Yes but reading essays here is like books. I read many with Audio. Took me two hours reading Chabon m “ the adventures if k. A nd Clay”. Five chapters. Just saw the Met opera .
The discussion reminds me of church dogma when groups huddle around one verse with fierce verve. Whatever stoic physics is, as physics is a field of mathematics and a relationship to philosophy in the modern age, this century, hard to find any way to correlate quantum mechanics to ethics. The concept of atoms as we know now were different from Marcus. Studying physics is helpful. If I could grasp the coordinates it b with Descarte. We all have the task of ascertain what is goodir ethical and strive. We can disagree, but leave stoic physics out
Well, except that "physics" here means science in general, and science includes studies of human nature. And since the Stoics say that we ought to live "according to nature," science becomes relevant to ethics.
Well, they are social sciences, ny concept of physics different. So therefore all the arguments about various styles of stouc really can be involved all fields which can help us understand what is good and insphustory per se bad or unethical probably can git political science un as well
"Or maybe, it’s just that all plotlines look alike if you zoom out far enough."
AKA one of the many reasons I don't care about originality as much anymore. I'm not talking about actual plagiarism, and while I think formulaic (on any level) works are fine (conceptually), that's only as long as they don't become hard rules and oversaturated and it's remembered that formulas are well...formulas even when using cliches and tropes, thought needs to be put in on how to make said parts work. I don't go calling a baker who simply creates a new flavor of pie a thief and consider the only viable way to make a new dessert is not use sugar. Not saying originality is undesirable, and invention and innovation most certainly deserve more praise if done well, but absolute novelty as a necessity to being unique is overrated in my opinion.
"It’s not necessary (or desirable) to catch the specific person who placed the bet. The valuable information is simply that the bet was placed"
Yeah, until the "bad guys" realize that's how they're getting caught.
"If You Quit Social Media, Will You Read More Books?"
As someone who barely uses it besides YouTube and one relatively small community on Reddit yet with (almost) no exception, still doesn't and never liked the medium at all (sorry) and have nearly always felt worse as a human being from it, no.
But more on the point, nevertheless the need to diversify tastes instead of just circlejerking in existing ones (which is fine to an extent) is still something I try in any medium I can appreciate, why I'm kind of glad YouTube's algorithim is occasionally breaking and recommending some obscurities, and one of the reasons I come here (thanks). But the possibility of "the quality of the information he’s receiving may even deteriorate" is where I think the tricky part comes in whether it'd be on the web or real life. The question of balancing between what is prodding even if ultimately rejected or just (relatively at least) wasting time and mental energy. I guess the InterNET really is an unintentionally appropriate name, we can cast it too small and familiar or too big and distractingly unfocused.
Willy, thanks for the comments! I'll only pick on one: I agree that absolute originality is not only unnecessary, but even somewhat silly. Much of human cultural innovation happens by borrowing (from other cultures or other people), playing around, changing things slightly, and so on. Which is why I think the term "cultural appropriation," meant as a criticism, is senseless.
Yes but reading essays here is like books. I read many with Audio. Took me two hours reading Chabon m “ the adventures if k. A nd Clay”. Five chapters. Just saw the Met opera .
The discussion reminds me of church dogma when groups huddle around one verse with fierce verve. Whatever stoic physics is, as physics is a field of mathematics and a relationship to philosophy in the modern age, this century, hard to find any way to correlate quantum mechanics to ethics. The concept of atoms as we know now were different from Marcus. Studying physics is helpful. If I could grasp the coordinates it b with Descarte. We all have the task of ascertain what is goodir ethical and strive. We can disagree, but leave stoic physics out
In history.
Well, except that "physics" here means science in general, and science includes studies of human nature. And since the Stoics say that we ought to live "according to nature," science becomes relevant to ethics.
Well, they are social sciences, ny concept of physics different. So therefore all the arguments about various styles of stouc really can be involved all fields which can help us understand what is good and insphustory per se bad or unethical probably can git political science un as well
"Or maybe, it’s just that all plotlines look alike if you zoom out far enough."
AKA one of the many reasons I don't care about originality as much anymore. I'm not talking about actual plagiarism, and while I think formulaic (on any level) works are fine (conceptually), that's only as long as they don't become hard rules and oversaturated and it's remembered that formulas are well...formulas even when using cliches and tropes, thought needs to be put in on how to make said parts work. I don't go calling a baker who simply creates a new flavor of pie a thief and consider the only viable way to make a new dessert is not use sugar. Not saying originality is undesirable, and invention and innovation most certainly deserve more praise if done well, but absolute novelty as a necessity to being unique is overrated in my opinion.
"It’s not necessary (or desirable) to catch the specific person who placed the bet. The valuable information is simply that the bet was placed"
Yeah, until the "bad guys" realize that's how they're getting caught.
"If You Quit Social Media, Will You Read More Books?"
As someone who barely uses it besides YouTube and one relatively small community on Reddit yet with (almost) no exception, still doesn't and never liked the medium at all (sorry) and have nearly always felt worse as a human being from it, no.
But more on the point, nevertheless the need to diversify tastes instead of just circlejerking in existing ones (which is fine to an extent) is still something I try in any medium I can appreciate, why I'm kind of glad YouTube's algorithim is occasionally breaking and recommending some obscurities, and one of the reasons I come here (thanks). But the possibility of "the quality of the information he’s receiving may even deteriorate" is where I think the tricky part comes in whether it'd be on the web or real life. The question of balancing between what is prodding even if ultimately rejected or just (relatively at least) wasting time and mental energy. I guess the InterNET really is an unintentionally appropriate name, we can cast it too small and familiar or too big and distractingly unfocused.
Willy, thanks for the comments! I'll only pick on one: I agree that absolute originality is not only unnecessary, but even somewhat silly. Much of human cultural innovation happens by borrowing (from other cultures or other people), playing around, changing things slightly, and so on. Which is why I think the term "cultural appropriation," meant as a criticism, is senseless.