|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Wird oft zusammen gekauft
Produktinformation
|
Mehr über die Autoren
Entdecken Sie Bücher, lesen Sie über Autoren und mehr
Produktbeschreibungen
Kurzbeschreibung
"Eats, Shoots and Leaves" meets 'Meet the Press' in this hilarious follow-up to the "New York Times" bestselling book "Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar"...Politics is the Shangri-La of comedy. Tom Cathcart and Daniel Klein are in top form in this rollicking - and revealing - analysis of political doublespeak, flimflam and the alternate realities that exist only in the minds of our modern Machiavelli's. With humour as well as an insight or two from Aristotle and his peers, our two favourite philosopher comedians parse the language of our elected (and court-appointed) officials. Who else could analyze Bill Clinton's famous, 'It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is?'?In this endlessly entertaining romp through popular pronouncements, readers learn to unravel the circuitous claptrap of politicos ranging from Caesar to Condoleezza Rice, Genghis Khan to Al Sharpton. They'll learn to identify tricks such as the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (Non Causa Pro Causa) and the Fallacy Fallacy or Argumentum ad Logicam (because while it's best to actually understand what the president is trying to say, knowing the Latin name it for it comes a close second).
Synopsis
"Eats, Shoots and Leaves" meets 'Meet the Press' in this hilarious follow-up to the "New York Times" bestselling book "Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar"...Politics is the Shangri-La of comedy. Tom Cathcart and Daniel Klein are in top form in this rollicking - and revealing - analysis of political doublespeak, flimflam and the alternate realities that exist only in the minds of our modern Machiavelli's. With humour as well as an insight or two from Aristotle and his peers, our two favourite philosopher comedians parse the language of our elected (and court-appointed) officials. Who else could analyze Bill Clinton's famous, 'It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is?'?In this endlessly entertaining romp through popular pronouncements, readers learn to unravel the circuitous claptrap of politicos ranging from Caesar to Condoleezza Rice, Genghis Khan to Al Sharpton. They'll learn to identify tricks such as the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy (Non Causa Pro Causa) and the Fallacy Fallacy or Argumentum ad Logicam (because while it's best to actually understand what the president is trying to say, knowing the Latin name it for it comes a close second).
Welche anderen Artikel kaufen Kunden, nachdem sie diesen Artikel angesehen haben?
Vorgeschlagene Tags zu ähnlichen Produkten(Was ist das?)Setzen Sie den ersten relevanten Tag hinzu (ein Schlüsselwort, das mit diesem Produkt in engem Zusammenhang steht).
|
Eine digitale Version dieses Buchs im Kindle-Shop verkaufen
Wenn Sie ein Verleger oder Autor sind und die digitalen Rechte an einem Buch haben, können Sie die digitale Version des Buchs in unserem Kindle-Shop verkaufen.
Weitere Informationen
Kundenrezensionen
Es gibt noch keine Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.de
5 Sterne
4 Sterne
3 Sterne
2 Sterne
1 Sterne
Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen auf Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
45 Rezensionen
36 von 42 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Nothing you haven't read already somewhere else.
11. April 2008
Format:Gebundene Ausgabe
I purchased this book concurrently with the duo's previous book - Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes. That one was as advertised - providing a gentle introduction (or perhaps re-introduction) to, say, the iedas of Rudolf Carnap in a well-written and often humorous-enough way.
This book ("Aristotle and an Aardvark") attempts to do the same for "political doublespeak" Unfortunately, it falls flat and seems dated already, quite soon after its original publication. Even though this book shares the same basic format as the previous one, this one suffers from three fundamental flaws:
1. If you're a likely reader of this book, you will already likely have encountered the vast majority of examples of quotes in your regular internet browsing over the last few years. The specifics of Kant or Schopenhauer illuminated in the previous book required at least a philosophy major's background knowlege of philosophy. The "research" for the factual content of this book could more or less be summed up from skimming CNN and watching the Daily Show.
2. I'm left-of-lenin liberal, but reading a book teeming with wink-wink ad hominems about George W Bush and co seems dated and gratuitous. I was expecting something more timeless, along the lines of the Philosophy book. Instead, we get jocular Tom Delay bashing.
3. The "theoretical" content of this book (which, by the way, would probably be more accurately called "... through theory and jokes", though that sounds rather unsaleable) is weak. It's largely an abridged list of standard logical fallacies. Unlike Wittenstein, this tends to be something that the target audience already knows. As such, the theoretical framework largely exists to make yet more George Bush jokes, interspersed with a slag on, say, Ray Nagin for balance or something.
On the plus side, the cartoons and unrelated jokes are good. There's probably something there you can work into a talk or lecture if you're an academic.
Overall, I expected something much more enlightened, witty, and intelligent.
In case it's not clear already: read the authors' other book, and probably give this one a miss.
This book ("Aristotle and an Aardvark") attempts to do the same for "political doublespeak" Unfortunately, it falls flat and seems dated already, quite soon after its original publication. Even though this book shares the same basic format as the previous one, this one suffers from three fundamental flaws:
1. If you're a likely reader of this book, you will already likely have encountered the vast majority of examples of quotes in your regular internet browsing over the last few years. The specifics of Kant or Schopenhauer illuminated in the previous book required at least a philosophy major's background knowlege of philosophy. The "research" for the factual content of this book could more or less be summed up from skimming CNN and watching the Daily Show.
2. I'm left-of-lenin liberal, but reading a book teeming with wink-wink ad hominems about George W Bush and co seems dated and gratuitous. I was expecting something more timeless, along the lines of the Philosophy book. Instead, we get jocular Tom Delay bashing.
3. The "theoretical" content of this book (which, by the way, would probably be more accurately called "... through theory and jokes", though that sounds rather unsaleable) is weak. It's largely an abridged list of standard logical fallacies. Unlike Wittenstein, this tends to be something that the target audience already knows. As such, the theoretical framework largely exists to make yet more George Bush jokes, interspersed with a slag on, say, Ray Nagin for balance or something.
On the plus side, the cartoons and unrelated jokes are good. There's probably something there you can work into a talk or lecture if you're an academic.
Overall, I expected something much more enlightened, witty, and intelligent.
In case it's not clear already: read the authors' other book, and probably give this one a miss.
32 von 40 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Logical Fallacies 101 - Through Politics
11. Januar 2008
Format:Gebundene Ausgabe|Von Amazon bestätigter Kauf
A hilarious collection of political quotes, exposing logical fallacies (better known as bulls**t) of the quoters - by the authors of the best seller "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar" - a similar treatise on philosophy.
Some are just white lies: President Reagan's aide Michael Deaver was asked how the President had reacted to Congress's authorization of the sale of planes to Saudi Arabia. Deaver quickly said, "The President said, "Thank God." Actually, the President had said, "I feel like I've just crapped a pineapple."
But some are blatantly transparent: "It's a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't know that I'd call that a failure." - Homeland Security Advisor Townsend on why bin Laden had not yet been captured.
Some involve shooting the arrow at a barn, then drawing the bulls-eye around wherever the arrow landed: The wednesday after 9/11, Rumsfeld complained there were no decent targets for bombing in Afganistan and we should consider bombing Iraq, which had better targets.
Special sections for all occasions, such as how a politician can avoid apologizing: "Mistakes were made" - Nixon about Watergate, Alberto Gonzales about his attorney-generalship. For those who can't resist puzzles, a pop quiz is provided at the end - you get to match various quotes with their corresponding logical fallacies.
Text is quick to read, hard to put down, and completely entertaining - the book leaves you wanting more. There are 22 excellent all-purpose political cartoons, mostly from "New Yorker" magazine. The authors mix in some great jokes when needed to further illustrate a point. As Will Rogers said, "There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you."
Some are just white lies: President Reagan's aide Michael Deaver was asked how the President had reacted to Congress's authorization of the sale of planes to Saudi Arabia. Deaver quickly said, "The President said, "Thank God." Actually, the President had said, "I feel like I've just crapped a pineapple."
But some are blatantly transparent: "It's a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't know that I'd call that a failure." - Homeland Security Advisor Townsend on why bin Laden had not yet been captured.
Some involve shooting the arrow at a barn, then drawing the bulls-eye around wherever the arrow landed: The wednesday after 9/11, Rumsfeld complained there were no decent targets for bombing in Afganistan and we should consider bombing Iraq, which had better targets.
Special sections for all occasions, such as how a politician can avoid apologizing: "Mistakes were made" - Nixon about Watergate, Alberto Gonzales about his attorney-generalship. For those who can't resist puzzles, a pop quiz is provided at the end - you get to match various quotes with their corresponding logical fallacies.
Text is quick to read, hard to put down, and completely entertaining - the book leaves you wanting more. There are 22 excellent all-purpose political cartoons, mostly from "New Yorker" magazine. The authors mix in some great jokes when needed to further illustrate a point. As Will Rogers said, "There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you."
13 von 15 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich
Funny, but with bias
12. März 2008
Format:Gebundene Ausgabe
I read Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington after reading Cathcart and Klein's first book, Plato and a Platypus Walk Into a Bar. Unfortunately, I did not find this one nearing as entertaining.
Foremost, it must be said that repetition of the same jokes over and over again became quite tiring. There was also nothing really new and innovative about the humor; most of the jokes about politics and politicians have been told before. Contrast this with Plato and a Platypus, where the humor was fresh and the punch-lines worth repeating.
As some of the previous readers have mentioned, there was a clear bias towards the Left. While the Republicans have been in power for the first six years of this decade and thus can provide more comedic fodder, I was still expecting a bit fairer treatment by Cathcart and Klein. But then again, I should have expected as much when Markos Moulitsas, founder of DailyKos, praises the book on its back cover.
Even still, it is an interesting read and you will learn how to identify the double-speak and fallacious reasoning so often employed by politicians. My personal recommendation: check-out this book from your local library. You'll learn a few things, and still have the $12.89.
Foremost, it must be said that repetition of the same jokes over and over again became quite tiring. There was also nothing really new and innovative about the humor; most of the jokes about politics and politicians have been told before. Contrast this with Plato and a Platypus, where the humor was fresh and the punch-lines worth repeating.
As some of the previous readers have mentioned, there was a clear bias towards the Left. While the Republicans have been in power for the first six years of this decade and thus can provide more comedic fodder, I was still expecting a bit fairer treatment by Cathcart and Klein. But then again, I should have expected as much when Markos Moulitsas, founder of DailyKos, praises the book on its back cover.
Even still, it is an interesting read and you will learn how to identify the double-speak and fallacious reasoning so often employed by politicians. My personal recommendation: check-out this book from your local library. You'll learn a few things, and still have the $12.89.
Waren diese Rezensionen hilfreich?
Wir wollen von Ihnen hören.
Kunden diskutieren
|
Das Forum zu diesem Produkt
Fragen stellen, Meinungen austauschen, Einblicke gewinnen Aktive Diskussionen in ähnlichen Foren
Kundendiskussionen durchsuchen
|
Ähnliche Foren
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lieblingslisten
|
|
Ähnliche Artikel finden
Anhand des Sachgebietes nach ähnlichen Produkten suchen:
Ihr Kommentar
Möchten Sie die Produktinformationen aktualisieren oder Feedback zu den Produktabbildungen geben?
|
