5 ms·
Well, someone like Taleb would say that human nature (if there is such a thing) has remained unchanged for at least as long as there has been writing. So we hav
by ahelwer 5y ago
Well, someone like Taleb would say that human nature (if there is such a thing) has remained unchanged for at least as long as there has been writing. So we have writings thousands of years old on what people thought about how other people work. These have been subject to the best truth filter we know of: time. So you’ll learn more about how your fellow humans operate by reading the classics than whatever bullshit psych field is critically lauded in $currentyear.
Incidentally I’ve also found this to be true for politics. You will get a much better understanding of politics by reading historical texts about the 20th century than by following the day-to-day oscillations of the political machine from any news source. Actually, the latter negatively impacts your understanding.
- didericis 5y agoWhile things that are useful enough to exist throughout time are usually true/it’s generally a great filter, I think “efficacy” and “consistency with observations and experience across time” are better descriptors of what you’re getting at. If you aren’t paying attention to efficacy or consistency when propagating knowledge, time can just as easily solidify untruths and cause truths to decay and be forgotten.
- whimsicalism 5y ago> human nature (if there is such a thing) has remained unchanged for at least as long as there has been writing I've seen statements of this sort very frequently - ie. that the "behaviorally modern" human evolved tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago. I'm curious what the backing of such claims are. It seems profoundly unintuitive to me that human behavior would remain evolutionarily unchanged over tens to hundreds of thousands of years of evolution/founder effects, especially when you consider widespread evolution of various other traits like lactose tolerance in the past ~5,000 years.
- ahelwer 5y agoIf the wisdom of the classics stopped being applicable to modern times then they would die out and stop being read. So, only the observations remain that are most stable, general, and enduring over time.
- SiempreViernes 5y agoThe power of the classic is largely in being pliable enough to be read in new ways by successive generations, if taken litteraly Plato obviously has nothing to say about downvote etiquette.
- CRConrad 5y agoHe doesn't make even a single throwaway comment on the process of throwing black or white potsherds into an urn to decide whether someone shall be banned from the city of Athens, i.e. the original meaning of ostracism? Because AFAICS that would be pretty literally (actual literally-literally) about downvote etiquette.
- whimsicalism 5y agoNo, that is very much not actually literally-literally.
- CRConrad 5y agoHow not? Voting to run you out of town must be ("literally") the ultimate downvote, isn't it?