Finally, I got hold of the winning book courtesy of the university library, and I read the first few chapters - it seemed to be going somewhere, but then it felt like an old cardigan, comfortable in its cliches and stereotypes, I felt I had read this before many times - and it was worn out - and like the old cardie - you feel, well I might just wear it one more day - then the holes show, it looks faded - and with the greatest reluctance - I skipped several pages - and found myself thinking - if only it had been a novella. I got today a herd of philosophy linked books - one on meaning - one on philosophy of hunting - one based on podcasts by famous philosophers bar one who dislikes the internet (love him or her) and one mixed bag of essays. All coffee books to dip in during breaks - or to be read on the bus. I did read the intro to the book on meaning and saw problems right from the start - a contradiction (not a paradox!!!) between the idea one can have a non language meaning based on propositions. But, you need to have intentionality and attitude. Oh, yes that bacterium has a real bad-ass attitude and is intentionally ignoring me... The hunting philosophy book - after reading Peter Singer (whose arguments are very perverse - not well reasoned - I mean - humans in all cases come first - unfortunately, but yes they do - that means if a choice between Hitler and a pet - it must still be the pet - as much as I hate that idea. Anyway, in the hunting book a father takes his eight yearold daughter fishing - she sees a grouse and tells her Dad:
Dad! Look! There's a grouse! Grab a rock and kill it!"
He can't find a rock - and she throws him a power bait jar - and he throws it and kills it - they eat it. Jeez. Now, here there was a choice - why kill the grouse? What if you do not kill it outright? Isn't this cruel? Are there no laws regarding how one hunts or kills animals? Then there is the book on creativity and art. Based on three surprises. Like Vladimir Propp's threes - everything comes in threes.