The loser of an argument is the person who was right and learned nothing. The winner was the person who was wrong and learned better.

a thing about stoicism i’ve always had a bone to pick with is the idea that what you cannot control you do not need to think about.

The quest to control that perceived as ‘uncontrollable’ is the leading cause for human benchmarks and achievements.

What exactly do you mean by consumer culture? Or being attached to wealth that one loses appreciation "for what is really important"? I would think wealth is fundamentally really important to people in the first place.

Oh, one more;

>“And, er, these stories about you..."

>"Oh, all true. Most of them. A bit of exaggeration, but mostly true."

>"The one about the Citadel in Muntab and the Pash and the fish bone?"

>"Oh, yes."

>"But how did you get in where half a dozen armed and trained men couldn't even - ?"

>"I am a little man and I carry a broom," said Lu-Tze simply. "Everyone has some mess that needs clearing up. What harm is a man with a broom?"

>"What? And that was it?"

>"Well, the rest was a matter of cookery, really. The Pash was not a good man, but he was a glutton for his fish pie."

>"No martial arts?" said Lobsang.

>"Oh, always a last resort. History needs shepherds, not butchers."

>"Do you know okidoki?"

>"Just a lot of bunny-hops."

>"Shittake?"

>"If I wanted to thrust my hand into hot sand I would go to the seaside."

>"Upsidazi?"

>"A waste of good bricks."

>"No kando?"

>"You made that one up.”

― Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

They're pretty short books an very funny and entertaining.

Honestly, I've used them as a substitute for weed; they take my mind off things and get the creative juices flowing a bit with it's weird thinking.

The way Pratchett sees the world and then writes a humouristic take about it, it's just.. beautiful.

The books are even hard to categorize, as sometimes they're proper fantasy, sometimes they're very light-hearted, some of them are pretty much detective novels, there's several books of one character and then several books of another, who don't have much to do with each other, but do visit similar places and meet the same people and so forth.

They're amazing. The TV-specials aren't half bad either, if you can stand the sort of cheap production values they have as TV-movies. I'd guess they might be more enjoyable after the books though.

There's no need to go through them in order, for instance Small Gods iirc is a more or less autonomous story with new characters.

"Thief of Time" is one of, if not THE favorite of mine. The first one's are classics as well.

All of them have had me giggling on public transportation, haha.

>“Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before you break 'em.”

― Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

---------------------------------------

>“Questions don't have to make sense, Vincent," said Miss Susan. "But answers do.”

― Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

-------------------------------------

>“Genius is always allowed some leeway, once the hammer has been pried from its hands and the blood has been cleaned up.”

― Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time
---------------------------------------

>“Just a minute," said Lobsang. "Who are you? Time has stopped, the world is given over to...fairy tales and monsters, and there's a schoolteacher walking around?"

>"Best kind of person to have," said Susan. "We don't like silliness. Anyway, I told you. I've inherited certain talents."

>"Like living outside of time?"

>"That's one of them."

>"It's a weird talent for a schoolteacher!"

>"Good for marking, though," said Susan calmly.”

― Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's loads of better one's, these aren't probably the most giggly ones, but just from "Thief of Time". Oh, right, and the one I have memorized; "There's no educating a smart boy."

Here's a two minute video from an animated Discworld show, with Death voiced by the late, great sir Christopher Lee

I don’t understand your response to the first argument. You don’t need to be religious to believe in human life being divine. Regardless, many religious people would claim that human beings are special and human life is more sacred than panda life. I don’t understand the creator response you gave.

Have you considered that you may have been around some of the many people who aren't interested in being intellectual or logically consistent because they don't care, and that arguing with the lowest common denominator version of a particular ideology has biased you against it as a whole? I assure you that if you try you can find equally anti-intellectual people who disagree on everything with the ones you're talking about.

Be open to the possibility that you are wrong, almost certainly about some things, likely about many things, this will allow you to learn something from the other person as well as help you not to joust lecture them. Find some sort of common ground. You probably don't disagree about everything and you are probably driven ultimately by the same basic motivations with disagreements about how to get there.

The good thing about this article is that it shows how much the stoics were opposed to consumer culture. We become so attached to our possessions and wealth we lose a lot of our appreciation for what is really important. People have been saying that for a long time but consumer culture is so seductive. I think you can follow stoic teachings without being determinist.

Looking at pandas actually doesn’t bring me happiness and I would definitely pick killing all pandas.

Pandas are possibly not essential. This point is one I’m not fully sure about, but pandas don’t seem to contribute much to the environment and per the thought experiment we’re assuming they do nothing. Also, pandas are kind of contributing to their own endangered status. Pandas do not eat the correct food, as their digestive system is geared towards carnivorous consumption, yet exclusively eat bamboo. It actually provides such a lesser amount of nutrition for them that they expend most of their energy in a day foraging for it. They have little to no interest in reproduction as they even have trouble finding the capacity to do it when shown imagery of pandas reproducing. I find it difficult to kill even one human who probably has things they care about as opposed to theoretically extinguishing a population of animals that don’t seem to care about continuing their own survival.

I would start by considering whether it is actually possible to accomplish anything substantial via disorganized/uncoordinated one on one conversations between poorly equipped individuals. If we're going to do something, might as well put some effort into determining a good idea before putting substantial effort into it. This simple rule of thumb (that tends to be followed fairly closely in most domains) may also have some utility in government of people in general, where the rule seems to not be followed.

Oh, it's not that I disagree with you in principle, it's that it's sooooo easy to think one is doing a good job at what you're describing here, and so difficult to know when one is screwing something up.

> It will always be hard to have a conversation with a person that doesn’t know have the requisite knowledge to address the topic. I try to tell people I’m an average person I just spent alot of time reading about the topic cus I didn’t understand. But many will still be intimidated by any amount of intelligence.

It's easy to (and difficult to not) imagine such scenarios with the usual suspects (the members of one's various outgroups), but all people suffer from this problem, if in different ways and to differing degrees. I've been involved in lots of conversations with people far smarter than me (in the aggregate) who are not able to realize that their substantial skill in some domains does not necessarily extend to all domains.

> It’s not easy and like I said practice practice practice. I’ve definitely made many of those failures myself because I don’t operate on the same mental frame work. So I had to learn. I came from that mindset so it gives me the perfect experience to talk to it. Just as the best reformist for skin heads is the leader skin head that turns into the reformist because he knows what they think and feels, all the coded language and emotions that get you to that belief set. The previous conditions that preclude the belief. Often lonely or orphan lost souls that are looking for community.

> Just to make it clear.. When I grew up neo Nazis, Hells angels and southern revival / general stoner bro racism was a problem in my area. Weather it was at punk rock shows or desert ATV crowds. Many of my friends dads were old country racist types that listen to Johnny Rebel. (Pure racist country). So I’ve had an interesting upbringing and experience to speak from.

I think you make a good point: I think there's a lot of truth to the saying that "it takes one to know one". Too often uni educated people seem to believe their education and legitimate greater intelligence necessarily qualifies them to engage with and educate their lessers on ~"the facts", but pulling off such a technique successfully is a lot harder than it looks. Pairing up people favoring ontological similarity across various dimensions seems like a much smarter strategy than picking based on resume and credentials. A textbook example is this: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes

Let me ask… What would you suggest tactically? How would you approach this if you want to have hard discussions with people and would like to make positive discourse?

Oh no I get that. This is why it’s important to show the through line similarity’s. Relate like your one in the same or it seems patronizing. The guy that’s trying to school you doesn’t relate to the working class chap that has no time to think about this. And the fact that I spend time learning about what I talk about is an insult to many people I interact with. They see me as an elite. That’s why I have to mention the anti-intellectual part of the problem.

I find if I don’t have a past with people and we’re just chatting I don’t have to deal with previously conceived notions. People see me out side working (construction type job) and want to come up to me and bitch about liberals where I live. They assume I’m on their side since I’m in the trades. So I can relate with them first as they see me as another working guy busting his ass but then Im granted an inroad to approach the failures from their side they think I’m on. The next thing, I have MAGA people talking bad about some of their policy’s and they don’t even know it.

It will always be hard to have a conversation with a person that doesn’t know have the requisite knowledge to address the topic. I try to tell people I’m an average person I just spent alot of time reading about the topic cus I didn’t understand. But many will still be intimidated by any amount of intelligence.

It’s not easy and like I said practice practice practice. I’ve definitely made many of those failures myself because I don’t operate on the same mental frame work. So I had to learn. I came from that mindset so it gives me the perfect experience to talk to it. Just as the best reformist for skin heads is the leader skin head that turns into the reformist because he knows what they think and feels, all the coded language and emotions that get you to that belief set. The previous conditions that preclude the belief. Often lonely or orphan lost souls that are looking for community.

Just to make it clear.. When I grew up neo Nazis, Hells angels and southern revival / general stoner bro racism was a problem in my area. Weather it was at punk rock shows or desert ATV crowds. Many of my friends dads were old country racist types that listen to Johnny Rebel. (Pure racist country). So I’ve had an interesting upbringing and experience to speak from.

There’s even a whole political party that bases everything on emotion rather than facts, and nothing seems to convince their members otherwise.

While this is certainly impressive and useful, people who lack the necessary skills to pull it off may be making things even worse than if they didn't try. I regularly run into people who try to "educate me" on the flawed beliefs their delusional model of me is lacking in. Worse: this phenomenon is often amplified by higher levels of education.

I'd ban you for tautological thinking without acknowledging it.

People enjoy observing others in this regard, but tend to be less interested in observing themselves. To be fair, it's much more difficult, and much less fun.

This seems like a rather minimalist take on what could possibly be done.

I was explaining the comment you replied to and not just giving a random commentary on your comment lol. It would be really weird phrasing if I was talking like that about your comment instead of the one before you, don't you think?

I didn’t intend it that way (to be about politics), but it does fit the bill as problematic, and honestly saddens me greatly. I was also thinking about business culture in general and the way that we are treating each other in the age of social media.

There is no sarcasm at all, I legit feel this way and can provide references for the Aristotle and Socrates attributions. The reference to authenticity is a passing reference to Heidegger, and the reference to the demise of the subject is a reference to folks like Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, and Jean Luc Nancy.

>The Bible is just the old myth. Now we have new ones. They will also prove to be bullshit.

Nobody believes a myth like Star Wars or Harry Potter actually happened. That's the problem. We understand that these are fictional works created by people.

What about the Epic of Gilgamesh? Again, there is no confusion about whether it actually happened, but that poem is very old, at least as old as the bible.

The problem is, the west has become obsessed and fixated on one particular myth, the monotheism from Judaism and Christianity. The middle east has done the same with Islam. The confusion is categorical: without this obsession, nobody would believe that these works are literally true in the sense of reflecting objective history.

But that's what dogmatic religion has brought to us.

What "forced to choose" means? Do I die if I not choose? Do I get a little inconvenient if I not choose? Something in between? If it is more on the side of the little inconvenient I choose none, if it is more on the side of die I will choose option 2. The logic for this is first "I only would kill if my life (or my children) depended on it" and second "don't do to others (humans) what you wouldn't want others to do to you".

I believe you’re talking about “Behind the Curve”. There’s a part in it where Patricia Steele who is a flat earth YouTuber is talking about how there’s all these conspiracy theories about her that aren’t true and she’s like “They don’t even know me”. Then she openly ponders that maybe her belief in the flat earth is the same. Alluding that maybe her belief is the same as theirs in the sense that it exists because of lack of understanding in the subject. Then she just backtracks and says naw I’m right. I was so excited watching that for a minute. It was seeing someone on the verge of understanding they didn’t have before and you could see her making the connections on her face. So close yet so far.

Made them doubt their belief? Wow, honestly a bit unbelievable. I guess it could happen, though.