Also, I think that it is “cruelly” pinching the toes and fingers of the boy, is related to the “wrathful” skipper; the skipper is angry and perhaps cruelly disciplining his apprentice by making him stay up on deck in the cold, or otherwise giving him cruel tasks up on deck.
Ah right yes, I do get that.
Yup, I see that. Megalosaurus is now extinct but wouldn’t have been just after the flood. Its not a random pair of prehistoric things, they’re related.
Sure. It would presumably have to be a reference that people of the time might get though right?
I would be surprised to find out regular people in 19th century England thought that dinosaurs should be included in the Noah’s Ark story. Like I think people wouldn’t think dinosaurs were on Noah’s Ark, so they might not make that connection. Even though afaik the story says Noah took a pair of every kind of animal abord the ark, I don’t know if people broadly would have reinterpreted that to logically mean that includes recently discovered dinosaurs. But I don’t know. Apparently this was the first reference to a dinosaur in a novel. I think Charles Dickens is probably smart enough to make that connection which is probably what matters here.
If Noah had all the animals, I think it’s natural to think that would include animals that hadn’t been discovered yet including extinct ones. If you’ve never seen an elephant, then you see one, and you’re Christian with a mindset from centuries ago, I don’t see why you would doubt that elephants were on the ark. How could an elephant even be alive today if the ark didn’t save its ancestor from drowning? And if there are dinosaurs bones then obviously they went extinct after the flood because Noah didn’t miss any animals b/c God told him not to leave any out and obviously he would obey God and the story didn’t say he screwed up and he didn’t get punished for screwing up. (I think/assume without reading the Bible.)
If dinosaurs were a new discovery, idk how well that knowledge would have spread, but maybe anyone who is actually reading a book would be likely to have heard about it? Books were less accessible than news. Or maybe Dickens overestimated his audience and used a reference too early before it spread idk, but I don’t think that’s very relevant to what the passage is supposed to mean, as you said:
I think Charles Dickens is probably smart enough to make that connection which is probably what matters here.
1 Like
sounds right to me (I didn’t look stuff up)
yeah height contrast was my first guess (along with location contrast: fog in various different places).
that would be unsurprising. wealthy ppl living up on a hill is a common concept.
sounds right. “yards” is used for stuff besides house yards in modern contexts, e.g. train yards or storage yards.
I’m doubtful about this. I think you did well when looking things up and figuring out what the terms meant. But I think being cold is just normal, not a punishment; I thought the boy was too poor to afford shoes and that’s why his toes were cold.
Being wrathful is normal (then, less so now but still some) for people in authority like the skipper and doesn’t suggest to me that he’s punishing the boy right now. I assume they are out in the cold to do productive work. I’m not sure what kind of punishments were normal then besides I think whipping or various forms of beatings were way more common. The idea of making someone endure cold as a punishment sounds kind of modern to me like something that might be a challenge on a TV show; I think it might make more sense to us now in a world where we have a lot more ability to stay warm. Back then when people were frequently involuntarily cold I’m not sure they’d use cold as a punishment much but I’m no historian just guessing.
True yeah that all makes sense. That connection felt pretty speculative to me, like I was unsure about it.
Funny I didn’t think that the boy might not be wearing shoes, but I think you’re right that he wouldn’t. I just thought his toes might be getting cold anyway.
I’ve tried reading some more of the book and I found it quite challenging, though fun. It felt like I was lifting heavy reading weights or something. I definitely needed to be using a dictionary almost every sentence. The language is a strange combination of familiar and foreign, I guess because it’s just old enough, but not too old. That means I had to be extra sensitive as to whether I was understanding or not. I could feel myself getting better at finding where my trouble lay with each sentence. I think I did okay though, I could just imagine it would take me a while to read. It felt like a good exercise. I think I’m going to do some more analysis of it.
1 Like
Bleak House came out in 1852 but (if the first paragraph is representative) it seems harder to read than William Godwin’s writing 50 years earlier.
I tried a similar thing to the Dickens paragraphs with a Godwin one. It’s the first paragraph of the introduction to his Enquiry Concerning Political Justice.
It’s late and I was tired while doing this, but thought I’d just try anyway.
The paragraph:
The object proposed in the following work is an investigation concerning that form of public or political society, that system of intercourse and reciprocal action, extending beyond the bounds of a single family, which shall be found most to conduce to the general benefit. How may the peculiar and independent operation of each individual in the social state most effectually be preserved? How may the security each man ought to possess, as to his life, and the employment of his faculties according to the dictates of his own understanding, be most certainly defended from invasion? How may the individuals of the human species be made to contribute most substantially to the general improvement and happiness? The enquiry here undertaken has for its object to facilitate the solution of these interesting questions.
The object proposed in the following work is an investigation concerning that form of public or political society, that system of intercourse and reciprocal action, extending beyond the bounds of a single family, which shall be found most to conduce to the general benefit.
By object, I think he means goal. So like the goal of the book is to make an investigation, an inquiry, about a form of society.
So the goal of the book is to investigate into a type of society, the type most conducive to the “general benefit” which I think means the benefit of all of the societies members. This makes sense with what he said about a public society, i.e a system of “intercourse” i.e connection/interaction, that extends beyond the bounds of family i.e to the general public, to society.
I found that harder than normal to read (which I expected since it’s old) but it wasn’t too hard. It has some nesting and a restatement, and those are kind of bunched up in the middle. I felt a bit like I was left hanging a bit too long on those details before he completed the thought at the end of the sentence.
How may the peculiar and independent operation of each individual in the social state most effectually be preserved?
He is using peculiar to mean something like “singular” or “particular”, not like “strange”. It’s a less common way to use “peculiar” these days.
The question is related to the first sentence cos it’s about something that a good form of society might do: preserve the independence of the individual. Its an interesting question because it can seem to contrast with having a society conducive to general, not just individual, benefit.
How may the security each man ought to possess, as to his life, and the employment of his faculties according to the dictates of his own understanding, be most certainly defended from invasion?
Godwin seems to be taking for granted already some things that a good society should have - he already thinks that each man in it ought to possess their freedom of thought and action. And that “the peculiar and independent operation of each individual” be most effectively preserved. He is asking how these things should be implemented in the ideal form of society, not whether they should be implemented in it. I thought the first sentence meant he was intending to try to find out what kinds of things a good society has, so I may have misunderstood him?
How may the individuals of the human species be made to contribute most substantially to the general improvement and happiness?
This seems to be more like what I thought the first sentence meant. I get the feeling I’m missing something…
The enquiry here undertaken has for its object to facilitate the solution of these interesting questions.
This means the goal of the book, the enquiry, the work, is to help solve these problems/answer these questions.
Godwin wrote novels which I’d expect to be easier to read than philosophy and more comparable to Dickens.
FYI that book has 3 editions, so you should specify if you don’t give a link.
Did you look up “intercourse” in a dictionary?
He’s raising sample issues of the kinds of things the book talks about. The book is opinionated in various ways which is coming across.
Oh I wasn’t aware. I’ll look some up.
Turns out it was the third edition.
I did. I thought it was meant in this sense, Websters 1828:
connection by reciprocal dealings between persons or nations
I think actually the “reciprocal” concept is important to it and I should’ve included that. Like the mutual, reciprocal nature of the interaction/connection.
I just realised there is a section just before the introduction chapter titled “Summary of Principles” in which (if I interpret correctly) he outlines premises for the work to build on. But he also says they’re established in the work too. He says:
Summary of Principles
Established And Reasoned Upon In The Following Work
The reader who would form a just estimate of the reasonings of these volumes cannot perhaps proceed more judiciously than by examining for himself the truth of these principles, and the support they afford to the various inferences interspersed through the work
He describes the principles as being both established (argued for?) in the work, and reasoned upon (used as premises?) in the work.
Then he talks about the principles supporting the inferences in the book.
Idk, am I overthinking this? I’m just not sure what he’s proposing to argue for and what he’s assuming. Perhaps it’d become clearer with reading. I might try some fiction of his now though.
I took the first paragraph from Godwin’s Caleb Williams Or Things As They Are. I can’t tell what edition it is. There are two prefaces though. The paragraph is:
My life has for several years been a theatre of calamity. I have been a mark for the vigilance of tyranny, and I could not escape. My fairest prospects have been blasted. My enemy has shown himself inaccessible to entreaties, and untired in persecution. My fame, as well as my happiness, has become his victim. Every one, as far as my story has been known, has refused to assist me in my distress, and has execrated my name. I have not deserved this treatment. My own conscience witnesses in behalf of that innocence, my pretensions to which are regarded in the world as incredible. There is now, however, little hope that I shall escape from the toils that universally beset me. I am incited to the penning of these memoirs only by a desire to divert my mind from the deplorableness of my situation, and a faint idea that posterity may by their means be induced to render me a justice which my contemporaries refuse. My story will, at least, appear to have that consistency which is seldom attendant but upon truth.
My life has for several years been a theatre of calamity.
A narrator is speaking.
a theatre of calamity. calamities are great and unfortunate things, like a sinking of a ship.
Lots of great misfortunes have happened to our narrator in his recent past.
I have been a mark for the vigilance of tyranny, and I could not escape.
“mark” seems to be being used in an unfamiliar way.
Hmm i didn’t notice any definition that worked from the 1828 Websters. But looking at the modern dictionary, one meaning is “target”. That’s actually kind of in the 1828 one (“7. Any thing to which a missile weapon may be directed.”) but I didn’t really notice it. It makes sense that an old dictionary would be harder to understand each meaning, so I’ll try cross compare more when I have trouble. So I think it means they have been a target, that’s making sense. A target for the “vigilance of tyranny”.
Vigilance means like watchfulness, attentiveness, alertness. The attentiveness of tyranny? Does he mean that he has been a target of tyranny? What does it mean to be a target for the vigilance of tyranny? Tyranny’s vigilance? Tryanny’s watchfulness? I suppose tyranny would be vigilant and watchful, and encroaching. Okay that’s making more sense.
“and I could not escape”, from being a target of tyranny’s vigilance? Makes sense.
They’ve been a target of tyranny, and been unable to escape that.
My fairest prospects have been blasted.
Like his future is ruined? His “fairest” (best? happiest?) prospects.
His future looks bleak. He has been a target for tyranny for a few years and unable to escape. That makes sense.
My enemy has shown himself inaccessible to entreaties, and untired in persecution.
not sure what entreaties means. Perhaps something to do with pleading, or resolving the conflicts? I’ll look it up. Okay it’s like an earnest petition or a request for something. So his enemy offers no paths (inaccesable) for him to plead or request presumably to stop the tyrannical persecution, and his enemy is untired or not tired by the ongoing persecution. So our narrator has no avenues for stopping the persecution and his enemy wont stop themselves by getting tired of it, because they are not tired by it.
My fame, as well as my happiness, has become his victim.
His enemy is ruining his reputation with others (his “fame”) too, so he’s well known.
Every one, as far as my story has been known, has refused to assist me in my distress, and has execrated my name.
No one who knows about him and his story has been willing to help. His enemy has convinced all to be against him.
I have not deserved this treatment.
My own conscience witnesses in behalf of that innocence, my pretensions to which are regarded in the world as incredible.
He saying that he’s innocent and has a clear conscience, but other people find that unbelievable.
There is now, however, little hope that I shall escape from the toils that universally beset me.”
Although he knows he is innocent, he knows there is now almost no hope to escape his situation.
I am incited to the penning of these memoirs only by a desire to divert my mind from the deplorableness of my situation, and a faint idea that posterity may by their means be induced to render me a justice which my contemporaries refuse.
He is writing (penning) his story to focus on something other than his situation, and in the hopes that people in the future might read it and be more charitable to him. He is famous so there may be a historical record that he wants a chance to set straight, even if he can’t convince people who exist now (his contemporaries).
My story will, at least, appear to have that consistency which is seldom attendant but upon truth.
a consistency “seldom attendant but upon truth” means a kind of consistency that is rare to find except when the story is true. He’s saying that his story is consistent like the truth.
I found this easier than the Dicken’s paragraphs for sure.
book link:
Caleb Williams Or Things as They Are – Godwin, William – 2009 – Project Gutenberg – b5c7816d73998133efe45c2720d03812 – Anna’s Archive.epub (323.9 KB)
1 Like
As a modern person, I think part of the meaning of “intercourse” is “communication”. Modern dictionaries have this. And it fits the text fine. So I thought that could be part of what Godwin meant. It’s possible the word changed over time and it doesn’t mean communication specifically (just via communication being a type of dealing) in the old book.
I don’t think that “connection/interaction” is a good paraphrase/synonym for “connection by dealings”, without even worrying about whether “reciprocal” is important.
Were you trying to reword the dictionary you used to make it more your own words for some reason? Like how in school teachers want you to change the wordings of stuff sometimes. I think just sticking more closely to the dictionary wording would work better.
EDIT: If you want more details on the word, check the OED.
Yeah you’re overthinking it. The introduction gives you a general ballpark of what kinds of issues will be discussed in the book. You don’t need to know details yet.
I have been slightly busier than usual recently, but not by much. My problem is I’m really fatigued and tired during most of my free time in a way that I haven’t been in a while. I’m sleeping pretty badly a couple of nights a week. I’m pretty sure I know what is going on; since about February I have been drinking alcohol again and it’s slowly become more of a regular thing now. Other things have changed too, like I’ve been cooking different meals. But these issues with sleep and alcohol feel familiar. I had stopped drinking just before I started tutoring in April 2024 and didn’t drink for about 10 months.
I’ve decided I have a problem I want to address and am going to do some research and trying to learn some more about it. I’ve been reading Allen Carr’s Easyway about stopping drinking. I read his one about smoking when I quit nicotine in 2022, which helped somewhat. I remember you recommending it somewhere, I think in a podcast. I feel like the alcohol one is actually a bit better than the smoking one, but I can’t remember exactly.
A central point of Carr’s is that it’s an illusion that the substance is pleasurable. That what’s actually going on is that a withdrawal pang is being relieved, and that’s the “pleasure” you’re noticing. And that just stopping taking the substance anymore will in a short time remove the desire for the substance. He has a good point about how the effect of the drug is not actually the pleasurable part of the experience, but the act of actually consuming the drug is, which I notice and agree with.
Anyway, I’ve just come off a big week of work and I think I’m getting sick. I’m going to take a rest day or two, catch up on house stuff, and then hopefully be better before work starts up this week again. So I may not post anything significant regarding tutoring before the weekend.
Good luck.
1 Like
Something I wanted to share:
When I quit vaping, something that really helped me was really liking how I felt in the moment without vaping and remembering how awful I felt when I did vape when a craving would come by.
I don’t know how alcohol affects you (and how it actually feels in general, never drank really) but it could help to remember at times how much better life has been without alcohol. Though your experience could differ on this. I recently had a coworker quit drinking for a month and he personally said he didn’t really feel any different and so he picked it back up after.
For me vaping dried my eyes which messed with my contacts which made it hard to see. It also made me very tired (probably due to dehydration). I also felt mentally off depending on how much I vaped. I also quit vaping and caffeine together so I don’t know which was more responsible, but I was definitely more irritable when I took those two.
All in all my life sucked when vaping so even when I have a large craving for nicotine for whatever reason I’m able to remind myself that vaping made my life worse and avoid it.
1 Like
I haven’t posted in a while but I intend to post an update in a couple of days.
Relevant to you Curiosity – Learning Philosophy and Tutoring
1 Like
I feel like I’m at a crossroads today. I haven’t done any philosophy for the last 3 weeks. Looking at my calendar, I have been busy, and I did get sick for almost a week. But I also felt tired and like I needed to take some time off philosophy.
I’m at a point where I need to make a decision whether to continue tutoring into the next month, or whether I take a longer break. I’ve been avoidant and left this decision to the last minute, which is probably bad, because I missed an opportunity for some feedback.
Some things I think about regarding this decision:
I think about the money that I would save, but then I think about the fact that I don’t have a much better plan for what to use that money for anyway. It would take some financial pressure off, but I can afford it currently.
I worry that if I stop tutoring, I will stop doing philosophy for a while, and that I might find it hard or find myself resistant to getting back into it. I don’t like the idea of that, but just making myself do tutoring doesn’t seem like a good solution to that problem. But I don’t have to stop doing philosophy if I stop tutoring.
I think about what Elliot said here in Eternity’s thread:
I’ve thought about this numerous times since reading it. It makes sense that understanding things is important to being motivated to do them. I wonder if this is part of my issue with philosophy. That I don’t know enough about what it can do for me and what I can achieve. I remember getting motivated to learn grammar after I saw Elliot’s Pinker Paragraph grammar analysis video. I had no idea you could break down what people had written in that way and analyse it. It seemed really cool and helpful. And now I feel like I’ve learned some cool grammar stuff and I can use it somewhat. Like I often find myself thinking of the grammar of things I’m saying and reading. I guess I don’t know what might be next for me in philosophy. I think if I could learn more about what to work on, that would be motivating.
I read the article Curiosity – Learning Philosophy and Tutoring
I can give some reasons that philosophical goals are appealing and some candidate goals, which people may find persuasive or not. I can talk about what I like about philosophy.
Maybe we could talk about what you like about philosophy? Some candidate goals? Would a tutoring project about investigating what’s to like about philosophy be plausible?
I thought I’d do pro con lists for both my options. (Cool how these tables rendered perfectly after copy/pasting from Obsidian):
Stop Tutoring Pro/Con list:
| Pro | Con |
|---|---|
| Less time pressure to do philosophy because I’m concerned about getting value for money | No longer receive special philosophy help and guidance |
| One less thing to do (?) | Will cost more to start tutoring back up again after break, rather than continuing on. |
| Perhaps I don’t like it and should have different goals (?) | Lowered self-esteem from feeling like I’ve given up or something (?) |
| I don’t waste money on something that perhaps I shouldn’t be doing right now. Like maybe I should work on doing philosophy myself and motivating myself and finding goals myself, and then get expert help once I’m better at managing the interest myself (?) |
Continue Tutoring Pro/Con list:
| Pro | Con |
|---|---|
| Can hopefully continue to learn | might be avoidant due to conflicts and consequently not get enough value out of it |
| Can perhaps learn more about my problems | have less time for other goals |
| Might find my problems are simpler than I think and I find something fun to work on in short order | |
| Maybe it’s fine and I just feel bad/guilt because I’ve been away from it for a little while (?) | |
| Increased self-esteem from trying instead of giving up |
I’m feeling like of the two options, continuing feels better to me. I need to actually see myself try and be more active with philosophy though. The potential downsides (that I can see) for continuing seem not as bad as the potential downsides of stopping.
Moving forward with tutoring, what projects could I work on that sound fun?
- Reading through something and posting about my understanding and getting feedback? I feel like reading through Goldratt could be cool. Like maybe The Choice like you did with Max.
- Learning/practising evaporating clouds? (I have the links already)
Is there not a difference between this idea:
and this one?:
Isn’t ‘expecting to being motivated’ different than ‘being motivated’?
Like the first is thinking u gonna be motivated to do a task when u take it on. The second says you are motivated to do the task. Like, you have to understand things in more detail to be motivated now.
I dont really know know, but i think Elliot was saying that udnerstanding things in more detail would give you more of an idea of what you are motivated to do.
I can see where you’re coming from. like ‘expecting’ and ‘having’ are different ideas. but I don’t think that means I’ve made a mistake here (?)
I think Elliot was saying this: you shouldn’t expect motivation to do x if you don’t understand some details about x.
And I think the reason for that is that understanding is an important part of motivation (which is the thing I said). So if you don’t have understanding, you shouldn’t expect motivation.
The full quote was:
I think the idea here is: being motivated means being persuaded. Being persuaded about something involves (among other things) understanding details about it. So if you don’t understand details about it you shouldn’t expect to be motivated to do it (persuaded to do it). So understanding details are important to being motivated (pursuaded).
Oh ok that makes more sense. I didnt think that being motivated meant being persuaded. I think I see why the last paragraph of the quote was written n that it’s related to the whole reply. It’s mb for not reading it all