Rarely Asked Questions(paulgraham.com)
paulgraham.com
Rarely Asked Questions
http://paulgraham.com/raq.html
60 comments
Rather than writing snarky criticisms, it would be of value if you could write something constructive. It sounds like you disagree, and possibly have an alternate point of view. Perhaps you could write a well-structured, well-argued, coherent piece, and then post it here so we can learn from it.
Brendan Behan once said "Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves."
Perhaps you could be less of a critic, and contribute more.
FWIW, I didn't downvote you, so I'm not the only one who feels your "contribution" is not particularly helpful.
Brendan Behan once said "Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves."
Perhaps you could be less of a critic, and contribute more.
FWIW, I didn't downvote you, so I'm not the only one who feels your "contribution" is not particularly helpful.
Did you read what I'm criticizing? You mustn't have if you're saying I'm "unable to do it myself". How is this quote any more coherent or well-structured or less snarky than my comment was?
"Books on philosophy per se are either highly technical stuff that doesn't matter much, or vague concatenations of abstractions their own authors didn't fully understand (e.g. Hegel).
It can be interesting to study ancient philosophy, but more as a kind of accident report than to teach you anything useful."
Did you mean to post your comment in response to Paul Graham instead?
"Books on philosophy per se are either highly technical stuff that doesn't matter much, or vague concatenations of abstractions their own authors didn't fully understand (e.g. Hegel).
It can be interesting to study ancient philosophy, but more as a kind of accident report than to teach you anything useful."
Did you mean to post your comment in response to Paul Graham instead?
Yes, I read what you are being snarky about. It seems to me that what you have done is said "What a load of crap" without actually adding any value. What you haven't done is provide a clear, well-thought out contrary point of view.
I would be interested in reading an incisive, constructive reply, but if all you're going to do is criticize without being informative or constructive, then I guess you really are somewhat like a eunuch in a harem.
So here, PG wrote this (and you quoted it):
That seems unconstructive to me.
So returning to your comment:
Will you offer one? I am genuinely interested to see the alternate point of view explained clearly and well.
I would be interested in reading an incisive, constructive reply, but if all you're going to do is criticize without being informative or constructive, then I guess you really are somewhat like a eunuch in a harem.
So here, PG wrote this (and you quoted it):
"Books on philosophy per se are either highly technical
stuff that doesn't matter much, or vague concatenations
of abstractions their own authors didn't fully understand
(e.g. Hegel).
It can be interesting to study ancient philosophy, but
more as a kind of accident report than to teach you
anything useful."
That seems unconstructive to me.
So returning to your comment:
Did you read what I'm criticizing?
You mustn't have if you're saying I'm
"unable to do it myself".
How is this quote any more coherent or
well-structured or less snarky than my
comment was?
Will you offer one? I am genuinely interested to see the alternate point of view explained clearly and well.
It seems to me that what you have done is said "What a load of crap" without actually adding any value. What you haven't done is provide a clear, well-thought out contrary point of view.
Isn't that pretty close to what Graham wrote? He essentially said "ugh, philosophy, what a load of crap" without providing much in the way of specifics, except a vague mention that he doesn't like Hegel (who he may or may not have read, and is hardly a great place to start in any case). What he hasn't done is provide a clear, well-thought out contrary point of view, just an off-hand criticism.
In general, I don't find sweeping "ugh, this is crap" pronouncements without detail or analysis to be too useful, especially at the level of granularity of people dismissing entire other fields of study which are not their own. As you yourself argue in this thread, mere criticism isn't particularly constructive.
Curiously, he does cite a philosopher in his list of books you should read (Kuhn). It's one of Kuhn's more historically oriented books, but still leans towards philosophy of science. If you like that one, you might also like some of Kuhn's more philosophically oriented books, like Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Isn't that pretty close to what Graham wrote? He essentially said "ugh, philosophy, what a load of crap" without providing much in the way of specifics, except a vague mention that he doesn't like Hegel (who he may or may not have read, and is hardly a great place to start in any case). What he hasn't done is provide a clear, well-thought out contrary point of view, just an off-hand criticism.
In general, I don't find sweeping "ugh, this is crap" pronouncements without detail or analysis to be too useful, especially at the level of granularity of people dismissing entire other fields of study which are not their own. As you yourself argue in this thread, mere criticism isn't particularly constructive.
Curiously, he does cite a philosopher in his list of books you should read (Kuhn). It's one of Kuhn's more historically oriented books, but still leans towards philosophy of science. If you like that one, you might also like some of Kuhn's more philosophically oriented books, like Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Sorry, never mind, he's perfectly right. Philosophy has been a waste of time since Socrates and it's provided nothing of value that you can't learn from functional programming and/or starting a business in Silicon valley. Let me sincerely apologize for wasting your time.
edit: I'll begin breaking the bad news to my nearest college's philosophy department ASAP.
edit: I'll begin breaking the bad news to my nearest college's philosophy department ASAP.
Hmm - I think my sarcasm detector just triggered.
I did a year of philosophy in my undergraduate degree. It wasn't much, and it was intriguing in places, but I did end up wondering what value it could possibly be. I completed my degree in Pure Mathematics, and I've ended up in industry as a programmer, manager, and systems analyst. And I'm not in a "startup," nor in the USA.
I've found a use for almost everything I ever studied, including English, geography, history, and languages. Not once have I, personally, found any value in the philosophy I did.
So I am genuinely interested in hearing what I've missed out on. What is it that I "don't get" that would make the subject useful. Note, I don't mean "make me money." I mean "help me think better about things."
I'm sure there are people out there who get engaged with philosophy and pursue it for its own sake. If that's all there is to it then I'm fine with that, just don't then pretend that it's useful. Getting people engaged and intrigued in an intellectual pursuit perhaps is its own reward. Is that all philosophy is?
Write something. Help us understand, especially given that PG took a degree in philosophy and art, and he wrote what he did.
I did a year of philosophy in my undergraduate degree. It wasn't much, and it was intriguing in places, but I did end up wondering what value it could possibly be. I completed my degree in Pure Mathematics, and I've ended up in industry as a programmer, manager, and systems analyst. And I'm not in a "startup," nor in the USA.
I've found a use for almost everything I ever studied, including English, geography, history, and languages. Not once have I, personally, found any value in the philosophy I did.
So I am genuinely interested in hearing what I've missed out on. What is it that I "don't get" that would make the subject useful. Note, I don't mean "make me money." I mean "help me think better about things."
I'm sure there are people out there who get engaged with philosophy and pursue it for its own sake. If that's all there is to it then I'm fine with that, just don't then pretend that it's useful. Getting people engaged and intrigued in an intellectual pursuit perhaps is its own reward. Is that all philosophy is?
Write something. Help us understand, especially given that PG took a degree in philosophy and art, and he wrote what he did.
- The study of ethics is inherently valuable. Regardless of what other studies tell us about "what to do" or "how to do it", we must assign some value or priority to our actions. You could try to use the findings of any other fields of study to guide your decisions. With psychology for example, we can study what makes people happy, and base our priorities on that. But ultimately you've just made an ethical decision to act on utilitarianism. It's inescapable that we make some ethical decisions, so it is worthwhile to study which ones are "best".
- Philosophy does not exist in a vacuum. In the same way that a work of art can lift someone's emotions, teaching and studying philosophy has real-world consequences. Had Hegel's works never been published, the world may have never seen Marxism, as one very big example! It's worthwhile to study philosophical theories within their own language and internal logic to understand the impact that they have on people. E.g. it is helpful to study Ayn Rand's thought itself, and not just the way it affects people's psychology, or the effects of its political applications. For example if it can be disproven by it's own internal logic, that has implications on its applications - we don't need to apply it to any political calculus to determine "P is not P" is false.
Sorry if my explanations aren't that great. I personally don't study philosophy, and can't offer much more from the top of my head, but I believe my apology of it so far is sufficient to at least say it isn't useless!
- Philosophy does not exist in a vacuum. In the same way that a work of art can lift someone's emotions, teaching and studying philosophy has real-world consequences. Had Hegel's works never been published, the world may have never seen Marxism, as one very big example! It's worthwhile to study philosophical theories within their own language and internal logic to understand the impact that they have on people. E.g. it is helpful to study Ayn Rand's thought itself, and not just the way it affects people's psychology, or the effects of its political applications. For example if it can be disproven by it's own internal logic, that has implications on its applications - we don't need to apply it to any political calculus to determine "P is not P" is false.
Sorry if my explanations aren't that great. I personally don't study philosophy, and can't offer much more from the top of my head, but I believe my apology of it so far is sufficient to at least say it isn't useless!
> "Not once have I, personally, found any value in the philosophy I did."
Wikipedia defines it thusly:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.
Maybe that course you took wasn't so good, but generally, I think there is no day in which we don't engage in philosophy in some way or other. When a kid asks why don't politicians duke it out amongst each other, instead of sending the youth to war for them, that's philosophy, to me. Maybe my bar is too low.
But still, what isn't (related to or based on) "love of wisdom"? Everybody either has or lacks that, and just because it can be studied formally until one either doesn't see the woods for all the trees or gets bored, doesn't mean it has to be. It doesn't have to be studied at all, "doing philosophy" like "doing math" is a weird concept to me; just read philosophers, or even better, daydream. The first time I read Marcus Aurelius, time slowed down for me, maybe I even had goosebumps, I was so utterly fascinated by that little book. All technical documents in the world combined don't even come close to being a shadow of that.
So to me, saying philoshopy is useless based on bad philosophy, or bad treatment of it, is like me saying programming is mostly useless because QBasic sucks.
Especially since everybody is different, what meant the world for me might leave you cold, and vice versa. I can't explain love to you by showing you the people I love, I can't explain it at all -- and while "you'll know it when it happens to you, and maybe it never will", seems condescending, it's what I honestly believe.
Last, but not least: Don't ask what philosophy can do for you, ask what you can do for philosophy :P
Wikipedia defines it thusly:
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.
Maybe that course you took wasn't so good, but generally, I think there is no day in which we don't engage in philosophy in some way or other. When a kid asks why don't politicians duke it out amongst each other, instead of sending the youth to war for them, that's philosophy, to me. Maybe my bar is too low.
But still, what isn't (related to or based on) "love of wisdom"? Everybody either has or lacks that, and just because it can be studied formally until one either doesn't see the woods for all the trees or gets bored, doesn't mean it has to be. It doesn't have to be studied at all, "doing philosophy" like "doing math" is a weird concept to me; just read philosophers, or even better, daydream. The first time I read Marcus Aurelius, time slowed down for me, maybe I even had goosebumps, I was so utterly fascinated by that little book. All technical documents in the world combined don't even come close to being a shadow of that.
So to me, saying philoshopy is useless based on bad philosophy, or bad treatment of it, is like me saying programming is mostly useless because QBasic sucks.
Especially since everybody is different, what meant the world for me might leave you cold, and vice versa. I can't explain love to you by showing you the people I love, I can't explain it at all -- and while "you'll know it when it happens to you, and maybe it never will", seems condescending, it's what I honestly believe.
Last, but not least: Don't ask what philosophy can do for you, ask what you can do for philosophy :P
Oh, and: even "usefulness" strikes me as a philosophical concept. At least unless you qualify it, like "shovels are useful for digging" is not philosophy. But "useful", or "purpose", just as words by themselves? You're already off the deep end without knowing it!
Show me someone who says they have no philosophy, and I will show you someone who doesn't know it, like a fish doesn't know water because it only ever swims in the one kind.
Show me someone who says they have no philosophy, and I will show you someone who doesn't know it, like a fish doesn't know water because it only ever swims in the one kind.
Don't just throw your toys out of the pram, argue†! Colin is a valued member of the community and asking a reasonable question.
Let me restate it: Paul says (at least) three things:
1. don't bother with philosophy books;
2. philosophy isn't useful and it's better to come at it from a different angle; and
3. Hegel is useless.
Four questions:
Which of these isn't true (or is it something else that isn't true)?
If 1 isn't true, which philosophy books should one read?
If 2 isn't true, what is useful about modern philosophy, or how should it be approached?
If 3 isn't true, what useful things did Hegel write?
† Sorry, this is a bit snarky, but I'd say what you've written so far is (according to http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html) level 3 (disagreement) and what we need to be convinced (and what we genuinely want to hear) is actual level 4 and above counter-argument.
Let me restate it: Paul says (at least) three things:
1. don't bother with philosophy books;
2. philosophy isn't useful and it's better to come at it from a different angle; and
3. Hegel is useless.
Four questions:
Which of these isn't true (or is it something else that isn't true)?
If 1 isn't true, which philosophy books should one read?
If 2 isn't true, what is useful about modern philosophy, or how should it be approached?
If 3 isn't true, what useful things did Hegel write?
† Sorry, this is a bit snarky, but I'd say what you've written so far is (according to http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html) level 3 (disagreement) and what we need to be convinced (and what we genuinely want to hear) is actual level 4 and above counter-argument.
> Philosophy has been a waste of time since Socrates and it's provided nothing of value that you can't learn from functional programming
As far as I can tell it's mostly true, at least if you substitute "functional programming" for "theory of computation, probability theory and neuroscience". It's no failure of people back then that they didn't have the abstractions we have now. But we shouldn't also pretend they really understood something better without the mental and formal frameworks we have today.
Today we're turning philosophical problems into engineering ones. That's why we can finally get results (and that's why STEMs sound smug). Oh, and nowdays we can scan some answers to philosophical questions right out of the human brain, so there's that.
As far as I can tell it's mostly true, at least if you substitute "functional programming" for "theory of computation, probability theory and neuroscience". It's no failure of people back then that they didn't have the abstractions we have now. But we shouldn't also pretend they really understood something better without the mental and formal frameworks we have today.
Today we're turning philosophical problems into engineering ones. That's why we can finally get results (and that's why STEMs sound smug). Oh, and nowdays we can scan some answers to philosophical questions right out of the human brain, so there's that.
It's worth reading pg's reasons for saying this here:
http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html
Without that you're not going to understand why he wrote that paragraph and you'll also hopefully see that he's got meat behind his reasoning and that this is an offhand comment referring back to that essay.
As someone who also studied philosophy and now can look back, I think he got it right.
It also makes this entire thread moot.
http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html
Without that you're not going to understand why he wrote that paragraph and you'll also hopefully see that he's got meat behind his reasoning and that this is an offhand comment referring back to that essay.
As someone who also studied philosophy and now can look back, I think he got it right.
It also makes this entire thread moot.
[deleted]
I believe pg was a philosophy major as undergrad so he's speaking from experience. As a philosophy major myself I have to agree - I can't think of any philosophy books I'd recommend, either. Wittgenstein himself encouraged his students to abandon the field.
The author appears to think philosophy = ancient philosophy. There's lots of great and insightful modern philosophy. I recommend Nick Bostrom, Marcus Hutter and even that one paper from Scott Aaronson (if one is interested in comp-sci related philosophy).
I would even say if you simply consider it as literally "love of wisdom", you would be hard pressed to find anything that's remotely decent and skillfull which doesn't also contain philosophy.
(Somewhat tangential) Is Slavoj Zizek a "real philosopher", or a troll? I found him through a reference to qanda someone had posted here, and I'm pretty sure it's a troll.
He does have a PhD in Philosophy from a university in Slovenia. However, he's generally lumped in with the post-*-ist critical theory crowd. When he does his inexplicably popular academic guest lectures he's sponsored by the cultural studies department, not the philosophy department (unless it's a philosophy department with a non-analytical bent, like the New School).
He is definitely a troll, though. That's kind of his thing. I think he would even agree with that label.
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/pageviews/2013/03/why-we-sl...
He is definitely a troll, though. That's kind of his thing. I think he would even agree with that label.
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/pageviews/2013/03/why-we-sl...
He has a talent for getting attention and seems to enjoy it. But to call him a troll would be a great disservice to his work. His ideas are very "flammable" though, so I can understand you seeing him as troll.
Perhaps best approach to Žižek is through his film commentaries. Watch The Pervert's Guide To Cinema.
Perhaps best approach to Žižek is through his film commentaries. Watch The Pervert's Guide To Cinema.
I am not a philosopher but I used to spend a lot of time with the philosophy grad department. I am under the impression that "cultural critic" is a dead giveaway for not a "real philosopher."
PG is being a little disingenuous to philosophy as a discipline.
I hold a degree in Philosophy, but play an engineer in real life.
These debates on the usefulness of philosophy are a waste of time. There is nothing that philosophy aims to teach other than critical thought and logical deduction.
The books that he is telling people to shy away from don't have practical take-aways by themselves. Critical thought into how the subject matter relates to your own experiences and the critical thinking of others (other philosophers) is where the value in reading them lies.
I can honestly say that I apply my philosophy degree EVERY SINGLE DAY at my job.
I am a Lead UI/UX Engineer & Designer.
I hold a degree in Philosophy, but play an engineer in real life.
These debates on the usefulness of philosophy are a waste of time. There is nothing that philosophy aims to teach other than critical thought and logical deduction.
The books that he is telling people to shy away from don't have practical take-aways by themselves. Critical thought into how the subject matter relates to your own experiences and the critical thinking of others (other philosophers) is where the value in reading them lies.
I can honestly say that I apply my philosophy degree EVERY SINGLE DAY at my job.
I am a Lead UI/UX Engineer & Designer.
Well usually philosophers just don't use logic properly, which really sticks out if you are trained in logic. So it might not be a coincidence if LISPers are not that impressed by philosophy.
Hegel contradicts himself already on the first two or three pages of System der Philosophie 1 while trying to make an impression it all makes sense. I really doubt he knew well what he was talking about. If he was a student I'd send him to study calculus, linear algebra, and mathematical logic with all the proofs and then let him rewrite his work after he learns how to express himself in a clear and concise manner.
Well, well, I sure am disappointed he fails to include Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in his list of history books.
/me polishes monocle.
/me polishes monocle.
[deleted]
Don't worry, you are not alone, I agree 100%
Entertaining nonetheless!
Entertaining nonetheless!
I'm not going to insult one of the patrons of these pages, however, I do note:
Paul is the author of On Lisp (Prentice Hall, 1993), ANSI Common Lisp (Prentice Hall, 1995), and Hackers & Painters (O'Reilly, 2004). He has an AB from Cornell and a PhD in Computer Science from Harvard, and studied painting at RISD and the Accademia di Belle Arti in Florence.
What I learned from trying to study philosophy is that the place to look is in other fields. If you understand math or history or aeronautical engineering very well, the most abstract of the things you know are what philosophy is supposed to be teaching.
It depends what type of Philosophy you're studying. Formal Logic: I can see the argument that with a strong Mathematical background & CS, you've already learned (most) of the tricks (although, this largely misses the point that most of the great Mathematicians of the 20th C also dabbled in the Philosophy of Logic - famously Gödel etc).
The other kind of Philosophy inhabits the same mental space as Art (ahhh, Florence!). This is a common issue with American Nationals, as American (and to some degree, British) philosophy is mired in Behaviorism, Philosophy of the Mind (which does make me cry a little inside when they don't keep up with neuroscience or even know anything about Complex Systems Theory) and other schools.
Ethics and Morality? Reaching those Creative spaces of the Sublime and so forth? Aesthetics? All fields I assumed the author would be interested in, given his Artistic leanings, and all fields that Philosophy is very useful to read on.
And, as a friendly note: I'm not sure aeronautical engineering can teach you much on that, barring of course: if you build it wrong, Death is certainly going to be the Horizon you hit.
Paul is the author of On Lisp (Prentice Hall, 1993), ANSI Common Lisp (Prentice Hall, 1995), and Hackers & Painters (O'Reilly, 2004). He has an AB from Cornell and a PhD in Computer Science from Harvard, and studied painting at RISD and the Accademia di Belle Arti in Florence.
What I learned from trying to study philosophy is that the place to look is in other fields. If you understand math or history or aeronautical engineering very well, the most abstract of the things you know are what philosophy is supposed to be teaching.
It depends what type of Philosophy you're studying. Formal Logic: I can see the argument that with a strong Mathematical background & CS, you've already learned (most) of the tricks (although, this largely misses the point that most of the great Mathematicians of the 20th C also dabbled in the Philosophy of Logic - famously Gödel etc).
The other kind of Philosophy inhabits the same mental space as Art (ahhh, Florence!). This is a common issue with American Nationals, as American (and to some degree, British) philosophy is mired in Behaviorism, Philosophy of the Mind (which does make me cry a little inside when they don't keep up with neuroscience or even know anything about Complex Systems Theory) and other schools.
Ethics and Morality? Reaching those Creative spaces of the Sublime and so forth? Aesthetics? All fields I assumed the author would be interested in, given his Artistic leanings, and all fields that Philosophy is very useful to read on.
And, as a friendly note: I'm not sure aeronautical engineering can teach you much on that, barring of course: if you build it wrong, Death is certainly going to be the Horizon you hit.
> Philosophy of the Mind (which does make me cry a little inside when they don't keep up with neuroscience or even know anything about Complex Systems Theory)
Can you explain more on this? I understand more neuroscience/complex systems than I do philosophy; back in school, I became skeptical of the meaningfulness of the research done in complex systems. I would be curious as to what you think it can contribute to philosophy.
Can you explain more on this? I understand more neuroscience/complex systems than I do philosophy; back in school, I became skeptical of the meaningfulness of the research done in complex systems. I would be curious as to what you think it can contribute to philosophy.
I'm unsure of how technical to make this, or what your background is, however:
Let's take a "classic" of Dennett's[1], against the "brain in a vat"[2]; from what you know about feedback loops or dynamical systems would the proposition of imagining a 'brain in a vat' ever make sense to you? (Note: it's not merely a Matrix style imagining, you have to prove it's not happening - you may well consider this a pointless experiment, of course).
I suspect not. That is to say, if you learned about Complex Systems prior to reading the debate over 'brain in a vat', the entire argument would probably strike you as absurd (I may be projecting here, feel free to say otherwise). This is where I presume Paul is coming from: "Well obviously no, what a waste of time". However, proving it logically is precisely what a lot of Philosophers have spent time doing (as opposed to wiring the brain up, not something that was technically possible until very recently). There's value in the logic of it, and the thought, because it is such a common human misconception (that the mind / consciousness is separate to the body, or the world or the universe).
Does that make sense?
[1]http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness.ht... [2]http://www.iep.utm.edu/brainvat/#H5
Let's take a "classic" of Dennett's[1], against the "brain in a vat"[2]; from what you know about feedback loops or dynamical systems would the proposition of imagining a 'brain in a vat' ever make sense to you? (Note: it's not merely a Matrix style imagining, you have to prove it's not happening - you may well consider this a pointless experiment, of course).
I suspect not. That is to say, if you learned about Complex Systems prior to reading the debate over 'brain in a vat', the entire argument would probably strike you as absurd (I may be projecting here, feel free to say otherwise). This is where I presume Paul is coming from: "Well obviously no, what a waste of time". However, proving it logically is precisely what a lot of Philosophers have spent time doing (as opposed to wiring the brain up, not something that was technically possible until very recently). There's value in the logic of it, and the thought, because it is such a common human misconception (that the mind / consciousness is separate to the body, or the world or the universe).
Does that make sense?
[1]http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness.ht... [2]http://www.iep.utm.edu/brainvat/#H5
I think you'll find that (a) Dennett knows a lot of things you're assuming he doesn't, (b) that whether a brain in a vat is plausible is not easily answered by appeal to complex systems theory, and (c) that the role of thought experiments in philosophy is more complicated than you make it out.
Also, the link to TED is broken.
Also, the link to TED is broken.
Well, thank you for the hostile tone.
a) I in no way critiqued Dennett - in fact, you'll notice that my last statement about how mind / consciousness is not separate to the body, or the world or the universe is explicitly his position (of course, he is deeper than that, but at the level of my response, it was clearly in line with his thought).
b) That was the point: how you failed to understand that I was making a Category case I'm not sure. We are, after all, responding to the accusation that "No philosophy is worth reading". I was making an argument of how a Scientific / STEM background might make philosophy seem "pointless", and was taking the position of the argument, not my own, and attempting to answer it gently (it's called empathy, dear, learn some).
c) You've totally misunderstood my entire argument, and as such I think it embarrassing on your behalf that you've been so confrontational.
I'll disengage - you failed to understand what was being said, you failed to acknowledge that I was uncertain of how technical to make the argument, so pitched it at a Ted Talk level, and you were rude. Not interested, especially if you cannot understand the point being made.
I have fixed the link, however.
a) I in no way critiqued Dennett - in fact, you'll notice that my last statement about how mind / consciousness is not separate to the body, or the world or the universe is explicitly his position (of course, he is deeper than that, but at the level of my response, it was clearly in line with his thought).
b) That was the point: how you failed to understand that I was making a Category case I'm not sure. We are, after all, responding to the accusation that "No philosophy is worth reading". I was making an argument of how a Scientific / STEM background might make philosophy seem "pointless", and was taking the position of the argument, not my own, and attempting to answer it gently (it's called empathy, dear, learn some).
c) You've totally misunderstood my entire argument, and as such I think it embarrassing on your behalf that you've been so confrontational.
I'll disengage - you failed to understand what was being said, you failed to acknowledge that I was uncertain of how technical to make the argument, so pitched it at a Ted Talk level, and you were rude. Not interested, especially if you cannot understand the point being made.
I have fixed the link, however.
Why don't more painters have hacking jobs?
Most painters I know are Luddites. Especially well-established ones. They think that resisting technology gives them some kind of higher moral ground point of view. They believe that technology sucks people into an alternate reality where they lose contact with the real world and thus become insensitive to the problems of modern societies.
Most painters I know are Luddites. Especially well-established ones. They think that resisting technology gives them some kind of higher moral ground point of view. They believe that technology sucks people into an alternate reality where they lose contact with the real world and thus become insensitive to the problems of modern societies.
That's actually a pretty good articulation of what I've seen within the musician community as well. It's a view that's slowly dying down with newer generations I feel like, but there does seem to be this sort of fear around technology devoiding them of 'humanity', and thus their creativity, which is the most treasured thing you can possibly have as an artist. I've seen similar resistance towards learning music theory and writing things down[1] within some musician circles as well, which tangentially stems from this. Makes artists seem paradoxically conservative in a way, but I think the logic makes sense even if I don't agree with it.
[1] Jazz is a good example of this; usually they only have bare-bones lead sheets (musical skeletons/outlines of sorts) to go off of, due to the genre's unique improvisational nature. And in a different realm of music, Lil' Wayne never wrote down any of his lyrics during the prolific stages of his career either. So there something to be said about such things possibly helping creativity; and if something as simple as writing stuff down could be interpreted as 'hindering' creativity, then complex technology usage can surely be interpreted that way too. Sometimes the best way to squeeze out creativity is to impose some restraints on yourself, so it's not all that surprising.
[1] Jazz is a good example of this; usually they only have bare-bones lead sheets (musical skeletons/outlines of sorts) to go off of, due to the genre's unique improvisational nature. And in a different realm of music, Lil' Wayne never wrote down any of his lyrics during the prolific stages of his career either. So there something to be said about such things possibly helping creativity; and if something as simple as writing stuff down could be interpreted as 'hindering' creativity, then complex technology usage can surely be interpreted that way too. Sometimes the best way to squeeze out creativity is to impose some restraints on yourself, so it's not all that surprising.
Music really varies in my experience. Even in jazz, while there are many folks with no interest in technology, you've also got those like Sun Ra, who was keenly interested in incorporating new electronic stuff, to the extent of working directly with Robert Moog to get his hands on early synthesizers. And some musicians' careers are entirely based around technological experimentation and developing their own tech, whether it's bands like Einstürzende Neubauten or composers like Iannis Xenakis.
Totally. It all really seems to be about what value proposition the technology holds with regards to an artist's creativity. Some people see a synthesizer and view it as a tool to finally express some of the sounds they've been kicking around in their heads, while others might see it as diluting the craftsmanship of the instrumentation they already have. And like I said, some people see restraints as a bigger boost to creativity than others.
It's interesting though, because adoption of technology doesn't seem to be much of a big deal at all on the recording side of things. Very few are the musicians that wouldn't be interested in learning how to use a complex DAW with tons of fancy plugins nowadays...
It's interesting though, because adoption of technology doesn't seem to be much of a big deal at all on the recording side of things. Very few are the musicians that wouldn't be interested in learning how to use a complex DAW with tons of fancy plugins nowadays...
[deleted]
Or are painter-coders simply designer/developers?
I know plenty of people who are comfortable with hand drawing, perhaps even painting, computer assisted drawing and design, and code. I also know people who are squarely one (painter or the other (coder).
In the past would these people have been engineer-painters? There were certainly a few of those, with Leonardo da Vinci top of the list.
I know plenty of people who are comfortable with hand drawing, perhaps even painting, computer assisted drawing and design, and code. I also know people who are squarely one (painter or the other (coder).
In the past would these people have been engineer-painters? There were certainly a few of those, with Leonardo da Vinci top of the list.
[deleted]
I'd love to pick up a book that deals with this issue: why and when painters - and more generally artists - have come to adopt this anti-technological outlook.
Was it a fear that the pervasiveness of technology would make their craft(s) obsolete?
This sort of thinking is rife even within artistic circles.
Artists whose medium is photography are like the ugly lepers of the visual art world.
I find this anti-technological bent in modern Western cultural life particularly unsettling.
Don't take what I'm saying to an extreme; I have nothing against consumable art in its many forms.
However I think the cultural life of cities in the West - in its various forms (art, theatre, cinema, classical music, architecture) are ruled by cohorts who wholly constitute the anti-technological fringe.
They live for abstraction and something about that makes them virulently anti-technological.
Suggest a book or essay that addresses this issue in great depth.
Was it a fear that the pervasiveness of technology would make their craft(s) obsolete?
This sort of thinking is rife even within artistic circles.
Artists whose medium is photography are like the ugly lepers of the visual art world.
I find this anti-technological bent in modern Western cultural life particularly unsettling.
Don't take what I'm saying to an extreme; I have nothing against consumable art in its many forms.
However I think the cultural life of cities in the West - in its various forms (art, theatre, cinema, classical music, architecture) are ruled by cohorts who wholly constitute the anti-technological fringe.
They live for abstraction and something about that makes them virulently anti-technological.
Suggest a book or essay that addresses this issue in great depth.
Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" is about exactly this. Some random quotes:
"The result is rather typical of modern technology, an overall dullness of appearance so depressing that it must be overlaid with a veneer of "style" to make it acceptable. And that, to anyone who is sensitive to romantic Quality, just makes it all the worse. Now it's not just depressingly dull, it's also phony. Put the two together and you get a pretty accurate basic description of modern American technology: stylized cars and stylized outboard motors and stylized typewriters and stylized clothes. Stylized refrigerators filled with stylized food in stylized kitchens in stylized homes. Plastic stylized toys for stylized children, who at Christmas and birthdays are in style with their stylish parents. You have to be awfully stylish yourself not to get sick of it once in a while. It's the style that gets you; technological ugliness syruped over with romantic phoniness in an effort to produce beauty and profit by people who, though stylish, don't know where to start because no one has ever told them there's such a thing as Quality in this world and it's real, not style. Quality isn't something you lay on top of subjects and objects like tinsel on a Christmas tree. Real Quality must be the source of the subjects and objects, the cone from which the tree must start."
“We have artists with no scientific knowledge and scientists with no artistic knowledge and both with no spiritual sense of gravity at all, and the result is not just bad, it is ghastly.”
“This condemnation of technology is ingratitude, that's what it is. Blind alley, though. If someone's ungrateful and you tell him he's ungrateful, okay, you've called him a name. You haven't solved anything.”
“The way to solve the conflict between human values and technological needs is not to run away from technology. That’s impossible. The way to resolve the conflict is to break down the barrier of dualistic thought that prevent a real understanding of what technology is – not an exploitation of nature, but a fusion of nature and the human spirit into a new kind of creation that transcends both. When this transcendence occurs in such events as the first airplane flight across the ocean or the first footsteps on the moon, a kind of public recognition of the transcendent nature of technology occurs. But this transcendence should also occur at the individual level, on a personal basis, in one's own life, in a less dramatic way.”
"The result is rather typical of modern technology, an overall dullness of appearance so depressing that it must be overlaid with a veneer of "style" to make it acceptable. And that, to anyone who is sensitive to romantic Quality, just makes it all the worse. Now it's not just depressingly dull, it's also phony. Put the two together and you get a pretty accurate basic description of modern American technology: stylized cars and stylized outboard motors and stylized typewriters and stylized clothes. Stylized refrigerators filled with stylized food in stylized kitchens in stylized homes. Plastic stylized toys for stylized children, who at Christmas and birthdays are in style with their stylish parents. You have to be awfully stylish yourself not to get sick of it once in a while. It's the style that gets you; technological ugliness syruped over with romantic phoniness in an effort to produce beauty and profit by people who, though stylish, don't know where to start because no one has ever told them there's such a thing as Quality in this world and it's real, not style. Quality isn't something you lay on top of subjects and objects like tinsel on a Christmas tree. Real Quality must be the source of the subjects and objects, the cone from which the tree must start."
“We have artists with no scientific knowledge and scientists with no artistic knowledge and both with no spiritual sense of gravity at all, and the result is not just bad, it is ghastly.”
“This condemnation of technology is ingratitude, that's what it is. Blind alley, though. If someone's ungrateful and you tell him he's ungrateful, okay, you've called him a name. You haven't solved anything.”
“The way to solve the conflict between human values and technological needs is not to run away from technology. That’s impossible. The way to resolve the conflict is to break down the barrier of dualistic thought that prevent a real understanding of what technology is – not an exploitation of nature, but a fusion of nature and the human spirit into a new kind of creation that transcends both. When this transcendence occurs in such events as the first airplane flight across the ocean or the first footsteps on the moon, a kind of public recognition of the transcendent nature of technology occurs. But this transcendence should also occur at the individual level, on a personal basis, in one's own life, in a less dramatic way.”
I don't think artists as a whole have a particular aversion to technology, unless you specifically define art to exclude all the technologically influenced art, in which case it becomes true by construction.
There are huge areas of art based on strong engagement with technology, and art/tech crossover types who write code and build stuff as part of making their artworks are the norm in those. Areas like new-media art, electroacoustic music, cybernetic sculpture, etc. basically require crossover, and they are definitely more vibrant scenes these days than oil-paint-on-canvas is. This journal's been around since 1968: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_%28journal%29. Some miscellaneous people whose work is interesting in that vein: Julian Oliver, Roy Ascott, Toshio Iwai, Edward Ihnatowicz, Nam June Paik, Cory Arcangel. More examples (tilted towards recent stuff) can be found in this online database: http://rhizome.org/artbase/
Computer-music is particularly well established, with 5-6 journals and numerous conferences and exhibitions, as well as centers like IRCAM and CCRMA. I think actually if you take well-known post-WW2 composers, a substantial proportion come out of the tech-crossover angle, folks like Steve Reich (tape loops) and Iannis Xenakis (digital synthesis, granular synthesis).
Of course, there are areas of art that don't care about technology either. And they're somewhat overrepresented in the establishment "cultural life of cities in the West", because that tends to take a very conservative, backwards-looking view. It's all about upper-middle-class people taking in high culture as it existed in the 1920s and earlier: classical music, paintings from the great masters, Renaissance sculpture, the standard repertoire of operas, etc.
There are huge areas of art based on strong engagement with technology, and art/tech crossover types who write code and build stuff as part of making their artworks are the norm in those. Areas like new-media art, electroacoustic music, cybernetic sculpture, etc. basically require crossover, and they are definitely more vibrant scenes these days than oil-paint-on-canvas is. This journal's been around since 1968: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_%28journal%29. Some miscellaneous people whose work is interesting in that vein: Julian Oliver, Roy Ascott, Toshio Iwai, Edward Ihnatowicz, Nam June Paik, Cory Arcangel. More examples (tilted towards recent stuff) can be found in this online database: http://rhizome.org/artbase/
Computer-music is particularly well established, with 5-6 journals and numerous conferences and exhibitions, as well as centers like IRCAM and CCRMA. I think actually if you take well-known post-WW2 composers, a substantial proportion come out of the tech-crossover angle, folks like Steve Reich (tape loops) and Iannis Xenakis (digital synthesis, granular synthesis).
Of course, there are areas of art that don't care about technology either. And they're somewhat overrepresented in the establishment "cultural life of cities in the West", because that tends to take a very conservative, backwards-looking view. It's all about upper-middle-class people taking in high culture as it existed in the 1920s and earlier: classical music, paintings from the great masters, Renaissance sculpture, the standard repertoire of operas, etc.
The areas of composite art you mention hardly have a fraction of the sweeping brushstroke of influence and the ability to impress upon society, certain mores and affectations that the more established forms of art (that you refer to in the last line) have.
It is by no means an exaggeration to say that most people who patronize art in cities and wealthy donors who lavish large sums on money on museums, opera venues, orchestras and various other ventures that promote art, probably have never heard of the crossover types you mention.
Hence it is fair to say that these newer art forms barely register in terms of their influence on the popular mood of the culture of a city much less a nation.
It is no secret that berating the ills of technology is Hollywood's favorite past time.
From Fritz Lang's Metropolis to Terminator to the recent Prometheus and a million flicks between them portray in no ambiguous terms the banes of unchecked technological advancements.
Ignore that for a moment.
The scuttling of technology, even when it could greatly aid and enable a better experience, can be seen in sports as well.
FIFA is a notorious luddite. They act as if the soccer gods will strike with lightning if they so much use an instant-replay.
The overlords at the French Open won't even touch Hawkeye with a ten foot pole. Players have to resort to pointing to where the ball left an impression on the clay to argue for a point that could decide their fate.
I only know of the NHL that embraces an uncommonly high amount of technology to make better ruling decisions. Every goal of every game is reviewed remotely in Toronto just to be sure. Offside calls and a host of other decisions are still handled by a couple of on-ice referees.
All said this technology-hating nonsense and the morons who advocate such superstitious dogma are everywhere.
I pray for the day when this bullshit will be called for what it really is - a form of a hate crime, an intolerance of reason and utility.
It is by no means an exaggeration to say that most people who patronize art in cities and wealthy donors who lavish large sums on money on museums, opera venues, orchestras and various other ventures that promote art, probably have never heard of the crossover types you mention.
Hence it is fair to say that these newer art forms barely register in terms of their influence on the popular mood of the culture of a city much less a nation.
It is no secret that berating the ills of technology is Hollywood's favorite past time.
From Fritz Lang's Metropolis to Terminator to the recent Prometheus and a million flicks between them portray in no ambiguous terms the banes of unchecked technological advancements.
Ignore that for a moment.
The scuttling of technology, even when it could greatly aid and enable a better experience, can be seen in sports as well.
FIFA is a notorious luddite. They act as if the soccer gods will strike with lightning if they so much use an instant-replay.
The overlords at the French Open won't even touch Hawkeye with a ten foot pole. Players have to resort to pointing to where the ball left an impression on the clay to argue for a point that could decide their fate.
I only know of the NHL that embraces an uncommonly high amount of technology to make better ruling decisions. Every goal of every game is reviewed remotely in Toronto just to be sure. Offside calls and a host of other decisions are still handled by a couple of on-ice referees.
All said this technology-hating nonsense and the morons who advocate such superstitious dogma are everywhere.
I pray for the day when this bullshit will be called for what it really is - a form of a hate crime, an intolerance of reason and utility.
[deleted]
I think the problem with philosophy is that language and words only go this far and we humans get tired fast when just thinking hard inside our heads without any interaction with the external world and no real-world problem to solve. I believe it was the book "The Three Pillars of Zen" that illustrated this effect by comparing the posture of Rodins Thinker [1] with the posture of a meditator [2]. So not only do we run circles around our own concepts that are most likely grounded in the unconscious, but we also get very tired, irritated and depressed from it, that's at least my experience.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thinker [2] http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/cob/img/buddha.jpg
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thinker [2] http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/cob/img/buddha.jpg
Perhaps I haven't followed you to a T.
What specific problems or arguments in philosophy are not easily illustratable, using plain language?
I do understand that some thoughts and experiences of the human order may not be easily captured or made intelligible by language.
I guess you could slot the experience of a color-blind person in that category. Especially in the past when testable apparatuses have not yet been developed to even diagnose that such a medical condition does indeed exist.
However I fail to understand why most philosophical arguments cannot be made intelligible to laymen.
René Descartes' "Brain In The Vat" argument is quite easily comprehendable.
It is my opinion (and very often found to be true) that most obtuse arguments (philosophical or otherwise) are indeed "highly technical stuff that doesn't matter much, or vague concatenations of abstractions their own authors didn't fully understand."
In fact I think PG is being charitable. I wonder if the "highly technical stuff" that doesn't lend itself to the peer review of more than a handful of scholars is even valid and credible in the first place.
I know that I am going down the slippery slope of If-I-and-most-non-scholarly-people-of-above-average-intelligence-cannot-grasp-an-argument-then-it-must-be-patently-invalid-and-thus-hogwash.
However at times I wonder if it is indeed possible that the scholarship of even a fraction of the world's most esteemed scholars (in various fields) actually has some validity and truth value associated with it.
Since nearly all of it is produced in academia and thus only subjected to the scrutiny of academic peers.
I wonder if it is just a nice formal product of a large volume of essentially meaningless cogitation that passed the consensus of equally unworthy peers.
This has to be true especially in the more arcane disciplines where there is little oversight or cross-disciplinary activity.
I'm sure there is a name for this phenomenon. Something on the lines of "legitimacy by consensus".
What specific problems or arguments in philosophy are not easily illustratable, using plain language?
I do understand that some thoughts and experiences of the human order may not be easily captured or made intelligible by language.
I guess you could slot the experience of a color-blind person in that category. Especially in the past when testable apparatuses have not yet been developed to even diagnose that such a medical condition does indeed exist.
However I fail to understand why most philosophical arguments cannot be made intelligible to laymen.
René Descartes' "Brain In The Vat" argument is quite easily comprehendable.
It is my opinion (and very often found to be true) that most obtuse arguments (philosophical or otherwise) are indeed "highly technical stuff that doesn't matter much, or vague concatenations of abstractions their own authors didn't fully understand."
In fact I think PG is being charitable. I wonder if the "highly technical stuff" that doesn't lend itself to the peer review of more than a handful of scholars is even valid and credible in the first place.
I know that I am going down the slippery slope of If-I-and-most-non-scholarly-people-of-above-average-intelligence-cannot-grasp-an-argument-then-it-must-be-patently-invalid-and-thus-hogwash.
However at times I wonder if it is indeed possible that the scholarship of even a fraction of the world's most esteemed scholars (in various fields) actually has some validity and truth value associated with it.
Since nearly all of it is produced in academia and thus only subjected to the scrutiny of academic peers.
I wonder if it is just a nice formal product of a large volume of essentially meaningless cogitation that passed the consensus of equally unworthy peers.
This has to be true especially in the more arcane disciplines where there is little oversight or cross-disciplinary activity.
I'm sure there is a name for this phenomenon. Something on the lines of "legitimacy by consensus".
I simply get very tired very quickly when reading philosophy, not because I find the arguments difficult but because those works never seem to get to any conclusion regarding the problems being considered and there is anyway no way to validate what is being said with the external world or apply it to anything. It's a bit like closing your self in a room and talking to yourself for prolonged amounts of time, there is something unhealthy to the human psyche and from observing other people I see that the more someone contemplates things like "meaning of life" the more unhappy they become. Now with this observation in mind I try to come up with some explanation of this phenomena.
Imagine a neuroscientist watching a person contemplating a so-called philosophical problem, like "what is beauty?". You have a part of your brain that is responsible for language and discourse and inner dialogue and most likely a completely separate part that is capable of the emotions you experience when seeing what you personally call beauty. Now that language part is capable of creating a great number of the most wild hypothesis about what beauty is, but the part that really perceives beauty and creates the associated emotions operates completely unconsciously so you have no chance to capture with your conscious self what beauty "really" is to you. So all this "philosophizing" is just your brain chatting random things somewhat related to the concept of "beauty", but there is no purpose to it, no conclusion, no validation and all this you could just experience some beauty somewhere instead.
Imagine a neuroscientist watching a person contemplating a so-called philosophical problem, like "what is beauty?". You have a part of your brain that is responsible for language and discourse and inner dialogue and most likely a completely separate part that is capable of the emotions you experience when seeing what you personally call beauty. Now that language part is capable of creating a great number of the most wild hypothesis about what beauty is, but the part that really perceives beauty and creates the associated emotions operates completely unconsciously so you have no chance to capture with your conscious self what beauty "really" is to you. So all this "philosophizing" is just your brain chatting random things somewhat related to the concept of "beauty", but there is no purpose to it, no conclusion, no validation and all this you could just experience some beauty somewhere instead.
For those interested in a broad account of history that does not try to explain what happened, but why things happen, I highly recommend Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel"[1]. It resonates well with the hacker's desire to understand what makes the world tick :)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel
Regarding adding macros to Python, the new language Julia, which is fairly Python-like in appearance, has them: http://julialang.org/
Like Lisp, Julia is completely homoiconic. Zach Allaun at Hacker School, formerly a Clojure guy, has been doing lots of cool stuff with its macros, like this one to make tail-call optimization available (not natively a feature of Julia): http://blog.zachallaun.com/post/jumping-julia
The infix syntax serves to make Julia macros a bit uglier and more complex than Lisp ones, but they still provide the same power.
Edit: Here's a link to the Julia docs on metaprogramming: http://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/manual/metaprogramming/
Like Lisp, Julia is completely homoiconic. Zach Allaun at Hacker School, formerly a Clojure guy, has been doing lots of cool stuff with its macros, like this one to make tail-call optimization available (not natively a feature of Julia): http://blog.zachallaun.com/post/jumping-julia
The infix syntax serves to make Julia macros a bit uglier and more complex than Lisp ones, but they still provide the same power.
Edit: Here's a link to the Julia docs on metaprogramming: http://docs.julialang.org/en/latest/manual/metaprogramming/
But it would be hard to do that without creating a notation for parse trees; and once you do, your language has become a skin on Lisp, in much the same way that in OS X, the Mac OS became a skin on Unix.
TIL Julia is a skin on Lisp.
It can be interesting to study ancient philosophy, but more as a kind of accident report than to teach you anything useful.
Couldn't agree more, ancient philosophy (and most of contemporary philosophy) is a complete waste of time.
TIL Julia is a skin on Lisp.
It can be interesting to study ancient philosophy, but more as a kind of accident report than to teach you anything useful.
Couldn't agree more, ancient philosophy (and most of contemporary philosophy) is a complete waste of time.
> TIL Julia is a skin on Lisp.
It actually is more so than you might imagine. If you have julia installed try `julia --lisp` ;).
It actually is more so than you might imagine. If you have julia installed try `julia --lisp` ;).
My favourite history book that I've recently read:
Simon Sebag Montefiore's Jerusalem: The Biography - amazing work of scope, depth and human understanding.
I also studied philosophy as a degree and agree there are no really great introductions. I finished my degree somewhat disengaged with the subject and haven't pursued it seriously since. My favourite book though was John Rawls' A Theory of Justice.
Simon Sebag Montefiore's Jerusalem: The Biography - amazing work of scope, depth and human understanding.
I also studied philosophy as a degree and agree there are no really great introductions. I finished my degree somewhat disengaged with the subject and haven't pursued it seriously since. My favourite book though was John Rawls' A Theory of Justice.
> Can you add macros to python
Yes https://github.com/lihaoyi/macropy
Yes https://github.com/lihaoyi/macropy
It is not exactly a history book but Guns, Germs, and Steel should be on the reading list. It starts at the dawn of modern humans and explains a lot about how the world is organized.
It started with a simple question from a New Guinea native to an anthropologist of European descent: "Why do you guys have all the loot?"
Hint -- it's not because of smarts.
It started with a simple question from a New Guinea native to an anthropologist of European descent: "Why do you guys have all the loot?"
Hint -- it's not because of smarts.
One issue I've found with studying history piecewise like this (basically how history is taught in school…) is that you don't get a good global picture of an era.
What was happening in China at the time of the Roman Empire ?
Is getting a good global picture a particularly high priority in most historical studies, particularly more ancient civilisations?
There's little if any overlap between the two (unless you're thinking of things like the effect of steppe tribes moving from the east into Europe), so I'm not sure you'd get a better understanding of either Roman or Chinese history by treating them as a single story.
If you are personally particularly interested in that, isn't the answer to simply read both a book about Rome and one about China from a similar time period?
There's little if any overlap between the two (unless you're thinking of things like the effect of steppe tribes moving from the east into Europe), so I'm not sure you'd get a better understanding of either Roman or Chinese history by treating them as a single story.
If you are personally particularly interested in that, isn't the answer to simply read both a book about Rome and one about China from a similar time period?
<More Riffs on PG on Philosophy>
Philosophy is wasted on the young. The great tragedy of Socrates death is that the democracy had a point. If it's any consolation, Socrates was not just a man, Socrates was old.
Academic Philosophy is not as interesting as LISP. Don't hold that against them, for millennia philosophers have suffered ignorance of the lambda calculus. The current fascination with Brainfuck is but a passing paradigm.
DSL's show Wittgenstein wrong about private languages. This would prove to Wittgenstein on his own terms that he had misused language and accidentally slipped into philosophy.
C. S. Pierce was a working scientist. He shipped his side project. When the academics got ahold of it, we got psychology. The PHB is a side-effect.
When philosophy gets back to basics and focuses on thinking clearly, a LISP will be part of the curriculum. Arc as a 100 year language is a dip-shit exit.
Philosophy is wasted on the young. The great tragedy of Socrates death is that the democracy had a point. If it's any consolation, Socrates was not just a man, Socrates was old.
Academic Philosophy is not as interesting as LISP. Don't hold that against them, for millennia philosophers have suffered ignorance of the lambda calculus. The current fascination with Brainfuck is but a passing paradigm.
DSL's show Wittgenstein wrong about private languages. This would prove to Wittgenstein on his own terms that he had misused language and accidentally slipped into philosophy.
C. S. Pierce was a working scientist. He shipped his side project. When the academics got ahold of it, we got psychology. The PHB is a side-effect.
When philosophy gets back to basics and focuses on thinking clearly, a LISP will be part of the curriculum. Arc as a 100 year language is a dip-shit exit.
I like "RAQ" acronym. I've always hated "Nerd Stuff", "Technical Questions" and similar titles on pages that answer not so popular questions.
Riffs:
<<Why don't more painters have hacking jobs?>>
I think pg is right in highlighting age here. Generally speaking you need to get started young. Beyond this, there is a natural synchronicity in all "arts" when engaged at a high level, which is why the renaissance produced true "renaissance men." The trick is to start early but resist the all too common impulse to mediocrity in the context of specialization -- pg's association with elite institutions certainly helps here.
<<What should I read to learn more about history?>>
I find pg slightly misguided here. One of the world's best historians was my former advisor (Martin van Creveld), and his technique was to find a subject that he could fall in love with and immerse himself in it passionately for a year or two (ultimately however long it took him to write a book about that subject). I think a strong passion for a particular subject can make up for the otherwise dense and uninteresting material. Looking for books that make things "exciting" is a recipe for an understanding of history that is as piecemeal as one's own reading habits.
<<Couldn't you add something equivalent to Lisp macros to languages like Perl or Python?>>
Yes, of course. One could also quote the apocryphal McCarthy / Norwig story here.
<<How can I avoid turning into a pointy-haired boss?>>
Starts off generally correct and "startups" are certainly one solution to this problem, but I'm not sure they are the only solution. For instance, this basically assumes that your startup can exist as a flat organizational structure with only hyper-intelligent and interesting people. But what if, heaven forbid, you need to add a customer service division?
The truth is that really smart people generally don't want to be middle managers in large firms. The work isn't that interesting, and the compensation is to a certain degree adjusted more highly to compensate people for walking around in suits and clucking their tongues all day. Rather than pointing finger with the negative stereotype ("pointy-haired boss"), I think it is more appropriate to think of these people as corporate trash men, compensated more highly because of a generally undesirable job (after all, managing Dilbert and Dogbert probably isn't a recipe for life long engagement).
<<I'm about to become a teacher. How can I be a good one?>>
Agree. Probably a lot that could be added here about how to engage personally with students, although this goes beyond mere "teaching" to "mentorship"
<<Two startups want to hire me. Which should I choose?>>
Perhaps strangely, I generally disagree with the principle that you should go with the startup that is more likely to succeed. I think you should find the subject that you are personally most passionate about and pursue it with all the passion you have. Since you give a sh*t (a rather rare things these days), you will naturally become very good at that particularly area. Only then find startups in your particular area of interest. They should all want to hire you. Then, of course, you will pick the one that matches your passion, which should be the one that is executing most successfully towards their stated goal.
<<How can I become really good at Lisp programming?>>
I'm not very good at Lisp...
<<What philosophy books would you recommend?>>
Very tricky topic and a bit "recursive," in that pg references "what philosophy is supposed to be teaching" without defining it -- this in itself obviously a "philosophical" question.
Also, it's not at all clear from the response what pg has actually read. There are quite obviously a lot of genres of philosophy. Some of them, even if you consider them complete nonsense (like books of canon law derived from dogmatic theological principles), are extraordinarily useful to read if you care about understanding the progress of history, inclusive of why dogmatic patterns of thinking about particular subjects dominate at many period in time.
That said, I think everyone should at the very least have a basic knowledge of the Socratic dialogues, which are an excellent process in stimulating the mind and evaluating one's own presuppositions -- the approach of the majority of people is anything but the "examined life," and the only process of moving beyond the basic assumptions of a particular age is to examine them in the light of reason.
<<I want to start a startup, but I don't know how to program. How long will it take to learn?>>
Generally agree with pg, but I think the plethora of online learning aids means that it is better to learn the fundamentals on your own or in a week long course (i.e. how to build your first rails app), then "apprentice" yourself at a very low wage until you grasp the fundamentals. Also, I don't think this is a question merely of "smarts" but of an engineering/builder disposition, which some people simply don't have. I don't think "answering phones" is going to help you get that disposition.
This actually leads to a general critique of pg's "philosophy." Startups may be a very good solution to some problems, but are are certainly not a panacea for all problems. Ipso facto, it is important to more carefully define the problem scope and characteristics before defining the solution.
<<Why don't more painters have hacking jobs?>>
I think pg is right in highlighting age here. Generally speaking you need to get started young. Beyond this, there is a natural synchronicity in all "arts" when engaged at a high level, which is why the renaissance produced true "renaissance men." The trick is to start early but resist the all too common impulse to mediocrity in the context of specialization -- pg's association with elite institutions certainly helps here.
<<What should I read to learn more about history?>>
I find pg slightly misguided here. One of the world's best historians was my former advisor (Martin van Creveld), and his technique was to find a subject that he could fall in love with and immerse himself in it passionately for a year or two (ultimately however long it took him to write a book about that subject). I think a strong passion for a particular subject can make up for the otherwise dense and uninteresting material. Looking for books that make things "exciting" is a recipe for an understanding of history that is as piecemeal as one's own reading habits.
<<Couldn't you add something equivalent to Lisp macros to languages like Perl or Python?>>
Yes, of course. One could also quote the apocryphal McCarthy / Norwig story here.
<<How can I avoid turning into a pointy-haired boss?>>
Starts off generally correct and "startups" are certainly one solution to this problem, but I'm not sure they are the only solution. For instance, this basically assumes that your startup can exist as a flat organizational structure with only hyper-intelligent and interesting people. But what if, heaven forbid, you need to add a customer service division?
The truth is that really smart people generally don't want to be middle managers in large firms. The work isn't that interesting, and the compensation is to a certain degree adjusted more highly to compensate people for walking around in suits and clucking their tongues all day. Rather than pointing finger with the negative stereotype ("pointy-haired boss"), I think it is more appropriate to think of these people as corporate trash men, compensated more highly because of a generally undesirable job (after all, managing Dilbert and Dogbert probably isn't a recipe for life long engagement).
<<I'm about to become a teacher. How can I be a good one?>>
Agree. Probably a lot that could be added here about how to engage personally with students, although this goes beyond mere "teaching" to "mentorship"
<<Two startups want to hire me. Which should I choose?>>
Perhaps strangely, I generally disagree with the principle that you should go with the startup that is more likely to succeed. I think you should find the subject that you are personally most passionate about and pursue it with all the passion you have. Since you give a sh*t (a rather rare things these days), you will naturally become very good at that particularly area. Only then find startups in your particular area of interest. They should all want to hire you. Then, of course, you will pick the one that matches your passion, which should be the one that is executing most successfully towards their stated goal.
<<How can I become really good at Lisp programming?>>
I'm not very good at Lisp...
<<What philosophy books would you recommend?>>
Very tricky topic and a bit "recursive," in that pg references "what philosophy is supposed to be teaching" without defining it -- this in itself obviously a "philosophical" question.
Also, it's not at all clear from the response what pg has actually read. There are quite obviously a lot of genres of philosophy. Some of them, even if you consider them complete nonsense (like books of canon law derived from dogmatic theological principles), are extraordinarily useful to read if you care about understanding the progress of history, inclusive of why dogmatic patterns of thinking about particular subjects dominate at many period in time.
That said, I think everyone should at the very least have a basic knowledge of the Socratic dialogues, which are an excellent process in stimulating the mind and evaluating one's own presuppositions -- the approach of the majority of people is anything but the "examined life," and the only process of moving beyond the basic assumptions of a particular age is to examine them in the light of reason.
<<I want to start a startup, but I don't know how to program. How long will it take to learn?>>
Generally agree with pg, but I think the plethora of online learning aids means that it is better to learn the fundamentals on your own or in a week long course (i.e. how to build your first rails app), then "apprentice" yourself at a very low wage until you grasp the fundamentals. Also, I don't think this is a question merely of "smarts" but of an engineering/builder disposition, which some people simply don't have. I don't think "answering phones" is going to help you get that disposition.
This actually leads to a general critique of pg's "philosophy." Startups may be a very good solution to some problems, but are are certainly not a panacea for all problems. Ipso facto, it is important to more carefully define the problem scope and characteristics before defining the solution.
So, the problem with Hegel is that he didn't study LISP and startups enough to understand his own thought. If only he were alive to ask for Paul Graham's help!
OK my turn! I'm going to post on a social sciences website that Paul Graham doesn't really understand LISP because he hasn't studied... uh, Slavoj Zizek enough.