Einstein-- children Washington-- step-children Gandhi-- children
I'm not sure about Gandhi, but I believe that Washington and Einstein never received "World's Greatest Dad" coffee mugs. To them, having kids didn't mean that they had to actually spend any time with them.
I'm not sure about Ganhi, but I believe that Washington and Einstein never received "World's Greatest Dad" coffee mugs. To them, having kids didn't mean that they had to actually spend any time with them.
Precisely. What's worse? Not having kids or having kids but ignoring them? I'm going on the assumption that in order for a relationship and child-raising to be worthwhile, you have to put a lot of time and effort into it. That time and effort must necessarily detract from time and effort spent on other pursuits. If you look at great peoples who had children, most of them had children after achieving greatness. Many also did not spend much time with their families. They hire nannies and fly around the world. If I'm going to be flying around the world, it wouldn't be right to leave my family alone. Since flying around the world is an eventual goal, I won't do something that will hold me back, whether it's having a family or something else.
I'm not sure about Ganhi, but I believe that Washington and Einstein never received "World's Greatest Dad" coffee mugs. To them, having kids didn't mean that they had to actually spend any time with them.
Precisely. What's worse? Not having kids or having kids but ignoring them? I'm going on the assumption that in order for a relationship and child-raising to be worthwhile, you have to put a lot of time and effort into it. That time and effort must necessarily detract from time and effort spent on other pursuits. If you look at great peoples who had children, most of them had children after achieving greatness. Many also did not spend much time with their families. They hire nannies and fly around the world. If I'm going to be flying around the world, it wouldn't be right to leave my family alone. Since flying around the world is an eventual goal, I won't do something that will hold me back, whether it's having a family or something else.
I think you are missing the fundamental point that people can achieve "greatness" or excel in their field and have time consuming, involved human relationships with others. It depends on life timing and proper planning, like anything else. For instance, I am planning to travel quite a bit and be a mother. Going into education, I will have a great deal of holiday and vacation time, and I am excited to share the world with my child. Also, raising a child well can have a huge impact on shaping the world. My problem is that you see one ambition as worthwhile and another ambition as valueless. I agree that there will be "sacrifices" that parents have to make, but there are also "sacrifices" that those that pursue any great goal have to make and they enjoy those sacrifices because it helps them achieve their goal.
I'm not sure about Ganhi, but I believe that Washington and Einstein never received "World's Greatest Dad" coffee mugs. To them, having kids didn't mean that they had to actually spend any time with them.
Precisely. What's worse? Not having kids or having kids but ignoring them? I'm going on the assumption that in order for a relationship and child-raising to be worthwhile, you have to put a lot of time and effort into it. That time and effort must necessarily detract from time and effort spent on other pursuits. If you look at great peoples who had children, most of them had children after achieving greatness. Many also did not spend much time with their families. They hire nannies and fly around the world. If I'm going to be flying around the world, it wouldn't be right to leave my family alone. Since flying around the world is an eventual goal, I won't do something that will hold me back, whether it's having a family or something else.
I think you are missing the fundamental point that people can achieve "greatness" or excel in their field and have time consuming, involved human relationships with others.
Thaed mentioned Einstein and Washington in particular. I think that they did not have time consuming, involved human relationships with their children. There might be other examples of great people who did have such relationships, but I don't believe that Father's Day was a big holiday at either the Einstein's or the Washington's.
Scott, Rym, and I had a great huge rousing argument last night. I got so mad at Scott I swatted him and then promptly felt guilty and apologized. It comes down to this: He thinks good deeds that affect change do not count unless it is change on a grand scale. I say every movement is made out of many little people banding together to do great things. He does not care about being one of these little people. He wants to be one of the leaders. I say it's hard to be a leader of a movement if you don't start somewhere. It's hard to create something all by yourself. He kept contradicting himself. He says he wants to be a "special" leader but he does not want to influence anyone, because that is manipulation. He ignores making small changes in people's lives and will only satisfied if he goes down in history fo' evah. And then we started talking about the ethics of using deadly force to defend yourself and whether the importance of people is all relative depending on who is perceiving that person. And then his argument came down to something like "Whoever moves the most atoms around is the most important." And I laughed and got angry and we finally went to bed.
I swear, that boy has the attitude of an eccentric, antisocial genius without actually producing works of genius.
My take on it is: I may not go down in history for all the ages, but if I can do something with my life, something is better than nothing, right? If I affect or inspire one person, and they go on to inspire others, and so on, that is good. What matters is that the good gets done.
Malvalio: In my stars I am above thee; but be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em.
My take on it is: I may not go down in history for all the ages, but if I can do something with my life, something is better than nothing, right? If I affect or inspire one person, and they go on to inspire others, and so on, that is good. What matters is that the good gets done.
Worlds of good can be done with small deeds, and those that are great leaders know that it takes millions of small deeds to create any impact.
Scott's inability to connect with and empathize with others and his myopic and idealistic world view once again rear their ugly heads.
Others can see the value in his goals, why can he not see value in theirs? Once again, if you are not Scott, you are wrong. Even when Scott contradicts himself as pointed out by Emily, he still cannot see any discrepancy in his argument; moreover, he cannot see any value in the argument of anyone else. It is really sad and telling. Is this a social/emotional/mental disorder or just his character? It is getting hard to tell.
EDIT: Also, to be a leader of men, one must build on RELATIONSHIPS and inspire loyalty and fervor. This can not be done with ideas alone. It requires many small deeds, it requires respecting ones followers, it requires realistic world views and it requires not pissing off those that might follow you before you actually do anything. I think Scott will make a great idea man, but never a true leader as he is now unless it is in the sciences with his own, singular work.
The question seems to be about how best to live your life. Why are so many people talking about ''influencing others'' and ''changing the future to your will as much as possible''. Why does any of that matter? I live my life to be happy, within moral boundaries.
That's why I'm at film school, that's why I'm on this forum right now. Why should I constantly be trying to affect everything around us? Does it make you happy? In my view unless you're trying to prevent something that's breaking your moral boundaries, such as poverty, than why is it important?
Children make most people happy. These people have children.
Tonight's hosts are David, Rym, Scott and Thaed along with newcomers Luke and Jason. Here are the topics:
--Craigslist is destroying newspapers. But is it really more of a question of the interface? You don't need the paper, you can get what you want online. But what happens when we can receive information wirelessly directly into our heads. What happens when the interface melts away? You don't need television, radio, phones or even computers assuming brain communication is two-way. Moreover, if you can get sensory information this way with greater resolution than your five senses provide, what happens next?
--Carl Jacobi is known for using inversion to achieve insight and to solve problems. The idea is that you look at a problem backwards or from another person's perspective to work it out. Have you tried this? Does it work for you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustav_Jakob_Jacobi
--In developing AI, where do self-teaching algorithm or genetic algorithm come into play? Where is AI development going today? What are the latest advancements? How long before we all have robot butlers.
--What is the future of theater, concerts, circuses, sports and other types of live performance entertainment? Do people need to gather in meatspace and be entertained? Is the economy (or the Internet) going to shut this down? Is live entertainment doomed?
And we're back. Episode #38 is up. We had a record number of co-hosts! Tonight features David, Ray, Scott, Rym, Viga, Timo, Jason, Luke and Thaed. Here are the topics:
--What kind of pen do you use? Do you write mostly in script or print? Check out: http://www.penaddict.com/
-- Discuss one interesting side project you plan on working on in 2009.
--There's a famous computer science lecture running around on the internet that says that you have to almost create a split personality in your head, devoid of any preconceptions, to properly learn programming. The teacher calls this concept "radical novelty." Have you encountered it? What are your thoughts. http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1036.html
Outstanding show. If you could maintain that level and somehow make it regular (even if it isn't weekly) it could become one of the best podcasts available.
Also, I've had a look at Jet Pens, what would you say of their prices?
Comments
I swear, that boy has the attitude of an eccentric, antisocial genius without actually producing works of genius.
My take on it is: I may not go down in history for all the ages, but if I can do something with my life, something is better than nothing, right? If I affect or inspire one person, and they go on to inspire others, and so on, that is good. What matters is that the good gets done.
Malvalio:
In my stars I am above thee; but be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em.
Scott's inability to connect with and empathize with others and his myopic and idealistic world view once again rear their ugly heads.
Others can see the value in his goals, why can he not see value in theirs? Once again, if you are not Scott, you are wrong. Even when Scott contradicts himself as pointed out by Emily, he still cannot see any discrepancy in his argument; moreover, he cannot see any value in the argument of anyone else. It is really sad and telling. Is this a social/emotional/mental disorder or just his character? It is getting hard to tell.
EDIT: Also, to be a leader of men, one must build on RELATIONSHIPS and inspire loyalty and fervor. This can not be done with ideas alone. It requires many small deeds, it requires respecting ones followers, it requires realistic world views and it requires not pissing off those that might follow you before you actually do anything. I think Scott will make a great idea man, but never a true leader as he is now unless it is in the sciences with his own, singular work.
That's why I'm at film school, that's why I'm on this forum right now. Why should I constantly be trying to affect everything around us? Does it make you happy? In my view unless you're trying to prevent something that's breaking your moral boundaries, such as poverty, than why is it important?
Children make most people happy. These people have children.
Tonight's hosts are David, Rym, Scott and Thaed along with newcomers Luke and Jason. Here are the topics:
--Craigslist is destroying newspapers. But is it really more of a
question of the interface? You don't need the paper, you can get what
you want online. But what happens when we can receive information
wirelessly directly into our heads. What happens when the interface
melts away? You don't need television, radio, phones or even
computers assuming brain communication is two-way. Moreover, if you
can get sensory information this way with greater resolution than your
five senses provide, what happens next?
--Carl Jacobi is known for using inversion to achieve insight and to
solve problems. The idea is that you look at a problem backwards or
from another person's perspective to work it out. Have you tried
this? Does it work for you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Gustav_Jakob_Jacobi
--In developing AI, where do self-teaching algorithm or genetic
algorithm come into play? Where is AI development going today? What
are the latest advancements? How long before we all have robot
butlers.
--What is the future of theater, concerts, circuses, sports and other
types of live performance entertainment? Do people need to gather in
meatspace and be entertained? Is the economy (or the Internet) going
to shut this down? Is live entertainment doomed?
--Ask the economist.
--What kind of pen do you use? Do you write mostly in script or print? Check out: http://www.penaddict.com/
-- Discuss one interesting side project you plan on working on in 2009.
--There's a famous computer science lecture running around on the
internet that says that you have to almost create a split personality
in your head, devoid of any preconceptions, to properly learn
programming. The teacher calls this concept "radical novelty." Have
you encountered it? What are your thoughts.
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1036.html
--Ask the Economist
Direct download
Also, I've had a look at Jet Pens, what would you say of their prices?