In a manner speaking it is annoying to see (his not so profound) essay upvoted. Like people said he is the founder of he founded YC, so he has a fan following of the commoner naive programmer crowd. He certainly is an intelligent chap ( and very ordinary by some some measures) but by no means profound. In fact this subject of heresy is quite banal to me or anyone who has spent sufficient time observing society ( including the scientific community).
I have always wondered what his objective was when writing these essays.
(I always have an objective, when I write, which is not narcissism, or seeking approval/support/vindication).
I'm pretty sure PG entertains quite a few interesting heresies that he's simply not willing to share publicly because of the backlash. Instead, he nudges people to find them on their own.
Whether something is "profound" is extremely subjective, and rooted in someone's personal experiences. Banal to you is not the same as banal to everyone.
But to (playfully) turn it around on you, what was your objective in writing your comment? To display that you already know this and are thusly above the "naieve" upvoters of "banality"? Is that not "seeking approval/support/vindication?" :-)
>Whether something is "profound" is extremely subjective, and rooted in someone's personal experiences. Banal to you is not the same as banal to everyone.
Subjective - I can agree that to _some_ extent. But there is a somewhat non subjective element to it also. Most of PGs essays are banal. He's actually a banal guy. ( though I still rate him very intelligent, and an astute businessman, and that is something not to be scoffed at). Contrast that to another well know figure in the tech world: Peter Thiel, who I personally feel is extremely well read, extremely reflective, quite articulate etc. Most people will either agree that he is far more of an original thinker that PG. Either that, or they do not understand him(PT), or they think he(PT) is nuts.
If you are an atheist, you will know what I'm talking about if you ever ever argued with religious people who will give their blanket dismissive opinion about the theory of evolution, without having made the slightest of attempts to understand it. It is not that they just have a subjectively different opinion on the subject, it is outright ignorance. Speaking about the theory of evolution I'm aware of one guy who i saw in a you tube video online who is indeed a critic/skeptic of the Darwinian theory of evolution, and has some arguments with substance to back it up. I will have no problem listening to him, but the former category are people who I do not even think is worth my time arguing with.
I don't really see how you can simply assume that there's some sort of absolute standard for "banality". Would this article be banal to a 10 year old? A 20 year old? How many super surprising things might seem banal to an 80 year old? I'm 34 and I didn't think it was banal at all. A lot of PG's essays seem obvious to me now, but I can tell you what originally brought me to this site is that PG's thought's were not obvious to me at all when I was 18, and they had a huge influence on me. Perhaps I'm banal? Wouldn't be the worst thing in the world I suppose, although I don't think people that know me would generally describe me that way. If you were to think I'm banal, it's probably because you have thought about things I'm saying more than I myself have, but that doesn't mean my statements would be banal to people who haven't thought about things I want to say.
Fair enough, for someone who is 34. Just make sure to read/listen/see ( if you can ) the works of people who are may have made astute observations of human nature a very long time back, even generations back. I'm talking about the likes of Aristotle, or a Carl Sagan, or a George Orwell, or a Woody Allen ( a comedian) etc. They all offer significantly more insight into human nature much more than PG can.
Ofcourse your limit might be PG at your age. And nothing wrong with that. I too will be banal by some standards. We all got to fine tune to our level of stupidly to the 'thought' leaders we are think are our heroes.
> But to (playfully) turn it around on you, what was your objective in writing your comment? To display that you already know this and are thusly above the "naieve" upvoters of "banality"? Is that not "seeking approval/support/vindication?" :-)
It is a very important question. ( and I would have answered it even if you had asked it in any other manner without being 'playful') ). You can see what I have put on my HN profile and also here:
https://realminority.wordpress.com/about/
You see, approval/verbal support/vindication etc. are normal human emotions that most of have, but I personally make a conscious effort to minimize. Independent thinkers don't look for social approvals. I'd like to think of myself as a (relatively ofcourse) independent thinker. I have an nearly inactive account at Facebook and similar site, and spend almost never spend anytime on these sites.
If you look at my recent post history, I have started posting some presumably contentious posts, generally seeking similar minded people for long term alliances. The alliances will have to result in tangible material/health/survival benefits. I know for a fact that I'm not a wordsmith, so in isolation those post may convey an inaccurate image of me among those with whom there could be potential alliances. With these similar minded people, it indeed does matter to me what they think of me, from a long term perspective. I do want to convey a larger personality than what can be inferred from my contentious posts. So this reasoning is at the logical level not at the emotional level.
(ofcourse if you get into thinking along likes of evolutionary biology you will realize that all need to seek social approval was indeed ultimately intended for tangible benefits like survival, but often these emotions can be far removed from ground reality, as it happens with social media).
To summarize - there is an intended audience for my reply to you too. ( though I'm not sure if you may be one of them)
That's a fair reason to post things, I guess, although fairly meta. My point is just that, just because this post may be common knowledge to you does not mean that it's common knowledge to most people (especially considering the number of upvotes). I see this thought pattern all the time on forums: "I know this, so clearly everyone must". If it was obvious then it wouldn't be getting upvotes.
>My point is just that, just because this post may be common knowledge to you does not mean that it's common knowledge to most people (especially considering the number of upvotes)
I know that, and the term banality should should not be confused with commonality with the the general populace. There is a relationship ofcourse between the two.
( I blame myself for being inaccurate, not a gifted writer ...)
> "I know this, so clearly everyone must"
The opposite actually is true for me.
You see, news that splashes at you is still annoyance( like the ads). It becomes hard to filter out noise from usefulness. It's an ongoing battle. Of course you might ask, as to why I even click a post like this. There is good reason for that - among the hysterical fanboys, there is often the occasional critic who is of value to me.
I have always wondered what his objective was when writing these essays.
(I always have an objective, when I write, which is not narcissism, or seeking approval/support/vindication).