Rating: 
Summary: Existential postmodernism
Review: London School of Economics Professor John Gray's technique in this original and at times delightfully self-indulgent tome of shock jock philosophy works like this: Throw out a statement--the more it sounds like conventional wisdom the better--and then declare that it's a fantasy or the truth is just the opposite. Occasionally the juxtaposition is so startling that we take delight. At other times it reads like adolescent sophistry.But no matter. (And besides who am I to know the difference?) Run the sound bites down the page and onto the next and keep them coming and, like monkeys hitting typewriter keys, sooner or later something is bound to be...well, not true but at least arresting. And contradict yourself. A lot. After all isn't existence itself a contradiction, or at least an absurdity? Why, pray tell, is there anything at all? Why isn't there nothing? Gray doesn't ask this particular question. In fact he doesn't really ask questions so much as make assertions. What Gray has done here is write the quintessential Internet-Age book. His assertions are like those found on the World Wide Web: they run the gauntlet from the patently absurd to the obvious. And only we can decide which is which and which is in-between. There is no central authority or assumed rationality to guide us. Gray lets the chips fall where they may and he doesn't look back. Let me begin with one of his statements that is true, or I should say, one that I agree with: "The authority of science comes from the power it gives humans over their environment...To think of science as the search for truth is to renew a mystical faith..." (p. 20) And now one that I disagree with: "Death brings to everyone the peace the Buddha promised after lifetimes of striving...Buddhism is a quest for mortality." (p. 129) Actually the Buddha taught us how to live. His point is that we are always alive. That's what the symbolism of reincarnation means. We may achieve peace when we contemplate our demise, but when we're actually dead we experience neither peace nor its opposite nor anything at all. Death does not bring peace, but the anticipation may. And here's one that startles, but like Chinese fast food, leaves one a few minutes later, dissatisfied--or its heady cynicism reverberates, like too much beer, perhaps: "The examined life may not be worth living." Instead of acknowledging sources individually, Gray provides titles in the back of the book, organized by chapter, for further reading. For example he writes, "The human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth." (p. 26) This is by paraphrase from biologist Edward O. Wilson, although Gray does not acknowledge the source directly. There are no footnotes. Gray quotes and paraphrases as he sees fit. The subchapters, "The Poverty of Consciousness" and "Lord Jim's Jump" provide another example. The central idea presented, that our consciousness is just a highly reduced and after the fact construction of what we experience, comes from Benjamin Libet, who discovered the half-second gap between our experience and our awareness, filtered through works by Tor Norretranders and Antonio Damasio. But this is okay. This is a popular book aimed at a general readership. What is original is Gray's treatment and his tone. I think the weakest part of the book is in his misunderstanding of the purpose and goal of meditation and the Eastern interpretation of life. Gray writes: "The dissolution of self that mystics seek comes only with death." (p. 78) But what the mystic seeks is not dissolution of self, but an isolation of the true self from the contamination and distractions of society, from a self created and maintained by conditioning. Gray is closer to the truth when he writes that meditative states "are ways of bypassing self-awareness" (p. 62)--that is, the self-awareness created by the socialization process. Indeed even the self-awareness created by biological evolution (which has its own agenda, of course) must be bypassed. Occasionally, Gray has the worng emphasis. For example, he writes that "Nearly everything that is most important in our lives is unchosen." He gives as examples, the "time and place" of our birth, "our parents," and "the first language we speak," noting that they are ours by chance not by choice. (p. 109-110) But these things are arbitrary and in essence the same for everyone. What is really important is how we live, not what our name is. Whether we can choose how we live is another matter, of course. Since Gray makes it clear that humans are not, and cannot be, masters of their own destiny any more than other animals can, it's clear that he believes we cannot choose how to live--although I suspect he makes such choices, or acts as though he does, in his everyday life. Sometimes in his haste to be alarming Gray is just plain wrong, as when he avers that "Modern science triumphed over its adversaries..." because its "founders were more skillful" at "rhetoric and the arts of politics." (p. 21) But what allowed science to triumph against the church and the tribe was its superior results. Only concrete results in the form of superior goods and services, and especially in the form of superior weapons and armaments, could defeat the tribal mind and the dictatorial clerics. In closing here are some catchy and felicitous sound bites to give you a feel for Gray's style: "Homo rapiens" (from page 151 and elsewhere: note the long "a"). "The middle class is a luxury capitalism can no longer afford." (p. 161) "Social democracy has been replaced by an oligarchy of the rich..." (p. 162) "A hypermodern economy has arisen from the ashes of the Soviet state - a mafia-based anarcho-capitalism that is expanding throughout the West." (p. 179) Bottom line: definitely worth reading but with a grain of salt.
Rating: 
Summary: in other words...
Review: row, row, row your boat
gently down the stream
merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily
life is but a dream
Rating:
Summary: NOT SINCE D'HOLBACH!
Review: Seriously, kids. Not since the young Goethe choked on d'Holbach's "System of Nature", not since you burned your brain on "The Will to Power" (from which this book clearly draws a great deal), has there been a book so ruthless in its unmasking of human pretension. Gray disposes of postmodernism with not even a full page. Oh, what, you love those Situationists? He knocks them too-hollow! (As if you didn't know that already.) This is philosophy with brass-knuckles, yet with the style of a stroll around the block. A little extreme in his own line (thus unfair to Nietzsche), but you take what you can get with books.
I can't believe I'm the first to review it here.
I know the customary thing to do is give a long, erudite-sounding summary of the book, making you want to read it. Instead, I want you to act on trust. I'll call this book a bundle of dynamite which will destroy your misconceptions of yourself, of our species, of modernity, of philosophy. I expect you to want to be surprised. I won't dangle some excerpts or some summary in front of you like you're a kitty-cat. Just do yourself a favor: trust me by getting this book, then trust the author by following it very closely. Your philosophies are corrupt; it's time you face that.
Rating: 
Summary: A POISON PILL FOR THE INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGED
Review: STRAW DOGS - Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals. By John Gray. 246 pages. London: Granta Books, 2002. ISBN 1-86207-512-3 (Hbk). Are you feeling bad? in despair? thoroughly fed up with the world and its prevailing madness? Have you come to think of civilization as one big fat fraud and your fellow human beings as utterly worthless? Are you beginning to feel that it wouldn't be such a bad thing if we were all blown away in some global holocaust because we're only the accidental product of some evolutionary quirk and are doomed to extinction sooner or later anyway? Have you been too tired to read Nietzsche, Freud, Reich, Marcuse, Boas, Benedict, Mead, Trilling, Levi-Strauss, Fromm, Gould, Roszak, Adorno, Foucault, Derrida, and the innumerable others in that vast army of scribblers who have been working mightily to undermine civilization for over a century? Yes? Well, don't worry. John Gray, Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics has written just the book to bring you up to speed and make you feel even worse than you do now. It's a short book in large type and has been made even easier to read because Professor Gray doesn't burden the reader with such silly things as arguments or anything like that to support his views. No. His book is just a series of jottings really. These jottings have the aim of convincing the unwary reader that Western Civilization has been always been wrong about pretty near everything. Yes folks, that's right. Gray would have us believe that that stupendous product of the finest minds of over 2000 years, minds which have given us all real progress along with all of the freedoms we have enjoyed, has just been one big fat mistake. But not to worry. Professor Gray and his friends have cooked up a splendid alternative to civilization which I believe is called the NWO, and if you don't know anything about that you soon will. A hint as to what the NWO is really going to be about is provided by the epigraph to his book: "Heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs" (Lao Tzu V.i). Maybe. But with all due respect I would like to conclude by directing Professor Gray to another and even more powerfully relevant passage in the Tao Te Ching of Lao Tzu (29.i) that reads as follows: Those who would take over the Earth and manage it
I see they cannot grasp it;
for the earth is a spiritual vessel
and cannot be forced.
Whoever forces it spoils it.
Whoever grasps it loses it.
Rating:
Summary: Look around. There is nothing but this.
Review: There are two kinds of people: those able to face the truth and those who prefer comforting illusions. The second group, which is by far the largest, will not like this book at all, for it brings the very unwelcome news that man, or 'homo rapiens' as Gray prefers to call him, is merely an accidental product of evolution and that the only thing special about him is an extreme rapaciousness and destructiveness which will soon lead to his extinction. It is heartening to see a figure such as John Gray, Professor of European Thought at the London School of Economics, choosing, as title for his book, an allusion to what is arguably the single most important verse in Lao Tzu's 'Tao te ching:' "Heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs" (V.i). Gray explains: "In ancient Chinese rituals, straw dogs were used as offerings to the gods.... When it was over and they were no longer needed they were trampled on and tossed aside" (pp.33-34). Yes. And oughtn't it to be as obvious to us as it was to Lao Tzu that this is exactly how we ourselves are treated - trampled upon by age, disease, natural calamities, the malice of our fellow men, misfortunes of all kinds, and the final indignity of death? It has always seemed to me that this single line of Lao Tzu effectively serves to sweep away much of the nonsense that passes for 'Western Thought,' a thought that one is sometimes tempted to feel has always been in fundamental error about almost everything, for here there is no talk about God, or Immortality, or the Soul, or Progress, or man's superiority to all other creatures, etc. No. Here, in contrast, is the simple unvarnished truth. We are not superior, and we do not occupy any especially privileged niche or position. Nature treats us exactly as it treats all other creatures - as straw dogs, as anyone can see by looking around them. John Gray has written a refreshingly down-to-earth, though not exactly cheerful, book that draws out many of the deeper implications of Lao Tzu's verse while pointing up the errors and follies of so many of our 'thinkers' (and the good sense of a few). The book consists of a series of comments which revolve around six topics: The Human; The Deception; The Vices of Morality; The Unsaved; Non-Progress; As It Is. Within just 200 pages of text, this short book succeeds in questioning many of the dominant myths and illusions of our age and is a book to read, ponder, and re-read. It concludes with a useful and interesting 30-page annotated list of Further Reading.
Rating: 
Summary: Straw Dummies
Review: This is a critique of liberal humanism, defined as the faith in inevitable progress to a utopian world, courtesy of science, reason, technology and morality. I am not aware of any reasonable person in recent decades who has gone on record to espouse that faith and Gray does not actually quote anyone who does. That alone makes the book a sustained non sequitor, an attack on straw dummies.
Perhaps the naive belief that things can only ever get better is worthy of five minutes demolition work. However to target science, reason, technology and morality as unmitigated agents of destruction is altogether over the top, apart from being rather old hat. It is entirely appropriate to be skeptical about the human institutions of science and technology, they are of course human and fallible, as indeed we all are. Similarly beware of moralists. But beware of people who criticise science and technology with nothing better to offer than the Gaia principle and eastern mysticism. And beware of people who suggests that morality does not matter. To be fair to Gray, there are nuggets of sense on the book. "Today the good life means making use of science and technology - without succumbing to the illusion that they can make us free, reasonable or even sane. It means seeking peace - without hoping for a world without war. It means cherishing freedom - in the knowledge that it is an interval between anarchy and tyranny."
This is an echo of Bertrand Russell "In praise of idleness" where he wrote about the importance of knowledge that consists not only in its direct practical utility but also in the fact that it promotes a widely contemplative habit of mind. "On this ground, utility is to be found in much of the knowledge that is nowadays labelled useless."
The problem in Gray's book is to sift the nuggets of sense from the mysticism and anti-rationalism that constitute most of the contents. In some ways it reads like a personal retraction of a faith that he once held, as he grapples with the realisation of his own mortality, like an ageing hippie, or a somewhat chastened relict of the madness of the 1960s.
Gray has over a dozen books under his belt, some of them very good ones, from the days when he used to take Popper and Hayek seriously and appeared to understand what they were talking about. Now he has lapsed into errors that would fail him in Philosophy I.
"According to the most influential twentieth-century philosopher of science, Karl Popper, a theory...should be given up as soon as it has been falsified".
Well, actually, no. For Popper a theory that appears to be falsified is rendered problematic, there is no reason to 'give it up' because it may still be the best one we have.
"Philosophers have always tried to show that we are not like other animals, sniffing their way uncertainly through the world. Yet after all the work of Plato and Spinoza, Descartes and Bertrand Russell we have no more reason than other animals do for believing that the sun will rise tomorrow".
Well what about the work by Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton...?
What are the positives in this collage of half-baked anthropology, animal studies, mysticicism, plus philosophical and sociological babble? The Gaia principle? The supposedly profound bottom line is to give up on thinking and purposeful activity. "Other animals do not need a purpose in life. A contradiction to itself, the human animal cannot do without one. Can we not think of the aim of life as being simply to see?"
On behalf of the much maligned liberal humanists I would like to suggest that we can generate any number of useful aims in life beyond merely "seeing", whatever that means. We can adopt the reasonable and non-utopian aim of making the world a little better every day, starting with our own relations with our immediate associates. We can support learning and scholarship, and engage in the exchange of helpful commentary and criticism of ideas that we believe to be defective. We can promote critical rationalism, free trade, free speech, tolerance and political reforms, especially in the direction of the minimum state, to protect freedoms and promote peace and prosperity.
Rating:
Summary: Straw Dummies
Review: This is a critique of liberal humanism, defined as the faith in inevitable progress to a utopian world, courtesy of science, reason, technology and morality. I am not aware of any reasonable person in recent decades who has gone on record to espouse that faith and Gray does not actually quote anyone who does. That alone makes the book a sustained non sequitor, an attack on straw dummies.
Perhaps the naive belief that things can only ever get better is worthy of five minutes demolition work. However to target science, reason, technology and morality as unmitigated agents of destruction is altogether over the top, apart from being rather old hat. It is entirely appropriate to be skeptical about the human institutions of science and technology, they are of course human and fallible, as indeed we all are.
Similarly beware of moralists. But beware of people who criticise science and technology with nothing better to offer than the Gaia principle and eastern mysticism. And beware of people who suggests that morality does not matter. To be fair to Gray, there are nuggets of sense on the book. "Today the good life means making use of science and technology - without succumbing to the illusion that they can make us free, reasonable or even sane. It means seeking peace - without hoping for a world without war. It means cherishing freedom - in the knowledge that it is an interval between anarchy and tyranny."
This is an echo of Bertrand Russell "In praise of idleness" where he wrote about the importance of knowledge that consists not only in its direct practical utility but also in the fact that it promotes a widely contemplative habit of mind. "On this ground, utility is to be found in much of the knowledge that is nowadays labelled useless."
The problem in Gray's book is to sift the nuggets of sense from the mysticism and anti-rationalism that constitute most of the contents. In some ways it reads like a personal retraction of a faith that he once held, as he grapples with the realisation of his own mortality, like an ageing hippie, or a somewhat chastened relict of the madness of the 1960s.
Gray has over a dozen books under his belt, some of them very good ones, from the days when he used to take Popper and Hayek seriously and appeared to understand what they were talking about. Now he has lapsed into errors that would fail him in Philosophy I.
"According to the most influential twentieth-century philosopher of science, Karl Popper, a theory...should be given up as soon as it has been falsified".
Well, actually, no. For Popper a theory that appears to be falsified is rendered problematic, there is no reason to 'give it up' because it may still be the best one we have.
"Philosophers have always tried to show that we are not like other animals, sniffing their way uncertainly through the world. Yet after all the work of Plato and Spinoza, Descartes and Bertrand Russell we have no more reason than other animals do for believing that the sun will rise tomorrow".
Well what about the work by Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton...?
What are the positives in this collage of half-baked anthropology, animal studies, mysticicism, plus philosophical and sociological babble? The Gaia principle? The supposedly profound bottom line is to give up on thinking and purposeful activity. "Other animals do not need a purpose in life. A contradiction to itself, the human animal cannot do without one. Can we not think of the aim of life as being simply to see?"
On behalf of the much maligned liberal humanists I would like to suggest that we can generate any number of useful aims in life beyond merely "seeing", whatever that means. We can adopt the reasonable and non-utopian aim of making the world a little better every day, starting with our own relations with our immediate associates. We can support learning and scholarship, and engage in the exchange of helpful commentary and criticism of ideas that we believe to be defective. We can promote critical rationalism, free trade, free speech, tolerance and political reforms, especially in the direction of the minimum state, to protect freedoms and promote peace and prosperity.
Rating: 
Summary: straw men
Review: This is an infuriating, demoralizing, though often entertaining book. Judging from the gushing "book-of-the-year" blurbs, a wide swath of the book-reviewing UK intelligentsia actually mistakes this tripe for tenderloin. Sad, that. Gray spends most of his book ripping up straw men that no one believes in -- like the idea of progress towards a "perfect" society -- or the idea that we are all absolutely (not just partially but critically) in control of our personal lives and consciousness. Also, he offers as big news the idea that there is no God, just chance and necessity, life and evolution just directionless and damnably senseless. But haven't we been there and done that - in sophomore year of high school?
Straw Dogs real virtue lies in forcing a reader to detect and refute a series of absurd arguments based on deeply flawed -- or flat-out false -- premises.
To take just a few examples: Gray asserts -- and this is a foundational argument for him -- that there is no progress in anything but science. Any and all ideas of moral or political or ethical progress are delusional. It is not easy to imagine an idea more likely to inspire enervated passivity. But I would refute his denial of progress thusly: in the course of the lifespan of a typical Baby Boomer, World Health Organization data shows that life expectancy for all humans on earth will rise by about 50% from 46 years to over 70 years.
I defy anyone to define a clearer example of massive, contemporary -- in-your-face -- progress. Life being something of an absolute, I would argue that no advance of human well-being anywhere near this profound has ever happened in recorded history. Nothing even close. But while the core of this longevity revolution rests on science -- from better hygiene to vaccination etc. -- it also reflects political, economic, social and, yes, moral progress of an extraordinary sort.
Gray manages, however, to deny that this vast gain in human life -- coming for the most part from longer lives and better health among the world's poorest nations -- is progress at all. How? By viewing it through a twisted sort of green fascist lens that sees humanity itself is a cancer on the pristine body of Mother Gaia. He even seems to welcome a notionally imminent "die-off "of several billion people as Mother Earth righteously shakes us off, like fleas, to restore "balance." How like the beef-stuffed English clubmen of the 1840's citing their Malthus and welcoming the Potato famine as an overdue corrective for the too-fecund Irish.
Taken seriously -- i.e. as anything more than a provocation -- this is an insane worldwiew -- self-hatred elevated to the level of the species. But it is also terribly convenient for someone who desperately wants to deny the massive gains in human wealth and life we've seen in the past century (despite all the horrors). Also convenient for those "realists" who oppose further efforts to root out tyranny, eliminate disease, etc. etc. Why support any purposeful action at all?
Another example: Gray asserts that all political dreams of the 20th century now lie in ruin. He thereby effectively equates the "dreams", the moral contents and the ultimate results of the three great "contenders" -- fascism, communism and capitalist democracy -- which Churchill rightly called "the worst system of government except for all the others that have been tried from time to time."
Gray is right that the Nazi-style ultra-national racist utopia and the even more lethal communitarian utopias have, mercifully, died off...(though many on the left do so pine for USSR and all that it stood for) but he is flatly and terribly wrong about the survival -- and continued vitality -- of capitalist democracy.
This is a system which is not only busily solving the ancient economic problem -- food, clothes and shelter -- for the majority of humans but is also eliminating the hazard of war among those nations integrated into the globalized economy.
Gray, of course, routinely denigrates and opposes the globalizing of the economy in his other books, so the advance of hundreds of millions of people up from poverty (see: China and India: economies, 1980-present ) can't be seen as progress either.
A third example: Gray's assertion -- again foundational -- that free will is a delusion -- is little more than a bad-boy prep school common room provocation.
It may well be true that my neural synapses fire a nano-second before I consciously "decide" to swing through on a back-hand -- or that my falling in love with someone may be overdetermined in some ways by primal experiences in infancy and childhood. Big news here: free will not absolute. Still, we all clearly have the experience of conscious intentionality...such as determining to buy a specific home, take a job, propose a marriage -- or not. We all know that many of the major decisions of our personal and political lives are cold-blooded acts of conscious free will.
Gray's assertion that there is no such thing as free will is no more serious than the tired game of pretending that there is no external world -- only an illusion in our minds. David Hume famously refuted Bishop Berkeley's view on this by kicking a rock. The great author Isaac Bashevis Singer had a far clearer view of the question of volition than Gray offers. When asked, "Do you believe in free will?" he replied: "Of course I do...what choice do I have?"
Anyone who takes Mr. Gray seriously risks believing not only that life has no meaning and people are not significantly different from animals, but that there is no truth, no right-and-wrong, no real choice of action anyway. Thus, his book gives birth to a new "ism" - futilitarianism. So why not sit back passively and just "see" the world - since Gray concludes that is the best we can hope to do anyway?
Rating:
Summary: Straw Dummies
Review: This must be one of the silliest books that has been published in the new millenium. It should have been called "Straw Dummies". It is supposed to be a critique of liberal humanism, defined as the faith in inevitable progress to a utopian world, courtesy of science, reason, technology and morality. I am not aware of any reasonable person in recent decades who has gone on record to espouse that faith and Gray does not actually quote anyone who does. That alone makes the book a sustained non sequitor.
Perhaps the naive belief that things can only ever get better is worthy of five minutes demolition work. However to target science, reason, technology and morality as unmitigated agents of destruction is altogether over the top, apart from being rather old hat. It is entirely appropriate to be skeptical about the human institutions of science and technology, they are of course human and fallible, as indeed we all are.
Similarly beware of moralists. But beware of people who criticise science and technology with nothing better to offer than the Gaia principle and eastern mysticism. And beware of people who suggests that morality does not matter. To be fair to Gray, there are nuggets of sense on the book. "Today the good life means making use of science and technology - without succumbing to the illusion that they can make us free, reasonable or even sane. It means seeking peace - without hoping for a world without war. It means cherishing freedom - in the knowledge that it is an interval between anarchy and tyranny."
The problem is to sift the nuggets of sense from the mysticism and anti-rationalism that constitute most of the book. In some ways it reads like a personal retraction of a faith that he once held, as he grapples with the realisation of his own mortality, like an ageing hippie, or a somewhat chastened relict of the madness of the 1960s.
Gray has over a dozen books under his belt, some of them very good ones, from the days when he used to take Popper and Hayek seriously and appeared to understand what they were talking about. Now he has lapsed into errors that would fail him in Philosophy I.
"According to the most influential twentieth-century philosopher of science, Karl Popper, a theory...should be given up as soon as it has been falsified".
Well, actually, no. For Popper a theory that appears to be falsified is rendered problematic, there is no reason to 'give it up' because it may still be the best one we have.
"Philosophers have always tried to show that we are not like other animals, sniffing their way uncertainly through the world. Yet after all the work of Plato and Spinoza, Descartes and Bertrand Russell we have no more reason than other animals do for believing that the sun will rise tomorrow".
Well what about the work by Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo and Newton...?
What are the positives in this collage of half-baked anthropology, animal studies, mysticicism, plus philosophical and sociological babble? The Gaia principle? The supposedly profound bottom line is to give up on thinking and purposeful activity. "Other animals do not need a purpose in life. A contradiction to itself, the human animal cannot do without one. Can we not think of the aim of life as being simply to see?"
On behalf of the much maligned liberal humanists I would like to suggest that we can generate any number of useful aims in life beyond merely "seeing", whatever that means. We can adopt the reasonable and non-utopian aim of making the world a little better every day, starting with our own relations with our immediate associates. We can support learning and scholarship, and engage in the exchange of helpful commentary and criticism of ideas that we believe to be defective. We can promote critical rationalism, free trade, free speech, tolerance and political reforms, especially in the direction of the minimum state, to protect freedoms and promote peace and prosperity.
Rating:
Summary: The Answer is "42"
Review: When I first read a review of this book in the Economist, I put it on my must read list. Extracts from other reviews at the front of the book certainly describe it much better than I ever could. "Nothing will get thinking as much as this brilliant book", "... after reading it you'll find that everything remains exactly the same - but appears different. And that is disturbing." "Gray has written a book of gloriously exhilarating pessimism." Even though I was already predisposed to John Gray's point of view, it was very unsettling to be stimulated into thinking about the human condition from his perspective. In some sense his book is, to use his analogy, an "antidote to boredom". Just as Viagra is a "prophylactic against loss of desire", his book is Viagra for the mind. To some extent however the answer to the problem he is attempting to address has been given before in Douglas Adam's book "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy" When asked to give the answer to "the Great Question! The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything", the computer Deep Thought comes up with the answer. "Forty-Two" When asked why that was all the computer could come up with after seven and a half million years of work, it responds. "I think the problem is that you've never really known what the question is." "So once you know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." Now I need to find out what the questions are.
|
