کتاب کاوش های یک سگ

اثر فرانتس کافکا از انتشارات اشاره - مترجم: کامل روزدار-داستان فلسفی

The unnamed narrator, a dog, recounts a number of episodes from its past, in which it used quasi-scientific and rational methods to resolve basic questions of its existence that most of its peers were content to leave unanswered, such as: Whence does the Earth procure its food?.[2] Many of the seemingly absurd descriptions employed by the narrator express its misapprehension or confusion about the world, centering on dogkinds apparent inability to realize (or, some passages suggest, unwillingness to acknowledge) the existence of their human masters.


خرید کتاب کاوش های یک سگ
جستجوی کتاب کاوش های یک سگ در گودریدز

معرفی کتاب کاوش های یک سگ از نگاه کاربران
@(...) E a verdade é que as coisas mais absurdas passaram a parecer-me, neste mundo absurdo, mais verosímeis do que as coisas lógicas (...)@

Ver a humanidade pelos olhos de um cão não é coisa bonita de se apreciar. Sobretudo porque o bicho estava certo na avaliação pouco abonatória que fez.
Apesar de alguns rasgos geniais, a leitura foi um bocado penosa.
Sendo Kafka, o mal deve estar em mim...

مشاهده لینک اصلی
Not the best of Kafka. A satire on scientific methods and too much dependence on logic in order to discover the truth. The dogs are too unable to see presence of a higher intelligence in form of human beings; perhaps are unwilling to even think of it - just as human atheists are unwilling to see chance of existence of a higher intelligence than themselves.

Also perhaps Kafka is satirizing his own methods.

It is something that narrator said about the dogs not speaking which interest me. Kafka must have felt inadequacy of ability to communicate, something like narrator (Dog) also feels. Whenever I try to imagine Kafka in my mind, I see a guy who has big ideas in his mind and is frustrated because he is unable to communicate them. If you have read his novels specially The Castle you would recall the long monologues people get into in trying to understand things - analyzing, assuming, postulating, concluding, than conditioning their own conclusions. Now you may be like this is not how people talk in real life - but that is Kafkas entire point. His Dog complains dogs wont talk, speak out what they all know and hence keep knowledge stays limited. People, Kafka believes, are also like those dogs - they know the things worth talking about (may be he is giving too much credit to us) They may go around gossiping, fighting etc. but wont, perhaps are unable, to talk about real ideas.

مشاهده لینک اصلی
Fazla düşünmeketen artık kafayı biraz bozmuş, varoluşçu bir köpeğin bulguları... Kafka yazınca elbette kafkaesk oluyor. Köpeğin bilimsel gözlem yoluyla elde edemediği bilgiler ironik, mesela yemeğin @dans ve mü[email protected] sayesinde oluştuğunu sanıyor; yani insanlara havladıkça yemek oluşuyor. Ama bunu anlayamıyor bir türlü.

Biz de kim bilir neleri anlayamıyoruz.

@Son günlerde, hayatıma yakından bakmaktan, mutlaka işlemiş olduğum o kesin, temel hatayı aramaktan gittikçe daha bir hoşlanır oldum; bulamıyorum onu. Ama mutlaka böyle bir hata işlemiş olmalıyım, yoksa bu hatayı işlememiş olsam, uzun bir hayat boyunca çabalayıp durduğum halde arzumu yerine getiremeyişim, arzumun imkansız olduğunu gösterir ve tam bir umutsuzluk, sonunda kaçınılmaz [email protected]

مشاهده لینک اصلی
14-07-2016

مشاهده لینک اصلی
Faulty logic and flawed reasoning
8 June 2014

I think it is correct to say that with this particular short story you sort of wonder whether you should be laughing. I never pictured Kafka as being a comic of any sort, though this and Metamorphosis just have this really strange feel about them in that the concept is in one sense really bizarre, and in another sense so absurd you simply just want to laugh. However, unlike Metamorphosis, this particular story does not come anywhere near being what I would call disturbing, rather it just seems to sit in the realm of the strange, the bizarre, and as mentioned, the absurd.

The story is about a dog, though this particular dog does not have a name. In fact this particular dog does not seem to even recognise the need to have a name. However this particular dog is different to the other dogs because this dog seems to ask questions and to investigate the world about him. For much of this particular story the dog seems to be coming to the understanding of where food comes from, but does not seem to be able to reach a conclusion. In the end it seems to accept that it comes about through some powerful and magical ritual, but a ritual that it does not seem to understand, and cannot perform. It is not just the question of where food comes from that it tries to explore, but also the nature of music, and also where the best marrow is located.

Some have raised the question of whether this is the first text in which an author tries to get inside the head of an animal so as to imagine the world through the eyes of the said animal. However I am not sure that this is actually Kafkas purpose because, to me, it seems as if he is mocking our understanding of the world by using the dog as a rather blatant metaphor. The thing about the dog is that he does not understand, and further does not have all of the facts, so it tries to come to its conclusion by making assumptions and by plugging in the gaps with faulty logic. It is also interesting to note that the dog does not seem to acknowledge or recognise the existence of humans.

My reading of this particular text (and I am sure that one can come to multiple conclusions with regards to Kafka because, well, most, if not all, of his works were publish posthumously, however if they were not, he never actually said anything about them) is that he seems to be having a not so subtle dig as the scientific method. It seems that, in Kafkas mind, the scientists dont actually have any idea as to how the world works: they only believe that the know and as such they use big words, and flawed logic, to create a picture of the world that we will believe because, well, we dont have pieces of paper to say otherwise. To me it seems that he doesnt actually trust science, and does not actually believe that these so called learned scientists actually know what they are talking about. Basically it is one absurd joke.

I can sort of see where he is coming from and in a way I agree with him. There is much about this world that we do not know, but we create fancy ideas, flawed theories, and mathematical models to try to explain the way the world works. Sometimes we dont even do that, we just outright lie, but in the end if we do that we end up getting caught out (though not always because if you tell a lie long enough it ends up becoming the truth). This is very much the case in America, where the big lie is that if you work hard then you have the opportunity to become really wealthy. However, the upper class works its deceit and its logic to further push the burden of running the state onto the people that are least able to do so. For instance, the idea that economic growth comes about through cutting taxes, but in the end the only thing that comes about through cutting taxes is that the rich get richer and the poor get screwed. In fact the finance industry has been employing advanced mathematicians to use modelling techniques to try to maximise ones ability to create and retain wealth, but in the end these models are flawed, and when pushed to the limit the models collapse, along with the economy, and the poor, once again, get screwed.

I want to finish off by looking at the statement regarding the dog not acknowledging the existence of any human masters. Personally I do not think it is all that relevant, though to me it seems to remind me of the scientist refusing to acknowledge the existence of God. The answer to the dogs question as to where his food comes from is easy: the human prepares it and puts it out for him to eat – but in the dogs mind the human does not exist, therefore there must be another explanation, and because the whole nature of existence rests upon the fact that the human exists, then the dog must rework its entire meta-narrative to exclude the existence of the human. This is not a question of an ignorant native trying to explain the world by saying God made it but rather rejecting an obvious answer and in turn being left with no meaning, and thus the dog (or the scientist) must create meaning through faulty logic and flawed reasoning which, in the end, will collapse in on itself because the whole basis for the nature of existence has been taken away.

مشاهده لینک اصلی
کتاب های مرتبط با - کتاب کاوش های یک سگ


 کتاب سن عقل
 کتاب مرفی
 کتاب سال مرگ ریکاردو ریش
 کتاب خدمتکار و پروفسور
 کتاب ابله
 کتاب محاکمه