4 ms·

I think I'm too stupid to understand what you or those authors are trying to say

by squigz 11mo ago

Terr_ 11mo ago
I think parent-poster is saying that politicians and technocrats have a gulf between how their view the world and how well they communicate with one-another. However after that point (ironically?) it isn't clear what what their purpose is for including the quotes. I think the most-charitable interpretation for the "baths" quote [0] might be: "For the people I'm trying to communicate with, lightly touching on deep subjects is actually fine." (Both most-charitable to Nietzche, and also to the poster quoting him.) [0] https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/52881/pg52881.txt https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/52881/pg52881.txt , section 381
- squigz 11mo ago
  After thinking some time, I think the baths quote is saying that, contrary to common wisdom, it isn't necessary to have intense, long discussions about "deep" subjects - small, quick conversations can still be as productive. I think there's some truth here. I've held for a long time that minds are not changed overnight or in a single discussion - this happens over time, as you repeatedly discuss something, and people consider their own views and others. To that point, I suppose small conversations would work. Still, I don't think it can be one or the other. Many subjects we're referring to are very complex and require more in-depth analysis (of the problem, and of our views) than a short conversation. But I'm probably misreading the quote.
  - gsf_emergency_6 11mo ago
    You got the gist (tho I hoped all would've explored the Lichtenberg a lil bit as even more relevant to TFA) my bad! Mainly-- should be/have fleshed out more-- deep convos (every-where but especially in ephemeral settings like HN, with strangers, adversaries, children, across genders, etc-- to address your accusations of a false(?) dichotomy) should be conducted in jokes -- cautiously! Mechanism is emo-honesty. Practise absolutely needed. That's the paradox you might be looking for? sorry for the heavy touch in this response :) I almost found the Lichtenberg quote .. Truth[s] come from the [minds] of fools and children, satirists [elite,populist,all of the above] etc etc Thanks Google! Strangely, it also gave me Cato via Montaigne (technician having convo with politician over millennia?) Cato, was reproached that he was a hard drinker [Catonis] Sæpe mero caluisse virtus. (a gentle prod to serious minds wine is, a nod to "in vino veritas" I guess) Aside: both Cato and Lichtenberg might be more humorous untranslated Vs Nietzsche, experts/natives could correct me

I think I'm too stupid to understand what you or those authors are trying to say

by squigz 11mo ago

I think I'm too stupid to understand what you or those authors are trying to say

Terr_ 11mo ago

I think parent-poster is saying that politicians and technocrats have a gulf between how their view the world and how well they communicate with one-another. However after that point (ironically?) it isn't clear what what their purpose is for including the quotes. I think the most-charitable interpretation for the "baths" quote [0] might be: "For the people I'm trying to communicate with, lightly touching on deep subjects is actually fine." (Both most-charitable to Nietzche, and also to the poster quoting him.) [0] https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/52881/pg52881.txt https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/52881/pg52881.txt , section 381

squigz 11mo ago
After thinking some time, I think the baths quote is saying that, contrary to common wisdom, it isn't necessary to have intense, long discussions about "deep" subjects - small, quick conversations can still be as productive. I think there's some truth here. I've held for a long time that minds are not changed overnight or in a single discussion - this happens over time, as you repeatedly discuss something, and people consider their own views and others. To that point, I suppose small conversations would work. Still, I don't think it can be one or the other. Many subjects we're referring to are very complex and require more in-depth analysis (of the problem, and of our views) than a short conversation. But I'm probably misreading the quote.
- gsf_emergency_6 11mo ago
  You got the gist (tho I hoped all would've explored the Lichtenberg a lil bit as even more relevant to TFA) my bad! Mainly-- should be/have fleshed out more-- deep convos (every-where but especially in ephemeral settings like HN, with strangers, adversaries, children, across genders, etc-- to address your accusations of a false(?) dichotomy) should be conducted in jokes -- cautiously! Mechanism is emo-honesty. Practise absolutely needed. That's the paradox you might be looking for? sorry for the heavy touch in this response :) I almost found the Lichtenberg quote .. Truth[s] come from the [minds] of fools and children, satirists [elite,populist,all of the above] etc etc Thanks Google! Strangely, it also gave me Cato via Montaigne (technician having convo with politician over millennia?) Cato, was reproached that he was a hard drinker [Catonis] Sæpe mero caluisse virtus. (a gentle prod to serious minds wine is, a nod to "in vino veritas" I guess) Aside: both Cato and Lichtenberg might be more humorous untranslated Vs Nietzsche, experts/natives could correct me