>This book is the synthesis of, on one hand, the no-nonsense

>>8453135
i have 3 books by him, i like his writing.Seems like a very clever fellow.

>>8453135
I don't totally hate Harris, but god damn is that picture cringey.

>>8453135
Any particular book? This sounds good. But I just finished reading Julien May. So anything sounds good now.

>>8453135
seems like a rationalist dwelling in formal systems who think he is smarter for not being subjected to emotions.

pure trash

>>8453170
His books are kind of interconnected. That's from "Fooled by Randomness", which is a book on market trading (what he used to do for a living). He develops the theory he espouse there in Black Swan, to apply to things like literature and aesthetics. In Antifragile, he further develops the theory to apply to philosophy, epistemology, theology and society.

The Bed of Procrustes is another book by him, which is just a collection of aphorisms he wrote down, which interconnect with his larger work. It's an "okay" read if you haven't read his other books, mostly just reads like a dime a dozen self-help sayings, but it's much better in the context of his larger philosophy. I wouldn't recommend it unless you've read his other books and want something to snack on.

>>8453210
He's not a rationalist at all, he thinks formal systems tend to be shit and says the Nobel Prize for economics should be abolished. He is actually a practicing Orthodox Christian, but he said why he adheres to the religion is anyone's guess, it's like asking why you married a woman, you come up with rationalization later, but it's not a sincere motive; he offers that maybe it was the scent of the candles. He also maintains that practice is the only validator of faith, and that belief on its own is "just verbiage", comparing it to opinion polls on products verses consumer choice in the market.

>>8453225
*versus

>>8453135
I don't like his style at all and think that 90% of his books are worth skipping over.

But to have 10% be good is still pretty good, so he's alright but highly flawed

>Thinking that all individuals pursue “selfish” interests is equivalent to assuming that all random variables have zero covariance.
Stirner BTFO

File: Taleb pepe.png (192KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 499x499px

>>8453135
I read The Black Swan, he had some insighful points but he really could have delivered more on the technical aspects.