71–80 of 219 posts
I’ve had a hard time trying to read both Dostoevsky and Tolstoy because of the names. I guess because I don’t speak Russian, the names are long and complicated and in most cases, compounding the problem, there are too many characters. It makes it very difficult to read “in my head” and keep track of what’s going on.
> 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…
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.
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…
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…
> Bulgakov's master and Marguerite which is a true masterpiece of beauty and gives a sharp and deep view of what humanity is It's also a very fun book! (Apparantly not all the translations are that good though, but O'Connor and Burgin's https://www.panmacmillan.com/authors/mikhail-bulgakov/the-ma... is.)
> Unlike scientific knowledge, Dostoevsky doesn't propose a model with a degree of accuracy and best practices on how to apply the model. Isn't a case study is a part of science? Please correct me if I'm wrong. One can study one particular case in depth and call themself a scientist. Dostoevsky is not a scientist because he made up his stories instead of gathering data on real cases, not because his stories cannot be…
I would say that the most fundamental core of science is based upon exactly two things: - Novel predictions : Predictions of things (the more the better) that would not be expected to happen normally (and the more unlikely the better), but would happen only (or as close to "only" as possible) if your hypothesis is correct. The sun rising again tomorrow is not a prediction, but the sun not rising tomorrow most certain…
If Einstein gathered facts about reality then it might be a case study. If he didn't then it was not a case study by the definition of a case study.
> 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…
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.
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…
As someone who finds most fiction to take much too long to get to any interesting points, I’d like to recommend Greg Egan’s Axiomatic , a collection of thought-provoking SF short stories.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could say similar of any technology, as they all extend and amputate ourselves in some way. I read the Schopenhauer line as a sentiment against technosolutionism; technology like books are fine in moderation, but they are not replacements for the reality of lived experience. See Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman for better arguments.
Came here to mention those two. It’s a subtle message. Technology giveth and technology taketh. Use of any technology is a trade off.
Every generation when it comes up will think they’re the first and best ones to experience anything, it’s just normal and always has been. Once the real world sets in or you hit your mid 20s angst (whichever comes first) the classics are a comfort and will connect you to a raw world of the past. You aren’t alone, nor especially abnormal nor special. Dostoevsky knew what you’d go through. Tolstoy already got your bullcrap. Hell, even Ovid can show you things and the Roman Empire is long dead.
Not everyone has to enjoy the same things and some haute things are definitely overrated. However, if you want to know yourself, your world and the other people in it in a way that transcends the capricious day-to-day, and has a bit more fuzziness, dimensionality (and spirit) than clinical psychology, the classics are waiting for you. They’ve seen it all before.