“We happened to have some books by Nietzsche and Schopenhauer in the house, which you should not read at age 14,” Musk told journalist Alison van Diggelen. “It is bad; it’s really negative.”
He turned to science fiction instead, picking up Douglas Adams’ “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.”
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
news.sky.com
onezero.medium.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
I’ll have you know you should read those by age 12
>le r*ddit tech bro
kys
Tyson: I agree.
Interviewer: At a certain point it’s just futile.
Tyson: Yeah, yeah, exactly, exactly. My concern here is that the philosophers believe they are actually asking deep questions about nature. And to the scientist it’s, “What are you doing? Why are you concerning yourself with the meaning of meaning?”
Tyson: Well, I’m still worried even about a healthy balance. Yeah, if you are distracted by your questions so that you can’t move forward, you are not being a productive contributor to our understanding of the natural world. And so the scientist knows when the question “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” is a pointless delay in our progress.
I read Schoppy at 25 :D
Tyson: How do you define “clapping”? All of a sudden it devolves into a discussion of the definition of words. And I’d rather keep the conversation about ideas. And when you do that, don’t derail yourself on questions that you think are important because philosophy class tells you this. The scientist says, “Look, I got all this world of unknown out there. I’m moving on. I’m leaving you behind. You can’t even cross the street because you are distracted by what you are sure are deep questions you’ve asked yourself. I don’t have the time for that.”
Interviewer: I also felt that it was a fat load of crap, as one could define what “crap” is and the essential qualities that make up crap: how you grade a philosophy paper?
based
name a more cringe entrepeneur. pro tip: you can't.
He still didn't say he read them.
Interviewer: Philosophy was a good major for comedy, I think, because it does get you to ask a lot of ridiculous questions about things.
Tyson: No, you need people to laugh at your ridiculous questions.
Interviewer: It’s a bottomless pit. It just becomes nihilism.
Tyson: Nihilism is a kind of philosophy.
What about the ones on things like Shark Tank/Dragons' Den.
he sort of a man-child this guy. like, any time he opens his mouth he sound like a 14 year old geek
why are gaythiest sciencebros so much söy and cringe?
If Schopenhauer and Nietzshce were so smart then why didn't they create a reusable launch system?
if musk is so tech-savy and rich why couldn't he rescue some little kids in a cave using his (ready at hand, unlike-Nietzsche and Schoppy) technology?
science is pointless and for retards prove me wrong
When our savants characterize their golden age in any but scientific terms, they emit a quantity of down-at-the-heel platitudes that would gladden the heart of the pettiest politician. Let's take a few samples. “To render human nature nobler, more beautiful, and more harmonious.” What on earth can this mean? What criteria, what content, do they propose? Not many, I fear, would be able to reply. “To assure the triumph of peace, liberty, and reason.” Fine words with no substance behind them. “To eliminate cultural lag ” What culture? And would the culture they have in mind be able to subsist in this harsh social organization? “To conquer outer space.” For what purpose? The conquest of space seems to be an end in itself, which dispenses with any need for reflection. We are forced to conclude that our scientists are incapable of any but the emptiest platitudes when they stray from their specialties. It makes one think back on the collection of mediocrities accumulated by Einstein when he spoke of God, the state, peace, and the meaning of life. It is clear that Einstein, extraordinary mathematical genius that he was, was no Pascal; he knew nothing of political or human reality, or, in fact, anything at all outside his mathematical reach. The banality of Einstein's remarks in matters outside his specialty is as astonishing as his genius within it. It seems as though the specialized application of all one's faculties in a particular area inhibits the consideration of things in general. Even J. Robert Oppenheimer, who seems receptive to a general culture, is not outside this judgment. His political and social declarations, for example, scarcely go beyond the level of those of the man in the street. And the opinions of the scientists quoted by tExpress are not even on the level of Einstein or Oppenheimer. Their pomposities, in fact, do not rise to the level of the average. They are vague generalities inherited from the nineteenth century, and the fact that they represent the furthest limits of thought of our scientific worthies must be symptomatic of arrested development or of a mental block.
If Schopenhauer was so smart then why couldn't he regrow his hair?
Let’s say it is all a simulation.
What difference does it make?
You’re going to go on living your life the same way.
It doesn’t matter if we are in a simulation or not. If we are, we are powerless to do anything about it.
Particularly disquieting is the gap between the enormous power they wield and their critical ability, which must be estimated as null. To wield power well entails a certain faculty of criticism, discrimination, judgment, and option. It is impossible to have confidence in men who apparently lack these faculties. Yet it is apparently our fate to be facing a ‘‘golden age” in the power of sorcerers who are totally blind to the meaning of the human adventure. When they speak of preserving the seed of outstanding men, whom, pray, do they mean to be the judges. It is clear, alas, that they propose to sit in judgment themselves. It is hardly likely that they will deem a Rimbaud or a Nietszche worthy of posterity. When they announce that they will conserve the genetic mutations which appear to them most favorable, and that they propose to modify the very germ cells in order to produce such and such traits; and when we consider the mediocrity of the scientists themselves outside the confines of their specialties, we can only shudder at the thought of what they will esteem most '‘favorable.’* None of our wise men ever pose the question of the end of all their marvels. The “wherefore’* is resolutely passed by. The response which would occur to our contemporaries is: for the sake of happiness. Unfortunately, there is no longer any question of that. One of our best-known specialists in diseases of the nervous system writes: “We will be able to modify man’s emotions, desires and thoughts, as we have already done in a rudimentary way with tranquillizers.’* It will be possible, says our specialist to produce a conviction or an impression of happiness without any real basis for it. Our man of the golden age, therefore, will be capable of “happiness5* amid the worst privations. Why, then, promise us extraordinary comforts, hygiene, knowledge, and nourishment if, by simply manipulating our nervous systems, we can be happy without them? The last meager motive we could possibly ascribe to the technical adventure thus vanishes into thin air through the very existence of technique itself. But what good is it to pose questions of motives? of Why? All that must be the work of some miserable intellectual who balks at technical progress. The attitude of the scientists, at any rate, is clear. Technique exists because it is technique. The golden age will be because it will be. Any other answer is superfluous.
--jacques ellul, the technological society
because he had dignity
>If Musk is so smart why didn't he (actually his team of engineers) create a X (technology 100 years in the future)?
i miss the unabomber, just imagine how nice it would be if somebody would blow musks head off with a mailbomb
Cope
>kill someone who contributes to society
I have to admit that'd be absolutely kino.
you mean technological society, mammal
>w-we live in a society!
kys
with an FC imprint on his mangled forehead
Yes sure this is absolutely demonic, but Elon would be agains this, at least I’d like to believe he’d be against this
oh you're one of them "good technology vs bad technology" faggot, ok
he's already trying (or funding at least) to mix cybertech with neuroscience. it's all downhill from here.
No I reject all of it, I just wanted to give you the room to feel superior in this instance, fun triggering the Ted Kaczynski loving faggots
>oh reality is so negative, I will hide myself in fiction books
go do his surgery so ill hack your ass and make you spee-shot one of his conferences for the keks
And he is a billionaire. Where has Nietz got you?
How do we end this? Because the packaged bomb doesn’t sound like a bad idea
yeah hes one of them blupill Disneyland motherfucker, pink cotton candy and everything.
Exactly!
>Philosophy, as I have understood and lived it, is a voluntary living in ice and high mountains: a seeking after everything strange and questionable in existence, all that has been excommunicated by morality.
— Friedrich Nietzsche,
ice and rock that's what's you get for reading Nietzsche, not silicon
poison, remote heart attack guns, etc.
>muh money
Go back to the cage, disgusting wagecuck bootlicker
>
wow
drones, just today some Yemenite khat-chowing motherfuckers blew up an oil refinery in Saudi Arabia with a drone.
this neurolink is the biggest BS we have in recent years
we have zero understanding of the brain
All of the Silicion Valley faggots and Silicon Valley wannabes
fuck them all
youtube.com
youtube.com
those are all Nietzsche's "maggot-man" that he talked about. "Last Man"
that guy who created snapchat should be gassed
Scientists are so stupid.
My blindness was cured by scientific discovery. If you were in my position you would change your view I guarantee it
In 100 years we'll be eating each other and technology will be back to sticks.
nietz gives you that predator mindset, pretty sure
>not reading Kant, Schoppy and Fritz before 15
Not gonna make it desu
only popsci twitter Discovery Channel I fucking love science burgers do this. Real , non-celebrity sciencist were Yea Forums
Schopenhauer unironically stacked money and fucked bad bitches
Keep this around, just for that purpose.
nietz gives you that predator mindset to be a millionaire in the first place, pretty sure
He's a fraud who belongs in prison. Someday that might happen.
>which you should not read at age 14
This is very true tho
I mean, Tyson isn't wrong about that last point. Just as there are too many brainlet wannabe's parading as scientists, such as Tyson, there's also way too many brainlet wannabe's parading as philosophers who have such a simplistic imagination as to allow themselves to arrive to nihilism. I don't understand how someone could accept that there is no intrinsic meaning and become anything other than liberated.
Came here to post this.
that can all be summed up with pic related
Major league physics versus t-ball popsci.
Haha, what a jokemeister
Surprisingly, Nye and Dawkins aren't wrong. Those aren't deep or profound truths they spout, but they aren't completely wrong like the other two.
>bro nietzche and schopenhauer so dark can't read them wow
I didn't know I could find this guy even more annoying
Not his fan but why do you all hate him so much?
He makes a good point though. It's hard to read nietzshe at the age of 14 and know what the fuck he is talking about. The Hitchhikers Guide is trash, but it is the kind of thing you can read when you're a child.
Schopenhauer himself said as much in one of his essays
t. read Schop at 15
He is absolutely right. A 14 year old should not read Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. What's the fucking points? At best he doesn't understand it and at worst he completely misinterprets it.
inb4 some pseud claims to have fully understood the western canon by the age of 12
Jealousy
which is a sin btw
There's a qualitative difference between "14 year olds shouldn't read it because they won't get it" and "they shouldn't read it because it's bad and negative"
Yeah you should not read at 14
>Nietzsche
>negative
There is, but part of why they won't get it is because it is so "negative". It isn't even negative really, just highly critical of societal norms. At 14 you're unlikely to have read enough to understand the context in which we have built our current understanding and standards for morality and ethics. So if you read something like Nietzsche you'll just be confused. Even if you think you 'get it' out of mindless teenage rebellion against the phoniness and hypocrisy of society, you will still lack the context to fully understand where he is coming from.
Plato is probably more suitable for teenagers who want to feel smart.
>Nietzsche and Schopenhauer
>It is bad; it’s really negative
??? I understand telling this about Schopenhauer, but how is Nietzsche negative?
I was like that when I was a teen, I even loved the shit out of Richard Dawkins and nearly tried to buy some books of his. Thank god I didn't. As another user said, they're not much more than Pop Scientists who have an endless amount of quotes to give for the aggressively atheistic population of young kids, and their egos inflate with a bloated sense of false intelligence. They don't know any better, that's all they may ever know, thus I can almost sympathize with that general population. As you may expect, I will shift the blame onto those pop scientists and assume that they either purposefully appeal to that demographic, which is just a degrading and overall shitty thing to do, or that they really do lack the capacity to think beyond their narrow tunnel thoughts. If these are the scientists who may encourage those teens to become scientists, then I don't want to know what the fuck is going to happen.
Perhaps this is the fault of the trend of becoming a specialist instead of an all-rounded academic.
>those are all Nietzsche's "maggot-man" that he talked about. "Last Man"
where
> nearly tried to buy some books of his. Thank god I didn't.
You were afraid that you, being incapable of critical thinking, would be somehow swayed by arguments?
Dawkins is a respectable scientist regardless of his atheist views, and your pride in ignorance is hardly commendable.
They're not intellectuals, they are wealthy and highly successful peddlers of new age scientism. I bet they don't even take themselves that seriously, they just talk about how science is cool to an audience of rubes who treat them like preachers of some hip new religion and then collect their checks afterwards.
You just made my stomach turn with this Reddit-tier post.
I meant that one about the God Delusion, where he just rants about religion.
Yeah, it seems that I only ever hear about them when they appear in some online stunt or a random documentary.
Can't wait for neo china
Zarathustra, towards the beginning
You can more or less tell which of the people to the right make more sense by how much they're attacking philosphy.
>WHAT IF IT'S ALL A SIMULATION DUD
But, like, what if it isn't, though?
i like the weasely language where all he actually says is that his parents owned philosophy books but he phrases it so that you think he was reading them at 14. what i'm sure really happened is that he looked at the covers and then reached for the genre trash instead.
He’s a Wittgensteinian
>Nietzsche is negative
Muskrat is religious?
He's a nerd and probably thinks Nietzsche is just philosophy for Conan the Barbarian.
I wonder if he knows that Schopenhauer influenced Einstein's notion of Space and Time being as one.