I've further thought about the proliferation of self-help books, and I don't think it is a problem at all.
But it's like fast food! Easy to purchase and consume, but hardly good for you.
Do you think people would read Friedrich Nietzsche if self-help books become suddenly unavailable? I bet they wouldn't.
What do you think they would be reading then?
Not Arthur Schopenhauer for sure. Probably one of the holy scriptures, or more likely, nothing. You see, most of us do not enjoy thinking on our own.
That contradicts my daily experience. I see too many people wanting to boss around others.
I'd say that's slightly different. Bossing around means imposing one's will on others without giving sufficient consideration to theirs, but it certainly does not mean thinking independently. Confidantes of powerful people come in the guise of vice-presidents, wives, etc. and are well known to give crucial advice. They provide the ideas, the ones in power pick among them and force others to follow that choice.
How can we avoid fascism when all of us are not thinking hard?
In my opinion, the proportion of population which is inclined to engage in independent thinking does not change dramatically over time. Sure, with the technological progress, we have more of excess time and energy that could be devoted to thinking. With universal education, more of us have access to formal knowledge. So, the proportion must have increased in the past century, but not by a whole lot.
Universal suffrage used to be a stimulus for political thinking, but no longer so in many countries.
Don't you think it would be a problem if every one of us engaged in independent thinking?
For example, your neighbors could be John Locke and René Descartes. Every time they meet on the street, they would have a great empiricism versus rationalism debate. John challenges, "Show me your prior," and René replies, "Only if you show me your posterior!"
What if we throw in Bayesian and non-Bayesian statisticians to this verbal mayhem? And, suppose Immanuel Kant lives across the street and tries to bring John and René together by saying that both have a point: that we acquire knowledge from both experience and rational deduction.
Of course, David Hume lives around the corner and tells Kant that he should get lost because what Kant says is impossible. What fun!
We shouldn't get too excited, though. Think about John's inviting his neighbors for afternoon tea.
True, I think René would hate John even more for his cucumber sandwiches. I guess we need leaders and followers.
Just like we can't all be full-time poets.
What if your grandmother happens to be Emily Dickinson and your brother Allen Ginsberg? Would you look forward to a family reunion?
It would be something like this. The grandmother says, "Water is taught by thirst. Land---by the Oceans passed. Transport---by throe---Peace---by its battles told---Love, by Memorial Mould---Birds, by the Snow." Upon hearing, the brother snorts and says, "Kissass is the Part of Peace, America will have to Kissass Mother Earth, Whites have to Kissass blacks, for Peace & Pleasure, Only Pathway to Peace, Kissass."
Unspeakable horror!
We contribute to world harmony and peace by our very mediocrity...
Talented or not, I don't understand people who happily submit themselves to be bullied. Plus, how can we have a truly democratic society if most people are willing to follow others just like that?
What if others aren't exactly others?
I am you, and you are me?
Yes, we are them, and they are us: a society in which everybody is the same.
That defeats the purpose! It means that democracy works perfectly only in a situation where you do not need it.
Barring such society of clones, the closest we can get to true democracy is when we coalesce around several thoughts, I imagine.
Perhaps it's just like companies. Perfect competition among firms results in devoting too much resource to fend off competitors, and monopoly means power abuse. The best would be somewhere between the extremes.
But it's like fast food! Easy to purchase and consume, but hardly good for you.
Do you think people would read Friedrich Nietzsche if self-help books become suddenly unavailable? I bet they wouldn't.
What do you think they would be reading then?
Not Arthur Schopenhauer for sure. Probably one of the holy scriptures, or more likely, nothing. You see, most of us do not enjoy thinking on our own.
That contradicts my daily experience. I see too many people wanting to boss around others.
I'd say that's slightly different. Bossing around means imposing one's will on others without giving sufficient consideration to theirs, but it certainly does not mean thinking independently. Confidantes of powerful people come in the guise of vice-presidents, wives, etc. and are well known to give crucial advice. They provide the ideas, the ones in power pick among them and force others to follow that choice.
How can we avoid fascism when all of us are not thinking hard?
In my opinion, the proportion of population which is inclined to engage in independent thinking does not change dramatically over time. Sure, with the technological progress, we have more of excess time and energy that could be devoted to thinking. With universal education, more of us have access to formal knowledge. So, the proportion must have increased in the past century, but not by a whole lot.
Universal suffrage used to be a stimulus for political thinking, but no longer so in many countries.
Don't you think it would be a problem if every one of us engaged in independent thinking?
For example, your neighbors could be John Locke and René Descartes. Every time they meet on the street, they would have a great empiricism versus rationalism debate. John challenges, "Show me your prior," and René replies, "Only if you show me your posterior!"
What if we throw in Bayesian and non-Bayesian statisticians to this verbal mayhem? And, suppose Immanuel Kant lives across the street and tries to bring John and René together by saying that both have a point: that we acquire knowledge from both experience and rational deduction.
Of course, David Hume lives around the corner and tells Kant that he should get lost because what Kant says is impossible. What fun!
We shouldn't get too excited, though. Think about John's inviting his neighbors for afternoon tea.
True, I think René would hate John even more for his cucumber sandwiches. I guess we need leaders and followers.
Just like we can't all be full-time poets.
What if your grandmother happens to be Emily Dickinson and your brother Allen Ginsberg? Would you look forward to a family reunion?
It would be something like this. The grandmother says, "Water is taught by thirst. Land---by the Oceans passed. Transport---by throe---Peace---by its battles told---Love, by Memorial Mould---Birds, by the Snow." Upon hearing, the brother snorts and says, "Kissass is the Part of Peace, America will have to Kissass Mother Earth, Whites have to Kissass blacks, for Peace & Pleasure, Only Pathway to Peace, Kissass."
Unspeakable horror!
We contribute to world harmony and peace by our very mediocrity...
Talented or not, I don't understand people who happily submit themselves to be bullied. Plus, how can we have a truly democratic society if most people are willing to follow others just like that?
What if others aren't exactly others?
I am you, and you are me?
Yes, we are them, and they are us: a society in which everybody is the same.
That defeats the purpose! It means that democracy works perfectly only in a situation where you do not need it.
Barring such society of clones, the closest we can get to true democracy is when we coalesce around several thoughts, I imagine.
Perhaps it's just like companies. Perfect competition among firms results in devoting too much resource to fend off competitors, and monopoly means power abuse. The best would be somewhere between the extremes.
Posts
