> Then why did you bother responding in the first place, and why should anyone bother reading beyond that point? If you’re not interested in discussing, don’t. Throwing a bunch of words at someone and then going closing your ears singing “la la la” is worse than not being valuable, it has negative value for the discussion.
I didn't mean to imply I wasn't going to read, it's just that disagreeing so vehemently on a sentence by sentence basis - like we're both clearly prone to do - isn't always fun or productive. Neither of us is going to change our mind with the depth and detail at which we're disagreeing. You're completely fair to see it as me sticking my fingers in my ears, sorry, because that's disrespectful of me.
My intent was to give you the respect of responding in a similar level of detail to address your points, since you gave the time for me, but prevent the need for either of us to have to keep doing it...
> Here‘s the thing: The author isn’t making a general commentary or recommendation, they are recounting their own personal experience. Pretending you know what makes sense for them is arrogant and misguided. That you are unable to understand other people have different needs and ways of approaching life is a you problem.
I never claimed to know what's best for them, I would even go as far as saying I don't care what's best for them, I was speaking from a position of what I think's best for human knowledge. Fundamentally, if you agree burning books - metaphorically - is a bad thing, then you agree deleting second brains instead of just archiving is a bad thing.
Here's the thing: I'm not making a general commentary or recommendation, I'm recounting my own _personal_ view of what's best for human knowledge and what I think of the authors article. Pretending that me having a different view is "absurd", is arrogant and misguided. That you are unable to understand that I have different needs and ways of approaching life is - apparently - a problem...:P
> I never claimed to know what's best for them, I would even go as far as saying I don't care what's best for them, I was speaking from a position of what I think's best for human knowledge. Fundamentally, if you agree burning books - metaphorically - is a bad thing, then you agree deleting second brains instead of just archiving is a bad thing.
This is the clarity needed for the discussion, kudos for providing it.
The position implied in your comments is that "what's best for human knowledge" trumps what an individual feels is good for themselves. Even when all we're talking about here is some personal notes.
If a person has a bunch of personal data that they feel is exerting a negative influence on their lives, I don't think that is trumped by the potential interest of strangers and abstract humanity in that data. I would rather the person find their path to being a flourishing, alive person than yoke them to some junk that they feel holds them back.
> I didn't mean to imply (…) but prevent the need for either of us to have to keep doing it...
Alright, fair! Thank you for clarifying.
> I never claimed to know what's best for them (…) I was speaking from a position of what I think's best for human knowledge
Even rereading your original post, it still feels like some parts are a direct prescription for the author. But I believe you if you say that wasn’t your intention. I guess my argument would then be that I still support the author in their deletion, for several reasons, including but not limited to:
* We don’t actually know what was “lost”. Let’s be real: most of what any of us writes is irrelevant and inconsequential and wouldn’t truly contribute to human knowledge as a whole.
* I don’t think it’s fair for the author to suffer in any way, even if it’s “just” anxiety, for the dubious benefit of human knowledge. Even if they did have valuable insights in their texts, they are still their texts and they should have the final say regarding what happens to them. If they want to burn them and doing so will help them get their life back on track, they should. I would argue that without that purge, they could actually be doing more harm to human knowledge in the long run, by not letting them “get back on their feet” and be free for all the new and more valuable insights they’ll have but wouldn’t otherwise.
> Fundamentally, if you agree burning books - metaphorically - is a bad thing, then you agree deleting second brains instead of just archiving is a bad thing.
I agree burning books is bad on principle, but disagree that what the author did was comparable. They didn’t take away from human knowledge, like book burning does. They deleted personal notes no one else was ever probably going to read anyway. The difference is massive.
> Pretending that me having a different view is "absurd"
To be perfectly clear, the only thing I found absurd what that specific quote in relation to what the author did. I.e. I found it to be hyperbolic beyond the realm of reasonable argument. Everything else I found reasonable as a personal opinion as long as it’s not prescribed as the solution for everyone.
> That you are unable to understand that I have different needs and ways of approaching life is - apparently - a problem
Again, that is perfectly fine and valid. But in your original posts you explicitly asked for everyone to act a certain way and my primary goal as to point out that no, I don’t think that should apply to everyone. Many people, sure, but there is definitely a large section of the population for whom I don’t think it would be the right approach. For their own sake, which in this situation trumps “human knowledge”.
> I agree burning books is bad on principle, but disagree that what the author did was comparable. They didn’t take away from human knowledge, like book burning does. They deleted personal notes no one else was ever probably going to read anyway. The difference is massive.
There's so much we know about the world from personal notes the author never knew or intended to be read. There's no way of knowing if your personal notes will be valuable to inconceivable futures. We all have to endure a little struggle to maintain society's knowledge. I respect and understand that you disagree with me in various nuanced ways. We're not going to agree, not for any reasons other than we just have fundamentally different views on the world, or one of us is disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, possibly without realising.
I'm sorry, to anyone who's read this far. Instead of my "... I'll give you one more, but I probably wont respond...." I should have just said "let's just agree to disagree" and stopped there. I don't think either of us have added much valuable at all since.
Sincerely, apologies for any offence caused or time wasted in frustration.
I didn't mean to imply I wasn't going to read, it's just that disagreeing so vehemently on a sentence by sentence basis - like we're both clearly prone to do - isn't always fun or productive. Neither of us is going to change our mind with the depth and detail at which we're disagreeing. You're completely fair to see it as me sticking my fingers in my ears, sorry, because that's disrespectful of me.
My intent was to give you the respect of responding in a similar level of detail to address your points, since you gave the time for me, but prevent the need for either of us to have to keep doing it...
> Here‘s the thing: The author isn’t making a general commentary or recommendation, they are recounting their own personal experience. Pretending you know what makes sense for them is arrogant and misguided. That you are unable to understand other people have different needs and ways of approaching life is a you problem.
I never claimed to know what's best for them, I would even go as far as saying I don't care what's best for them, I was speaking from a position of what I think's best for human knowledge. Fundamentally, if you agree burning books - metaphorically - is a bad thing, then you agree deleting second brains instead of just archiving is a bad thing.
Here's the thing: I'm not making a general commentary or recommendation, I'm recounting my own _personal_ view of what's best for human knowledge and what I think of the authors article. Pretending that me having a different view is "absurd", is arrogant and misguided. That you are unable to understand that I have different needs and ways of approaching life is - apparently - a problem...:P