Post the last two books you finished and the books you're reading now

Post the last two books you finished and the books you're reading now.

Last two:
Collected works of Archimedes edited by T.L. Heath
The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money by John Maynard Keynes

Current:
On Conics by Apollonius of Perga, translated by Taliaferro
Principles of Economics by Carl Menger

After Principles, I'm going to read Fisher's Mathematical Investigations, which deals heavily with the theory of marginality.

I'll also probably start reading Rousseau's Social Contract soon at some point. Just because. I've already read Hobbes' Leviathan.

>The Great Gatsby
>No Longer Human

>Democracy: the God that Failed
>Kokoro

Last:
>Seven Japanese Tales by Jun'ichiro Tanizaki
>Bonjour Tristesse by Sagan

Current:
>Delta of Venus by Nin

I'll be reading A Certain Smile afterwards since it's included in my copy of Bonjour Tristesse.

Last two:
Theory of Festivity - Josef Pieper
Four Cardinal Virtues - Josef Pieper

Currently:
The Concept of Anxiety - lil' k

Next:
The rest of lil' k on the Hegel side

>crime and punishment
>a day in the life of Ivan Denisovich
Currently
>Typhoon (Conrad)
I want to read heart of darkness again but I can't find a good copy and I've been searching for any affordable copy of ride the tiger and revolt against the modern world

>2666 by Bolaño
>Casa de Campo by José Donoso

I just finished Casa de Campo so currently reading this thread. I really reccomend Casa de Campo to anyone interested in latin american boom and the whole socio/political situation of Chile around 1973

Will read some of these next, not sure which one yet:
>Paradiso by José Lezama Lima
>Rayuela by Cortázar
>The Name of the Rose by Eco
>Dubliners by Joyce
>Norwegian Wood by Murakami

I've been thinking about falling for the Gravity's Rainbow meme, what edition should I get?

Holy shit these books are dense works from what I understand. Which one of those is the hardest for you?
How was the heart of darkness? Good theme overall?

Heart of Darkness is among my favorite books and it keeps growing on me the more I think of it, the theme is almost on pat with Moby Dick

>Which one of those is the hardest for you?
Probably Joyce because the edition I have is in english, and my english doesnt seem to be good enough to read "literary" stuff, only shitposts on Veeky Forums

>brother killers by kazantzakis
>spirirus by kadare

Next:
Orchard Keeper by McCarthy
The Gods are Thirsty by Anatole France

>The Autobiography of Malcolm X by Alex Haley
>Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

Next:
>American Psycho by Brett Easton Ellis
>Revolutionary Suicide by Huey Newton

Curious of your thoughts on The General Theory. I read it last summer and took a class on it this past semester. One of the most conceptually difficult economics books I've read, but I found it very satisfying and feel that Keynes pretty strongly shook a lot of the assumptions of classical economics

>Keynes pretty strongly shook a lot of the assumptions of classical economics
Right. Keynes read a shitload of classical economics. It seemed he was onto something when he noticed that many classical economists were dancing around the fact that saving hurts the economy somehow without actually incorporating it into their models of the equilibrium of employment. This was the issue. While interest rate functioned on a perfectly fluid free market (he and Fisher shared this view), it seems he understood saving to consist in either repaying debts or investing. As a result, saving was not the same thing as investing. And yet, they had to be equal from different perspectives. I still have to review and summarize the book which is something I do after reading any sort of good book, but it seems Keynes understood saving to be either from the perspective of the individuals' aggregate income, and investment to be originating from the aggregate entrepreneurial income. While I believe his system to be incredibly well fleshed out, I think this is a hole in his theory somewhat which he tackles at some point in his book. I just need to re-read it. Essentially, it involves the adjustable equilibrium point of saving and investment. Saving is represented by the propensity to consume demand curve of the supply demand graph and investment is represented by the supply line, or income. So as the urge to consume decreases, under Keynesianism for the graph to be correct, the income has to decrease by a corresponding amount, but not in exact proportion, because the interest rate is going up obviously.

Tl;dr seems Keynes agreed with classical and neoclassical econōmists when it came to theories of interest but diverged widely when it came to overall effective demand, supply, and elasticities.

Last:
>Void by James Owen Weatherall
>Books : A Living History by Martyn Lyons

Current
>The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle
>After Babel by George Steiner
>Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco

>Bonjour Tristesse
>If you want to live on the French Riviera you must first invent the universe

>Das Judenthum in der Musik by Richard Wagner. Transalted to spanish, though
>Meditations, by Marcus Aurelius

You fuckers have meem'd me into reading the bible. I like the book of proverbs, though. Also, why my bible doesn't have the book of Revelation?

>Studies In Classic American Literature - Lawrence
>Conference of the Birds - Attar

Current
>The Divine Invasion - Dick
>Man & His Symbols - Jung

Hm, that's an interesting way to put it. What sources (if any?) did you reference while reading through The General Theory.

I agree with the bulk of what you wrote, but it seemed like Keynes' main innovation was the idea that Say's Law doesn't necessarily apply since individuals can choose to neither invest nor consume their income (i.e. by holding cash as determined by their liquidity preferences). This reduces the flow from Output --> Savings + Investment --> Output that is required to assume the economy will always reach full employment.

Additionally, it seemed like Keynes' stuff on how sticky prices/wages can prevent full employment is pretty obvious, but he also delved (not as much as he probably should have) into how an economy with flexible wages, flexible prices, and perfect competition could still fail to reach a full employment equilibrium. I also feel like Keynes contributed greatly to the idea that economics should be understood in a dynamic sense (given that we're at this point in time t, what happens if a variable in this world changes at time t+1) versus the commonly understood classical framework of classical economics (if we're at a point in time t, if we were in an alternate universe in which certain variables were different, what would the new equilibrium point be).

I hope this is somewhat coherent and doesn't sound like I'm talking out of my ass, I've met very few people who have actually read Keynes' book so it's interesting to discuss it with someone. It really is such an impressive piece of work.

I am a linguistics student, most books I read are about that

Last two:
Language Processing in Spanish, By Manuel Carreiras et al
Women, Fire, and Dangerous things by George Lakoff

Current:
The Golden Dawn By Israel Regardie ( for some reason it's in my library and I'm a sucker for books about magick)

The book of the subgenius by the church of the subgenius

No, you have a beautifully rendered understanding of his theories.

Keynes was of the school of thought that the interest rate just naturally goes up over time, accruing income to the top classes, so government has to intervene to redistribute earnings effectively. It's a beautiful theory, because money by its very nature is circuitous and ruinous to a society that worships it.

Interest continually moving up and down is an economic necessity, verified by the statistical derivations of Irving Fisher, but the postulation that interest naturally climbs up is a bold claim. I wish he had the statistical empirical tendencies of Irving Fisher to rigorously defend his claims with statistics. That's the one thing I wish.

Last:
Silence by Shusaku Endo
Current:
Norse Mythology by Neil Gaiman
Next:
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Phillip K. Dick
After:
The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell

Which translation do you have? The Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants all have different amounts of books on their Bibles.

Previous:
Musashi, The Idiot
Current:
The Divine Invasion

Last two:
The Forever War
Vineland

Current:
My Struggle 1

Next:
The world of sex (Miller)
Heart of darkness

Last two
>The Legacy of Totalitarianism in a Tundra by Anonymous
>On Certainty by Ludwig Wittgenstein

Current:
>Romance of the Three Kingdoms
>Starting point by Hayao Miyazaki
>Tractatus logico-philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstein

I will be reading Tractatus while at the Library and "Starting point" at home since it's too big to fit in my folder.

Next:
I have no idea.
Maybe "A moment in Peking" by Lin Yutang or something like that.

Last two I read were Catcher in the Rye and Dubliners

Currently reading The Double and Steppenwolf, after that I'm probably going to reread A Portrait

Last two
>The Machine Stops by E.M. Forster
>The Plot Against America by Philip Roth

Current
>We by Yevgeny Zamyatin
>Waking Up by Sam Harris

>Lolita
>The Iliad

>American Psycho
>The Odyssey

Last two

>Euripides last 9 tragedies
>Bibliotheca by Pseudo-Apollodorus

Current

>Classical Mythology by David Fernández de la Fuente
>Greek Myths 1 by Robert Graves

>Last two
Anthem - Ayn Rand
The Catcher in the Rye - Salinger
>Current
The Long Ships
The Black Swan

Last two:
>How to read Lacan
>Theodor Adorno: Routledge Critical Thinkers

Current:
>Hegel: A Very Short Introduction
>The Brothers Karamazov
>Western Ethics: An Historical Introduction
>Guy Debord by Anselm Jappe

Next:
>Wuthering Heights
>Rene Girard: an introduction
>The Revolt of The Masses

>How to read Lacan
>Hegel: A Very Short Introduction
>Rene Girard: an introduction
When do you start actually reading?