8 ms·

Reminds me a bit of David Foster Wallace's famous speech... the idea that the real reason you should strive for education is to control and understand your thou

Reminds me a bit of David Foster Wallace's famous speech... the idea that the real reason you should strive for education is to control and understand your thoughts? Which is hard - how often I find I am on auto-pilot and then hours later I am in the wrong place with work or trying to solve a problem and didn't even notice. Or worse, a bias puts me in a bad mood and then I am stuck there because I don't pay attention to how this time its different / not the same. >The really significant education in thinking that we’re supposed to get in a place like this isn’t really about the capacity to think, but rather about the choice of what to think about. >That is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing. Full speech: https://www.butwhatfor.com/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/ https://www.butwhatfor.com/david-foster-wallace-this-is-wate...

nandhinianand 6y ago
It's a very lovely speech..
apatters 6y ago
This was a great read but I found the end of the speech to be a letdown. He does a good job of introducing his core idea: > The really significant education ... isn’t really about the capacity to think, but rather about the choice of what to think about. But then at the end of the speech he seems to undermine it by telling us what we should think about, namely that we should be highly empathetic and self-sacrificing: > The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day. Wait, why should we be living a life of perpetual self sacrifice? He hasn't built the case for this. But he says it's the real freedom. So which is really his core point: the freedom to choose your perspective, or the virtue of self-sacrifice? Imho he makes a good argument in favor of choosing a non-default (if you adhere exclusively to self-interest, you'll be miserable because everyone's your enemy). But he doesn't defend the latter proposition (commitment to self-sacrifice), and if we accept it as dogma it will conflict with the first. I guess an example of when self-sacrifice goes too far is Stockholm Syndrome, where a victim empathizes with their abuser and accepts the abuse. Beyond this conflict I wonder whether the question of how to live should be viewed as a binary like he seems to have presented it (live for yourself, or live for others). It is a complex and open-ended question. Reducing it to a one or the other choice fails to represent that complexity. Also I know this question commits an ad hominem fallacy, but it's hard not to ask it: should we be listening to a guy who committed suicide about how to live well?
- tbrake 6y ago
  bruh it's a commencement speech
- aspaceman 6y ago
  There’s no argument about a commitment to self sacrifice. By focusing on things around you and the world as a greater whole, you’ll naturally be more empathetic, help people more, etc. If your only obsession day after day is improving yourself or improving your “thoughts” via education to get yourself out of the grind, then you’ll be less happy. “This job will make me happy. This profession. This commitment to an idea.” But doing those things only incurs a further grind. The only thing to do is accept that “this is water” and attempt to reason about the implications from there. I think empathy and caring are natural consequences of that type of displacement from individual satisfaction or understanding and a desire to better understand the world naturally leads to more empathy. If your goal is to understand your world rather than “conquer” it ideologically, you’ll naturally be kinder and more empathetic to your neighbor. A writer would attempt to better understand the world and communicate it to the people they love. Repeatedly failing (in your own eyes) to properly communicate is incredibly disheartening, so I wouldn’t say the absolute goal here is your own satisfaction.
  - apatters 6y ago
    > I think empathy and caring are natural consequences of that type of displacement from individual satisfaction or understanding and a desire to better understand the world naturally leads to more empathy. Makes sense, it's impossible to feel empathy for someone who you're not aware of. To use one of Wallace's examples if you don't consider the circumstances of the "fat, dead-eyed screaming lady" (or don't even notice she's there) you won't have any empathy for her. So in effect mindfulness increases your net empathy (which starts at more or less zero in infancy, I think in developmental psychology they say babies start developing self awareness at around 2, and awareness of others at around 3).
- aseerdbnarng 6y ago
  I think he does explain his reason for this way of life / "worship" as he calls it. "There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship--be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles--is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive"
carrolldunham 6y ago
How about not trying to use the intellect to stop the suffering that comes from trying and using the intellect? There is a long story a buddhist monk tells about a professor on a ship who has learned all about the constellations, cetations and land formations, and looks down on the sailors who "don't think" about that stuff. The ship sinks and the professor drowns because he didn't learn how to swim. The point is to that there's things to learn first, absolutely before anything else - which is how to get find the pleasure in life and not feel too much pain due to the negatives, how to not cause yourself suffering by your thinking. Foster Wallace is a guy who couldn't figure out the first thing.
- Slow_Hand 6y ago
  Perhaps you can both be right. I don’t see why these goals need to be mutually exclusive: Find the pleasure in life first, but then also make the effort to refine your worldview and gain control over how thoughts enter your head and which thoughts. Whether or not DFW had a fatal tendency to over-intellectualize he can still be correct in his assessment and aims as described in his speech. Failing to meet your first criteria (find the pleasure and don’t lose sight of it) doesn’t make his goal any less worthwhile if you can maintain a balance in all things.
- marttt 6y ago
  This is a tale told by S.N. Goenka in the Vipassana meditation discourses. The whole story: ---- "Once a young professor had made a long journey by sailing. He got an excellent degree, but he had no real experience. Also, there was an elderly, illiterate sailor on the same ship he was sailing in. Every day, the sailor will come to the professor and listen to his lecture on different subjects. The old sailor was intrigued by the young professor’s talk. One day the sailor was about to leave after listening to the professor’s talk, then the professor said, “You old man, have you studied geology?” The old man responded, “No sir, I’ve never been to school or college, and I’ve never studied anything. What’s the geology?”. The young professor answered, “In Geology we study about the earth. Elderly man, if you haven’t learned geology, you’ve wasted a quarter of your life.” “If such an intelligent individual suggests so, it will be accurate that I’ve lost a quarter of my existence”, the old man thinks and leaves. The next day after listening to the professor’s speech the sailor was about to leave, the young professor asked, “Reply me you old sailor, have you studied meteorology?”. The old man responded, “No sir, What’s the meteorology?” The professor responded, “Meteorology is the science related to the wind; the study of the wind. Poor guy, you’ve wasted half of your career.” “As this qualified young guy claims that I’ve wasted half of my life and has to be true”, the old man says to himself and leaves. Again the next day, as the sailor was preparing to leave after listening to the professor’s speech, the professor inquired, “Tell me, old sailor, did you study oceanography?” The old man responded, “I already told you I have never been to school or college and studied nothing. What’s oceanography?”. The young professor answered, “In Oceanography, we study about the ocean. Poor old man, you’ve wasted half of your career.” “Half my life had to have been lost as this deeply educated young man says,” said the old man to himself and left. Then the next day, the old sailor comes rushing to the young professor and calls out, “Professor Sir, have you learned swimology?”. “Swimology, what’s that?” the professor asked surprisingly. I was questioning, “Can you swim, Sir?”. “No, I don’t know how to swim. Yet why is that?” the professor questions again. “You young man, sir, can’t swim. The ship has hit a wide rock and is sinking. Those who can swim can swim to the nearby shore, but those who can’t swim may drown. I’m so sad, you’ve lost your whole life.” ---- Source: https://enlighteningsummary.com/swimology-story-of-learning-the-art-of-doing/ https://enlighteningsummary.com/swimology-story-of-learning-...
rdsubhas 6y ago
I've always faced problems when people start moving from thinking/speaking/reading/doing to "thinking about how to think", "reading about how to read", etc. It's just not accessible or concrete or practically useful, quickly becomes mumbo jumbo that can be interpreted in any way, and the lines between science and philosophy and religion and culture begin to blur out. At work I consciously avoid "thought leaders" and philosophical mentors. They fall into this mumbo jumbo quite a lot.
PartiallyTyped 6y ago
Personal experience: One of the best ways to improve performance in mentally demanding tasks is to be conscious about every single decision and the reason behind that decision, yes even for minute things like why we are craving something[1]. It introduces a non trivial amount of overhead but, with time, these processes become internalized, which improves speed while retaining the correct course of action. I experienced this when I was climbing in competitive games. The first step was to get over the 'not my fault' mentality and transition to an 'I need to improve' mentality. I began by analyzing everything that I understood, and becoming more conscious and aware of the current situation, the available information and my mistakes and every game I was aiming to improve my play instead of winning. [1] I remember reading that cravings are an indication of the kind of nutrients the body needs, more so than the specific food itself. When I was transitioning to a vegetarian diet, I found that I could cure/reduce my meat cravings e.g. burgers by increasing protein and fat on my next meal, my sugar cravings were associated with a) low energy or b) the need to take a break and let subconscious do the work to figure out the solution. But all of these could be attributed to confirmation or other memory biases.
- Timpy 6y ago
  In an effort to eat healthier I also went about analyzing my cravings. Maybe I don't really want fast food, maybe I'm actually in the mood for something salty. I spent a long time finding a healthy alternative to these base cravings and eventually my body adapted and I found myself craving the healthy alternatives. Being mindful in this case led to an outcome that I considered favorable.
- SummerlyMars 6y ago
  > I experienced this when I was climbing in competitive games. The first step was to get over the 'not my fault' mentality and transition to an 'I need to improve' mentality. I began by analyzing everything that I understood, and becoming more conscious and aware of the current situation, the available information and my mistakes and every game I was aiming to improve my play instead of winning. This is what I've done recently with my approach to playing music. I'd always have described myself as very 'self-critical' of my musical skills, but this criticism was never more than "Ugh, this sucks. Try harder!" What I've realized fairly recently (and wish someone had told me when I was much younger) is that my self-criticism wasn't constructive criticism. I was aware that I was unhappy with my performance, but I wasn't aware of why. Now when I'm not happy with my playing, I try to stop and think about exactly what it is that's bothering me about it. If it's multiple things, I'll just pick one to focus on and try to improve that. I'm still self-critical, but it's constructive criticism now, and that's something I can improve from. The "not my fault" mentality you mentioned feels safe, because if someone believes there's nothing that could have done to change the outcome, then there's nothing that might make them feel bad[1]. Of course, sometimes things really aren't your fault, and believing there's something you could have done when there's in fact nothing is also a problem. There's a balance to be struck between the two perspectives. [1] I'm not saying they ought to feel bad, just that I think it's common experience to feel bad when we don't achieve our goals, and worse when we think of something we could have done differently.

nandhinianand 6y ago

It's a very lovely speech..

apatters 6y ago

This was a great read but I found the end of the speech to be a letdown. He does a good job of introducing his core idea: > The really significant education ... isn’t really about the capacity to think, but rather about the choice of what to think about. But then at the end of the speech he seems to undermine it by telling us what we should think about, namely that we should be highly empathetic and self-sacrificing: > The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day. Wait, why should we be living a life of perpetual self sacrifice? He hasn't built the case for this. But he says it's the real freedom. So which is really his core point: the freedom to choose your perspective, or the virtue of self-sacrifice? Imho he makes a good argument in favor of choosing a non-default (if you adhere exclusively to self-interest, you'll be miserable because everyone's your enemy). But he doesn't defend the latter proposition (commitment to self-sacrifice), and if we accept it as dogma it will conflict with the first. I guess an example of when self-sacrifice goes too far is Stockholm Syndrome, where a victim empathizes with their abuser and accepts the abuse. Beyond this conflict I wonder whether the question of how to live should be viewed as a binary like he seems to have presented it (live for yourself, or live for others). It is a complex and open-ended question. Reducing it to a one or the other choice fails to represent that complexity. Also I know this question commits an ad hominem fallacy, but it's hard not to ask it: should we be listening to a guy who committed suicide about how to live well?

tbrake 6y ago
bruh it's a commencement speech
aspaceman 6y ago
There’s no argument about a commitment to self sacrifice. By focusing on things around you and the world as a greater whole, you’ll naturally be more empathetic, help people more, etc. If your only obsession day after day is improving yourself or improving your “thoughts” via education to get yourself out of the grind, then you’ll be less happy. “This job will make me happy. This profession. This commitment to an idea.” But doing those things only incurs a further grind. The only thing to do is accept that “this is water” and attempt to reason about the implications from there. I think empathy and caring are natural consequences of that type of displacement from individual satisfaction or understanding and a desire to better understand the world naturally leads to more empathy. If your goal is to understand your world rather than “conquer” it ideologically, you’ll naturally be kinder and more empathetic to your neighbor. A writer would attempt to better understand the world and communicate it to the people they love. Repeatedly failing (in your own eyes) to properly communicate is incredibly disheartening, so I wouldn’t say the absolute goal here is your own satisfaction.
- apatters 6y ago
  > I think empathy and caring are natural consequences of that type of displacement from individual satisfaction or understanding and a desire to better understand the world naturally leads to more empathy. Makes sense, it's impossible to feel empathy for someone who you're not aware of. To use one of Wallace's examples if you don't consider the circumstances of the "fat, dead-eyed screaming lady" (or don't even notice she's there) you won't have any empathy for her. So in effect mindfulness increases your net empathy (which starts at more or less zero in infancy, I think in developmental psychology they say babies start developing self awareness at around 2, and awareness of others at around 3).
aseerdbnarng 6y ago
I think he does explain his reason for this way of life / "worship" as he calls it. "There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship--be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles--is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive"

carrolldunham 6y ago

How about not trying to use the intellect to stop the suffering that comes from trying and using the intellect? There is a long story a buddhist monk tells about a professor on a ship who has learned all about the constellations, cetations and land formations, and looks down on the sailors who "don't think" about that stuff. The ship sinks and the professor drowns because he didn't learn how to swim. The point is to that there's things to learn first, absolutely before anything else - which is how to get find the pleasure in life and not feel too much pain due to the negatives, how to not cause yourself suffering by your thinking. Foster Wallace is a guy who couldn't figure out the first thing.

Slow_Hand 6y ago
Perhaps you can both be right. I don’t see why these goals need to be mutually exclusive: Find the pleasure in life first, but then also make the effort to refine your worldview and gain control over how thoughts enter your head and which thoughts. Whether or not DFW had a fatal tendency to over-intellectualize he can still be correct in his assessment and aims as described in his speech. Failing to meet your first criteria (find the pleasure and don’t lose sight of it) doesn’t make his goal any less worthwhile if you can maintain a balance in all things.
marttt 6y ago
This is a tale told by S.N. Goenka in the Vipassana meditation discourses. The whole story: ---- "Once a young professor had made a long journey by sailing. He got an excellent degree, but he had no real experience. Also, there was an elderly, illiterate sailor on the same ship he was sailing in. Every day, the sailor will come to the professor and listen to his lecture on different subjects. The old sailor was intrigued by the young professor’s talk. One day the sailor was about to leave after listening to the professor’s talk, then the professor said, “You old man, have you studied geology?” The old man responded, “No sir, I’ve never been to school or college, and I’ve never studied anything. What’s the geology?”. The young professor answered, “In Geology we study about the earth. Elderly man, if you haven’t learned geology, you’ve wasted a quarter of your life.” “If such an intelligent individual suggests so, it will be accurate that I’ve lost a quarter of my existence”, the old man thinks and leaves. The next day after listening to the professor’s speech the sailor was about to leave, the young professor asked, “Reply me you old sailor, have you studied meteorology?”. The old man responded, “No sir, What’s the meteorology?” The professor responded, “Meteorology is the science related to the wind; the study of the wind. Poor guy, you’ve wasted half of your career.” “As this qualified young guy claims that I’ve wasted half of my life and has to be true”, the old man says to himself and leaves. Again the next day, as the sailor was preparing to leave after listening to the professor’s speech, the professor inquired, “Tell me, old sailor, did you study oceanography?” The old man responded, “I already told you I have never been to school or college and studied nothing. What’s oceanography?”. The young professor answered, “In Oceanography, we study about the ocean. Poor old man, you’ve wasted half of your career.” “Half my life had to have been lost as this deeply educated young man says,” said the old man to himself and left. Then the next day, the old sailor comes rushing to the young professor and calls out, “Professor Sir, have you learned swimology?”. “Swimology, what’s that?” the professor asked surprisingly. I was questioning, “Can you swim, Sir?”. “No, I don’t know how to swim. Yet why is that?” the professor questions again. “You young man, sir, can’t swim. The ship has hit a wide rock and is sinking. Those who can swim can swim to the nearby shore, but those who can’t swim may drown. I’m so sad, you’ve lost your whole life.” ---- Source: https://enlighteningsummary.com/swimology-story-of-learning-the-art-of-doing/ https://enlighteningsummary.com/swimology-story-of-learning-...

rdsubhas 6y ago

I've always faced problems when people start moving from thinking/speaking/reading/doing to "thinking about how to think", "reading about how to read", etc. It's just not accessible or concrete or practically useful, quickly becomes mumbo jumbo that can be interpreted in any way, and the lines between science and philosophy and religion and culture begin to blur out. At work I consciously avoid "thought leaders" and philosophical mentors. They fall into this mumbo jumbo quite a lot.

PartiallyTyped 6y ago

Personal experience: One of the best ways to improve performance in mentally demanding tasks is to be conscious about every single decision and the reason behind that decision, yes even for minute things like why we are craving something[1]. It introduces a non trivial amount of overhead but, with time, these processes become internalized, which improves speed while retaining the correct course of action. I experienced this when I was climbing in competitive games. The first step was to get over the 'not my fault' mentality and transition to an 'I need to improve' mentality. I began by analyzing everything that I understood, and becoming more conscious and aware of the current situation, the available information and my mistakes and every game I was aiming to improve my play instead of winning. [1] I remember reading that cravings are an indication of the kind of nutrients the body needs, more so than the specific food itself. When I was transitioning to a vegetarian diet, I found that I could cure/reduce my meat cravings e.g. burgers by increasing protein and fat on my next meal, my sugar cravings were associated with a) low energy or b) the need to take a break and let subconscious do the work to figure out the solution. But all of these could be attributed to confirmation or other memory biases.

Timpy 6y ago
In an effort to eat healthier I also went about analyzing my cravings. Maybe I don't really want fast food, maybe I'm actually in the mood for something salty. I spent a long time finding a healthy alternative to these base cravings and eventually my body adapted and I found myself craving the healthy alternatives. Being mindful in this case led to an outcome that I considered favorable.
SummerlyMars 6y ago
> I experienced this when I was climbing in competitive games. The first step was to get over the 'not my fault' mentality and transition to an 'I need to improve' mentality. I began by analyzing everything that I understood, and becoming more conscious and aware of the current situation, the available information and my mistakes and every game I was aiming to improve my play instead of winning. This is what I've done recently with my approach to playing music. I'd always have described myself as very 'self-critical' of my musical skills, but this criticism was never more than "Ugh, this sucks. Try harder!" What I've realized fairly recently (and wish someone had told me when I was much younger) is that my self-criticism wasn't constructive criticism. I was aware that I was unhappy with my performance, but I wasn't aware of why. Now when I'm not happy with my playing, I try to stop and think about exactly what it is that's bothering me about it. If it's multiple things, I'll just pick one to focus on and try to improve that. I'm still self-critical, but it's constructive criticism now, and that's something I can improve from. The "not my fault" mentality you mentioned feels safe, because if someone believes there's nothing that could have done to change the outcome, then there's nothing that might make them feel bad[1]. Of course, sometimes things really aren't your fault, and believing there's something you could have done when there's in fact nothing is also a problem. There's a balance to be struck between the two perspectives. [1] I'm not saying they ought to feel bad, just that I think it's common experience to feel bad when we don't achieve our goals, and worse when we think of something we could have done differently.