When I first read this book I loved it namely because I happened to be a hopeless romantic and our protagonist, Arthur Dent, finally gets a girlfriend. Well, finally is probably not the best way to describe it because Adams does raise the possibility that Arthur may have had a relationship with Trillian (and when the question is metaphorically asked the reply is basically 'none of your business'), and also suggests that there is a rather long gap between books two and three where we end with Arthur together with a Gulgafringan and then beginning again years later with Arthur by himself in a cave (having discovered that all the Gulgafringans has died off, just because).

 

 

Anyway, more time has passed since the end of book three and the beginning of book four and we once again meet up with Arthur, who happens to be standing in the rain at the side of the road on a planet that looks remarkably like Earth, and in fact happens to be Earth. Okay, there are a couple of minor differences, though I would hardly call not having been blown up by the Vogon Constructor Fleet as being a minor difference (though Arthur's house still standing, in the grand scheme of things, is). However there is also the fact that the dolphins have still vanished, and everybody happens to have a fish bowl with the inscription 'so long and thanks for all the fish' upon it.

 

 

The thing about this particular book is that it is more of a romance than the other books in the series, which sort of gives it a different feel. The other thing is that for a bulk of the book the story is set not only on Earth, but both Arthur and Ford are going their separate ways – it isn't until we get close to the end that the two once again come together, but it is only for a short while as Arthur and his girlfriend (Fenchurch, so called because she was conceived in the ticket line at Fenchurch Street station, though my only experience of Fenchurch Street station is having a meal at a pub underneath it) head off to try and find God's final message to humanity (or the Universe to be precise).

 

 

It also goes back into the old style where there is little to no plot and the main characters just seem to stumble around trying to work out what is going on, only to discover that the answer that they were looking for, in this case God's final message, is a piece of absurdity. Actually, there is sort of a plot, but not in the same sense that Life, The Universe, and Everything had a plot. Rather it involves the main characters continuing their search for meaning, and when they finally discover this meaning, as I mentioned, and as is the case in the other books, the answer that they were looking for turns out to be absurd. In a way it even seems as if God's message to the world is not so much an answer to the reason why we are here, namely because there doesn't seem to be any real reason at all, at least in Adam's mind.

 

 

In a way I guess this is where our secular society is heading, even though many people in the Western realms still seem to consider themselves connected to some form of religion. Mind you, when you head out of the cities you do tend to discover a much more religious, and conservative, culture, but that has a lot to do with the country being very conservative, and new ideas filter in much more slowly (if ever). In a way, with their religious outlook, people in the country still seem to have a sense of purpose, a sense of belonging, and a sense of identity. However, once you head into the cities, and into the realms of the intellectuals, this traditional purpose and reasoning suddenly seems to get thrown out the door. In a way it is this rejection of religion that leads to these rather absurd views of the universe, and meaningless understanding of life.

 

 

However, we aren't necessarily the first, or only, people in the history of the world because many other civilisations, particularly those who eventually freed themselves of the tyranny of a king, because in a such a system the purpose and meaning of life is to serve the king, but then one wonders whether the king, who seems to exist in this world to be served, would eventually suffer an existentialist crisis. I'm not sure, particularly is the king never really gave it that much thought – it is only the intellectuals that would start thinking along those lines since most of the kings would probably just be incredibly self-absorbed.

 

As for this book, well it is much shorter, and a lot different, than the other entries in this series, and while I may have gushed over Arthur's romance when I was younger, these days it is a lot different as I am somewhat (or a lot) over that hopeless romantic streak that I used to have. As for the story, it is okay, and the message is interesting, but in the end the first two were much, much better (and this one was quite a lot less funnier as well). Oh, and the fact that Arthur, and to an extent Fenchurch, can fly really doesn't appeal to me all that much.

 

While this book is considered science fiction it is not what I really expected from science fiction because it seems to explore the idea of religion in a universe in which there is intelligent life on other planets. The main reason that I read this book was probably more to do with a song by Iron Maiden (which, by the way, has nothing to do with the book) rather than it being, as is written on the cover of my edition, 'the most famous science fiction novel of all time'. I am glad that they put 'the most famous' as opposed to 'the greatest' because I would be very hesitant to call it 'great' in the sense of a great novel. It is a good book, and a challenging one at that, but I would hardly call it the greatest.

 

 

 

The story is about a man named Mike Smith. He was born on Mars after the ship that his parents were in crash landed. It should be noted that this was the first ever voyage to Mars. However the crash meant that he was orphaned, so he grew up under the influence of the inhabitants, but when a second ship arrived and left colonists, they decided to take Mike back to Earth. However, while Mike looked human in all respects, his mind and his culture was not.

 

Now, before I go into detail on the ideas behind this novel, I should outline the nature of the Martians. While we don’t meet the Martians in this novel, we do hear a lot about them, mostly from Mike, but also from those on the second ship that. It is very clear that the Martians are a highly advanced and civilised culture, and are clearly not human. When I mention that they are civilised, this is in comparison with that of Earth, who are considered to be barbaric in the eyes of the omniscient story teller. So, the title of the book refers namely to Mike Smith, a human who was not raised by humans but by a race that is far more advanced than humanity is, returning to Earth and attempting to learn about human society.

 

In many ways this book is a criticism of human society. I have already indicated that the omniscient author considers that humans are basically barbarians. This is demonstrated throughout the book in that they are ruled by jealousy, greed, and a misguided sense of morality. Humans, in many cases, are isolationist. They only come together in groups when the mutual interests of everybody in the group are directed towards the same goal, however when the goal is achieved, the group then dissipates into the atypical infighting that defines humanity. This is contrasted with the people of Mars, who for the most part, are not only patient, but have no concept of property or money, and desire to be in communion with each other. However, the Martians are not human, particularly in the sense that there is no concept of gender amongst the Martians.

 

This is translated differently when it comes to humanity. While the Martian biology enables them to come together as one, the only way that humans can do this is through sex. Now sex plays an incredibly important role in this novel, and I must admit that Heinlein's concept of sex here is very similar to my own. The barbaric nature of humanity defines sex in one of two ways, for the pursuit of pleasure, and to procreate. This outlines the two sides of humanity, as Heinlein describes, being the Apollonian (that is the 'moral' and 'righteous') and the Dionysiac (that is the sensual and debaucherous). However, in the book, sex is a way to get to know a person better (Heinlein uses a word that he created, called 'grok' however, I will get to that a little later). The difference between my Christian upbringing and his outline is that with me, apart from our relationship with God, we only are supposed to (in a perfect world that is) know one other person to that intimate level, however Heinlein suggests that this kind of knowing should be shared throughout the human race. Before I continue, though, I wish to make a quick comment on homosexuality in the book. It is not mentioned, it is implied, but not mentioned, and I suspect that this is because that when the book was written, it was still very much a taboo subject. Remember that this book was written before the sexual revolution went into full swing, and as such many of the concepts were still quite controversial.

 

Now, the idea of his religion, if one is to call it that because Mike Smith constantly denies that his idea is either a religion or even a faith, it is more of a knowledge and an understanding. The two ideas are that we are all gods, and it is when we come to that understanding we can then move forward, and that is to evolve. The second concept is that of the community. It is not the ideal of a Christian community, that is unique individuals living together in a community of love, but rather a collection of individuals coming together as a whole. While there is uniqueness, it is suggested that the community comes together so that all of this individuals become a whole. Granted, that is suggestive of Christianity, but I felt that is concept was much more pantheistic (as Christianity has a concept of God that is separate from us and from the world).

 

I note that Heinlein borrowed a lot from other religions in developing this book. We have the concept of love and community from Christianity, the idea that it is only by learning Martian that one can truly understand his religion (which is taken from Islam), and the concept that we are all god (from Buddhism). Now, I know that Heinlein emphasises in his book that this is not a religion, but I beg to differ. It is a belief system that tells us where we come from, where we are going, and our purpose for existence. I know others might disagree, but in my mind, this is a religion, and there is no escaping from it. However, it should also be noted that Heinlein did not write this book so as to start a new religion. Somebody did, and Heinlein did keep tabs on it, but he was not, and is not, involved in it.

 

I will finish by outlining the concept of grok. Now grok is a word that Heinlein created for the purpose of this book. I guess he used it to demonstrate the inefficiencies of the English language (and there are many). Grok is to know something in its fullness, that is to drink of it. It is not simply to know, but to know, to understand, and to be able to experience (that is drink of) it. The whole book seems to evolve around this concept of grok, as Mike comes to Earth to grok Earth and its inhabitants, but it is much more than to learn and to know, it is to become apart of and to dwell within. In a sense we could easily say that God desires to grok us.

 

I wanted to finish there, but I feel that there is another aspect of this book that needs to be brought out, and that is evolution. Now, first of all, Heinlein was not the first to write of Mars as having a highly advanced and civilised race, C.S. Lewis did the same thing in Out of the Silent Planet. Secondly, the question of religion and science fiction was also explored by C.S. Lewis in 'Religion and Rocketships'. However, it is clear that Heinlein is not a Christian, so therefore is unlikely to hold the same views as did Lewis. Now, the idea of evolution among many of us involves physical changes, but as Lewis indicated in his book Mere Christianity that this is a rather narrow view of evolution. It is Lewis' proposition that when Christ came to Earth and founded Christianity, the human race evolved, and it was not a slow movement, but a sudden jump. So to here, Mike Smith comes to Earth (as a Messiah, and dies as a Messiah) and through his interaction with humanity, enables them to once again evolve, not as a slow movement, but as a sudden spurt. This is indicated very clearly at the end where it is said that the Martians decided to be patient with humanity, but in being patient, humanity moves forward to a point where the Martians discovered that they were too late to do anything about it. They may have been advanced and civilised, but they did not hold all wisdom.

    Normally I would wait until I have finished a book to write a commentary, however this book is a lot different in that is contains a large collection of essays on a multiple of subjects. Secondly, I have not been reading this book continually, but rather picking it up, reading a few essays, and then putting it down again. I originally read a selection of these essays but when I finished it I decided to get my hands on a complete version, preferably hardcover, and it has been sitting next to my bed for the last two years (and I am only up to the second book of essays as of this writing – in fact I have only written comments on essays from two of the books).
    This, as I mentioned, is a complete collection, however it is an older translation by John Florio, a contemporary of Montainge, which means that the English is quite archaic, though still quite readable. The only thing that stands out is the spelling (and since there was no real standardised spelling back then, this is understandable). Florio was also a contemporary of Shakespeare, so marking Florio down because of his spelling is sort of like doing the same with Shakespeare (and English has evolved a lot since then).
    Anyway, this post is actually quite long, in fact longer than what Goodreads allows me to post, so instead of spilling over into the comments, I have instead decided to post the commentary in my blog (which also allows for better presentation that Goodreads, though not by much since it is Blogger – I hope to go over to Wordpress sometime soon, but due to time commitments I am not able to at this stage).

Foreword, by Roger Penrose

--Nature and the Greeks
Bibliography

--Science and Humanism
Literature

My first exposure to Existentialism is a Humanism was in our faculty book fair when I was the second year student of engineering. I bought this book and another book Hajj written by Ali Shariati. I was totally a blockhead. I knew almost nothing about literature, philosophy, theology, God and whatever else which wasn't science. All I knew was that I was a Muslim, growing up in a religious family and society, but I always wished to choose my beliefs by myself, I mean I wish to have some well thought and examined ideas based on good books that I needed to read. The very first step for a journey of self discovery was to find someone to help me understand at least from which way I had to start. I needed a motive force; an initial velocity or initial condition. But actually the most difficult part was that. To read an atheistic philosophy or a religious book in order to reinforce the basis of your beliefs. The latter was the one that I used to hear from people around myself. You should first read books about your own religion then read other kind of philosophies in order to critic them by your own reasons. Obviously, that way wasn't correct. If my religious thoughts were correct they shouldn't be changed after reading other kind of books. And now that I think about it, my situation was just like the man in that example of Sartre in this book who wasn't sure about which way he had to choose. And Sartre's suggestion was: "You are free, so choose; in other words, invent. No general code of ethics can tell you what you ought to do; there are no signs in the world". Even, I was free in choosing my guidance. Reading Existentialism is a Humanism or Hajj?! That was the question. It was not actually that simple. For a long time I felt I was a suspended particle, with no special orientation. A point in the Cartesian system with no coordinates with a very random and accidental motion.

I chose Sartre.

I chose him not that I knew him or the impression of a friend or someone else encouraged me to read him. All I knew about him was that he was a great philosopher of 20th century. His philosophy affected many things in many countries and my own region of world was not an exception. I needed to feel that I was "Free" . My friends kept saying "Do not engage yourself with Sartre, it will plunge you into despair." Indeed it did. It was officially the first time in my life that I was reading a book saying there was no need to consider God in life, it was extremely different from what we had "proudly" been taught at schools.

Existentialism is a Humanism was indeed among one of top ten books which change my life. A new window. A new way of thinking. A new way of living.

This is the third time that I read it and if I get any time I will read it again. Not that this is too difficult to understand, I think this book needs a general background of philosophy. Surely, I now understand it better that 8 years ago, but still I can't totally connect all the parts and come to one conclusion, for instance I do not know anything about phenomenology, materialism or philosophy of Marx.

The first part of the book is a speech about Existentialism, then two Q&As that the first one still very philosophical and the second one is more about Sartre himself in his 70.

I have already highlighted every sentence of this book. I think this is a precise explanation of Existentialism, a good start in order to read his other work "Being and Nothingness".