Amarna Forum

For a while I have thought about a succession to the childrearing thread. While that thread produced some productive discussions, at least for my own interests, many replies focussed on repeating well known talking points. For this reason, I am glad that the thread has now dried out. 
What the intelligent contributions often had in common with other kind, however, was a general focus on mothers, sons, and school age. The first, I condemn as pointless (if everybody could finally stop discussing women, I would enjoy being online so much more). The second and the third however made me realise that many of you were misinterpreting my original question - or that I had posed it without sufficient specificity. 

I think that the question "How do you want to raise your children?" was being read as "How would you have wanted to be raised?". "How would you have hoped to turn out?". My intention of gaining a collection of pragmatic insights was thus thwarted - which was maybe for the better, as, for example, a fruitful discussion about schooling and school system spawned from this.

What I would like to discuss here is then the platonic ideal of that question: "If you could change everything and anything about yourself, what kind of man would you want to be?". And because I am not really interested in your daydreams, I would rather hear about a compromise with realism: if you could Count-of-Monte-Cristo yourself, ie. lock yourself away for years with a mentor, what would you want to see changed about you when you emerge from your reclusion? Please keep in mind your limitations - the interesting thing is not that you would like to be able to deadlift a metric ton, but rather that you would give priority to deadlifts over something else. 

What books would you read, what skills would you practice, what language would you learn - and finally, to what end? Do you think you are approaching this ideal at the moment, at whatever pace? Do you think your ideal has general appeal, and do you think it should have that?

You are free to understand this as a self-improvement meditation, or as a convoluted way of asking "How would you raise your sons?", or as morphology of the Übermensch. I don't care. What we missed in my last thread was a description of what exactly a man should be, when he has grown up, been schooled or not, been raised right or not. This time, I don't feel like starting the thread off with more than the question. I will contribute my thoughts later.

The best man should be aware of his entire body at all times. He should never lose consciousness of his body while sleeping. He may drift through fantasies of any kind but he must not lose the feeling of his every muscle inside his skin.

bump.

options
A. Make him read the entire world book series. Make him read wikipedia articles in a breadth-first descent from the philosophy article.
B. Do not let him know what the word "tiger" refers to until his is 14 years old. He gets to learn about a new majestic animal every birthday until he turns 18. He can ration the remainder as he pleases.

Are guests my greatest ally? Are my ideas for threads so bituminous that only those marginalised creatures dare respond here? Yes. 

The fantasy at the heart of my question here is of course that I myself could be ideal. That I could be excellent in every regard that matters to me. That I need not resign myself to contributing only a small part to the end of perfection, but to achieve it in my own person, my own lifetime. 
It would be only just afterall, that I should find the wishing stone, or the lamp with the Djiin. The price you pay for such a gift is only this drab existence. You give up the chance to find out what you could do on your own, and embrace the benefit of cosmic nepotism.
Give me time, I would demand, give me an eternity apart from this mediocrity, give me time in my own garden Eden, where I can build myself anew. I will never return. Instead, I will ascend, never to be bothered again by my concerns of old. 

But we are not granted divine intervention, no letter from Hogwarts is coming for internet racists. But we are given at least some time here. It's a far cry from an eternity of undisturbed work on your own self, but it's enough to move ahead. And with the restriction on time comes the question of priorities. Here, our individual situations make all the difference. For me, physical development is a maintenance task. For a fat anon, it should not be that. On the other hand, I have severely neglected my education for the most part of my life. Only in recent years have I come to understand how much this has removed me from my ideal, who is knowledgeable on all matters. Had I unlimited time, I would read about everything, I would want to learn all languages to avoid translations, and I would hardly value one field above another. With my limited time, these are my priorities:

- Mathematics: I have disdain for intellectuals who cannot grasp mathematical explanations. Mathematics is the sense that man has constructed for himself, to be able to perceive the laws of nature as they are, not as they appear. That being said, some areas of inquiry seem more important to me than others:

• Calculus: The basis to understand physics and to create models. I have gotten fairly decent here at the undergrad level, but much more remains to be learned. High priority, at least weekly practice.
  
• Statistics, probability theory, linear algebra: Vital tools for science. I know more than the average person, but would not say that I understand every point somebody like eg. Cremieux makes on his blog. High priority, at least weekly practice (I don't achieve this at the moment).
  

- Science: Without going into detail, I will formulate the goal here like this: Be it geology, quantum physics, game theory, or microbiology: I want to be able to at least hold a conversation about a question within a field with somebody who has studied that field in depth. I don't care for "interdisciplinary science" or something like that, I just think being a polymath should be the standard for a smart guy. 

- Philosophy: For a long time, I have insisted on building my worldview from first principles, and have consciously avoided reading philosophers. This has led to some brainrot. Here, I have trouble seeing a goal to achieve. I will list what I am currently interested in reading, or reading already. I will give this an overall moderate priority, as I will read anyway, and roughly half of it will be works of philosophers. I read roughly 1-2 books a month, more if they are of the modern non-fiction type (12 chapter where only the first three are of substance). I would like to increase this somehow, but don't see how.

• Nietzsche: Zarathrustra (I read it when I was 17, and now again recently) was very stimulating, if tedious to read in parts. Genealogy of Morals was much more coherent. I think I will read him until I get tired of it. 
  
• Schelling: Just started Weltseele, might report on it at later point. 
  
• Spinoza: I have only recently come to understand his significance for German philosophers, so I want to at least gain some insight
  

- History: Probably the field where I read the least, and I hate myself for it. I want to be able to name names and years and customs of ancient cultures at the ready, and I fall short of this. I would give this a moderate priority as well, but compared to Philosophy I am clearly not on track with it. I will not list anything, but I think the overall topic I am most interested in is military history, followed by art history.

- Art: A low priority. Unsure if investing more time would make me want to become better, more. Generally, I have an oddly permanent desire to do these things, but never strong enough to do them regularly.

• Writing: Certainly my most practiced art-form. I specifically wish I could write poetry, but everytime I do it, it feels embarassing. Writing essays is generally boring, because I feel like I have no original thoughts to convey. Writing stories is fun, but takes endurance, which I don't have. I finish roughly 1 in 10 stories I start.
  
• Drawing: Roughly every 3 years, I set myself a goal to practice drawing. I never see it through, in part because I don't see any progress. 
  
• Music: I would like to be able to sing well. I sing occasionally for children, and I like doing it, but I'm clearly pretty bad at it. Maybe related, I like reading (out loud) stories or poems. If I ever facedox myself, it will be to make a youtube channel reading poetry in the forest.
  

- Learning languages: Lowest priority. I just don't think it's important. It's mostly impressive. I would like to become good enough at French to read French authors untranslated, but I don't put any effort into that at this point.


Summarising: The ideal I strive towards is to become knowledgeable in Mathematics, Science, and History, with the goal in mind to understand the world the best I can. The most important work to be done here is in mathematics, while the work I'm neglecting the most is reading about history. Further I want to embed this knowledge in a sophisticated worldview, for which I read Philosophy. To express all of this, I am inclined to think I should be well versed in at least some form of artful expression. Not listed above are physical skills or goals. I am tempted so write something cliché like "a man should know how to fight", but there has been written more than enough in our sphere about physical education, so I will not elaborate on it. 

If this thread is not doomed to obscurity: If you want to comment, I am also interested in hearing your suggestions about how I could achieve my goals, or if you think I am prioritising wrongly. Maybe you have reading recommendations for example.

Mathematics:
I have heard people suggest that calculus- even its theorem etc- is not entirely necessary to progress into the deeper mathematics it is a prerequisite more so that you learn to do some type of proofs that become relevant later. I have heard that linear algebra is the hub of the wheel, the gateway and a god stat for higher mathematics. I haven't actually learned anything past linear algebra and calculus so I can't confirm. Public math course prerequisite maps are handy when you don't know what sort of math is actually taught and what you need to get there.

Statisticians seem to always thwack other scientists with the "well ackually" about stuff like p-values and absent the same specialized knowledge it is hard for me to tell if this is an indicator that expert-level statistical rigor is desperately needed beyond all else or just that statisticians would starve if they stopped clamoring.

Science: Sounds good. Any tips on surveying what is dealt with in a field? I like to look up lists of open problems in a given field. Maybe I could work backwards from cutting edge papers approaching such problems by common citations to find the foundational research that remains relevant enough to cite.

Philosophy:
I've tried to get into philosophy. I suspect I lack the mindset, I just like practical real things too much. I have only had sensations with a handful of concepts that approach the vividness of sight.

History:
I find it hard to tell where I can get good perspective on history. I want to know how history comes to points where everything hangs on the actions of the few. Recent history feels underrated because you get some of the same generalized lessons while learning relevant context about the present day. Hard to teach that stuff in schools when the controversies and parties haven't died off.

Art:
I am probably good at writing escapism but anything that I might want to communicate through a story would feel either shoehorned or like it was so natural that it always had to be where it is, which might mean it is trite. I plan stories, I don't write them out.

I don't try to draw anymore.

I can't tell if I'm good at singing but I won't stop.

Languages:
I have never been good at memorizing. I can feel how great the concept of knowing many languages is but I can't afford the luxury. I suspect that if I had a son like me he wouldn't want such luxury because I was born naturally lazy and am only productive by pressure and habit leading to eventual inspiration.

From the ages of 6 to 8:
Basic fundamentals of logic, English, and other fundamentals for a child. This is the time where children should be drilled with the superstructure of everything they will learn in the future, so that they are able to integrate their learnings into the whole better. Understanding various different things to a high level doesn't make you an intellectual, it makes you a tranny.

From the ages of 8 to 10:
Proper English stories, but probably nothing too complicated (you could actually show your kid basic shonenslop at this stage, it's better constructed and more understandable than most kids literature now). Advanced logic, as in what is generally taught by the Greeks. The basics of mathematics and geometry. Gymnasium (basic physical activities obviously should be done even before this, but around 9 is the time where further honing of the body should be pursued).

From the ages of 10 to 13:
Epics and literature. Most white children, if given good books, will enjoy them greatly, but will be unable to grasp at their higher power and meaning. This inability to understand fuels people to a great degree. An introduction to the arts, primarily focused at this point on compositional skills and intellectual depth over technique, though the latter will be taught as well. Modern art is made by those with skill but no imagination, this is something to avoid in any education possible. Advanced mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology, mostly the parts which should be known by any rwer. The specifics of high-school physics etc. are not needed unless you wish to pursue those fields further. The social sciences, as in history, geography, philosophy and racism. You need a child to develop the moral fundamentals of the SYM before you teach them anything about these, as otherwise you'll end up with a drone.

From the age of 13, a well-trained and intellectual person can decide his education for himself. You should still aid him until the age of 17, but it's best to leave him to his own devices, as no man knows someone better than himself. I believe this is the education that will help someone the most... Some of these things were taught to me (alongside practical skills, which I have not mentioned above) by my father, and they helped me develop into the man I am now.

>bituminous

good one

(10-14-2023, 10:05 AM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]Science: Sounds good. Any tips on surveying what is dealt with in a field? I like to look up lists of open problems in a given field. Maybe I could work backwards from cutting edge papers approaching such problems by common citations to find the foundational research that remains relevant enough to cite.

My preferred method for learning about a field (in broad terms) is reading textbooks, then engage with papers, blogs, lectures on a specific subject. For example read one textbook on linguistics, then try to learn in depth about a specific subject within that field, like constructed languages. Read a more advanced textbook if you feel like you have hit the limit of your preparations. 

I haven't done this approach systematically for everything I read about. I have done it this way maybe 2-3 times. However, it was clearly the most efficient method. What I usually do is more of a mix - I might have read a paper on a topic, then per chance seen a lecture on youtube, then read part of a textbook, lost interest, read another paper months later, remember what I learned, regain interest, read some more of the textbook, etc. I still learn something in this disorganised manner, but not fast and not rigorously.

This is a good thread. I just don't have much to say. I realize that I am mostly apathetic to this question. There are a couple of different psychologies. Some people have a personal excellence psychology. They want to be the best. This is the kind of person for which this question is relevant. This is the kind of person who could be kept away by a mentor, and trained in the general arts of fitness, humanities, mathematics, etc.

I think I did that well enough in my youth, thanks entirely to the internet. Now I have an ends-based psychology. So I don't care much what changes "about myself". I want to do things. My mentor would teach me how to do them. I am a versatile enough character for a hypothetical "drawing board" to be a bit meaningless, and also vain. I want to, for example, make money, and also Templize the known sentient universe. The mentor I would be/am locked away with, whose name would probably be WODEN, would appraise me of the world-situation and tell me what was necessary.

(10-16-2023, 05:46 PM)The_Author Wrote: [ -> ]... I realize that I am mostly apathetic to this question. ... Some people have a personal excellence psychology. They want to be the best. This is the kind of person for which this question is relevant ....

... Now I have an ends-based psychology. So I don't care much what changes "about myself"... I want to do things.

I think this is contradictory or at least a misunderstanding - naturally, changes in your character should be towards an end. I specifically asked what end you think is best for you in the OP. I don't think the words "excellence" or "ideal" make sense outside of a teleological framework. What I'm interested in is what you want do, why, and what you want to change about yourself to achieve it. I frame this in the language of excellence because I'm especially interested in hearing what you think is excellent, what your ideal is.

Furthermore, I want to add that I like a competitive setting and like to be the best as much as the next man. But I also know that every time I realise I'm imperfect and that I will not achieve greatness in a specific field, it feels miserable. So I like to avoid the comparison with others in general - in a practical sense, I don't want to be the best in most things I try. The comparison with my past self, to use some self-help terminology, is much more motivating than knowing I will never have a 180kg OHP.

To start with, I think a person should have moderate knowledge/training regarding a specific practical topic that is sufficient (assuming we win and solve the college striver problem) to supply a comfortable career in that field. They should also have enough physical fitness to maintain their health.

Beyond this, I am much more concerned with practical virtues than aesthetic ones, because my ideal man is universalizable and if the world consisted only of ideal men (+their housewives), aesthetic signaling would be greatly reduced and streamlined.

A broad knowledge of a variety of topics has some practical value, but generally education (in the common sense) is overvalued because it is a strong signal of intelligence and erudition. The man I would consider to be ideal does not need to spend unnecessary effort signaling his virtue to others, and even a public school education can consume a lot of his time, effort and neuroplasticity.

The arts are often considered to be social pursuits with little practical use, and more readily come to mind when we think "aesthetic", but I actually would prioritize them over the supposedly more "practical" sciences despite this. Learning physics is supposedly "practical", but unless you're an engineer, it actually isn't. Having the ability to create art provides limitless potential for specialization as well as an asocial form of entertainment, while being no more useless than a lawyer learning classical mechanics. In my ideal world the reduction of aesthetic signalling would free up a lot of time and effort. Instead of pouring this spare time and effort back into competing with his peers by signaling artistic skill, the ideal man would instead create things largely for his own enjoyment.

The value of a well-rounded individual education has already been significantly eroded by technological progress. It is important that we create and do not just consume art that others have created, otherwise our identity atrophies and is subsumed by egregores. This is quite apparent today with the amount of online content a person can drown themselves in if they choose to.

Most areas of science and literature are not that interesting or useful to explore on one's own, but there is no issue with a person studying them if they choose to do so. Some exceptions are mathematics (particularly number theory) and computer science which I think have more of a solitary appeal.

Ultimately my prescription is "he can learn whatever he wants to it doesn't really matter", but I predict that creative pursuits (drawing, writing, music, etc.) will be inherently more rewarding than other subjects in a world of ideal men. Preventing your son from playing video games all day instead of growing is a topic that fits better in the other thread, but my approach to raising a son would definitely be more concerned about avoiding pitfalls than choosing the right topics to learn.

The most useless topics I would say are learning foreign languages (I agree with what was mentioned above), though linguistics and conlangs are somewhat worthwhile. Philosophy is an aesthetic exercise in obscurantism and has little to offer ideal men.

(10-19-2023, 12:19 PM)Hamamelis Wrote: [ -> ]What I'm interested in is what you want do

(10-19-2023, 04:22 PM)Mason Hall-McCullough Wrote: [ -> ]... A broad knowledge of a variety of topics has some practical value, but generally education (in the common sense) is overvalued ...

The arts are often considered to be social pursuits with little practical use, ... I actually would prioritize them over the supposedly more "practical" sciences despite this. ...

... I predict that creative pursuits (drawing, writing, music, etc.) will be inherently more rewarding than other subjects in a world of ideal men.
... my approach to raising a son would definitely be more concerned about avoiding pitfalls than choosing the right topics to learn. ...

Your reply made me realise that there is little about creative endeavours mentioned in my post. Understanding the world by gaining knowledge is an end in and of itself to me, but I link it to the goal of creation. Understanding leads to greater powers of creation. I reckon I am somewhat unsure what exactly it is that I would want to create in the end, apart from some vague Nietzschean contribution to the improvement of man. But I also don't quite see what your "practical use" is. Earning money?  

I agree about the pitfalls, but I would certainly say that not reading works of philosophy is a pitfall. We are not born with clarity about our own will. To understand what it is you want, and why, seems very important to me. Otherwise you reduce yourself to the status of an animal, born with a will but unable to observe and comprehend it.

I would like to be a walking flame that devours all Earth around itself. This is the best possible scenario. Hotter than the Sun.

(10-20-2023, 02:50 AM)Hamamelis Wrote: [ -> ]Your reply made me realise that there is little about creative endeavours mentioned in my post. Understanding the world by gaining knowledge is an end in and of itself to me, but I link it to the goal of creation. Understanding leads to greater powers of creation. I reckon I am somewhat unsure what exactly it is that I would want to create in the end, apart from some vague Nietzschean contribution to the improvement of man. But I also don't quite see what your "practical use" is. Earning money?

Some types of understanding are more useful for creation than others. Learning to play an instrument is more creatively empowering than learning about zoology. There probably isn't any knowledge that is completely useless for creation though, since ideas can always serve as creative inspiration.

The end goal here is the creation of an elaborate empire of fantasies that branch out across the infinite space of possible ideas, since we ran out of physical space to grow.

I used "practical" in a confused way in that post, I'll try to reframe this:

• Science, engineering, trades, physical education, teach skills that mostly allow you to create value in the real world (often in exchange for money, but also offering some types of independence like being healthy or repairing your own car).
  
• The arts teach skills that mostly allow you to create value in virtual, fantasy, or ideal worlds (mostly for personal enjoyment and some low-stakes social advantages).
  
• Computing/mathematics lie somewhere between both categories.
  

Quote:I agree about the pitfalls, but I would certainly say that not reading works of philosophy is a pitfall. We are not born with clarity about our own will. To understand what it is you want, and why, seems very important to me. Otherwise you reduce yourself to the status of an animal, born with a will but unable to observe and comprehend it.

That is what philosophy claims to concern itself with, but I don't think self-knowledge is something that you can just study. IMO, philosophy is a materialistic kind of spirituality that appeals to individuals looking to signal their intelligence via understanding, or gain promised secret knowledge (not actually real) that will let them win at social games, both things which are at odds with my conception of the ideal man. Just like philosophy, all religions and spiritual grifts make the claim they provide answers to "the big questions". I think these "big questions" are generally either unanswerable or have very banal answers. That philosophy is grounded by rationality is not enough to justify its relevance. Most philosophical texts are more complex than they need to be, and any important ideas they arrive at can usually be expressed plainly with political-sounding language.

(10-20-2023, 05:03 AM)Mason Hall-McCullough Wrote: [ -> ]...
The end goal here is the creation of an elaborate empire of fantasies that branch out across the infinite space of possible ideas, since we ran out of physical space to grow. ...

Is that your end goal? I rather agree with the sentiment - creation requires a vision. But is the vision the end goal? Further, I'm inclined to be nitpicky about the phrase "infinite space of possible ideas", and it's absolutely untrue that we've run out of physical space in some way. In the contrary, many fantasies of people on the forum here and of mine as well are concerned with the fact that there is a virtually endless amount of space, and that we're confined to an infitesimal part of it because of the hangups of GNC.

But to be sure, yes, I want to be knowledgeable, be closer to my ideal, in order to be able to exert a force on the world. The "ideal" then is subject to practical considerations. The focus of my post was on theoretical subjects, but I chose them and not others exactly because I think they have value under such considerations.

Quote:... I don't think self-knowledge is something that you can just study. ... Just like philosophy, all religions and spiritual grifts make the claim they provide answers to "the big questions". I think these "big questions" are generally either unanswerable or have very banal answers.

When I initially said I had succumbed to a certain amount of brainrot at times, this is what I meant. This whole paragraph is word for word a summary of my beliefs on philosophy and philosophers a few years ago. If you had included something about the futility of reading thinkers that have been read for centuries, because their ideas have saturated the thinking of all their antecessors anyway and thus you should at most read contemporary works, then I'd suspect you're copying from old writings of mine.
Unless you mean something else entirely, books answering "big questions" are of the Lex Friedman type of philosophy, and will not offer you much. Not to make too much fun of it, but I see your attitude as narrowminded. I would suggest seeing these works as some sort of metaphorical whetstone for your own philosophical considerations. Wouldn't you agree that whatever your thoughts are about the world, somebody else has thought them before, and expressed them more precisely and more eloquently than you? I find it hard to believe that you could not profit from searching for these and use them to refine your own thinking.

I like your focus on signalling, and appreciate that it is a factor in educating oneself, as well as in talking about "important" books one has read and so on. But I don't think that this is too great a danger here on Amarna. I just don't have anyone to impress with with achievements. None of the people I interact with here or on Twitter will be impressed by my ability to do complex Fourier transformations, and if they were, I'd gain nothing from that.

I'll separate this post into what I've done, and what my goals are; opinion about recommendations will be evident from these.

What I do:

In terms of fitness I try to strike a balance between cardio and gaining muscle. But I'm not an expert in this sense though so I'll move on quickly.

In terms of reading I too neglected reading for most my life until a few years ago, and then was reading shitty contemporary books for six months or so. Nowadays I basically just read philosophy and history. If I read anything else I conceive of it still as either one or both of those two categories. Literature is philosophical or else it's just entertainment. I don't read much math or science nowadays since I've become a philosophical supremacist, but if I did I would still think of these categories as downstream from philosophy.

Philosophy: I've been highly invested in Plato and Nietzsche. Early on I read Seneca who speaks about how one should really invest themselves deeply in a few authors and really understand them instead of reading a bunch of authors carelessly. With Plato and Nietzsche I've read basically all their works and I intend to read all of their works pretty soon, and still then I'll probably be rereading them once I finish. Other interests here include the presocratics, scepticism, and Machiavelli. I too read slowly, but I have strategies that help. I read at least something everyday, even if I don't feel like it, once I start often I get on a roll and read more than I expected I would. Also, I read multiple books at a time, the variety helps, as long as you don't read two similar books at once and start mixing them up in your mind. If I'm not doing anything else, I usually read about 200 pages a week.

History: I often read about the historical time periods of when Plato, Machiavelli, and Nietzsche were writing, in addition to Rome, founding era America, early modern and imperial Britain, Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, and generally whatever feels relevant. One big hack I've discovered is history (as opposed to philosophy) can often be listened to on audiobook without too much being lost, especially if you have a general grasp of the period the book is about. You can get a lot of reading done just by playing an audiobook every time you're in the car or on a walk.

Goals:

(10-14-2023, 07:30 AM)Hamamelis Wrote: [ -> ]no letter from Hogwarts is coming for internet racists

The biggest thing I've felt is missing the past couple years is a fraternity. I didn't go to college and am not apart of any 'scene' so I'm just an internet racist loner. I would include building relationships with other people like myself as a sort of self-improvement goal. Fraternity isn't just a thing you have or don't have, such things are Willed into being.

Learning: Because I've been just as obsessed with what to read as I've been with actually reading, I have a pretty clear list of goals here, so I'll just list the authors and topics: finish Nietzsche and Plato, read Homer, Thucydides, Aristophanes, Xenophon, Aristotle, Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Hume, Adam Smith, Darwin, Clausewitz, Leo Strauss, read more about the Rome, French revolution, Napoleon, American history, British Empire, Dutch Republic, WWI, and WWII.

As far as fitness goes I just want to be able to lift heavier weights and run longer distances.

Another goal of mine is to get better at public speaking. You know something that people really misunderstand about Nietzsche and Bap is they think they're all about just getting big physically, when in reality I think they'd both agree that ability to organize and lead is how you become most powerful. I've already become more persuasive just by reading more, but I want to be able to totally possess women and lesser intellects through the force of oratory. Maybe this will be useful for me on a large scale, but even if it's only useful in my personal life it'll be worth it.

[/quote]
Just like philosophy, all religions and spiritual grifts make the claim they provide answers to "the big questions". I think these "big questions" are generally either unanswerable or have very banal answers.
[/quote]
I don't want to dedicate too much text to this since already disagrees with it, but I will say Nietzsche literally says something like this almost verbatim in Human, All Too Human, and I would guess you've somehow stumbled upon this idea that is downstream from Nietzsche or another philosopher (no one thought this in the middle ages.) You might not be interested in philosophy but philosophy is interested in you.

(10-24-2023, 05:52 PM)Gorgias Wrote: [ -> ]Another goal of mine is to get better at public speaking. ... I want to be able to totally possess women and lesser intellects through the force of oratory.

Certainly an attractive skill, but I have resigned with respect to this. Every guy I met who can hold the attention of a group of people is completely ignorant of any type of practice in this regard, and relies completely on an inborn instinct. Call it personal magnetism. You didn't mention how you would practice this skill. I am interested in it as well, if only for storytelling or poetry reading.

Also: "to totally possess women ... through the force of oratory", this is completely different from speaking to groups of people. It's much easier as well, in my experience.

(10-25-2023, 09:45 AM)Hamamelis Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-24-2023, 05:52 PM)Gorgias Wrote: [ -> ]Another goal of mine is to get better at public speaking. ... I want to be able to totally possess women and lesser intellects through the force of oratory.

Certainly an attractive skill, but I have resigned in this regard. Every guy I met who can hold the attention of a group of people is completely ignorant of any type of practice in this regard, and relies completely on an inborn instinct. Call it personal magnetism. You didn't mention how you would practice this skill. I am interested in it as well, if only for storytelling or poetry reading.

Also: "to totally possess women ... through the force of oratory", this is completely different from speaking to groups of people. It's much easier as well, in my experience.

Like anything, there are people who are naturals at this, but you can also build this skill. Perhaps we only see naturals in this regard because it's no longer taught? How I would practice this skill is somewhat of a known unknown, part of the goal will be to learn ways to get better. What seems obvious is just making speeches or taking historical speeches and practice delivering them alone at first. Maybe also doing some sort of open-mic night (comedy, poetry, whatever).

I think speaking is speaking. Obviously different settings are different, but saying it's completely different is like saying practicing basketball 1v1 is nothing like 5v5.