🥺

This might sound pedantic, but it isn't, it was actually naive: I expected a better environment in academia when I was young.

Why? Because academia is supposedly full of bright people, and I assumed they would be bright enough to be cooperative (because academia advances more when we are, and they supposedly love knowledge); unattached from superficiality (like judging people by their looks, money, etc., because they should know an interesting person can come in any "package"); relatively ethical (as bright people should figure out something close to the categorical imperative, although with unique details); a non-dogmatic, eager to learn and correct their ideas —over preferring recognition and pettiness— attitude (again, just because I assumed their intelligence must guide them towards appreciating knowledge and authenticity over much more ephemeral and possibly worthless things such as prizes, fame, etc.).

I was wrong, so wrong. It's painful to remember how I felt when I realized it...

But I think the premises weren't entirely off, I just imagined people much wiser and more intelligent than they are, myself included. Anyway, I fully understand why others are shocked too.

And we know what one specific viewpoint we're talking about.

Dang it! I'm always out of the loop.

I thought it was him, William Whewell, in response to an almost rant from Samuel Taylor Coleridge about "natural philosophers" (today's scientists) not deserving to be called "philosophers".

I just googled it and found:

Coleridge stood and insisted that men of science in the modern day should not be referred to as philosophers since they were typically digging, observing, mixing or electrifying—that is, they were empirical men of experimentation and not philosophers of ideas.

[...]

There was much grumbling among those in attendance, when Whewell masterfully suggested that in “analogy with artist we form scientist.” Curiously this almost perfect linguistic accommodation of workmanship and inspiration, of the artisanal and the contemplative, of the everyday and the universal –was not readily accepted.

Yeah, that was the story I'd heard.

Another source says:

Coleridge declared that although he was a true philosopher, the term philosopher should not be applied to the association’s members. William Whewell responded by coining the word scientist on the spot. He suggested

by analogy with artist, we may form scientist.

It's funny because nobody remembers S. T. Coleridge as a philosopher but only as a poet. I've read that his philosophical writings were like an eccentric and almost immature version of German idealism. The thing that haunts me is that famous F. Schelling is well read but often misunderstood, so if they both were part of the romantic movement and they were both close to idealism, it could be that they both suffer the same fate.

Anyway, I digressed. That was the story I knew. Basically, a gatekeeping poet separated philosophers and natural philosophers.

It's even curious because there are rumours about men like Coleridge being "half-mad", and recently there have been studies on it. It would be ridiculous (just as history tends to be) if an old mad poet had divided these branches of knowledge on a fit of bad moods.

In a nutshell, he ended up hating many Germans, white and almost white Hispanics, Irish, Italians, who else...? Pickiest white supremacist I've read in a while.

The lack of individuals within a species is not a problem as long as the population is healthy. Horses are not in danger of going extinct. I do not know the numbers then and now, but horses are fine, and the ones alive in countries that would have put them to work in other eras are free of suffering, which is something every sentient being wants to avoid.

I'm glad horses are not being used as much as before; they are not objects, they are animals just like us.

I haven't noticed, but some people say they are feeling political tensions, and...

The year 2024 is notable for the large number of elections, with 7 of world's 10 most populous nations (Bangladesh, India, United States, Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia, Mexico) voting; countries that are home to nearly half of the world's people will hold elections in 2024.

From the Wikipedia complete list.

I guess everyone is just a little worried about national and international elections.

A recent comment of mine:

In an old interview, Mr. Narcissus [Elon Musk] said he may have bipolar disorder; he said he experiences "great highs, terrible lows, and unrelenting stress".

He has doubts because his highs and lows follow events in his life, whereas episodes from bipolar disorder often appear without triggers. [...]

We'd know if he went for an evaluation/possible diagnosis, but I cannot even imagine him doing it.

Kanye West is usually manic when he acts this way. I guess this supports Musk's suspicion.

Perhaps, but my point was that he claims he is a libertarian and then acts incoherently with topics such as euthanasia. I guess it has to do with his Catholicism. Still, I don't like his hypocrisy/incongruity.

From @rf_@lemmy.world:

Javier Milei is:

[...]

In favor of Austrian school of economics - Wants to remove the central bank

Adopt the US dollar

Homosexuality is a personal choice and compares it to zoophilia

Wants to freeze relationships with China, Russia, Brazil because they're communists.

Wants to align with the US, particularly Trump's party.

Against the Pope because he represents evil on Earth, and because it promotes communism which goes against the holy scriptures.

In favor of animal cloning

[...]

Almost everything is here: https://www.larazon.es/internacional/america/asi-piensa-milei-aborto-papa-corrupcion-comunismo_20230820655b13fab276150001c04e6f.html

The homosexuality one is trickier because he was explaining his libertarian views, and said: "What do I care what your sexual election is? If you want to be with an elephant—, well, if you have an elephant's consent, it is your and the elephant's problem". So... yes, he is comparing it to zoophilia, but not in the condemning tone I was imagining. It is, still, ridiculous.

1. Videogames. It has not been super expensive as I enjoy indie games the most, but still.

2. Pen and paper organization. This is recent. Due to a couple of mental disorders, I have problems remembering things and keeping organized. I was using a to-do list for my phone, but it was becoming less and less effective with time.

So I found a weekly planner online and I bought it telling myself that it was expensive, but it would be enough for a year and I wouldn't need anything else.

The planner has been great, by the way. Yet, when it arrived, I liked it so much that I had this classic feeling of not wanting to ruin it with my handwriting. I needed a good mechanical pencil! Erasable, yet stylized.

Then I thought the pages looked clean, but monotone. Stickers! What about my own creations? Thermal printer with sticker rolls! And so on and so on.

I am productive ...and addicted to stationery items.

I am inclined to think that easy entertainment and a devaluation of the intellectual life (it is no longer admirable nor sufficiently valuable being an intellectual) can be a partial explanation. The first one leads to distractions and our time being occupied by mindless activities. The second keeps us there as people are indifferent to studying and asking questions. It has become a personal choice, a kind of hobby or trait of certain individuals, and not something that we all should be doing. And I'm not saying that everyone should be a Leonardo da Vinci excelling in philosophy, sciences, arts, etc.; but I do believe we should be thinking critically and informing ourselves to the extent possible, otherwise, our reading comprehension and many other things get affected.

I'm sorry if my grammar betrays my words, I am not a native speaker.

That said, I think these are some of our obstacles, but other times had had their own obstacles. I'm sure the average citizen from, I don't know, Istanbul, London, Tokyo, some centuries ago was also very opinionated and ignorant of many things. It has been the constant, the rule, for millennia.