Jonathan Franzen: what's wrong with the modern world(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Jonathan Franzen: what's wrong with the modern world
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/sep/13/jonathan-franzen-wrong-modern-world
47 comments
Expectations are suffering's inertia. Remove them, and you lower the rate of suffering. Lower your suffering, and you'll find more joy in the moment. Finding more joy in the moment leads to being less negative. Being less negative results in a positive impact on others around you.
It's also a lot of work!
It's also a lot of work!
Have not read the piece yet, but your comment resonated with me.
I'm at a similar place in life, especially after being a terribly critical person almost all my life. Thankfully, the best takeaway for me from my so far below-par tryst with entrepreneurship has been to be much more appreciative of everything.
All the things that are wrong are things that can also be improved, so, these days, I try to think of what I can do to improve them.
I'm at a similar place in life, especially after being a terribly critical person almost all my life. Thankfully, the best takeaway for me from my so far below-par tryst with entrepreneurship has been to be much more appreciative of everything.
All the things that are wrong are things that can also be improved, so, these days, I try to think of what I can do to improve them.
It is funny, Franzen describes in the article how he also approached this state of mind when he grew older.
If you read Franzen's novels, The Corrections first, then Freedom, you really get a good sense of how he changed. They are decent reads.
Also, for truly deep insight into his literary thoughts and themes, read his essays in Farther Away:
http://www.amazon.com/Farther-Away-Essays-Jonathan-Franzen/d...
Being a critic is far more difficult than being a complacent tinkerer. Criticism requires analysis and pushes you into conflicts. Tinkering can be done inside of a cozy turtle-shell. Anyone who creates something fundamentally new has to be a critic to a some extent - doing new things is essentially criticizing the current state of reality.
Being a critic is trivial. "This sucks." "That sucks." "Everything sucks."
Providing well-reasoned criticism backed by evidence is much more difficult. Providing constructive criticism or suggestions that are meaningful is even harder.
Providing well-reasoned criticism backed by evidence is much more difficult. Providing constructive criticism or suggestions that are meaningful is even harder.
This is a great article. I relate to Jonathan Franzen in his mission to get others to seek out the one-to-one relationship he had with Kraus. I believe this relationship is really what the whole piece is about.
In many of his points he is true. The conventional means of seeking this same fulfillment are sinking away.
But he overestimates how much people are nullified by technology. And he is blind to the other possible means of access to these feelings technology can provide. Technophobes can't see behind the veil of pixels. They believe that all experiences on a computer are fake, and that the internet is a superficial control panel onto a (boring) machine of cogs and wires. A computer is no more than a stone to throw in a river.
The problem is these people rarely look. And when they do their self fulfilling prophesy dirties their own great experiences (they believe the computer in its wisdom has tricked their emotions). Anyone who has spend years on a forum, or late nights on IRC talking to people they've known for decades, knows these experiences are real.
To engage with technology is the only way to re-find these experiences in the modern world. It isn't really anything to do with technology. It embodies all aspects of life. To anyone growing with hate about the world I give the same advice _engage_ and you will find what you're looking for.
In many of his points he is true. The conventional means of seeking this same fulfillment are sinking away.
But he overestimates how much people are nullified by technology. And he is blind to the other possible means of access to these feelings technology can provide. Technophobes can't see behind the veil of pixels. They believe that all experiences on a computer are fake, and that the internet is a superficial control panel onto a (boring) machine of cogs and wires. A computer is no more than a stone to throw in a river.
The problem is these people rarely look. And when they do their self fulfilling prophesy dirties their own great experiences (they believe the computer in its wisdom has tricked their emotions). Anyone who has spend years on a forum, or late nights on IRC talking to people they've known for decades, knows these experiences are real.
To engage with technology is the only way to re-find these experiences in the modern world. It isn't really anything to do with technology. It embodies all aspects of life. To anyone growing with hate about the world I give the same advice _engage_ and you will find what you're looking for.
Mostly I agree with you. I guess I also want to agree, but, here's what happens with me: no matter how much I try, the interactions I have with people through email and IM are never, never, as interesting and as deep as the conversations I have with the remaining three people that I still correspond with letters (yes, I mean snailmail, paper letters). It's unfortunate, I guess, and I wish it wasn't so, but as one writer said once, a long time ago when he didn't even know about email, "the letter has always been the most sophisticated means of conversation".
I have found it mostly has to do with the care letters are written with. An e-mail is like talking in real life, in many cases someone responds to it right away and if there is any misunderstanding you can correct it right there with another e-mail. In many cases a letter is much more formal, you have to take a little bit of care to make sure the message is getting across right the first time.
Plus, since letters take quite some time to arrive at their destination, and double that for you to receive an answer, they tend to be much longer (I think that is why they tend to be; not 100% sure). I've never received an email that was longer than three pages. Whereas with letters, I've both sent and received some very, very long letters, and almost all were a joy to read and to write.
To engage with technology is the only way to re-find these experiences in the modern world.
Technology is neutral, and in essence is a metho od illusion. And like all illusions, some are useful abstractions, whilst others are merely distractions. Both things in life are neccessary, I'm affraid. Its life by another means, no different to the use of other media. Other than at a tactical level, it requires new skills and sensibilies (perhaps).
Technology is neutral, and in essence is a metho od illusion. And like all illusions, some are useful abstractions, whilst others are merely distractions. Both things in life are neccessary, I'm affraid. Its life by another means, no different to the use of other media. Other than at a tactical level, it requires new skills and sensibilies (perhaps).
As I leave my 20's behind and enter my 30's, anytime I begin to pearl clutch about things that don't seem quite right to me, I always remember this Simpsons clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yHBz3K0yKg
That's when I remember the world doesn't want to be saved by what I think is right and appropriate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yHBz3K0yKg
That's when I remember the world doesn't want to be saved by what I think is right and appropriate.
An appropriate response: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/opinion/sunday/the-code-of...
This was actually how I found the Franzen article.
But ... I don't think the response is nearly as formidable as the challenge. The writer of the NY Times article has that superficial knowledge of a programmer newbie (for example, comparing Facebook / Google with an operating system is not as wrong as it might seem), but not the depth of thought that Franzen has.
But ... I don't think the response is nearly as formidable as the challenge. The writer of the NY Times article has that superficial knowledge of a programmer newbie (for example, comparing Facebook / Google with an operating system is not as wrong as it might seem), but not the depth of thought that Franzen has.
i don't think there's much depth of thought at all. He doesn't understand that future reviews will have better algorithms filtering them. He doesn't mention that quality during the print era was terrible also. That since the beginning of printing, trash was being written, and things were being written purely for profit. And that in the internet age, an awesome writer can find an audience of 50. The main thing is that he doesn't really understand technology, probably because he doesn't use it.
It is, however, more poetic and more emotionally resonant than the response.
It is, however, more poetic and more emotionally resonant than the response.
He actually understands all of those things. He mentions in particular that "since the beginning of printing, trash was being written, and things were being written purely for profit".
I really doubt that he understands that algorithms will be formed that filter those reviews out on amazon. I really do believe he thinks that quality control being supposedly better in print was actually good for the best writers.
What evidence have you given that you understand these "better algorithms?" You haven't even described them, let alone named them. Merely alluded to them like a religious believer invoking handwavey ideas of first cause. I don't think you are in a position to criticize "depth of thought."
Moore's law is a statement about transistor density. It does not apply to algorithmic/mathematical innovation, otherwise we'd have sentient robot buddies already. Do you find the algorithms and languages of today exponentially superior to those of 50 years ago? May I remind you LISP came about in 1958...
Moore's law is a statement about transistor density. It does not apply to algorithmic/mathematical innovation, otherwise we'd have sentient robot buddies already. Do you find the algorithms and languages of today exponentially superior to those of 50 years ago? May I remind you LISP came about in 1958...
Yes i do find that all the algorithms we have right now are superior to all the algorithms that existed 50 years ago.
I don't think that I'm being like a religious fanatic by believing that better fraud detection on amazon reviews will be implemented in the future.
I don't think that I'm being like a religious fanatic by believing that better fraud detection on amazon reviews will be implemented in the future.
>I really do believe he thinks that quality control being supposedly better in print was actually good for the best writers.
And this is exactly why I, apparently like Mr. Franzen, appreciate the "quality control" of newspapers like, for example, the Guardian in this case.
Otherwise, people tend to believe that dismissing a thoughtful 5,000+ word essay with, "I really doubt he understands the Amazon algorithms" passes for reasonable criticism.
And this is exactly why I, apparently like Mr. Franzen, appreciate the "quality control" of newspapers like, for example, the Guardian in this case.
Otherwise, people tend to believe that dismissing a thoughtful 5,000+ word essay with, "I really doubt he understands the Amazon algorithms" passes for reasonable criticism.
This article is not a thoughtful one. It is a poetic one, and it is emotional, and it is even elegant and melancholic. There's nothing new here that Franzen hasn't really already said.
Here's a quote of his:
I think the Internet should be really strictly regulated, the way the airwaves used to be. If an entire region of the country had its main industry suddenly lose 90 percent of its paying jobs because of the predatory practices of a different region’s industry, you might, if you were the government, step in and say, “We can’t actually let this entire region starve. We’re going to subsidize prices, we’re going to redistribute some income.” Why should Apple shareholders be getting rich while working journalists are getting fired? This is an unjust situation, and the libertarians in Silicon Valley are either moral idiots or liars. They know they’re getting away with shit they shouldn’t get away with, and all they’ve got is this idea of libertarianism. That, and the mantra of making the world a better place.
If you think he's a thoughtful person and he's given a lot of time thinking about this, you're wrong. He's not thoughtful, he's defensive about novelists and journalists, and brick and mortar bookstores.
If you read his articles and if you've read his books, you would understand his position on technology is a simple, not thoughtful, not deeply reasoned position. It is VERY black and white and often just wrong.
I'm only talking about his position on tech/internet. He's a great writer and I've read everything he's ever written. And will continue to do so. I'm a huge fan of his.
Similarly, I LOVE Walt Whitman. However, I wouldn't take advice on the beauty of equations from Walt Whitman. It's perfectly fine for someone to be a great poet, but has no ability to see the same elegance in mathematical equations. But to dismiss those equations, it reveals a certain ignorance. But still, I can get into his perspective and find that his poems are very beautiful.
Here's a quote of his:
I think the Internet should be really strictly regulated, the way the airwaves used to be. If an entire region of the country had its main industry suddenly lose 90 percent of its paying jobs because of the predatory practices of a different region’s industry, you might, if you were the government, step in and say, “We can’t actually let this entire region starve. We’re going to subsidize prices, we’re going to redistribute some income.” Why should Apple shareholders be getting rich while working journalists are getting fired? This is an unjust situation, and the libertarians in Silicon Valley are either moral idiots or liars. They know they’re getting away with shit they shouldn’t get away with, and all they’ve got is this idea of libertarianism. That, and the mantra of making the world a better place.
If you think he's a thoughtful person and he's given a lot of time thinking about this, you're wrong. He's not thoughtful, he's defensive about novelists and journalists, and brick and mortar bookstores.
If you read his articles and if you've read his books, you would understand his position on technology is a simple, not thoughtful, not deeply reasoned position. It is VERY black and white and often just wrong.
I'm only talking about his position on tech/internet. He's a great writer and I've read everything he's ever written. And will continue to do so. I'm a huge fan of his.
Similarly, I LOVE Walt Whitman. However, I wouldn't take advice on the beauty of equations from Walt Whitman. It's perfectly fine for someone to be a great poet, but has no ability to see the same elegance in mathematical equations. But to dismiss those equations, it reveals a certain ignorance. But still, I can get into his perspective and find that his poems are very beautiful.
I don't think he mentions that.
Yep, he does. Read the article more carefully :-)
I think he mentioned modern newspapers.
>An appropriate response:
If what you got out of Mr. Franzen's essay was that he's a technophobe who divides the world into Mac and PCs and doesn't know what an operating system is, then yeah, appropriate response.
Personally, I think his essay was a little deeper than that.
If what you got out of Mr. Franzen's essay was that he's a technophobe who divides the world into Mac and PCs and doesn't know what an operating system is, then yeah, appropriate response.
Personally, I think his essay was a little deeper than that.
What is wrong with the world?
He makes some good points in that we tend to talk about things more often than do them. Social networking is all about talking or rather communication. The noise to signal ratio is too high on social networks, and it is dominated by web robots who spam links, and in-you-face adverting that makes the social network free for the users but subjects them to all kinds of advertising even selling their personal data to scammers and spammers and large megacorporations. Sure the social network is free as in beer, but not free as in speech. You don't have any privacy the social network records everything even the stuff you typed but didn't send, and had to stop yourself before you sent it because it would have been embarrassing. In fact one can reasonable say the social networks take away your privacy by forcing you to use your real name and show everything you do, it takes away your rights, your freedoms, your liberties, and of course also treats you as a product instead of a human being, that they can market advertising towards in order to become billionaires.
Apple vs. Microsoft, we once had that with Atari vs. Commodore, we once had that with DEC vs. Wang, we once had that with IBM vs. Amdal, we once had that with Fairchild/Intel vs. TI. Competition is good, because it forces innovation to stay ahead of your competition. But after the DMCA was passed, it gives too much control and power to megacorproations and robs the consumer of ownership rights, liberties, freedoms, and then forces Malware DRM on them in the name of "profits at any cost" and then the megacorproations contribute to both political parties in the USA to make sure that law is never repealed. Oh did I mention corporate corruption makes political corruption?
Religion itself has been hijacked by the megacorproations. For example Christianity was always about love, compassion, and empathy. Love everyone, love your enemies. Now it is about hate, money, power, fame, bragging rights. It is all about greed, envy, lust, sloth, wraith/anger, gluttony, and worse of all pride. Proud to be an American? Proud to be rich and privileged? Christ himself would not approve of it. Pride is one of the most dangerous of the seven deadly sins. No wonder people are leaving religion and becoming atheists, religious people aren't being true to their religious teachings and taking up corporate teachings instead. Corporation corruption makes religious corruption, as well as political corruption, as well as social corruption, as well as cultural corruption as well as environmental corruption as well as economic corruption, and then even science corruption and technological corruption that leads to poor quality products that last less than three years and are made with the cheapest labor in the worst of all conditions in a third world nation using child labor and slavery. But don't worry, once they replace human beings with robots, all of those factory workers will be out of jobs. Unemployed like the rest of us.
Climate change, global warming, global cooling. I don't know the whole thing because of the margin of error in the data collected and that climategate email thing. All I know is corporate corruption has used it as a bat to beat over the head of poor people by jacking around the price of fossil fuels and then trying to force carbon credits (Created by a system from Enron?) to pay for our 'sins' (Anyone remember this guy named Martin Luther?) so we can use carbon based fuels and still not contribute to global warming. It turns out our sun has something to do with it and it is not a 'human factor' http://m.space.com/23934-weak-solar-cycle-space-weather.html But hey, all of this snow is great, and maybe the wooly mammoths will come back as we enter an 'ice age' of global warming aka global cooling bka climate change? BTW more money is spent on studying climate change than actually finding alternatives to fossil fuels and greener technology and greener programming to save electricity? What's up with that? We cut NASA's space program for the war on terror and then cut it some more to study climate change. Now our space program is a joke as China puts a robot on the Moon, and our space shuttle is recycled 1980's tech and mothballed.
The number of mentally ill people keeps on rising. There is no empathy and compassion for the mentally ill anymore. Since a mental illness is 'invisible' most people think the mentally ill are faking it and are really 'pretentious douchebags' who should just 'snap out of it' and get back to work. All public programs to treat the mentally ill got cut after 9/11 in the USA in order to fund NSA spying and security with the TSA and other agencies. Leaving the mentally ill with little or no support options. Dropping out of college because that college could no support them due to lack of funding by the government. So one neuroscience student the system failed, shot up a Batman movie in Colorado as "The Joker" who was mentally ill. Another failed college student shot up a school in Newtown and was mentally ill. The Navy Base Shooter was also mentally ill talking about ELF radiation controlling him. In all three cases they begged for help, talked about killing people, but got no help and no support. They were just swept under the rug and ignored, until they got really violent and off their meds and got some guns and did some shootings. But the mentally ill are vilified now. The news media only focuses on the 10% of the mentally ill that do violent crimes, won't tell you that 90% are non-violent and in need of help, support, empathy, and compassion. http://blastar.in/crawfraud/?p=143
Still it is a human problem of hating those who are different than you in some way. This is a trait that evolution made to keep tribes of humans together for survival. But we don't need it anymore, because the only race that matters now is the human race. All of our lives are at stake now.
He makes some good points in that we tend to talk about things more often than do them. Social networking is all about talking or rather communication. The noise to signal ratio is too high on social networks, and it is dominated by web robots who spam links, and in-you-face adverting that makes the social network free for the users but subjects them to all kinds of advertising even selling their personal data to scammers and spammers and large megacorporations. Sure the social network is free as in beer, but not free as in speech. You don't have any privacy the social network records everything even the stuff you typed but didn't send, and had to stop yourself before you sent it because it would have been embarrassing. In fact one can reasonable say the social networks take away your privacy by forcing you to use your real name and show everything you do, it takes away your rights, your freedoms, your liberties, and of course also treats you as a product instead of a human being, that they can market advertising towards in order to become billionaires.
Apple vs. Microsoft, we once had that with Atari vs. Commodore, we once had that with DEC vs. Wang, we once had that with IBM vs. Amdal, we once had that with Fairchild/Intel vs. TI. Competition is good, because it forces innovation to stay ahead of your competition. But after the DMCA was passed, it gives too much control and power to megacorproations and robs the consumer of ownership rights, liberties, freedoms, and then forces Malware DRM on them in the name of "profits at any cost" and then the megacorproations contribute to both political parties in the USA to make sure that law is never repealed. Oh did I mention corporate corruption makes political corruption?
Religion itself has been hijacked by the megacorproations. For example Christianity was always about love, compassion, and empathy. Love everyone, love your enemies. Now it is about hate, money, power, fame, bragging rights. It is all about greed, envy, lust, sloth, wraith/anger, gluttony, and worse of all pride. Proud to be an American? Proud to be rich and privileged? Christ himself would not approve of it. Pride is one of the most dangerous of the seven deadly sins. No wonder people are leaving religion and becoming atheists, religious people aren't being true to their religious teachings and taking up corporate teachings instead. Corporation corruption makes religious corruption, as well as political corruption, as well as social corruption, as well as cultural corruption as well as environmental corruption as well as economic corruption, and then even science corruption and technological corruption that leads to poor quality products that last less than three years and are made with the cheapest labor in the worst of all conditions in a third world nation using child labor and slavery. But don't worry, once they replace human beings with robots, all of those factory workers will be out of jobs. Unemployed like the rest of us.
Climate change, global warming, global cooling. I don't know the whole thing because of the margin of error in the data collected and that climategate email thing. All I know is corporate corruption has used it as a bat to beat over the head of poor people by jacking around the price of fossil fuels and then trying to force carbon credits (Created by a system from Enron?) to pay for our 'sins' (Anyone remember this guy named Martin Luther?) so we can use carbon based fuels and still not contribute to global warming. It turns out our sun has something to do with it and it is not a 'human factor' http://m.space.com/23934-weak-solar-cycle-space-weather.html But hey, all of this snow is great, and maybe the wooly mammoths will come back as we enter an 'ice age' of global warming aka global cooling bka climate change? BTW more money is spent on studying climate change than actually finding alternatives to fossil fuels and greener technology and greener programming to save electricity? What's up with that? We cut NASA's space program for the war on terror and then cut it some more to study climate change. Now our space program is a joke as China puts a robot on the Moon, and our space shuttle is recycled 1980's tech and mothballed.
The number of mentally ill people keeps on rising. There is no empathy and compassion for the mentally ill anymore. Since a mental illness is 'invisible' most people think the mentally ill are faking it and are really 'pretentious douchebags' who should just 'snap out of it' and get back to work. All public programs to treat the mentally ill got cut after 9/11 in the USA in order to fund NSA spying and security with the TSA and other agencies. Leaving the mentally ill with little or no support options. Dropping out of college because that college could no support them due to lack of funding by the government. So one neuroscience student the system failed, shot up a Batman movie in Colorado as "The Joker" who was mentally ill. Another failed college student shot up a school in Newtown and was mentally ill. The Navy Base Shooter was also mentally ill talking about ELF radiation controlling him. In all three cases they begged for help, talked about killing people, but got no help and no support. They were just swept under the rug and ignored, until they got really violent and off their meds and got some guns and did some shootings. But the mentally ill are vilified now. The news media only focuses on the 10% of the mentally ill that do violent crimes, won't tell you that 90% are non-violent and in need of help, support, empathy, and compassion. http://blastar.in/crawfraud/?p=143
Still it is a human problem of hating those who are different than you in some way. This is a trait that evolution made to keep tribes of humans together for survival. But we don't need it anymore, because the only race that matters now is the human race. All of our lives are at stake now.
It's ironic to me that your second to last paragraph is about the mentally ill not getting the help they need. That cries for help fall on deaf ears. Then you conclude with the idea that hate was the only thing that kept tribes of humans together and that now we're a big happy world.
I'd argue that compassion and tolerance are best practiced in those small groups as well, as you are forced to recognize the person behind the stereotypes (Note: I live in a town of 800 people and can tell you the names of many people who struggle with mental illness, some of whom I've been blessed enough to be able to help at times).
So I'd actually argue the opposite of your point. Sociologically it's been demonstrated that humans tend (not always) to operate best and honestly in a certain size group. DuPont set up their labs based on this number, though I can't remember it off the top of my head. No human is capable of honestly considering the needs of the entire human race. That's just silly.
I'd argue that compassion and tolerance are best practiced in those small groups as well, as you are forced to recognize the person behind the stereotypes (Note: I live in a town of 800 people and can tell you the names of many people who struggle with mental illness, some of whom I've been blessed enough to be able to help at times).
So I'd actually argue the opposite of your point. Sociologically it's been demonstrated that humans tend (not always) to operate best and honestly in a certain size group. DuPont set up their labs based on this number, though I can't remember it off the top of my head. No human is capable of honestly considering the needs of the entire human race. That's just silly.
I never claimed we were a big happy world, to the contrary. We have a lot of problems we need to address, hence my post about world issues.
In society people tell others comfortable lies to make them feel better. To hide the truth from them. Often people resort to humor as in sarcasm, or satire when they cannot stand another person or group. Sometimes it leads to stereotypes and pre-judgement, sometimes people believe those sorts of things as truths even if they are lies and fiction, perhaps even delusion.
True not one person can run the entire world, Sony and others found out they cannot even run multiple parts of their global operation and had to make each national HQ independent to work, otherwise they had failure. I think it is called The Peter Principle if I am not mistake. If there is a NWO or Illuminati, they cannot control the entire world, it would be impossible. What many contribute as conspiracy is really just gross incompetence.
As a mentally ill person, when I first became mentally ill in 2001, I suffered and was in pain a lot because I was rejected by my peers, by management, by my family, and even my friends left me. I had an 'invisible illness' they could not see, but I was as disabled as a blind person, a deaf person, or a person with no legs. Yet there was nothing but hate for me, mocking, persecution, insults, bullying, and being told by some that I should "Just commit suicide to free up world resources for everyone else" because of how useless I was, and no longer considered a human being.
I am told that I am lucky to have survived it all. Most mentally ill people in my situation do kill themselves. You see it in these startup groups, but nobody wants to talk about the stress and pressure in them that causes mental illnesses and how people have to hide their mental illnesses in order to keep working.
In society people tell others comfortable lies to make them feel better. To hide the truth from them. Often people resort to humor as in sarcasm, or satire when they cannot stand another person or group. Sometimes it leads to stereotypes and pre-judgement, sometimes people believe those sorts of things as truths even if they are lies and fiction, perhaps even delusion.
True not one person can run the entire world, Sony and others found out they cannot even run multiple parts of their global operation and had to make each national HQ independent to work, otherwise they had failure. I think it is called The Peter Principle if I am not mistake. If there is a NWO or Illuminati, they cannot control the entire world, it would be impossible. What many contribute as conspiracy is really just gross incompetence.
As a mentally ill person, when I first became mentally ill in 2001, I suffered and was in pain a lot because I was rejected by my peers, by management, by my family, and even my friends left me. I had an 'invisible illness' they could not see, but I was as disabled as a blind person, a deaf person, or a person with no legs. Yet there was nothing but hate for me, mocking, persecution, insults, bullying, and being told by some that I should "Just commit suicide to free up world resources for everyone else" because of how useless I was, and no longer considered a human being.
I am told that I am lucky to have survived it all. Most mentally ill people in my situation do kill themselves. You see it in these startup groups, but nobody wants to talk about the stress and pressure in them that causes mental illnesses and how people have to hide their mental illnesses in order to keep working.
Thank you for posting a well thought out response. Even if I may not agree with everything you said, it was a fantastic read that got me thinking about a lot of different issues.
I am mentally ill myself, the language and social parts of my brain are dysfunctional. I am often misunderstood as a result and cannot properly community what I am trying to say. I come out as annoying people sometimes by mistake and they downvote me because they cannot understand what I was trying to say. Such is my personal life as well, I drive people away due to my mental illness.
If any of it got you to think about different issues, I am glad, even if you disagree with me on some or all of it. My goal was to get people to think about the different issues out there that the original article did not get into enough.
If any of it got you to think about different issues, I am glad, even if you disagree with me on some or all of it. My goal was to get people to think about the different issues out there that the original article did not get into enough.
All of your points except for the first one about privacy seem pedantic. Even that one is a complaint about social networks that are voluntary systems. If you don't like the lack of privacy on social networks don't use them. People freely choose to use them despite the privacy concerns.
Religion hasn't been hijacked by the megacorporations. Christianity, and most other Western religions, are filled with histories of violence and oppression. The mentally ill have been punished and treated poorly throughout history - as were almost all people throughout history. In fact religion is one of the only parts of society where the mentally ill are venerated, which is a sad fact.
Your focus on corporations being the reason for corruption is unwarranted. The main problems arise when our justice system favors one thing over another - be it groups over individuals, whites over blacks or rich over poor. Dispersing power, focusing on equality before the law and in opportunity, and reducing coercive forces on individuals is the solution. This involves self forming economic entities like corporations but also entails strong and separate political systems that aren't influenced by them.
Religion hasn't been hijacked by the megacorporations. Christianity, and most other Western religions, are filled with histories of violence and oppression. The mentally ill have been punished and treated poorly throughout history - as were almost all people throughout history. In fact religion is one of the only parts of society where the mentally ill are venerated, which is a sad fact.
Your focus on corporations being the reason for corruption is unwarranted. The main problems arise when our justice system favors one thing over another - be it groups over individuals, whites over blacks or rich over poor. Dispersing power, focusing on equality before the law and in opportunity, and reducing coercive forces on individuals is the solution. This involves self forming economic entities like corporations but also entails strong and separate political systems that aren't influenced by them.
On the mentally ill and those who are forced to go through psychiatrists - I was reading through this thread yesterday and it left me rather sad: http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1sxjvn/15_yr_old_girl_...
the noise to signal ratio is high in contemporary fiction even.
Well they try to make up for it by killing off popular characters and having all kinds of 'mean' and 'evil' stuff happen to them.
Game of Thrones
Doctor Who
The Hunger Games
Harry Potter
etc.
Game of Thrones
Doctor Who
The Hunger Games
Harry Potter
etc.
I gave up on Freedom after 50 pages upon encountering the cheapest, most exploitative rape-as-dramatic-backstory I've ever read.
Tl;dr, have to get to work. But
a. For a cooler look at Karl Kraus, check out the essay on him in Clive James's Cultural Amnesia. b. The PC/Mac/whatever bit is tedious and silly. c. Comparing the US to the Austro-Hungarian empire is also silly. One might stipulate that we comprise wildly different cultures also; but that would require that one skip the "Roman Catholic empire" bit and notice that the empire had quantities of Protestants, Orthodox, Jews, and Muslims.
a. For a cooler look at Karl Kraus, check out the essay on him in Clive James's Cultural Amnesia. b. The PC/Mac/whatever bit is tedious and silly. c. Comparing the US to the Austro-Hungarian empire is also silly. One might stipulate that we comprise wildly different cultures also; but that would require that one skip the "Roman Catholic empire" bit and notice that the empire had quantities of Protestants, Orthodox, Jews, and Muslims.
Was that supposed to be funny or insightful in some way? It seems to me it's just a wannabe-elitist mocking elitism, interspersed with some horrible jokes.
"Television is also bad; perhaps not as bad as Twitter, but they both start with T, which rhymes with P and which stands for Pool."
Captured his arguments perfectly! Hilarious! </s>
"Television is also bad; perhaps not as bad as Twitter, but they both start with T, which rhymes with P and which stands for Pool."
Captured his arguments perfectly! Hilarious! </s>
I thought it was quite a funny antidote to all of the serious anger-based talk..
[deleted]
The trick is that Kraus describes a clearly delineated set of social groups: Germans, Austrians, Italians and French. Perhaps he's saying that if 'the form is the function', ultimately, the group is susceptible to natural forces and the ambitions other groups that were founded on a sound functional basis. Moreover, modern groups do not have the barriers of geography to separate like-mindedness.
I'm no Franzen fan, but I think the title's a bit harsh.
It's easy to play the critic and sit back and declare that life does not measure up to your expectations. But personally I find building new things, however imperfect they may be, far more satisfying.