Thursday24

First of all, if you go back in memory, you didn't choose your birth. By all possibilities, your parents truly never had a choice, they didn't choose to bring a particular kind of you into the world. And so on, you can go back. Even this particular thought you expressed here, did you choose it? Seems unlikely. If you ask what caused this thought, you'll see that it got triggered from somewhere, either internal/external. The point of this investigation is that, you cannot help very many things happening in the universe. The universe operates on its own, and you're merely a part of it, and you too operate according to external/internal laws. Don't take the societal idea of responsibility too seriously. Control is an illusion, choice is an illusion. You couldn't help but do what you did, all your life: so, relax, nothing is ever in control! Birth is not a choice, circumstances are not a choice, even your thoughts and emotions are not a choice, and in the same breath, death too is not a choice :)

Sounds similar to Allen Downey's "Textbook manifesto" (https://greenteapress.com/wp/textbook-manifesto/). The manifesto can be summed up in a single sentence: "Students should read and understand textbooks." :)

2 - Wonderful advice! It took me years to figure this out. The speedreading books/courses would instruct "Don't subvocalize" and so on. I tried doing all that, and never deeply internalized anything that way. These days when I read something worthwhile, I read it in a funny/crazy made-up voice in my head and take all the time in the world, and this helps me absorb the material and make it my own :)

For books, something that has helped me in getting the best of the stuff in them has been this. For every new book, create a google doc with three sections:

1. Before 2. During 3. After

The first "Before" section is to list down your preconceptions about the topic you're going to read about. What do you think you already know about the topic? What do you feel about the topic? And so on.

Next, as you go through the book page by page, contrast whatever you encounter with your preconceptions. Is there anything new or interesting there? Actively seek interesting-ness or novelty. Or is there a fact that contradicts or supports your preconceptions? Note all of those down.

And once you're done with reading, spend some time listing down your thoughts in the "After" section. Have you become wiser due to the book? Do you feel better at knowing more? Have you clarified your understanding of the world or yourself? Or at least, do you have more questions on the topic with you for further study?

If you have additional time, restructure everything you store into a blog-post. I modified this idea originally from Farnam Street (https://fs.blog).

In the long run, this sort of delta-maximization framework can become powerful and addictive and a great addition to your life.

Philosophy is a PROCESS of enquiry (hopefully "skilled"). It is difficult to compress a long-running & haphazard process into precise definition. You can label the process, talk about various aspects of the process, share examples and so on, but it is perhaps not sensible to define it too precisely. Theories you get at the end of any process of enquiry, whether they are workable or not, are PRODUCTS. Products by their very nature will be well-defined or precise.

Consider Newton. He pursued physical theories, alchemy and theological studies with similar amount scholarship and zest. His physical theories obtained popularity due to its utility. And his theological and alchemical studies didn't give the world any material benefits and so the world calls those areas of his output "random speculations". But at the core of all these three attempts is a probing, speculative mind. That is my definition of philosophy, that there is an intensely curious mind, which will pour forth effort in understanding the world (including oneself). Newton's subject area was called "Natural Philosophy" for nothing. There are less "successful" philosophers and streams of philosophy, of course.

> I believe it is a bit pretentious. The word philosophy lends extra weight to what is otherwise random speculations. Many philosophers in fact claim that science is a just sub field of philosophy and that philosophy is “above” it.

It can be above, below, side-by-side, wherever. Or nowhere. Or maybe impossible to say. Whatever the relation is, where is the possibility of pretension here? Philosophers make claims, scientists make claims too. But that is the characteristic of the practitioners, not the field of study.

Pseudo refers to pretensions/shams. Philosophy need not pretend to be science, it can openly speculate, without the rigors of the scientific method. In science, a hypothesis can be made, but that has very many parameters restricting what can be said through it.

That's perhaps a bit too harsh an assessment of the field. Betrand Russell, in his "A history of western philosophy" defines Philosophy as a no man's land or speculative region between religion/theology and science. It is a bucket of thought which is sceptical, probing, speculative of itself and the world. It can sometimes turn into science, and sometimes otherwise. Essentially it can be seen as an expression of human curiosity, which is the seed of definite knowledge.