3 ms·

I think it's more that people on HN are well read. I see lots of references to taoism too. As it's an interest for me, it's easy to pick out the references.

I think it's more that people on HN are well read. I see lots of references to taoism too. As it's an interest for me, it's easy to pick out the references. M Aurelius is basically required reading for anyone interested in western classic philosophy (as the I Jing or Dao de jing is for eastern classical philosophy). Rather than being surprised to see that, I'm actually surprised I don't see more references to things like Machiavelli.

yesenadam 9y ago
hehe I don't think so, not in the (wisdom) philosophy classics department anyway. I get the strong impression it's that they've read nothing in the field but Marcus Aurelius and perhaps Ayn Rand. (Which is pretty sad.) I just wondered, why Marcus Aurelius and not one of the many dozens of other classics that it might have been instead. I guess it's close to what Hackers™ believe anyway. And well, Machiavelli isn't about one's individual philosophy of/outlook on life. (Maybe his comedies are, haven't read them.) If you want ruthless, I've seen some Sun Tzu, not to mention Rand. I find Aurelius rather bleak and..dusty. (I don't recall ever seeing Taoism or Laotzu mentioned on here, but I'm pretty new.)