5 ms·

Do the acts of learning Latin and writing letters truly represent the peak quality of thought? I'd think that technological ability and thought quality would i

Do the acts of learning Latin and writing letters truly represent the peak quality of thought? I'd think that technological ability and thought quality would improve in unison. Better thought leads to technological leaps, which potentially lead to better thought. Being a luddite hardly sounds like a solution. Thought not unlike meditation do have their place, but I believe they help enhance "normal" thought, rather than completely substitute it.

jononomo 4y ago
Nope -- try reading a collection of essays written 75 - 150 years ago and it will soon become clear how stupid people are today. And why do you think technological leaps lead to better thought? The most profound thoughts that have ever crossed the consciousness of Man are contained in the Bible, which was written by technologically inferior people -- men who walked with God.
- nl 4y ago
  > try reading a collection of essays written 75 - 150 years ago and it will soon become clear how stupid people are today. I read a lot of essays, novels and newspapers from that era. Plenty of dumb, and completely wrong essays were written then. I invite you to read - for example - "The Case for Spirit Photography" (1920)[1] by Arthur Conan Doyle (yes, the author of Sherlock Holmes) in which he argues photos of fairies are real. It's well written, and completely stupid. > The most profound thoughts that have ever crossed the consciousness of Man are contained in the Bible, which was written by technologically inferior people -- men who walked with God. Au contraire, the most profound thoughts were clearly those of Aleister Crowley[2]. He wrote right in the period you suggest the best writing occurred (75-150 years ago) and because he was in direct communication with the devil via his sex magick they are obviously the most profound. Or did I mean profane? Take your religious nonsense somewhere else. [1] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59809/59809-h/59809-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59809/59809-h/59809-h.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_magic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_magic
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mikro2nd 4y ago
  I do think there's a degree of selection bias, here. Only quality writing from long ago would survive; the C19 equivalent of tweets (or HN comments) will have long since vanished, so not be around for us to evaluate.

jononomo 4y ago

Nope -- try reading a collection of essays written 75 - 150 years ago and it will soon become clear how stupid people are today. And why do you think technological leaps lead to better thought? The most profound thoughts that have ever crossed the consciousness of Man are contained in the Bible, which was written by technologically inferior people -- men who walked with God.

nl 4y ago
> try reading a collection of essays written 75 - 150 years ago and it will soon become clear how stupid people are today. I read a lot of essays, novels and newspapers from that era. Plenty of dumb, and completely wrong essays were written then. I invite you to read - for example - "The Case for Spirit Photography" (1920)[1] by Arthur Conan Doyle (yes, the author of Sherlock Holmes) in which he argues photos of fairies are real. It's well written, and completely stupid. > The most profound thoughts that have ever crossed the consciousness of Man are contained in the Bible, which was written by technologically inferior people -- men who walked with God. Au contraire, the most profound thoughts were clearly those of Aleister Crowley[2]. He wrote right in the period you suggest the best writing occurred (75-150 years ago) and because he was in direct communication with the devil via his sex magick they are obviously the most profound. Or did I mean profane? Take your religious nonsense somewhere else. [1] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59809/59809-h/59809-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59809/59809-h/59809-h.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_magic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_magic
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mikro2nd 4y ago
I do think there's a degree of selection bias, here. Only quality writing from long ago would survive; the C19 equivalent of tweets (or HN comments) will have long since vanished, so not be around for us to evaluate.