> Some deep truths about human nature require instead the reflection provoked by the classics.
Yes, read Dostoevsky and the classics. There is so much to learn and to enjoy.
But remember that great authors didn't discover deep truths of human nature from books alone, but from their attention to the experiences of real life.
“When we read, another person thinks for us: we merely repeat his mental process. In learning to write, the pupil goes over with his pen what the teacher has outlined in pencil: so in reading; the greater part of the work of thought is already done for us. This is why it relieves us to take up a book after being occupied with our own thoughts. And in reading, the mind is, in fact, only the playground of another’s thoughts. So it comes about that if anyone spends almost the whole day in reading, and by way of relaxation devotes the intervals to some thoughtless pastime, he gradually loses the capacity for thinking; just as the man who always rides, at last forgets how to walk. This is the case with many learned persons: they have read themselves stupid.” - Arthur Schopenhauer
> ”Much reading after a certain age diverts the mind from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking, just as the man who spends too much time in the theaters is apt to be content with living vicariously instead of living his own life.”
> From all this it may be concluded that thoughts put down on paper are nothing more than footprints in the sand: one sees the road the man has taken, but in order to know what he saw on the way, one requires his eyes.
> "When we read, another person thinks for us: we merely repeat his mental process."
Doesn't this depend a lot on what and how we're reading? I put a lot more thought into some passages from a book than a Stack Overflow code snippet. HN posts fall somewhere in between, and sometimes even those can permanently reshape how I think about something.
I feel like there’s a lot to be gleaned here, but all I can focus on is how this - especially the last line - could be easily misrepresented to spread an anti-education message.
Pretty agree with the post but it is funny he discovered that "truth" so late in his life.
I generally consider mathematics and physics as being the higher achievements of human knowledge and it is normal to "worship" them as the most important field of study so much that some people dedicate their entire life to them with the same devotion of true monks.
It is surprising that the author didn't include Physics in the fields that provides valuable and durable knowledge worth to acquire. Mathematics alone is sort of "sterile" when is not used within physics knowledge. Without physics it is a sort of highly abstract beauty that people pursuit only for the sake of it's beauty.
On the other side we have to recognize that both mathematics and physics capture nothing about the experience of life as a human being. For this we need real life experience, knowing other people and exchange with them, study history and read historical and social essays in addition to literature classics.
One will not find in them the sharp accuracy and simple laws that physics and mathematics provides but I guess there is no other way to learn what life is and its partial, imperfect truths.
I also cannot resist to recommend, for those who love reading Dostoevsky, to read also Bulgakov's master and Marguerite which is a true masterpiece of beauty and gives a sharp and deep view of what humanity is.
> Mathematics alone is sort of "sterile" when is not used within physics knowledge.
Oh no, mathematics is many things. For me - a mathematician - it started with Galois' proof about the nonsolvability of polynomial equations with degree >= 5. No physics is required for this way of thinking about symmetries. Same with number theory, primes and indefinitely more things. Many gained applications to physical problems later, many not. The latter is not a sign that something is missing.
Out of curiosity do you draw a distinction between something like Newtonian physics and areas farther removed from everyday life such as high energy physics?
I met a young and apparently highly intelligent AI researcher the other week who confessed to me that he thought fiction (books but also movies etc) was a waste of his time: there was nothing to be gained there.
Being a lover of fiction myself, I huffed and puffed and he challenged me to name him a book that would change his mind. Usually when people ask me where to start in literature, I advise them to start at the top (Chekhov, say) because life is short and you might be dead tomorrow and then you missed out on the best. With an antagonistic reader like this , I am not sure that is the best choice though.
A person with that attitude doesn’t need a perfect list of books, they need to live more of their life. Fiction will likely find them when they’re ready for it. Seems futile to try to convince them otherwise, if they’re presently writing off fiction and film.
I'd recommend Stories of Your Life and Others by Ted Chiang [0]. It's often billed as "speculative fiction", and I'd describe it as a series of short stories that define worlds slightly-to-extremely dissimilar to ours, and explores what that means to the people who live in them. I recall the stories being fun because there's some amount of guessing what will come next in the worldbuilding, and imagining what makes sense within the rules he's establishing, but he also drenches the stories in humanity, and many of them are quite emotional.
If you're trying to get him to read a classic specifically, maybe it would help to start with some non-fiction pieces. David Foster Wallace has an essay on what makes Dostoevsky great and worth reading [1]. And there are plenty of other essays and books out there on "why read the classics." If you think presenting your case through the lens of scientific rigor would be helpful, there are numerous studies showing that reading fiction increases empathy with others [2] (and if that's not appealing to him, you're probably in for a very long and uphill battle). For a classic recommendation, I think that similar to the article, Crime and Punishment is a good choice. It's pretty approachable language-wise, it's not crazy long, and it hits all those points of universal themes, some humor, and a deep empathy from the author to his main character.
This is from someone who is woefully under-read, and only remembered my teenage love of sci-fi in the last couple of years. I thought similarly for several years, that fiction was a waste of time. But then I realized I was scrolling through Twitter every day, and that felt like eating french fries as a meal: lacking substance.
Reading long form prose increases your attention span and the shape of your thoughts.
Reading fiction stimulates the imagination, which opens up the space of ideas that the mind can generate.
Fiction is a compressed simulation of life. By reading good fiction one lives more life.
Fiction is a cultural touchstone. New relationships open up when there are shared understandings of stories.
Good, hard science fiction is a record of what some of the most imaginative scientific thinkers (not necessarily scientists) have pondered. Again, mind expanding.
Science fiction stimulates curiosity by asking "what if"?
We all have to engage in lower energy activities and "waste time". Watching documentaries is a "waste of time" for someone not engaged in professional research on the relevant subject. Do you use Reddit? That's a waste of time. Having a science fiction book next to the toilet will leave you feeling more nourished after you've done your business (I look forward to using the bathroom when I know there's a delicious book waiting for me that I only read there).
Dead tree books are better for someone who has a hard time reading. Studies show there's a big difference in retention between words on a screen and words in print. Dead tree books also benefit from being "things" that can be left in the intended reading location, and give a sense of progress and of conquering when completed.
The tactile nature of flipping pages and of breaking in a paperback is lovely. The cover art attracts the eyes to the book.
Reading a book is a different action than looking at your phone or computer, and it has a different set of feelings, emotions, thought patterns. There's the smell of a printed book.
I love Asimov. I, Robot is easy because it's a collection of very short stories, but it risks being seen as shallow. The End of Eternity is considered Asimov's best novel, and it's not too long. I hear good things about The Last Question. Foundation is lovely.
He's an AI researcher, tell him to read 2001 by Arthur C. Clake. He doesn't need to read "the classics" he needs to read something proximal to his interests and then figure out which strands he'd like to follow from there.
"The Classics" are at this point literary archeology: they've influenced a lot, but unless you're actually inspired to follow that chain back they're just going to wind up seeming "samey" to things that came after because they were already heavily referenced, extrapolated, deconstructed and their essential ideas endlessly debated.
Is this person highly cynical about human relationships and emotions and desires?
If so, that makes your job a whole lot harder, but you may be able to challenge that by linking a moving work of fiction with an actual closely held relationship or desire in this person's life. But do not expect to be able to just hand him a book and watch it happen. Speaking from personal experience, I frequently require someone to discuss fiction with before it will "hit home", and I'm not even antagonistic to fiction at all. I'm just bad at it unless I can talk it through with somebody who can be my guide.
There are quite a few recommendations for the classics, but if someone doesn't enjoy the slow burn of those deep books, maybe they should start with something lot more dopaminergic: animes and movies!
PsychoPass, Akira, Cowboy Bebop, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Attack on Titan.
So, movies. I only saw The Shawshank Redemption a few years ago, and it's really really good. Classic. Human. Touching. I'm not even sure how to characterize it except yes, really go see it, it's really at the top of the power distribution of movies.
12 Angry Men. At this point it's the cliché of old but good movies. At this point it's a satire of a socially interesting movie due to its naivete, yet for someone who seems a bit close minded it might be just the right thing. (Or not? :D)
The Pianist. Again, simple. Brutal. Or the recent Joker.
.
.
.
But really when it comes to AI and fiction.
Blade Runner. If that's not fiction that's worth investing time into, then what is? Even typing this I've got the chills thinking about Roy Batty.
That person is just on a personal mission right now. Once he has achieved his internal goal, the space for leisure will start opening up to him. People who like video games, but are on a mission about their new thing don't really feel like they want to play video games, even though they played them a lot in their past for example.
Also some people are just missing things neurologically that make certain things compelling for most people. Some people just don't care for music much because it doesn't do much for them and concerts are kind of confusing enjoyment wise. Same with many people in software for watching sports, they're just not that into it.
For others, it moves them greatly. Maybe he doesn't create the internal world required for fiction when he reads fiction.
So either he is on a mission (people who are noticeably good at something tend to be) or they are just missing the thing that would make it enjoyable for them.
Sounds like it might be a losing battle, but the first thing that came to mind was Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut. Short, approachable, funny, and confronts topics that probably are interesting to an AI researcher.
That's a common complaint about literature. I remmeber one person who wouldn't read fiction because they said "it was just all lies". Literature isn't just a recitation of facts, it reflects the organizing principle of our values. It sparks creativity.
If the classics feel to archaic or they are too inaccessible, you also might try some contemporary authors. Michael Crichton is very accessible. I think his works can be equally inspiring and creative.
As someone who finds most fiction to take much too long to get to any interesting points, I’d like to recommend Greg Egan’s Axiomatic, a collection of thought-provoking SF short stories.
It's likely highly dependent on the individual. There's a lot of literature is beautiful, immersive, and speaks to deep universal truths that are harder to capture in other mediums. To steelman his argument, even given that all of this is true, it's a harder sell that engaging with the works is useful to him, on an individual level.
For me, Infinite Jest helped me be more empathetic, which was an area I lacked a lot at the time, to the point that reading it was just clearly useful to me.
But other than that? It's hard to say. I derive a lot of pleasure from fiction, and find the experiences I get from them to be highly meaningful and to sometimes stay with me for years, not unlike memories of times with good friends. Whether or not that's of value to you as an individual just depends on your values.
I've had the same experience; and I see no one recommendation that will make someone appreciate literature. The argument I heard from a younger AI researcher was that books/stories are just a collection of tropes that get reused over and over. For me it's easier to just recommend Dostojevsky, or perhaps a couple of dystopian classics. Even then not everyone will understand how literature is not just about information which become a story.
For me Crime and Punishment was perhaps a bit painful for me as a teenager I remember entering the same state of mind as the main character Raskolnikov from reading it, but it was also a good capstone to connect the feeling from books by Boje, Strindberg and Chekhov.
Great question. I always recommend Anna Karenina as the one book everyone should read, but maybe it's actually a terrible thing to recommend to someone who Doesn't Like Reading.
I don't have an answer for you, but you got me thinking :)
Haha sounds like me. I used to read as a teenager but stopped, thinking it a waste of time.
Only recently rediscovered my love for sci-fi after randomly picking up Isaac Asimov's foundation series on a whim while waiting for a flight at a book store.
Not saying it's the best thing ever or necessarily what I'd recommend. But maybe try and think what genere would be interesting to them and then pick one from someone's top x list.
I plan on doing that now using this list https://youtu.be/pP0XnfC1jVM and am very keen to build a bookshelf now haha
Many good tips so far in this thread. If your friend reads a lot of papers, they might be able to "leap" into classics without being bogged down by the language and sometimes dense prose - but I'd still err on the side of accessible for getting someone into reading for pleasure.
I'd recommend for example (in no particular order - just some great books imnho):
Earthsea quartet by LeGuin
Dune by Herbert
South of the Border by Murakami
Islands in the Net by Sterling
Foundation trilogy by Asimov
Speed of Dark, by Moon
Accelerando, by Stross
Murderbot diaries, by Wells
A Fire Upon the Deep, by Vinge (and Rainbow's End by same)
What is his current view of the world of humans, etc.
Once you have a grasp of that, there is probably a fiction that can show him how his vision is incomplete.
We are after knowledge and to be useful and interesting the new knowledge need to be just a bit farther than we are at the moment. (zone of proximal development)
Not a book, but for AI I enjoyed watching Joshua Bach interview (consciousness is a simulation)
I agree that most movies are a waste of time at the moment. They mostly repeat the same propaganda.
Having read about 1 to 2/3rds through most of Dostoyevsky's books: I really believe they're over-hyped.
Same with Pushkin, Tolstoy, Bulgakov, and so on -- with the only exception of Solzhenitsyn.
I think the difference is I'm Slavic, speak a few of the languages, and come from the cultures that succeeded those authors; so they read mostly as sentimental, overly-emotional, and superstitious, i.e. what I feel are the worst parts of the mythologized "Russian soul." Their works don't feel new, novel, and original: I've seen parts and pieces of it, reflections of its essence, expressed all over the average Slavic person.
> Dostoevsky's genius lies in his deep understanding of human nature and of spelling out truths about it in ways that inspire reflection.
If you resonate with this statement, perhaps you should also watch Tarkovsky's The Mirror.
But for me, the only truth Dostoyevsky has shown me is that people are very flawed, are the source of all of their own problems, and that Fyodor was a deeply emotional person. But I am not, and I find his expression of those emotions to be grating.
I resonate more with the quotes in the Wikipedia article for Idyot:
> However the chief criticism, among both reviewers and general readers, was in the "fantasticality" of the characters. The radical critic D.I. Minaev wrote: "People meet, fall in love, slap each other's face—and all at the author's first whim, without any artistic truth." V.P. Burenin, a liberal, described the novel's presentation of the younger generation as "the purest fruit of the writer's subjective fancy" and the novel as a whole as "a belletristic compilation, concocted from a multitude of absurd personages and events, without any concern for any kind of artistic objectivity."
The classics are important because they are typically ‘classic’ due to their applicability over space and time. The authors managed to distil ever-recurring human drama and pathos (and the happy stuff too) into something timeless, though of course in the context of where and when they lived.
Every generation when it comes up will think they’re the first and best ones to experience anything, it’s just normal and always has been. Once the real world sets in or you hit your mid 20s angst (whichever comes first) the classics are a comfort and will connect you to a raw world of the past. You aren’t alone, nor especially abnormal nor special. Dostoevsky knew what you’d go through. Tolstoy already got your bullcrap. Hell, even Ovid can show you things and the Roman Empire is long dead.
Not everyone has to enjoy the same things and some haute things are definitely overrated. However, if you want to know yourself, your world and the other people in it in a way that transcends the capricious day-to-day, and has a bit more fuzziness, dimensionality (and spirit) than clinical psychology, the classics are waiting for you. They’ve seen it all before.
Besides Dostoevsky, there is abundant wisdom and deep truths to be found in the classics of Christianity. The apologetics of C.S. Lewis (Screwtape Letters, The Problem with Pain, The Great Divorce), Augustine's Confessions and City of God, Seven Storey Mountain by Thomas Merton and G.K. Chesterton's Everlasting Man.
These are seldom read (or known) by young people today and I see that as a tragedy. Western spirituality was demolished and nothing substantial has emerged to fill the void left, besides a coterie of self-help charlatans and intellectual tricksters, with the predictable results that we see all around us today.
This is also something that Nassim Taleb (a voracious reader and lifelong student of the Western classics but also an Orthodox Christian) frequently outlines.
I wish the author the best on their reading journey! I feel like this article shares a valuable experience, and I would encourage anyone who's on the fence or who views literature as a waste of time to give it an earnest try.
Jumping straight into the classics can be hard due to the differences in language, cultural assumptions, and even just the fact that some of them are over-hyped, and it's tough to enjoy a book on its own terms when it's presented as "one of the best books ever."
Find some recommendations on the internet, go to the library, and check out a couple. If they don't strike your fancy, don't worry about it, and move on to the next recommendation until you find something you connect with and you want to keep reading.
Tolstoy also has a lot to share about programming. "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way" is a clear recommendation to use status codes as return values instead of boolean success/fail.
I remember Raskolnikov laying in his bed looking at the patterns of the wallpaper while feeling moody. That may have been the most connected I have felt with a literary character.
So he only read 1.5 books of Dostoevsky, and now he telling everyone to read his books. I get it, I also had a religious experience when I read Crime and Punishment, but one cannot assume all his books will be that great without actually reading more of them. Call me back when you get through a few more. Or maybe change the title to "Why read Crime And Punishment".
I’ve had a hard time trying to read both Dostoevsky and Tolstoy because of the names. I guess because I don’t speak Russian, the names are long and complicated and in most cases, compounding the problem, there are too many characters. It makes it very difficult to read “in my head” and keep track of what’s going on.
> Unlike scientific knowledge, Dostoevsky doesn't propose a model with a degree of accuracy and best practices on how to apply the model.
Isn't a case study is a part of science?
Please correct me if I'm wrong. One can study one particular case in depth and call themself a scientist. Dostoevsky is not a scientist because he made up his stories instead of gathering data on real cases, not because his stories cannot be replicated.
Experimental science is good, but it applicable only after a researcher came up with a hypothesis and hypothesis can be formulated if there is some theory. It is very restrictive, just like the author of the blog post writes. But where theories and hypotheses come from? From preliminary research, in particular from case studies. These case studies are also scientific knowledge, aren't they?
As someone coming from social sciences, I agree with author’s assessment that scientific method used in academia isn’t suitable in explaining human nature or behaviour. However, a lot of at least sociologists are aware of that. I would suggest to author to read Wallerstein’s Herritage of Sociology [1]. Wallerstein thinks that social sciences had to imitate the method of natural sciences in order to survive (meaning to get the necessary funding).
I’m out of time right now, but if I remember I’ll write more about it in the afternoon. Wallerstein and Braudel are one of the few authors that influenced me the most during my studies and changed the way I perceive both Sociology as a subject and society around me. Couldn’t recommend them more.
The person has read 1 and a half Dostojewskis. Fair enough, it takes a while and is quite a churn. Then wrote a blogpost about it. As the person likes to extract use out of everything he/she does, what use did he get? He found some deeper truth. Ok perfect, but where is the news? This is the reason we read novels and classics in the first place. We are not trying to extract how to get back into shape or which stocks to bet on by reading novels.
One can learn not only from books, but from all forms of great art and minds. For example: “Music Is a Higher Revelation Than All Wisdom and Philosophy”, L.v. Beethoven
One thing that's weird about Dostoevsky is that there are so many characters and their relationships with each other are very complex. "The Idiot" , ironically, was one of the more complicated books, IMHO. It made me wonder if the average Russian back in the 19th century had the ability to hold this chess like complexity in their heads or Dostoevsky just made everyone in the book unrealistically intelligent.
The Brothers Karamazov and Crime and Punishment effectively read themselves. They can't be put down. Only with exceptional discipline and great difficulty could one "take it slow," and stop for note-taking. I don't know who reads novels like that. Reading them, time stops, and you return to your life about a week later. Notes From Underground isn't easy, but it is short. The Idiot and The Possessed (Demons, The Devils), if even 100 pages can be completed, are impossible to finish. I am unaware of anyone who has read Dostoyevski's first three novels, The Village of Stepanchikovo, Humilated and Insulted, or The House of the Dead, so the assumption is they are either illegible or inscrutable, the result being they can't be read.
Geeks, nerds and Dostoevsky...
Guys, you will never understand anything about life and other people alive today from old books about the life of fictional people, especially written by seriously mentally ill crippled people from the past you do not understand of countries unknown to you.
If you are interested in plots, all possible plots are in the Old Testament. That is why this book lives so long, regardless of any religiosity.
It just has all the plots in it.
You can also read Winnie the Pooh, but it is better to read this book aloud in the evenings to your children (it's a great pleasure for both children and parents).
Everything else is around you: living non-cardboard people, suffering, joy, communication, freedom, enjoyment of work and idleness, whatever.
[+] [-] dotsam|3 years ago|reply
Yes, read Dostoevsky and the classics. There is so much to learn and to enjoy.
But remember that great authors didn't discover deep truths of human nature from books alone, but from their attention to the experiences of real life.
“When we read, another person thinks for us: we merely repeat his mental process. In learning to write, the pupil goes over with his pen what the teacher has outlined in pencil: so in reading; the greater part of the work of thought is already done for us. This is why it relieves us to take up a book after being occupied with our own thoughts. And in reading, the mind is, in fact, only the playground of another’s thoughts. So it comes about that if anyone spends almost the whole day in reading, and by way of relaxation devotes the intervals to some thoughtless pastime, he gradually loses the capacity for thinking; just as the man who always rides, at last forgets how to walk. This is the case with many learned persons: they have read themselves stupid.” - Arthur Schopenhauer
[+] [-] svat|3 years ago|reply
> ”Much reading after a certain age diverts the mind from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking, just as the man who spends too much time in the theaters is apt to be content with living vicariously instead of living his own life.”
[+] [-] montefischer|3 years ago|reply
> From all this it may be concluded that thoughts put down on paper are nothing more than footprints in the sand: one sees the road the man has taken, but in order to know what he saw on the way, one requires his eyes.
[+] [-] Silverback_VII|3 years ago|reply
I can imagine that all human deepness is, not unlike the very sofisticated feathers of the peacock, just a tool to increase status & SMV.
[+] [-] starkd|3 years ago|reply
https://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Bus...
[+] [-] its_bbq|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grog454|3 years ago|reply
Doesn't this depend a lot on what and how we're reading? I put a lot more thought into some passages from a book than a Stack Overflow code snippet. HN posts fall somewhere in between, and sometimes even those can permanently reshape how I think about something.
[+] [-] ardkor|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Forgeties79|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frankohn|3 years ago|reply
I generally consider mathematics and physics as being the higher achievements of human knowledge and it is normal to "worship" them as the most important field of study so much that some people dedicate their entire life to them with the same devotion of true monks.
It is surprising that the author didn't include Physics in the fields that provides valuable and durable knowledge worth to acquire. Mathematics alone is sort of "sterile" when is not used within physics knowledge. Without physics it is a sort of highly abstract beauty that people pursuit only for the sake of it's beauty.
On the other side we have to recognize that both mathematics and physics capture nothing about the experience of life as a human being. For this we need real life experience, knowing other people and exchange with them, study history and read historical and social essays in addition to literature classics.
One will not find in them the sharp accuracy and simple laws that physics and mathematics provides but I guess there is no other way to learn what life is and its partial, imperfect truths.
I also cannot resist to recommend, for those who love reading Dostoevsky, to read also Bulgakov's master and Marguerite which is a true masterpiece of beauty and gives a sharp and deep view of what humanity is.
[+] [-] unhammer|3 years ago|reply
It's also a very fun book! (Apparantly not all the translations are that good though, but O'Connor and Burgin's https://www.panmacmillan.com/authors/mikhail-bulgakov/the-ma... is.)
[+] [-] mbeex|3 years ago|reply
Oh no, mathematics is many things. For me - a mathematician - it started with Galois' proof about the nonsolvability of polynomial equations with degree >= 5. No physics is required for this way of thinking about symmetries. Same with number theory, primes and indefinitely more things. Many gained applications to physical problems later, many not. The latter is not a sign that something is missing.
[+] [-] acchow|3 years ago|reply
Surely you can’t believe this anymore with the discovery of computer science, AI, type theory , etc?
[+] [-] andrewjl|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kieckerjan|3 years ago|reply
Being a lover of fiction myself, I huffed and puffed and he challenged me to name him a book that would change his mind. Usually when people ask me where to start in literature, I advise them to start at the top (Chekhov, say) because life is short and you might be dead tomorrow and then you missed out on the best. With an antagonistic reader like this , I am not sure that is the best choice though.
Any tips would be welcome!
[+] [-] drlolz|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pythko|3 years ago|reply
If you're trying to get him to read a classic specifically, maybe it would help to start with some non-fiction pieces. David Foster Wallace has an essay on what makes Dostoevsky great and worth reading [1]. And there are plenty of other essays and books out there on "why read the classics." If you think presenting your case through the lens of scientific rigor would be helpful, there are numerous studies showing that reading fiction increases empathy with others [2] (and if that's not appealing to him, you're probably in for a very long and uphill battle). For a classic recommendation, I think that similar to the article, Crime and Punishment is a good choice. It's pretty approachable language-wise, it's not crazy long, and it hits all those points of universal themes, some humor, and a deep empathy from the author to his main character.
---
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/223380.Stories_of_Your_L...
[1] https://www.villagevoice.com/2019/07/04/feodors-guide-joseph...
[2] https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/how-reading-fiction-in...
[+] [-] bckr|3 years ago|reply
Reading long form prose increases your attention span and the shape of your thoughts.
Reading fiction stimulates the imagination, which opens up the space of ideas that the mind can generate.
Fiction is a compressed simulation of life. By reading good fiction one lives more life.
Fiction is a cultural touchstone. New relationships open up when there are shared understandings of stories.
Good, hard science fiction is a record of what some of the most imaginative scientific thinkers (not necessarily scientists) have pondered. Again, mind expanding.
Science fiction stimulates curiosity by asking "what if"?
We all have to engage in lower energy activities and "waste time". Watching documentaries is a "waste of time" for someone not engaged in professional research on the relevant subject. Do you use Reddit? That's a waste of time. Having a science fiction book next to the toilet will leave you feeling more nourished after you've done your business (I look forward to using the bathroom when I know there's a delicious book waiting for me that I only read there).
Dead tree books are better for someone who has a hard time reading. Studies show there's a big difference in retention between words on a screen and words in print. Dead tree books also benefit from being "things" that can be left in the intended reading location, and give a sense of progress and of conquering when completed.
The tactile nature of flipping pages and of breaking in a paperback is lovely. The cover art attracts the eyes to the book.
Reading a book is a different action than looking at your phone or computer, and it has a different set of feelings, emotions, thought patterns. There's the smell of a printed book.
I love Asimov. I, Robot is easy because it's a collection of very short stories, but it risks being seen as shallow. The End of Eternity is considered Asimov's best novel, and it's not too long. I hear good things about The Last Question. Foundation is lovely.
Be right back, going to buy more Asimov.
[+] [-] XorNot|3 years ago|reply
"The Classics" are at this point literary archeology: they've influenced a lot, but unless you're actually inspired to follow that chain back they're just going to wind up seeming "samey" to things that came after because they were already heavily referenced, extrapolated, deconstructed and their essential ideas endlessly debated.
[+] [-] cvoss|3 years ago|reply
If so, that makes your job a whole lot harder, but you may be able to challenge that by linking a moving work of fiction with an actual closely held relationship or desire in this person's life. But do not expect to be able to just hand him a book and watch it happen. Speaking from personal experience, I frequently require someone to discuss fiction with before it will "hit home", and I'm not even antagonistic to fiction at all. I'm just bad at it unless I can talk it through with somebody who can be my guide.
[+] [-] pas|3 years ago|reply
PsychoPass, Akira, Cowboy Bebop, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Attack on Titan.
So, movies. I only saw The Shawshank Redemption a few years ago, and it's really really good. Classic. Human. Touching. I'm not even sure how to characterize it except yes, really go see it, it's really at the top of the power distribution of movies.
12 Angry Men. At this point it's the cliché of old but good movies. At this point it's a satire of a socially interesting movie due to its naivete, yet for someone who seems a bit close minded it might be just the right thing. (Or not? :D)
The Pianist. Again, simple. Brutal. Or the recent Joker.
. . .
But really when it comes to AI and fiction.
Blade Runner. If that's not fiction that's worth investing time into, then what is? Even typing this I've got the chills thinking about Roy Batty.
[+] [-] novok|3 years ago|reply
Also some people are just missing things neurologically that make certain things compelling for most people. Some people just don't care for music much because it doesn't do much for them and concerts are kind of confusing enjoyment wise. Same with many people in software for watching sports, they're just not that into it.
For others, it moves them greatly. Maybe he doesn't create the internal world required for fiction when he reads fiction.
So either he is on a mission (people who are noticeably good at something tend to be) or they are just missing the thing that would make it enjoyable for them.
[+] [-] jcalabro|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] starkd|3 years ago|reply
If the classics feel to archaic or they are too inaccessible, you also might try some contemporary authors. Michael Crichton is very accessible. I think his works can be equally inspiring and creative.
[+] [-] layer8|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] richardjdare|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Antoniocl|3 years ago|reply
For me, Infinite Jest helped me be more empathetic, which was an area I lacked a lot at the time, to the point that reading it was just clearly useful to me.
But other than that? It's hard to say. I derive a lot of pleasure from fiction, and find the experiences I get from them to be highly meaningful and to sometimes stay with me for years, not unlike memories of times with good friends. Whether or not that's of value to you as an individual just depends on your values.
[+] [-] emj|3 years ago|reply
For me Crime and Punishment was perhaps a bit painful for me as a teenager I remember entering the same state of mind as the main character Raskolnikov from reading it, but it was also a good capstone to connect the feeling from books by Boje, Strindberg and Chekhov.
[+] [-] cehrlich|3 years ago|reply
I don't have an answer for you, but you got me thinking :)
[+] [-] janee|3 years ago|reply
Only recently rediscovered my love for sci-fi after randomly picking up Isaac Asimov's foundation series on a whim while waiting for a flight at a book store.
Not saying it's the best thing ever or necessarily what I'd recommend. But maybe try and think what genere would be interesting to them and then pick one from someone's top x list.
I plan on doing that now using this list https://youtu.be/pP0XnfC1jVM and am very keen to build a bookshelf now haha
[+] [-] trane_project|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] e12e|3 years ago|reply
I'd recommend for example (in no particular order - just some great books imnho):
Earthsea quartet by LeGuin
Dune by Herbert
South of the Border by Murakami
Islands in the Net by Sterling
Foundation trilogy by Asimov
Speed of Dark, by Moon
Accelerando, by Stross
Murderbot diaries, by Wells
A Fire Upon the Deep, by Vinge (and Rainbow's End by same)
2312, by Robinson
And many more, I'm sure :)
[+] [-] alfor|3 years ago|reply
What is his current view of the world of humans, etc.
Once you have a grasp of that, there is probably a fiction that can show him how his vision is incomplete.
We are after knowledge and to be useful and interesting the new knowledge need to be just a bit farther than we are at the moment. (zone of proximal development)
Not a book, but for AI I enjoyed watching Joshua Bach interview (consciousness is a simulation)
I agree that most movies are a waste of time at the moment. They mostly repeat the same propaganda.
[+] [-] throwaway74829|3 years ago|reply
Same with Pushkin, Tolstoy, Bulgakov, and so on -- with the only exception of Solzhenitsyn.
I think the difference is I'm Slavic, speak a few of the languages, and come from the cultures that succeeded those authors; so they read mostly as sentimental, overly-emotional, and superstitious, i.e. what I feel are the worst parts of the mythologized "Russian soul." Their works don't feel new, novel, and original: I've seen parts and pieces of it, reflections of its essence, expressed all over the average Slavic person.
> Dostoevsky's genius lies in his deep understanding of human nature and of spelling out truths about it in ways that inspire reflection.
If you resonate with this statement, perhaps you should also watch Tarkovsky's The Mirror.
But for me, the only truth Dostoyevsky has shown me is that people are very flawed, are the source of all of their own problems, and that Fyodor was a deeply emotional person. But I am not, and I find his expression of those emotions to be grating.
I resonate more with the quotes in the Wikipedia article for Idyot:
> However the chief criticism, among both reviewers and general readers, was in the "fantasticality" of the characters. The radical critic D.I. Minaev wrote: "People meet, fall in love, slap each other's face—and all at the author's first whim, without any artistic truth." V.P. Burenin, a liberal, described the novel's presentation of the younger generation as "the purest fruit of the writer's subjective fancy" and the novel as a whole as "a belletristic compilation, concocted from a multitude of absurd personages and events, without any concern for any kind of artistic objectivity."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Idiot#Reception
[+] [-] mikrl|3 years ago|reply
Every generation when it comes up will think they’re the first and best ones to experience anything, it’s just normal and always has been. Once the real world sets in or you hit your mid 20s angst (whichever comes first) the classics are a comfort and will connect you to a raw world of the past. You aren’t alone, nor especially abnormal nor special. Dostoevsky knew what you’d go through. Tolstoy already got your bullcrap. Hell, even Ovid can show you things and the Roman Empire is long dead.
Not everyone has to enjoy the same things and some haute things are definitely overrated. However, if you want to know yourself, your world and the other people in it in a way that transcends the capricious day-to-day, and has a bit more fuzziness, dimensionality (and spirit) than clinical psychology, the classics are waiting for you. They’ve seen it all before.
[+] [-] armitron|3 years ago|reply
These are seldom read (or known) by young people today and I see that as a tragedy. Western spirituality was demolished and nothing substantial has emerged to fill the void left, besides a coterie of self-help charlatans and intellectual tricksters, with the predictable results that we see all around us today.
This is also something that Nassim Taleb (a voracious reader and lifelong student of the Western classics but also an Orthodox Christian) frequently outlines.
[+] [-] pythko|3 years ago|reply
Jumping straight into the classics can be hard due to the differences in language, cultural assumptions, and even just the fact that some of them are over-hyped, and it's tough to enjoy a book on its own terms when it's presented as "one of the best books ever."
Find some recommendations on the internet, go to the library, and check out a couple. If they don't strike your fancy, don't worry about it, and move on to the next recommendation until you find something you connect with and you want to keep reading.
[+] [-] gregcoombe|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mongol|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmartrican|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avgcorrection|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] user3939382|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ordu|3 years ago|reply
Isn't a case study is a part of science?
Please correct me if I'm wrong. One can study one particular case in depth and call themself a scientist. Dostoevsky is not a scientist because he made up his stories instead of gathering data on real cases, not because his stories cannot be replicated.
Experimental science is good, but it applicable only after a researcher came up with a hypothesis and hypothesis can be formulated if there is some theory. It is very restrictive, just like the author of the blog post writes. But where theories and hypotheses come from? From preliminary research, in particular from case studies. These case studies are also scientific knowledge, aren't they?
[+] [-] scop|3 years ago|reply
After that diagnosis, I have almost exclusively read fiction.
[+] [-] zigman1|3 years ago|reply
I’m out of time right now, but if I remember I’ll write more about it in the afternoon. Wallerstein and Braudel are one of the few authors that influenced me the most during my studies and changed the way I perceive both Sociology as a subject and society around me. Couldn’t recommend them more.
[+] [-] HellDunkel|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] john61|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] narrator|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Maursault|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azubinski|3 years ago|reply
If you are interested in plots, all possible plots are in the Old Testament. That is why this book lives so long, regardless of any religiosity. It just has all the plots in it. You can also read Winnie the Pooh, but it is better to read this book aloud in the evenings to your children (it's a great pleasure for both children and parents).
Everything else is around you: living non-cardboard people, suffering, joy, communication, freedom, enjoyment of work and idleness, whatever.