The best
Psychological Fiction:
Reddit reviews
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
ProductGPT
Try the custom AI to help you find products that Reddit loves.
The best of Psychological Fiction by number of unique Reddit comments:
Top Reddit reviews mentioning Psychological Fiction:
For anyone who has not read 1984 from Georges Orwell here is a link to Amazon to purchase and educate yourselves. Just imagine the same story but with a Philip K. Dick twist integrating 21st-century tracking technology on citizens.
You are technically correct (best kind)
however many editions of the book have been published with only the number "1984" on the cover
When even the publisher gets it wrong, it's hard to find much fault in random internet comments
You seem to have misunderstood the concept of the term "thoughtcrime". Here's a link to the authoritative treatise on the subject if you want to brush up.
That book was my awakening. I keep a copy around to lend out to people who've never read it. In fact, here it is on Amazon, for any one who keeps up on this sub's required reading.
>As someone already said...for now. Get a hard copy, just in case. 1984 is, frankly, scarily prescient.
1984 - George Orwell Signet Classics Amazon
Ishmael by Daniel Quinn is a fantastic read addressing the exact same topic. It challenges our assumptions on society and humanity's place in this world.
I hope people will use this money to buy a copy of George Orwell's 1984 book.
https://www.amazon.com/1984-Signet-Classics-George-Orwell/dp/0451524934
Because the irony would be so wasted on the stupid.
Tyler Durden!
I recommend everyone read the original book: https://www.amazon.com/Fight-Club-Novel-Chuck-Palahniuk/dp/0393327345/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1535342861&sr=1-1
They cucked the ending for hollywood. Book is insanely good. And you can get it for like 5 bucks on the amazon link above
Its called "1984" by George Orwell. If you ever hear the term "Orwellian" that originates from his work in "1984".
here you go my dude, read it and realise how silly you look.
From the book Life of Pi by Yann Martel published in 2001
"The son of a zookeeper, Pi Patel has an encyclopedic knowledge of animal behavior and a fervent love of stories. When Pi is sixteen, his family emigrates from India to North America aboard a Japanese cargo ship, along with their zoo animals bound for new homes."
"The ship sinks. Pi finds himself alone in a lifeboat, his only companions a hyena, an orangutan, a wounded zebra, and Richard Parker, a 450-pound Bengal tiger. Soon the tiger has dispatched all but Pi, whose fear, knowledge, and cunning allow him to coexist with Richard Parker for 227 days while lost at sea. When they finally reach the coast of Mexico, Richard Parker flees to the jungle, never to be seen again. The Japanese authorities who interrogate Pi refuse to believe his story and press him to tell them "the truth." After hours of coercion, Pi tells a second story, a story much less fantastical, much more conventional--but is it more true?"
In my view belief becomes a choice at some point. You can either choose to live your life as if God is real, or not. And at that point your faith becomes an action in a more tangible sense because it's no longer just centered around thinking/wondering about what is true/not-true, and is more about how you're living and experiencing life.
Of course, another inevitable question that pops-up when one is essentially 'choosing' a faith (be it a pre-existing religion, their own path, etc.) is "what if I pick the 'wrong' God?" To that in the most simplistic terms, if God exists, then God is either 'good' (and everything will work out in one way or another) or 'bad' (and thus it doesn't matter you do either way).
So in-short.... I believe that for most folks in your situation (ie., want to believe, but haven't found anything terribly convincing to bridge the gap) ...you're probably not going to find any compelling 'evidence' that will suddenly lead you to believe. So for me, the only next step I see is to choose to believe and live your life accordingly.
'Which Story Do You Prefer?'
This sounds great! I just added it to my Books list on Amazon.
If you haven't read it yet, The Night Circus is one of the best books I've read this year. I read it a couple months ago and still catch myself thinking about it! I know a lot of people have read it, though, so another good one I've read this year is Most Wanted.
Thanks for the contest!
Historical cycles do happen, but you can't model them as simply as an oscillating sine wave. And I wouldn't label the peaks and troughs as Marxist vs. Capitalist extremes; an axis of expansion vs. preservation would be more suitable. And in any case, this sine wave model seems to posit a supreme and transcendent universal Capitalism whereby all possible resources are extracted and exploited in a way that maximizes both utility and desire-production.
https://www.amazon.com/Accelerando-Singularity-Charles-Stross/dp/0441014151
No. the Te Tao Ching, which is sometimes called the Laotzu, is nothing to do with Zen. Not only that, it's tough to say that the Te Tao Ching goes with anything else. If you haven't read Te Tao Ching, btw, it's the definitive translation as far as I know.
Here's some Zen. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zen/mumonkan.htm Equally short, but not at all similar.
Taoism is a native Chinese religion unrelated to Buddhism.
"Taoism" is also a catch all for Chinese mysticism that has Laotzu's book Tao Te Ching at it's core.
The version of Tao Te Ching to read is "Te Tao Ching" http://www.amazon.com/Lao-Tzu-Translation-Discovered-Ma-wang-tui/dp/0345370996 which covers the history of the text and common misconceptions about it.
https://www.amazon.com/1984-Signet-Classics-George-Orwell/dp/0451524934
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Since the beginning of your life, since the beginning of the Party, since the beginning of history, the war has continued without a break, always the same war.
Diamond said in an article (that I can no longer find)that he was first sparked to write collapse when a student asked him what were they thinking as they cut down the last tree on Easter Island, but he was not able to do much with the idea until he read Totman's work that showed that Japan came perilously close to collapse, when clear cutting for agricultural land was causing silt build-up in rivers that then cause crop failures because the irrigation failed.
And Japan was specifically unique because the energy economy was build around the 3 year cycle of sunlight input becoming caloric output that became human work. And Edo understood this way before anyone else because they wanted the closed system, and they had to do energy accounting. Every year the rivers had to be maintained, but after new forest was cleared, they could not deliver enough calories to workers to get the rivers maintained enough
So the central government got real serious about the connected nature of trees, silt, and caloric output, and energy recyling, and started tallying each individual tree in the entire country.
https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520063129/the-green-archipelago
I read directly in his research paper through JSTOR, but that book should have a more organized and all-encompassing take.
Also Ishmael. I hope you have read it, but if you have not:
https://www.amazon.com/Ishmael-Novel-Daniel-Quinn/dp/0553375407
Generally I hate linking Amazon, but since that also includes the ISBN..
Winston must have been assigned the task to "correct" the double plus ungood stats that contradict the party narrative.
Don't know what I'm talking about? Read all about it here:
Thank you for admitting that your OP was off-topic to this forum.
Try reading a book you sallow sow.
or it creates a sustainable problem... when you go to a nation where kids are dying because poor government or lack of resources and give the people resources, they breed.
providing support to communities where the population has been limited by the environment, creates dependency on the support.
A book on why moving food to another location creates a dependency on the resources
u/Bandicoot-Particular, yes, exactly. And that's what George Orwell warned us all about in his famous book, "Nineteen-Eighty Four."
> I don't want to be one of "those" Christians - the ones who leave the faith because of insufficient evidence
Well... Elijah did say that it's ok to go where the evidence leads you:
> "If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.”
> 1 Kings 18:21
> I hate the cognitive dissonance of believing in God while simultaneously seeing the bulk of evidence on the side of atheists.
Just to be a little more precise, atheists don't have any evidence that disproves the existence of God (as that is essentially unfalsifiable), they simply point out the lack of evidence that would or could prove the existence of God (which is still a very valid point to consider).
> How did you get out of it without becoming an atheist?
Evidence or not, it's ultimately up to each of us to decide 'which story we prefer', and live our lives accordingly.
> lack evidence of existence
Well, even as a religious individual I can't argue with them there, but to automatically equate belief in God to belief in a folklore figure and assert that the two should be interchangeable seems pretty....... dense.
Most atheists I've ever met and/or interacted with believe in life on other planets with zero evidence (at this time). But they still believe. There reasoning usually just comes down to probability. "The universe is so massive that it's impossible for there not to be life elsewhere" and so forth. I have no interest in taking that belief away from them, but I try to equate that to religious individuals belief in God.
And for some... they get it... (as they realize they can empathize with someone about a firm belief despite evidence) ...and for others, they just double-down on why their belief without evidence is justified, but a religious person's belief without evidence is not. (Often it seems to come down to unresolved anger on their end, past trauma, etc.)
> What keeps y'all believing in God?
For me personally it comes down to a practical choice, and a very quick 'n dirty distillation of Anselm of Canterbury's argument (with a key focus on practical application imo):
You can choose to either believe in God or not believe in God
And if you do choose to believe in God, then it's better to believe in a God that does exist than a God that doesn't exist
(For anyone arguing "you can't choose your beliefs!" you can change the first point to: 'You can choose to live your life as if God exists or as if God does not exist' if that helps you.)
Also, my recommendation for an enjoyable illustration of the first point:
Not a Christian, but I think the concept of faith as a choice can apply broadly to any belief system:
> Pi points out that neither story can be proven and neither explains the cause of the shipwreck, so he asks the officials which story they prefer: the one without animals or the one with animals. They eventually choose the story with the animals. Pi thanks them and says: "And so it goes with God."
> doubt
>!"Pi points out that neither story can be proven and neither explains the cause of the shipwreck, so he asks the officials which story they prefer: the one without animals or the one with animals. They eventually choose the story with the animals. Pi thanks them and says: "And so it goes with God." The investigators then leave and file a report."!<
so you want a world like 1984 or V for Vendetta where no one aside from a very very very select few have any say whats being said on the radio and what shown on tv and whats taught to children. god have you been practicing getting down on your knees to lick boots since birth or is this a recent development.