2022 in Books
What I read this year
And here’s the list of books I read and listened to in 2022.
In no particular order:
Future Superhuman by Elise Bohan: a go-to case for transhumanism. Bohan argues that radical technological change is coming, will transform humanity, and could be good for us. My sense is that Bohan overstates her case, but is directionally correct. There is a much higher chance that the world will look completely different in the mid-century, let alone the end of the century than many people admit.
The Quest for Character by Massimo Pigliucci: in my opinion, his best book. A compelling account and examination of Socrates and Alcibiades with an eye to what is relevant to today.
Dune Messiah by Frank Herbert: many say that Dune gets worse as it goes on. For that reason, I hadn’t read this book. That impression is correct, but this book is more interesting than the Wikipedia summary suggests.
Nero by Anthony Everitt: Nero is likely one of the most unfairly maligned Julio Claudian emperors. This book does many things, but amongst others, makes the case for that claim. Nonetheless, he still wasn’t very good.
Like A Thief In Broad Daylight by Slavoj Zizek: I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It consists of essays on sex, democracy, identity politics, and more. Note that with much Zizek, there’s a lot one shouldn’t take seriously (Marxism).
Distant Star by Roberto Bolaño: reasonably good. It contains an intriguing villain who appears to function as a criticism of the Chilean left and right at once through writing poor poetry and committing cynical murder.
2666 by Roberto Bolaño: Brutal, deep, and long, with an excellent Brussels sprout recipe. Probably the best book I read this year.
The Founders by Jimmy Sonni: good explanation of the PayPal saga from Jimmy Sonni. This anecdote about Elon Musk stood out to me:
Sacrificed Imagined by Douglas Hedley: like Calasso and Girard I’m drawn to the claim that sacrifice somehow makes sense of all this. This book is another to add to the list. There are intriguing passages, but the intrigue, like with Calasso and Girard, is never closed.
The Soul of the World: reread. This is Roger Scruton’s best book, in my opinion. It presents a compelling non-scientific account of religion.
The Face of God, On Human Nature: reread. Both of these books are precursors to The Soul of The World. Neither are as good, but they are distinct and useful pairings.
Saving God by Mark Johnston: reread. There’s too much against the God of the Old Testament here. Yet Johnston’s defense of panentheism is still some of the best philosophy of religion today. Creative, ambitious, and serious.
The demand that you live a meaningful life is an inflated form of acquisitive desire and an ultimate reservation about how far you would go in modeling yourself on the kenotic self-abandonment that is God.
Leadership by Henry Kissinger: reasonable accounts of figures that Kissinger found admirable. Several of them really are, like Lee Kuan Yew. I may write more about this later.
Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and Their Decline by Charles de Montesquieu: unorganized set of essays. People that I respect say there are important Straussian readings of this and there are, but I wouldn’t recommend it.
The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama: probably one of the most unfairly maligned books. It has its faults, but if someone writes it off because the thesis has been “disproven”, you should downgrade your estimate of their epistemic abilities. Much can be made out of this distinction:
The desire to be recognized as superior to other people we will henceforth label with a new word with ancient Greek roots, megalothymia. Megalothymia can be manifest both in the tyrant who invades and enslaves a neighboring people so that they will recognize his authority, as well as in the concert pianist who wants to be recognized as the foremost interpreter of Beethoven. Its opposite is isothymia, the desire to be recognized as the equal of other people.
China in Ten Words by Hua Yu: entertaining, poignant, and pessimistic. See my short review here:
On China: reasonable account of China from Kissinger, even if it’s not really that detailed.
Tablet of Destinies by Roberto Calasso: recommended if you’re a Calasso fan, otherwise it’s just OK. Perhaps I’ll think differently after rereading it.
The Man Who Was Thursday by G. K. Chesterton: amazing book. I will reread it.
Zero to One by Peter Thiel and Blake Masters: reread. Should be understood as a business book and political manifesto.
A Short History of Modern Philosophy by Roger Scruton: reasonable and opinionated introduction.
Bonsai by Alejandro Zambra: short novella. It’s technically impressive. There’s a sense in which I didn’t really like it, but the beginning and end are brilliant. The beginning:
In the end she dies and he is alone, although really he had been alone for some years before her death.
That’s a start worthy of Albert Camus! Here’s how he began The Stranger:
My mother died today. Or maybe yesterday, I don't know.
Gender by Ivan Illich: defends a reactionary account of gender in a completely implausible way. Not recommended.
Limits to Medicine by Ivan Illich: excellent. Interesting pairing with Robin Hanson, Nassim Taleb, and Thomas Szasz. The case is overstated and one should be wary of Illich’s overall philosophy, but modern medicine can be overrated:
Medical civilization, however, tends to turn pain into a technical matter and thereby deprives suffering of its inherent personal meaning{342}. People unlearn the acceptance of suffering as an inevitable part of their conscious coping with reality and learn to interpret every ache as an indicator of their need for padding or pampering.
One well-stated point is that medical professionals are moral entrepreneurs. What it is to be sick and healthy is a moral matter, not merely an empirical one. Do not forget this!
Liberalism and Its Discontents by Francis Fukuyama: reasonable defense of liberalism, but I have the sense that most critics will not be satisfied by it. The ending emphasis on moderation is correct:
[T]he Greeks may have been on to something, both with regard to individual life, and in politics. Moderation is not a bad political principle in general, and especially for a liberal order that was meant to calm political passions from the start.
Technopoly by Neil Postman, The Laws of Media by Marshall McLuhan, Heidegger: A Very Short Introduction by Michael Inwood: not recommended.
The Machiavellians by James Burnham: the first chapter on Dante is excellent. Dante wrote a work called Monarchia which is ostensibly a philosophical treatise, but really functioned as political propaganda:
This real meaning is simply an impassioned propagandistic defense of the point of view of the turncoat Bianchi exiles from Florence, specifically; and more generally of the broader Ghibelline point of view to which these Bianchi capitulated.
The Machiavellians is allegedly a scientific account of politics, but is better read as early 20th-century conservative propaganda.
Hegel: A Very Short Introduction by Peter Singer: many Hegel scholars likely think this book focuses too much on Hegel’s account of history, but this is really a fine place to start if you’re interested in the man.
Talent by Tyler Cowen and Daniel Gross: see
The Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt: I’m not that impressed by Schmitt overall – life is too short to spend time going deep into national socialist political theory – but his use of the friend-enemy distinction is an intellectual achievement.
Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy by David Chalmers: see
The Vision of Islam: recommended. See
The Gnostic Gospels: recommended, if you’re interested. Note that modern scholarship has moved on on some key points, however.
Sadly, Porn by Edward Teach: not recommended. If you’re interested in The Last Psychiatrist, see here:
If the Oceans Were Ink by Carla Power: recommended as a good encapsulation of how early 21st-century liberals saw Islam.
I, Claudius by Robert Graves: thoroughly enjoyable.
Ibn Khaldun: An Intellectual Biography by Robert Irwin: the (English) intellectual biography of Ibn Khaldun.
The Muqaddimah by Ibn Khaldun: big history written in 1377. I got halfway through this. It’s tedious, brilliant, and absurd. It will earn a longer post, but not one that will be published any time soon.
Based on this list, please share anything you think I’d like to read — I may read it in 2023.
And let me know if you’d like to hear more about any of the above — I may write more about it in 2023.
I very much enjoy your book reviews. I bring my greatest interest to the novels, but find myself interested in the others as well.
Great list. A book I would recommend to you is How To Live: A Life of Montaigne by Sarah Bakewell and I would love your thoughts on that. I'd also love to hear your thoughts on William Irvine’s trilogy of Stoicism books.