding him (his assassination). Then for each year, you will repeat the picture. So for Lincoln, it was 4 years (1861-1865). So you draw the picture on 4 little pieces of paper with 1861-1865 indicated at the bottom. You will then hang a line of these tiny pictures on a wall in consecutive order. Then you would go to the next president and do the same thing, connecting to the line on the wall. Seems like a neat trick! I might try it and decorate my walls with crude little pictures.
"This is called inspiration. It is an accident; you never know when it is coming. I might have tried as much as a year to think of such a strange thing as an all-around left-handed man and I could not have done it, for the more you try to think of an unthinkable thing the more it eludes you; but it can't elude inspiration; you have only to bait with inspiration and you will get it every time."
Memorable Assassination
He discusses the assassination of what goes on to trigger WW1 in Austria and sprinkles it with some rants inspired by this assassination... Pretty good stuff.
"And now we get realized to us once more another thing which we often forget- or try to: that no man has a wholly undiseased mind; that in one way or another all men are mad. Many are mad for money. When this madness is in a mild form it is harmless and the man passes for sane; but when it develops powerfully and takes possession of the man, it can make him cheat, rob, and kill; and when he has got his fortune and lost it again it can land him in the asylum or the suicide's coffin. Love is a madness; if thwarted it develops fast; it can grow to a frenzy of despair and make an otherwise sane and highly gifted prince, like Rudolph, throw away the crown of an empire and snuff out his own life. All the whole list of desires, predilections, aversions, ambitions, passions, cares, griefs, regrets, remorses, are incipient madness, and ready to grow, spread, and consume, when the occasion comes. There are no healthy minds, and nothing saves any an but accident- the accident of not having his malady put to the supreme test. One of the commonest forms of madness is the desire to be noticed, the pleasure derived from being noticed. Perhaps it is not merely common, but universal. In its mildest form it doubtless is universal. Every child is pleased at being noticed; many intolerable children put in their whole time in distressing and idiotic effort to attract the attention of visitors; boys are always 'showing off'; apparently all men and women are glad and grateful when they find that they have done a thing which has lifted them for a moment of obscurity and caused a wondering talk. This common madness can develop, by nurture, into a hunger for notoriety in one, for fame in another. It is this madness for being noticed and talked about which has invented kingship and the thousand other dignities, and tricked them out with pretty and showy fineries; it has made kings pick one another's pockets, scramble for one another's crowns and estates, slaughter one another's subjects; it has raised up prize-fighters, and poets, and village mayors, and little and big politicians, and big and little charity-founders, and bicycle champions, and banditti chiefs, and frontier desperadoes, and Napoleons. Anything to get notoriety; anything to set the village, or the township, or the city, or the State, or the nation, or the planet shouting, "Look- there he goes- that is the man!"
A scrap of curious history
Great fictional story of how reform movements start...
"Robert Hardy was our first abolitionist- awful name! He was a journeyman cooper, and worked in the big cooper-shop belonging to the great pork-packing establishment which was Marion City's chief pride and sole source of prosperity. He was a New-Englander, a stranger. And, being a stranger, he was of course regarded as an inferior person- for that has been human nature from Adam down- and of course, also, he was made to feel unwelcome, for this is the ancient law with man and the other animals. Hardy was thirty years old, and a bachelor; pale, given to reverie and reading. He was reserved, and seemed to prefer the isolation which had fallen to his lot. He was treated to many side remarks by his fellows, but as he did not resent them it was decided that he was a coward. So hardy was saved. Being insane, he was allowed to go on talking. He was found to be good entertainment. Several nights running he made abolition speeches in the open air, and all the town flocked to hear and laugh. He implored them to believe him sane and sincere, and have pity on the poor slaves, and take measures for the restoration of their stolen rights, or in no long time blood would flow- blood, blood, rivers of blood! It was great fun..."- Ah, probably best just to read the story...It is short!
Switzerland, the cradle of liberty
Skip this story, it sucks...But what do I know...
The Shrine of St. Wagner
Boring...Unless you find Operas (Parsifal and Wagner) amazing, which in that case you are boring and therefore will probably like this story. There is a short snippet about how people idolize princes and this can be compared to idol worship now of famous people. That was vaguely interesting, I guess...There is a part that Twain says Operas would be better without the acting and singing and just the music, I agree. He also sates "Whenever I enjoy anything in art it means that it is mighty poor. The private knowledge of this fact has saved me from going to pieces with enthusiasm in front of many and many a chromo. However, my base instinct does bring me profit sometimes; I was the only man out of thirty-two hundred who got his money back on those two operas". Maybe he did hate them, anyways, I was lost and found it boring.
"Sometimes I feel like the sane person in a community of the mad; sometimes I feel like the one blind man where all others see; the one groping savage in the college of the learned, and always, during service, I feel like a heretic in heaven."
William Dean Howells
Twain really likes this Howells guy. This would be definitely a literary criticism by Twain. Twain shows how much better Howells is and how much garbage existed even then! This chapter is quite interesting because he rips into a lot of writers and states where they go wrong. Twain views Howells as a constant inventor of new prose and style, keeping him fresh and expressing authentic emotion by focusing on originality. Good short chapter.
"In their poverty they work these sorry things to the bone. They say: '...replied Alfred, flipping the ash from his cigar.' (This explains nothing; it only wastes space.)
'responded Richard, with a laugh.' (There was nothing to laugh about; there never is. The writer puts it in from habit- automatically; he is paying no attention to his work, or he would see that there is nothing to laugh at; often, when a remark is unusually and poignantly flat and silly, he tries to deceive the reader by enlarging the stage direction and making Richard break into "frenzies of uncontrollable laughter.' This makes the reader sad.)
'...murmured Gladys, blushing.' (This poor old shop-worn blush is a tiresome thing. We get so we would rather Gladys would fall out of the book and break her neck than do it again. She is always doing it, and usually irrelevantly. When it is her turn to murmur she hangs out her blush; it is the only thing she's got. In a little while we hate her, just as we do Richard.)
'...repeated Evelyn, bursting into tears.' (This kind keep a book damp all the time. They can't say a thing without crying. They cry so much about nothing that by and by when they have something to cry about they have gone dry; they sob, and fetch nothing; we are not moved. We are only glad.)"
English as she is taught
Short read on how education works and it sucks.
"a large part of the pupil's "instruction" consists in cramming him with obscure and wordy 'rules' which he does not understand."
Concerning Tobacco
"To me, almost any cigar is good that nobody else will smoke, and to me almost all cigars are bad that other people consider good."
Is Shakespeare Dead?
Twain rips into Shakespeare. He compares Shakespeare to a "brontosaur with nine bones and six hundred barrels of plaster of Paris". This is because Twain questions how Shakespeare could have possibly wrote plays, learn law, travel the seas, come from illiteracy, and learned to write in a dialect he was unfamilar with all around the same time. Twain thinks Shakespeare is a fictitious character built up by historians throughout the years . He could be right. He contends Francis Bacon was really Shakespeare.
February 18, 2014
كتاب بمثابة صفعات متوالية
تعيد ترتيب الأشياء في ذهنك ..
رغم قل عدد الصفحات .. إلا أن الكتاب أستغرق صاحبه
زمناً طويلاً .. درساً ، بحثا ، و مراجعة .!
أحببت أسلوب مارك توين كثيراً ..
أسلوب سلس مميز و فريد ..
تدور فكرة الكتاب حول الإجابة عن سؤال :
" ما الإنسان ؟ "
الإجابات رغم معرفتنا بها .. إلا أنها اتخذت
شكلاً صادماً ..
هذه الكتب ... بالفعل تستحق القراءة و التأمل ..!
تعيد ترتيب الأشياء في ذهنك ..
رغم قل عدد الصفحات .. إلا أن الكتاب أستغرق صاحبه
زمناً طويلاً .. درساً ، بحثا ، و مراجعة .!
أحببت أسلوب مارك توين كثيراً ..
أسلوب سلس مميز و فريد ..
تدور فكرة الكتاب حول الإجابة عن سؤال :
" ما الإنسان ؟ "
الإجابات رغم معرفتنا بها .. إلا أنها اتخذت
شكلاً صادماً ..
هذه الكتب ... بالفعل تستحق القراءة و التأمل ..!
November 29, 2022
این کتاب، شرح گفت و گو یک پیرمرد و مردی جوانه ، جوان از پیرمرد میخواد که نظرش رو درباره مفاهیم فداکاری، انسانیت، اختیار، استعداد، سرشت و ... بیان کنه و پیرمرد از چند اصل کلیدی ای که در زندگی به اون ها رسیده پرده برداری میکنه. چند اصلی که اصرار داره منشاء تمام انتخاب ها، اعمال و رفتار انسانه و تا اخر کتاب جوان به دنبال پیدا کردن مثالی نقض برای این اصول میگرده و شکست میخوره!
خیلی کتاب تامل بر انگیزیه اما یه جورایی آرزو میکنم کاش نخونده بودمش! به نظرم بزرگ ترین مشکل کتاب نسبت دادن چند دلیل خطی و خشک به تمام اعمال و رفتار بشره و وقتی آلوده به منطق صفر و یکی ای که نشونتون داده میشین دیگه نمیتونین با منطق قبلی خودتون جوابشو بدین و بگین داری اشتباه میکنی:/
و خب این طرز تفکر خیلی منو آزار میده. چون همیشه به این فکر کردم که آدم به هیچ عنوان موجود تک بعدی و ماشین واری نیست و اینطور فکر کردن راجبهش ارزش اون رو پایین میاره و یک نوع توهين به جایگاه انسان در جهانه.
(یعنی فکر میکنم میشه رفتار های یک ادم خاص به مرور زمان و در شرایطی تبدیل به یک ماشین بشه اما نمیشه اینطوری به همه انسان های بشر اون اصل رو تعمیم داد )
ولی خب ظاهرا نظر تواین با من خیلی متفاوته و منم باید سعی کنم فراموش کنم این کتاب رو اصن خوندم:)
خیلی کتاب تامل بر انگیزیه اما یه جورایی آرزو میکنم کاش نخونده بودمش! به نظرم بزرگ ترین مشکل کتاب نسبت دادن چند دلیل خطی و خشک به تمام اعمال و رفتار بشره و وقتی آلوده به منطق صفر و یکی ای که نشونتون داده میشین دیگه نمیتونین با منطق قبلی خودتون جوابشو بدین و بگین داری اشتباه میکنی:/
و خب این طرز تفکر خیلی منو آزار میده. چون همیشه به این فکر کردم که آدم به هیچ عنوان موجود تک بعدی و ماشین واری نیست و اینطور فکر کردن راجبهش ارزش اون رو پایین میاره و یک نوع توهين به جایگاه انسان در جهانه.
(یعنی فکر میکنم میشه رفتار های یک ادم خاص به مرور زمان و در شرایطی تبدیل به یک ماشین بشه اما نمیشه اینطوری به همه انسان های بشر اون اصل رو تعمیم داد )
ولی خب ظاهرا نظر تواین با من خیلی متفاوته و منم باید سعی کنم فراموش کنم این کتاب رو اصن خوندم:)
November 9, 2020
Bitirdiğiniz zaman içinizde bir burukluk, zihninizde ise birbirinden karmaşık düşünceler bırakan ve günlerce kafanızda evirip çevirip değerlendireceğiniz türden iz bırakan kitaplar vardır ya, işte bu da onlardan biri.
Mark Twain’in kurgu dışı okuduğum ilk eseri. Muazzam bir şekilde şaşırtıcı ve düşündürücü nitelikler taşıyan felsefi bir başyapıt. Diyaloglar üzerinden ilerleyen bu kitap tıpkı Sokrates’in insanları gerçeğe ulaştırmak ve herkesin “düşünebilir” olduğunu kanıtlamak için her karşılaştığı kişiye varoluş soruları sorması gibi bir formatta yazılmış. Perdelerin açılmasıyla karşılaştığımız ilk tartışma “insanların dış etkiler bütününden oluştuğu ve güdülerin tamamen dış kaynaklı” olduğu savıyla başlıyor. Teori-tartışma-çürütme-netice ve başa dönüş şeklinde devam eden bu diyaloglarda insanı insan yapan temel yapıtaşları, iç huzur - vicdan ve insan eylemlerinin sebepleri tartışılıyor. Kesinlikle okunması gereken, önyargıları kıracak, düşünce tarzınıza yeni bir bakış açısı kazandıracak türden müthiş zengin bir kitap.
Mark Twain’in kurgu dışı okuduğum ilk eseri. Muazzam bir şekilde şaşırtıcı ve düşündürücü nitelikler taşıyan felsefi bir başyapıt. Diyaloglar üzerinden ilerleyen bu kitap tıpkı Sokrates’in insanları gerçeğe ulaştırmak ve herkesin “düşünebilir” olduğunu kanıtlamak için her karşılaştığı kişiye varoluş soruları sorması gibi bir formatta yazılmış. Perdelerin açılmasıyla karşılaştığımız ilk tartışma “insanların dış etkiler bütününden oluştuğu ve güdülerin tamamen dış kaynaklı” olduğu savıyla başlıyor. Teori-tartışma-çürütme-netice ve başa dönüş şeklinde devam eden bu diyaloglarda insanı insan yapan temel yapıtaşları, iç huzur - vicdan ve insan eylemlerinin sebepleri tartışılıyor. Kesinlikle okunması gereken, önyargıları kıracak, düşünce tarzınıza yeni bir bakış açısı kazandıracak türden müthiş zengin bir kitap.
November 12, 2023
What Is Man? is neither humorous nor satirical. There aren’t any laughs here. Mark Twain swapped out his humorist beanie for a philosopher’s hat, and appears to be deadly serious in this short piece. It stand with several of his other late pieces — The Mysterious Stranger, Letters From the Earth, The War Prayer — as a manifestation of his deep and dark pessimism, which was only hinted at in earlier works. Like them, it wasn’t published under his name until after his death.
As philosophy, What Is Man? is neither particularly well done or original. Twain was no Wittgenstein. It is structured as a series of conversations between Old Man (Twain’s mouthpiece) and Young Man (essentially a straw man). Twain asserts that man is nothing more than a machine, making arguments that assert a simple determinism and attacking the idea of altruism (psychological egoism). The climax of his arguments attacks “the moral sense” as an idea that sets man above animals. Even if you generally agree with his viewpoint (as I do) it’s hard to view this as a serious philosophical effort.
What Is Man is negligible as philosophy, but is not without value. It does provide insight into the thinking, philosophy, and emotional condition of Mark Twain in his later years, and as such, any Mark Twain aficionados should take the time to check it out.
As philosophy, What Is Man? is neither particularly well done or original. Twain was no Wittgenstein. It is structured as a series of conversations between Old Man (Twain’s mouthpiece) and Young Man (essentially a straw man). Twain asserts that man is nothing more than a machine, making arguments that assert a simple determinism and attacking the idea of altruism (psychological egoism). The climax of his arguments attacks “the moral sense” as an idea that sets man above animals. Even if you generally agree with his viewpoint (as I do) it’s hard to view this as a serious philosophical effort.
What Is Man is negligible as philosophy, but is not without value. It does provide insight into the thinking, philosophy, and emotional condition of Mark Twain in his later years, and as such, any Mark Twain aficionados should take the time to check it out.
December 5, 2020
En başta belirtmeliyim ki, bu kitap hakkındaki görüşlerimin doğruluğundan emin değilim.
Üzerine oldukça düşünüldükten sonra bir bütün içerisinde görüş bildirilmesi gereken, felsefi savlara sahip bir kitap çünkü. Özgür irade, kişisel değer, edimlerimizin kaynakları vb.
Twain'in kitaptaki temel savlarının neredeyse reddedilemez olduğunu kabul etmekle birlikte, sezdiğim ama detaylandırmadan tam ifade edemeyeceğim bir şey var. Twain'in reddedilmesi zor temel savlar üzerinden görülmesi zor sıçramalar yaparak, yanlış genellemelere ve sonuçlara vardığını düşünüyorum.
Örneğin, diyor ki; insanı bir şey yapmaya iten yegane dürtü kendi ruhunu tatmin etme dürtüsüdür. Bir insan bir iyilik yaptığında bunu temelde kendi çıkarı için yapar. İyilik yapmamanın vicdan azabını yaşamamak için, toplumdan takdir görmek için, kendi iç huzuru ve ruhsal rahatlığı için vb..
Bu neredeyse reddedilemez bir sav. Sosyal bir varlık olan insanı, kendi duygu düşüncelerinden ayırarak incelemek zaten mantıksız. İnsan elbette kendi hislerinden bağımsız kararlar vermiyor. Hatta doğrudan buna bağımlı kararlar da veriyor olduğunu kabul edelim. Twain'in dediği gibi.
Yine kestirmeden gidelim, Twain bunlardan hareketle diyor ki; Bu hisler, bu duygudurum çevresel koşullarla ve kısmen eğitimle oluşur. Aynı çevresel koşullara/eğitime farklı tepkiler vermeleri ise insanların farklı mizaçlara sahip olmasından kaynaklanır. Sonuç olarak insan duygu ve mizacı çerçevesinde kararlar veren bir makinedir. Daha da ileri götürürsek, özgür irade aslında yoktur.
Benim itirazım şu, insan kesinlikle rasyonel ve öngörülebilir bir varlık değil. Hatta böyle görülmekten nefret eden bir varlık. "Tanrı senin her an her saniye yapacağın her şeyi biliyor" denildiği anda saçma sapan bir hareket yapıp, "bunu da mı?" diye soran bir varlık.
Şunu da belirtelim, Twain de zaten insanın rasyonel bir varlık olmasından hareketle "insan bir makinedir" demiyor. Bu görüşe kontrası şu: insanın rasyonel bir varlık olmaması da rasyoneldir. Yani insanın rasyonel görünmeyen edimleri değerlendirildiğinde; aslında mizaç, kendi iç huzuru ve ruhsal rahatlığı açısından rasyonel olduğu görülecektir. Burada antitezci genç istemediği bir savaşa öleceğini bile bile giden bir adamı örmek veriyor. Twain de toplumsal bakışın adamdaki önemi ile bu kararı rasyonalize ediyor. Ben olsam görünür de bir sıkıntısı olmayan bir zenginin intiharını öne sürerdim. Onu da bir şekilde açıklayabilirdi belki ama, daha iyi bir örnek olurdu. Özetle insanın mizacının"makine" olmaya yatkın olmadığını düşünüyorum. Dolayısıyla benim itirazım ve kontram şu;
- insan makine olmamaya programlanmış bir makinedir.
(" İnsanın bütün işi gücü, sanırım cıvata değil insan olduğunu her an kendi kendisine kanıtlamaktır. Bu uğurda başı belaya girecekmiş, gerekirse mağara adamına dönüşecekmiş, vız gelir ona…" - Dostoyevski, Yer Altından Notlar)
dediğim gibi görüşlerimin doğruluğundan emin değilim, yapılması gereken örnekler üzerinden giderek detaylarda kaybolmamak ve öncelikle Twain'in önermelerini açıkça ortaya koymak.
Her halükarda kafa karıştıran ve düşünmeye sevk eden bir kitap. Bu yüzden güzel. Nerede okumuştum bilmiyorum.
" En güzel başlangıçtır kafa karışıklığı.."
Üzerine oldukça düşünüldükten sonra bir bütün içerisinde görüş bildirilmesi gereken, felsefi savlara sahip bir kitap çünkü. Özgür irade, kişisel değer, edimlerimizin kaynakları vb.
Twain'in kitaptaki temel savlarının neredeyse reddedilemez olduğunu kabul etmekle birlikte, sezdiğim ama detaylandırmadan tam ifade edemeyeceğim bir şey var. Twain'in reddedilmesi zor temel savlar üzerinden görülmesi zor sıçramalar yaparak, yanlış genellemelere ve sonuçlara vardığını düşünüyorum.
Örneğin, diyor ki; insanı bir şey yapmaya iten yegane dürtü kendi ruhunu tatmin etme dürtüsüdür. Bir insan bir iyilik yaptığında bunu temelde kendi çıkarı için yapar. İyilik yapmamanın vicdan azabını yaşamamak için, toplumdan takdir görmek için, kendi iç huzuru ve ruhsal rahatlığı için vb..
Bu neredeyse reddedilemez bir sav. Sosyal bir varlık olan insanı, kendi duygu düşüncelerinden ayırarak incelemek zaten mantıksız. İnsan elbette kendi hislerinden bağımsız kararlar vermiyor. Hatta doğrudan buna bağımlı kararlar da veriyor olduğunu kabul edelim. Twain'in dediği gibi.
Yine kestirmeden gidelim, Twain bunlardan hareketle diyor ki; Bu hisler, bu duygudurum çevresel koşullarla ve kısmen eğitimle oluşur. Aynı çevresel koşullara/eğitime farklı tepkiler vermeleri ise insanların farklı mizaçlara sahip olmasından kaynaklanır. Sonuç olarak insan duygu ve mizacı çerçevesinde kararlar veren bir makinedir. Daha da ileri götürürsek, özgür irade aslında yoktur.
Benim itirazım şu, insan kesinlikle rasyonel ve öngörülebilir bir varlık değil. Hatta böyle görülmekten nefret eden bir varlık. "Tanrı senin her an her saniye yapacağın her şeyi biliyor" denildiği anda saçma sapan bir hareket yapıp, "bunu da mı?" diye soran bir varlık.
Şunu da belirtelim, Twain de zaten insanın rasyonel bir varlık olmasından hareketle "insan bir makinedir" demiyor. Bu görüşe kontrası şu: insanın rasyonel bir varlık olmaması da rasyoneldir. Yani insanın rasyonel görünmeyen edimleri değerlendirildiğinde; aslında mizaç, kendi iç huzuru ve ruhsal rahatlığı açısından rasyonel olduğu görülecektir. Burada antitezci genç istemediği bir savaşa öleceğini bile bile giden bir adamı örmek veriyor. Twain de toplumsal bakışın adamdaki önemi ile bu kararı rasyonalize ediyor. Ben olsam görünür de bir sıkıntısı olmayan bir zenginin intiharını öne sürerdim. Onu da bir şekilde açıklayabilirdi belki ama, daha iyi bir örnek olurdu. Özetle insanın mizacının"makine" olmaya yatkın olmadığını düşünüyorum. Dolayısıyla benim itirazım ve kontram şu;
- insan makine olmamaya programlanmış bir makinedir.
(" İnsanın bütün işi gücü, sanırım cıvata değil insan olduğunu her an kendi kendisine kanıtlamaktır. Bu uğurda başı belaya girecekmiş, gerekirse mağara adamına dönüşecekmiş, vız gelir ona…" - Dostoyevski, Yer Altından Notlar)
dediğim gibi görüşlerimin doğruluğundan emin değilim, yapılması gereken örnekler üzerinden giderek detaylarda kaybolmamak ve öncelikle Twain'in önermelerini açıkça ortaya koymak.
Her halükarda kafa karıştıran ve düşünmeye sevk eden bir kitap. Bu yüzden güzel. Nerede okumuştum bilmiyorum.
" En güzel başlangıçtır kafa karışıklığı.."
August 31, 2023
حرف کلی کتاب اینه که ما انسان ها در طول زندگی دنبال رضایت شخصی و ارضا کردن خواسته های صدای درونمون (ارباب درون) هستیم بقیه ی چیزا مثل فداکاری، صدقه ، محبت و... فرمالیته ست و همش واسه راضی نگه داشتن خودمون از نظر فکری و احساسی یا جسمی هست، توی بیشتر مثال هایی که اورد باهاش موافقم در این زمینه .
در کل کتاب جالبی بود ولی اینطوری نیست که تبدیل به کتاب مقدسم شده باشه ! اگر کسی کتابی مخالف با این خط فکری سراغ داره معرفی کنه لطفا☺️
در کل کتاب جالبی بود ولی اینطوری نیست که تبدیل به کتاب مقدسم شده باشه ! اگر کسی کتابی مخالف با این خط فکری سراغ داره معرفی کنه لطفا☺️
September 2, 2019
(Dikkat, bu yazı şevk kırıcı öğeler barındırabilir. Kitabı listenize yeni eklediyseniz ve yakın zamanda okuma niyetiniz varsa bu uyarıyı göz önünde bulundurarak ilerleyin. Müessesemiz kaybolan hevesinizden sorumlu değildir.)
Kitap, biri ihtiyar (Y.A.) biri genç (G.A.) iki kişinin ara ara buluşup insana dair çeşitli konularda konuşması şeklinde kaleme alınmış. Twain yazdıklarını 25 yıl kadar demlendirmiş. Haklı bir endişesi olabilir. Ben de yer yer döneminin ilerisinde bulduğumu söyleyebilirim. Ama aradan çok zaman geçmiş,
Yazar iddialı bir dil kullanmış, ifadeleri keskin, tavrı sert. Bu kadar iddialı olunca benim beklentim her dem taze ve her dem çarpıcı bir eser. Kendi dönemi için çok takdir edilesi olabilir. Ama bugünden bakınca dediklerinde bir fevkaladelik göremedim. Böyle olunca da bu biçim, bu içeriğe bol gelmiş. (İçerik zamanla zayıflamış da olabilir onu tartamayacağım) Sırıtıyor. Komik duruyor. O komiklik içerisinde yine büyük bir ciddiyetle devam etmeye çalışması ayrıca can sıkıcı bir durum. Yer yer bayık.
Konu sadece üslup değil. Benzer döneme denk gelen “Dorian Gray'in Portresi” de kışkırtıcı bir eserdir. Lord Henry'nin görüşlerine katılmasam da dibim düşerek, dudaklarımı ısırarak okumuşumdur bütün kitabı. Rahatsız eder, tahrik eder, kışkırtır ama okumayı bırakmazsın aksine hiç daha önce düşünmediğin konular üzerine mantıklı savlar geliştirmeye çalışırsın. Başarılı olsan da Henry ile karşılıklı tartışamamanın bir ezikliği gelir. “Acaba ne cevap verirdi?” dersin. Zekası büyük hayranlık uyandırır. Bu kitap da insanları bu şekil bir sürece sokmak istemiş olabilir. Ama öyle bir etki yapmadı bende. Burada bu zekadan & etkiden zerre yok. Yersiz bir kibir var. (Kibirin yerlisi için bakınız Lord Henry)
Sabırla tamamını okumaya anlamaya gayret ettim fakat en iyimser tepkim "eee?" şeklinde oldu. Bölüm bölüm sığ (G.A, çaylak karakter bir işe yaramadığı gibi konuların derinleşmesi de engellemiş, belki yazar bu şekilde işin kolayına kaçmış?), bölüm bölüm sıradan, bölüm bölüm saçma buldum. Bol tekrar, demagoji ve niyet okumalar da cabası. Biz Haneke, Lars Von Trier, Aronofsky, Lanthimos izlemiş bir nesiliz, bu yazdıkların naif bile denebilir. Belki "Incognito" kısımları okunabilir ama onun için 136 sayfaya tahammül etmeye gerek var mıydı, bilemiyorum. Ben kitabın her bir bölümünü -herhangi bir kısmına haksızlık yapmak istemem- eşit derecede sevmedim. İki yıldız Twain'in hatırına.
Kitabın özüne dair tek alıntım:
Tam bir "hater" yazısı oldu, çok üzgünüm. :(
Not: Yazıda değindiğim iki kitabı “Dorian Gray'in Portresi” ve “Incognito: Beynin Gizli Hayatı”yu hararetle tavsiye ederim.
Not 2: Savlarımı somutlaştırmadığımın farkındayım ama bu kitaba -en azından şimdilik- yeterince vakit ayırdığımı düşünüyorum.
Kitap, biri ihtiyar (Y.A.) biri genç (G.A.) iki kişinin ara ara buluşup insana dair çeşitli konularda konuşması şeklinde kaleme alınmış. Twain yazdıklarını 25 yıl kadar demlendirmiş. Haklı bir endişesi olabilir. Ben de yer yer döneminin ilerisinde bulduğumu söyleyebilirim. Ama aradan çok zaman geçmiş,
Yazar iddialı bir dil kullanmış, ifadeleri keskin, tavrı sert. Bu kadar iddialı olunca benim beklentim her dem taze ve her dem çarpıcı bir eser. Kendi dönemi için çok takdir edilesi olabilir. Ama bugünden bakınca dediklerinde bir fevkaladelik göremedim. Böyle olunca da bu biçim, bu içeriğe bol gelmiş. (İçerik zamanla zayıflamış da olabilir onu tartamayacağım) Sırıtıyor. Komik duruyor. O komiklik içerisinde yine büyük bir ciddiyetle devam etmeye çalışması ayrıca can sıkıcı bir durum. Yer yer bayık.
Konu sadece üslup değil. Benzer döneme denk gelen “Dorian Gray'in Portresi” de kışkırtıcı bir eserdir. Lord Henry'nin görüşlerine katılmasam da dibim düşerek, dudaklarımı ısırarak okumuşumdur bütün kitabı. Rahatsız eder, tahrik eder, kışkırtır ama okumayı bırakmazsın aksine hiç daha önce düşünmediğin konular üzerine mantıklı savlar geliştirmeye çalışırsın. Başarılı olsan da Henry ile karşılıklı tartışamamanın bir ezikliği gelir. “Acaba ne cevap verirdi?” dersin. Zekası büyük hayranlık uyandırır. Bu kitap da insanları bu şekil bir sürece sokmak istemiş olabilir. Ama öyle bir etki yapmadı bende. Burada bu zekadan & etkiden zerre yok. Yersiz bir kibir var. (Kibirin yerlisi için bakınız Lord Henry)
Sabırla tamamını okumaya anlamaya gayret ettim fakat en iyimser tepkim "eee?" şeklinde oldu. Bölüm bölüm sığ (G.A, çaylak karakter bir işe yaramadığı gibi konuların derinleşmesi de engellemiş, belki yazar bu şekilde işin kolayına kaçmış?), bölüm bölüm sıradan, bölüm bölüm saçma buldum. Bol tekrar, demagoji ve niyet okumalar da cabası. Biz Haneke, Lars Von Trier, Aronofsky, Lanthimos izlemiş bir nesiliz, bu yazdıkların naif bile denebilir. Belki "Incognito" kısımları okunabilir ama onun için 136 sayfaya tahammül etmeye gerek var mıydı, bilemiyorum. Ben kitabın her bir bölümünü -herhangi bir kısmına haksızlık yapmak istemem- eşit derecede sevmedim. İki yıldız Twain'in hatırına.
Kitabın özüne dair tek alıntım:
G.A. : Ee? (97)
Tam bir "hater" yazısı oldu, çok üzgünüm. :(
Not: Yazıda değindiğim iki kitabı “Dorian Gray'in Portresi” ve “Incognito: Beynin Gizli Hayatı”yu hararetle tavsiye ederim.
Not 2: Savlarımı somutlaştırmadığımın farkındayım ama bu kitaba -en azından şimdilik- yeterince vakit ayırdığımı düşünüyorum.
November 8, 2019
“It isn’t a philosophy, it’s a fact.”
Without wanting to enter into a debate on whether facts and philosophy are necessarily at odds with each other, in that a fact can never be grasped by philosophy, I have to confess that I read Mark Twain’s essay What Is Man? with bated breath and found most of it stunning and awkwardly convincing. In 1905, Twain himself said that he had kept this text in a drawer for many years, reading it over once or twice every year and finding it satisfactory. It was only his dread of public disapproval that made him hold back his thoughts, but eventually, in 1906, What Is Man? was published anonymously. The bitter criticism Twain had anticipated was never voiced; instead, this essay was mainly ignored by its contemporaries, which might have hurt its author more than any philippic could have done.
What Is Man? is written in the form of a dialogue between an Old Man and a Young Man, the first explaining to the other the nature of Man and the mainspring of Man’s moral sense. The Old Man voices extremely deterministic and materialistic views. He likens Man to a machine since whatever he does or thinks depends on external influences and on his make, his heredities and their interplay with Man’s environment. He adds that
Recent findings and theories in brain research may have done a lot to jolt and upset time-honoured ideas of free will but nevertheless, the notion that the human mind is purely imitative – the Old Man speaks of Shakespeare’s imitations rather than creations, for instance – and utterly unable to give birth to any thought of its own seems slightly over the top. You just have to read half a page of any deconstructionist philosopher, let’s say of Derrida, to realize that the human mind can come up with lots of ideas of its own for which there can hardly have been any outside material or influence, since they are a pile of bollocks that simply cannot have any equivalent in reality but must have originated solely in a person’s imagination. But if this is also true of sensible and comprehensible ideas, is probably quite another question so that Twain’s Old Man might again have scored a point here.
The Old Man is not content with denying, or disproving, Man’s free will and original creativity, but he also contests the existence of genuine altruism when he says,
Now here, I really noticed that Mark Twain was on to something: He is not simply saying that people, if they are acting in a way useful to others, are doing so because they think that they shall be reimbursed on the manus manum lavat principle, and neither is he riding the old utilitarian nag with simply a new saddle put on its back. What he says is that however great a sacrifice you make for other people, however great your financial loss, your pains, the distance between yourself and the way out of which you have been put through this sacrifice, you will always feel rewarded by the knowledge that you have done a noble and decent thing, and this will give you peace of mind. Even the martyr will feel it while the flames are licking on his feet. It sounds horrible, but I think it’s true. I can say for myself that I have often thought about ethics and how I could bring myself to do what is right even though it may hurt me. Kant’s categorical imperative has always seemed a bloodless and ridiculous sham to me, which will lead you into quandaries sooner or later, and the various schools of utilitarianism are too obviously based on materialistic thinking to be convincing to me. At the same time, I have always liked Schopenhauer and what he has to say about Pity, but I cannot deny that helping someone because you pity him also gives a good feeling to yourself.
I was quite young when I went around with questions like these in my mind, and it was then that I happened to re-watch one of the greatest westerns ever, and then I noticed some of the characters say something that stuck with me:
All I want to do is enter my house justified.
The character got it from Sam Peckinpah, who got it from his father, who may have got it from the Bible (Luke 18:14), which probably corroborates the Old Man’s first point about the human mind’s being unable to really originate something, but that’s neither here nor there. This sentence, as many another one from a western, has become one of my personal mottoes: Decent and fair behaviour towards others may be good for them, but it certainly enables me to look at myself in the mirror and feel that I am still the man I want to be. It’s probably this kind of thinking that Mark Twain had in mind when he had the Old Man define Man’s mainspring in acting as the search for peace of mind: There is no special personal merit in it – as most modern do-gooders seem to imply – because the reward lies in one’s own self-approval.
There are lots of other interesting thoughts in this essay, one of them being this:
Wow, Mark Twain got me again here, and not only me but many others: This is probably also why it is so difficult to convince another person in a discussion or to own that the other person has convinced you. The protection of truths, by the way, has become quite a lachrymose vice in our day and age and is about to make public debate as dangerous as it used to be in the Middle Ages. What Is Man? also has to say interesting things about animals and what allegedly separates them from Man, and in this context, you’ll also find one of the few humorous remarks in this rather serious essay, with which I’m going to close this also quite serious review:
Make it “politician” in general, and you’ll still be right.
Without wanting to enter into a debate on whether facts and philosophy are necessarily at odds with each other, in that a fact can never be grasped by philosophy, I have to confess that I read Mark Twain’s essay What Is Man? with bated breath and found most of it stunning and awkwardly convincing. In 1905, Twain himself said that he had kept this text in a drawer for many years, reading it over once or twice every year and finding it satisfactory. It was only his dread of public disapproval that made him hold back his thoughts, but eventually, in 1906, What Is Man? was published anonymously. The bitter criticism Twain had anticipated was never voiced; instead, this essay was mainly ignored by its contemporaries, which might have hurt its author more than any philippic could have done.
What Is Man? is written in the form of a dialogue between an Old Man and a Young Man, the first explaining to the other the nature of Man and the mainspring of Man’s moral sense. The Old Man voices extremely deterministic and materialistic views. He likens Man to a machine since whatever he does or thinks depends on external influences and on his make, his heredities and their interplay with Man’s environment. He adds that
”[a] man’s brain is so constructed that it can originate nothing whatever. It can only use material obtained outside. It is merely a machine; and it works automatically, not by will power. It has no command over itself, its owner has no command over it.”
Recent findings and theories in brain research may have done a lot to jolt and upset time-honoured ideas of free will but nevertheless, the notion that the human mind is purely imitative – the Old Man speaks of Shakespeare’s imitations rather than creations, for instance – and utterly unable to give birth to any thought of its own seems slightly over the top. You just have to read half a page of any deconstructionist philosopher, let’s say of Derrida, to realize that the human mind can come up with lots of ideas of its own for which there can hardly have been any outside material or influence, since they are a pile of bollocks that simply cannot have any equivalent in reality but must have originated solely in a person’s imagination. But if this is also true of sensible and comprehensible ideas, is probably quite another question so that Twain’s Old Man might again have scored a point here.
The Old Man is not content with denying, or disproving, Man’s free will and original creativity, but he also contests the existence of genuine altruism when he says,
”From his cradle to his grave a man never does a single thing which has any FIRST AND FOREMOST object but one – to secure peace of mind, spiritual comfort for HIMSELF.”
Now here, I really noticed that Mark Twain was on to something: He is not simply saying that people, if they are acting in a way useful to others, are doing so because they think that they shall be reimbursed on the manus manum lavat principle, and neither is he riding the old utilitarian nag with simply a new saddle put on its back. What he says is that however great a sacrifice you make for other people, however great your financial loss, your pains, the distance between yourself and the way out of which you have been put through this sacrifice, you will always feel rewarded by the knowledge that you have done a noble and decent thing, and this will give you peace of mind. Even the martyr will feel it while the flames are licking on his feet. It sounds horrible, but I think it’s true. I can say for myself that I have often thought about ethics and how I could bring myself to do what is right even though it may hurt me. Kant’s categorical imperative has always seemed a bloodless and ridiculous sham to me, which will lead you into quandaries sooner or later, and the various schools of utilitarianism are too obviously based on materialistic thinking to be convincing to me. At the same time, I have always liked Schopenhauer and what he has to say about Pity, but I cannot deny that helping someone because you pity him also gives a good feeling to yourself.
I was quite young when I went around with questions like these in my mind, and it was then that I happened to re-watch one of the greatest westerns ever, and then I noticed some of the characters say something that stuck with me:
All I want to do is enter my house justified.
The character got it from Sam Peckinpah, who got it from his father, who may have got it from the Bible (Luke 18:14), which probably corroborates the Old Man’s first point about the human mind’s being unable to really originate something, but that’s neither here nor there. This sentence, as many another one from a western, has become one of my personal mottoes: Decent and fair behaviour towards others may be good for them, but it certainly enables me to look at myself in the mirror and feel that I am still the man I want to be. It’s probably this kind of thinking that Mark Twain had in mind when he had the Old Man define Man’s mainspring in acting as the search for peace of mind: There is no special personal merit in it – as most modern do-gooders seem to imply – because the reward lies in one’s own self-approval.
There are lots of other interesting thoughts in this essay, one of them being this:
“But I have seen several entirely sincere people who thought they were (permanent) Seekers after Truth. They sought diligently, persistently, carefully, cautiously, profoundly, with perfect honesty and nicely adjusted judgment – until they believed that without doubt or question they had found the Truth. That was the end of the search. The man spent the rest of his life hunting up shingles wherewith to protect his Truth from the weather.”
Wow, Mark Twain got me again here, and not only me but many others: This is probably also why it is so difficult to convince another person in a discussion or to own that the other person has convinced you. The protection of truths, by the way, has become quite a lachrymose vice in our day and age and is about to make public debate as dangerous as it used to be in the Middle Ages. What Is Man? also has to say interesting things about animals and what allegedly separates them from Man, and in this context, you’ll also find one of the few humorous remarks in this rather serious essay, with which I’m going to close this also quite serious review:
“Fleas can be taught nearly anything that a Congressman can.”
Make it “politician” in general, and you’ll still be right.
June 4, 2021
Üç buçuk yıldız 🌟
April 22, 2014
الكتاب مثير وممتع وصريح وحقيقي بنسبة 99% يناقش مجموعة من الاسئلة في حوار بين شاب وشيخ ..
ما الانسان ؟ هل هو ألة ؟ هل يقدر علي خلق افكار جديدة من العدم ؟ هل نتوقع أن يتغير أم أن الانسان ابن بيئته ؟
هل الانسان يسعي لارضاء نفسه وتقدير ذاته أم يضحي من أجل الآخرين ؟ هل الانسان يبحث عن الحقيقة أم يحاول اثبات ما يريد وما هو عليه ؟ هل الانسان ثابت علي ما هو عليه أم مثل الحرباء يتغير تبعا لتغير بيئته مع وجود مؤثر خارجي , عارض , طارئ ؟ هل كل المؤاثرات الخارجية تؤثر علي شخصية الانسان أم كل انسان له مؤثر ؟ هل الانسان يتمتع بادراك فطري للخير والشر ؟ هل العقل سيد مستقل عن الانسان ولا سيطرة للانسان عليه فيما يشغله ؟ هل يوجد حدود للعقل تفصل بين الانسان والحيوان ؟ هل للحيوان وعي أخلاقي ؟ هل نحن نملك ارادة حرة أم اختيار حر ؟! هل الأطماع أنواع مادية وروحية ؟
مما اعجبني ...
• أيا كان حال الانسان فهو يرجع قبل كل شئ الي " معدنه " والي المؤثرات التي تؤثر في هذا المعدن من بقايا وراثية وبيئة وروابط , ليس هناك غير المؤثرات الخارجية وحدها تدفعه وتوجهه وتسيطر عليه , هو لا ينتج شيئا جديدا بالمرة , لا يبتكر ولو فكرة
• من المهد الي اللحد لا يقوم الانسان بأي عمل إلا ويكون الدافع إليه أولا وقبل كل شئ هو أن يضمن لذاته راحة البال واطمئنان النفس !
• نحن مصنوعون بطريقة تجعلنا ندفع أي شئ ثمنا لإرضاء أنفسنا .
• ضمائرنا لا تعنيها آلام الآخرين حتي تصل إلي حد تغدو فيه مبعثاً لآلامنا نحن !
• تنعدم معايير الأخلاق الخاصة ومعايير الأخلاق العامة حين توضع مع مصالح الشخص الشخصية في كفة الميزان , لن يتبع إلا طبيعة تكوينه وتدريبه .
• ان مجرد ادراك الانسان للفرق بين الخير والشر يثبت تفوقه العقلي علي بقية الكائنات , ولكن بما ان الانسان يمكنه ان يرتكب الشر ففي ذلك اثبات لانحطاط مداركه الاخلاقية عن مدا��ك اي كائن آخر يعجز عن عمل الشر !
• إن أوتيت المال ولم تؤت الرضا زالت عن المال قيمته في نظرك .
• الضمير هو السيد الداخلي للعقل والحاكم المطلق داخل الانسان ويجبره علي ارضاء رغباته,فهو متعطش لرضا النفس
• العقائد تُكتسب بينما الأمزجة تورث , العقائد عرضة للتبديل بينما المزاج لا يمكن تغييره أو تحويله .
ما الانسان ؟ هل هو ألة ؟ هل يقدر علي خلق افكار جديدة من العدم ؟ هل نتوقع أن يتغير أم أن الانسان ابن بيئته ؟
هل الانسان يسعي لارضاء نفسه وتقدير ذاته أم يضحي من أجل الآخرين ؟ هل الانسان يبحث عن الحقيقة أم يحاول اثبات ما يريد وما هو عليه ؟ هل الانسان ثابت علي ما هو عليه أم مثل الحرباء يتغير تبعا لتغير بيئته مع وجود مؤثر خارجي , عارض , طارئ ؟ هل كل المؤاثرات الخارجية تؤثر علي شخصية الانسان أم كل انسان له مؤثر ؟ هل الانسان يتمتع بادراك فطري للخير والشر ؟ هل العقل سيد مستقل عن الانسان ولا سيطرة للانسان عليه فيما يشغله ؟ هل يوجد حدود للعقل تفصل بين الانسان والحيوان ؟ هل للحيوان وعي أخلاقي ؟ هل نحن نملك ارادة حرة أم اختيار حر ؟! هل الأطماع أنواع مادية وروحية ؟
مما اعجبني ...
• أيا كان حال الانسان فهو يرجع قبل كل شئ الي " معدنه " والي المؤثرات التي تؤثر في هذا المعدن من بقايا وراثية وبيئة وروابط , ليس هناك غير المؤثرات الخارجية وحدها تدفعه وتوجهه وتسيطر عليه , هو لا ينتج شيئا جديدا بالمرة , لا يبتكر ولو فكرة
• من المهد الي اللحد لا يقوم الانسان بأي عمل إلا ويكون الدافع إليه أولا وقبل كل شئ هو أن يضمن لذاته راحة البال واطمئنان النفس !
• نحن مصنوعون بطريقة تجعلنا ندفع أي شئ ثمنا لإرضاء أنفسنا .
• ضمائرنا لا تعنيها آلام الآخرين حتي تصل إلي حد تغدو فيه مبعثاً لآلامنا نحن !
• تنعدم معايير الأخلاق الخاصة ومعايير الأخلاق العامة حين توضع مع مصالح الشخص الشخصية في كفة الميزان , لن يتبع إلا طبيعة تكوينه وتدريبه .
• ان مجرد ادراك الانسان للفرق بين الخير والشر يثبت تفوقه العقلي علي بقية الكائنات , ولكن بما ان الانسان يمكنه ان يرتكب الشر ففي ذلك اثبات لانحطاط مداركه الاخلاقية عن مدا��ك اي كائن آخر يعجز عن عمل الشر !
• إن أوتيت المال ولم تؤت الرضا زالت عن المال قيمته في نظرك .
• الضمير هو السيد الداخلي للعقل والحاكم المطلق داخل الانسان ويجبره علي ارضاء رغباته,فهو متعطش لرضا النفس
• العقائد تُكتسب بينما الأمزجة تورث , العقائد عرضة للتبديل بينما المزاج لا يمكن تغييره أو تحويله .
January 31, 2014
Twain gives a powerful argument in this work about the nature of man. Through a dialogue between an old man and a young man, Twain argues through the voice of the former that everything about a man is the product of his 'conditioning', that (get this) "From his cradle to his grave a man never does a single thing which has any first and foremost object but one - to secure peace of mind, spiritual comfort, for himself." (And all that is written in big letters.)
Hmmm...
The Old Man further argues that man "will always do the thing which will bring him the MOST mental comfort - for that is THE SOLE LAW OF HIS LIFE" may it be for the approval of his neighbors, the pleasure of giving his love, and the pain of rejection. Whatever man does, he is always, consciously or unconciously - and primarily - after "the necessity of securing one's [that is, his own] self-approval."
Hmmm...
The Young Man in the dialogue presents many cases to topple this wisdom of the Old Man. He gives some pretty good arguments but I couldn't help but feel that he is, most of the time, a sitting duck in the debate with the Old Man. He sounds too conveniently created not to thwart, but to encourage. What would the dialogue be like if the position of these two is reversed? Or that an Old Woman replaces the Young Man?
Undoubtedly, Twain is quite convincing in this work. His philosphy is highly plausible. Still, like any philosphical ideas, it must be taken with a sprinkling of salt.
Hmmm...
The Old Man further argues that man "will always do the thing which will bring him the MOST mental comfort - for that is THE SOLE LAW OF HIS LIFE" may it be for the approval of his neighbors, the pleasure of giving his love, and the pain of rejection. Whatever man does, he is always, consciously or unconciously - and primarily - after "the necessity of securing one's [that is, his own] self-approval."
Hmmm...
The Young Man in the dialogue presents many cases to topple this wisdom of the Old Man. He gives some pretty good arguments but I couldn't help but feel that he is, most of the time, a sitting duck in the debate with the Old Man. He sounds too conveniently created not to thwart, but to encourage. What would the dialogue be like if the position of these two is reversed? Or that an Old Woman replaces the Young Man?
Undoubtedly, Twain is quite convincing in this work. His philosphy is highly plausible. Still, like any philosphical ideas, it must be taken with a sprinkling of salt.
August 13, 2019
"... Bu kasvetli bir öğreti; ilham verici, şevke getirici, moral yükseltici değil. İnsanın içindeki görkemi götürüyor, içindeki gururu götürüyor, içindeki kahramanlığı götürüyor, onu tüm kişisel itibarından, tüm alkıştan mahrum bırakıyor; onu bir makinaya indirgemekle kalmıyor, onun makina üzerinde hiçbir kontrolüne izin vermiyor..." (s.130)
Yukarıda yer alan alıntı kitabın genel mesajını güzel biçimde özetliyor. Biçim olarak, İlk Çağ filozoflarının eserlerine benzer bir yol izleyen düşündürücü ve (birçok olguda yaşlı adamla hemfikir olmam sebebiyle) yer yer sorgulatıcı bir felsefi deneme.
4/5
Yukarıda yer alan alıntı kitabın genel mesajını güzel biçimde özetliyor. Biçim olarak, İlk Çağ filozoflarının eserlerine benzer bir yol izleyen düşündürücü ve (birçok olguda yaşlı adamla hemfikir olmam sebebiyle) yer yer sorgulatıcı bir felsefi deneme.
4/5
February 28, 2021
للتو أنهيت قراءة الكتاب وحاصل الحديث أولًا : أن عقل الإنسان تجميعي بحيث لا يمكنه ابتداع شئ من تلقاء نفسه، بل المؤثرات الخارجية هي التي تشكل أفكاره ودوافعه!
ثانيًا : الدافع الوحيد الذي يدفع الإنسان للقيام بالأعمال أيًا كان نوعها هو إرضاء الذات وضرورة الظفر باستحسانها، فأعماله يجب أن تعود بالنفع عليه أولًا، ومصلحة الغير دائمًا تحتل الدور الثانوي 😅
أخيرًا : كل الأشياء المادية إذا استبعدتَ قيمتها الروحية ستصبح أشبه بالقمامة !
(فمتى حققت لك الرضا الروحي فهي قيّمة في نظرك، ومتى فشلت في تحقيق هذا الإرضاء فقدتْ قيمتها).
ثانيًا : الدافع الوحيد الذي يدفع الإنسان للقيام بالأعمال أيًا كان نوعها هو إرضاء الذات وضرورة الظفر باستحسانها، فأعماله يجب أن تعود بالنفع عليه أولًا، ومصلحة الغير دائمًا تحتل الدور الثانوي 😅
أخيرًا : كل الأشياء المادية إذا استبعدتَ قيمتها الروحية ستصبح أشبه بالقمامة !
(فمتى حققت لك الرضا الروحي فهي قيّمة في نظرك، ومتى فشلت في تحقيق هذا الإرضاء فقدتْ قيمتها).
April 30, 2019
## Amerikan tarzı faydacı, sosyal Darwinci, değiştirilemezci, kanâata mahkûm edici yanlarının berbatlığı dışında, yaşlı ve genç insanların karşılıklı diyalogu şeklinde harikulâde bir zihinsel egzersizler dizgesi. ##
İnsan dış etkiler sayesinde çalışan ve çeşitli mekanizmalar içeren mekanik ve otomatik bir makinadır.
Bir insan her ne ise, bu onun karakterine (tohum yoksa ağaç olmaz) ve kalıtımı, yaşam alanı ve ilişkileri yoluyla taşıdığı etkilere bağlıdır. O, yalnızca dış etkiler tarafından hareket ettirilir, yönlendirilir, komuta edilir.
İnsan hiçbir şey yaratamaz, bir düşünce bile oluşturamaz. Yaratamaz, gözlemler ve birleştirir; bir düşünceyi dile getiren insan ise, her zaman ikinci el düşünceyi dile getirir.
Shakespeare okyanustaki çorak ve ıssız bir adada doğmuş olsaydı, onun o güçlü aklı, işleyecek hiçbir dış malzemeye sahip olmayacak ve icat da edemeyecekti.
Milyonlarca dolar içine doğan bebek ile yokluk içine doğan bebek bir olabilir mi; denizlere açılan ve köyde kalan ikizler aynı kalabilir mi?
Bir insanı bir şeyler yapmaya iten, kendi içini ferahlatma ve güvenceye alma güdüsü ve kendi içinin onayını kazanma zorunluluğudur.
İnsan özgür seçim yaparken, yani doğru, iyi ve adil olanı ayırt etmekte zorluk çekmezken, bu seçime uygun davranmak, yani özgür irade konusunda büyük zorluklar yaşar, karakter ve eğitimine uygun davranır.
Eğitim, dış etkenlerin tümünü içerir. İnsan, beşikten mezara, uyanık olduğu tüm saatler boyunca eğitim altındadır. İnsanın eğitimcilerinin başında ilişkileri gelir. İlişkiler, insanın zihnini ve hislerini etkileyen, ona ideallerini sunan, onu kendi yoluna sevk eden ve o yoldan ayrılmamasını sağlayan insan çevresidir.
Eğitim, insanın kendisi ve çevresi için yaşamı nisbeten rahatlatır; eğitimin ihmali ise yaşamı her iki taraf için de sürekli bir tehlike ve sorun haline getirebilir.
Eğitimin önemi çok büyüktür; bir kitap veya bir gazetede bir paragraf okumak bile bir insana yeni bir yol açabilir ve eski ilişkilerini terk etmeye, yeni idealine sempati ile yaklaşan yeni ilişkiler aramaya sevk edebilir ve sonuçta bu insanın yaşam biçimini tümüyle değiştirebilir.
İnsan dış etkiler sayesinde çalışan ve çeşitli mekanizmalar içeren mekanik ve otomatik bir makinadır.
Bir insan her ne ise, bu onun karakterine (tohum yoksa ağaç olmaz) ve kalıtımı, yaşam alanı ve ilişkileri yoluyla taşıdığı etkilere bağlıdır. O, yalnızca dış etkiler tarafından hareket ettirilir, yönlendirilir, komuta edilir.
İnsan hiçbir şey yaratamaz, bir düşünce bile oluşturamaz. Yaratamaz, gözlemler ve birleştirir; bir düşünceyi dile getiren insan ise, her zaman ikinci el düşünceyi dile getirir.
Shakespeare okyanustaki çorak ve ıssız bir adada doğmuş olsaydı, onun o güçlü aklı, işleyecek hiçbir dış malzemeye sahip olmayacak ve icat da edemeyecekti.
Milyonlarca dolar içine doğan bebek ile yokluk içine doğan bebek bir olabilir mi; denizlere açılan ve köyde kalan ikizler aynı kalabilir mi?
Bir insanı bir şeyler yapmaya iten, kendi içini ferahlatma ve güvenceye alma güdüsü ve kendi içinin onayını kazanma zorunluluğudur.
İnsan özgür seçim yaparken, yani doğru, iyi ve adil olanı ayırt etmekte zorluk çekmezken, bu seçime uygun davranmak, yani özgür irade konusunda büyük zorluklar yaşar, karakter ve eğitimine uygun davranır.
Eğitim, dış etkenlerin tümünü içerir. İnsan, beşikten mezara, uyanık olduğu tüm saatler boyunca eğitim altındadır. İnsanın eğitimcilerinin başında ilişkileri gelir. İlişkiler, insanın zihnini ve hislerini etkileyen, ona ideallerini sunan, onu kendi yoluna sevk eden ve o yoldan ayrılmamasını sağlayan insan çevresidir.
Eğitim, insanın kendisi ve çevresi için yaşamı nisbeten rahatlatır; eğitimin ihmali ise yaşamı her iki taraf için de sürekli bir tehlike ve sorun haline getirebilir.
Eğitimin önemi çok büyüktür; bir kitap veya bir gazetede bir paragraf okumak bile bir insana yeni bir yol açabilir ve eski ilişkilerini terk etmeye, yeni idealine sempati ile yaklaşan yeni ilişkiler aramaya sevk edebilir ve sonuçta bu insanın yaşam biçimini tümüyle değiştirebilir.
August 7, 2019
Benim okuduğum İlgi Kültür Yayınları'na ait olan baskısıydı, öncelikle onu belirteyim. Dedalus Yayınlarında sadece İnsan Nedir isimli deneme var yaklaşık 100 sayfalık. Benim okuduğum versiyondaysa başka denemeler de yar alıyor.
Bu beş yıldızı da İnsan Nedir isimli kısma verdim. Bir Youtube kanalında Murat Gülsoy ile söyleşi yapıp tavsiye ettiği beş tane kitabı tanıtmasını istiyorlardı, bu kitap da onlardan biriydi. Merakımı cezbedince okumaya karar verdim iyi ki de okumuşum.
Bir genç ve bir yaşlı adamın sohbetinden oluşuyor 100 sayfalık bölümün tamamı. Genç adam "insan nedir?" diye soruyor yaşlı olana. O da "insan makinedir" diye cevap veriyor ve bu cevaptan yola çıkarak gerekçelerini sıralıyor. Ben Mark Twain'i Tom Sawyer kitaplarından tanıyordum sadece. Felsefi ve entelektüel yönünden bu kitapla haberim oldu. Kitapta harika diyaloglar var insanın düşünce tarzı ve karakteri üzerine ve adı üstünde ne olduğu üzerine. Sonunda insanın gerçekten bir makine olduğuna ikna olabilirsiniz çünkü yazar altını mükemmel doldurmuş. Çok fazla anlatıp spoiler da vermek istemiyorum. En az bir kez daha okuyacağıma eminim. Çağının ötesinde, başucu kitabı olabilecek bir eser.
Bu beş yıldızı da İnsan Nedir isimli kısma verdim. Bir Youtube kanalında Murat Gülsoy ile söyleşi yapıp tavsiye ettiği beş tane kitabı tanıtmasını istiyorlardı, bu kitap da onlardan biriydi. Merakımı cezbedince okumaya karar verdim iyi ki de okumuşum.
Bir genç ve bir yaşlı adamın sohbetinden oluşuyor 100 sayfalık bölümün tamamı. Genç adam "insan nedir?" diye soruyor yaşlı olana. O da "insan makinedir" diye cevap veriyor ve bu cevaptan yola çıkarak gerekçelerini sıralıyor. Ben Mark Twain'i Tom Sawyer kitaplarından tanıyordum sadece. Felsefi ve entelektüel yönünden bu kitapla haberim oldu. Kitapta harika diyaloglar var insanın düşünce tarzı ve karakteri üzerine ve adı üstünde ne olduğu üzerine. Sonunda insanın gerçekten bir makine olduğuna ikna olabilirsiniz çünkü yazar altını mükemmel doldurmuş. Çok fazla anlatıp spoiler da vermek istemiyorum. En az bir kez daha okuyacağıma eminim. Çağının ötesinde, başucu kitabı olabilecek bir eser.
April 27, 2015
دائماً ما كنت اُؤمن أن قمة الزهد من تنازل عن حقٍ له في الدنيا لوجه الله . وكأنه يضحي بذلك بكل شيء من أجل الله فقط!
إلا أنني وفي لحظة تفكير أدركت أن الإنسان، ليس إلا كائنٌاً طمَّاعاً، همه الأول إرضاء نفسه. حتى أنه حين يدعيّ أنه يتنازل لوجه الله. يفعل ذلك طمعاً في الأجر العظيم الذي وعده الله به والذي لا يتحقق إن لم يتنازل، ويرضى عنه الله.
لم أسترسل في الفكرة أكثر فكان يكفيني تجريد الأمر من الزيف. والنظر إليه عارياً من كل زخرفة وقناع.
والآن بعد مضي فترة من الزمن أطَّلع على كتاب ما الإنسان لأجده يتحدث عن ذات فكرتي السابقة. إلا أنه لم يكتفي بذلك فحسب؛ بل نقلها إلى مرحلة جديدة وتحدث عن أن الإنسان يحكمه سيد يملي عليه ما يفعل وأنَّه مجرد آلة مركبة. لا نملك أدنى سلطة عليها، بل هي من تحكمنا.
ناقش الموضوع أكثر وشرحه شرحاً وافياً، كان على هيئة محادثة طويلة بين شيخٍ وشاب، يناقشان فيها هذا المبدأ.
رحلة فكرية ممتعة خضتها في صفحات الكتاب الفقيرة بالعدد الغنية بالأفكار.
إلا أنني وفي لحظة تفكير أدركت أن الإنسان، ليس إلا كائنٌاً طمَّاعاً، همه الأول إرضاء نفسه. حتى أنه حين يدعيّ أنه يتنازل لوجه الله. يفعل ذلك طمعاً في الأجر العظيم الذي وعده الله به والذي لا يتحقق إن لم يتنازل، ويرضى عنه الله.
لم أسترسل في الفكرة أكثر فكان يكفيني تجريد الأمر من الزيف. والنظر إليه عارياً من كل زخرفة وقناع.
والآن بعد مضي فترة من الزمن أطَّلع على كتاب ما الإنسان لأجده يتحدث عن ذات فكرتي السابقة. إلا أنه لم يكتفي بذلك فحسب؛ بل نقلها إلى مرحلة جديدة وتحدث عن أن الإنسان يحكمه سيد يملي عليه ما يفعل وأنَّه مجرد آلة مركبة. لا نملك أدنى سلطة عليها، بل هي من تحكمنا.
ناقش الموضوع أكثر وشرحه شرحاً وافياً، كان على هيئة محادثة طويلة بين شيخٍ وشاب، يناقشان فيها هذا المبدأ.
رحلة فكرية ممتعة خضتها في صفحات الكتاب الفقيرة بالعدد الغنية بالأفكار.
February 11, 2020
من الحرف الأول أسرتني صراحة مارك توين وظرافته في آن واحد..
يبتدئ مارك توين فكرته من الصفر.. من الإنسان.
ويطرح تساؤلات عبر حوار متخيل بين شيخ وشاب، كناية عن خبرة الأول التي أوصلته لحقيقة الإنسان، لحقيقة نفسه، وحماس الثاني ورغبته في التعرف إلى ذاته، فيبتدئ تساؤلاته بسؤال: ما الإنسان؟
ويرى في الصخرة من حوله مثالا يستطيع أن يصل منه إلى نفسه.
ثم يترقى بعد ذلك إلى دوافع الإنسان وكوامنه، ويستفز الشاب فينا بتلك الصورة التي طالما تفاخر الإنسان بها وادعى إنسانيته من خلالها، صورة الإنسان يحارب في سبيل وطنه، والإنسان يعطي من عزيز ماله، لينقب خلف دوافع كل منهما الحقة مدعيا أن إرضاء النفس والبحث عن دعتها وراحتها هو الدافع الحقيقي خلف تلك المشاهد، واستدل قائلا:
“لو أنه لم يدفع لتلك البائسة لما استمتع بنعمة النوم.
والخلاصة أنه اشترى راحته من الألم وعذاب الضمير، والنوم. وكل ذلك بمبلغ ٢٥ سنتا لا غير.
هذا هو القانون: لا يقوم الإنسان بعمل إلا ويكون الدافع إليه راحة باله واطمئنان نفسه”
هل هز هذا الكلام إيمانك ومعتقداتك؟
يجب ألا يفعل، فالحقيقة أنني متصالحة مع ما يقوله، ولا تتخذ وضعية الدفاع لأنك ظننت أنك قد جرحت في إنسانيتك، فحب إرضاء النفس والبحث عن راحتها مغروس في طبيعتنا البشرية، وليس الكمال البشري هو بإرضائها، بقدر ما هو رفع سقف الرضا بكل ما هو منحط من شهوات سريعة لحظية تدور حول الأنا دون الغير، إلى إرضائها بما هو أسمى وأدوم ويتسع للجميع، ولذا خاطب الله الإنسان انطلاقا من طبيعته، واعدا إياه جناتٍ وخمراً وحوراً عيناً، لكن الفرق بين المؤمن وغيره هو عدم تقديم الشهوة العاجلة على الآجلة، والتصديق بما هو غيبي وتقديمه على ما هو حاضر ملموس، هنا يكمن رقي الإنسان وفضله على سائر المخلوقات، ولذا كان مارك محقا -كما سنذكر- من مشابهة الإنسان لغيره من البهائم وعدم تميزه عليها، فالإنسان في القرآن كالبهيمة أو أسوأ ما لم يكن مؤمنا.
أما بالنسبة لما يدفع لإرضاء النفس لدى توين فإنه كما كرر مرارا على لسان الشيخ "التدريب" على "المؤثرات الخارجية"، فكل ما يشاهده الإنسان في مجتمعه، مدرسته، كنيسته.. إلخ يساهم في تدريب الذات على أن تصل لرضاها عن نفسها عبر ما تحدده تلك المؤثرات.
وبذا لا يرى توين أن بداخل الإنسان أي فطرة أو موجه لمعرفة الخير من الشر، بل كلها مكتسبات خارجية كونت لديه تلك المعتقدات.
يصل توين للحديث عن العقل، أو الآلة كما يحب أن يسميها، يجد في عقل الإنسان سره وتميزه، إذ وظيفة هذا العقل هي "الاكتشاف" لا "الاختراع" كما أكد مرارا، فهو يجزم أن لا شيء خلقه الإنسان، بل هي عدة اكتشافات.. ملاحظته وإدراكه لما يجري حوله، قادته لصنع الآلاف من الأفكار والابتكارات، وأن لا مزية لهذا الإنسان على أخيه الفأر، فالفأر الذي يصل بإدراكه عن طريق حاسة الشم إلى الجبن، يشابه الإنسان الذي وصل عن طريقه اكتشافاته إلى القمر.
كما أن الباحث الجاد لو وصل إلى حقيقة أن القمر عبارة عن قطعة من الجبن، فلن تتمكن قوى العالم من تغيير عقيدته، فهو ليس إلا آلة أوتوماتيكية عليها أن تتبع قانون بنائها ولا تحيد عنه، وأن الإنسان باحث عن الحقيقة، حتى إذا توصل إلى ما يعتقده حقيقة توقف، وظل يقضي بقية عمره في اص��ياد الخرق التي يسد بها فجوات “زورق نجاته”.
يرى توين أن الحيوانات ليست عجماء ضحلة التفكير بالضرورة، بل كل ما في الأمر أنها “لم يتم اكتشافها”، لم يتسن لنا فهمها بشكل كاف.
ويرى فيما يخص الإرادة الحرة أن ما من شيء يسمى “إرادة حرة”، بل “اختيار حر”، فالرجل الذي مر في يوم عاصف بعجوز محتاجة لم يملك من الأمر شيئا حيال ظروفه هذه، لكنه كان يملك الاختيار ما بين إعطائها المال من عدمه، ويعود ذلك أيضا لعدم امتلاكه إرادة حرة فهو يقع تحت ضغط ضميره (والذي أسماه بالسيد، والذي كما ذكرنا سابقا يحركه المؤثر الخارجي).
ينتهي الحديث بين الشيخ والشاب بشعور الشاب بالخيبة، فالمعنى السامي الذي كان خلف دوافعه وتصرفاته ذاب أمام طرح الشيخ وحقائقه، وأصبح الإنسان أمامه كأي آلة لا تفضل مخلوقا غيرها بمزية، تحب نفسها وتبحث عن رضاها، ليختم الشيخ حديثه بسؤال أعاد شيئا من المجد والعظمة لما يؤمن به هذا الشاب، فقال: من خلف تلك الآلة والنظام الذي يحكمها؟ لا بد من أنه الله الذي يستحق التمجيد والعظمة.
ويبدو لك من ذلك الحوار -والذي يمثل صوت أفكار مارك توين بلا شك- مذهبه الذي يميل نوعا ما للإقرار بخالق ويعظمه لينتهي عند ذلك، دون إعطاء مزية لدين على دين، أو مذهب على مذهب.
يختم الشاب محادثته مع الشيخ بسؤاله عما إذا كان يفكر بطرح أفكاره في كتاب ونشرها -مع تخوفه من ذلك، مما يذكرني بتخوف الناس من نشر الفلكيين لمواعيد الخسوف والكسوف ظنا منهم بأن هذا مما يصطدم مع الدين ويضعفه، والأمر لا يبلغ حد القدرة على وصف الظواهر المسيرة بأمر من الله إن افترضنا صحة تفسيرات الشيخ قبلاً- أم أن مسألة النشر رهينة سيد الشيخ (ضميره) بانتظار مؤثر خارجي يدفعه لهذا النشر؟
ليجيب الشيخ بالتأييد. ويظهر لي ولك أن مؤثرا ما دعا هذا الشيخ “مارك توين” لنشر أفكاره في نهاية المطاف :)
حكاية ظريفة تفضل الظهور بمظهر القصة القصيرة وما هي إلا حقل ملغم من أفكار مارك توين الفلسفية ومعتقداته، تقرؤها متناولا الفشار متوشحا معتقداتك، فما فيها أخف من أن يحرك نسمة، وأقرب لأن يدغدغ عقلك بما يحمله من تساؤلات لطيفة.
يبتدئ مارك توين فكرته من الصفر.. من الإنسان.
ويطرح تساؤلات عبر حوار متخيل بين شيخ وشاب، كناية عن خبرة الأول التي أوصلته لحقيقة الإنسان، لحقيقة نفسه، وحماس الثاني ورغبته في التعرف إلى ذاته، فيبتدئ تساؤلاته بسؤال: ما الإنسان؟
ويرى في الصخرة من حوله مثالا يستطيع أن يصل منه إلى نفسه.
ثم يترقى بعد ذلك إلى دوافع الإنسان وكوامنه، ويستفز الشاب فينا بتلك الصورة التي طالما تفاخر الإنسان بها وادعى إنسانيته من خلالها، صورة الإنسان يحارب في سبيل وطنه، والإنسان يعطي من عزيز ماله، لينقب خلف دوافع كل منهما الحقة مدعيا أن إرضاء النفس والبحث عن دعتها وراحتها هو الدافع الحقيقي خلف تلك المشاهد، واستدل قائلا:
“لو أنه لم يدفع لتلك البائسة لما استمتع بنعمة النوم.
والخلاصة أنه اشترى راحته من الألم وعذاب الضمير، والنوم. وكل ذلك بمبلغ ٢٥ سنتا لا غير.
هذا هو القانون: لا يقوم الإنسان بعمل إلا ويكون الدافع إليه راحة باله واطمئنان نفسه”
هل هز هذا الكلام إيمانك ومعتقداتك؟
يجب ألا يفعل، فالحقيقة أنني متصالحة مع ما يقوله، ولا تتخذ وضعية الدفاع لأنك ظننت أنك قد جرحت في إنسانيتك، فحب إرضاء النفس والبحث عن راحتها مغروس في طبيعتنا البشرية، وليس الكمال البشري هو بإرضائها، بقدر ما هو رفع سقف الرضا بكل ما هو منحط من شهوات سريعة لحظية تدور حول الأنا دون الغير، إلى إرضائها بما هو أسمى وأدوم ويتسع للجميع، ولذا خاطب الله الإنسان انطلاقا من طبيعته، واعدا إياه جناتٍ وخمراً وحوراً عيناً، لكن الفرق بين المؤمن وغيره هو عدم تقديم الشهوة العاجلة على الآجلة، والتصديق بما هو غيبي وتقديمه على ما هو حاضر ملموس، هنا يكمن رقي الإنسان وفضله على سائر المخلوقات، ولذا كان مارك محقا -كما سنذكر- من مشابهة الإنسان لغيره من البهائم وعدم تميزه عليها، فالإنسان في القرآن كالبهيمة أو أسوأ ما لم يكن مؤمنا.
أما بالنسبة لما يدفع لإرضاء النفس لدى توين فإنه كما كرر مرارا على لسان الشيخ "التدريب" على "المؤثرات الخارجية"، فكل ما يشاهده الإنسان في مجتمعه، مدرسته، كنيسته.. إلخ يساهم في تدريب الذات على أن تصل لرضاها عن نفسها عبر ما تحدده تلك المؤثرات.
وبذا لا يرى توين أن بداخل الإنسان أي فطرة أو موجه لمعرفة الخير من الشر، بل كلها مكتسبات خارجية كونت لديه تلك المعتقدات.
يصل توين للحديث عن العقل، أو الآلة كما يحب أن يسميها، يجد في عقل الإنسان سره وتميزه، إذ وظيفة هذا العقل هي "الاكتشاف" لا "الاختراع" كما أكد مرارا، فهو يجزم أن لا شيء خلقه الإنسان، بل هي عدة اكتشافات.. ملاحظته وإدراكه لما يجري حوله، قادته لصنع الآلاف من الأفكار والابتكارات، وأن لا مزية لهذا الإنسان على أخيه الفأر، فالفأر الذي يصل بإدراكه عن طريق حاسة الشم إلى الجبن، يشابه الإنسان الذي وصل عن طريقه اكتشافاته إلى القمر.
كما أن الباحث الجاد لو وصل إلى حقيقة أن القمر عبارة عن قطعة من الجبن، فلن تتمكن قوى العالم من تغيير عقيدته، فهو ليس إلا آلة أوتوماتيكية عليها أن تتبع قانون بنائها ولا تحيد عنه، وأن الإنسان باحث عن الحقيقة، حتى إذا توصل إلى ما يعتقده حقيقة توقف، وظل يقضي بقية عمره في اص��ياد الخرق التي يسد بها فجوات “زورق نجاته”.
يرى توين أن الحيوانات ليست عجماء ضحلة التفكير بالضرورة، بل كل ما في الأمر أنها “لم يتم اكتشافها”، لم يتسن لنا فهمها بشكل كاف.
ويرى فيما يخص الإرادة الحرة أن ما من شيء يسمى “إرادة حرة”، بل “اختيار حر”، فالرجل الذي مر في يوم عاصف بعجوز محتاجة لم يملك من الأمر شيئا حيال ظروفه هذه، لكنه كان يملك الاختيار ما بين إعطائها المال من عدمه، ويعود ذلك أيضا لعدم امتلاكه إرادة حرة فهو يقع تحت ضغط ضميره (والذي أسماه بالسيد، والذي كما ذكرنا سابقا يحركه المؤثر الخارجي).
ينتهي الحديث بين الشيخ والشاب بشعور الشاب بالخيبة، فالمعنى السامي الذي كان خلف دوافعه وتصرفاته ذاب أمام طرح الشيخ وحقائقه، وأصبح الإنسان أمامه كأي آلة لا تفضل مخلوقا غيرها بمزية، تحب نفسها وتبحث عن رضاها، ليختم الشيخ حديثه بسؤال أعاد شيئا من المجد والعظمة لما يؤمن به هذا الشاب، فقال: من خلف تلك الآلة والنظام الذي يحكمها؟ لا بد من أنه الله الذي يستحق التمجيد والعظمة.
ويبدو لك من ذلك الحوار -والذي يمثل صوت أفكار مارك توين بلا شك- مذهبه الذي يميل نوعا ما للإقرار بخالق ويعظمه لينتهي عند ذلك، دون إعطاء مزية لدين على دين، أو مذهب على مذهب.
يختم الشاب محادثته مع الشيخ بسؤاله عما إذا كان يفكر بطرح أفكاره في كتاب ونشرها -مع تخوفه من ذلك، مما يذكرني بتخوف الناس من نشر الفلكيين لمواعيد الخسوف والكسوف ظنا منهم بأن هذا مما يصطدم مع الدين ويضعفه، والأمر لا يبلغ حد القدرة على وصف الظواهر المسيرة بأمر من الله إن افترضنا صحة تفسيرات الشيخ قبلاً- أم أن مسألة النشر رهينة سيد الشيخ (ضميره) بانتظار مؤثر خارجي يدفعه لهذا النشر؟
ليجيب الشيخ بالتأييد. ويظهر لي ولك أن مؤثرا ما دعا هذا الشيخ “مارك توين” لنشر أفكاره في نهاية المطاف :)
حكاية ظريفة تفضل الظهور بمظهر القصة القصيرة وما هي إلا حقل ملغم من أفكار مارك توين الفلسفية ومعتقداته، تقرؤها متناولا الفشار متوشحا معتقداتك، فما فيها أخف من أن يحرك نسمة، وأقرب لأن يدغدغ عقلك بما يحمله من تساؤلات لطيفة.
September 26, 2018
بداخلنا نحن متأكدين ان ما نسميه تضحية للغير ما هو الا تضحية للنفس راحة للضمير ورضى للذات الا اننا كانسان غير كامل نبحث عن التقدير الذاتي عن المدح ... جبلة الانسان وليس عيبا..... الكتاب ذو طابع فلسفي في قالب حوار بين شيخ وشاب يدور حول الانسان فكره واعماله اهي خاضعة للنفس ام لقوى خارجية ومدى تأثىنا بالمحيط الذي حولنا
October 26, 2019
İnsanların yaptığı her iyiliğin arkasında aslında kendi içini rahatlatma güdüsü olduğunu çok fazla enstantane vererek anlatmış Twain, kinik bir bakış gibi gelse de aslında fazlasıyla gerçek. Mutlaka tekrar tekrar okunmalı
January 20, 2019
Ne kadar dogru ve gercekci oldugunu dusunsemde tam olarak katilmam imkansiz sanki eger bunu yaparsam hersey degerini kaybedecek gibi.
June 11, 2018
ليس من حق الانسان ان يلبس لباس الكرامة والجلال والعظمة لانها ثياب مسروقة فليس من حقه ان ينسب لنفسه فضلا ليس من حقه بل من حق خالقه
ان فكرة العطاء والتضحية من اجل الحصول على رضا الذات فكرة غير محبوبة ابدا واتذكر من قبل ان احدهم اشار الى ذلك امامي فلم استلطف الامر. ان تعطي وتضحي لوجه الله فكرة اجمل بكثير. هناك فرق كبير بين ان تفعل طيبا من اجل سبب طيب وان تفعل طيب لسبب سيء ولا اعرف لماذا ارتبطت عندي الانانية بالسوء ربما لانها سبب كل البشاعات الموجودة على هذه الارض. اليس من الغريب ان تكون سبب الخير والشر الموجود في هذا العالم حقا غريب كان الانسان ليس ملاكا وليس شيطان وكما لديه القدرة على فعل الشر لديه قدرة على فعل الخير
ان غاية كل انسان هو الحصول على الرضا عن الذات وراحة البال. البعض يشتري السعادة بادخال السعادة على قلوب الاخرين والتضحية والبعض الاخر يشتري
السعادة بتحقيق النجاح هناك دوافع خفية تحرك الانسان تجعله في سعي دائم نحو تحقيق منفعة ما حتى لو كانت تلك المنفعة معنوية كسلامة الروح وراحة الضمير
وعدم الشعور بالالم وتانيب الضمير. ان الشيء الذي يمنحك اكبر قدر من الارتياح او اللذة في اي لحظة ي��برك على فعله قبل غيره مثلا عندما لا تعطي تشعر بالالم لكنك عندما تعطي اكثر من اللازم تشعر بالالم ايضا لذا فعطاؤك يكون متناسبا مع شعور الرضا الذي تحس به. هل هذا يعني ان الانسان الشريف لا يحق له ان يفخر بذلك هذا صحيح لكن نستطيع ان ندرب الانسان على ان يضحي فلا يمكنك ان تطالب كتاب بان يذهبوا الى الحرب لكي يضحوا بانفسهم لان لديهم مثل عليا .اخرى يستمدون منها سعادتهم لكن بامكانك ان تدرب الجنود وتدفعهم للتضحية
ان التدريب الذي تتلقاه من الخارج بالاضافة الى التدريب الذي تلزم به نفسك مضاف الى المزاج هو الاستعداد الذي ولد معك هو من يصنع من انت. انك تقوم بكل فعل يحقق لك الرضا عن الذات وراحة الضمير والبال
ان الانسان الة تتحكم فيه مجموعة من المتغيرات الداخلية(معدنه الاصلي) والمتغيرات الخارجية (البيئة التي تربى فيها الدراسة التعليم المحاضرات الوعظ الديني...)
انه يشبه الحرباء يتخد لون بيئته الداخلية والخارجية
ان فكرة العطاء والتضحية من اجل الحصول على رضا الذات فكرة غير محبوبة ابدا واتذكر من قبل ان احدهم اشار الى ذلك امامي فلم استلطف الامر. ان تعطي وتضحي لوجه الله فكرة اجمل بكثير. هناك فرق كبير بين ان تفعل طيبا من اجل سبب طيب وان تفعل طيب لسبب سيء ولا اعرف لماذا ارتبطت عندي الانانية بالسوء ربما لانها سبب كل البشاعات الموجودة على هذه الارض. اليس من الغريب ان تكون سبب الخير والشر الموجود في هذا العالم حقا غريب كان الانسان ليس ملاكا وليس شيطان وكما لديه القدرة على فعل الشر لديه قدرة على فعل الخير
ان غاية كل انسان هو الحصول على الرضا عن الذات وراحة البال. البعض يشتري السعادة بادخال السعادة على قلوب الاخرين والتضحية والبعض الاخر يشتري
السعادة بتحقيق النجاح هناك دوافع خفية تحرك الانسان تجعله في سعي دائم نحو تحقيق منفعة ما حتى لو كانت تلك المنفعة معنوية كسلامة الروح وراحة الضمير
وعدم الشعور بالالم وتانيب الضمير. ان الشيء الذي يمنحك اكبر قدر من الارتياح او اللذة في اي لحظة ي��برك على فعله قبل غيره مثلا عندما لا تعطي تشعر بالالم لكنك عندما تعطي اكثر من اللازم تشعر بالالم ايضا لذا فعطاؤك يكون متناسبا مع شعور الرضا الذي تحس به. هل هذا يعني ان الانسان الشريف لا يحق له ان يفخر بذلك هذا صحيح لكن نستطيع ان ندرب الانسان على ان يضحي فلا يمكنك ان تطالب كتاب بان يذهبوا الى الحرب لكي يضحوا بانفسهم لان لديهم مثل عليا .اخرى يستمدون منها سعادتهم لكن بامكانك ان تدرب الجنود وتدفعهم للتضحية
ان التدريب الذي تتلقاه من الخارج بالاضافة الى التدريب الذي تلزم به نفسك مضاف الى المزاج هو الاستعداد الذي ولد معك هو من يصنع من انت. انك تقوم بكل فعل يحقق لك الرضا عن الذات وراحة الضمير والبال
ان الانسان الة تتحكم فيه مجموعة من المتغيرات الداخلية(معدنه الاصلي) والمتغيرات الخارجية (البيئة التي تربى فيها الدراسة التعليم المحاضرات الوعظ الديني...)
انه يشبه الحرباء يتخد لون بيئته الداخلية والخارجية
November 24, 2020
Dönemine göre insan doğasına dair alışılmışın dışında fikirler içerse de günümüzde bu konuda düşünmek isteyenler için zaman aşımına uğramış fikirler içeriyor. Twain'in pozisyonu determinist, nature-nurture (doğa-çevre) tartışmasında tamamen çevreye odaklı bir argüman sunuyor. Herhalde Twain'in fikirlerinin doruk noktası psikolojide behaviorism (davranışçılık) olarak nitelendirilen 1920-30lardaki akımla yaşandı. Fakat günümüzde psikolojinin geldiği noktada hem kişinin genetik, kişilik, huy (temperament) gibi içsel özelliklerinin hem de dış etkenlerin kişilik oluşumunda rol oynadığını biliyoruz. Yani Twain'in teorisi çok tek taraflı ve basit kalıyor. Kitapta bir kaç noktada huydan bahsetse de bunun çevre dominant bir kişilik teorisinde davranışı nasıl etkilediğini çok iyi açıklayamıyor ve bu kısım biraz havada kalıyor.
Twain'in de katılacağı gibi kendi hakikatine halihazırda ulaşmış bir birey için fikrini değiştirmeye yeterli olmayacaktır bu kitap.
Twain'in de katılacağı gibi kendi hakikatine halihazırda ulaşmış bir birey için fikrini değiştirmeye yeterli olmayacaktır bu kitap.
March 18, 2021
Tom Sawyer, yaxud Huckleberry Finn ile tanıdığım Mark Twain bu əsəri ilə məni o ki gələsən təəccübləndirdi. Fəlsəfi əsər usta və şagirdin qarşılıqlı sualları və şübhə toxumları əkərərək doğru bildiklərimizin bir daha araşdırılmağa məcbur olunan bir formatdadır, bir sözlə- sokratvari!
Bütün fikirləri ilə razı olduğumu söyləyə bilmərəm, amma yanaşması çox maraqlı və düşündürücüdür. Hətta sonradan öz həyatındakı hadisələri düşündükcə nə qədər haqlı olduğu qənaətinə gəlmək olur, yaxud çoxdandır şübhə ilə yanaşdığın bir hadisə daha aydın olur.
Mütləq tövsiyyə edəcəyim düşündürücü bir kitabdır!
Xoş mütaliələr!
Bütün fikirləri ilə razı olduğumu söyləyə bilmərəm, amma yanaşması çox maraqlı və düşündürücüdür. Hətta sonradan öz həyatındakı hadisələri düşündükcə nə qədər haqlı olduğu qənaətinə gəlmək olur, yaxud çoxdandır şübhə ilə yanaşdığın bir hadisə daha aydın olur.
Mütləq tövsiyyə edəcəyim düşündürücü bir kitabdır!
Xoş mütaliələr!
Read
August 21, 2016I've already consumed a few pages and I find this book strikingly odd. I'm used to Mark Twain's satirical flair, so his serious tone in this book is something very new to me. So far, I like what I'm feeding on. :D
October 25, 2020
Dedem çok boş yapıyorsun dedem.
May 7, 2021
In many ways still interesting. I agree with quite a lot of Twain's observations and opinions (at least, those put in this essay, I have read only "What is man?" for now).
April 26, 2023
İnsan kendini şekillendiren harici etkiler dışında hiçbir şeydir.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 428 reviews