4 ms·
And all this striving towards Chekhov's idea of cultured allows one to achieve what? I'd venture that for most it would amount to smugly patting themselves on t
by Boothroid 10y ago
And all this striving towards Chekhov's idea of cultured allows one to achieve what? I'd venture that for most it would amount to smugly patting themselves on the back for having achieved such a fine state of serenity. If this version of cultured means just another way to feel superior to others, I'm happy to be uncultured.
- kordless 10y agoIt allows one to achieve a view where they don't judge others in an attempt to speak for them as you have done here. While you can imagine someone patting themselves on the back for being aesthetic, the reality is that is only occurring vividly in your own mind, and not out here. If someone was indeed patting themselves on the back out here for these things, that is a separate problem created of their own judgement. Speaking for other's actions leading to judgement is itself viral irrationality, as doing so only spreads the behavior and irrationality further into the aggregate. For the nerds here, I present this as a recursive pattern which spreads by being computationally inefficient. Software bloat, maybe? As an aside, when I talk about a "dissonance" button for social media sites, your comment would be a perfect example of when to push it. That's not to say your leading question and comment on others future irrational actions shouldn't be allowed, but I think that it's important to call out content that is potentially "messy" in nature due to it's own innate ability to spread to others without your intervention (after saying it, of course). Maybe limiting replies to such "comments" would be one way to increase the overall aesthetic.
- andrewmcwatters 10y agoYour comment is barely comprehensible to me. Can you condense this to simple English? What are you even saying in half of your post? > It allows one to achieve a view where they don't judge others So you're telling me that being cultured allows one to not judge others, but while clearly having the effect of outwardly being smug to others? That's basically what I got out of your comment and the parent post. Your aside also implies that his comment basically shouldn't be allowed despite your explicit comment that it's "not to say." This seems all rather smug and rude.
- kordless 10y agoOne side-effect of stating one's internal truth is that others may take it how they like. If you decide to take what I'm saying as smug and rude, then that's your prerogative to speak for me in an internal frame, inside your mind. Out here in the external frame, what appears to be a deterministic reality by all accounts, I'm telling you directly that I am not smug about this and I do not consider my actions rude given I'm not blaming you, personally, in my original comment. (The state of rudeness can only be evaluated by the entity which receives the comment, not someone who speaks for them out of turn.) In fact, it is my intent to help others achieve a state of understanding that allows their own assertion of my claims here. If Boothroid has something to say about me or my comments here, then that is their prerogative. I would encourage them to keep speaking for my internal frame to a minimum, however, and make observations instead of judgement. Only each of us may speak for our own internal frames. I will note that there is blame in my comments here now, which is being directed toward someone who is clearly speaking for another's thought processes - that would be you speaking for me being smug and Boothrid in my "being rude" to them, when I'm saying otherwise here publicly. This behavior can contribute to a cyclic behavior of increasing blame (from the irrationality spreading) if one decides to ignore what another is saying and continue speaking for their internal frame. Tending toward the aesthetic encourages letting go of personal judgement because once you stop judging yourself, you stop judging others. There's also a deeper cause for letting go of judgement, which involves understanding what all of this really is. You may think you are are separate entity and definitely have a right to claim separation from the whole, if that's what you want. OTOH, I think you are one part of a larger unidentified, unified entity: a global consciousness frequently mistaken for "God" by religions. However, me stating that internal thought to you here is direct blame if you don't believe that, given I (would and am) pointing out publicly that you are part of a global entity (which itself is an irrational thought). Again, spreading irrationality by broadcasting irrational logic is not ideal, so I really shouldn't do it. However, I did it here to prove a point. ;)
- notduncansmith 10y agoMost behavior is viral by default, human see human do. While I agree that this extends to judgemental and otherwise unproductive discourse, usually the factors driving those behaviors in people are unlikely to be resolved by having the symptoms pointed out repeatedly. If a software module is producing faulty output, you have to fix the problem on the inside rather than simply rejecting all of the output. People are the same, except you can't directly inspect or modify their internals; you have to rely on message passing and observation, which is way more difficult. The way to make this more efficient, IMO, is to give people the tools to identify and resolve the underlying bugs in their own perception. But that's a different topic altogether.
- kordless 10y agoIf the behaviors are affecting the message passing, then measures must be put in place to limit that behavior. Buddhism calls the pointing out of this type of behavior "indirect pointing", but given we have a construct (the computer) we can now point to, I'd prefer to just point and say "This irrational statement is itself a producer of irrationality and therefore should be limited given its affect on the message passing".
- Y_Y 10y agoJust to provide a counterpoint to the two other comments which are disparaging of the parent, I thought this was a great contribution, even if it was written less like a HN comment and more like a philosophy essay.
- unoti 10y agoThe items on that list would be natural byproducts of simple humility, serenity of the mind, and the pursuit of excellence. These things are their own reward.
- Boothroid 10y agoSurely. But one might argue that spending your time pondering how to make yourself 'cultured' is a nauseatingly bourgeois activity, ripe for satire when compared with the harder realities of life for the less well privileged.
- zaccus 10y agoYeah it's bourgeois, so what? I've been poor and I've been not poor. Not poor is better, trust me. Being not poor and cultured is way better. There are few things more annoyingly bourgeois than fetishizing poverty.
- Boothroid 10y agoYou misrepresent me by saying I fetishised poverty. I did nothing of the sort. I merely said that a state of smug complacency is risible. Or are the 'cultured' so full of pomposity that mockery is considered threatening? That seems like narcissism to me.
- zaccus 10y ago>spending your time pondering how to make yourself 'cultured' is a nauseatingly bourgeois activity, ripe for satire when compared with the harder realities of life for the less well privileged. I haven't misrepresented you. You literally said that a 'bourgeois' activity has less value compared to "harder realities of life for the less well privileged". That's putting poverty on a pedestal. That's fetishizing it. No. Working your ass off to barely scrape by is not in any way better than learning new things, being kind, or any of the other things enumerated in this article. That ridiculous crab mentality is what kids who are born into poverty have to deal with if they express any aspiration to make something better of themselves. It is its own kind of smug complacency, far more malicious and destructive than someone taking pride in more 'bourgeois' accomplishments. Seriously, give me 'nauseatingly bourgeois' culture any day. If that makes you feel insecure, maybe try reading a book or something.
- pdog 10y agoDon't worry. Chekhov's advice is only meant for talented people.
- Boothroid 10y agoCase in point: I'm better than you attitude. So cultured!
- enord 10y agoIt's self-important-twat-signaling. To each their own, I don't judge (heh).
- munchbunny 10y agoIf you look at the actual list, it's a recipe to living a generally happy life. If I had to summarize the list, it'd look like this: 1. Let go of small things. 2. Have sympathy for the people around you. 3. Repay your debts. 4. Don't lie, don't brag, and don't gossip. 5. Don't disparage yourself to fish for pity. 6. Be humble. Let your talents prove themselves. 7. Spend time on the things that matter to you. 8. Long list of stuff that's generally about living in moderation and maintaining your body and environment. There isn't much here to be smug about.
- Boothroid 10y agoSo very much like the Ten Commandments then, only with a veneer of coffee shop faux-intellectualism.
- munchbunny 10y agoYou sound like you're trying really hard to find something wrong with what Chekhov wrote. Why do you think it has a veneer of coffee shop faux-intellectualism?
- Kluny 10y agoIt's a good description of the type of people I like to be around. By extension, it seems like a good way to be a person who makes friends easily.