i cant, the book is nearly at maximum density already. its about various fields of philosophy and various viewpoints that exist.
various
Thatâs funny, I read all the w i k i pages that were referenced and recommended during the meta ethics discussion as well as plenty of related pages (because why wouldnât you?)
It was wiki shit that he was directed at. Are you saying you didnât even read the thread when you criticized anyone telling him to read material so that the discussion would serve him better?
I misread it as paper originally and not book. But also, you said itâs short and laymen, yet maximum density?
i cant meaningfully summarize it because its already a summary. theres nothing to abstract out because its all abstractions.
density is probably the wrong word.
So here is the problem statement. I skimmed over some parts
There is nothing about this guy which makes him more capable of answering any of these questions than anyone else - in general discussions about these questions are fairly meaningless, achieve nothing, get nowhere, are entirely intellectually masturbatory - it is very similar to spending your day debating the philosophy of mathematics on the internet.
Unless there is something novel, something useful, or something particularly insightful there is no point in actually reading the book when I could instead go outside and talk to a rock.
don't knock it before you try it
I think you mean don't rock it before you try it
1 Like
well, he doesnt purport to definitvely answer the questions here: the book is just for summarizing some views other people have.
and i agree with your statement in a limited sense. i do agree that at least some of the stuff is a "waste of time", but it is apparent that a lot of people have spent time thinking about it and its really compelling to think about. so in that sense if we managed to find answers or insights that actually satisfied people and let them stop worrying about it that would in itself be productive.
Yes, read a pop philosophy book and claim you know anything about philosophy. Also, he's pretty against physical reduction in the brain lol
LMAO
btw this cultural or even ideological difference thing is pretty compelling actually. ive been discussing this book with a friend; hes the most spiritual person i know (well). if we mapped philosophy enthusiast to the political left and hippie-hater to the right,
ewiz is ewiz
my friend is mitt romney
im ben shapiro
asoul is literally hitler
There are no answers or insights except your own personal answers and insights and those can't be given to others to satisfy them
i shouldnt have used the word density. i guess dense texts are more amenable to summarization, actually.
perhaps.
i think this is a bad kind of gate-keeping. i would encourage laymen to read pop-math or pop-science or whatever; its better than nothing. please recommend me an accessible text.
I actually agree
I want to tell you a story but it involves personal details which I cannot share
Suffice to say you can spend decades climbing the mountain and if you are lucky you might finally reach the top but when it's time to go back you can't bring the top back down with you. The next guy (or gal) who comes along will have to climb it just the same
And it's particularly awful for that because he makes no citations or recommendations for what to read if you want to know more about an idea he talks about
can you recommend me another accessible book that does?