I’ll need some sort of container capable of holding water, some variety of pointy stick, and something sharp like knapped flint or a length of hard metal.
Amazon.in Page
This is a concise guide to the subject of imagination, the capacity to conceptualize that which does not exist in reality. Philosophy is the primary dimension through which the subject is investigated, though the insights of poets (particularly Romantics,) authors, and artists are frequently presented — in several cases, in detail. Also, the author does discuss ideas from other disciplines as relevant (e.g. psychology, anthropology, science.) This is notable, for example, in Chapter 2, which looks at early signs of imagination in the human record and the evolution of this capacity.
Philosophical views on imagination have varied to the greatest possible extent, from Plato’s belief that imagination represents untruths and is therefore dangerous to various views suggesting that imagination is a good thing, is fundamental to what it means to be human (e.g. to empathy,) and is inescapable for humans. This Plato against the world dispute is revisited in several places throughout the book. Besides those of Plato, the views of Kant, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, and Sartre are particularly extensively examined.
Creative types will find the final chapter (Ch.6 “Creativity from invention to wonder”) the most engaging part of the book as it deals with what makes for creativity. The chapter discusses topics such as whether constraints help or hinder creativity? Take, for example, poetry: does free verse poetry produce more imaginative material, or — on the contrary — is rhymed and metered verse more innovative and novel. If you think you know the answer, you might be surprised by the arguments that have been put forth.
I enjoyed reading this book and found it thought-provoking and worthy of the time.
"The ignorant speak, while the wise keep silent." I read the words of Laozi. But if Laozi knew the Way, Why did he write those five thousand characters?
Well, they were Timberland hiking boots, a pair that was comfortable and had served me well on a number of hikes in various parts of the world. Then, on the Goechala Pass Trek in Sikkim, I learned that they were only held together by some planned-obsolescent glue.
I had to hike six days with one of the soles strapped to my foot for one of the boots, and five days for the other. Yes, after so many miles of hiking in various environments, they fell apart within one day of each other. I guess the glue has a finite number of puddle steps in it, and I hit that number one day earlier with one boot than the other. That’s when I realized there’s nothing special about a shoe. It’s just a bunch of the lowest cost materials stuck together in the lowest cost assembly method and designed so you’ll have to buy a new pair every few months to years, depending upon the type of shoe, its use, and its price point. If there were a monopoly on shoe production, no pair would last more than a week. It’s only competition that allows for some halfway decent pairs to exist. I’m happy with any shoe that protects my feet, and — once it doesn’t — it’s dead to me.
Are you patriotic? What does being patriotic mean to you?
I certainly was as a young man, but increasingly I have shifted towards a more “citizen of the world” worldview. I’m no doubt influenced by my admiration for the life of Socrates (such as we know it,) who was said to have been a valiant and fearsome hoplite warrior in his youth but came to call himself a Citizen of the World. As one becomes governed less by passions and more by reason, it becomes easier to have a logically consistent ethics by doing so.
Consider the question: “Is it wrong to stab a person in the back without warning, a person who you do not know, a person who doesn’t know a thing about you and has never done you any personal wrong, a person who to your knowledge has always lived a good and virtuous life?”
Of course, the immediate impulse is to say that that act is clearly wrong. Really, the only case we can attempt to successfully counter argue would be a soldier in war or a military action acting on lawful orders against an enemy combatant. But everything becomes messy. Is it enough that the soldier is operating on “lawful orders?” In that case, is the soldier a moral individual, if he lacks agency? To what degree can a infantryman or spec ops soldier know that it is – in fact – a lawful order? Can a lawful order be morally and ethically reprehensible and indefensible? The questions abound, and that’s why I suspect Socrates – lover of questions as he might have been – had a shift in philosophy about the matter over the course of his life.
It may seem I’m arguing that this is growth or betterment, but maybe it’s just the natural progression of a life. Maybe we need more passion in our youth and more agency as we age.
Of course, in those elder / “citizen of the world years,” the Athenians straight up murdered their onetime hero, so maybe I have not picked the best role model.
Tiger Riding for Beginners 