Can one study too much?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by Blair »

Gurrb wrote:love is the truest form of happiness. very few things, if any, compare to the importance of love in a life.
Absolutely untrue,. Love, Actually, is merely a cocktail of pheremones and dopamine swishing around the neural network prompting one to continue the current pattern of behaviour as it makes the propagation of your genes more likely.

Anyone who has spent a serious amount of time investigating and examining themselves knows this in an empirical and instinctive sense, and is freed from the shackles of the chemical prison that is the brain, or at least the severest/silliest aspect of it. When you can see how "love" operates on humans, it's quite laughable, pathetic even.

Love wanes, too.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by cousinbasil »

Gurrb wrote: i had an 'a' average in university, but my iq would allow me to achieve a near perfect average if the dedication and lack of unique thoughts were prevailing. do i want to be trapped in a job i don't enjoy?
What does this first sentence mean? You had and 'a' average, I got that much. But then you say your IQ would allow you to achieve a near perfect average if something. Isn't an 'a' average near perfect already? In fact, it is perfect, if it were a 4.0.

Now to the "if something." "If the dedication and lack of unique thoughts were prevailing." Are you saying that they weren't prevailing?

This sentence is so unclear, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

But let's focus on your second sentence. Of course you don't want to be trapped in a job you don't enjoy. No one does. But you can even be trapped in a job you do enjoy!

It is understandable that you don't want to be crushed under the Big Wheel, you don't want the light to go out. It is a reasonable person's fear. But the topic of this thread is "Can one study too much?" Studying does not normally lead people into less-desirable jobs. But to be competent at any job, you have to pay your dues, be it academic degree, professional certification, apprenticeship or the like.

Why read about a flower when you can go outside and smell one? I am not a botanist, but I can imagine that most of them wanted to learn more about their subject matter than merely sniffing it would allow them to.

It is not an either/or situation, Gurrb. You can do both - learn and enjoy. Learning about something often enhances one's enjoyment of it. (That's if the thing is enjoyable by nature: one wouldn't necessarily enjoy a crime scene more if one knew the particulars of the gruesome stabbing, say.)

Happiness (or more likely, fulfillment) is not a gimme in this world, that's for sure. But if you are unfulfilled or unhappy now, don't make the mistake of concluding that your good work so far has failed you, and therefore may not be so good.
the questions you need to ask yourself a: would you rather read about past geniuses and innovators, or be one yourself?
Again, an artificial either/or scenario. Who says reading about a past innovator precludes one from innovating?
would you rather read of love, or be in love?
If you have to do either one, stick with reading about it - romance novels will not give you herpes.
would you rather know of all about past philosophers, physicists, mathematicians, and so forth, or would you rather know all about you?
Again, why do you have to choose? Learning about others is one of the best ways to gain insights about yourself.

And you won't have to worry about being trapped in any kind of job whatsoever if you persist in refusing to use proper capitalization and other standard writing practices. It is fine if you are e.e. cummings or an adolescent texter. Most employers would consider it either lazy, ignorant, or signifying a disregard for rules - NOT an example of being "an individual" or "thinking outside of the box."
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by cousinbasil »

prince wrote:Absolutely untrue,. Love, Actually, is merely a cocktail of pheromones and dopamine swishing around the neural network prompting one to continue the current pattern of behavior as it makes the propagation of your genes more likely.
Well, one could be reductionistic about almost everything. What you have said here offers little meaning or insight, but perhaps that is your intent.

History is merely the study of what dead people did long ago - why engage in that if one is so massively ignorant of what most living people are doing today? Artistic painting is merely the application of pigment to a surface - what is the value of that if cats can do it and have their paintings sell? Eating is merely a means of furnishing the body with energy so that it can pursue its gene propagation, so why would anyone waste time learning how to prepare meals that taste good?

I submit to you that love is superfluous to the propagation of genetic material. If it were necessary, it would not be so elusive.

Pheromones undoubtedly affect one's feelings. But one's feelings also affect the production of pheromones.

Even if what humans call "Love" were nothing but a series of biochemical reactions, would that be sufficient reason to avoid it altogether? After all, gene propagation is essential to life.

Invariably when someone espouses this fairly common reductionistic view of "Love" there is more to the story. Either that person has never experienced it and is jealous of those who have, or that person has experienced it and has been burned by it.

I say, have no fear. You have your whole life to get it right.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

cousinbasil wrote:Invariably when someone espouses this fairly common reductionistic view of "Love" there is more to the story. Either that person has never experienced it and is jealous of those who have, or that person has experienced it and has been burned by it.

I say, have no fear. You have your whole life to get it right.
Invariably when someone praises the meaning of love, that person is experiencing some kind of satisfying love live or materialist lifestyle without having the slightest desire to ever reach beyond such surface joys.

Better do fear, as you still have your whole life to get really burned badly by your thinking, or damaged by instinct-defying contemplation.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by cousinbasil »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
cousinbasil wrote:Invariably when someone espouses this fairly common reductionistic view of "Love" there is more to the story. Either that person has never experienced it and is jealous of those who have, or that person has experienced it and has been burned by it.

I say, have no fear. You have your whole life to get it right.
Invariably when someone praises the meaning of love, that person is experiencing some kind of satisfying love live or materialist lifestyle without having the slightest desire to ever reach beyond such surface joys.

Better do fear, as you still have your whole life to get really burned badly by your thinking, or damaged by instinct-defying contemplation.
Invariably you will find people filled with baseless fears. Those who fear being burned never learn how to tame fire.

If you read my last post more carefully, you will find neither praise for love (or anything else) nor claims that love has any meaning. My point, since you missed it, was not to permit reductionism to reduce the scope of one's own experiences.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

cousinbasil wrote:If you read my last post more carefully, you will find neither praise for love (or anything else) nor claims that love has any meaning.
And yet you assumed avoidance, inexperience or jealousy, as the causes of any reductionist view which appeared to have been only brought up to counter the view that love would be "truest form of happiness" (which nobody experienced with love would ever say) and the supposed overarching importance of it.

It appears therefore that you a) support love yourself as truest form of happiness and its importance (meaning) or b) suggest that something in the continuous experience or exposure to love would provide a more "right" view on it over time (meaning).
My point, since you missed it, was not to permit reductionism to reduce the scope of one's own experiences.
The point of reductionism is to reduce one concept to one or more simpler to grasp ones. In no way you can read somehow into this discussion the call for reduction, repression or avoidance of specific experiences. And it's not as if one goes out there and creates love. One is found by these complex of actions, feelings and emotions which is often called love, when the circumstances are there. It's very helpful to understand the causes, how one comes to "love" and why it needs to be blind to function at all.

A start for many folks is to understand how "good" things still happen, like sacrifice or compassion, without "love" being ever part of it. They actually function way better without it, unless one stretches the meaning of love to encompass all.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by cousinbasil »

Diebert wrote:And yet you assumed avoidance, inexperience or jealousy, as the causes of any reductionist view which appeared to have been only brought up to counter the view that love would be "truest form of happiness" (which nobody experienced with love would ever say) and the supposed overarching importance of it.
The key word being "appeared." That is, appeared to you. I am merely stating what I have observed in the past when this exact same reductionist gem has been brought up. Am I using inductive reasoning any less properly than you when you say "which nobody experienced with love would ever say"?

Again, read the post more carefully. I am not championing anything but an open mind. Your own biases are showing. No one experienced with love would say it has an overarching importance. Yet Joshua ben Joesph can be considered something of a sage if nothing else, and asserted the the greatest commandment is simply that one loves.

But of course you are going to enlighten me on the difference between Christ's usage of the term love and how I am using it?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

cousinbasil wrote: I am merely stating what I have observed in the past when this exact same reductionist gem has been brought up.
An unspecified past doesn't add much weight here.
Am I using inductive reasoning any less properly than you when you say "which nobody experienced with love would ever say"?
Fair enough. Although I find your reasoning in this matter less strong since reductionism here is merely a negative; its purpose clear. While implying comprehensivism is more tricky as it needs way more expansion to ever become usable as argumentation, being such a positive.
Yet Joshua ben Joesph can be considered something of a sage if nothing else, and asserted the the greatest commandment is simply that one loves.
You mean his ethic of reciprocity? Or loving God more than anything? Anyway the (two!) commandments are quite specific and not simply "love".
But of course you are going to enlighten me on the difference between Christ's usage of the term love and how I am using it?
Of course!
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by cousinbasil »

Diebert wrote:While implying comprehensivism is more tricky as it needs way more expansion to ever become usable as argumentation, being such a positive.
Perhaps you could put this another way? The sentence is not grammatically intact; therefore, its meaning is ambiguous. I feel vaguely as though I have been accused of something, some obvious failing. Well, which one? I have quite a few. One of them being that I am a synergeticist enough to know when a structure has no overall tensegrity, such as, well, the structure of the quoted sentence.

Incidentally, ieSpell insists I call you "Dilbert." Would that be permissible?
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by Dan Rowden »

IeSpell can't "insist" anything. Just hit "ignore" on the words ot doesn't recogonise that you know to be correct or add it to the dictionary. Or, were you just being funny? I'll presuem the latter since that makes more sense.
Gurrb
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:40 pm

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by Gurrb »

Do you think I can't obey the standards? I choose not to write like this, but I can. It proves nothing. Absolutely nothing. So I hit 'shift' where appropriate, you understand what I'm saying the same whether use proper punctuation and such or if I type as I normally do. It does not convey intelligence, which is why I believe most people feel the need to type in such a way. I am not fooled by this, so I do not abide by it.
Gurrb
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:40 pm

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by Gurrb »

as for truth being a thing to be pursued, i feel true happiness can only be achieved in true ignorance. the truth is there is no purpose for the human race. the truth is when we die, nothing happens. we are gone. quite depressing truths. similar to a cheating spouse scenario. better to not know (in terms of your happiness) than to know. this is assuming the cheating spouse acts as they did before cheating (without the lack of interest and such that usually goes along with the cheating).
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by cousinbasil »

Dan Rowden wrote:IeSpell can't "insist" anything. Just hit "ignore" on the words ot doesn't recogonise that you know to be correct or add it to the dictionary. Or, were you just being funny? I'll presuem the latter since that makes more sense.
Ah, an old hand at using ieSpell! I learn from the master!
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by Pye »

(you have thrice in this thread provoked the crackingest laughter I've ever emitted whilst reading this forum.

ah, nuance . . . . )
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by cousinbasil »

Gurrb wrote:Do you think I can't obey the standards? I choose not to write like this, but I can. It proves nothing. Absolutely nothing. So I hit 'shift' where appropriate, you understand what I'm saying the same whether use proper punctuation and such or if I type as I normally do. It does not convey intelligence, which is why I believe most people feel the need to type in such a way. I am not fooled by this, so I do not abide by it.
Suit yourself. It is distracting, though of course your meanings are quite clear.

I do not believe most people follow the standards in order to convey intelligence. I think you are just wrong about that. The standards exist so that whatever intelligence the message itself does convey can be received without undue ambiguity. I guarantee that if you used lower-case "i" for the first person singular pronoun in a business letter, that fact would lessen the impact of the letter's contents. The reader will wonder what other conventions you might deem superfluous. For instance, does he drive on the wrong side of the road? Could I leave him alone in a room with my six-year-old? There is no good reason on earth why such extraneous thoughts should be entering the head of your reader, unless unconventionality is salient to the message itself.

You say you are not fooled by it. But no one is trying to fool you, are they? Instead, if one were to follow this logic, you think everyone who does try to adhere to standard form must be a fool. I am suggesting that this is the message that will get mixed in with the message you actually intend to transmit.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by Dan Rowden »

cousinbasil wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:IeSpell can't "insist" anything. Just hit "ignore" on the words ot doesn't recogonise that you know to be correct or add it to the dictionary. Or, were you just being funny? I'll presuem the latter since that makes more sense.
Ah, an old hand at using ieSpell! I learn from the master!
The fact that I didn't check that post doesn't change what I said.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

cousinbasil wrote:
Diebert wrote:While implying comprehensivism is more tricky as it needs way more expansion to ever become usable as argumentation, being such a positive.
Perhaps you could put this another way? The sentence is not grammatically intact; therefore, its meaning is ambiguous.
It's actually just rather abbreviated phrasing but still correct grammar. It's in need for some improved readability, for sure. Lets try again:

Your comprehensivism needs more explaining and detail before it ever becomes usable in a discussion like this, since it will consist mainly of explanatory, descriptive or constative elements. And therefore way more tricky than reductionist or normative reasoning.
Incidentally, ieSpell insists I call you "Dilbert." Would that be permissible?
Only for those with the guts and confidence to speak under their real name. Those who don't often just like to talk one way at one place and another contradicting way elsewhere, without people getting all upset about it.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by Blair »

cousinbasil wrote:I submit to you that love is superfluous to the propagation of genetic material. If it were necessary, it would not be so elusive.
It's not elusive, it's ever-present. The reason why you can walk down the street and not be smashed in the head by some random stranger is because of love. Humans are altruistic by nature.
After all, gene propagation is essential to life.
To the continuation of it. It's not essential to me as I already exist, and have no desire to propagate my genes, as my children would not in any way achieve my level of consciousness, therefore their lives would be in vain.
I say, have no fear. You have your whole life to get it right.
Fear is an aspect of your life, not mine. I say you have your whole life to get it right, that is become truthful.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by cousinbasil »

Diebert wrote:Your comprehensivism needs more explaining and detail before it ever becomes usable in a discussion like this, since it will consist mainly of explanatory, descriptive or constative elements. And therefore way more tricky than reductionist or normative reasoning.
This is much better.

But I don't understand the objection. Tricky in what way? First, I am not at all certain you have used comprehensivist correctly, since comprehensivism does not necessarily imply any of the discursive elements you have listed. Second, if I have a viewpoint I wish to express, does it not follow that I should explain and/or describe it? How is that trickery? And you mention constative elements, meaning I have made assertions that can be judged true or false. How could anything possibly be less tricky than that?

If I am not being reductionist, it is because I was criticizing excessive reductionism. This seems consistent, at least to me, and probably should to anyone who understood my point.
Only for those with the guts and confidence to speak under their real name. Those who don't often just like to talk one way at one place and another contradicting way elsewhere, without people getting all upset about it.
You're quite right, that often is the case, although I don't see what is wrong with trying not to upset people. But I can see that if someone were contradictory, it would not upset you. Odd that you find contradiction less unpalatable than consistency.

I am certain you have guts and confidence to spare. However, let me point out that my real name would mean nothing to you and would neither add to nor detract from anything I say here, just as your real name means nothing to me, nor does the fact you care to use it.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by cousinbasil »

prince wrote:
cousinbasil wrote:I submit to you that love is superfluous to the propagation of genetic material. If it were necessary, it would not be so elusive.
It's not elusive, it's ever-present. The reason why you can walk down the street and not be smashed in the head by some random stranger is because of love. Humans are altruistic by nature.
I have to disagree in part. People's misguided notions of love are ever-present. They search for it and rarely find it. That is why I call it elusive.

You are saying here that people are altruistic, and you are equating altruism with love, which is not invalid on the face of it. Surely altruism might me considered a facet of love.

Your contention is that people at large exhibit some form of "reciprocity," as Diebert would have it, and it is this which prevents your your skull from being cracked open like a rotten coconut every time you walk out the door. It eludes me why this state of affairs displeases you.
Fear is an aspect of your life, not mine.
I was not addressing you specifically, no need to be defensive.

I don't believe undue fear is a factor in my life, but it seems to me an impartial third party might find irrational fears in [any]one's life. It is after all why sane people go to therapists: seeking therapy is an ultimately sane decision.
cousinbasil wrote:After all, gene propagation is essential to life.
To the continuation of it. It's not essential to me as I already exist, and have no desire to propagate my genes, as my children would not in any way achieve my level of consciousness, therefore their lives would be in vain.
Not as selfish as it sounds: My guess is that no one else has any desire for you to propagate your genes, either. So everyone is happy.
Tobitobi
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 9:14 pm

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by Tobitobi »

Yes, one can study 'too' much. In the respect of time consumption, one can study too much to have a "life". In the respect of one's capability to perceive with coherence, one can leap beyond their ability to pay the required attention e.g. Regarding if one's brain can actually explode from studying too much, no. There is no finite in how much one could study and learn.
Pye
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:45 pm

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by Pye »

Diebert: Only for those with the guts and confidence to speak under their real name.
This is a piece of indefensible hyperbole you have trotted out on occasions when some new intelligence shows up here. It's sophistry, and it belies the confidence and guts that would admit your own motivations for seeking personal info.

Too, I might suggest a scenario where "confidence and guts" are precisely the same motivations that prevent [some] people from zipping open their lives on the internet - an already increasingly intrusive phenomenon of which none of us yet understands the ramifications of a total loss of privacy. You'd have to value privacy to understand this. And I think you, especially, understand, and do.

Privacy, and "hiding," or "duplicitousness," are not interchangeable synonyms.
cousinbasil
Posts: 1395
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:26 am
Location: Garment District

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by cousinbasil »

Pye wrote:Too, I might suggest a scenario where "confidence and guts" are precisely the same motivations that prevent [some] people from zipping open their lives on the Internet - an already increasingly intrusive phenomenon of which none of us yet understands the ramifications of a total loss of privacy. You'd have to value privacy to understand this. And I think you, especially, understand, and do.

Privacy, and "hiding," or "duplicitousness," are not interchangeable synonyms.
I must confess I am one of those less than comfortable with indiscriminate exposure on the Internet. Few people understand how vulnerable such exposure makes one, myself included, which is precisely the source of my discomfort; almost nobody can comprehend how vulnerable such exposure today will make one tomorrow, or next week, as IPv6 takes over and not only PCs and 3G iphones are identifiable, but every car-lock, home security system, toaster, and refrigerator will have its own address and will be accessible.

It used to be that celebrities, while enjoying the fruits of their fame, would complain about the niceties that notoriety rescinds, such as the ability to go grocery shopping without being photographed. Now people with no claim to fame insist upon having it, and a mere 15 minutes doesn't seem to suffice. Well, if you put yourself on Facebook, it is not for only a quarter of an hour, is it? Now you are like every other nincompoop thrilling to a hundred thorny stems without a single rose.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Pye wrote:
Diebert: Only for those with the guts and confidence to speak under their real name.
This is a piece of indefensible hyperbole you have trotted out on occasions when some new intelligence shows up here
If you don't feel confident with the exposure, or fear the invasion of privacy, then that's understandable. Having guts and confidence does not always equal wisdom, after all. But the context was of course a (to me) rather old worn joke being made about my first name. My response was not that serious although I do value the act of daring to stand out in an increasingly anonymous 'spoofed' world.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Can one study too much?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

cousinbasil wrote: First, I am not at all certain you have used comprehensivist correctly, since comprehensivism does not necessarily imply any of the discursive elements you have listed.
Well, you said there was "more to the story". Perhaps you prefer to leave it up in the air? How much more? "Experiencing it" as you suggested so far, remains very inclusive (comprehensive) unless you come up with more descriptions, which will probably take form of some "constative", at best.

The things is, when one enters the realm of reasoning, reductionist as it can seem, it doesn't negate experience and the opinions formed through it. It actually builds on top of them but is in itself not just another opinion or experience. A true quality is added.
If I am not being reductionist, it is because I was criticizing excessive reductionism. This seems consistent, at least to me, and probably should to anyone who understood my point.
Actually you were criticizing what was in your view a fairly common reductionistic view of "Love". Did you find it excessive as reductionism goes or excessive when it comes to "Love"?

My response to your criticism was more in the line of trying to find out what you think is the 'story of love' or how one would 'get it right' at some point, in your value system. And you have these values otherwise there's no way of getting it "right" in your or anyone's eyes.
Locked