Truth Discussion Time - Page 56

Rashomon

"must reads before dying" should be actually read, not listened to. It's an insult to them to listen to the audiobook version instead. We do not process information the same way when we listen and we are more easily distracted.

What makes "Atlas Shrugged" a great book?

I missed that. I didn't know what Audible was. Get a Kindle and enjoy!

You can get a Kindle and a library card and get all those books for free.

I do have a kindle and I love it, dont worry!
Thank you for all the recommendations RiKD. Ive read some from the list, happy for the little comments along side the titles too!

prt-screened! Really appreciate it, cheers!

On December 18 2017 19:44 Loco wrote: "must reads before dying" should be actually read, not listened to. It's an insult to them to listen to the audiobook version instead. We do not process information the same way when we listen and we are more easily distracted. What makes "Atlas Shrugged" a great book?

have any more thoughts on bolded part? if information is processed differently (obviously it is), does reading lead to a strictly better experience (distraction aside)? im asking a) because most of my recent doings are in memory and (broadly speaking) written vs audio intake of the same material makes no significant difference in memory (though ecological data on any memory stuff is always tricky) and b) while i generally read books, i've enjoyed a lot of audiobooks that have a strong narrator and enjoy the experience of not having to do anything to get information

On December 19 2017 09:31 PoorUser wrote: Show nested quote + On December 18 2017 19:44 Loco wrote: "must reads before dying" should be actually read, not listened to. It's an insult to them to listen to the audiobook version instead. We do not process information the same way when we listen and we are more easily distracted. What makes "Atlas Shrugged" a great book? have any more thoughts on bolded part? if information is processed differently (obviously it is), does reading lead to a strictly better experience (distraction aside)? im asking a) because most of my recent doings are in memory and (broadly speaking) written vs audio intake of the same material makes no significant difference in memory (though ecological data on any memory stuff is always tricky) and b) while i generally read books, i've enjoyed a lot of audiobooks that have a strong narrator and enjoy the experience of not having to do anything to get information

I don't really understand what you're saying in the first bolded part. Are you saying when you read the same material, whether it is audio or visual, you can remember it just as well? My experience is the opposite, and most of the large studies I've seen validate my experience. I would also ask, isn't being distracted significantly more by listening instead of reading a good enough reason on its own to ditch it? Do we really need more reasons?

Second bolded part doesn't make sense to me. What do you mean not having to do anything? Whether you're listening or reading, you have to be doing it actively in order to really get something out of it. It should require some effort, with frequent moments where you read the same sentence multiples times and pause to think about it. That's partly why reading is superior, because you get to set your own pace and you can navigate the text quickly to better understand/contextualize the material. I mean, you can speed up and speed down audio, but that's a very unnatural way to work with a text, it defeats the purpose of listening attentively to something if you have to do that. I think that's probably very rare in audiobook listeners. Audiobook listeners who don't sit down and read actual books tend to be productivity oriented. They like to be able to do something else as they are listening, so if you're driving or going on a run, you're not going to keep your hand and eyes on your device to go back and forth in time or speed up and down.

For me it's really stupid simple: I consider the fact that the great minds that I'm reading have developed their minds by reading, not by listening to books. I don't know of anyone who has produced something worth reading and who listened to his books rather than read them. So, it follows that if the goal is to develop a mind worth having, which is usually my main reason for reading, not entertaining myself, then until there is strong evidence that great minds can be cultivated by the act of listening to books, I'll stick to reading text. If the book is just an entertaining, non-challenging work of fiction, then I'm not arguing listening to the audiobook version is bad. For the most part I don't think it's gonna matter, it's just a matter of which medium is more enjoyable to use for the person then. It's only bad if this is the regular experience of a person who does this frequently enough at the expense of reading things that make them think and learn.

On December 18 2017 13:55 longple wrote: Ive found 3 old credits on Audible available, Ive gone through 100s of books the last years on my kindle that have been non fiction, except for Atlas Shrugged (Really recommend, masterpiece!). And I felt like fuck, Id like to use these 3 spots for fiction in the "must reads before dying" kind of category, and/or recommendations. Ive asked around for a few recommendations, but Id like to ask if you guys who are somewhat active posting in this thread have any spontaneous fiction recommendations? Sorry for hijacking this thread with a completely new topic, but here is where I wanted to ask. Edit: 1 spot will def be dostojevski, as I havent read him but intended to for quite some time.

You know if you have 1 audible credit you have infinite credits right? Once you finish the book you can just "return" it. And you get your credit back to read another book.

-With regard to your question, I really like Reminiscences of a Stock Operator. Based on a true story but fictional story of someone in the early days of stock trading. Been meaning to put some Kurt Vonnegut on my short list but that might fall into the Loco category of read only. Tried one of his books on audiobook and fell asleep. If you liked Atlas Shrugged you'd like The Fountainhead.

So, Roderick talks about "Nietzsche's life a pathetic ruin?"

"Pathetic little man with terrible life?"

Definitions of pathetic

adjective
1
arousing pity, especially through vulnerability or sadness.

---

He was alone, chronically ill, his love for Salomé unrequited, his work only read by a handful people during his lifetime. He contracted syphilis from his (potentially) only sexual encounter (with a prostitute). The definition of pathetic.

Cioran on Nietszche in an interview:

- Was it philosophy you were first interested in?

I studied philosophy almost exclusively from the age of seventeen to twenty-one, and only the great philosophical systems. I disregarded most poetry and other literature. But I broke happily very soon with the university, which I consider a great intellectual misfortune, and even a danger.

- Were you reading Nietzsche then?

When I was studying philosophy I wasn’t reading Nietzsche. I read “serious” philosophers. It’s when I finished studying it, at the point when I stopped believing in philosophy, that I began to read Nietzsche. Well, I realized that he wasn’t a philosopher, he was more: a temperament. So, I read him but never systematically. Now and then I’d read things by him, but really I don’t read him anymore. What I consider his most authentic work is his letters, because in them he’s truthful, while in his other work he’s prisoner to his vision. In his letters one sees that he’s just a poor guy, that he’s ill, exactly the opposite of everything he claimed.

- You write in The Trouble with Being Born that you stopped reading him because you found him “too naïve.”

That’s a bit excessive, yes. It’s because that whole vision, of the will to power and all that, he imposed that grandiose vision on himself because he was a pitiful invalid. Its whole basis was false, nonexistent. His work is an unspeakable megalomania. When one reads the letters he wrote at the same time, one sees that he’s pathetic, it’s very touching, like a character out of Chekhov. I was attached to him in my youth, but not after. He’s a great writer, though, a great stylist.

Yeah, I would say that is case closed. I still want to say he was probably in transcendence while writing. It was quite a project. He knew he was a monster given everything. Pathetic does define is life very well. I find his life interesting though. Of course, his works are unique powerhouses.

What philosopher's life would you take?

I knew of a PhD in philosophy that lived a pretty sweet life. There is also Haralabos Voulgaris. Both sports betters. I think that is not quite fair since they just majored in philosophy in university. It's just what popped into my head. Sports betting is nice since it does not get more difficult as one moves up in units although there is difficulty at a certain point of getting the bets down. Can pretty much directly kelly bet much easier than poker. Anyways, I am just rambling here. I wouldn't want to watch as much basketball as Haralabos does. I don't even like sports.

The only guy I really know about is Sartre. Seemed to live a pretty cool life.

A bit of an offtopic

It's kind of funny to me how there are so many great minds who say that universities are possibly dangerous for a person and I get their point and agree with them. I am yet to read about anyone proposing a different system to measure one's capabilities in society. Considering people usually go to university at the age of 18 or later (unless child prodigy obv), they should already have some sense in them, meaning they should be capable to distinguish between professors trying to stick you in a box and those that would want to expand your ability to think. Meaning universities are a necessary evil in a way, in order for society to work properly?

There's honestly so much to say about that and I don't feel qualified to expand too much on it because it necessarily leads to a discussion about economics. Just on the topic of education, I don't think the way universities function these days are a necessary evil. There are many ways in which they could be improved and the changes in the schooling system should start earlier, too. People are not actually taught how to think, as you say. They basically live their student lives in a box, that's true (to a lesser extent) even of those who get a liberal arts education, which is very rare nowadays, because it's not financially profitable.

Just an anecdote from a few days ago to illustrate this case, I bought a book as a xmas present for my brother, who is a straight A+s university graduate in psychology. When I gave it to him, his first reaction was a fear that it would be a source of disillusionment, and the first thing he said was that he doesn't need that right now. He knows that he has to stay in his box, not wander or explore anything else than what is valuable to getting his PhD. The competition is too fierce to allow himself the freedom of getting a real education -- his university education is getting in the way of his real education.

If I were to know what I know now I could set up an undergrad degree in Philosophy with minors in Literature and Psychology or something like that that would be a great education. I would constantly push to take more classes. Actually I am not sure about that if my goal was to actually read everything worthwhile. If all my classes were worthwhile it would be wise to do the readings. I was taking double the course load my senior year in order to graduate and it was pretty smooth and doable but maybe not if I am trying to get a real education. I don't know how many truly worthwhile courses there are at university. As Loco pointed out universities are expensive. I think I am for the better with my liberal arts degree but I didn't get to the truly great stuff until later on my own. University was mostly about hanging with friends and learning how to play poker to be honest. Yeah, the education is still with me but I did not read any Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Nietzsche, Sartre, et al (the list is too long) until after university.

I think society could work better with changed systems. That might illicit a bit of chaos which many do not like. I mean getting a regimented engineering degree to grow up and be a bourgeois engineer is going to be a pretty safe bet if that's what you have an inkling of doing. Physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. are going to be solid bets. I would say all of those the people get put into a box a little bit. Not everyone likes philosophy.

I don't know. Edgar Morin's short book/essay on the 7 ways to improve education should be examined. I think a lot of those guys in the box may be happier if they got to some Nietzsche/Heidegger/Sartre in high school. That shit is perfect for high school or like first year of university aka adolescent years. Notes from the Underground should be mandatory reading for male teens. I could go on.

I have thought about going back to school and tinkering my own classes in philosophy but it is just too damn expensive and time consuming. The time consuming part does not bother me too much but spending like $200k for a degree to come back and work as a prep cook doesn't seem very smart to me.

You can easily get a better education with a library card, torrent sites and online learning sites for free. And if you're studying science, you can get access to every academic paper for free with sci-hub. The one thing you don't get access to is discussing these subjects with people on a daily basis in real life and missing out on potentially great, lifelong friendships. That's the thing that makes me sad about the situation: I know that I would hurt my own individual education if I tried to step back into the system now, knowing what I know, but I might gain in friendships and opportunities. Is that worth the price though? I'm hoping there is a better alternative.

Yeah, good recitation and roundtable socratic method discussion is hard to find. We shouldn't romanticize it. Believe me some recitation was a waste of time but when it is good it is hard to find outside of the university (as far as I know). Life long friendships can be romanticized as well. I barely talk to my friends from college. Of course, with some of them when I do speak with them it is great and I can stay at their place whenever I want but come to think of it that is only one person and I am not sure if that offer still stands.

There must be a way to organize some sort of discussion group in real life at a coffee shop or a library or something like that but how in the hell do you vet for something like that or what are the chances of that going smooth. Discussion led by a good professor or TA and bright, motivated students will most of the times be superior. What about just going for a walk with Socrates? How did they used to do it?

On December 29 2017 02:16 Loco wrote: Just an anecdote from a few days ago to illustrate this case, I bought a book as a xmas present for my brother, who is a straight A+s university graduate in psychology. When I gave it to him, his first reaction was a fear that it would be a source of disillusionment, and the first thing he said was that he doesn't need that right now. He knows that he has to stay in his box, not wander or explore anything else than what is valuable to getting his PhD. The competition is too fierce to allow himself the freedom of getting a real education -- his university education is getting in the way of his real education.

I don't get that though. If he would be forced into a disillusionment by a book that provides solid arguments, then he could use those arguments to change the academic narrative. Now, obviously 50yo+ lectors won't really be happy with that, but there has to be someone to push that wagon down the rollercoaster

I honestly don't understand people that wouldn't want to be proven wrong, its basically how I'm wired to think - I push others to prove me I'm wrong, if they manage then thats great - I've gained knowledge

In practice it just doesn't work that way. You have to work within the specific confines of your discipline and do what is asked of you. Only very rarely do some exceptional individuals manage to be untroubled by the constraints and requirements of the university and do independent work which can shake things up. There are few positions in academia that will allow you this kind of freedom. In academia your main goal is not to gain global/pertinent knowledge, it's to gain fragmentary knowledge that will allow you to do something narrow and specific within established frameworks.

So, at the end of the day, if you've invested a lot of time and money pursuing an advanced degree, you don't want to risk getting sidetracked or idealistic about revolutionizing things, especially if you're in your mid 30s like my brother and you've already had to redirect yourself a few times because you didn't know what you wanted to do. I understand his reaction, but I think it's unacceptable to literally never try to get outside of the confines of your discipline. If you can't integrate the work that is done in other disciplines into your own work, you should still read it for your own personal benefit and the benefit of society (since it will make you into a more knowledgeable and responsible citizen).

There is no time for your brother and there won't be time. Maybe on his days off and when he retires. It takes a lot of discipline and/or enthusiasm/interest to read certain things after a tough 10 hour day. That's why maybe one has to get into a university setting where most of the students are motivated and interested and discussion is led by an expert or someone at least highly knowledgeable. It is really difficult for me to see some meetup group even discussing someone like Nietzsche adequately. If I want to discuss a specific book like "Denial of Death" or "Discipline and Punish" that I think aren't as well known I just see it being impossible but imagine a Roderick led discussion on his Foucault lecture where all the students have read "Discipline and Punish" and want knowledge and also want an A.

Also, your brother just decided to go back to school? Did he have a psychology undergrad? How did he pay for it (which may not be relevant given potential Canada/USA differences)?

I would love to go back to university but I don't really want to specialize, I am afraid of academia, and the other option is potentially ending up $200k plus in debt and back at the prep cook job.

No, my brother's situation is the opposite of yours, he was a prep/cook many years ago and he had enough and went back to school. He was a high school dropout so it took a while to get to uni since he needed to finish that + Cégep (Quebec's pre-university college). At uni he was studying education to become a teacher but he didn't like his first teaching experience so he redirected to business, which he didn't like and now psychology. He's doing a joint Masters & PhD program. Not sure about cost, he's doing fine with loans and bursaries and a part time job.