True also for academics. How can you finish that paper, when you've not read that possibly crucial/probably irrelevant book on X!
Which is absolutely true. It's funny, I just pulled my copy of Leo Strauss's History of Political Philosophy off the shelf in order to look up something on John Stuart Mill. Each chapter of the book is dedicated to a particularly significant political philosopher and they are presented in chronological order as follows:
Thucydides
Plato
Xenophon
Aristotle
Marcus Tullius Cicero
St Augustine
Alfarabi
Moses Maimonides
St Thomas Aquinas
Marsilius of Padua
Niccolo Machiavelli
...
Let's stop there and consider that the printing press was only invented in 1440 so by the time Machiavelli died in 1527 there weren't that many books around to be read--and certainly not much on political philosophy. Therefore, I'm confident that I've read more about the subject than Machiavelli. In fact, I think I've possibly read more about it than everyone on that list combined--and political philiosophy is not my field. I think that this is a nice illustration that sometimes quantity does not have a quality of its own--indeed sheer quantity of reading is a poor measure of the quality of understanding. Don't get me wrong, there's a link between the two, but having read more than Machiavelli does not make me a shrewder political thinker! Professor Mats Berdal, a colleague here in the ddepartment told me once that his approach to teaching international relations to undergraduates was to get them to read one good book on the subject deeply, in that case The Anarchical Society by Hedley Bull. This has got me thinking, if I had to assign one book for a course on modern warfare what would it be? Hmmm... I haven't got a good answer for that. Any suggestions?
8 comments:
The Utility of Force, by Rupert Smith. I think it is brilliant.
There were only two subjects at universities at Machiavelli's time, (Theology and Medicine) and a lot of ancient Latin books had still to be re-translated from Arabic.
It's perhaps possible that an average 18 years old European of today has read more about biology, foreign languages, (and women) than any 16th century scholar.
Olaf :-)
I think it interesting that it really rather depends on the conditions under which you were exposed to the book in the first place. What motivates anyone to read anyway? I find that, much like anything, if you are doing it because you have to, it becomes a chore and a pressured occupation. Whereas, if you are convinced that it is worthwhile because of some higher calling (eg it is fun), then you are more likely to enjoy the book and thereafter celebrate the author and his work. The extent to which you might be convinced of worthwhileness is the product of many things, most of which you could (if you tried) put under the general heading of 'leadership' (enthusiastic commendation, good marketing, opportunity to compete your knowledge (eg a course of instruction) etc).
Personally, the book which has most profoundly affected me is Robert Winston's 'Human Instinct'. I think anyone who seeks to understand the basic mechanics of man and mankind should read this (especially those who seek to lead). However, for all of the reasons suggested above, I would not prescribe this.
Conversely, whilst much of the WIMW Core Reading has been excellent etc, I probably wouldnt list any of it in my 'dream bookshelf'. If tutors really want their students to engage with a particular title the last thing they should do is list it as core reading; they should keep it as a 'private reserve' to be discretely exposed to a 'chosen few' in private conversation behind the scenes and off-line. This is the key to convincing people that something is special. Many industry leaders use the same trick in recruiting and retention. (Virgin Atlantic is an example here. They routinely go to some expense to interview hundreds for a particular job with absolutely no intention of recruiting more than a few. Subsequently, despite offering only comparable terms of employment, they enjoy higher levels of employee retention and, significantly, attract a higher quality recruit. After all, who wants to be part of an org that only wants you out of apparent desperation?).
Calvin and Hobbs.
Deals with human nature, realpolitik, and warfare (especially involving water-deliverable weaponry). Quite funny too....
I still haven't read that many books on war - I know, a terrible admission from a career soldier. My favourite, so far, has been John Keegan's "War and Our World". I know that it's a very small book about a very large subject - actually more a series of essays but Keegan has the ability to condense his words to the absolute minimum required (unlike me!). He must have heeded Churchill who once said, "say what you have to say and the first time you come to a sentence with a grammatical ending - sit down"! What Keegan does is explain why war remains the single greatest affliction of humanity in the 21st century. The most profound thing he says is that whilst "violence rarely settles anything" there are some things, when the threat of violence has failed, can only be settled by violence. Too true - even from one who freely admits to having only a "second hand and academic knowledge of war"!
Well, you earlier convinced me that the book was Bobbitt, The Shield of Achilles. Given that I am now up to page 468, are you saying that I misunderstood?!
Keegan's The Face of Battle is also excellent. As personally recommended to me by David, I immediately bought and read it, and it was ace* (connect with my comments on motivation above).
*'Ace'. Now, that's a word I havent used since I was about 14 years old.
Nope, Shield of Achilles is definitely on my shortlist. p. 468 eh? You're mmaking quick progress. What do you make of it thus far?
Post a Comment