Sophie's World is an engaging and a clever way of introducing the history and basics of Western thought/philosophy and cultural movements (and is a great cure for pregnancy insomnia!).
Knowing the background of the book, I expected the writing/story to be simplified, but the plot/storyline of the novel seemed mismatched with the weight of the philosophical/historical concepts being taught in the book. The end of the book was, um, interesting. It spiraled into this kinda-post-modern thing that I thought had potential, but I'm not sure I caught all of it (though I'm sure it all had a purpose?). What you believe to be fiction, turned into meta-fiction, which later became meta-meta-fiction...anyway, I thought it got a little out-of-control.
Overall, I thought the first half of the book is stronger than the second half (even though I thought the actual philosophical concepts in the second half of the book were significantly more interesting). Once I got over the flatness of the story and the characters, the historical sections became much more interesting. I think the parts on the Baroque (Descartes, Spinoza) and Enlightenment (Kant) were my favorite, or at least stronger sections of the book as they were very well explained. I think I found these sections interesting because Gaarder did a good job of explaining why people in those periods thought a certain way and how the philosophy evolved. Also, interestingly, these are time periods I'm rather interested in anyway, as far as art, history, culture, and (to an extent) literature go.
One of my favorite Baroque topics that was touched on in the book is how during that time there was this whole questioning of how reality is perceived (reality vs. life as a dreamlike state in which we perceive reality individually, which may/does differ from reality as it really is). This idea later evolved with Kant in the 18th century who wrote that certain factors in our mind influence our experience of the world. Kant divided the world into things as they are in themselves and as we perceive them. He wrote that we cannot know things as they are in themselves, but we can know how we perceive them. We cannot know with certainty what the world is like "in itself," but we can only know what the world is like "for me." (things in themselves vs. things as they appear to us--I especially liked how Alberto used red glasses to teach this concept to Sophie). Anyway, I think all of this is SO interesting and complex, and one way of looking at why/how people can have such different perspectives/perceptions.
I do find it helpful to write down my thoughts, scattered as they might be. Sometimes it's hard to explain oneself clearly via Skype. In the end, I'm glad we read this book because it was thought provoking and reminded me of other things I want/need to read in the realm of philosophy/critical theory.
PS: Hil, I'm excited for your book choice. I'm hoping to finish it before you-know-who arrives :)
PPS: Guy in the picture = Immanuel Kant. I kind of like those 18th century hairdos.
No comments:
Post a Comment