but of course other people may attribute a different meaning, but they must establish context, and be prepared to be challenged
Ah, you're just bragging! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Beware, lest you end up like some of us - old, well-read and bitter.
I'm not knocking the approach (of not reading previous work) per se, but I've lost count of the number of times I've spent [far too long] developing an idea only to be handed documentation when I presented my "brand new idea" that showed that it was not only not brand new but had been shown to be unviable (for one reason or another). I now consider it far quicker to check histories before committing any serious to a new project. And the fact (oops! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) than I am an omnivorous and voracious reader rarely without a book means that these "checks" are part of what I do for fun anyway. The more I read the more I learn what not to give time to.
Sure, but here you're talking about practical things. It's impossible to be too economical when it comes to that. But in terms of personal philosophy, it is best to take things at a realistic pace. Otherwise one can end up in spiritual bypass and such. I guess this is what a good reader learns. You're way ahead of me! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Mostly. I've also done it with philosophy. Realistic pace? How long will it take me to read 500 pages? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yeah right. You're one poster who consistently gives me pause for thought.
Dude, it's about living it, not merely thinking it! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I read as widely as I can within the scientific field, but my time isn't infinite. I dont see having ones own philosophy as reinventing the wheel. I don't need to feel like my philosophy is in the boundary of human thought or something similar. No body else has the power to discard my belief structure lol. Come on. Are you telling me it is possible to read extensively in all fields when you work 9-5 and then have a target like writing a novel. I have to have a good general knowledge. But reading philosophy, like I said, isn't a necessity to espouse ones own philosophy. Everyone has to pick and choose their input, fact. I think you are being a bit picky. Being able to see from many views isn't so much about facts you learn and more about your willingness to not tie yourself down to one viewpoint. If you do you will be picked off. But of course it would be wonderful to have the time to read very widely, but like I said, in a field like philosophy, specifically, I don't see any level of knowledge as a weakness. Can one even tie-down the meaning of the word "Philosophy". . . If you read all my posts on this thread you will get a broader view of my approach. Picking off a couple of statements doesn't give my viewpoint the airing it deserves. I was making the point that my approach is one of not clipping my own wings by being tied-down to any one approach, mind-set, set of values. This is not about knowledge, more about philosophy. . .
QED. You DID see my post about how long it takes me to read a book in this thread? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Philosophically speaking, From the Oxford Guide to Philosophy 2005 edition, p. 287. That would seem to suggest that when the majority of people agreed that the earth was flat, it really was flat. Pushed to its extremes, social constructionism seems to imply a pretty radical ontological idealism. Ok, we seem to be in agreement. You're using the word 'fact' to mean 'widely held belief' or something like that. There's certainly a social dimension to what we believe. Some widely held beliefs are true and conform to or satisfactorily model the existing facts, while others will no doubt turn out to be badly mistaken. All that we ever have to go on is our best understanding at that time. The growth of human knowledge is kind of a 'bootstrap' process. Maybe it would be best if we adopted a fallibilist position with regards to our beliefs: Oxford Guide to Philosophy p. 288.
Like I said, I'm not knocking it as such. If it works for you it works for you. It emphatically doesn't work for me. I managed it. And I'm not claiming to be unique or special...
You haven't read in all fields, they invent new ones every year. This point is that there are enough books in most fields of study to fill any lifespan with non-stop reading. So how do you pick and choose which book/s in any given field. Maybe they choose you (though that's a different thread). Only 24 hours per day last time I looked. Knowledge is acquired. And at the age of 31 I believe I have enough knowledge more or less to write my book. I do read fiction though, it is essential for novel writing. The fact it is science fiction does require enough scientific knowledge to make it stand up, but the writer chooses the level of science. To be truthful, my book does brush heavily into philosophical views too, but I don't need to read aristotle for that, a base-line knowledge of science is a good base for developing a philosophy. Science fiction isn't all about breaking new ground, more about contributing to the conversation other writers have already touched upon, and doing so with skill. I find that the art of writing is something I study these days, but there is no one way. One has to find ones own way. Then the novel will feel fresh.
Nit-picking. And I buy new books at least monthly, besides using the internet and numerous libraries. Your point? It's quite simple: if there's a book I read it.
One a day for your whole life doesn't brush the surface lol. In 2003 they estimated 175 million books published. 365 x 50 = 18250 If you read one or two a week which would be more realistic and probably still generous, well, you work it out. My point isn't relevant, in fact you are the one demanding I make one. I was just stating fact in response to your "fact" Your general knowledge may be more extensive than the average but it is still general. Facts aren't true because you wish they were: I would apply this to your last post.
facts are true because they are, you have already said as much. "It's quite simple: if there's a book I read it." Please.
For whom? Two or three per day is more usual for me, when I'm on a roll. 4-5 per week when I'm not. My fact? This one? How does the number of books published per year do anything to contradict my statement? It depends on whether or not you read (and understood) my last post.
Ah, I get it. You didn't understand what I said. I don't "pick and choose". If I come across a book on a subject that I want to know more about (or haven't heard of) I pick up the first book I come across that I haven't previously read. Get it?
Two or three per day, and a 9-5 job? Ha ha ha ha ha ha . . . Ha. Still not brushing the surface. If there's a book you read it? what in reality itself? the universe? the average public library? or your book shelf? Next time you go to the library just take a look at all the titles you haven't read.
