I disagree, actually. I think the obsession with reading books "fast" misses the point of reading in general. One of the best aspects of literature (And comic books, but that's beside the point) is that it is very easy to go back and reread a sentence, a paragraph, or an entire page without harming one's immersion in the work. While you can pause this app from what I hear, doing so is far more intrusive upon the experience. Then there is the fact that you can't really appreciate the actual use of the language a given work is written in (The prose, in other words) like this. Lolita, for an easy example, would be a pretty ****ing dull book were it not for Nabokov's masterful use of the English language. And of course this app is entirely useless for the reading of long works of poetry, such as the Iliad, or the Divine Comedy.
The only real use I could possibly get out of this is reading a textbook, to be honest.
Well it might not be for everyone, or every kind of reading, but it's definitely a smart idea that has uses. I'd personally be using it right away for things like news articles.
While you can pause this app from what I hear, doing so is far more intrusive upon the experience.
Really hard to know for sure until you start using it yourself and get used to doing so.
You can still appreciate the language, you just have to do it from short term memory while you process the text.
Plus, there's always the option of combining this with the basic text as well, and being able to switch back and forth between them (if you want to observe a passage more closely for example).
Originally posted by NemeBro
I disagree, actually. I think the obsession with reading books "fast" misses the point of reading in general. One of the best aspects of literature (And comic books, but that's beside the point) is that it is very easy to go back and reread a sentence, a paragraph, or an entire page without harming one's immersion in the work. While you can pause this app from what I hear, doing so is far more intrusive upon the experience. Then there is the fact that you can't really appreciate the actual use of the language a given work is written in (The prose, in other words) like this. Lolita, for an easy example, would be a pretty ****ing dull book were it not for Nabokov's masterful use of the English language. And of course this app is entirely useless for the reading of long works of poetry, such as the Iliad, or the Divine Comedy.The only real use I could possibly get out of this is reading a textbook, to be honest.
👆
Originally posted by psmith81992
Hell no. Actual intellectuals are everywhere but don't make their presence known. Pseudo intellectuals occupy the expensive and exclusive universities.
This is ridiculously inaccurate. Autodidacticism doesn't produce the only "actual" intellectuals.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Well it's harmful to your brain. That still counts, right?
I don't share that opinion. It does indeed end brain functionality. This isn't necessarily bad. I don't look at death as "bad" overall.
Originally posted by The Renegade
This is ridiculously inaccurate. Autodidacticism doesn't produce the only "actual" intellectuals.I don't share that opinion. It does indeed end brain functionality. This isn't necessarily bad. I don't look at death as "bad" overall.
You could argue that fear of imminent death is traumatic, but once the individual expires, who knows if the trauma is enduring?
Originally posted by psmith81992
Hell no. Actual intellectuals are everywhere but don't make their presence known. Pseudo intellectuals occupy the expensive and exclusive universities.
It all seems rather subjective. There's intellectual power-houses in big name universities, technical colleges, and doing crossword puzzles in between shifts at Wal-mart. Formal education is not a measurement of intelligence in any case.
Formal education at the undergraduate level has more to do with work ethic than raw intelligence, but it seems inaccurate to entirely decouple educational achievement from intelligence. I've found most professors to be highly intelligent, able to comment intelligibly and insightfully on a large array of topics
Originally posted by Zampanó
Formal education at the undergraduate level has more to do with work ethic than raw intelligence, but it seems inaccurate to entirely decouple educational achievement from intelligence. I've found most professors to be highly intelligent, able to comment intelligibly and insightfully on a large array of topics
And I've seen graduates who can't debate their way out of a paper bag, balance their checkbooks, or work their DVRs. While there's a correlation between say, masters and above and very intelligent people with a wide variety of knowledge, it's not causation.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
And I've seen graduates who can't debate their way out of a paper bag, balance their checkbooks, or work their DVRs. While there's a correlation between say, masters and above and very intelligent people with a wide variety of knowledge, it's not causation.
Now, if we examine the set of people who are doctorate holders, I submit that it will not be one populated by idiots. The fact that they produced a novel contribution to a highly specialized field suggests that their ideas are at least relevant. The fact that they have survived roughly a decade of higher learning suggests that they know many things about many things.
Admittedly, only a subset of doctorate holders become college professors. What can we say about the sorts of doctorate holders who teach? Firstly, they must be excellent communicators. The entire challenge of (introductory) teaching is that jargon is difficult to explain. Making yourself understood to outsiders is an important skill that doesn't just rely on mastery of obscure "pseudo" concepts. Secondly, professors must be excellent cogs in the academic machine. Tenure is becoming more and more difficult to attain, so the adjunct and associate faculty members have to navigate the bureaucracy and justify their own existence to budgeters. This indicates an ability to interface/manipulate the real world beyond the realm of abstract "pseudo" ideas.
Finally, I don't think DS has ever explained what exactly makes an intellectual different from a pseudo intellectual. I asked him kind of in jest about whether there was any kind which he approves of, because he knows I would count myself in that group. But if we are going to debate the claim of college professors to be called "intellectuals" then it is important to first define the characteristics that govern membership in that class. Specifically, what makes a person an intellectual? What makes a person a pseudo-intellectual?
If, as I suspect, the difference has to do with how an academic relates to lay-people, or even the academic's general attitude, then this is not a debate that I'm interested in having. Dismissing an entire demographic (i.e. educated people) because of the stereotype that some of them have egos is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.