Current reading
I’ve been sick for a week running, so not accomplishing much at the moment.
I am managing to get a little bit of reading in, though, so that’s nice. Here are the books I’m focusing on at present:
- Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. I’m about 2/3 of the way through this one. Novak is a bit of a softcore capitalist, in the sense that he doesn’t seem to bat an eye regarding trade unions and quite a bit of other stuff. At any rate, some of his most valuable contributions have to do with his discussions regarding the nature of “self-interest.” Socialists translate “self-interest” in capitalism as “greed,” but Novak notes that for most people (at least in a society with social and moral bearings), “self-interest” is generally far more communitarian: concern for welfare of one’s family, for starters, and on into broader concerns for other various community circles such as church. Worthwhile.
- Greg Bahnsen, Homosexuality: A Biblical View. I’m about halfway through this one. Like (1), this is a book I’ve owned for quite a while, but have never read before. I haven’t shared Bahnsen’s theonomic presuppositions for pretty much a decade, and some factors in his presentation are slightly off-putting, but there’s no question that he was able to reason clearly, and his handling of the biblical texts is solid. As expected from someone trained in apologetics, the argumentation is top notch. Someday I plan on working through Robert Gagnon’s definitive/comprehensive stuff, but this is a good brief intro to the subject.
- Thomas Woods, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. This just arrived a couple days ago. Just started it last night and got about 1/3 of the way through – very engaging, well-written, and not difficult to read. Woods is a Catholic historian with a strong economics bent (or is it the other way around?); I’ve got a few other books on the way also written by him. This one is a fascinating plow-through of a number of events in American history that are widely misunderstood due to basic ignorance or misleadingly selective reportage of the past. A good debunker for those who don’t understand the nature of the American constitutional system, for those who think of Lincoln as a heroic president, and a whole lot more.
In the past week or so, I’ve also finally got to a couple of “classic” movies I’ve often seen raved about: Amadeus and The Phantom of the Opera.
I found the storytelling viewpoint of Amadeus to be intriguing, told as it is by one of Mozart’s rivals, but honestly the movie on the whole didn’t really feel all that “filling” for me. I really didn’t learn much about Mozart… I guess that wasn’t the point.
The Phantom… well, it is what it is. I enjoyed it well enough; the singing was superb, and the heroine isn’t hard to look at. It’s an odd story that can best be appreciated for things other than plot. I suppose that’s the nature of a musical.
All in all, I thought both movies were worth watching and I’ll likely view them again at some point, but neither come anywhere close to my favourites lists.