Thread replies: 17
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: thinkingface.png (53KB, 256x256px) Image search:
[Google]
53KB, 256x256px
How can erudition really be seen today as anything other than being a pseudo intellectual Wikipedia skimmer or at best a non-discrimnating reader?
Even Schopenhauer denigrated it back when there was nothing to do all day except read. Now that we live in a world with many INTELLECTUAL activities, and financially enriching ones, and ones for entertainment, why do people still pretend that reading all day is anything other than a pseudo intellectual thing?
And it's a huge coincidence that all these "erudite voracious readers" seem to know almost nothing about maths or science above an 18 year old's knowledge. Despite their self proclaimed incredible curiosity, love of knowledge, academia, and intellectual activity, they seem to avoid the fields that require actual rigour, raw intellect (as is popularly defined), and dedication. If I was more cynical I'd think these people were all just bullshit artist pseudo intellectuals who try to look smart and worldly while avoiding any subject not conducive to macrobullshitting. But I'm sure it's just purely coincidence.
>>
Schopenhauer was not a good writer as far as I can tell. He is known mainly for who he influenced. Literature among other things fosters emotional intelligence. Rigor doesn't factor into it. To study literature is also to study history, at least the history of ideas. If done with systematic rigor this pursuit has applications across many relevant fields. At any rate, literature is a hobby as well. Why don't you go make fun of the origami crowd for not being engineers.
>>
>>9721716
I completely agree. But then why do you guys and shitloads if people irl pretend that books such as Dostoevsky's have "incredible philosophical insights"!
>>
>>9721725
Dostoyevsky's books often address ethical philosophy. He was also a very good story teller.
>>
>>9721707
>math
>science
>requiring any rigor
>rigor
>requiring any intelligence or dedication
They build upon disgusting systematics and do nothing to smash the boat. This requires no effort.
>>
>>9721753
I disagree with your polemics but I am curious what math can humans do that computers can't do better? Are humans necessary for mathematics at this point?
>>
>>9721760
>i disagree abloobloo ur wrong because
>>
>>9721753
t. brainlet
>>
>>9721761
>*autistic screeching*
>>
>>9721763
Yes, you are a brainlet
>>
>>9721766
Yes because shitposting on 4chan is the real activity that requires rigor, fucking neck yourself. Low quality bait desu, but I'm a low quality fish so I'll bite
>>
>>9721769
>rigor is good becuz i sed so
>>
>>9721707
If you define erudition as knowing rather than understanding, then sure.
Fake news. He denigrated reading bad books. He said and I quote, "One can never read too little of bad, or too much of good books: bad books are intellectual poison; they destroy the mind."
Who are you referring to? Who are these "erudite voracious readers" that know nothing? Are you referring to the average 4chan poster like yourself?
>>
>>9721716
>literature fosters emotional intelligence
walk through any humanities department or study the life of any great author and tell me again that this is the case
>>
>>9721773
>autism intensifies
>>
>>9721760
It's not just about the maths, it's about real-world and theoretical applications. Much of calculus and linear algebra is about the appliance of maths, not the actual solving of maths problems, which computers obviously are better at. If you don't define the boundaries of an experiment you won't get any useful results, which is what you learn at higher levels of education.
Thread posts: 17
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1