Comment by jesterson
5 days ago
It's not that I didn't ask for content - it's more like I would rather appreciate your genuine thoughts instead of AI output.
5 days ago
It's not that I didn't ask for content - it's more like I would rather appreciate your genuine thoughts instead of AI output.
But if I had to write briefly without actually searching anywhere, this is what I think. Normally, before writing a comment, I search for other people's thoughts and filter my own through them. But if I had to be sincere, without searching anywhere, or if I had to write briefly, I would say this:
'We are all trapped in a desire for recognition, and it's hard to control that desire. And when that desire loses its way, we try to teach others, try to control them, and ultimately try to take their place. True learning only begins when we put that position down, but we are too afraid of letting go.'
I hope this is the answer you were looking for.
I often see variations on this exact comment on HN lately, even in response to things that are clearly genuine. Sometimes it's just ESL. In my opinion, whenever there is plausible deniability, just pointing it out is almost always the wrong move anyway.
Proliferation of AI "content" and people regurgitating the AI slop makes it extremely likely to be AI slop. You know, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.
If you look at HN comments in pre-"AI" era, you will see posts were way shorter and way more concise. While I am certainly could be in wrong, it does look like AI output.
I'm sorry, but I didn't use AI. The thing that's really hard about this is that the language I write in is Korean, and in the process of translating my words, the sentences and context I can use are limited.
Most of the time, I use officially translated versions of Confucian classics, but I'm actually using Google Translate and Papago (a Korean translator) to translate them. The words I use are fixed, and since the rich vocabulary I use in my native language is restricted, I guess it's inevitable that it looks like AI.
(The people here who reach for accusations of AI are saying they are not ready to learn, imho. Though your immediate preceding replies about Orwell flow less well than your usual writing?)
How would you judge the urge to teach people who have power or influence?
Your previous comments about Narcissism in Western economies come to mind.
It seems to me that Mencius was often talking down to his interlocutors. Maybe that would have worked out for him, but it didn't work out for many officials who got decapitated for speaking out. But am I an inferior person for thinking they weren't wrong not to control their urge to teach "tyrants"?
It seems that Stoics, Cynics etc escaped such punishment even though there were no equivalent advice in their worldview? Besides Socrates obviously. It could be that Westerners are simply better with manipulating emotions. And Socrates was complicated, but he'd never worm away from teaching.
I also think "hubris", a not very Asian concept, is something easier to address than narcissism (which has Asian versions).. maybe we can start there. (I am thinking of hubris in Greek stories or law, not the modern translation as "arrogance")
Consider Wu Kong. That's narcissism, not hubris, because he essentially had the powers of (most of) the gods. Whereas what Mencius had, and what the mods here have, could be called hubris. Hubris can be invisible to mortals, but not to gods. Hubris can be very abstract injuries to human dignity.
It feels like Orwell was being intimate with hubris. Big Brother. The Inner Party. And so on. Even "The Boot". Were carefully short of being "egoistic".
One caveat. It's very common in Chinese popculture to call someone competent a god, a goddess, almost always humourously. Interesting way to nip hubris in the bud?
Hubris is easier to correct than narcissism because sometimes all you have to do is point it out. Or wait for the AI bubble to pop.
Mencius would already have enjoyed his passive act of teaching before a bubble actually popped? Did he feel a need to buy puts?
It seems like I know programming terminology pretty well, but philosophical terms aren't my specialty, so it doesn't come out as smoothly. As you know, when you translate high-level vocabulary from a Chinese-character cultural sphere into English, a lot gets lost, doesn't it? Philosophy isn't my field, so I think that's especially the case.
I think we and Westerners think differently when it comes to the concepts of narcissism and hubris. I'm not very familiar with the Stoics or the Cynics. As you know, we East Asians don't really learn Western philosophy much, right? It's mostly Confucian thought.
Anyway, as you said, 好爲人師 (loving to teach others / being fond of acting as a teacher to others) doesn't mean one shouldn't remonstrate with those in power. However, in Asia — especially in Korea — while Confucius is famous, Mencius is treated as almost his equal. I've heard that in China, Mencius is ranked a little lower. I'm particularly fond of Mencius, and I especially love this passage:
(居天下之廣居, 立天下之正位, 行天下之大道: 得志, 與民由之; 不得志, 獨行其道. 富貴不能淫, 貧賤不能移, 威武不能屈, 此之謂大丈夫.)
"To dwell in the wide house of the world, to stand in the correct station of the world, to walk in the great path of the world; when one achieves his ambition, he shares it with the people; when he fails to achieve it, he walks his path alone. Riches and honors cannot corrupt him, poverty and low status cannot make him waver, power and force cannot bend him. this is what is called a great man."
Personally, I think Wukong was actually more of a case of hubris, wasn't he? Because whether he had power or not, he fought against the heavens. Perhaps he could also be seen as an embodiment of Mencius's concept of the "great man."
I sometimes think about this. because we're in different language spheres, the vocabulary we think in evaporates so much. It saddens me that I can't express things at a high level in English.
1 reply →