• username_1@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 day ago

    Typical modern article. And then some people are going angry “You obviously have read only the title, not the article in full”. Wonder why people limit themselves only to titles? Maybe because the article is 2 sentences worth of data fit into 20 paragraphs of the life story of Jane Smith who was amazed and sat in awe after reading e-mail that will change her life?

    • biofaust@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Typical modern book as well. I keep reading classic philosophy just for being amazed at the amount of concepts crammed in under 100 pages.

      • username_1@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Never read modern philosophy, but I had completely opposite experience with mid-late XIX century philosophy: too much words and too much repeating of the same thought from too many different angles. But I’m a technician type of guy so I might just have been unlucky with the set of authors. Never cared to read much of philosophy.

        • biofaust@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          No, absolutely. At the very least from Hegel onwards, the game changes.

          I read Stoics, the few things we have from Epicureans, Plato, Aristotle and Cicero’s work on rhetoric.

    • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I tend to just look at the comments first here for anything even slightly questionable. Seems like some of the dumbed down shit does actual brain damage to read.