Joseph

Both too detailed and too simple

Revisado: 07-14-24

Zero clear points were made in this book because they were later contradicted. Way too many old trait phrases. Author offered some biased opinions not supported in the studies. The continuous mispronouncing of the word “folks” was annoying.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Big disappointment

Revisado: 05-03-24

Got a little less than half way after skipping through some long winded descriptions of the author’s physical prowess and her family’s struggles including her father finding Jesus. I was not expecting a novel-like book. The author states that she knows she has a lisp and it wouldn’t even be noticeable in Spanish…but I’m listening in English. The speech impediment was too annoying to continue so I stopped. Why didn’t she get a professional person to read? Why didn’t she go to an editor who would have cut the book by 75% do it would have been easier to extract the gems that no doubt are there? Disappointing.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 6 personas

Scary but true

Revisado: 01-20-24

Unfortunately the people who need to hear this - Republican voters - will likely not - more than unfortunate - it’s tragic.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Shocking, historical information that helps understanding today’s political environment

Revisado: 11-29-23

This is a must read. I do not doubt the veracity of the information, considering how reliable Rachel Maddow has shown to be. The detail of her research is amazing However, this was very difficult for me to read (listen) to the end for two reasons. First, I really do not like the delivery style of an unfolding mystery novel. The details of a cloudy day or the style of shoes that a man was wearing or the type of spectacles on his face added nothing but fluff to a book that was already way, way too long. Perhaps people who enjoy a mystery novel will have a very different take that I did. The second very annoying feature was Rachel’s voice tapering off at the end of a sentence. I got tired of backtracking to here the last phrase, word or syllable and just stopped doing it. It was so annoying. Nevertheless, the content of the book truly lives up to its title, and us a must read/listen.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Disappointing

Revisado: 04-18-23

I had great hopes for this book only to be disappointed. It was worthwhile for me, but it required a lot of discipline for me to hang in there to the end.
The first thing that was the tempo - way too slow. Next even more annoying, was the melodramatic nature of the delivery. The pitch variation in his speech resembled a first grade teacher talking to a little kid.
Next, is the way the author got much the material for his book. On many occasions he would masquerade as a candidate for a job. The employer would hire him, and he would gain inside information as to how the employer taught to persuade people. I can fully understand why he would do this, but the bottom line is that he was dishonest. He could’ve gotten information in a different way. Hiring and training is a significant cost to many organizations that he totally ignored. What is ironic is that he violated one of the “principles” in his book - the trust factor was seriously diminished by his dishonest approach.
I put the word “principles“ in quotations, because they are not really principles. Tendencies, not principles.
Another thing the author does is to support his claims with outdated events, personal experiences and readers notes that always agree. He tries to force fit events into his category boxes even those with many other variables that could explain outcomes.
He tries to build tight cases that demonstrate his series. He would do well to listen to his own advice, by presenting contrary, information, and contrary views, but he does not. This reduces his credibility even further.
I think the target audience for this book should be children who are between the ages of 12 and 18. They have not experienced a lot of what older adults have, and could benefit by the information. The trouble is that 80% of the book is overkill and kids would find it boring so the author would have to produce a condensed version and also please, please get someone else to read it.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Excellent

Revisado: 02-20-23

Excellent discussion from a historical perspective both past and recent past - recommended for everyone regardless of beliefs.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Cave dweller

Revisado: 09-07-22

The author starts out advising the reader to take an active role in achieving happiness – to think of it as a single thought. So far, so good. He states that happiness is a moral obligation because we owe it to other people and because it helps people act decently. A moral obligation? OK, I’ll hang in there for a while. Then he proposes that non-religious people can’t be happy. What? He then attacks atheism. Why? Of course non-religious people can be happy. And why attack atheism? If your way to happiness is through religion, well OK, but why mention atheism at all? Just focus on those things that motivate you.

The author refuses to define happiness. He says about “definitions, measurements, statistics” that “important things in life cannot be precisely defined or measured.” He sort of takes a shot at science – an unnecessary shot. Why disparage science?

Then he states that “humans are never satisfied.” Really? I am satisfied. I know lots of people who are satisfied. He describes Adam and Eve has being distracted by “glitz.” Never heard that one before. I thought it was the tree of knowledge.

The author presents the idea of the “missing tile“ which I think rings true. The idea that a ceiling can be complete and beautifully done with just one missing tile yet we will focus on the missing tile. Very true. He uses this to support the idea that humans are never satisfied. But what happens after the tile is replaced? Then aren’t we satisfied?

He further states that “happiness is difficult” and that “the easy way is wrong” and “being unhappy is easy.” “Happiness must be worked out and is largely determined by us.“ There is a lot to unpack here. I agree that to a large extent we determine our own happiness but, flatly stating that the easy way is wrong? Sometimes the easy way is the best way. Even with just a little bit of thought he would have to admit that choosing the most difficult way all the time is not the way to happiness. The decision doesn’t depend on the difficulty of the task, but on the wisdom of the decision-maker and on the short term and long-term consequences.

Prager goes on to state that “everything worthwhile is obtained through hard work.” Another bold statement he presents as fact that with only a minimal amount of thought proves to be wrong. The point he is trying to get to is that awareness, self discipline and wisdom are keys to happiness. I agree with this but the path he chooses to get there is neither necessary nor sufficient.

Prager contrasts “lower versus evil thoughts and behaviors“ – the idea that “eating with your whole face stuck in food violates holiness” and “masturbation is the embodiment of lower feelings.“ He comments that “in today’s secular world there is little concepts of unholy and little problems with lower feelings.“ He concludes that “we are preoccupied with lower feelings, not freed from them.“ He draws a distinction between our “lower animal nature” and “divine nature.” He also comments that “we are designed to be good even though human nature is not.” He also states that “human nature is the single greatest obstacle to happiness.” Please know that I have not passed an opinion on these things but just restated them, at least so far.

I am a member of our secular world – as we all are – and I did not recognize I could so easily be unholy and his view. He has a point about immediate gratification needing boundaries in order to achieve future goals or even deep-seated happiness. But when he says that human nature stands in the way, I question that. What about altruism, helping others, nurturing, apathy? These are all human traits that are prevalent even with secularists. Just because these traits are good doesn’t make them “divine” either, nor does it mean they are only present in humans. Animals nurture and help each other.

Prager says “once we decide that we want to get married we begin searching for a mate.” This is a projection on to all of us based on what he says about his own life experience. I questioned this on two levels. First, many people get married because they are in love. Love is emotional. It generally is not objective. People generally don’t decide to get married and then look for a mate. It’s the other way around. Perhaps Prager did decide to get married and then found a suitable mate that met his criteria but I suspect that like most people the rationalization that it would be a good marriage followed the emotional love that prompted the action.

The author spends a lot of time on religion saying things like “God put us here to…” and “God did not put us here to…” He states over and over that “religion is necessary for happiness.” He does predict, quite accurately I might add, that this quote will be disputed by secular readers.” He further states that a secular view that there is “no meaning to the universe and that everything is pointless can’t be happy.” His characterization of secularism is skewed. Secularism looks beyond religion for meaning and purpose. Just because secularists are not tied to religion doesn’t mean their lives are pointless. It doesn’t mean they can’t achieve deep-seated happiness. The author needs to open his eyes to reality.

The author states that gratitude is a main ingredient for happiness. He claims that religion inculcates gratitude into children’s minds. The saying of grace – thanking God before meals – is the example he uses. I’ve been around many a table when grace was being said. I have observed it to be a ritual that has zero thought attached to it, set as briefly and perfunctorily as possible, always followed by “let’s eat!“ I’m not saying that all people do it this way. I’m just saying that the author’s example does not support his view. Nor does it support the view that secularists don’t possess gratitude. The author needs to step out of his parochial cave.

He does advise the reader to use probability when considering expectations. That expectations need not be all or nothing. This is good advice. It’s too bad he follows that with the exception that children should expect unconditional love from their parents. Unconditional love? Really? I shutter to think of how many people would be gravely disappointed with that expectation. No, better to use the probability gauge.

He states that “unhappy people don’t improve the world.” Are you kidding? Look around. There are and have been many people who are and were unhappy with the way things are and were. They try, and do improve the world. In fact, you could make a case that it’s exactly the opposite of what he proposes. It’s the unhappy people who improve the world for the rest of us.

The author states that it is an “intellectual necessity for a religious outlook on life“and that it is “unlikely a truly secular person to be happy if sensitive to the suffering of other people.” He further states that for the secular “happiness is nearly impossible.“ “Belief in God and religion gives a person an intellectual basis for seeing the world as something other than a cosmos apathetic to the cries of children.“ Wow! Is this guy hung up on secularism, or what? It’s not the bogeyman that he describes. First of all, religions of all sorts reach way back in time and certainly did not require intellect for belief. Secondly, who is happy at the thought of suffering children? Are religious people happy to see a child suffer because they think that God works in mysterious and wondrous ways? Do they dismiss it? No, nor do do secularists. Secularists do not see any reason for children to suffer. Religious people may see it as a necessary part of God’s plan. Who do you think is more likely to step in and try to eliminate or ease the suffering?

The author sites the Hebrew Bible as “the source that originated the idea of a loving God.” I’m not sure about that. I do know that in Exodus God kills all the first born male Egyptians. Other parts of the Bible tell how to kill all men, women and children of opposing armies (“nations”) as well as how to treat slaves. That doesn’t sound like a loving God to me.

Continuing with religion he states that “most religions have done more good than harm.” Historically, and even currently, this is at best questionable and at worst totally wrong. And if you think that it applies only to non-Christian religions, think again. Consider the crusades that lasted almost 200 years (1095-1291). It killed an estimated 2 to 6,000,000 people. The population was only 60 to 70,000,000. Or, the Spanish Inquisition – the persecution and execution of Jews and Muslims – that lasted over 350 years (1478-1834). Both were religion based.

More for the claim that “most religions have done more good than harm.“ It’s no secret that religion has forever been an obstacle to the advancement of science and knowledge. Galileo and Darwin are to prime examples of how the church interfered with acceptance of a sun centered solar system and evolution through natural selection. Even today there is controversy over evolution where none should exist. It’s because science and religion disagree profoundly on how we discern truth. Science is based on questioning, observation and reason. Religion is based on answers, answers that are provided by religion and acceptance of that religion. The obstacles to scientific advancement from religion still exist to the detriment of society.

The author claims that the weakening of religion was the cause of the rise of Nazism, once again accusing secularism or atheism as its cause. He should’ve done his homework. Germany, at the time of the rise of Nazism, had about 1.5% atheists. Well over 90% of the population were Christian. Additionally, Hitler was raised Catholic. During one of his speeches in 1928 he said “tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity… In fact, our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and protestants to discover one another..” You could argue that Nazism was fueled with antisemitism, much of which came from the teaching of the church that Jews were Christ killers. So much for the idea that secularism caused the rise of the Nazis.

There are other quotes from the book: “some people are born with wisdom.” “Secularism rarely leads to wisdom.” Bible quote: “wisdom begins with awe of God.” The author makes these statements as if they are facts, but they are not. These statements, when examine carefully, can provide clues to what may actually interfere with obtaining true wisdom.

He states that “personal meaning is not enough.”That pure secularism has consequences. “No god“ means no ultimate meaning and that’s why religion is important. He further states that “religion is capable of bringing inner peace.“ Several comments: secularism doesn’t mean only personal meaning. It encompasses a better world for all people. Leaving the world a better place transcends personal meaning. And, there may be other ultimate meanings of life for a secularist. Secularists are not restricted to a specific view. As far as religion being able to bring inner peace, I agree. But religious belief requires more than accepting it because it has benefits. You have to really believe. If you don’t, hanging some carrots in front is not going to change your mind.

The author talks about a man who lost his brother and as a result, lost his belief in God. The author says that’s because he had never before recognized loss of a loved one within his belief. If he had, the loss would not have shaken his belief. I say, perhaps, but also, perhaps if he had thought about it before, his perspective on life would’ve changed then, and he would have dropped his belief in God. It comes down to coming to grips with reality. Acceptance is the answer, which can be done with or without religion.

The author then moves to explanations of why God allows bad things to happen. It all rings hollow. It’s merely rationalization for baseless belief.

He then moves on to “children deserve to start out life with a mother and father.” Another statement that is ridiculous with just a little thought. It’s an assault on all single parents, grandparents, aunts and uncle’s who have raised children. Also, what about children raised by neglectful parents or worse, abusive ones? No, children deserve a loving and supportive family. Having a mother and father is neither necessary nor sufficient.

Here’s another statement that requires a response. The author recounts a time when he thought: “If I remained single I wouldn’t grow nearly as much as I would if I were a married man.” Single people can’t grow as much as married people? Ridiculous. Some single people avoid marriage because it interferes with their growth. It totally depends on the individual.

The author then goes on to a philosophy of “everything comes with a price.” He repeats that this quote applies to everything “every action” and that it “cannot be overstated.” What a terrible way of characterizing choices. It’s way too binary and transactional even though there is an element of truth to the core idea. How about thinking of choices as options and consequences instead? Also, his statement of “there are no free lunches” is false sometimes choices may be between two or more good things or win/win situations.

The author sites many advantages of religion, almost none of which are exclusive to religion: feeling of belonging, camaraderie, common views, rituals, social gatherings.

I could go on but this is already taking up hours of my time. In short, in this book Dennis Prager shows who he is: a person who is enamored with himself, who thinks he has all the answers when in fact he has never dared to step out of the cave where he is most comfortable.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Sarcastic, satirical and humorous. Great.

Revisado: 04-24-22

The first two chapters are a must read (listen). Extremely sarcastic, satirical and humorous. If you are a believer in the Bible - or have strong Abrahamic beliefs - this book will offend you even though you should probably read it. Underneath the wonderful words of Mark Twain is a challenge to approach religion with the same skepticism that we approach everyday life. The first two chapters alone are worth a hundred other chapters.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Sarcastic, satirical and humorous. Great.

Revisado: 04-24-22

The first two chapters are a must read (listen). Extremely sarcastic, satirical and humorous. If you are a believer in the Bible - or have strong Abrahamic beliefs - this book will offend you even though you should probably read it. Underneath the wonderful words of Mark Twain is a challenge to approach religion with the same skepticism that we approach everyday life. The first two chapters alone are worth a hundred other chapters.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Superb narration, educational and entertaining

Revisado: 04-20-22

Robert Greenberg is a superb narrator. It’s obvious that he knows and is still excited by the music that he describes. He is so into his subject that it is contagious.

As an author he relates music to history and continually describes it as a mirror of the times. He describes the times and the lives of the composers too, to make his point.

I like music but I have never studied music academically. This audiobook is educational and the author is quite entertaining. He helped me hang in there for most of this very long course.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña