What are some non-science books every scientist and engineer should read? Pic related

gen.lib.rus.ec/

The Complete Works of Plato. Everything around you is built off this guy's ideas.

bump

Sounds shady bro

Being well studied in philosophy certainly makes every other discipline easier to learn.

you just love cock, that's it
plato sucks because you won't even be able to provide a good example to your words, you were just indoctrinated to repeat that shit.

Sell me on this.
I'm an engineer and I already like the engineerguy YouTube page. Is it like that?

I think the experience of learning any discipline makes anything else easier to learn

literally everything in the western world from christianity to politics to science owes ideas to him either as a direct adoption of his ideas or as a reaction to them. do read some of his dialogues first before shitting on him

Its old, Russian and legit. Exactly like my drugdealer.

you may only repeat this mantra, I dared you and not a single example as I told. Was it him who invented hermaphrodite in his symposium? Nope, youtube.com/watch?v=6LmWbxmRojk
All his dialogues are lacking logic and modern humanities do follow him about it, and that's why they're cancer (and christianity is one of the most malicious forms of it of course)

Not the guy you're talking to but consider this, my ESL friend: just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you should be ignorant of its principles and finer details. In fact, that's all the more reason to familiarize yourself with what's you're against. Everyone should read Plato because he's one of the founding philosophers of western civilization. And if you happen to find faults in his reasoning, then you have valid, demonstrable reason to doubt the things that are based on his teachings. In fact, you yourself asked for examples. How could he cite something he's never read?

tl;dr literally retarded foreigner, family

> that's all the more reason to familiarize yourself with what's you're against.
Could you demonstrate the_logic to why should I dig deeper in something I consider shit by giving it a try, alas. Whenever I approached him afterwords I saw something like "- it is so, isn't it - oh yes, dear sir, you're absolutely right - thus..blablabla" which didn't directly follow the previous thing considered to be "absolutely right" and it not necessarily was so by the way.

Why should I read the faggot who burnt books of Demokritos (Diogenes Laërtius brings two witnesses to that intention of Plato) - and I consider his student Aristotle appropriated invention of logic (from Democritus or somebody else - those platonists' fires rid us of many of those - not even a book from Pythagoras) - or maybe Aristotle was only assigned to be the inventor of something usefull from a school platonists opposed. What makes me think so? Lack of logic in his own works, of course.

>How to Win Friends and Influence People by dale carnegie.

I read this book when I was 18 and it's literally the blueprint for all self-help books. Maybe you're a person who isn't exposed to social settings and how to basically function as human, then yea read this book, otherwise keep it moving.

Because it's important not to take things on faith. If you have the opportunity to at least get a synopsis of the man's work, you can shit on him properly.

Just saying "I consider Aristotle to be this" or "maybe Aristotle's that" and then citing the lack of logic in Plato's works and then arguing against reading them sounds completely retarded and a good way to build a world view around confirmation bias. "Well, this agrees with me and it's against that so I'll say that's bad without even looking at it."

notice, that you still didn't give an example of what you claimed. Is it what he taught you? Sophisticating dialectics to troll opponent by pretending to be a fool?
So let me bring you an example of Aristole: the first book I put my shovel on is A TREATISE ON GOVERNMENT and it has Tautology_(logic) in its first paragraph. Should I bring you some of plato's shit now? well I brought you his symposium and not a single wise thing is in there, only shit.

Example of what I claimed?

You do realize that I'm not the guy who said "plato invented life", right? I even said I wasn't. Just said that you shouldn't dismiss something you know nothing about.

ESL kids pls go

if
>Everything around you is built off this guy's ideas.
is not your claim, you brought another one:
> he's one of the founding philosophers of western civilization
Well, that's a little different claim, some certain part of western civilization is pile of maggots, why should I get familiar with their mother you fag?

Maybe. So you can at least have credence to be able to claim that certain parts of western philosophy were founded by piles of trash.

Anthologies exist, you know.

ESL pls go

>ESL pls go
I'm sorry for your butthurt, I didn't mean to offend you, I don't mind homosexuals (their wanting me makes me understand women better) youtube.com/watch?v=TlO4FWrVE2I
But you should realize what official education does to us: people know who's the best of the best, but never can tell why it is so (and it's not as if they just really like what he said for no reason realized, it's because they were told that it is so hands down)

So you agree with me? You should try to always understand both those you agree and disagree with? Therefore reading Plato makes sense.

Are you Slavic? Both your incompetence and peculiar writing style seems to suggest that you are some Ukranian/Russian cuck teenager.

Eating shit to be sure it is shit makes perfect sense, darling. I am slavik scum, that's right (though it is not my real name)
Try to understand, even brainwashing works worse down here. Not enough culture, I guess.

The Bible.

Specious argument. Shit is physical and your repulsion is instinctual. But koala babies eat their mothers' shit to survive. So it's all relative even then. So yes, to determine knowledge is garbage, you need to at least lick it metaphorically. Because there's no instinct there. If there were, we wouldn't need to explain why the flat earth model is just purely contrarian. But even then, good to know what those folks believe before lambasting them.

That's what you get for being Slavic, Vasya.

>peculiar writing style
>peculiar

It's clear with me, the question is why do YOU recommend it to read. I guess because you were fed with that crap, now you want to stay sure that it's alright and the shit is relative because you had to eat it anyway because you are ought to or something like this. All you have to do is to demonstrate the jewel or you're just a jew'lick (a crook in slavictaal)

No personal reason. Just read shit to make sure it's halal or to make sure it's haram if you're gonna insist on labeling it as either/or.

this is a tough question

i don't know if i have any must-read books in mind. everything i like is a preference thing, and my preferences skew in a very specific direction.

So what's your verdict and why. Did it teach you something? It looks like it only taught you to carry utter bullshit but perkily, which explais politics really

this desu

pls
Bullshit? You seem to think that you should only read things that you somehow know to be worthwhile a priori. That's not just bullshit, that's dangerous.

queue fedoras

>a priori
not so. if author cannot in logic it shows on the first page (if not the hype, I wouldn't bother to read a single thing through)

thanks bro

The Bible, Jesus H. Christ
Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis
Everlasting Man, G.K. Chesterton
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pope John Paul II The Great
Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating
A History of Christendom, Warren H. Carroll
Confessions, St. Augustine
City of God, St. Augustine
Heretics, G.K. Chesterton
Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton
Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas
The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott
The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration; Bruce M. Metzger
The Canon of Scripture, F. F. Bruce
The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions, Bruce M. Metzger
On the Reliability of the Old Testament, K. A. Kitchen

>with love,

goddamn its the christfag again. i admire your dedication to shitposting. everywhere from Veeky Forums to Veeky Forums to now Veeky Forums

>the christfag
>the

You really think there's one christian on this whole site?

ofc theres more than one but i know that there's one really dedicated christian shitposter

>goddamn

Why so upset?

>shitposting

That list is fine for what it is. Shit posting would be a list like:

Webster's Dictionary
Facebook For Idiots
The Phone Book
Fedora Men's Monthly
Green Eggs and Ham
Shakespeare SparkNotes
Schaum Outline of Arithmetic
13

Oh man, you remember that guy who'd fuck up anal threads in /s/ and /gif/ with talk about how anal sex was horrible for women? That guy was something else. Haven't seen him for a few years, hope he's well. He was dubbed "The Anal Avenger".

This, not even joking. Veeky Forums can fuck off.

*cue

THE BIBLE is literally the only book you need. This 'science' bullshit is for fedora fagtheists.

>How to Win Friends and Influence People by dale carnegie.
>spend thousands of dollars and weekends sucking up to everyone
Its good advice, if you're a millionaire.

...

Fountainhead is her only decent book, avoid Atlas Shrugged, its boring and shit.

Stop gaying up my thread.

Not at all, the author is an engineer but talks about the psychology behind what makes objects frustrating or pleasurable to use. Most of it is common sense stuff codified into a quick 300 page read.

>Ayn Rand

Kek

That dude had sources tho

...

teaches what school had to teach us.
1irst chapter gave comprehensible (and obvious) proof of Pythagoras's theorem.
2econd chapter explained the fundamental difference between euclidian and lobachevskian
and I'm afraid to go on, my whole world restructures, too much information. There're 15 more chapters, and I already consider it money well spent.

Good thing he posted Fountainhead and not Atlas Shrugged.

> tfw the only way you can attack libertarians who value freedom is call them edgy 14 year olds

What if I'm a libertarian who still thinks Ayn Rand is exclusively for edgy 14 year olds?

Bump

Has nothing to do with being libertarian or not. There have been decent Libertarian writers, economists, and philosophers. Ayn rand is not a good writer (her prose is indefensible), economist, or philosopher. You can like her ideas, but pretending she's an interesting or original thinker is like leftist who base their worldview entirely on Noam Chomsky, and not any other socialist/anarchist/marxist thinkers, but at least he's a better writer.

K checking it

>how to justify being selfish
TOP KEK

*slowly slides my fedora over my eyes*
Using a type of hat as a derogatory term describing people who aren't retarded enough to believe in a book written ~1600 years ago incorporating stories from ~1900 years ago specifically pieced together to influence the peasant populace of the time.

Please don't post on sci again. Go to /b for shit posting unrelated things.

No, he is definitely shitposting.

The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis.

Vom Kriege

underage b&

>in a book written ~1600 years ago
>stories from ~1900 years ago

Truly, the fact that you still believe the myth that Constantine wrote the whole bible speaks volumes about your euphoric intellect.

>influence the peasant populace

Oh wow, you discovered the Noble Lie concept. You are like so smart and amazing for believing in a concept from a book written ~ 2400 years ago incorporating made up stories involving a person that didn't even exist specifically pieced together to influence the peasant populace of the time. I wish I could be just like you since you're so much better than those other sheeple.

>posting unrelated things

OP clearly said "What are some non-science books" and he posted some non-science books. You should practice your reading comprehension.

Will this book help me if I have not very good understanding of social interaction?

Does anyone know of any peer-reviewed studies about the effectiveness of self-help books? Any anecdotal evidence would also be very helpful.

Just because he posted a list of books you don't like doesn't make it shitposting.

> you need 20 books to understand Christianity
nah, he's knowingly contributing low-quality material.

Not the guy who posted that but i think people do need to read some things about christianity, if else to understand this cancer of a society we have created. The most dangerous aspects of christianity are very subtle.

Not me

>if else to understand this cancer of a society we have created. The most dangerous aspects of christianity are very subtle.

t. ackmed muhammad

>1irst chapter gave comprehensible (and obvious) proof of Pythagoras's theorem.

Do you really need a chapter on the Pythagorean theorem? I drew up an elegant visual proof that I like and attached it to this post. If you stare at it for a few moments it's easy to convince yourself of the theorem.

Something tells me that this "obvious proof" glosses over an important and astounding thing mathematicians learned about geometry over the past 150 years, as even my figure does. The "obvious" statement that parallel lines in a plane never intersect, a foundation of the Pythagorean theorem so "obvious" most people don't think about it, is actually not so obvious, and is in actuality an independent assumption about the nature of space. So called non-euclidean geometries where the behavior of parallel lines is modified exist, specifically elliptic and hyperbolic geometries. That's way more interesting than the PT because is opens the door to more interesting geometries, such as the metrics that describe spacetime in the Einstein Field Equations of General Relativity.

I would be delighted to know if I am wrong about this hunch.

Anyway, my contribution is:

The Making of the Atomic Bomb, by Richard Rhodes.

In a similar vein is the Right Stuff. Completely different is Flatland.

Oops, attached book cover instead of proof. Here it is.

Oh jesus Chomsky. Each time I see someone attacking neoliberalism and quoting chomsky I cringe.

you are a sperg

tractatus logico-philosophicus by ludwig wittgenstein. massively clarified how i view the world

That's the proof that book gave me, and in the school they fed us picrelated, and then it went on to the difference between euclidian and lobachevskian in the same chapter (the theorem doesn't work on a globe: see meridiani meeting at 90degrees at the pole. they make 90degrees with the equator either.
The second chapter is about logarhythms.

>in the school they fed us picrelated
telling meaningless "pythagoras's pants are equal all the ways" giving an obvious dissonansus cognitivus so they were sure we left the point and the interest to this elite field, obedient workers do not need the distractions like that I guess.

Hegel?, it's 2016 brah

The world is everything that is the case.

fuck off positivist.