List of books I’ve read in 2025

  • 2025-12-24: Epictetus: The Golden Sayings of Epictetus
    From the Discourses and Encheiridion collected by Arrian. Stoic. You can see why it survived the Christianism: Epictetus believes in a god compatible with Christianism, a pagan one to which you bring sacrifices, though singular. The theme is resilience if face of external factors that can’t be controlled, but a particular version of that resilience: shut up and put up with misfortune. He advocates for moral behaviour, with the caveat that it’s motivated by the belief in a god. Clearly a learned man for his times, but not necessarily the source. He mentions Socrates regularly (mental node for me: read Xenophon’s Banquet). He mentions “know yourself”, but not in an actionable way (i.e. how exactly, what are the possibilities?). Advocates for citizen of the word, as opposed to a particular state, probably from Diogenes. Some good quotes, see below, but most is not so good.

A good observation about the transfer of information (the receiver needs to do his bit as well):

To make a statue needs skill: to view a statue aright needs skill also.

Choose your company carefully:

one cannot rub shoulders with a soot-stained man without sharing the soot oneself.

Part of the Greek story of controlling emotions to come with something better, in this case handling (unfair) critique:

If you are told that such an one speaks ill of you: make no defence against what was said, but answer, He surely knew not my other faults, else he would not have mentioned these only!

Stories about Socrates:

When Xanthippe was chiding Socrates for making scanty preparation for entertaining his friends, he answered: - “If they are friends of ours, they will not care for that; if they are not, we shall care nothing for them!”

Maybe misattributed, but good:

A ship should not ride on a single anchor, nor life on a single hope.

  • 2025-12-21: Bertolt Brecht: Life of Galileo (1938)
    Galileo, the scientist (will come back to Berholt’s play later), shaped the way we see the world now. Imagine a time in 1600s, dominated by church and an Aristotelian view of the world with Earth at it’s centre, then water, air, and finally the “stars” moving on spheres around the Earth (as described by Ptolemy’s Almagest), where obviously the stones fall towards the Earth sphere and fire raises to the stars sphere. Enter Galileo who was a serial demystifier. He builds telescopes to make money basically, but then he points them to the sky and makes observations such as: the Moon has (rock) mountains and yet it does not fall to the Earth, the Venus has crescents/phases that show it turns around the Sun, not the Earth, Jupiter has satellites around it, again not around the Earth. Oh and heavier objects don’t fall faster. Galileo has thus put the basis of what Newton would build later: a system where a stone is inert and moves due to external forces, not due to a intrinsic goal to reach it’s designated sphere. Berholt’s Galileo largely tries to give a historically accurate story, and the artistic speculation around Galileo recanting could have been very interesting. Also would be interesting to investigate the situation of how priests claimed to know better, how they are dismissive about science and know better. But it’s there that it becomes clear that Brecht was a communist sympathiser (e.g. in his phrases about “Old” and “New” and portraying Galileo as a social revolutionary, not just a scientist). It’s hard to comprehend how he sympathised for Stalin (and voluntarily spend the end of his life in East Berlin) when he personally knew people (writers) that he met in Moscow, yet were killed in Stalin’s purges. However this made him as acceptable playwright in communist Easter Europe where for the ones in the know they could make the analogy Galileo=Dissident, Catholic Church=Communist Party, Inquisition=Secret Police. It’s so funny to realise that this was the origin of my mum telling me in those times “E pur si muove” (and giggling) as a sign of internal lack of deference to the regime, even if the whole context of Galileo and/or Brecht’s play was lost/forgotten. There is something sad when I read Bertolt’s rhetoric phrases that sound intellectual, but are slightly wrong, enough that he believed in that rhetoric to collaborate with an evil regime, despite that he should have known better since the point of the play is the power play between a scientist and an evil regime.
  • 2025-12-18: Peter Fleming: Dark Academia: How Universities Die (2021)
    The issues of universities are real, but poorly analysed in this book. The author uses a rhetorical tone at times whinging or accusatory, fancy words, but consistently unsound logically. Really likes words starting with “neo”: neoliberal, neoclassical, neo-corporate, neoconservative, waving them around, but lacks substance. A waste of reading time.
  • 2025-12-17: Frédéric Bastiat: The Law (1850)
    Follow on from Milton Friedman, this book introduces the idea of legal plunder. Written around the French revolution of 1848, it describes the situation where a group receives income/unfair advantages via mechanisms captured in the law to the disadvantage/exploitation of others and how this is done sometimes covertly wrong (such a slavery) out of greed or with misconceived philanthropic intentions (e.g. to protect some social groups). He uses ideas that remind me of the (later) Open Society and its Enemies by Karl Popper, including the critique of Plato’s Republic. The book and author should be better known.
  • 2025-11-30: Milton Friedman: Free To Choose 1980
    Not a book, but a series of video presentations followed by debates on the freedom and role of government by Milton Friedman of Nobel prize fame. Does it contain mistakes? Yes, sometimes he exaggerates. But the points he raises make up for it: 10 out of 10
  • 2025-11-15: Plato: Phaedo
    This also follows the Apology. It’s almost as if Plato tries to make a Philosophy a religion. He takes Socrates choice to die in the direction of a proof for the immortality of soul. The reasoning is dubious, ironically some of the counterarguments presented in the text as doubts of Socrates’ disciples are better than the arguments. A lot of reasoning by incorrect analogy: fire repels cold, odd numbers repel evenness, therefore soul repels death, hence is immortal. This is wrong also by assuming the very thing to prove: the existence of a soul separate from the body, yet that which makes the body alive. Something of this book which pre-dates Christianity, reminds me of it such as it is almost that Socrates surrounded by his disciples before dying looks like Christ at the last supper.

And I don’t think it can be dismissed “oh, well, he did not know better”. Here is an example from the numerical part of the analogy:

double, though not strictly opposed to the odd, rejects the odd altogether.

So OK, even is the opposite of odd, but yet we know that doubling half gives us a whole which is odd, so double does not “reject the odd altogether”. So maybe he did not know about fractions. And yet he continues right after that with:

Nor again will parts in the ratio 3:2, nor any fraction in which there is a half, nor again in which there is a third, admit the notion of the whole.

I rest my case. He should have known better, Anaxagoras knew better. Part of the reason of Plato’s fame is that Christians could recognize in his writings nonsensical ideas that they shared. Plato complains, though words assigned to Socrates that Anaxagoras did not have provide answers to the questions the had about the world, and instead he produces a list of incorrect answers.

But overall I really enjoyed reading Plato, I had a lot of pleasure from going to the source, making my own judgement and debunking second hand erroneous information on the subject.

  • 2025-10-22: Plato: Crito
    This follows in the Apology. After the trial Crito visits Socrates in prison and suggests running away. Socrates does not. The widely disseminated explanation is that he did that out of some heroical sense of civic duty. Now it’s hard to know what actually happened so long ago. But even if taken at face value I can see alternative interpretations.

As part of the relatively sophisticated legal procedures, once found guilty he can make a choice of punishment. He could have chosen to leave in exile, but he chose death (also saying that he should be honoured instead of being punished). He got what he asked for as a stubborn silly old man, not a civic hero:

Moreover you might, if you had liked, have fixed the penalty at banishment in the course of the trial - the State which refuses to let you go now would have let you go then. But you pretended that you preferred death to exile, and that you were not grieved by death.

  • 2025-10-18: Plato: Apology
    Reading the book gave me a very different feeling from what I’ve heard of about it. I suspect that not all of it is to be believed as accurate, and there is probably a lot of Plato’s fictional narrative in it. I was surprised to see the sophistication of the Athenian legal system you get a trial, you get to question the accuser, he has to answer, the right to individual rather than group trial, the accuser can be punished etc. (even if the wisdom of allowing to condemn someone to death in a single day trial is questionable by the standards of other Greek cities at the time)

Answer, my good friend, the law requires you to answer.[…] And I must remind you that you are not to interrupt me if I speak in my accustomed manner.

It’s interesting to see that the Greek high society at the time had a particular obsession with a certain Iliadic style of glorifying war, fight, heroism, honour, revenge, military discipline.

Had achilles any thought of death and danger? For wherever a man’s place is, whether the place which he has chosen or that in which he has been placed by a commander, there he ought to remain in the hour of danger; he should not think of death or of anything, but of disgrace.

Similarly it was interesting to see that there was quite a degree of religious intolerance, after all this was part of the claim against Socrates. But I learned that Anaxagoras was an atheist.

Given the personal danger he did not really put a good defense. E.g. you can see that he appeared arrogant (though not sure how much this is Plato rather than Socrates)

O men of Athens, I say to you do as Anytus bids or not as Anytus bids and either acquit me or not; but whatever you do, know that I shall never alter my ways, not even if I have to die many times.

It’s interesting though his perspective of the importance to stand to and disobey tyrants

For the strong arm of that oppressive power did not frighten me into doing wrong; and when we came out of the rotunda the other four when to Salamis and fetched Leon, but I went quietly home

  • 2025-10-13: F. Scott Fitzgerald: The Great Gatsby
    A good novel. Really good. Though what the heck was Gatsby thinking? Also it feels a bit like a movie: all things are explained at the end. 8.5 out of 10.
  • 2025-10-12: Mark Twain: The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
    I read it as a child. I still enjoyed it, noticing Tom’s superstitions, Huck’s language, what 100 years made as a difference compared with Benjamin Franklin’s times (schools for example). A bit discontinuous as a narrative at times.
  • 2025-10-04: William Penn: Fruits of Solitude
    Penn of Pennsylvania fame. We’re talking late 1600s here. He’s a Quaker, though unlike John Woolman it’s clear he read classics as well: he gives the same advice (from Socrates?) as Benjamin Franklin to “eat to live, not live to eat”. It’s still a bit of a moralizing sermon that suffers of ambiguity and religious nonsense.

On the importance of using our time wisely:

There is nothing of which we are apt to be so lavish as of Time, and about which we ought to be more solicitous

On not applying double standards to others:

And nothing shews our Weakness more than to be so sharp-sighted at spying other Men’s Faults; and so purblind about our own.

On the need to do physical activities for wellbeing:

Love Labor; For if though dost not want it for Food, though mayest for Physick

Quoting the ancients (Socrates?):

Eat therefore to live, and no not live to eat.

Marriage advice (possibly sound, but ambiguous):

Never Marry but for Love; but see that thou lov’st what is lovely

Quakers and gender equality:

Sexes make no Difference; Since in Souls there is none;

Example of nice sounding, but ambiguous statement, which the book is full of:

Be […] Rather Sweet than Familiar; Familiar, than Intimate; and Intimate with very few, and upon very good Grounds.

Early insight on how insurance companies treat parties involved into accidents:

In such Controversies, it is but too common for some to say, Both are to blame, to excuse their own Unconcernedness […]. Others will cry, They are both alike; thereby involving the Injured with the Guilty, to mince the Matter for the Faulty, or cover their own Injustice to the wronged Party.

On what’s important in life:

Seek not to be Rich, but Happy

Mirroring Warren Buffet on his choice of managers:

An able bad Man, is an ill Instrument, and to be shunned as the Plague

On emotional focus:

We should not be troubled for what we cannot help

Focus on one thing at a time:

They that are least divided in their Care, always give the best Account of their Business. As therefore thou art always to pursue the present Subject, till though hast master’d it, so if it fall out that thou hast more Affairs than one upon thy Hand, be sure to prefer that which is of most Moment

Busy does not mean productive (the old hare and the tortoise story):

He that Judges not well of the Importance of his Affairs, though he may be always Busy, he must make but a small Progress. But make not more Business necessary than is so; and rather lessen than augment Work for thy self. ‘T is the Advantage that slower Tempers have upon the Men of lively Parts, that tho’ they don’t lead, they will Follow well, and Glean Clean.

On the mistake of believing other think as ourselves:

He that judges of other Men by himself, does not always hit the Mark. […] For the Able Man deceives himself by making t’other wiser than he is in the Reason of his Conduct; and the ordinary Man makes himself so, in presuming to judge of the Reasons of the Abler Man’s Actions.

  • 2025-09-17: John Woolman: The Journal of John Woolman
    John Woolman was a Quaker, living around the time of Benjamin Franklin, known for his work against slavery. Him being deeply religious the book is full of formulaic phrases in the style “With tenderness of heart, I humbly sought to the Lord for instructions and God settled my mind to go and see our friends in Carolina; so I went with met with our friends in Carolina” instead of “I fancied to see our friends in Carolina, so off I went”. This is a different style from Benjamin Franklin who also read Plutarch and Plato, not just the Bible and the Psalms. But underneath that it’s very interesting to see a man who realised the moral wrongs of slavery against the status quo and the customs of his peers. How when he was confronted the first time to write, as a clerk, an act of sale of a black slave he hesitated and complained, but the following times he refused, politely, to do it. How he finds a niche on will writing, realising that people are more willing to part with slaves at death even if they are more reluctant to deal with the economic uncertainties during their lifetimes. How he tries to convince people, including meeting them on the religious turf e.g. handling pseudo-justifications that blacks are descendants of Cain, thus unfavoured by god, with the reminder that we are all descendants of Noah, the ones of Cain having died during The Flood. At a wider picture he raises the question of what do we want in life, that material goals are not everything. In a way he does a lot of things right, but for the wrong (religious) reasons. He would do the wrong thing if he felt religion would justify it. When going on a boat trip Benjamin Franklin thought “we should build more lighthouses, they save lives”, John Woolman would mainly see to influence religiously the sailors. He died of smallpox as was against inoculation (unlike Benjamin Franklin), perceiving smallpox an act of God that we should not meddle with.

Deep-rooted customs, though wrong, are not easily altered; but it is the duty of all to be firm in that which they certainly know is right for them.

  • 2025-09-05: Benjamin Franklin: Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
    Really lovely book to read, every dozen of pages of so there is a absolutely memorable story. 10 out of 10

In the context of becoming a vegetarian, then being tempted to eat cod fish, he considered sticking to his principles, but seeing little fishes inside the cod fishes he changed his mind:

. So convenient a thing is it to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.

In the context of his son dying of smallpox, which he should have vaccinated (he was aware of vaccination, inoculation in those times, and also of the risks of the inoculation):

In 1736 I lost one of my sons, a fine boy of four years old, by the small-pox, taken in the common way. I long regretted bitterly, and still regret that I had not given it to him by inoculation. This I mention for the sake of parents who omit that operation, on the supposition that they should never forgive themselves if a child died under it; my example showing that the regret may be the same either way, and that, therefore, the safer should be chosen.

In the context of (being against patents):

That, as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously.

On the answer given by James Logan to William Penn, when scolded for staying to handle a gun on the deck of the ship against a potential attack (it turned out not be an enemy ship, but a friendly one), against the Quaker oaths, instead of retiring into the cabin:

“I being thy servant, why did thee not order me to come down? But thee was willing enough that I should stay and help to fight the ship when thee thought there was danger.”

On what kind of things make us happy:

Human felicity is produced not so much by great pieces of good fortune that seldom happen, as by little advantages that occur every day. [Giving someone small bits of daily joys], you may contribute more to the happiness of his life than in giving him a thousand guineas. The money may be soon spent, the regret only remaining of having foolishly consumed it;

On the inability of rulers to take sound decisions:

But such mistakes are not new; history is full of the errors of states and princes.

Similarities on the situation of England not wanting Colonies to be armed, in order to control them, but loosing that control because it did not then provide defence when the Colonies were in danger, to what happens not with US not providing Europe with the military and moral support it needs in this times where the European security is threatened.

On being surprised that a protestant group believed to not bear arms, did so when under danger of being killed by Indians:

but common sense, aided by present danger, will sometimes be too strong for whimsical opinions.

On the observation of human behaviour when active vs. inactive:

This gave me occasion to observe, that, when men are employ’d, they are best content’d; for on the days they worked they were good-natur’d and cheerful, and, with the consciousness of having done a good day’s work, they spent the evening jollily; but on our idle days they were mutinous and quarrelsome, finding fault with their pork, the bread, etc., and in continual ill-humour.

On observing that polite conversation does not mean agreement:

The conversation at first consisted of mutual declarations of disposition to reasonable accommodations, but I suppose each party had its own ideas of what should be meant by reasonable

He mentions he met with David Hume (I seem to have a like for 18th century). He also mentions Richardson’s Pamela (the one that triggered Henry Fielding’s Shamela). I suspect he was part of a group that were really well educated (e.g. he mentions that he can’t remember a time when he could not read, he figured out early that Plutarch’s Lives is more interesting than his dad’s religious controversies etc.). E.g. his public negotiation approaches remind me of the advice Plutarch’s dad to use “we” rather than “I” and give credit to his partner.

It’s interesting to see his business skills and knowledge in contract writing. There are parallels between the issues of the time when large parts of Pennsylvania were owned by proprietors unwilling to pay tax (e.g. for defending it) and current questions of tax fairness on both sides of the Atlantic. There are parallels on the issue of making money via lucrative governmental contracts then and now.

I did not investigate though his racial prejudices (would not be surprised to be disappointed).

  • 2025-08-24: Benjamin Graham, Charles McGolrick: The Interpretation of Financial Statements 1955
    Reread
  • 2025-08-21: Felix Klein: Elementary Mathematics From an Advanced Standpoint 1945 English translation of 1924 work
    Difficult for me, eventually skipped parts that were too hard, but many interesting ideas under the complexity of the text. Interesting to see how maths can be approached as a historical discovery process or as a isolated, yet polished theory. Although I skipped most of the quaternions, the beginning was quite interesting on e.g. the choices to be made, giving up on multiplication commutativity. The idea of having geometrical representations as a mean of learning and understanding, for functions and equations with complex arguments. Gauss might be worth a read. The problems with log being defined as inverse of exponentiation and how using complex functions eventually provides insights. I should read more about convergence of Taylor series.
  • 2025-08-17: Henry Fielding:Shamela
    Very funny.
  • 2025-08-15: Antoine de Saint-Exupéry: Le Petit Prince
    Ambiguous in meaning to the point of boring. As a grown up I had the endurance to keep going. As a child I have up due to the randomness of nonsense. The best of the book is the dedication. Read in French. Good for refreshing my French.
  • 2025-08-13: Jonathan P. Berkley: The Formation of Islam - Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800
    Interesting. An example is that literature about a period reflects the issues of the period when it was written, not necessarily of the period that it describes
  • 2025-08-09: Harper Lee: To Kill A Mockingbird
    Euch. Did not enjoy it. I had to keep on remembering that it’s fiction, despite it trying to depict race mentalities of a period. The child character Scout has way to many insights for a child. Also Atticus is portrayed as part of a heroic group, but there is the double standard where the black Tom Robinson is brought to trial, but the white Boo is not.
  • Paul Freedman: The Early Middle Ages, 284–1000
    Not a book, but video lectures from Open Yale Courses on the fall of the Roman Empire, the raise of Christianism and Islam and the “Dark Ages” (that were not that dark, but different). It looks like that’s not his specialist area, but he’s a really good historian and teacher. It turns out that heresies are what the winners call religious controversies, mysticism and thuggery go hand in hand and Merovingians make good can names.
  • 2025-04-20: Arthur Schopenhauer: The Art of Always Being Right
    When I previously encountered examples of informal fallacies, I found them difficult to internalize. This ironic (pamflet/short book) by Arthur Schopenhauer is written in a style that I found much easier to remember and apply: the subversive one.
  • 2025-02-01: Alfred Tarski: The Semantic Conception of Truth (Mar 1944)
    Disappointed because I had unrealistic expectations. Tarski focuses on a meaning of truth that is designed for the meta-mathematics and assumes that that’s it. Did he read Hume?