Judge a book by its cover?
article written by Heather.
Thanks to Nullifidian’s tumblelog for this link. The Zeitgeist movie is a piece of video linking religious myths to their sources in astrology. It’s mostly brilliant and thought-provoking.
Also, by way of a comment on Nullifidian’s recent very well-observed post about the different US and UK dust jackets on the same atheist books (somehow, I can’t even find a commenting facility any more), there must also be some mileage in the choice of font/typeface - serif in the UK, non-serif in the US.
I could start rambling on about what this suggests the jacket designers are implying about the books’ content- measured and authoritative classical philosophy in the UK serif book jackets; punchy no-nonsense debunking in the US sans serif.
Instead, I will just take off my conceptual hat to someone who actually reads serious philosophical works on public transport (i.e. Nullifidian) rather than listening to the same worn-out mp3 playlist ad infinitum and reading the free bus paper or escapist sci-fi pulp (i.e. me).
[tags]astrology, book, nullifidian, rationalist, zeitgeist, philosophy, society, raves, God Delusion[/tags]
Popularity: 23% [?]
Tags: astrology, book, God-Delusion, nullifidian, Philosophy, rationalist, Raves, Society, zeitgeist.
nullifidian
wrote:
One thing re Zeitgeist is that part 1 is a fairly decent criticism the idea of a singular biblical messiah. Parts 2 and 3, however, are more 11 September/military industrial complex conspiracy theory stuff, although I will say that there are number of interesting points made.
And, don’t get me wrong, I listen to MP3s at the same time, which just happens to drown out the mobile-babbling yuppies, whining kids and shout-at-your-deaf-seat-sharing-friend older people.
If you can’t find the commenting thing, it’s likely you’re looking at the tumblelog, which doesn’t have one.
This comment was written at June 17th, 2007 at 16:26,
Heather
wrote:
I only watched the section that was on your blog, plus read the guy’s comment - that said it was still in progress & he knew some was a bit dubious and was stripping those bits. So I sort of mentally excused the stuff I thought was spurious. I’m not sure if there’s more on the original site - though I’ll look now.
Sorry, to my embarrassment , I see now that there are comments. It’s been explained to me about clicking the actual post rather than just sreading the page that comes with the URL. D’oh, etc. I may get to grips with the complexity of modern tech eventually…
This comment was written at June 17th, 2007 at 17:17,