I'm a big fan of 3QD and grateful for all the web-surfing, er, work that it frees me from. But what's with the obsession with lightweight hucksters like Alain de Botton, with his mock penises and his profound insight into why (ordinary) people work? Or Malcolm Gladwell, for that matter? These glib, superficial and ultimately trite books that, one can only imagine, are bought by people who like that sort of thing - the intellectual (and marketing) equivalent of a nice grande latte toffee whatever than a devastating espresso, stretch denim-look rather than those uncomfortable Levis, and so on.
Posted by: max | Mar 30, 2012 9:03:06 PM
Agree entirely about de Botton and Gladwell, but if preferring sweeter brews to espressos or liking jeans comfortable is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Posted by: prasad | Mar 31, 2012 1:20:48 PM
It's true, these two are not William James and Simone Weil. And they've made far too much money. Conceivably, they would both admit to being a little lite, a little free of rigor. They are too intelligent not to know precisely what their brand is.
But surely that's not the same as Starbucks and stretch denim. I want to say they are more like Harry Cipriani and Eileen Fisher Outlet -- an upmarket gag sensation.
please no more from these agonisingly pompous pseuds...
can we add sam harris to the lost while we're at it...
Posted by: Al | Apr 2, 2012 8:33:42 AM
I largely agree with de Botton and I'm glad to see he keeps arguing his case.
Posted by: Timo Sinnemäki | Apr 5, 2012 6:15:42 AM
It's pretty clear that de Boton and other people who are propitiating this point of view have never really attempted to understand the core Buddhist philosophies. To me this is much like each generation thinking they've invented sex. Call Buddhism a religion and scorn it if you like, but whatever you invent to take it's place will eventually similarly be an object of scorn. After a while, you have to doubt 'scorn' itself.
"I couldn't tear myself
away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on
this superb site."—Steven
Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.
"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard
Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.
"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.
Comments
I'm a big fan of 3QD and grateful for all the web-surfing, er, work that it frees me from. But what's with the obsession with lightweight hucksters like Alain de Botton, with his mock penises and his profound insight into why (ordinary) people work? Or Malcolm Gladwell, for that matter? These glib, superficial and ultimately trite books that, one can only imagine, are bought by people who like that sort of thing - the intellectual (and marketing) equivalent of a nice grande latte toffee whatever than a devastating espresso, stretch denim-look rather than those uncomfortable Levis, and so on.
Posted by: max | Mar 30, 2012 9:03:06 PM
Agree entirely about de Botton and Gladwell, but if preferring sweeter brews to espressos or liking jeans comfortable is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Posted by: prasad | Mar 31, 2012 1:20:48 PM
It's true, these two are not William James and Simone Weil. And they've made far too much money. Conceivably, they would both admit to being a little lite, a little free of rigor. They are too intelligent not to know precisely what their brand is.
But surely that's not the same as Starbucks and stretch denim. I want to say they are more like Harry Cipriani and Eileen Fisher Outlet -- an upmarket gag sensation.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Mar 31, 2012 9:04:54 PM
Max +++
please no more from these agonisingly pompous pseuds...
can we add sam harris to the lost while we're at it...
Posted by: Al | Apr 2, 2012 8:33:42 AM
I largely agree with de Botton and I'm glad to see he keeps arguing his case.
Posted by: Timo Sinnemäki | Apr 5, 2012 6:15:42 AM
It's pretty clear that de Boton and other people who are propitiating this point of view have never really attempted to understand the core Buddhist philosophies. To me this is much like each generation thinking they've invented sex. Call Buddhism a religion and scorn it if you like, but whatever you invent to take it's place will eventually similarly be an object of scorn. After a while, you have to doubt 'scorn' itself.
Posted by: Jon | Apr 7, 2012 11:10:00 PM
Post a comment