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

Faux Friendship (2009)

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 42 posts

Re: Faux Friendship (2009)

#31

Post by pedrolll »

jerf wrote: post #2

It is hard to see through the veils of history, but one of the things that always strikes me is that if you sit down and really try to put all the pieces together, what you find is an alien world, far more alien than most supposedly alien worlds of science fiction, especially if we're talking about going back all the way to Ancient Greece. What we think of in our bones as civilization doesn't exist then. The closest…

I think the idea that there's a war between human and nature is a very modern one. People in pre-modern times didn't see themselves as separate from nature, they were nature.

Just like other (what we see as distinct) entities in nature do not see themselves as separate from anything else. They go about their business, transform energy to their bodies (eat). If and when they cease to exist, then it's not a big deal.

Re: Faux Friendship (2009)

#32

Post by telemachos »

jerf wrote: post #2

It is hard to see through the veils of history, but one of the things that always strikes me is that if you sit down and really try to put all the pieces together, what you find is an alien world, far more alien than most supposedly alien worlds of science fiction, especially if we're talking about going back all the way to Ancient Greece. What we think of in our bones as civilization doesn't exist then. The closest…

tl;dr - You reminded me of a favorite article on relativism and understanding other cultures (especially other cultures very far from us in time and circumstances). There's a quote from the piece below, and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in this issue.

>> As some people say, we're already in a Singularity relative to ancient Grecians, inasmuch as they couldn't understand our world at all... and I think it's true in the opposite direction, too.

This reminded me immediately of a line of thought from Bernard Williams[1]. He's discussing relativism, and he argues that there is some truth to it (roughly: relativism, understood in a very specific way makes sense for ethics, but not for science). In order to make this argument, he considers what it would mean for two or more systems of belief to come into contact. (As a shorthand, he calls a system of belief an S throughout the paper.) He wants to make the claim that relativism is coherent in cases where Ss can to some extent understand one another, but there is no real possibility of a person with S1 giving that up in favor of S2 (or vice-versa).

This is already very long, but my point is that I think it's not so much that "they couldn't understand our world at all" or that we can't understand theirs. It's rather that however well we understand it, we simply could not give up our S and take up theirs - not without massive false consciousness.

Here's the key quote you made me think of:

>> [M]any Ss which have been held are not real options now. The life of a Greek Bronze Age chief, or a mediaeval Samurai, and the outlooks that go with those, are not real options for us: there is no way of living them. This is not to say that reflection on those value-systems may not provide inspiration for thoughts about elements missing from modern life, but there is no way of taking on those Ss. Even Utopian projects among a small band of enthusiasts could not reproduce that life: still more, the project of re-enacting it on a societal scale in the context of actual modern industrial life would involve one of those social or political mistakes, in fact a vast illusion. The prospect of removing the conditions of modern industrial life altogether is something else again -- another, though different, impossibility.[2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Williams

[2] "The Truth in Relativsm" Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol. 75, (1974 - 1975), pp. 215-228, on page 224. It's here on JSTOR, in case people have access to that: http://www.jstor.org/stable/view/4544875. It's also collected in Bernard Williams Moral Luck.

Re: Faux Friendship (2009)

#33

Post by kghose »

I have found that good friends are hard to find. I feel that this hasn't changed much down the ages. Superficial friendship depends strongly on the culture and probably did so down the ages, too.

Re: Faux Friendship (2009)

#34

Post by pbhjpbhj »

jerf wrote: post #2

It is hard to see through the veils of history, but one of the things that always strikes me is that if you sit down and really try to put all the pieces together, what you find is an alien world, far more alien than most supposedly alien worlds of science fiction, especially if we're talking about going back all the way to Ancient Greece. What we think of in our bones as civilization doesn't exist then. The closest…

>"Friendship wasn't an affectation, it was a necessity; humans are effectively incapable of surviving as an individual with no social support, and these people were, by modern standards, in a constant state of just barely scraping by."

That's just society though, that's not friendship. Going out on a hunting party requires me to be friendly, cordial at least, with those I hunt with. Being friends would probably help as it implies a better understanding and ability to predict action, compensate for inaction and so work better toward the goal. You can do useful work with people you don't get on with at all.

Re: Faux Friendship (2009)

#35

Post by rdtsc »

AznHisoka wrote: post #7
jerf wrote: post #2

It is hard to see through the veils of history, but one of the things that always strikes me is that if you sit down and really try to put all the pieces together, what you find is an alien world, far more alien than most supposedly alien worlds of science fiction, especially if we're talking about going back all the way to Ancient Greece. What we think of in our bones as civilization doesn't exist then. The closest…

Why celebration? I see your point that survival is starting to become less of an issue, but lack of meaningful friendships has been shown to contribute to poor quality of life. I think you hit on a great insight though. Common goals are what form deep friendships, and in the modern world our commonalities are very superficial (same workplace, same bars you hang out, shared hobbies, etc). You either gotta undergo seve…

There is a saying in my language:

To be friends with someone you have to eat a handful of salt together

In other words strong friendship bonds are formed through sharing of adversity. Also, during difficult times people will bond together for support and thus form strong friendships.

Re: Faux Friendship (2009)

#36

Post by akkartik »

chipsy wrote: post #21
nostrademons wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a lot like surplus manufacturing capacity or six sigma in an economic context. In general, surplus manufacturing capacity is bad because it means you're not utilizing your capital to the fullest extent possible. It means you built more factories than you need, so some are sitting idle. And six sigma is good because it reduces variability in quality, which lets you streamline your processes so that there'…

One way I think of it is that friendship of yore was designed for a harsher, crueler world, with serious limits on how much one could broadcast. Today the opportunities to connect are plentiful; going online can feel like you're at a 24/7 party with a constant stream of new guests and new ideas, so long as you put in the _effort_ to set it up that way. If the only thing you do is add a few acquaintances to Facebook,…

Hmm, perhaps it boils down to the paradox of choice. We have too many possible friends so we never take the time to invest in any of them.

Also relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass

Re: Faux Friendship (2009)

#37

Post by icebraining »

AznHisoka wrote: post #7
jerf wrote: post #2

It is hard to see through the veils of history, but one of the things that always strikes me is that if you sit down and really try to put all the pieces together, what you find is an alien world, far more alien than most supposedly alien worlds of science fiction, especially if we're talking about going back all the way to Ancient Greece. What we think of in our bones as civilization doesn't exist then. The closest…

Why celebration? I see your point that survival is starting to become less of an issue, but lack of meaningful friendships has been shown to contribute to poor quality of life. I think you hit on a great insight though. Common goals are what form deep friendships, and in the modern world our commonalities are very superficial (same workplace, same bars you hang out, shared hobbies, etc). You either gotta undergo seve…

lack of meaningful friendships has been shown to contribute to poor quality of life.

It has?

Re: Faux Friendship (2009)

#38

Post by funthree »

TheAmazingIdiot wrote: post #22
funthree wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The closest thing that might get you there is farming communities in the Midwest... with no power, or cell phones, or cars, or houses, with dangerous wild animals still roaming about, no medical treatment, no firearms, and no prior 21st-century civilization thought patterns, and you're still only sort of glimpsing it. Seriously? And people in the Midwest are still somehow the "ignorant ones" ... Stay classy.

That's not what he said. I live in Indiana, in the middle of the sticks. There's farms on 3 sides of us, with a smallish forest on the 4th. Cell phones go in and out regularly (we live in hilly terrain). We have no high speed internet, nor does our house have reliable 3G service. AT&T is due to roll it out within a month. Deer are the most common pest. I've had 3 totalled vehicles because of them. The next are the wo…

It is an exact quote of what he said.

Re: Faux Friendship (2009)

#39

Post by jerf »

funthree wrote: post #13
jerf wrote: post #2

It is hard to see through the veils of history, but one of the things that always strikes me is that if you sit down and really try to put all the pieces together, what you find is an alien world, far more alien than most supposedly alien worlds of science fiction, especially if we're talking about going back all the way to Ancient Greece. What we think of in our bones as civilization doesn't exist then. The closest…

The closest thing that might get you there is farming communities in the Midwest... with no power, or cell phones, or cars, or houses, with dangerous wild animals still roaming about, no medical treatment, no firearms, and no prior 21st-century civilization thought patterns, and you're still only sort of glimpsing it. Seriously? And people in the Midwest are still somehow the "ignorant ones" ... Stay classy.

No, that was, "Start here (Midwest), then add the following things to get closer". Obviously none of those are true... even if you were feeling persnickety and critical "no firearms" should have been a bit of a clue!

(Might I also add that farming is increasingly a technological job; they are on the forefront of practical robotics, to say nothing of the knowledge that industrial farming requires about various bits of chemistry and finances.)

I chose the Midwest farming communities because of population density. Even a "small village" today is packed very tightly compared to "the old days"; hooray modern sanitation!

Re: Faux Friendship (2009)

#40

Post by jerf »

pedrolll wrote: post #31
jerf wrote: post #2

It is hard to see through the veils of history, but one of the things that always strikes me is that if you sit down and really try to put all the pieces together, what you find is an alien world, far more alien than most supposedly alien worlds of science fiction, especially if we're talking about going back all the way to Ancient Greece. What we think of in our bones as civilization doesn't exist then. The closest…

I think the idea that there's a war between human and nature is a very modern one. People in pre-modern times didn't see themselves as separate from nature, they were nature. Just like other (what we see as distinct) entities in nature do not see themselves as separate from anything else. They go about their business, transform energy to their bodies (eat). If and when they cease to exist, then it's not a big deal.

I don't mean war in a philosophical sense, I mean in a psychological and practical sense. Life was hard. So hard they don't even think to complain about how hard life was because they can't even conceive of the life we live.

My father is into genealogy, and while it doesn't float my boat I'm at least interested enough to listen. He shows me family records, including births and deaths, and even just the late 19th century is a freaking bloodbath by modern standards. Infant after infant after toddler listed in the death records, just to name one example.

Post reply on HN