Anyhow I am done reading the paper and I have to say I liked it. She said some interesting things
But she should've been a Unitarian preacher instead of a math education reformer
I would encourage them to read it. I wouldn't encourage them to purport to understand philosophy or math and refuse to read citations that discuss the ideas at a deeper level
I’m just going to put out, while getting through the introduction on this book, that it makes two possibilities seem like high probabilities
Material such as this corrupted hbotz brain about philosophy or material such as this highlights a swath of his intellectual motivation to not really develop his understanding of the subject, because he believes he’s already figured things out and he’s fine with that.
i actually dont like this at all. if someone came up with an idea but its somehow completely non-communicable to other humans, id question the legitimacy of the idea. id think its more likely they just confused themselves into a state of satisfaction.
although, maybe for philosophical crises and whatever its expedient to confuse yourself into satisfaction with a personal answer so you can go make money or something
Here is how she ends it
It's possible to communicate it to other humans but not sufficient nor satisfactory
Just like I can tell you where the mountain is, how to get there, what you will encounter on your climb, and what you will see at the top but all of that is completely meaningless to you because you haven't personally been to the top of the mountain
It's the latter. It's a good introduction in terms of content, but it's an absolutely horrible introduction in every other way. A survey of a field absolutely must have citations to lectures/essays/papers/books that discuss the individual ideas more in depth or the reader has no idea where to go to learn more. That helps to breed the contentment with the knowledge and the reader's idea that they've learned all they need to.
i read the book after i already had my views. the book told me about some other views (some of which i had heard before), and i rejected those views on the basis of my views (although i gained some understanding of the alternatives)
its kind of sad cuz i thought my spiritualish friend would have significantly different sentiments than me but we both had the same kind of shmeh reactions to most of it and mostly ended up discussing our own philosophies
at least it is a palatable book though.
you dont have to psychoanalyze me just because i unironically recommended a book to asoul geez
although i think this might help me increase my understanding of the population of people allergic to me
You realize this is the definition of bad faith? Going into a discussion (and reading a book is a discussion) with the ostensible purpose of learning/changing, but rejecting everything because of your prior notions, even when they're challenged
To be clear nyte has not read the book or the source material and has no foundation to make statements like "corrupted hbotz mind"
And ewiz has not been to the top of the mountain.
Good to see you're the same way with even basic material as you are anything else. At least you're consistent in your refusal to learn or grow in any way
what do you mean? i thought about the proposed alternatives, then found convincing reason to reject them. i can see some naive strawman counterarguments to my own rejections, which are unconvincing. i dont have access to the proper counterarguments because the book is too high-level, so i thought maybe you could tell me some in a way that i can understand, but you keep using large words and appealing to godel.
maybe i will read nagel's own work on rejection of materialism sometime
im stuck in my own head. i look for dissent. when i see dissent, i try to make them say something to change my mind.
this is the hbotz way 
i think its kind of yikes that i innocently recommended a book to you and now they are speculating on how it corrupted my mind. dirty tactics.
Then why can you never share those reasons here?
Lmao
I gave you SEP and Wikipedia articles that are not written at a high-level. You didn't ever read them.
But you won't ever. You don't actually give counterarguments: you merely reassert your unjustified claims. It's the definition of bad faith.
if u ever read something to learn and then dont look up all the words that are new or are used in new ways you are useless
They are people who form conclusions and then seek evidence to support those conclusions instead of the other way around
So you were nice enough to give them new evidence and now they are experimenting to see how it can be made to fit their conclusions
well, its more like youre rejecting my counterarguments on basis of them not conforming to theory or not being well-founded. which means they actually suck, im communicating badly, or youre understanding them badly. but i cant tell which.