Michael Foley (1)

One of the worst books I have read in a long while. Very much in 'old man yells at cloud' territory as the author condemns contemporary cultural and sexual mores, and finds the youth lacking. Anecdotes and wild conjectures abound, he spends pages critiquing BDSM based on an article in the free London paper Metro - that wasn't about BDSM. He likes walking, so decides that clearly Jesus Christ would have been constantly moving around when delivering sermons. He cites widely, and from reputable sources (in psychology, Seligman, Csikszentmihalyi, Freud, Milgram...) but it's so shallow - these are the really obvious names that have reached popular awareness. And even then, where's the humanists, like Maslow and Rogers say?. If you don't know the terrain, it looks clever, but it's really a shallow examination of the field.… (more)

Bergsonism: "Life Lessons From Bergson" by Michael Foley Published September 12th 2013.
Me: Good afternoon Mr. Bergson.
 
Bergson: Good afternoon.
 
Me: I’ve always been fascinated by your concept of “time”.
 
Bergson: WHAT?
 
Me: Yes. I believe you call it “duration”.
 
Bergson: The concept of time isn't what everybody understands in their day to day life. For me it should be considered as “space”.
 
Me: As in a space-time continuum? By reading Mr Foyle’s book it seems that your concept of time is something like that. Is there a fundamental difference between “time” and “space” or are they interchangeable?
 
Bergson: The properties of “space” and “time” are different. What is the same are the properties of “space” and “duration”. Our common concept of time isn't accurate to apprehend the experience of time, hence the need for another concept and word. "Time", as we understand it, is a mix of the concept of space and the experience of time. As such it’s not a good concept, because it’s not accurate enough. "Duration", as I see it, is the concept of time purged from the concept of space, i.e., from what we think is time but in reality is only space.
 
Me: Does it mean that the “past” works as a “present” that is really not “present” anymore? How can we interpret the concept of “future”?
 
Bergson: The “future” is a “present” that is yet to materialize.
 
Me: Are you saying that future stuff only exists on the realm of possibilities that are waiting to exist? Is that it?
 
 
The rest of this "enlightened" dialogue can be found elsewhere.… (more)

Het duurde een tijdje voor ik dit boek naar waarde kon schatten. In het begin vond ik het een weliswaar goedgeschreven, maar toch vooral willekeurig samenraapsel van allerlei filosofische ideeen. Maar als je je laat meedrijven op de geweldige oneliners van Foley en niet te veel samenhang of Een Groot Idee zoekt, is dit een geweldig boek, dat het nodige tegengewicht biedt tegen alle hippe seth-godin-wisdom-of-the-crowds-het-nieuwe-werken-internet-of-things-boeken die je tegenwoordig gelezen moet hebben.… (more)

For someone who easily quotes Spinoza, Kierkegaard, Cicero, and a host of others, Foley shows a startlingly poor grasp of human nature and history. Human beings are no more lazy, vapid, irresponsible, or plain ol' stupid than we ever were. Nor did we ever fail to make elaborate excuses for our behavior.

One cannot measure the most refined (or thoughtful, or selfless) of another era against the least so of today. Yes, today's popular culture is idiotic. Every age's popular culture is idiotic, Mr. Foley.

I love a good rant, but this book just came off as cranky.… (more)