"Is there no shorter way of coming to geometry than through your 'Elements'?"
"There is no royal road to Geometry."
A question by King Ptolemy, the First, and Euclid's answer. It was around 300 BC...
We've known it all along. No pain, no gain.
Lately, I've been reading books with titles like, "The Forty-Three Most Important Scientific Experiments in Cartoons," "All the Historical Facts That You Wish You Knew and More," "Learn in Three Hours: Everything About Post-Communist Era Stand-Up Comedies in Hungary," or...
Those are cheat-sheet books!
Some are quite readable, and they give me the impression that I am learning so well that I will always be able to recite the information on demand. But after having read the last page and putting down the book, I can't even recall the very first topic.
I think they are similar to self-help books.
Agree. Information and knowledge obtained through search and query that are frustrating, time-consuming and sometimes confusing tend to stick a lot better. Anything long lasting in memory is accompanied by strong emotions.
By picking up a cheat-sheet book, we think we are motivated enough to learn the material, but that is apparently not enough, at least in your case.
The same is true for languages. Trying to learn one in an artificial environment is difficult, because we don't get real-world responses. I was in a canteen when I tried to order an eggplant dish... Boy, the way the server laughed at me! She laughed out loud and repeated my way of saying the name of the dish with great contempt. I thought she was going to spit on the floor. When she finally stopped laughing, she gave me a stern look and said it with the correct tone.
A tonal language, I see. So, it must be...
I was terribly embarrassed, of course, but she was so honest and the message so clear that I felt amused in the end.
And you haven't forgotten the tone to this day.
Correct. It is often said that picking up a new language becomes difficult after reaching puberty. That is partly because we are, in most cases, taught exclusively in classrooms where there is no repercussion to what we say, except in terms of grades. It is also because with age we become set in our own ways and emotionally unresponsive. We feel we have accumulated enough wisdom and there is no need to acquire more or revise.
So long, feeling and thinking!
That's a true sign of aging, rather than wrinkles, I think. Self-righteous tranquility, bordering on boredom...
It's natural that we economize on anything painful, including heavy-duty thinking.
Thinking is fun! It requires no equipment, starter kit or set of twenty DVDs. Plus, it's eco-friendly.
Has anyone ever told you that you think too much?
What if I see what they do not?
Are we getting self-righteous? Thinking could be destructive, you can't deny that.
You may reach a conclusion to destroy yourself and/or others, but that's only because your thinking in that particular instance happened to be destructive. Reflection is what separates us from other animals, and it is possible only through thinking. All the potentially destructive emotions that are wired in us, such as hate and jealousy, can be prevented from turning into a destructive act, only if we think and reflect. Moreover, I object to dismissing somebody's perception and thoughts offhand.
Are you sure you're not guilty on the last account?
Okay, I admit to some violation of that principle of mine. But I tell you, very rarely...
We can't possibly verify all what people tell us, so I guess it becomes a matter of trust whether we believe what we hear.
It's simpler than trust, I think. The line, "You think too much," is used as a stop gap.
Let's say it's an expression of surprise, astonishment, incomprehension, even irritation or anger that you have been thinking.
I don't tell my friends who like jogging that they should stop jogging. Likewise, I don't tell people who love fishing that they fish too much.
You mean you have never accused people of not thinking? Or told them that it would be their fault in case we plunge into totalitarianism?
Just as they can't force me into jogging or fishing, I know I can't make people think if they are not doing so already. What is most bothersome is that if they were at the table with Jean-Paul Sartre, they wouldn't be telling him that he thinks too much.
Est-ce que vous avez entendu ça ? ... Sartre says he was lying on his right hand side, but hearing what you said, he is now lying on his left hand side.
To me, the distinction between he and I touches upon one of the fundamental principles in relationships.
Instead of "You think too much," they could say that your blah-blah is just that, blah... In my opinion, many don't realize that it's actually your favorite pastime, even though you often end up being pessimistic afterwards. Here's my suggestion. When you hear that "too much" line next time, say "Cogito, ergo sum."
If I'm given a quizzical look, shall I lay it on the line by saying "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum"?
"There is no royal road to Geometry."
A question by King Ptolemy, the First, and Euclid's answer. It was around 300 BC...
We've known it all along. No pain, no gain.
Lately, I've been reading books with titles like, "The Forty-Three Most Important Scientific Experiments in Cartoons," "All the Historical Facts That You Wish You Knew and More," "Learn in Three Hours: Everything About Post-Communist Era Stand-Up Comedies in Hungary," or...
Those are cheat-sheet books!
Some are quite readable, and they give me the impression that I am learning so well that I will always be able to recite the information on demand. But after having read the last page and putting down the book, I can't even recall the very first topic.
I think they are similar to self-help books.
Agree. Information and knowledge obtained through search and query that are frustrating, time-consuming and sometimes confusing tend to stick a lot better. Anything long lasting in memory is accompanied by strong emotions.
By picking up a cheat-sheet book, we think we are motivated enough to learn the material, but that is apparently not enough, at least in your case.
The same is true for languages. Trying to learn one in an artificial environment is difficult, because we don't get real-world responses. I was in a canteen when I tried to order an eggplant dish... Boy, the way the server laughed at me! She laughed out loud and repeated my way of saying the name of the dish with great contempt. I thought she was going to spit on the floor. When she finally stopped laughing, she gave me a stern look and said it with the correct tone.
A tonal language, I see. So, it must be...
I was terribly embarrassed, of course, but she was so honest and the message so clear that I felt amused in the end.
And you haven't forgotten the tone to this day.
Correct. It is often said that picking up a new language becomes difficult after reaching puberty. That is partly because we are, in most cases, taught exclusively in classrooms where there is no repercussion to what we say, except in terms of grades. It is also because with age we become set in our own ways and emotionally unresponsive. We feel we have accumulated enough wisdom and there is no need to acquire more or revise.
So long, feeling and thinking!
That's a true sign of aging, rather than wrinkles, I think. Self-righteous tranquility, bordering on boredom...
It's natural that we economize on anything painful, including heavy-duty thinking.
Thinking is fun! It requires no equipment, starter kit or set of twenty DVDs. Plus, it's eco-friendly.
Has anyone ever told you that you think too much?
What if I see what they do not?
Are we getting self-righteous? Thinking could be destructive, you can't deny that.
You may reach a conclusion to destroy yourself and/or others, but that's only because your thinking in that particular instance happened to be destructive. Reflection is what separates us from other animals, and it is possible only through thinking. All the potentially destructive emotions that are wired in us, such as hate and jealousy, can be prevented from turning into a destructive act, only if we think and reflect. Moreover, I object to dismissing somebody's perception and thoughts offhand.
Are you sure you're not guilty on the last account?
Okay, I admit to some violation of that principle of mine. But I tell you, very rarely...
We can't possibly verify all what people tell us, so I guess it becomes a matter of trust whether we believe what we hear.
It's simpler than trust, I think. The line, "You think too much," is used as a stop gap.
Let's say it's an expression of surprise, astonishment, incomprehension, even irritation or anger that you have been thinking.
I don't tell my friends who like jogging that they should stop jogging. Likewise, I don't tell people who love fishing that they fish too much.
You mean you have never accused people of not thinking? Or told them that it would be their fault in case we plunge into totalitarianism?
Just as they can't force me into jogging or fishing, I know I can't make people think if they are not doing so already. What is most bothersome is that if they were at the table with Jean-Paul Sartre, they wouldn't be telling him that he thinks too much.
Est-ce que vous avez entendu ça ? ... Sartre says he was lying on his right hand side, but hearing what you said, he is now lying on his left hand side.
To me, the distinction between he and I touches upon one of the fundamental principles in relationships.
Instead of "You think too much," they could say that your blah-blah is just that, blah... In my opinion, many don't realize that it's actually your favorite pastime, even though you often end up being pessimistic afterwards. Here's my suggestion. When you hear that "too much" line next time, say "Cogito, ergo sum."
If I'm given a quizzical look, shall I lay it on the line by saying "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum"?
Posts
