Let’s Save Great Ideas from the Ideas Industry by Umair Haque.
Are the best things in life the most trying? Are they nouns, adjectives, or verbs; real or imaginary; finite or infinite? Can they be conveyed? How much could you possibly change the world in 82 years? What about yourself? Are there shortcuts? Do books and stories and histories and parents and quotes count? How much elation can we obtain without suffering? How long can you hold your breath? Can an opinion be correct? Should we ask questions? Is thinking good? Is it necessary? Does it make you happy? Are you a commodity? How much do you wish to perceive? Depth or breadth? How do you quantify your life? How would you describe yourself? What is the answer? What is the cost? How are your decisions made? Are you alone? Have you begun your journey?
It will be a marvellous thing—the true personality of man—when we see it. It will grow naturally and simply, flowerlike, or as a tree grows. It will not be at discord. It will never argue or dispute. It will not prove things. It will know everything. And yet it will not busy itself about knowledge. It will have wisdom. Its value will not be measured by material things. It will have nothing. And yet it will have everything, and whatever one takes from it, it will still have, so rich will it be. It will not be always meddling with others, or asking them to be like itself. It will love them because they will be different. And yet while it will not meddle with others, it will help all, as a beautiful thing helps us, by being what it is.
The Soul of Man by Oscar Wilde.
Manna by Marshal Brain.
Nick on Yeah, OK, But Still explains the essence of Nietzsche and Thus Spoke Zarathustra beautifully.
As the author mentions, what is unique (and consistent) about Nietzsche’s process is that it has no singular end or method. Any strategy by which the individual succeeds is correct, although all require struggle. We must live with the values of others, confront them, and forge new ones. Values are earned. And after all this, the stages are always just a matter of perspective; it is not reality that must change, but oneself.
[via another article on Yeah, OK, But Still]
Why Finish Books? by Tim Parks.
I stopped reading the article a little more than half way through.
The article is slightly pretentious and highly interesting and raises a lot of questions. How quickly can you say a book is not worth reading? Is it possible for that to be objective? A bunch more questions veering off into the value, significance, and existence of art. Is it bad to not finish books? How do we differentiate between impatience and satiety? What is one’s goal in reading books; quantity, quality, satisfaction, breadth, knowledge? What do we do with a good book? Is it bad to reread books? Do we need books to end? How can a book not end? Have I properly experienced a book if I have not read every word, or read it as the author intended? Would I have ‘read’ it? Could I pass judgement on it? Is the book more for the reader or the author? What if we could not physically tell where a book would end, how would that influence our reading experience? Do authors like ending books? How arbitrary do they view their endings; as creators of worlds, how do they decide when to end them? Do readers like endings; they seem more polarizing than not? Is the structure of the book, with a physical linearity, inherently unsatisfactory and misleading? How does linear art compare to nonlinear in terms of popularity, satisfaction, and meaning? Do we want to know in advance how books end, to have some idea of what is coming? Are abrupt endings better than complete ones? Are unhappy endings more realistic than happy ones? How would the reader like having an influence on the ending, knowing it isn’t set in stone? Would it still be an ending? Are there endings? How do we choose when to stop? Do we even choose to stop?
[via The Browser]