These sentences capture my takeaway from this article.
Every man is the sum total of his reactions to experience. As your experiences differ and multiply, you become a different man, and hence your perspective changes.
So it would seem foolish, would it not, to adjust our lives to the demands of a goal we see from a different angle every day?
...to put our faith in tangible goals would seem to be, at best, unwise. So we do not strive to be firemen, we do not strive to be bankers, nor policemen, nor doctors. WE STRIVE TO BE OURSELVES.
I don't mean that we can't BE firemen, bankers, or doctors—but that we must make the goal conform to the individual, rather than make the individual conform to the goal.
...beware of looking for goals: look for a way of life. Decide how you want to live and then see what you can do to make a living WITHIN that way of life.
In doing this... he avoids frustrating his potential (choosing a path which puts no limit on his self-development), and he avoids the terror of seeing his goal wilt or lose its charm as he draws closer to it
Summary: rather than fixating on specific goals, find a way of life that maximizes your potential for self-development and lets you be your most authentic self.
There are a lot of things that need to come together for great literature to happen. Qualities of the author's use of language are some of them, but not all. It is true that if a piece's language is poor, or simply unremarkable, it's probably not going to gain many fans from the lit crowd. If there's nothing going on but good/interesting language, though, that's also not going to get it much lasting interest, typically.
I'd say expression coupled with insight and excellent taste is the sweet spot for the really good stuff. Putting together a great novel, say, is a lot more than knowing how to make yer words purty and fancy. It's also more than just telling a well-structured story. It's more than lifelike characters. It's more than prompting sharp and lasting emotions on the reader. It's more than atmosphere. Than having the confidence to let an amazing, beautiful idea slip by like a passing stranger's hint of perfume in a crowd. More than honesty. And so on. It's all of those things, continuously, for a few hundred pages.
[EDIT] though I'm not defending this letter as any kind of top-notch literature (is it supposed to be?). The parts I've read so far seem obviously too thin to qualify.
I don't understand what that has to do with this very article and the meaty ideas it does indeed contain. I for one disagree with this ivory tower view of literature. Words and ideas therein contain power, and have, however "creative", changed the course of history by their influence of mankind.
I mean, that's just wrong lol. Obviously that's apart of it, but to imply that it's not so much about ideas is profoundly wrong. In my opinion, anyway.
The language needs to support the idea in the story. To kill a mockingbird has a southern folksy feel that draws you in. Hemingway couldn't write that story. It would be something very different. Harper Lee couldn't make you feel sympathetic to a pedophile. It's a whole jigsaw puzzle. the ideas, the story, and the words all fit together to make something extraordinary.
“No More Games. No More Bombs. No More Walking. No More Fun. No More Swimming. 67. That is 17 years past 50. 17 more than I needed or wanted. Boring. I am always bitchy. No Fun — for anybody. 67. You are getting Greedy. Act your (old) age. Relax — This won't hurt.”
If this piece didn't have a famous person associated with it, no one would read it on it's merit alone.
I feel like he had the inklings of some good ideas in there, but none of them fleshed out. As all ideas about life are when you're 20 :)
The people to look up to, are those you relate to, who are past 50. Who've raised children, who know how to communicate to younger people AND have a wealth of life experience and hopefully wisdom.
No 20 year old has ever given me solid life advice - you just haven't lived long enough.
> If this piece didn't have a famous person associated with it, no one would read it on it's merit alone.
He wasn't famous when he wrote it, and one person did presumably read it - his friend, who asked for it.
I don't know what his friend did, but Thompson seems to have taken his own advice and succeeded. He lived a life that fit who he was, rather than being a person who fit the life that he fell into.
Like many people, I'm the second type: my life has revolved around the job I'm in, and changes to my life involved finding the next job like the current one; SCDC (Same Cubicle, Different Company). There's been no particular period of discovery, of not knowing what I'd be doing a year from now.
And because of that, I've always felt like I was missing something. I wonder if I ever met myself in passing, the real me.
As I've gotten older it's becoming increasingly clear that most of what older people told me about life has usually unapplicable, flat out wrong, or something they said to make themselves feel better.
This idea that everyone over the age of 40, 50, or 60 somehow magically becomes wise is completely ridiculous. Of course I am not saying that they aren't a lot of wise older people who've really experienced and learned things - of course there are. But wise perceptive people of any age are the exception - not the norm.
I think you are missing the whole point here. This is as specific as he can get, being still applicable to everyone - "a man must choose a path which will let his ABILITIES function at maximum efficiency toward the gratification of his DESIRES". He also points out a man's desire is shaped by his circumstances and heredity. So there's no way he can "flesh out" details for anyone. That part can be done by the individual alone. This dictum gives you a tool to navigate your thought process and arrive at an answer on your own.
There are few 20 year olds with the imagination to recognize "But a man who procrastinates in his CHOOSING will inevitably have his choice made for him by circumstance."
No 20 year old as of today's standard for 20 year old, has ever given you solid life advice.
Age per se doesn't always reflect experience - and 20 years is a long time still if you take the time to experience something - master an instrument, doing drugs, thinking about shit.
Today most of the people extend their teens as far as they can - with partying and stuff before they actually take responsibility for their life.
In the time of my grandfather he started working at the age of 12, grinding hard at 14 until he mastered bakery craft at 16. My other grandfather started working since he could remember, in the farm.
I'm not saying that work means experience - I'm talking about perspective : at that time hunger and famine were the status quo, if they didn't work they would die.
I mean, pretty much all the founding fathers were under 50. Jesus. Buddha. Mohammed when the Bulk of the Quran was written. Alexander the Great. The list of youngins goes on.
There is no age-restriction on wisdom and knowledge, and the words on a page are only as much as you give them credit for. If you can't ever listen to the words of a 20 year old, then, by all means, go right ahead and dismiss them, but you could miss out on some great ideas.
I do agree that you are more likely to get better life advice from those with a wealth of experience, but youth is hardly a reason to discredit anyone's words.
As an older person one of the more amazing developments I've seen in my life is the recent rapid rise of 'tall poppy syndrome.' While it's good to remind people that cultural heroes are just people, there is such zeal for that idea now and even for the odd notion that humanity will someday stop having fame effects. It's cute.
Is this something very American to hunt for all quotes and stories of a famous person once he's dead ? Happened with Hunter, happened with Steve Jobs. Successful people seem to reach some kind of cult status in America. Even quite vague stuff he said is fished out and accepted, because he now has level 253 on Battle.net forums.
I don't think you can learn from positive examples exclusively. To solve a nonogram, you need to mark squares that are black and those that ARE NOT black for sure. Another example, survivorship bias. In WW2 the British were sending bombers to Berlin and other German cities. Engineers were tasked with putting more armor plating on bombers. They examined where round (bullet) holes clustered on the returning bombers, and added extra armor in the biggest clusters. Fewest holes were found around the fuel tank and pilot's cabin, and those got no extra protection. It was a perfectly rational decision they made based on available data. But they could learn a lot from losers.
Being wise, or intelligent, is not following some great personas. It's forming insight based on your observations. Hunter S. Thompson's advice may be sound, but it would be equally sound if he was a garbage collector. That you must get such advice from him, suggests, sadly, that you can't recognize it when you see it. (I'm not saying I'm better)
Considering that the creator of the site we’re having a discussion about is English, I would say no, this is not something particularly American.
Is this something very [whatever place you’re from] to make condescending sarcastic comments whenever people from other places find something interesting or meaningful to them, and want to share and discuss it?
The closest real, substantiated event is a paper published by Abraham Wald, an Austro-Hungarian who immigrated to the USA, in which he applies the correct statistical analysis accounting for survivorship bias. I can find no evidence that anyone ever published the "opposite" conclusion, or added any armor to real planes either way.
The story is also attributed, without evidence, to Patrick Blackett, who was indeed British.
I have seldom related to such articles. I feel deeply about them. After reading this twice, I feel different, motivated and emotional. But I also know that I will be back to default mode (the floating with the tide mode) in a few days. Is it my job that makes me so? My habits? My psychology? Unsure.
[+] [-] Arun2009|8 years ago|reply
Every man is the sum total of his reactions to experience. As your experiences differ and multiply, you become a different man, and hence your perspective changes.
So it would seem foolish, would it not, to adjust our lives to the demands of a goal we see from a different angle every day?
...to put our faith in tangible goals would seem to be, at best, unwise. So we do not strive to be firemen, we do not strive to be bankers, nor policemen, nor doctors. WE STRIVE TO BE OURSELVES.
I don't mean that we can't BE firemen, bankers, or doctors—but that we must make the goal conform to the individual, rather than make the individual conform to the goal.
...beware of looking for goals: look for a way of life. Decide how you want to live and then see what you can do to make a living WITHIN that way of life.
In doing this... he avoids frustrating his potential (choosing a path which puts no limit on his self-development), and he avoids the terror of seeing his goal wilt or lose its charm as he draws closer to it
Summary: rather than fixating on specific goals, find a way of life that maximizes your potential for self-development and lets you be your most authentic self.
[+] [-] dnissley|8 years ago|reply
https://www.myosynthesis.com/john-boyd-to-be-or-to-do
[+] [-] everyone|8 years ago|reply
There could be some interesting ideas in there too, but that is not the main meat of literature.
I think its important for the sake of intellectual rigour not to confuse the two.
[+] [-] ashark|8 years ago|reply
I'd say expression coupled with insight and excellent taste is the sweet spot for the really good stuff. Putting together a great novel, say, is a lot more than knowing how to make yer words purty and fancy. It's also more than just telling a well-structured story. It's more than lifelike characters. It's more than prompting sharp and lasting emotions on the reader. It's more than atmosphere. Than having the confidence to let an amazing, beautiful idea slip by like a passing stranger's hint of perfume in a crowd. More than honesty. And so on. It's all of those things, continuously, for a few hundred pages.
[EDIT] though I'm not defending this letter as any kind of top-notch literature (is it supposed to be?). The parts I've read so far seem obviously too thin to qualify.
[+] [-] arca_vorago|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greenwhite|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jfoutz|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] draw_down|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ShabbosGoy|8 years ago|reply
Really struck me in the feels. Rest In Peace.
[+] [-] orf|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexashka|8 years ago|reply
I feel like he had the inklings of some good ideas in there, but none of them fleshed out. As all ideas about life are when you're 20 :)
The people to look up to, are those you relate to, who are past 50. Who've raised children, who know how to communicate to younger people AND have a wealth of life experience and hopefully wisdom.
No 20 year old has ever given me solid life advice - you just haven't lived long enough.
[+] [-] a3n|8 years ago|reply
He wasn't famous when he wrote it, and one person did presumably read it - his friend, who asked for it.
I don't know what his friend did, but Thompson seems to have taken his own advice and succeeded. He lived a life that fit who he was, rather than being a person who fit the life that he fell into.
Like many people, I'm the second type: my life has revolved around the job I'm in, and changes to my life involved finding the next job like the current one; SCDC (Same Cubicle, Different Company). There's been no particular period of discovery, of not knowing what I'd be doing a year from now.
And because of that, I've always felt like I was missing something. I wonder if I ever met myself in passing, the real me.
[+] [-] lacampbell|8 years ago|reply
This idea that everyone over the age of 40, 50, or 60 somehow magically becomes wise is completely ridiculous. Of course I am not saying that they aren't a lot of wise older people who've really experienced and learned things - of course there are. But wise perceptive people of any age are the exception - not the norm.
[+] [-] baytrailcat|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmurf|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] libertine|8 years ago|reply
Age per se doesn't always reflect experience - and 20 years is a long time still if you take the time to experience something - master an instrument, doing drugs, thinking about shit.
Today most of the people extend their teens as far as they can - with partying and stuff before they actually take responsibility for their life.
In the time of my grandfather he started working at the age of 12, grinding hard at 14 until he mastered bakery craft at 16. My other grandfather started working since he could remember, in the farm.
I'm not saying that work means experience - I'm talking about perspective : at that time hunger and famine were the status quo, if they didn't work they would die.
[+] [-] GuardianCaveman|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sea_Wulf|8 years ago|reply
I do agree that you are more likely to get better life advice from those with a wealth of experience, but youth is hardly a reason to discredit anyone's words.
[+] [-] golemotron|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Stanleyc23|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vixen99|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] testoo|8 years ago|reply
..."i apologize for the length of this letter; if i'd had more time, it would have been shorter"
[+] [-] b0rsuk|8 years ago|reply
I don't think you can learn from positive examples exclusively. To solve a nonogram, you need to mark squares that are black and those that ARE NOT black for sure. Another example, survivorship bias. In WW2 the British were sending bombers to Berlin and other German cities. Engineers were tasked with putting more armor plating on bombers. They examined where round (bullet) holes clustered on the returning bombers, and added extra armor in the biggest clusters. Fewest holes were found around the fuel tank and pilot's cabin, and those got no extra protection. It was a perfectly rational decision they made based on available data. But they could learn a lot from losers.
Being wise, or intelligent, is not following some great personas. It's forming insight based on your observations. Hunter S. Thompson's advice may be sound, but it would be equally sound if he was a garbage collector. That you must get such advice from him, suggests, sadly, that you can't recognize it when you see it. (I'm not saying I'm better)
[+] [-] jacobolus|8 years ago|reply
Is this something very [whatever place you’re from] to make condescending sarcastic comments whenever people from other places find something interesting or meaningful to them, and want to share and discuss it?
[+] [-] dTal|8 years ago|reply
The closest real, substantiated event is a paper published by Abraham Wald, an Austro-Hungarian who immigrated to the USA, in which he applies the correct statistical analysis accounting for survivorship bias. I can find no evidence that anyone ever published the "opposite" conclusion, or added any armor to real planes either way.
The story is also attributed, without evidence, to Patrick Blackett, who was indeed British.
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/30078/did-the-c...
[+] [-] sidcool|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pizza|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kough|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icantdrive55|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]