Dangerous Ideas

Wonkette, Brad Delong, Sean Carroll, and much of the rest of the liberal blogosphere has been mixing outrage and amusement at Human Events Online's list of the Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th centuries.
The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels
Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler
Quotations from Chairman Mao, Mao Zedong
The Kinsey Report, Alfred Kinsey
Democracy and Education, John Dewey
Das Kapital, Karl Marx
The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan
The Course of Positive Philosophy, August Comte
Beyond Good and Evil, Friedrich Nietzsche
General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, John Maynard Keynes
And, like every good list, some honorable mentions
The Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich
What Is To Be Done, V.I. Lenin
Authoritarian Personality, Theodor Adorno
On Liberty, John Stuart Mill
Beyond Freedom and Dignity, B.F. Skinner
Reflections on Violence, Georges Sorel
The Promise of American Life, Herbert Croly
Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin
Madness and Civilization, Michel Foucault
Soviet Communism: A New Civilization, Sidney and Beatrice Webb
Coming of Age in Samoa, Margaret Mead
Unsafe at Any Speed, Ralph Nader
Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir
Prison Notebooks, Antonio Gramsci
Silent Spring, Rachel Carson
Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon
Introduction to Psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud
The Greening of America, Charles Reich
The Limits to Growth, Club of Rome
Descent of Man, Charles Darwin
Much of the liberal commentary has focussed on what dumb shits conservatives insist on proving they are, but I'm not so sure. I'm a big believer in the power of the printed word. A book can do much more damage than a nuclear weapon. Now when you use the word "harmful," you invite the question "harmful to whom." A lot of us could probably agree that Hitler and Lenin did a lot of damage, but what about Kinsey and Betty Friedan or Auguste Compte for cripes sake?

As I said, I don't think these wingers are so crazy. If I were to pick the one book that did the most damage to the biblical Christian worldview, I'd go for Darwin for sure. As Daniel Dennet has pointed out in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, natural selection is a kind of "universal acid" eating through "just about every traditional concept."

Except for Hitler, Lenin, and a few other bomb throwers, most of the other books made the list because they offend somebody's prejudices and undermine someone's authority. Any important book is going to make some enemies. Physics and Astronomy did their damage in earlier centuries. Copernicus and Galileo shattered the medieval world view just as profoundly as Darwin did the 19th century's conventions. Marx and Freud may have been largely wrong, and I believe they were, but they also destroyed a lot of conventional nonsense.

So, inspired by the example of the conservatives I mock, I'd like to come up with a list of the ten most "dangerous*" books of all time. I will mention a few, but welcome nominations from readers (yeah, I know there are a *few* of you lurking out there - so how about a comment). My initial nominees: the Anabasis of Xenophon, The New Testament, The Koran, De Revolutionibus by Copernicus, The Origin of Species by Darwin. A separate list for those published in the las twenty years would also be nice. Nominations anyone?

* = important

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anti-Libertarian: re-post

The most pointed critique of social security and liberalism in general is the libertarian critique. The problem with libertarians, for a liberal, is that we have too much in common. We both believe in individual rights, tolerance of individual differences, and dislike government prescription of religion. The basic difference, it seems to me, is the different answers we give to Cain's (with thanks to the Captain - my original version had the corpse asking the question!) famous question: "Am I my brother's keeper?" That's not really my basic bitch against the libertarians though. My real complaint is the same as my complaint against most religion - its premise is a fraud. For those who can't stand to wait for the punchline, I believe that trying to implement libertarian principles leads to tyranny or social disintegration. Demonstrating that takes some historical (and pre-historical) context. For all but the last 15,000 or so of the 100,000 years the human spec...
Read more

Uneasy Lies The Head

Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown ........... Shakespeare Henry IV, Part II. So it is with us and our slightly distant primate cousins , so it seems. A 9-year study of wild baboons in Kenya by Princeton University and the Institute of Primate Research may turn conventional assumptions of alphas males upside down. The study found that alpha males have high testosterone levels, which allows them to dominate other baboons, get access to more food, and attract better mates. This is expected. Surprisingly, though, the alpha males also have high levels of stress hormone glucocorticoid, which scientists measured from their feces samples. In fact, the stress of alpha baboons was on par with low-ranking baboons. The convention wisdom is that access to food and females provides life security and thus less stress for dominant males. Conversely, weak males who are constantly threatened by starvation and physical violence from stronger males are thought to be more stressed. The st...
Read more

We Call it Soccer

The US played its best, and maybe only good game of World Cup, but lost thanks to brilliant goalkeeping by the Swedish keeper and the bizarre method soccer uses to settle ties when three US stars could not put the ball on frame from the 12 yard spot.  At the end it came down to a blocked shot that spun in by maybe a couple of centimeters. Well, that's football - too much like life.   Which brings me to a modest proposal.  Replace the thirty minute overtimes with as many 7-player 15 minute periods as needed to settle it.  Scoring should be much easier with fewer players.
Read more