mykowebhn

I didn't realize that and I think it's great and humble what George Michael did.

Not entirely sure what you're insinuating about the OP's intentions, but I think if one is running a non-profit, telling people in order to try to get more help for the cause is a wonderful thing indeed!

This is really great. Thanks for doing this!

Just donated $100US

Same with bears. For instance, the grizzly (brown) bears in Denali National Park who are farther away from salmon breeding areas (coastal areas) tend to eat a lot more berries than their coastal counterparts.

Agreed that would help, but even if everyone were to eat, say, half the amount of meat they would normally eat that would be huge.

Interesting. I did some more digging and according to several metrics it seems Nietzsche is, in fact, cited quite heavily, and not just in non-philosophical publications which would've been my first guess. Touché.

> If you don't mind me asking, what gets you going with Plato?

I am definitely no Plato expert, but two texts: Plato's Theaetetus and his Parmenides.

Questions of accurate translations aside, if one can focus on the metaphysical, ontological, and epistemological ideas presented and questions posed, I think one can spend the rest of one's life trying to understand these two texts. As an added incentive to whet your appetite, Wittgenstein was particularly interested in Theaetetus in his later years.

And if I had to recommend two texts from Aristotle, definitely his Physics and his Metaphysics. Here he's dealing with the really deep, and meaty, problems of philosophy.

These four texts definitely get me going, so to speak, although my talking about them bores my wife silly.

[EDIT] And you didn't ask for this, but here goes anyway: the three philosophers that "get me going" and whom I think are the three greatest philosophers are Aristotle, Kant, and Hegel. (I know that last one will get me a lot of hate!)

> There is absolutely zero reason to study ancient philosophy unless you're interested in HISTORY of philosophy specifically

Try reading Parmenidean Ascent if you get a chance [1]. While not his main thesis, Michael Della Rocca argues why not treating "ancient" philosophy as philosophy proper is in error. Personally, I've studied Aristotle, and Plato, quite a bit and I couldn't disagree with you more.

> What Frege, Wittgenstein, Heidegger and other modernists did to 'philosophy' was short of completely reinventing the field from scratch.

That claim is contestable. I do agree that Frege, for one, was the first person to advance philosophical logic in 2000 years, with the previous advances made by Aristotle himself. Please study Aristotle's Organon. His singular advances in logic were astounding and not much else was done in logic until the likes of Frege appeared on the scene. What Heidegger did in philosophy was extraordinary, but it was built on the shoulders of previous philosophical giants. So what the "modernists" did was really not "from scratch".

[1] https://academic.oup.com/book/32030

Right. From a philosophical pov, you could say Nietzsche is quite mid. I agree he seems popular among the angry non-philosophers who want to attach themselves to pseudo-philosophies in order to help them further their agendas. Ah, Nietzsche, you've become such a tool (pun intended).

I agree with you. My point is that Nietzsche is not really taken seriously as a philosopher by philosophers (someone included a link to philpapers.org and all I saw were various editions of books written BY Nietzsche, I'm not sure what their point was with that link). Is he widely read by non-philosophers and has he had an impact with this same group? I think he has.

If people really are interested in philosophy, I strongly suggest studying the more "classical" philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant, Frege, Husserl, Heidegger, etc. Nietzsche's writings I would label more as literature and not philosophy. When I reread BGE, standing on its own I find it entertaining, but his readings and understanding of past philosophers were quite wrong.

Anecdotally, in my eight years of studying texts with people who are professional philosophers and meeting regularly with them in discussions, I would say Nietzsche's name was mentioned maybe twice, and both times by individuals who were quite new to philosophy. Nietzsche is just not that interesting philosophically.

Before I really started studying philosophy, I was still interested in philosophy, but as a novice. During this time, Nietzsche was my favorite philosopher and I read several of his books. I also read a lot of literature, and Nietzsche figured in a lot of the literary texts I enjoyed.

Now that I've read a lot more philosophical texts, I realize that both of the big philosophical camps--Anglo-American Analytic Philosophy and Continental Philosophy--rarely mention Nietzsche. Nietzsche seems to be the philosopher that non-philosophers turn to and often cite.

Yes, but we don't want medical science to go soft by focusing on the easy problems.

Agreed. Similarly, we had in-house chefs who were full-time employees. They were some of the first people laid-off when the Covid downturn hit.

I think the issue boils down to money, lots of it.

When I worked in the Bay Area, I noticed the nerd-culture was still more or less predominant in South Bay. The arrogant, shallow types were always there (as witnessed by their fancy cars--"should we take the Jag or the Merc today?"), but I could still tolerate it. San Francisco was a different story. I started a new job at a startup once and remember thinking "I'm surrounded by Ivy Leaguers who look like models--this place is not for me". I think the crazy amounts of money just brought in everyone looking to make a buck, and the nerds no longer were the majority.

But then you have the company missions. It seems like most of the companies in the Bay Area are all about advertising or compiling info on individuals and selling it. It's mostly B2B and not so much "cool products".

We're on the downside of the tech bubble, and maybe that's a good thing.

To that list I'd like to add Music of Man hosted by Yehudi Menuhin. His interview with Glenn Gould by itself is worth the price of admission!

My bad for being myopic. Yes!

For anyone visiting St Louis, I would recommend skipping the zoo (it's geared more toward children and feels like an amusement park) and head straight to the Botanical Garden. I spent several hours there and really enjoyed myself. It is a true gem!

RIP Peter Raven

I wonder how much of that is driven by organic market forces or through anti-competitive practices.

For example, Chinese electric vehicles are selling like hotcakes in Europe but you'd be hard-pressed to find any in the US.

There's a mentality I see in Americans as well as in the big European cities where everything has to be goal-oriented or you have to have accomplished something, even when taking vacations.

There's a stigma against just doing something for nothing, or even doing nothing and being lazy.

s/Irony/Schadenfreude/g

Restaurant work

Your being so critical!

The first part of his Encyclopedia will help a lot, and might be better to read first before diving into SoL.

Did you start with the Preface, or are you going to read it at the end?

(I strongly recommend the latter.)

(I can really only do your question a modicum of justice by answering metaphorically.) That Anglo-American analytic philosophy, which has dominated much of 20th century Western philosophy and Western thought, was doomed from the start. It treated ontological Being as fixed, as beings nailed to a wall, lifeless and immobile. Hegelian philosophy, more than anything, is about movement.

Oh god, as someone who studies and admires Hegel, please change the name from Hegel.

Ah, okay. I didn't realize that. My bad!

Forgive me for saying this, but I think you may be drinking too much of the kool-aid.

If some of your projects are monetizable, couldn't you move forward without VC help?

Perhaps related, why do you need to be worth billions of dollars? I feel your visions for what you want your future self to be are highly unrealistic and you're probably setting yourself up for a lot of disappointment and unhappiness.

Sorry for the bluntness, but I think one could be happy on a lot less.

I just learned about this.

Thanks for pointing this out!

I had to verify so I just checked with Claude (I was lazy) and you are correct.

Thanks for pointing this out!