Onze site gebruikt cookies om diensten te leveren, prestaties te verbeteren, voor analyse en (indien je niet ingelogd bent) voor advertenties. Door LibraryThing te gebruiken erken je dat je onze Servicevoorwaarden en Privacybeleid gelezen en begrepen hebt. Je gebruik van de site en diensten is onderhevig aan dit beleid en deze voorwaarden.
Biography & Autobiography.
Literary Criticism.
Sociology.
Nonfiction.
HTML:New York Times bestselling author Chuck Klosterman asks questions that are profound in their simplicity: How certain are we about our understanding of gravity? How certain are we about our understanding of time? What will be the defining memory of rock music, five hundred years from today? How seriously should we view the content of our dreams? How seriously should we view the content of television? Are all sports destined for extinction? Is it possible that the greatest artist of our era is currently unknown (or—weirder still—widely known, but entirely disrespected)? Is it possible that we “overrate” democracy? And perhaps most disturbing, is it possible that we’ve reached the end of knowledge?
Klosterman visualizes the contemporary world as it will appear to those who'll perceive it as the distant past. Kinetically slingshotting through a broad spectrum of objective and subjective problems, But What If We’re Wrong? is built on interviews with a variety of creative thinkers—George Saunders, David Byrne, Jonathan Lethem, Kathryn Schulz, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Junot Díaz, Amanda Petrusich, Ryan Adams, Nick Bostrom, Dan Carlin, and Richard Linklater, among others—interwoven with the type of high-wire humor and nontraditional analysis only Klosterman would dare to attempt. It’s a seemingly impossible achievement: a book about the things we cannot know, explained as if we did. It’s about how we live now, once “now” has become “then.”.… (meer)
The starting point of this book is absolutely interesting: let us imagine what people would think about our time in 500 or 1,000 years, assuming that there are still people, of course. Not a simple matter, of course, but there is a strong tendency to immediately conclude that what we now take for granted will turn out to be completely wrong, just as we now see that what was thought 500 or 1,000 years ago largely was wrong or at least not adequate. Klosterman illustrates this by asking, for example, who will be considered the greatest rock musician of the late 20th century: Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, the Beatles or Bob Dylan. He rightly points out that even after a few decades, the judgment about these people has shifted considerably, and probably will continue to change. In the literature and sports sector too, valuations can change very quickly, certainly in the much longer term. Until then, Klosterman is very entertaining and to the point, with often nice one-liners such as: "the future world will be fundamentally unlike our present world", or "history is defined by people who don't really understand what they are defining". But then he also starts venturing into the field of science, that of historical studies, but also in politics, and then things are going pretty wrong there. You can clearly feel that these are less familiar terrains for him and that he remains very shallow sometimes hits the ball completely wrong. Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, did not deny Newtonian physics, but just placed them in a broader context. And the tendency of historians to build more on factual data and on statistical material instead of telling stories may be problematic for understanding the past correctly, it is not necessarily a wrong way; provided that transparency and continuous addition and adjustment of the data are achieved, a gradual better understanding of the past is possible without losing sight of the narrative aspect. In short, Klosterman certainly raises pertinent issues, and he does so in a very entertaining way (sometimes with a somewhat American focus), but in fact he does not go beyond opening open doors: the future is uncertain, our insights and valuations are shifting constantly, so we better assume that we are wrong. Then I think: so what? ( )
Informatie afkomstig uit de Engelse Algemene Kennis.Bewerk om naar jouw taal over te brengen.
If what I say now seems to you to be very reasonable, then I'll have failed completely. —Arthur C. Clarke, speaking in the year 1964, attempting to explain what the world might be like in the year 2000
Opdracht
Informatie afkomstig uit de Engelse Algemene Kennis.Bewerk om naar jouw taal over te brengen.
For Silas and Hope
Eerste woorden
Informatie afkomstig uit de Engelse Algemene Kennis.Bewerk om naar jouw taal over te brengen.
I've spent most of my life being wrong.
Citaten
Laatste woorden
Informatie afkomstig uit de Engelse Algemene Kennis.Bewerk om naar jouw taal over te brengen.
I'm ready for a new tomorrow, but only if it's pretty much like yesterday.
Biography & Autobiography.
Literary Criticism.
Sociology.
Nonfiction.
HTML:New York Times bestselling author Chuck Klosterman asks questions that are profound in their simplicity: How certain are we about our understanding of gravity? How certain are we about our understanding of time? What will be the defining memory of rock music, five hundred years from today? How seriously should we view the content of our dreams? How seriously should we view the content of television? Are all sports destined for extinction? Is it possible that the greatest artist of our era is currently unknown (or—weirder still—widely known, but entirely disrespected)? Is it possible that we “overrate” democracy? And perhaps most disturbing, is it possible that we’ve reached the end of knowledge?
Klosterman visualizes the contemporary world as it will appear to those who'll perceive it as the distant past. Kinetically slingshotting through a broad spectrum of objective and subjective problems, But What If We’re Wrong? is built on interviews with a variety of creative thinkers—George Saunders, David Byrne, Jonathan Lethem, Kathryn Schulz, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Junot Díaz, Amanda Petrusich, Ryan Adams, Nick Bostrom, Dan Carlin, and Richard Linklater, among others—interwoven with the type of high-wire humor and nontraditional analysis only Klosterman would dare to attempt. It’s a seemingly impossible achievement: a book about the things we cannot know, explained as if we did. It’s about how we live now, once “now” has become “then.”.
Google Books — Bezig met laden...
(3.54)
4
Klosterman illustrates this by asking, for example, who will be considered the greatest rock musician of the late 20th century: Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, the Beatles or Bob Dylan. He rightly points out that even after a few decades, the judgment about these people has shifted considerably, and probably will continue to change. In the literature and sports sector too, valuations can change very quickly, certainly in the much longer term. Until then, Klosterman is very entertaining and to the point, with often nice one-liners such as: "the future world will be fundamentally unlike our present world", or "history is defined by people who don't really understand what they are defining".
But then he also starts venturing into the field of science, that of historical studies, but also in politics, and then things are going pretty wrong there. You can clearly feel that these are less familiar terrains for him and that he remains very shallow sometimes hits the ball completely wrong. Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, did not deny Newtonian physics, but just placed them in a broader context. And the tendency of historians to build more on factual data and on statistical material instead of telling stories may be problematic for understanding the past correctly, it is not necessarily a wrong way; provided that transparency and continuous addition and adjustment of the data are achieved, a gradual better understanding of the past is possible without losing sight of the narrative aspect.
In short, Klosterman certainly raises pertinent issues, and he does so in a very entertaining way (sometimes with a somewhat American focus), but in fact he does not go beyond opening open doors: the future is uncertain, our insights and valuations are shifting constantly, so we better assume that we are wrong. Then I think: so what? (