81–90 of 219 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like there’s a lot to be gleaned here, but all I can focus on is how this - especially the last line - could be easily misrepresented to spread an anti-education message.
To me it reads like anti-consumerism. If you only consume and don’t create, your mind gradually loses its capacity for creativity [and you will eventually have to reacquire it, the same way a comatose patient needs to relearn walking].
Having read about 1 to 2/3rds through most of Dostoyevsky's books: I really believe they're over-hyped. Same with Pushkin, Tolstoy, Bulgakov, and so on -- with the only exception of Solzhenitsyn. I think the difference is I'm Slavic, speak a few of the languages, and come from the cultures that succeeded those authors; so they read mostly as sentimental, overly-emotional, and superstitious, i.e. what I feel are the w…
I think I understand. I like reading postcolonial literary criticism because it asks us to consider any kind of national literary identification with skepticism. So I gotta ask: when you were growing up, what American literature did you encounter and what did you think of it?
FWIW I think I like Gogol's and Maxim Gorky's short stories most of all the Russian lit I've read.
Pretty agree with the post but it is funny he discovered that "truth" so late in his life. I generally consider mathematics and physics as being the higher achievements of human knowledge and it is normal to "worship" them as the most important field of study so much that some people dedicate their entire life to them with the same devotion of true monks. It is surprising that the author didn't include Physics in the…
> Mathematics alone is sort of "sterile" when is not used within physics knowledge. Surely you can’t believe this anymore with the discovery of computer science, AI, type theory , etc?
I met a young and apparently highly intelligent AI researcher the other week who confessed to me that he thought fiction (books but also movies etc) was a waste of his time: there was nothing to be gained there. Being a lover of fiction myself, I huffed and puffed and he challenged me to name him a book that would change his mind. Usually when people ask me where to start in literature, I advise them to start at the…
"The Classics" are at this point literary archeology: they've influenced a lot, but unless you're actually inspired to follow that chain back they're just going to wind up seeming "samey" to things that came after because they were already heavily referenced, extrapolated, deconstructed and their essential ideas endlessly debated.
I met a young and apparently highly intelligent AI researcher the other week who confessed to me that he thought fiction (books but also movies etc) was a waste of his time: there was nothing to be gained there. Being a lover of fiction myself, I huffed and puffed and he challenged me to name him a book that would change his mind. Usually when people ask me where to start in literature, I advise them to start at the…
I agree with him for the most part. However, enjoying something while wasting time is its own reward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if the deep truths about the human nature are in fact very shallow? I can imagine that all human deepness is, not unlike the very sofisticated feathers of the peacock, just a tool to increase status & SMV.
And language is just a tool to hunt better and coordinate distribution of berries. And human consciousness is just a tool to model other minds to negotiate better. Nothing to see here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This treats arguments like opaque tokens where we know in advance which are good and bad, and need to make sure we have lots of good and few bad. But actually arguments have content and to know whether they are good or bad, we have to engage with them.
I’m going to be perfectly honest, I have no idea what you mean in this context/what you’re saying to me once I get past the first comma.
If I were to say, "America had a negative impact in geopolitics when it invaded Iraq," it's like you responded with "I'm sorry, but that just seems anti-American."
The classics are important because they are typically ‘classic’ due to their applicability over space and time. The authors managed to distil ever-recurring human drama and pathos (and the happy stuff too) into something timeless, though of course in the context of where and when they lived. Every generation when it comes up will think they’re the first and best ones to experience anything, it’s just normal and alway…
> [Taleb] showed, through his life's work, that one can make money by betting against people that believe too much in mathematics and their applicability to the real world. Does anyone know any good examples of this?
> Some deep truths about human nature require instead the reflection provoked by the classics. Yes, read Dostoevsky and the classics. There is so much to learn and to enjoy. But remember that great authors didn't discover deep truths of human nature from books alone, but from their attention to the experiences of real life. “When we read, another person thinks for us: we merely repeat his mental process. In learning…
> ”Much reading after a certain age diverts the mind from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking, just as the man who spends too much time in the theaters is apt to be content with living vicariously instead of living his own life.”