Just Finished Reading: Confessions by Saint Augustine [347pp] 

If you have read as widely as I have (or for as long) you couldn’t help but hear about this classic work – in more sense than one – of early Christian text. Like most other such work I had, until recently, no intention of actually reading it. Surprisingly I did, however, find another foundational text The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius more than a little interesting, though mostly because of the quality of its writing and its philosophy. So, why did I choose to read this? Essentially, I discovered that Stephen (over at Reading Freely) was doing a re-read and thought it might be interesting adding myself to any group doing so (it actually ended up with just the two of us) adding an Atheist perspective to the reviews and, presumed, debate. 

So, what did I think? It all started with an age-old philosophical debate on the question “Who was I before I was born?” Which can be a fun debate before you start adding science and what we understand about reproduction – human or otherwise. No conclusions were reached (no surprise there) because what debate could exist was happening in a factual vacuum. It wasn’t long after that we reached the first significant speed bump when the author said: “For it is better for them to find you [God] and leave the question unanswered than to find the answer without finding you.” This goes against my fundamental beliefs and my suspected problem with the text became a confirmed one. 

The text however was scattered throughout by interesting things. One thing I did find interesting was just how LONG it was before Augustine was baptised despite his mother being a Christian. I had presumed (wrongly?) that baptism took place ASAP after birth to ensure the child’s entry to Heaven if, in all too many cases, s/he died in the first weeks/months of life. [Side note: Although both my brother & I were christened as infants I have a distinct memory of my sister WALKING to her christening in her best outfit]. 

Augustine spent a great deal of time talking about his youth and student experiences in Carthage. It sounded pretty normal to me – hanging out with questionable people, having ‘fun’ at others expense, drinking too much, gaming and chasing women. Although I did think that some of his ‘acting out’ was for the attention maybe his parents (and especially his mother) seemed not to have given him. 

At this point I started skimming bits. The CONSTANT praising of God at the beginning and end of every paragraph or section got increasingly tedious very quickly. Even the occasional good metaphor didn’t really help here. 

One thing did surprise me - already in his late 20’s he had been aware that his understanding of things was inadequate and deeply lamented the idea. Yet... he seems to have made only minimal efforts to seek the truths he was looking for. Despite having access to documents from some of the best thinkers of the age – either owning them already or having access to them through friends – he was ‘too busy’ to read them and then debate others with what he had found. That seems a little odd especially when I have been reading everything I could get my hands on for the last 50+ years in that self-same quest. His supposed motivation didn’t really match his actual effort. 

Probably the highlight of the entire book (for me at least) was when he delved into Astrology in order to disprove it. He actually ran quasi-scientific experiments which, with some more effort, may have actually been valid. His comments of outcomes of a slave and a ‘middle-class’ man born very close together and at approximately the same time being VERY different as well as the lives of twin brothers (from the Bible I think but the concept of Twin Studies stands) made me both nod in approval and laugh out loud. If only he used this level of reasoning elsewhere! 

Near the end of the book things got very philosophical with debates about Memory, Language and much else. As an introduction to Greco-Roman ideas, it might be an interesting source document but wasn’t exactly heavy on content. Yet again the author warned against the danger of being TOO inquisitive and wanting to know things – which was both kind of ironic from such a supposed seeker of Truth and kind of what I expected. This was followed by pretty constant verbal self-flagellation about being unworthy. 

Then we were back to philosophy again with a debate of origins of the Universe. Interestingly the questions mused upon still come up today including what happened BEFORE the Universe came into being. It did catch my eye when he talked about ‘pauses’ or God ‘resting’ between creation events – of course being completely unaware of the HUGE time gaps between the Big Bang, the formation of the Earth and the arrival of humans. Pause just doesn’t do it justice. But as the discussion ranged around the ideas of ‘before’ and ‘after’ there followed a LONG (and pointless) discussion about the nature of time itself. As far as I know, Time can only really be fully discussed (if not completely understood) using mathematics WAY above my paygrade. So, MUCH skimming was done here! 

Lastly there was a rather in-depth series of arguments over semantics in the Bible. Not being an English Lit person, I’ve never (fortunately) undertaken a serious course in textual analysis, so I have no clear idea if the debate in Book XII held any water. So, much skimming etc.. 

As you can probably tell by now (I hope!) I was rather less than impressed by this book. If I hadn’t been buddy-reading with Stephen I most probably would’ve DNF’d it around the halfway mark. Overall, I thought it was very light on content and often only borderline interesting. Skimming bit was definitely a necessity. Apart from the Astrology bit (which honestly made me chuckle) the only thing that stuck with me was the fact that Roman civil servants who converted to Christianity – or at least those mentioned in the book – left public service to pursue their new Religion. This brain drain couldn’t have been a good thing for an already failing Western Empire. I think (not having read it yet) this was one of the factors Gibbon cites in his ‘Decline and Fall’ as a cause of that decline. Maybe he was right? So, definitely not a recommended read from me but might appeal to those less cynical and less atheistic than I am. 

Translated from the Latin by R S Pine-Coffin 

Happy World Book Day! Go READ something - if you're not already!!

Just Finished Reading: 1983 – The World at the Brink by Taylor Downing (FP: 2018) [344pp] 

1983 was another big year for me. After three attempts (yes, I know!) I finally managed to get my ass to (Lancaster) university which I started in October of that year. Unknown to me, and most of the rest of humanity, the world almost ended in nuclear fire just a month later – or so the author suggests in a very well-made argument. 

For anyone who lived through the 80’s one of the things they’ll remember if the turbulence and uncertainty around just about everything. It was not the most stable of times. With Reagan in America and Thatcher here the neo-cons were having a field day with the economy and (radical) change was most definitely in the air – except for Russia unless you were talking about the leadership. After Stalin’s death in 1953 Soviet premiers had been coming and going at alarming speed. The thing they had in common was age and their hardline agenda. When Leonid Brezhnev died (in office of course) in 1982 he was replaced by ex-KGB chief Yuri Andropov who died in 1984, to be replaced by Konstantin Chernenko who died the following year, to be replaced by Mikhail Gorbachev who presided over the end of the Soviet Union. Next exactly a stable period in global politics. 

The Soviets had over this time much bigger fish to fry. They were more than aware that a stagnating economy and massive defence spending could not long coexist. But at the same time Reagan was increasing US defence spending in eye-watering amounts. With the proposed deployment of Pershing II missiles in Europe as well as cruise missiles in the UK (I remember going on student demonstrations about them!) the Soviets were becoming terrified about a NATO first strike to decapitate their leadership before a proper response could be attempted. The only possible course of action once this became a reality was to fire first. As tensions rose on both sides – although FAR more on the Russian one – they intended to do just that. 

In deep ignorance of Soviet thinking at this time the Americans continued to ‘poke the bear’ in speeches and in regular violations of Soviet airspace which, as some of you will remember, resulted in the shooting down of Korean airline KAL 007 when it (for still mysterious reasons) entered restricted Soviet airspace on 1st September of that year. To add fuel to the fire, if such was needed, global tensions increased further with the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut on October 23rd. Premier Andropov with his KGB hat firmly in place was becoming daily more convinced that an attack was coming and all of the intelligence his agents throughout the west were feeding back seemed to confirm it. Then came the straw that almost broke the camel's back – a War Game. 

On 7th November Exercise Abel Archer 83 began. It was an exercise that NATO had run before and its primary function was to test systems and people in the event of a nuclear exchange. This year, 1983, a few new wrinkles had been added. Where possible actual world leaders were involved and code systems were changed at certain points in the exercise to simulate real conditions. The Soviets, already deeply paranoid at this point, half convinced themselves that the ‘exercise’ was simply a cover for an actual attack and took a range of precautions in response including having both fighters and nuclear armed bombers on runways ready to go and the dispersal of around 50% of its mobile nuclear missiles across the East. You can imagine what might have happened if something had gone wrong and someone, somewhere, in good faith pushed the button...  

I’d never heard of any of this before. I knew, as we all did living under the threat of instant annihilation, that the threat level fluctuated and them sometimes you could actually taste the tension in the air, but I never appreciated how close that near miss was in late 1983. It was, according to the author, closer than during the Cuban Missile Crisis partially because it was, effectively secret (or unappreciated) until much later. We dodged a bullet without even knowing. Well written and well-argued this might very well keep you up at night. It certainly enhanced my knowledge of that period of the Cold War and made me appreciate just how lucky I was FINISHING my degree with the world still intact. The only (slight) niggle I had was the authors moderately irritating habit of repeating himself a little too much for my liking. Apart from that this was a solid read and is, therefore, definitely recommended for all Cold War fans. 

As its St David's Day.... 

Welcome to March. We made it! As per tradition this month will be dedicated to all things bizarre, strange, odd and down right whacko! Welcome one and all to MAD March.... At least I'll have zero problem finding material......!

The Last 10 Books (I added to my Wish List) - February 2026  

I’m picking up quite a few new book ideas these days from various YouTubers – not that I need THAT much encouragement! Together with searches to deepen my knowledge of subjects I’m presently reading this is probably where most of the additions come from. A few others – the top 2 here at least – are hardback to paperback conversions. I much prefer paperbacks (for a host of reasons including price) I so periodically go through my list looking for the hardbacks I added when the book first came out to see if it had gone to paperback yet. I’ve been surprised more than once how many books never make that leap. So, here’s what I’ve added recently...   

Faster: How a Jewish Driver, an American Heiress, and a Legendary Car Beat Hitler's Best by Neal Bacomb 

Rebellion: How Antiliberalism Is Tearing America Apart Again by Robert Kagan 

Pox Romana: The Plague That Shook the Roman World by Colin Elliott 

McNamara at War: A New History by Philip Taubman 

The Invention of Russia: The Journey from Gorbachev's Freedom to Putin's War by Arkady Ostrovsky 

The Lighthouse of Stalingrad: The Hidden Truth at the Centre of WWII's Greatest Battle by Iain MacGregor 

Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction by Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner 

Endure: Mind, Body and the Curiously Elastic Limits of Human Performance by Alex Hutchinson 

Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don't Know by Malcolm Gladwell 

The Genius Myth: A Curious History of a Dangerous Idea by Helen Lewis 

More of a mixed bag this time but still (and always!) History heavy. It’s my thing – and it's not as if I’m EVER going to run out of things to interest me in such a HUGE subject area.  

Happy Birthday: Michel Eyquem, Seigneur de Montaigne (28 February 1533 – 13 September 1592), commonly known as just Michel de Montaigne, was one of the most significant philosophers of the French Renaissance. He is known for popularising the essay as a literary genre. His work is noted for its merging of casual anecdotes and autobiography with intellectual insight. Montaigne had a direct influence on numerous writers of Western literature; his Essais contain some of the most influential essays ever written.

During his lifetime, Montaigne was admired more as a statesman than as an author. The tendency in his essays to digress into anecdotes and personal ruminations was seen as detrimental to proper style, rather than as an innovation; moreover, his declaration that "I am myself the matter of my book" was viewed by his contemporaries as self-indulgent. In time, however, Montaigne came to be recognised as embodying the spirit of critical thought and open inquiry that began to emerge around that time. He is best known for his sceptical remark, "Que sçay-je ?" ("What do I know?", in Middle French; "Que sais-je ?" in modern French).

Montaigne's humanism is expressed in his Essais (published in 1580), a large collection of short, subjective essays on various topics; these essays were inspired by his studies in the classics, especially the works of Plutarch and Lucretius. Montaigne's stated goal was to describe humans, and especially himself, with complete frankness.

Inspired by considering the lives and ideals of leading figures of his age, Montaigne finds the most basic feature of human nature to be its great variety and volatility. He describes his own poor memory; his ability to solve problems and mediate conflicts without getting deeply involved emotionally; his disdain for the human pursuit of enduring fame; and his attempts to detach himself from worldly things to prepare for his approaching death. He also writes about his disgust with the religious conflicts of the time. He believed that humans are unable to attain true certainty. The longest of his essays, Apology for Raymond Sebond, marks his adoption of Pyrrhonism and contains the famous motto, "What do I know?"

Montaigne considered marriage necessary for raising children, but he disliked feelings of passionate love, because he saw them as detrimental to freedom. In education, he favored concrete examples and experience over abstract knowledge that is intended to be accepted uncritically. His essay "On the Education of Children" is dedicated to Diana of Foix.

The Essais exerted a significant influence on both French and English literature, shaping thought as well as style. Francis Bacon's Essays, published more than a decade later (first in 1597), are usually assumed to reflect direct influence by Montaigne's collection, and Montaigne is cited by Bacon alongside other classical sources in later essays.