pull down to refresh
100 sats \ 1 reply \ @provolone OP 15 Apr \ parent \ on: Charmin Ultra-Soft Quality has Gone Down econ
Just because it's your asshole doesn't mean you need to treat it like one.
millennial minimalism is a definite dynamic to deal with for collectors.
Have you ever considered that the "millennial minimalist" or "anti-consumption" mentality can quickly slide into virtue signaling?
New media requires new merchandising. Purchasing licensed merchandise is the most direct way to support any cultural endeavor that you support (think Rick & Morty and podcasts). And it is arguably the most ethical way to make money off your audience - you can't sell anything other than toys to a child - and do we need anymore snake oil (sorry, supplements) being sold to us. Although selling merchandising direct to audience probably never closes the gap of financing required to produce new work, it at least has a double property of acting as advertising.
In terms of like, old shit, I think people can sometimes get a little bug feeling closer to history. It's a little grounding in a way. Purchasing something solely for the expectation of it to accrue in value, that sounds pretty stupid.
Also replying to myself here to record that in that “@destiny” episode JBP made a very good point that it “should have been” the left who were skeptical of corruption in the pharmaceutical industry. That is imo an example of bias/opinion/perspective that may be useful to others.
I took a few to watch the last twenty minutes or so of the "@destiny" episode and I appreciate the commentary from both parties at the end that when people stop talking they start fighting. I wonder now if my aversion to the way he shares his message reveals my own bias for tone policing.
This is a news article that describes a bit of what I'm talking about. I don't think that silencing or erasing academic fields based on the echo of support off one man is good for society.
Being in opposition and hence somewhat divisive is healthy in an unhealthy decaying culture.
Where in history do we have evidence that the elongation, attenuation and amplification of divisive behavior can revive a culture? I agree that so long as we're talking we're not engaging in physical or kinetic violence. I'm just skeptical that inciting debate and what ends up being a bit of lifestyle prescription is enough to change culture. Perhaps I miss the point that divisive behavior in an unhealthy culture can also foster other sorts of behavior...
I think great art causes us to experience something that transcends our expectations of reality. This creates a feeling that is unintelligible in that there are no words to describe it, and that feeling creates an expansion... maybe it makes room in your soul
It is implied that verbal thinking is less valuable than other forms of thinking in Temple Grandin’s argument based on her examples (sales people, writers, lawyers, teachers) and how we socially/culturally value these professions.
- I think arguing that verbal thinking is inherently more linear devalues the thinking required to make any argument, arguments being the reason why we take any action at all in the world.
- If people do not have sufficient reason as to why they are doing something, actions cease to have meaning.
I think people grossly underestimate how important verbal thinking is - the process of imbuing physical reality with nonphysical, symbolic, conceptual meaning - whether secular or metaphysical. Why would we do anything at all above fulfilling our base physiological needs without the argument of why that thing is important? I would argue a lot people today use language in their minds to create and justify many actions - probably you need words to justify, argue or convince for someone else to perform an action (building things such as civilization, for example).
I wonder, perhaps bitterly, what happens when people grasp on to this notion that making the unseen or even seen world tangible via conceptualization (i.e. “verbal thinking”) is like, inferior to other things you could do with your life. Who makes the arguments about what is we do with our lives…?
Yeah this rhythm is incredible. The language oozes onto itself,
Stooped and drooped with thousand tendrils in thirsty languishing
Any other recs?
SCOTUS link for second story https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-611_ap6c.pdf
The epicurean risks non-pleasure in pursuit of great pleasure, don't they? That's my impression.
This is actually a major stoic critique of epicureanism! I don't disagree, although I may be more a fan of hedonic calculus to assess my options :-)
And as an aside and prelude to my next comment, epicureans highly valued friendships, and devoting a great amount of time to their friendships. They eschewed political participation, thinking it a bit illusory.
What would you argue? Self-education is objectively more pleasurable than social participation?
No, absolutely not. That statement, when written, was directed to the young aspirant of change who perhaps has an idea of what they want to do in the world, but still requires far much more perspective than they have (and they don't even know it).
If I had to choose between an evening with a great mind in the form of the book and a real friend, I would choose a friend any night of the week.
This does betray my epicurean perspective, however, that I value socializing with friends over political/social participation. And I think lifetime-wise I would be more pleased with great friendships over virtuous placement in a public hierarchy - which, again, betrays an epicurean (as opposed to stoic) value set.
I would not say the two schools are fundamentally incompatible. I believe in an à la carte sampling when it comes to philosophy, provided it makes sense. I may be naïve.
I think a stoic approach is very applicable when a person is facing situations of responsibility, whereas an epicurean approach is probably more favorable to moments of privacy and friendship.
My gripe with stoicism is my impression that the school emphasizes emotional austerity/asceticism ("freedom from the passions") over emotional engagement with life. I admit it's likely a shallow read of the philosophy.
However, I wonder if a sensory-based embrace and appreciation of life is something fundamentally human that people can miss out on when they overvalue emotional austerity.