Submit it directly to Library Genesis. There's an upload option there [0] where you can submit scientific papers [1].
Edit: I added some additional info.
657 karma · joined September 8, 2014
CV: Double M.A. in philosophy since April 2024.
Site: https://ufpe.academia.edu/HenriqueCapeleiroMaia
meet.hn/city/21.0283334,105.854041/Hà-Nội
Interests: Digital Nomad, Philosophy, Yoga
---
Edit: I added some additional info.
Maybe that happens because we, as animals, have our bodies more adapted to eat as much as we can while food is available than to risk losing that opportunity for another unknown meal in the future. That to say that it is a hardwired behavior we have, a survival strategy that makes sense in the wild.
Problem is we don't live in that environment anymore. So, I think fasting works because our bodies trigger another natural response, that of focusing our senses to the search of food, kind of accepting that food is not available. Thus, it's easier to simply not eat at all instead of trying to eat moderately.
These are my 5 cents.
They probably could. As they could also charge you a premium and then profit two times on top of you — with your fee and then by selling your data to third parties. Why? Because who would know that was happening? Corporations have no moral compass dictating their actions. The bottom line being what's best for investors.
The why: Zotero is open source, respects privacy, and it allows you to keep a local repository of your things, disconnected from its cloud. And yeah, it also offers you a cloud storage solution if you need it. Plus, I love how it ingrates so seamlessly with my browsing experience.
The how: Zotero works like a three stage tool.
The first stage concerns its browser connector, the plugin that lets you store the references you want to keep. You can think of bookmarks as references too.
The second stage corresponds to the when the work within Zotero itself. Here is where you add your notes, snippets, crosslimks, tags, etc. Since it's your references database, you should invest some time to find a good workflow as to find in the future whatever you need in as little steps possible. It's worth the effort to get used to Zotero's possibilities (you can even manipulate its database directly through sql commands if you're into it).
The third stage is the integration tool that works with your text processor. This step mostly applies to writers only, the folks who really need to keep close attention between what they say and where they took it from. This is where Zotero shines, for it allows you to keep a close tie between the things you actually quote on your text and the works/data you reference in its appropriate section.
In any case, what starts as a simple reference manager can, with some imagination, become a very elegant solution to gather bookmarks, notes, snippets, etc in just one place.
But now, after reading your link and giving it a bit of thought, what s/he wrote makes perfect sense even without your link.
So... thanks.
Worrying about something like that does not award you good person points. Actually, contributing to the general panic is far worse in terms of your real impact on what's going on. So, in this sense, you may be an actually worse person to think like you're proposing.
So the intention there is clearly a rhetorical one, that not being the point, but that advertising has managed to manipulate people against their better judgment. In that sense, yes, they are victims.
Besides, believing that people suffering from an ill that is destroying their lives are free to choose (when reality clearly shows they aren't) is a callous remark.
Eating disorders are very complicated. Eating is such a low level activity that easily supersedes any rationalisations. That's why it's a good example of how bad advertising can be. So again OP is right in calling those people victims.
In writing, if you're truly trying to make your point across, never assume something is obvious. Obviously, no one is in your head to know what you know or presuppose.
Be generous with your readers and inform them of your moves. Again, if you're truly interested in making yourself clear.
I see a lot of that here, people misunderstanding basic speech/writing conventions. Maybe giving the op the benefit of doubt, assuming s/he knows what s/he is doing, can help avoid some of those.
Besides, why go through all that trouble if there are heaps of good psychology books out there that aren't plagued with errors as this one? Since our time is so limited, I think it is a good heuristic to avoid any non-fiction book that it is known to contain errors.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2OQmvRUdr3U
(title: African History Disproves “Guns Germs and Steel” by Jared Diamond).
tl;dw: that theory is not as valid as it may seem at first.
This is much more in line with the passage quoted above. Enjoy what you have while you have it. "This alone".
As for 1, the whole article tries to show there's more to the story than that astronaut being simply an "astronut". As for 2, we have now a distance to those events to ignore how things were being reported back then (the daily noise around the issue) — that sentence being a play with the common conception of the scandal and a hint on how the article tries to go against it (or at least complicate it further, adding many emotional layers).
So my conclusion is that your assessment is not valid and thus misleading.
I grew up hearing his descriptions on every conceivable historical event, and I was amazed of how much he seemed to know about everything. At the time I felt that he was truly knowledgeable, and I couldn't even conceive of knowing even a fraction of what he knew.
Then, when I grew older, I finally asked how he managed to know so much. His response? Laughingly, he told me that he made a lot of educated guesses on how things seemed to him!
That was a decisive formative experience for me: so that's how he pulled it off? Now I'm much more relaxed with the degree of detail I can know about things, and I also take what anyone is saying at any one moment with a saltier dose of skepticism. We're all humans after all, and telling tales is deeply rooted in our natures.
Problem is that we, as evolved creatures in a world of scarcity, are hoarders by... nature. Greed is just a morally misguided way of hoarding. So, waiting for people to stop being greedy is much more difficult than just making the right moral choices.
By contrast, in the morning, the reverse is also true, only this time the lazy voice is completely empowered by the comfy environment -- the other self just not having enough power to break through through the thick wall of comfort attached feelings the body is experiencing at the moment.
To put more simply, both (or more?) are there at the same time. but one is active, the other latent.
This article starts from an assumption on Lucretius intentions that is weird for anyone familiar with the author. The thing is: we actually know way too little about Lucretius to try to make any 'learned' guesses. However, I got the opposite impression reading the article. If that's the starting point of the author's argument, that somewhat taints its point.
Fun fact: all we know about Lucretius is a conjecture. There are so many holes in who he was, how he lived, why he wrote, etc, that some researchers simply go off-script and invent whole biographies for Lucretius [1]. There is even those who go even further and simply state that Lucretius didn't even exist — he was a pseudonym for another author, Titus Pomponius Atticus, a friend of Cicero [2]. Others think that Lucretius' poem was edited by Cicero himself [3]. Others that the poem was tampered by the renaissance humanists [4], trying to make it more coherent and complete.
The point is: no one really knows. So, when I read/hear someone stating very confidently that Lucretius did this or that, that he was this or that person living this or that life, my alarm bells start ringing: there must be a bit of creative interpretation here that goes beyond what the historical facts allow.
———
[1] Guido Della Valle (1884-1962), according to the account of Carl Joachim Classen (1928–2013).
[2] Aloïs Gerlo (1915-1998), on a paper titled Pseudo-Lucretius?.
[3] Saint Jerome (c.347-420) was the first to make this claim.
[4] Lee Fratantuono mentions this in his book A Reading of Lucretius' De Rerum Natura.
> People saw her disheveled appearance and were afraid; Charles Manson had recently been put on trial in the town, and his female followers spent a lot of time hanging around it.
The full context makes people's reactions to her much more acceptable and understandable.
Yes, it is true that you have plenty of life here, but you have it only on a very (and I mean very) thin layer on this floating rock. It seems a lot on the surface (pun intended), but it actually isn't.
Animals are a lot like us.
The title sounds it's appealing to some kind of self-help shenanigans on how to fake your knowledge on books, but in truth is a very coherent metaliterary theory that delves into memory, psychoanalysis, honesty, and creativity.
Because of this, and since it correctly argues that the line separating what you have read from what you haven't isn't as clear or obvious as it appears, it's inspiring because it shows you a way through the seemingly endless human library; and liberating because it allows you to reconcile yourself with your limited knowledge of any particular set of books.
Since it's impossible to know even a fraction of all that has been published, and because your memory is fallible, whenever you are talking about books, whatever book it may be, in some sense you are always talking about a book you haven't read.
That being so, it's far better to own it as it is and to take advantage of that fact, talking confidently about any book. And this is where this book can really come handy.
Ever since I first read it some years ago, I felt I had a weight lifted from my shoulders. I'm not as bold as Pierre Bayard is, and I still find myself awkward for not having read so many important books. But now I'm more at ease, knowing that others, whoever they are, are also in a somewhat similar situation. Instead of feeling an ignorant sod, I now know I'm surrounded by an endless throng of likewise ignoramuses.