61–70 of 183 posts
I dislike reading this kind of article, where it feels like the author swallowed a thesaurus and is using every second word to (often unnecessarily) display how clever they are. Note how actually clever texts (probably including the source texts that this is about!) are rarely written like that.
I dislike reading this kind of article, where it feels like the author swallowed a thesaurus and is using every second word to (often unnecessarily) display how clever they are. Note how actually clever texts (probably including the source texts that this is about!) are rarely written like that.
Holy cow you were not kidding…. > Illich’s central contention was that persons are relational beings embedded in a matrix of the natural cosmos, convivial community with others and, as a fallen but still faithful priest, God’s grace. As the maverick thinker saw it, Western modernity rent asunder this multidimensional oneness of “Life.” The whole thing is full of this… sounds like Depak Chopra level word salad trying…
>As the maverick thinker saw it
was just "As he saw it"
and maybe take out the fallen but still faithful priest bit as well.
but the rest of the text is pretty straightforward what is meant.
Synonyms suggested - torn apart instead of rent asunder.
I dislike reading this kind of article, where it feels like the author swallowed a thesaurus and is using every second word to (often unnecessarily) display how clever they are. Note how actually clever texts (probably including the source texts that this is about!) are rarely written like that.
Holy cow you were not kidding…. > Illich’s central contention was that persons are relational beings embedded in a matrix of the natural cosmos, convivial community with others and, as a fallen but still faithful priest, God’s grace. As the maverick thinker saw it, Western modernity rent asunder this multidimensional oneness of “Life.” The whole thing is full of this… sounds like Depak Chopra level word salad trying…
> critique of modern certitudes > it’s bottom of the barrel degrowthism Every. Single. Time.
Rather this is a typical HN religous-substituting faith in "progress" (of the non-reflective "just more of everything" variety), and a knew-jerk reaction to any mention of limits to growth and other concerns aside from enlargement. Every. Single. Time.
If you think the thirst for material wealth and welfare can be somehow limited or contained at scale, you will find the concept of de-growth very appealing, because it solves a bunch of big problems we have.
If you don't think such thirst can be limited, which is arguably what modern history might suggest, then the concept is clearly impossible to realize and not worth discussing.
This is great, "The Virtue Of Enoughness" Kind of how I try and live, there are some things I kind of need like coffee and internet.
I dislike reading this kind of article, where it feels like the author swallowed a thesaurus and is using every second word to (often unnecessarily) display how clever they are. Note how actually clever texts (probably including the source texts that this is about!) are rarely written like that.
Holy cow you were not kidding…. > Illich’s central contention was that persons are relational beings embedded in a matrix of the natural cosmos, convivial community with others and, as a fallen but still faithful priest, God’s grace. As the maverick thinker saw it, Western modernity rent asunder this multidimensional oneness of “Life.” The whole thing is full of this… sounds like Depak Chopra level word salad trying…
Illich's main argument revolved around the idea that individuals are inherently social creatures, connected to the natural world, their communities, and, in his view as a religious person, to God's grace. He believed that Western modernity disrupted this holistic interconnectedness of life.