Scan barcode
batbones's review against another edition
5.0
I drowned in this book in one sitting. It seemed that as long as I was on the page, leaving the book alone was impossible.
An extraordinary, witty stream of consciousness narrative about philosophy, philosophic-religious despair, the economics of education and where it all leads us. But to say all this would be to reduce it to the sum of its parts, its ostensible plot of an austere philosophy professor and his twelve (often drunk) students amid lurking Cambridge dons. The story's real beauty - as is the beauty itself that it reaches and tries to teach - lies in wording the wonder that lies at the heart of an encounter with knowledge, against the ruined deceptive wonder and rush of the present-day.
Iyer writes with moving poetry. (The whole book can almost be called a sustained prose-poem.) His style is enchantingly sparse, so concentrated; the smallest word carries a weight that cannot be dismissed. Its spareness and episodic nature lend a soft mirroring voice to the fleeting quality of everything the book touches upon (life, youth, or Wittgenstein's Tractatus).
Everything in it evokes the unbearable lightness of being. But it is also a light book, trading in familiar references (Facebook statuses, office-jobs) and jokes ("Doyle to Mulberry: You have a quantum penis. It's both there and not there.") The plays in-between (enacting death-scenes of famous philosophers) contain the most memorably comic passages.
While some may feel the romance at the end is startling and seemingly superficial, I felt it was, already, a thing lying dormant from the very beginning, carried along in the narrative current and waiting to surface. That it was written grants it poignancy, and a kind of wish fulfilment, on the part of the reader who by that moment would have been influenced by the students' curiosity. That is also part of the point here. After all, this book circles around, and finally, in that last moment, answers the fascination with what it means and feels like to have touched genius, even if it is for a while. It would not be too much to say that Iyer accomplishes this brilliantly.
"We’re drowning in openness, he says. In our sense of the possible. We’re ready to take anything in – to learn about anything, and therefore about nothing. Everything is available to us, and therefore nothing is available to us. Everything is at our disposal, and therefore nothing is at our disposal. We are infinitely open-minded, which is to say, infinitely closed-minded."
An extraordinary, witty stream of consciousness narrative about philosophy, philosophic-religious despair, the economics of education and where it all leads us. But to say all this would be to reduce it to the sum of its parts, its ostensible plot of an austere philosophy professor and his twelve (often drunk) students amid lurking Cambridge dons. The story's real beauty - as is the beauty itself that it reaches and tries to teach - lies in wording the wonder that lies at the heart of an encounter with knowledge, against the ruined deceptive wonder and rush of the present-day.
Iyer writes with moving poetry. (The whole book can almost be called a sustained prose-poem.) His style is enchantingly sparse, so concentrated; the smallest word carries a weight that cannot be dismissed. Its spareness and episodic nature lend a soft mirroring voice to the fleeting quality of everything the book touches upon (life, youth, or Wittgenstein's Tractatus).
Everything in it evokes the unbearable lightness of being. But it is also a light book, trading in familiar references (Facebook statuses, office-jobs) and jokes ("Doyle to Mulberry: You have a quantum penis. It's both there and not there.") The plays in-between (enacting death-scenes of famous philosophers) contain the most memorably comic passages.
While some may feel the romance at the end is startling and seemingly superficial, I felt it was, already, a thing lying dormant from the very beginning, carried along in the narrative current and waiting to surface. That it was written grants it poignancy, and a kind of wish fulfilment, on the part of the reader who by that moment would have been influenced by the students' curiosity. That is also part of the point here. After all, this book circles around, and finally, in that last moment, answers the fascination with what it means and feels like to have touched genius, even if it is for a while. It would not be too much to say that Iyer accomplishes this brilliantly.
"We’re drowning in openness, he says. In our sense of the possible. We’re ready to take anything in – to learn about anything, and therefore about nothing. Everything is available to us, and therefore nothing is available to us. Everything is at our disposal, and therefore nothing is at our disposal. We are infinitely open-minded, which is to say, infinitely closed-minded."
dllh's review against another edition
4.0
This is a strange little book, elliptical, sometimes funny, often baffling in that I'm not sure how I'm to receive all the philosophy in it. I'm as clueless as the undergrads, and I'm not sure whether that's part of the point (I sort of think it is) or whether I'm just stupid. Whatever the case, I enjoyed the way the thing was put together and thought there was a lot to like here. I imagine it'd be infuriating to anyone wanting a more conventional sort of story (though it's really not all that terribly unconventional).
dobbyhasnomaster's review against another edition
4.0
A group of students study philosophy at Cambridge, and end up with a really out of the ordinary teacher, they call him Wittgenstein Jr. He bombards them with what I thought were really interesting philosophical theories and questions. The students act like typical students, clueless and reckless, but in a really funny way.
This was a very different and interesting book, the style of writing was really unconventional, it was like the narrator, Peters, was taking notes on everything that was said and done. Also a lot of words were written in italics, which makes you give them emphasis in your head, which I thought really helps you make sense of the philosophical theories and questions, which are plentiful in this book.
It was really funny and eye-opening to see how the book/Wittgenstein ridicules Cambridge: “Only the tourists really understand Cambridge, Wittgenstein says. Cambridge is only there to be photographed: that’s what they grasp. Cambridge is a collective fantasy…” I think there’s definitely some truth in there.
One of my favorite parts was when Wittgenstein was talking about how he hates dogs: “The dog is a disgusting creature, Wittgenstein says when the don is out of earshot. Bred for dependency. Bred for slobbering. We think our dogs love us because we have a debased idea of love, he says. We think our dogs are loyal to us because we have a corrupted sense of loyalty. People object to pit bulls and Rottweilers, but pit bulls and Rottweilers are his favourite dogs, Wittgenstein says. They don’t hide what they are.”
Another quote which I really liked: “He speaks of his hatred of self-consciousness. Of self-awareness. Absorption, that’s his ideal. The mind must be absorbed in its activities.”
All the theories in the book started to drag a little after a while, and some of it wasn’t quite understandable, but altogether the book was really interesting and very funny.
This was a very different and interesting book, the style of writing was really unconventional, it was like the narrator, Peters, was taking notes on everything that was said and done. Also a lot of words were written in italics, which makes you give them emphasis in your head, which I thought really helps you make sense of the philosophical theories and questions, which are plentiful in this book.
It was really funny and eye-opening to see how the book/Wittgenstein ridicules Cambridge: “Only the tourists really understand Cambridge, Wittgenstein says. Cambridge is only there to be photographed: that’s what they grasp. Cambridge is a collective fantasy…” I think there’s definitely some truth in there.
One of my favorite parts was when Wittgenstein was talking about how he hates dogs: “The dog is a disgusting creature, Wittgenstein says when the don is out of earshot. Bred for dependency. Bred for slobbering. We think our dogs love us because we have a debased idea of love, he says. We think our dogs are loyal to us because we have a corrupted sense of loyalty. People object to pit bulls and Rottweilers, but pit bulls and Rottweilers are his favourite dogs, Wittgenstein says. They don’t hide what they are.”
Another quote which I really liked: “He speaks of his hatred of self-consciousness. Of self-awareness. Absorption, that’s his ideal. The mind must be absorbed in its activities.”
All the theories in the book started to drag a little after a while, and some of it wasn’t quite understandable, but altogether the book was really interesting and very funny.
msjaquiss's review against another edition
3.0
This book was written by a philosophy professor about a philosophy professor teaching a philosophy class at Cambridge which means that none of it made any sense. It was interesting to read the ramblings of the professor as he instructed his students and simultaneously descended into depression and madness. The students' conversations and shenanigans outside of class were the fun part of the book. I enjoyed the juxtaposition of the professor's paranoid rants and the students' discussions of the lectures and their futures. I wouldn't recommend this book because it really didn't appeal to me and I was never captivated by the story.
mattjameson's review against another edition
2.0
Hard to imagine someone getting much out of this unless you studied Wittgenstein intensely and/or went to Cambridge. One character's inventive series of t-shirts utilizing the word FUCK (and then, to my shock, not doing that) was my favorite part of the book.
_pickle_'s review against another edition
Couldn't get into this. And reviews didn't seem to encourage me.
agirlwithredhair's review against another edition
5.0
It's quite a book, and I can say whole heartedly that I loved it. As the summary says, we watch as Peters and his cohort try to understand their philosophy professor, who is, without a doubt, a new Wittgenstein. Perhaps calling him Wittgenstein-reincarnate is more accurate. It is a coming of age story in which a handful of Cambridge boys realize they have no idea what the real world will be like and have an inane need to impress their professor- things that many college students (myself included) identify with. Characters come and go, we get glimpses of their lives together just as though we were Cambridge students as well. Secondly, however, it's a modern retelling of Wittgenstein's first stint as a Cambridge professor. The loss of his brother, his realization that his original work (the Tracatus Logico-Philisophicus) was wrong, and his need to set it right. Wittgenstein's philosophy is woven in every page, through phrases spoken, actions lived, and the plentiful one-way conversations in class (and I would be lying if I said I wasn't absolutely delighted every time I caught it). Peters and Company are pretentious and entirely Cambridge in every sense, but they did remind me of my own friends and our time in college. There was a lot of giggling happening through most of the pages.
The italics were a bit annoying, but can be quickly overcome. Most of the italicized words were ideas or keywords from what I remember studying of Wittgenstein's philosophy. A few people have noted that the romantic relationship that forms was forced, but I didn't find it to be so. Comments were made early on and wasn't a surprise (although it developed rather quickly).
I think this book may not be enjoyed as heartily by someone without a philosophy background or had not previously encountered Wittgenstein. I've spent the entirety of my last semester studying Wittgenstein and I absolutely loved it, and I think that had a lot do with why I enjoyed this book so much.
The italics were a bit annoying, but can be quickly overcome. Most of the italicized words were ideas or keywords from what I remember studying of Wittgenstein's philosophy. A few people have noted that the romantic relationship that forms was forced, but I didn't find it to be so. Comments were made early on and wasn't a surprise (although it developed rather quickly).
I think this book may not be enjoyed as heartily by someone without a philosophy background or had not previously encountered Wittgenstein. I've spent the entirety of my last semester studying Wittgenstein and I absolutely loved it, and I think that had a lot do with why I enjoyed this book so much.
dogpound's review against another edition
2.0
I am so glad I'm finished reading this book so I don't have to read it anymore. How on earth did this get picked for TOB?
corrompido's review against another edition
1.0
I did not finish this book, so please take that into account when reading my review. I suspect that I did not understand something fundamental about this book, as I never understood the basic premise or hook. The story follows a number of college kids in Cambridge as they take a philosophy course from an eccentric philosophy professor. Perhaps the story gets profound near the end, but the first half was rather insufferable in content and writing style.
boygirlparty's review against another edition
3.0
Young misfits at Cambridge University obsess with and observe a professor who lives, eats, breathes his work. Wittgenstein is a rambling, unhappy man who is obsessive about the thought of philosophy in an attempt to avenge a death caused by thought.
The fourth wall between lecturer and students breaks. That's when things get interesting-ish.
Many underline-able passages. But many diversions, too. I generally enjoy books about thinking and thought, but this one was sometimes very slow going despite its small size.
The fourth wall between lecturer and students breaks. That's when things get interesting-ish.
Many underline-able passages. But many diversions, too. I generally enjoy books about thinking and thought, but this one was sometimes very slow going despite its small size.