Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Read Fewer Books

theschooloflife.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 152 posts

Re: Read Fewer Books

#31

Post by enkid »

null_object wrote: post #12

I simply don't recognize the article's analysis of why we read. I read (voraciously) during my 'downtime': in bed before sleeping, sitting on the toilet, during lunchbreaks. Often the times that a lot of people are game-playing/watching youtube/scrolling FB. I'm not aspiring to "know everything" or to appear to be an "intelligent person". I think reading a lot is just a habit. It may be that I'd be better off reading…

I'm not a big fan of this article, but I don't think it's advocating reading less. Rather, it advocates rereading a few core works more. There's something to be said for knowing a few things well instead of trying to know everything, but I also think getting exposed to new ideas is important.

Re: Read Fewer Books

#32

Post by arethuza »

haffi112 wrote: post #4

A book is a somewhat large time investment. Often it is worth it but often it isn't. The main problem is the sheer amount of books out there. Deciding what to read next is a non-trivial decision problem. Currently I'm basing my decisions on ratings, recommendations from friends and book clubs. It would be nice if sites like Goodreads kept statistics on ratings for second/third/... reading (maybe they do?). Such infor…

"A book is a somewhat large time investment."

I consume a lot of audiobooks - which are great because I only listen to them while doing something else (walking, driving, gardening, home repairs etc.)

Re: Read Fewer Books

#33

Post by arethuza »

arvinsim wrote: post #15
paganel wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am not a religion apologists, but his videos and lectures are structured exactly the same way as sermons. He even feigns a false pastor modesty I highly recommend Jacques Ellul's "Les nouveaux possédés." (translated in English as "The New Demons" [1]) an analysis written back in 1973 describing this exact process you're describing, i.e. modern stuff (rock stars among others) trying to fill the hole of the disappe…

Sport is not so much a modern relaxation as a new religion; and is more serious and unsmiling even than most new religions. - G. K. Chesterton

Not sure it is that new - Constantinople had feuding groups who supported different chariot racing teams.

As a Scot I can't help be amused that the greatest rivalry was between the Blues and Greens:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Firm

Re: Read Fewer Books

#34

Post by bonoboTP »

martin_a wrote: post #8

All those "Oh, I have read sooooo many books this year!"-thing is just another elitist posture. It's pretty much like the minimalists who run around and tell people that they only own a MBP and an iPhone XPro+ (or whatever the maxed out version is) and two potted plants. Most people will not have enough disposable income to buy a full-fletched MBP and that iPhone. You need to be rich (kind of) to be able to have a mi…

The kind of elite that likes and actually reads books is still a better kind.

Also the existence of lots of poor people struggling does not mean you should live like them and imitate them. Some Christian sects and other historic cults do have this poverty worship in them, but it's fringe.

You talking about your latest programming project is just elitist posturing that you have a computer and stable electricity, which are not available to many around the globe. Therefore you should feel bad and get rid of your computer, sell your belongings an live in rags on the streets.

Re: Read Fewer Books

#35

Post by bonoboTP »

Well, fewer than what? I'd wager the median person reads 0 (or perhaps 1) books per year, where a book means something with more than 100 pages and at least 90% of those pages filled with text and read means read at least 90% of the words printed. To most people reading is like exercising, dieting, studying etc. They want to want to do it but don't want to do it.

You must live in a bubble if you think normal people read too many books.

Re: Read Fewer Books

#37

Post by 082349872349872 »

martin_a wrote: post #25
082349872349872 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A high end MBP, iPhone, and two plants should be under 10'000 EUR, so if that's elitist I'm not sure what people who buy https://www.immobilienscout24.de/Suche/de/schleswig-holstein... should be called.

I hope nobody buys that. Sylt should go down, nothing more to say on that. Being a minimalist is an expensive lifestyle, you'll need to have some money to make the switch to that. Also, you'll need to buy the best of the class as those are often the devices which fulfill most tasks at once, so you can be a real minimalist.

I agree that minimalism is frequently relatively expensive.

It's just that, well, the people who buy apartments on Sylt[1] probably think they're not elite, because they think the people who buy villas on Malle are the elite. Eyeballing the graph on p.22 of https://www.bundesbank.de/resource/blob/796280/5eaebf3d73e4f... it appears that the scenario we're considering for elitism above is affordable by at least 60% of german households.

[1] listings sorted by ascending price, so those first condos are well below the 2017 cutoff for "wealthiest 10%."

Re: Read Fewer Books

#38

Post by Heronymus_Anon »

TheUndead96 wrote: post #27
thaumasiotes wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the religion-shaped hole in western morality Religion and morality aren't distinct concepts. What's lost in the west is the stability of having an orthodoxy.

I think this might be what is meant by religious people when they say that nothing is "sacred" anymore. Meaning that there is no longer any value or virtue high enough to not be questioned, even if these are the axioms of the society.

Well, those religious prejudices and injustices aren't sacred anymore, but if you have a public reputation to loose, or don't want to get burned as a company, you should avoid being associated with stuff like gender- or racial-inequality.

(as long as you aren't targeting the Q-Anon or KKK crowd)

So it seems the definition of sacred is simply changing. (luckily)

At the time around '69 it maybe was like nothing was sacred anymore, and everything was being questioned, but i don't think you can apply this anymore. People later settled on some moral progressions, which are now being defended.

Re: Read Fewer Books

#39

Post by null_object »

enkid wrote: post #31
null_object wrote: post #12

I simply don't recognize the article's analysis of why we read. I read (voraciously) during my 'downtime': in bed before sleeping, sitting on the toilet, during lunchbreaks. Often the times that a lot of people are game-playing/watching youtube/scrolling FB. I'm not aspiring to "know everything" or to appear to be an "intelligent person". I think reading a lot is just a habit. It may be that I'd be better off reading…

I'm not a big fan of this article, but I don't think it's advocating reading less. Rather, it advocates rereading a few core works more. There's something to be said for knowing a few things well instead of trying to know everything, but I also think getting exposed to new ideas is important.

I think my main disagreement with the entire tenor of the article, is that it treats reading as just one more aspect of the modern obsession of 'self-improvement', whereas I read because it's fun.

This doesn't mean that I never re-read a book - last year I re-read War & Peace, for instance. But I didn't do it to somehow deepen my knowledge of a 'core work' I read it again primarily because it's an immensely enjoyable narrative.

I also read a book about Ants purely for the fun of it. Now I can barely remember anything other than a couple of details about soldier ants that are also suicide bombers (when defeat appears inevitable, they tighten a muscle in their abdomen that causes their thorax to burst, and spray all the attackers around them with acid) and that a whole nest of the smallest known ants would fit inside a single head of the largest known species.

These two facts that I recall now can hardly count as 'deeper knowledge' or anything pretentious like that. But reading the book gave me a much greater appreciation of natural phenomena around me, and now when I see an ant's nest in the forest, I know more about what happens inside, I can discuss it with my kids and I'm more engaged and aware of my environment. But that's not why I read the book.

Re: Read Fewer Books

#40

Post by jkingsbery »

If the author had read a few more books, he would have known that while St. Jerome is held in high regard, the Augustine is usually held as the chief intellectual of the time within the Church, and Augustine read a lot. He was incredibly well versed, for example, in the works of Cicero and Plato. In a later phase of the Church, Aquinas was also well read in a variety of sources, including Aristotle (and perhaps even Muslim writings translated into Latin). And his teacher, Albert Magnus, shows that the pre-modern mind was very much interested in the natural world.

I would agree with the point that we should be selective about our reading, even as we read widely. Focusing on reading things that have stood the test of time could still keep us busy.

Post reply on HN