#'a kind of socratic discussion about the works-'

[natjennie]

i know the plagues being obsessed with thomas was largely a joke bc alison threw her portrait of him in the basement, but I think there's actually a lot of potential for them to get along like. the plague ghosts are largely intelligent, they play games together, talk, comfort each other, the same as the upstairs ghosts. they have a working knowledge of mechanics, they're interested in art and theater. they are honestly some of the most cultured ghosts in the house. they like to learn, they just enjoy being included, they are pretty easy going. thomas likes to talk, likes to teach, likes to engage. all of thomas' exercises and ponderings would be a hit with the plagues I swear. it genuinely seems like they would get along, am I crazy?

[mrhaitch]

hi mr.haitch!

as someone who's interested in academia, do you think you can speak a bit about your experiences and journey? it's something i've had my eye on for a bit but honestly don't even know where to begin and idk if i'm just having a mini life crisis because i'm feeling unfulfilled in my current field.

I think I've spoken about this before, but I'll do it again. Please note that I am currently not in academia at present, although I do have plans to return. Currently I'm teaching functional skills in English and maths to kids in their late teens (many of them with severe emotional, behavioural, or learning disorders) so this will be more of a retrospective.

(Be warned, it's long)

Let's get one thing very clear: I was a bad student and my road into academia is and remains crooked. I had bad grades in highschool, an appalling attendance record, and spent a great deal of highschool in detention. It is a miracle that I finished highschool, and a further miracle that I was accepted by a college, and fluked through my A-levels.

I never paid attention in class unless it was something I cared about. Homework was a mythical concept, I never participated, rarely engaged, and generally treated school with disdain.

And I didn't get better until I was in my twenties.

Some of it was anxiety, a lot of it was arrogance.

So fast forward through my undergrad years where I oscillated wildly between workaholic frenzy (political philosophy, existentialism, philosophy of religion) to staunch absenteeism (philosophy of language, socratic philosophy). In my final year things kind of clicked, I knuckled down, got into a few fights with my lecturers, forced my grades up, and came out with a good enough grade to get onto a masters course.

This was largely in thanks to my writing, which I'd become increasingly dedicated to, completing and submitting my first (and thankfully unpublished novel) in the process. During my master's I revelled in the greater degree of independence, how I could direct and engage with the material in my own way, and how it connected with my passions (creative writing). I still had an arrogant moment, failed to prepare for an assignment and failed it. The failure capped my overall grade at a pass which sank any hope for a scholarship.

Dejected and pissed off, I then took the first job that came my way and gave up on academia. I languished in the service industry for four years and thought I'd amount to nothing more. Some political nonsense happened towards the end, I pushed back against the wrong people who promptly tried to fire me under false (and illegal) pretenses.

Haitch pushed me to look into doing my PHD again. I applied, teaching out to one of my old MA teachers to be my supervisor and he accepted with far more enthusiasm than I could've hoped for. I got a loan from the government and vowed to throw myself at my PHD as hard as I could, and I did.

From 2019 until early 2023, I worked five days a week (plus some time in the weekends) on my thesis and my writing. 8-5 every day with my nose in a book, or plugging away at a manuscript, or drafting papers. I lived and breathed it every second. I kept a journal where I pushed myself to work harder and harder to achieve what I felt was my dream. During that time I was determined to come out with my experience and qualifications than I could possibly need for an entry position. I shadowed my colleagues when they taught classes, exchanged emails with academics I admired, published more short fiction.

Brick by brick I built a portfolio and a modest reputation. Then I was invited to speak at a prestigious convention in the UK. I met legendary literary agents, famous authors, hung out with people I admired, and had a chance to read some of my work to an audience and discuss its themes.

I taught for two years, while at the same time working two other contracts for various outreach bodies teaching and supporting kids from deprived or disadvantaged backgrounds.

And I still can't get a permanent position.

I've been shortlisted once or twice, and knocked back at the first hurdle a whole bunch.

Academic positions are like gold dust scattered down the back of a unicorn as it leaps over a double rainbow. It is hard to get a job teaching and researching at a university, especially in the humanities. It is endless rejection with minimal feedback, banging your head against a brick wall over and over wondering if you felt it move or if you've just softened your skull.

It's hard, very hard, and takes a lot of commitment and a lot of sacrifice, with zero guarantee you'll get anyway.

But you do it because you can't imagine yourself doing anything else.

The eagle eyed amongst you will recognise this as the same conclusion I reached about writing, and they're right. It's the same. Often thankless, frequently difficult. A feeling of toiling alone in the dark, waiting for someone, anyone to peer into the well you fell down.

But as hard as it is, if that's the path you've chosen, a part of you doesn't care. You do it anyway. You do it in spite of what it costs you, and the little it gives back.

At least, that's how I see it. Thank you for attending my rambling, somewhat doom-laden, TED talk.

[teecupangel]

Imagine Desmond in Crusades Era, but like with Alamut - he tries to keep aside from all that is happening. An attempt to keep the timeline as canon as possible. But... Talking to no one is hard, with what Desmond lived through. So he resorts to writing oblique stories, taking part in discussions with veiled knowledge of the Isu era and future. Somehow, this result in him becoming a well nown scholar. He and Altaїr meet when Al Mualim orders Desmond's assassination

This would work so well because Desmond would have vague ideas of the books Altaïr had read and he would be so bored doing nothing that reading all those books would seem like a good idea. Some of them only made Desmond even more bored than he already is and this snowballed to him talking shit about the book he read. This, in turn, made other scholars argue with him about how that book or another book is great or whatever and Desmond would now use the knowledge he got from the other books he got to roast this book.

From there, Desmond became known as someone who reads anything you give him but will fucking roast the book if he doesn’t like it and freaking burn you alive if you even try to defend your bad taste.

This makes him a very fun person to talk to, a very entertaining person to watch, and a very hard opponent to debate with.

Desmond is just passing his time, not understanding how fucking important the scholars are.

Like, he knows the Levantine Brotherhood uses them to blend in and there was one incident involving scholars but Desmond’s memories of that are very foggy. He also doesn’t consider himself a scholar, just someone who reads and questions the shit he reads.

Unfortunately, to the eyes of the scholars, they believe Desmond is being contradictory because that’s how he believed he and his peerage (aka them) could grow collectively. Like their very own Socrates.

The scholars love Desmond for it.

Desmond just likes talking to people and he honestly believes they’re just… talking. Nothing deeper than that.

In his free time, he writes. He writes of what he had seen but he tells people it is fiction, simply things he thought of. He had to get creative though because, well, he can’t write Assassins and not get everyone to realize that he’s talking about the Assassins in Masyaf.

So he adds more Isu bullshit to it in the vein closer to fantasy than sci-fi. Maybe he even adds some steamy romance to it that makes most people blush because it's considered filthy by their standard while Desmond is just like "??? That's tame. You want filth? I'll write you actually kinky shit." and this entire thing gets him writing erotica that is controversial but really... like... they kinda dig it because it's something new and daring.

It becomes a kind of past time of his between ‘talking’ to the other scholars.

Sometimes, the scholars would ask for his help in books they are writing and Desmond helps out in exchange for food and lounging.

Before long, he’s living in Damascus with the other scholars, just minding his own business, not realizing that all the help he’s been doing has gotten the attention of a certain someone.

A powerful man by the name Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn.

And that’s when Altaïr receives his mission to assassinate him.

For this idea, let’s say Altaïr is sent to assassinate Desmond before he became a Master Assassin.

Why?

Because Desmond inadvertently stands in the way of a certain Templar from getting to a key position in Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn’s inner circle.

A Templar by the name of Jubair al Hakim who is supposed to lead the scholars and keep their knowledge ‘contained’.

But because of Desmond, that’s becoming harder and harder as more and more scholars are being converted to Desmond’s ‘philosophy’ (“What philosophy? I have no idea what the hell you’re talking about.”) of listening and understanding but questioning everything.

Hard to contain knowledge when the knowledge itself is being scrutinized by many scholars which gives way for more derivations of that knowledge to appear questioning it, supporting it, or flat-out rejecting it.

The Templars wish for order and Desmond’s idea that everything must be questioned is a definite fucking no to their cause.

On the other hand, Jubair himself cannot act, not when it’s clear that he is in total opposition of Desmond. He has to leave Damascus a month before Desmond is assassinated just to make sure he has a clear alibi (even if the rumors would persist anyway).

So Altaïr infiltrates the academy that Desmond is staying in, blending in as one of the many scholars and… he just… can’t. Catch. Desmond.

What. The. Fuck.

Desmond, on the other, immediately sees Altaïr as he’s coming close to the academy because Altaïr glows the brightest gold Desmond has ever seen. He knows it’s because of his connection with Altaïr so he leaves the academy just as Altaïr is approaching and tries to hide because he believes Altaïr is here for someone else.

Altaïr, on the other hand, sees him as the brightest gold in his Eagle Vision as well which was curious thing because he could see the wisps of blue around the gold but his curiosity soon turns to annoyance because. He. Can’t. Catch. Up.

Desmond always seems to be on the move and always seem to move in a way that keeps Altaïr from catching up to him while he’s trying to maintain his cover.

By the end of it, Altaïr just goes “fuck it” and just chases Desmond full speed, without a care if it breaks his cover. When he sees Desmond run, he realized…

Desmond had been running away from him from the very beginning.

Desmond, on the other hand, finally realizes that Altaïr was after him from the very beginning and he has no fucking idea why but he’s not going to stay still to find out, damn it!

This ends with them running all over Damascus’ rooftops and Altaïr recognized Desmond’s moves as more efficient in freerunning. Not only that, some of his moves are moves Altaïr used himself. Moves that belonged to the Brotherhood.

When Altaïr finally caught up to him because Desmond had just been spending a lot of his time just chilling and being a bit lazy, Altaïr doesn’t kill him immediately. Instead, he asks why Al Mualim would want him dead.

Because, as far as Altaïr can see, Desmond is an Assassin.

He checked his left hand and sees the five fingers and conclude that perhaps Desmond was a deserter from perhaps Alamut but Desmond says no and come on, it would be dumb for a deserter to freaking stay in Damascus where the Assassins had a huge presence in, right???

And that only made Altaïr more curious.

He lets Desmond go and Desmond is confused by this.

The following day, Altaïr sits next to Desmond who had been contemplating if he should just pack up and leave after breakfast. Desmond is confused and Altaïr just says…

“I’m here to observe you.”

“Why?”

“Al Mualim wants you dead. I want to know why.”

“Why would you want to know why the old man wants me dead? Actually, why don’t you just kill me and finish your mission anyway?”

“Do you want to die?”

“No. But I know your mission is to kill me. By not killing me, you’re going against Al Mualim’s orders.”

“I’m not. I’m doing what you have been preaching all these times.”

“What’s that? Also, I don’t preach.”

“Questioning the information the novices has gathered and listening to your side.”

“… That’s tantamount to treason, Altaïr.”

“Perhaps but… there’s something about you, Desmond, that makes me think…

… You are worth betraying everything that I know to be true.”

[ellecdc]

hello my sweet girl!!! how i've missed you! it seems we've both been frequent passengers on the struggle bus for the past couple weeks (hence my absence, this bus has shit wifi) :( i'm sorry that shit's been tough lately, and i hope you are being extra kind and loving to yourself, taking special care to listen to what you need <3. (this goes for everyone, all of you sexy beautiful people in this wonderful community).

anyways time for some random thoughts about our lovely wizards!! that's a need for sure lol.

it's so weird to me that prongsfoot/starbucks/whatever you wanna call james x sirius is such a rare ship? like i love strong male friendships (and also wolfstar b/c duh) but prongsfoot is right there in canon. like the inherent need to always be together. the i will literally die and kill for you mindset. yeah come live at my house please please please. james hates this dude? i do too. i get that they are both a lil hyper but as someone who is also pretty adhd (and also a little shit like they are) i feel like that kind of relationship works really well together, the other person is always able to keep up with your nonlinear train of thought. and sirius x james x lily would be an unstoppable throuple so... heehee (plus reader? ugh).

i also love this recent discussion at how smart all these freaks are. they are all lil geniuses and i would love to be in a room with all these insane brains and talk about nerd shit like physics and the universe and how the mauraders map works etc. dream friendgroup/polycule for real. you think there's a universe where the slytherins and gryffindoors have lil smoke seshes and socratic seminars because i can totally see that shit lol.

lastly, evan supremecy!! i love the slow but steady entrance he has been making (as opposed to the absolute bang of an entrance barty made, kinda fitting for their personalities lol).

anyways i loveee you baby girl! have a lovely rest of your day <33

-ʕ⁠·⁠ᴥ⁠·⁠ʔ

Hahaha hi baby!! Sorry to hear you’re not doing so hot rn.

Also re: prongsfoot, this is an interesting perspective I hadn’t thought of before! I have to admit I’m not sure why I struggle with them as a pair when I sit here and write poly!marauders fics lol! But I hadn’t considered this before that 1) Sirius is probably the only person who can keep up with James and 2) James is the only one Sirius was willing to accept love and help from! Maybe I need to do more playing around with prongsfoot……

Also, sunlilypad???? Love it; I’ve seen thoughts of them raising Harry together and it just melts me every time

The nerdiest bastards around, James is so intuitive and a strategist, Sirius is stupid smart for no good reason other than his brain just holds onto the most random information, Remus searches for knowledge like it’s a lost art like, Barty and his 12 fucking O.W.L’s, Evan looking at everything like it’s a puzzle and his analytic mind, Lily just being the smart beautiful goddess she is, ubdbajdnwisfbwks

Also you’re so right: barty just body slamming into my works and making himself present vs my careful constructive analysis of Evan as a person 😭🤣😭🤣😭🤣😭🤣😭🤣 idk why I’m so afraid of him! I think cuz there’s even less out there about him than there is Barty so I have less to go off, but I’m afraid to write for him cuz I don’t want to get him wrong!

Glad to have you back babes, hope things settle down for you 🫶

[grandhotelabyss]

Thoughts on Sontag's The Aesthetics of Silence?

A great essay: the kind of performance—impeccably well-read, meticulously thought through—that gets lost in the discussions of Sontag as icon or celebrity. Also a master class in how to describe, critique, evaluate, and contextualize without ever seeming to debunk, to exert a blatant will-to-power over the works under scrutiny—

To describe silence as a rhetorical term is, of course, far from condemning this rhetoric as fraudulent or in bad faith. The truth of myths is never a literal truth. The myths of contemporary art can be evaluated only in terms of the diversity and fruitfulness of their application.

—a decorum or tact totally lost among today's smug sociological and historicist academic critics. I am broadly unsympathetic to the art she discusses—Duchamp, Cage, Stein, etc.—but she brings alive its impetus and urgency, makes me see it anew for the spiritual ambition it represents. Speaking of decorum and tact, this is my favorite observation in this essay every line of which is quotable; it bears on the discussion of humor on here earlier:

But viewed as a spiritual project, a vehicle of aspirations toward an absolute, what any work of art supplies is a specific model for meta social or meta-ethical tact, a standard of decorum. Each art-work indicates the unity of certain preferences about what can and cannot be said (or represented). At the same time that it may make a tacit proposal for upsetting previously consecrated rulings on what can be said (or represented), it issues its own set of limits.

And the end of the essay, early as it comes in her oeuvre, belonging to the late 1960s, where she rounds upon irony as a strategy of silence, and implicitly upon the project of silence as the dissolution of consciousness—

From Socrates forward, there are countless witnesses to the value of irony for the private individual: as a complex, serious method of seeking and holding one's truth, and as a method of saving one's sanity. But as irony becomes the good taste of what is, after all, an essentially collective activity—the making of art—it may prove less serviceable. One need not speak as categorically as Nietzsche, who thought the spread of irony throughout a culture always signified the floodtide of decadence and the approaching end of that culture's vitality and powers. In the post-political, electronically connected cosmopolis in which all serious modern artists have taken out premature citizenship, certain organic connections between culture and "thinking" (and art is certainly now, mainly, a form of thinking) may have been broken, so that Nietzsche's diagnosis no longer applies. Still, there remains a question as to how far the resources of irony can be stretched. It seems unlikely that the possibilities of continually undermining one's assumptions can go on unfolding indefinitely into the future, without being eventually checked by despair or by a laugh that leaves one without any breath at all.

—contains the seed of her later move toward humanistic rather than revolutionary politics and the "Romantic realist" novel instead of the nouveau roman.

[sunstranded]

INTJ: Accused of Arrogance

I enjoy intellectual conversations and socratic-esque discussions so much more than small talk and aimless conversations. Despite my preference, I am capable of small talk— I just slowly die inside. Yet I am cursed with being called arrogant. No matter what intricate string of words I craft, no matter how docile my question sounds, the moment I critically challenge someone is the same moment a logical conversation becomes personal? Good heavens isn't this a special kind of hell.

I am, once again, gracing my grievances with a post full of complaints.

People find me arrogant. I can be proven wrong; I can make mistakes; and I can recognize this margin of error. If anything, I seek to make it as small as possible. This is why I always seek that challenge that sharpens my thinking and points out things I failed to see or establish.

People always argue that I need to know when I should criticize and when I shouldn't. I also learned from my rookie mistakes that being the first shot doesn't guarantee the blow. If anything, it is an announcement— a blowhorn of your own progress. Among other things, this is why I keep to myself.

Hence, when people start asking for me to speak only to be on the receiving end of an accusation less based on reality and appropriate context, I am absolutely and utterly pissed about it. As much as I am pissed with yes-men and sorry-men.

Do not apologize for learning when someone critiques you with something you can work on. Do not just agree and say yes to every information. Moreover, do not use your feelings and personal matter as a shield for everything— even deflecting the good things.

But let me define arrogance as I have defined humility. Arrogance is dominating over someone else with non-substantial or fabricated claims or putting one's self-importance and impact above others by means of overestimation.

I am the person who tends to be precise to a fault. Even my goals, my present moment skills, and the orchestration of my forward life plan are precise in respect of what I want to be and what I am now. So when I am called arrogant and I, like any accused, would ask for evidence only to find irrelevant emotions.

I acknowledge the chances of people losing their cool and/or having an off-day. I understand this, and I also have such chances. If anything, those are what I usually apologize for. Forcing myself when I am not in a good state of mind; letting my restraint loose; all of which, I would understand.

However, in the interest of my complaints, I highlight the people those individuals that have the gall— the audacity— to call me arrogant for giving constructive criticism, for answeing their question, and for defending someone who is unjustly accused.

That is the aggravating part. If you are butthurt for being proven wrong, if you had no clapback after a retaliation to your challenge, do not start appealing to pity. It's not going to work on me, and I have been used to social exile because of my coldness and cruelty. I keep my principles, I will not fall for an informal fallacy, nor will I fall for weaponization of emotions.

I can apologize for maybe losing my cool and having raised my voice, but I will not apologize because I made someone cry. Truth hurts, I cry about it too, but I am not so shameless to solicit pity, so my mistake would be excused. Like everyone, I seek to be understood; but unlike everyone, I only seek to be understood by those who want to do so.

[general-illyrin]

Tag game: Tour my bookshelf!

@totally-not-one-of-the-fae, thank you for tagging me!

An estimate of how many physical books I own: I just counted, and I have 772 plus two boxes about 2' x 3' x 18" stuffed full that I didn't bother to drag out and count XD (And I'm pretty sure I have other books scattered throughout other boxes that I missed counting.) So I have over 800 books!

Favorite author: I definitely don't have one favorite author, but some of my favorites are J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Murray N. Rothbard, Socrates, Richard J. Maybury, and Chuck Black

A popular book I've never read and never intend to read: Mine is likely also the Harry Potter series, though I may re-read it at some point (if I have nothing else to read or do, which will likely be...never XD)

A popular book I thought was just meh: I don't really pay attention to the popularity of books, so I'm not sure what books I've read are popular, and I also don't remember the names of books that I think are neither good nor bad, so I can't really answer this question.

Longest book I own: Based purely on page number, which varies depending upon the size of the books and page thickness, the longest book I own is The MacArthur Study Bible at 2,247 pages. After comes another Bible and then The Complete Works of Shakespeare.

Longest series I own all the books to: Probably The Chronicles of Narnia

Prettiest book I own: The Barnes and Noble edition of The Prince by Niccoló Machiavelli; it is black, gold, and silver with gilded edges and I find it both beautiful and stately. Actually, here's photos of it:

A book or series I wish more people knew about: Oh, there are so many good ones! If we're sticking to fiction, I would probably say Ranger's Apprentice, The Knights of Arrethtrae, or The Silmarillion (though I'm not sure how well-known those are). They are really good books and series that I enjoy and are on my re-read list, which is carefully curated to only my absolute favorites. If we're discussing non-fiction, I would say Whatever Happened to Justice? by Richard J. Maybury (this is an interesting look at justice and the legal system in non-technical terms), The Amazing Dr. Ransom's Bestiary of Adorable Fallacies by Douglas Wilson & N. D. Wilson (a hilarious and informative book on the different kinds of informal logical fallacies), and Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt (an informative introduction to economics in non-technical terms).

Book I'm reading now: Most recently, The Silmarillion, though I am currently reading several books.

Book that's been on my TBR list for a while but I still haven't got around to it:

Again, there are so many on this list! However, the one I'm planning to read next is The Lord of the Rings.

Do you have any books in a language other than English: Yes, even though I can't read them...yet! From what I can remember, I own two books in German, two in Spanish, and one in Korean.

And lastly, paperback, hardcover or ebook? I generally prefer hardback because they are sturdier and from what I've seen are usually prettier; however they are also more expensive and heavier, so I only buy hardback books when the book is a favorite of mine and I'm planning on re-reading it.

No-pressure tagging @solarcola, @hirazuki, @dreamingthroughthenoise, @nutmegs-tired, @actual-bill-potts, @eilinelsghost, @erdariel, @backgroundelf, @mersilisk, @none-ofthisnonsense, @thelordofgifs, @invisiblewashboard, @sweetmaggie, @violecov, @quixoticanarchy, @milesasinmorales, @dicksoutformtl, @aureentuluva70, @curiouselleth, @warthoong, and anyone else who wants to join!

[airlock]

the hour is nigh for some self-reflection mixed in with just whipping myself unfairly, woohoo

sometimes, these days, I feel like a gadfly with a broken stinger.

like, there's that thing Socrates said once; I'm not going to fuss with getting the exact quote out, but it's something like, Athens is a lame horse and I'm the gadfly that stings it so it'll keep moving. that's the sort of person I used to fancy myself as. someone who breaks ruts, who sees past groupthink and snaps people out of it. someone original, marching to the beat of her own drum no matter what anyone says.

in some ways I've changed, and in some ways I've gotten more in touch with the kind of person I actually am. I don't like hurting my peers; there's a difference between that, and snipping at people who think they can lord over me. I never loved debate and heated discussion much; I care a lot about talking about subjects that are unpleasant and difficult, but although persuasive rhetoric is a fundamental part of that sort of thing, it's also something that's very often used against me and against which I can scarcely fight back properly, so it's become a spectre around which I can never feel safe. and I do care what other people think of me, more than I'd love to; even if that doesn't really compel me to make more compromises, instead of just hurting about it.

I haven't really swung all up the other way either. I don't love harmony; I worry about echo chambers; I'd much rather work on understanding, than just take someone else's word for things.

it feels like I've just driven myself to the most stifling middle. like I'm just running out of ways to put myself out there that would be worthwhile at all.

it's almost like I peaked when I was willing to be even more of an insufferable asshole -- but that's crediting the thought that it was really any better to be the way I used to, just because I'm still not happy being the way I am now. after all, one other thing that's changed since the years past is that it's never been easier to be a fucking edgelord, and that further peels away the illusion that that was ever a thing worthwhile to be.

I've just probably never made anything that's worth looking at, or said anything that's worth listening to, ever.

[liaromancewriter]

We already discussed Tobias’s “dating tendencies” (I believe he was compared to Mark Sloan lol). But  what about Ethan’s? Do you think he would, maybe not flirt, but notice women from EB on daily basics? It’s canon that all the nurses love him, but do you think he would notice them? Pursue them? Do you think he would use these crushes for his benefit or shut them down immediately?

And also, the whole “why would I spend time with the people I avoid when I’m payed to be around to” or whatever he said before the baseball game. Do you think he never spend any non-working time with anyone from EB? Besides Naveen and Harper of course. 

I thought I had replied to this ask, but it's still in my ask box. So, maybe I answered it in my head (I do that a lot! lol)

When I wrote The Intern, I wanted show a young Ethan Ramsey in exactly this scenario. I think at that stage of his life (and even a few years earlier), he was more open to flirting and sleeping around. But over time he grew out of it and started becoming more selective about his love life.

Do you think he would, maybe not flirt, but notice women from EB on daily basics?

During his residency, he had no issues flirting and certainly noticed women from EB (never patients though). Aside from Harper, he likely did sleep with fellow residents. But he wasn't looking for anything serious so it was a case of two people blowing off steam.

I imagine he had quite a reputation as a flirt during his intern year. But by the time he finished residency and started his fellowship, he'd already started to get serious. He had written his book by then, was working extensively with Naveen, was part of research teams and laser focused on his future in medicine. Everything else became a distraction.

It’s canon that all the nurses love him, but do you think he would notice them? Pursue them?

Ethan definitely noticed because the man is highly observant (unlike Cassie who doesn't notice someone flirting with her until much later). I don't see him pursuing the nurses. Maybe when he was younger and only if it was someone he didn't work with on a daily basis.

He would be very conscious of the gossip mill. He likely saw first hand through other residents how messy it could get if one party got serious and the other didn't. If he did hook up with a nurse during residency, he would set clear expectations from the start.

Plus, he knows how it feels to be talked about. I always hc that people in his neighborhood and church certainly gossiped when Louise left. So, he would never put himself in that kind of position.

Do you think he would use these crushes for his benefit or shut them down immediately?

He would ignore them and be deliberately disinterested to rebuff any advances on the other person's part. If the person was too obvious and didn't take a hint, he would shut them down completely. Despite how he is with interns, he would do it privately. It's a personal matter and he doesn't need to cut them down in front of everyone.

The teaching style in hospitals is often Socratic: probing inquiries, putting residents on the spot, pushing them out of their comfort zone. Based on that brief diamond scene in book 1, ch 3 when we see Naveen leading a diagnosis, that's how he taught Ethan. So, how Ethan is in a professional setting isn't necessarily how he behaves outside of the hospital (at least in my opinion).

Tags under the cut

Character Asks: @annfg8 @bluebelle08 @cariantha @crazy-loca-blog @coffeeheartaddict2 @doriopenheart @lucy-268 @jerzwriter @lady-calypso @mrs-ramsey @openheartforeverinmyheart @peonierose @queencarb @quixoticdreamer16 @rookiemartin @tessa-liam @trappedinfanfiction

[falseandrealultravival]

Socrates and midwifery(Essay)

Midwifery: The question and answer method of Socrates. A word that compares the work of a midwife to helping the other party to produce logos through dialogue and examining the logos that has been produced, even though he himself cannot actively produce logos.

Socrates (469 B.C.?-399 B.C.) was a Greek philosopher. He is famous for his ``midwifery'' and ``knowledge of ignorance,'' which are discussed here. Saying “Bad law is also a law," he drank the deadly " poison carrot" and went to death with obedience.

In this case, "logos" means "logic = abstract thinking," and Socrates must have given a kind of shock to those who carried out this act. It must be that the foundation on which they (mainly philosophers) were based was also overthrown by Socrates, whose banners were "midwifery" and "knowledge of ignorance."

As mentioned in the quote, "Midwifery" is such that Socrates (the practitioner) cannot find any logos, but for those who receive it, the past self will break down and see the second birth. Will it have a big impact? I think this will work like a "catalyst" in the chemical terminology of later generations. A substance called a catalyst actually chemically reacts with some substances involved in a chemical change, but returns to its original state after a series of reactions.

And about "knowledge of ignorance", this word is probably the technique of "midwifery" itself. For those who think, "There is nothing I don't know, I am omnipotent," Socrates   peels off the state of knowledge one by one, like peeling an onion. In fact, Socrates led many young people to their second birth by making them understand that it was an unfounded prejudice... However, it is as expected that he remained calm even when Socrates refuted and was sued by people who hated him, and when it was decided that he would be sentenced to death.

[lit-crits]

(2022) The Bell Jar, Sylvia Plath (Illustrated Edition by Beya Rebai). 28/08/2024 - 01/09/2024

First time reading? Yes

Rating: 9/10

Favourite quote: "I saw my life branching out before me like the green fig tree in the story. From the tip of every branch, like a fat purple fig, a wonderful future beckoned and winked. One fig was a husband and a happy home and children, and another fig was a famous poet and another fig was a brilliant professor, and another fig was Ee Gee, the amazing editor, and another fig was Europe and Africa and South America, and another fig was Constantin and Socrates and Attila and a pack of other lovers with queer names and offbeat professions, and another fig was an Olympic lady crew champion, and beyond and above these figs were many more figs I couldn't quite make out. I saw myself sitting in the crotch of this fig tree, starving to death, just because I couldn't make up my mind which of the figs I would choose. I wanted each and every one of them, but choosing one meant losing all the rest, and, as I sat there, unable to decide, the figs began to wrinkle and go black, and, one by one, they plopped to the ground at my feet."

Gift from my boyfriend! Been on my reading list for AGES and this edition is sooooooo pretty. I loved this book and will definitely be reading it again. The fig tree analogy is my favourite thing about this book, so many things can be taken from it and the whole thing is beautifully written. Esther is such a good character (loads of discussions I've read online say she is a badly written character but I don't see it), she is immediately morbid right off the bat which sets her up as different to the rest of the women she lives and works with. She sees how hypocritical societal standards for women are, how she has to remain a virgin till marriage but Buddy (her boyfriend/fiancé to be?) can have sex with other women with little consequence. Sex is a key theme in the book which I didn't really expect, I think it was really interesting that when Esther gets on birth control (due to her supportive female psychiatrist, Dr Nolan - a lot to say about her) and does finally have sex (not with Buddy) she literally haemorrhages and has to go to hospital - this bit is never really fully explained by Plath. She bleeds a LOT directly after sex and then the doctor in the hospital says she is one of a kind and winks at her when he is examining her - I did not get what this meant and I can't find any answers online either? Either way it is INTERESTING that when she finally gets to have sex it is bloody and destructive. Back to Dr Nolan, she was obviously written to be the shining example of what Esther wants to be: an independent, professional woman. Nolan actively helps Esther become more independent by helping her get on birth control which gives her the sexual freedom she has always envied men for. Nolan is arguably the key reason Esther even gets better at the asylum, she is a progressive woman who supports Esther's way of thinking and she convinces Esther to try shock therapy again (after it was done incorrectly by a male doctor previously). Nolan is there right at the end of the book too, when Esther is about to go in for her review with the board of doctors, to help guide her back into society. The bit with Joan being heavily implied to be a lesbian went right over my head, had to go back and re-read that bit once I saw that analysis online. I had just read it as Joan was a mirror of Esther, and what she would have become if she hadn't gotten better which I still do think, but Joan was quite obviously crushing on Esther. I really really really did not expect Esther to make an assumed full recovery from her mental illnesses, I had presumed she was going to kill herself and that would be the end of the book. My one complaint is that Esther's descent into becoming mentally unwell seemed really quick to me, which I guess is how it can actually be in real life, like one chapter she was feeling a bit disconnected and emotionless then the next she was self-harming and planning her suicide. Overall, great book that I really recommend!

[gmqazi19739]

Socrates Biography - Top 20 Best Quotes

Socrates was a classical Greek philosopher who is credited as one of the founders of Western philosophy. His work and teachings have had a profound influence on the development of philosophy and ethical thought. Life and Background Socrates was born in Athens, Greece, around 469 BCE. He did not leave behind any written works; instead, what we know about him comes from the writings of his students, most notably Plato and Xenophon, as well as the playwright Aristophanes. Socrates spent much of his life engaging with the citizens of Athens in public places, where he would engage them in philosophical discussions. Philosophical Method Socrates is best known for the Socratic method, a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue that stimulates critical thinking and illuminates ideas. This method involves asking a series of questions to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, and it aims to expose contradictions in the participants' thoughts, leading them to a clearer understanding. Key Philosophical Concepts - Ethics and Virtue: Socrates believed that virtue was the highest good and that knowledge and virtue were closely linked. He famously asserted that "the unexamined life is not worth living," emphasizing the importance of self-reflection and moral integrity. - Knowledge and Ignorance: Socrates often claimed that he knew nothing, which underscored his belief that acknowledging one's own ignorance is the first step toward acquiring true knowledge. This stance is encapsulated in the phrase "I know that I know nothing." - The Role of the Philosopher: Socrates saw the philosopher's role as a social gadfly, challenging the status quo and encouraging others to think critically and independently. His questioning often made him unpopular among those in power. Trial and Death Socrates' methods and ideas eventually led to his trial and execution. In 399 BCE, he was charged with impiety (not believing in the gods of the state) and corrupting the youth of Athens. He was sentenced to death by drinking a poison called hemlock. Plato's dialogues "Apology," "Crito," and "Phaedo" provide detailed accounts of Socrates' trial, imprisonment, and final moments. Legacy Socrates' influence on philosophy cannot be overstated. His commitment to questioning and seeking the truth laid the groundwork for Western philosophical thought. His teachings inspired his student Plato, who would go on to teach Aristotle, forming a foundational trio in Western philosophy. Socrates' ideas about ethics, knowledge, and the importance of critical inquiry continue to be studied and revered in philosophical traditions around the world. Quotes "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." Socrates (469-399 BCE)             Read the full article

[wisponed]

did you really think this is the right thing to do ?

SEND ME MEMES !

"are we having a discussion about morality or are you just trying to get in my way?" scratch doesn't look to shadow as she cleans her wispon with an oil rag, going over the same spot across the wisp port for the third time. it's not that shadow intimidates her, more that she thinks his look might force her to reconsider, reflect, recontextualize, think.

scratch is so tired of thinking.

she can't remember the last time her body hasn't felt like a taut wire, tension making her feel like something brittle. hit it once it won't break. twice? maybe it'll survive, fault lines holding together like a kind of belated prayer. three times...?

if she's going to break in front of someone, it certainly won't be shadow.

the ivory lightning wisp swoops over to her, hovering at her elbow, its glare expectant. she's gotten used to calling it blitz, a name it seems to accept if not outright enjoy. blitz isn't hers, not a pet to be toted around or a simple weapon to use, but it is the closest thing she has to a friend she has. scratch may not have a fancy miles electric to translate the language, but she and blitz have been working together long enough to understand one another. the robotnik base is clear. time to head inside.

scratch tucks the rag into the back pocket of her pants, double checking the grappling line on her wispon. when she finally does look up to shadow, yellow eyes meeting red, her gaze is hard. blitz bobs up to float near her shoulder, staring shadow down in tandem. even if blitz doesn't condone scratch's hunger for revenge, she knows she can count on it to back her up in any argument.

"you gonna force me into a socratic, or can i get my night started?"

[gatekeeper-watchman]

The Pan Is On The Stove

The pan is on the stove and has been there a very long time, millennia after millennia, and the cooks are many, stirring up many stews with many ingredients–some good and some bad. There are the constructive ingredients of hard work, motivation, drive, ambition, and the selfless desires of honesty, integrity, and trust to do good and serve one’s, fellow man. Sadly, there are other ingredients, those that destroy our people, and those that destroy our environment–greed, avarice, and evil.

Aristotle (384 – 322 B. C), that great master of political science, is quoted as having said, “From the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for the rule (Politics, 1.5.2, 1254a). He also wrote, “The art of war is a natural art of acquisition for it includes hunting, an art which we ought to practice against wild beasts and against men who, though intended by nature to be governed, will not submit; for the war of such a kind is naturally just”

Now I don’t pretend to the possession of wisdom equal to that of Aristotle; but, somehow, his thought just doesn’t go down right with me. I believe men should be governed. I believe in freedom; but, in a free society, one in which one person’s freedom overlaps that of another (especially one with a congested population), the government is sorely needed. On the other hand, however, I don’t believe in a war in which one government forces its governance upon another or steals the other’s resources. It would seem to me that the real question is: who will determine the government–who is to govern? War is not the answer.

For as long as man has been in the picture, there has always been someone with a theory as to how things should be done; but, there has been none better than that laid down by God and his Son, Jesus. Believe what you will, but I have neither seen nor heard any better, whether it be from Plato, Socrates, or whomever (Relax. This is not going to be a sermon; I’m not qualified).

Back to the pan on the stove and the cooks cooking the stew, people have been arguing about government for centuries. Our founding fathers studied this thoroughly, hardly missing an angle or eventuality. Any student of political science knows the pitfalls of pure democracy in which the majority, the working class, govern; wherein the will of the majority oppresses the minority. This was a key concern of our founding fathers. That the common classes lacked the qualifications to deal with the vast complexities of public financing, foreign affairs, and management was, also, a major concern. This is why our Constitution includes many checks, balances, and protections for minorities. This is why we have a democratic republic and not a pure democracy.

Herein lies the problem. Please note that I have my tongue in my cheek when I say this; but, normally, when one looks into the future, they still see it through the colored lens of their present knowledge and experience. They can’t help themselves. Our forefathers, I believe, didn’t see the complexities of our current world. They didn’t see the immense and rising increase in technology, communications, the internet, warfare, atomic energy, almost instant travel, and the increasing size of our populations and their requisite needs. What they did know is that they had their bellies full of kings, queens, dictators, tyrants, and those of that nature and they of all certainty did not want it here in this country which was give us by God. I might add that we, today, feel that way, too–but I digress.

I have been trying to tell you over these past years, our world is on fire. We are in dire straits, economically as well as politically. We have been talking about government, i.e. politics–essentially the same thing. We must, also, talk about economics. Both subjects are so intertwined, we can’t discuss one without the other. Really! It’s true. Not only is the economy of the United States in severe difficulty; but, so also, are the economies of the rest of the world. The differences in our societies, our governments, and our economies notwithstanding, we are all intertwined. Humanity does not live in a vacuum or void. We must all work together. For now, I’m not going to talk further about foreign governments and politics. Such is beyond the knowledge available to me, but I do need you to understand that their problems affect us as well.

As crazy as this may sound, I submit to you that we must find a way to take politics out of the picture. It is long past time for us to take care of business. I believe our politics are corrupt, dishonest, and completely broken. Our leaders have sold out the leadership of our country, and we must change our Constitution to bring it up to date–to current times. I surely don’t have all the answers to our dilemma and don’t pretend such, but many have some of the answers. If we can all put our heads together, we can turn this thing around. Anybody who has ever been employed by a large and successful corporation knows that we need managerial skills, not politics, to run our country. I have already given you some of my ideas in past postings to this blog, so I won’t repeat myself just now, but it should be a no-brainer to all that we must take back our country from those who have stolen our livelihoods and our wealth from us and are continuing to do so as this is written. They do spread deeply into the ideologies of all our political parties. We must do it now.

In closing, I will tell you five actions we need to take immediately, if not sooner; and we should do them in a manner that they will last in the United States of America for as long as God allows the world to continue to exist. These are inalienable rights and should be incorporated into our Constitution.

1.     We need to provide our people with jobs with livable wages. We must bring decent working jobs in manufacturing to the largest counties of our states and provide accurate modes of transportation that is logistically designated to see that all has access to employment regardless of automobiles and the whims of auto manufacturers and insurance companies that rally to an effort which maintains a supply and demand syndrome to their coffers.

2.     We must establish Social Security for all on a “pay as you go” basis with livable benefits.  This should be administered through the use of a stand-alone fund as is now done and must not be privatized in any way. This should be updated now and financed through an earmarked tax transparent to all.

3.     We must establish a national single-payer, cradle-to-the-grave, “pay as you go” national healthcare system for all, modeled after Medicare, and administered through the use of a stand-alone fund as is now done with Social Security. This too must not be privatized in any way and financed on a “pay as you go” basis (no deficit) Medicaid and Affordable Health Care must be eliminated. AHC is (and it will get worse–mark my words) unaffordable. The middle class can’t understand or afford it. Haven’t you heard? They haven’t had a real wage increase in over thirty years. Many have lost their homes and their livelihoods. Where are they going to get the money?

4.     We must take the money out of politics, financing elections through taxation. No politician should be allowed to receive contributions in any way shape or form–even from friends or family under penalty of imprisonment. Again, we must take back our country.

5.     We must amend our Constitution overriding the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC (Federal Election Commission). I can’t believe anyone, supposedly distinguished, as one who would serve on our Supreme Court, would be that ignorant (or disingenuous). God made people–man didn’t.

These are only five suggestions. I have more. If Grover Norquist can get Congress, contrary to the interests of the people and this nation, to pledge not to raise taxes (without even checking with you first), then you should be able to raise enough fuss with your illustrious representatives (including Senators) to get them to support my proposals. Haven’t we been told this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people? Isn’t it time somebody begins to work for us?

Before closing this, I want to make one last point. Some will yell Socialism or Communism. We must love them anyway. They know not what they say. I know as sure as God made little green apples that I am neither a Socialist nor a Communist. What I do believe, however, is this. I don’t care whether a cat is white or black. I want a cat that catches mice; and, it is time–way past time–that our government quits all their very expensive masturbating with our government and our lives, and starts managing the affairs of our country. They (We the People) need to start catching mice. From: Elder Steven P. Miller 3/31/2023; 8:15 am EST @ParkermillerQ, Founder of Gatekeeper-Watchman International Groups Jacksonville, Florida., Duval County, USA. Instagram: steven_parker_miller_1956, Twitter: @GatekeeperWatchman1, @ParkermillerQ, https://twitter.com/StevenPMiller6 Tumblr: https://www.tumblr.com/blog/gatekeeperwatchman Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ElderStevenMiller

#GWIG, #GWIN, #GWINGO, #Ephraim1, #IAM, #Sparkermiller,#Eldermiller1981

[ohsalome]

That is a good clarification. You are right, I reposted the thread withot listening to the podcast because I put my trust into the twitter OP, and after finally listening to the podcast I saw they misrepresented some things (the journalists did call it a war crime and the “devil’s advocate” framing of the question). But there are still things about this podcast that I found very disturbing, but this is going to be very difficult to explain, so please bear with me.

Although I am no journalist, my psychologist education did cover some basics of working with written information, specifically - framing and setting an emotional narrative. And I will put an emphasis on the latter because emotions is how people perceive the word - we like to think about ourselves as rational, reasonable beings, but we couldn’t be more further from that (read Leonard Mlodinow to get very disillutioned about this). And in terms of journalism, there are several techniques in which we can manipulate the readers’ emotions - the framing of the facts, the selection of the words, the amount of time we spend on the certain topic, etc. And in all of these aspects, the interview was using a very favourable and positive language to describe the act of child abduction - which is the word that is never used even once in the interview; but instead, replaced by a neutral, pacifying “taken”. You know, like taken to the zoo or an arcade. In the same line, the journalists never use the word genocide, which it is, as twitter OP mentioned in their thread.

To illustrate the emotional framing of the text, let’s compare and contrast the segments of text where the journalists talk about Anya’s life in Ukraine with the indoctrination classes she is forced to take in russia by running them through an emotion recognition algorhytm.

See? This is the same impression I got while listening to the podcast, which, frankly, made me disturbed and angry. While nominally they mention the correct facts - that russia uses these children as a propaganda tool, that this is a war crime by definition - it is not the aftertaste that remained with me after listening to the text. I heard 25 minutes of talking about how good russians take ukrainian children from shitty ukrainian orphanages to loving russian families with kind foster siblings and cute puppies. And then, on the last 5 minutes, “oh and also it constitutes as a war crime” - an afterthought. The topic they discussed wasn’t “russian war crimes”. It was “bad russian government good russian people”.

The very words the journalists use are selectively neutral or even positive - “taken”, “guardians”, “patriotism”, “values”. I take it that in preparation to this interview Emma has watched a lot of russian propaganda, because I really   reflects in the langauge she uses. Perhaps this was supporsed to be some type of socratic dialogue, but I felt like Sabrina had to literally pull an admittion out of her that the “patriotic classes” she so positively described are, in fact, brainwashing classes (although, of course, she would never go so far as to use this harsh word).

Also, like, I understand the journalistic merit of coming to the source and interviewing the abducted children themselves. But one has to understand that by putting a spotlight on a single-person story you are inadvertenly making them a representative of the overall group experience. And I expect a journalist to understand that when it comes to mass abduction of children through dubious bureocratic loopholes and the general background of horrific war crimes, you will not be able to access the worst of the worst case on social media. Like, they have to understand, that if our worst fears are true and there are cases of sex trafficing and organ harvesting, those children will not be sitting on the instagram casually waiting to be interviewed by the NY Times journalists? So, why this choice? Where is their responsibility, the professional integrity? 

I genuinely don’t know if the same structure is used in the audiointerviews, but when it comes to the written articles, the default model of the text is a “reversed pyramid”, where the most important information is put in the beginning, and the end is reserved for non-critical stuff. Now, I think that most people listen to the podcasts like I did - casually, on the background, half-focused. Which means their impression will be less formed by the exact facts mentioned, and more by the general “vibe” of the conversation. Not to mention, that if the person didn’t bother listening to the end, they simply wouldn’t know that child abduction is, in fact, a war crime (I don’t know the statistic re: how many listeners tune in to the very end, if anyone has them please share, I’d love to know). And, tbh, when the journalists got the the “devil’s advocate” question re: whether these children will be better off in russia, a listener within me resonated with it - because, honestly, Emma, for the last 25 minutes you’ve been telling us that they really do.

I see many western journalists fall into the same trap while studying russian propaganda (TorontoTV has recently published a great video on Johnny Harris) - they think they’re too smart to fall for it, and by the virtue of being educated in the Enlightened West they are immune to falling for russian propaganda. But the truth is, Kremlin is not interested in turning you into putin’s babushkas. They don’t need to, when just getting you to believe that “things are complicated” (невсётакоднозначно), it’s not that bad, both sides are wrong, he said she said - that is enough to make you spread narrative benefitial for the russian regime. And sorry, but this is what Emma and Sabrina do, probably unintentionally, most likely thinking  they are actually helping. I think because we are used to making fun of the most atrocious examples of russian propaganda, some people may grow to believe that this is the only way it looks, but it’s not. Examples like this are subtle and it’s difficult to explain, which makes it more effective, and more easy to dissmiss as “you’re reading too much into this” and “you’re just being emotional”. People don’t like being told what to do (read up on details of Milgram experiment). They want to think they’ve come to their conclusions independently, even if upon deep examination they’ve been purposefully led to their conclusions.

To sum up: while the twitter OP did get some important things wrong, I think they did caught on to the same problem that I tried to explain here. When people talk about russia abducting ukrainian children, we expect the discussion to be framed with the outrage such topics deserve. But instead, this is the conclusion that i took away from this talk:

[baeddel]

what about this: there is a tendency not just to consume a work of art, or even all the works of a favourite artist, but to consume the artist themselves as a kind of public personality. we call this the 'parasocial' relationship.

you might not like the parasocial relationship (i don't mind it—after all without it you might not read my 2k word rants about Barthes, or Robert Boyle, or whatever other unimportant thing i decide to talk about!), but if it is the case that your interest is not merely the work itself, but such a personality, who might make art, then it is not unlawful to bring up things they've written as part of their overall person. and it seems to me that readers do enjoy things for this reason, just as i enjoy reading my friends writing, even if it's in a genre i can't normally get interested in (like sci-fi), or even if it's bad, at which point i think it's very cute and charming, whereas i might skip it if i stumbled on it on Royal Road.

it's not entirely clear to me if this puts us afoul of 'death of the author'—it seems to me to contain two kinds of criticism, one about a naive grasp of the mode of narration, and one about interpretation, ie. the 'moral' of a work. in the first case, we need to remember that authors don't just speak their minds, instead they speak through a narrative voice other than theirs, such as a character, or an artistic device. this Barthes calls 'castration.' this leads us to the second case—that in any serious discussion of art we need to remember the larger, universal language of narrative that the work is utilizing—genre, trope, device—access to which is paid for in castration. this means that in order to say anything with fiction the author has to handle a little bit of boilerplate that comes with whatever genre or trope they're using, so their work cannot be an entirely faithful report of their personality.

i am not sure if Barthes does want us to stop talking about authors entirely. he does at times seem to suggest that, but anyway, what if he does? 'death of the author' is the title of an article, not a logical fallacy. and it's an eight page article which is not very rigorous or formal, and we don't need to take it that seriously. Barthes didn't have a divine sign like Socrates, so we shouldn't feel forced to listen to him. if i decide a certain artist is worth talking about, it is entirely lawful to use their work as evidence for talking about them, as long as i pay attention to the indirectness of their speech and use it in a limited way. sometimes i do talk about artists that way.