I agree, any connection between the Egyptian "foot" hieroglyph and the lower case "b" seems irrelevant, but it seems that the Phoenician letter bet looks kind of like the Egyptian "foot" too, so perhaps that's where the connection lies.
The Wikipedia article for "b" seems to list both the "foot" and the "house" hieroglyphs in the development on the sidebar... not that Wikipedia is always correct.
I think the professor in that video is quite well known and has written several books on Egyptology, so I doubt he would be completely off base on something so basic. In any event, you're absolutely right that there the house hieroglyphs is related. I was wrong to question that. But it seems that the "foot" hieroglyph maybe has some relation too. If you find anything more about this, I'd be curious to hear what it is.
It even looks like a foot, which is fun. I took my daughter to the Met this weekend looked at some Egyptian artifacts and was watching some videos about hieroglyphs after, so I don’t actually know much about them, but they happened to have mentioned this on one of the lectures.
What do you mean by _enjoy_ here? Do you restrict that word to immediate and accessible pleasures, like eating, or do you think it applies to more drawn-out events, like developing a new skill? The latter is often slow and painful in the moment but pleasurable looking back afterward. If you only include the former, probably few people enjoy reading Ulysses. I think it's much more complicated when you consider the latter.
In Plato's "Republic," he talks about the pleasures associated with the three parts of the psyche: the logistikon (reason), the thymoeides (spirit), and the epithymetikon (appetite). He said that only those people who know the pleasures of reason, in addition to the other two, can judge between the three. He uses this to argue that the pleasures of reason are more enjoyable than the pleasures of fame or the senses, even though most people think otherwise. People who don't know the pleasure of reason may settle for the pleasure of fame, not knowing any better. I think it's possible the pleasure gained from reading Ulysses is like this.
It's a "woke" argument; you can't really argue against it, and that's frustrating. You say, "yeah, but I read Ulysses, and I didn't like it," and they say, "yeah, you must not have read it deeply enough---if you did, you would like it more than you like watching TV or eating ice cream." And they may be right, or they may be wrong. It's like a Buddhist evangelist telling you once you meditate enough, you'll see that they're right about things. You say you did meditate a lot, but they say you need to do it more. You can't argue against it, but you also can't prove them wrong.
I enjoy reading classics. I haven't read Ulysses, but I would say I enjoy reading the Iliad more than almost any other work. When I pick it up and read a few pages, the intensity of emotion is sometimes so strong I get a shiver down my back. This almost never happens when watching television or eating. Those are both great too---balance is good---but I think the pleasure of reading is the strongest for me. It's hard to describe, but I don't think it's just because of some prestigious literary associations---although it is partly because of that for sure. And what's wrong with that? There is something enjoyable about knowing many other people in history have read a book and enjoyed it too. It makes you feel connected to the "great web of humanity." Many people prefer watching football games in crowded arenas to empty couches at home.
It seems like passive consumption, be it of books or tiktok, is unlikely to improve someone very much. You may learn some new facts but I doubt you’ll be able to revise any of your deep assumptions about the world.
That being said, it’s much more natural to actively read than to actively watch TikTok. Thus, in practice, reading is often a better activity than watching TikTok. The first chapter or Robert Adler’s “How to Read a Book” talks about active reading in more detail; he has a few more arguments too.
Side note: unless you are a relativist and think everyone’s view about art is equally correct no matter what, the person who studies art is probably “more correct” than the Instagramer; a lot of art requires cultural context (e.g, familiarity with the Bible and Ovid) to understand. If you are a relativist, then why does nearly everyone agree some art belongs in a museum and a lot of art is garbage that nobody cares about?
I've wondered about the "no TV" stance too. I used to push back against it, but I believe there's something to it. Here's my current reasoning:
First of all, TV and movies have their strengths. Videos can communicate phenomena that are difficult to portray with the written text. They're also very accessible. However, all but the most low-budget shows and movies need to make money. Therefore, they need to appeal to a reasonably large audience. The economic motive limits the depth of the content.
Books can be written by individuals. Great books, and especially classics, are usually written for non-economic reasons. Often the author has a passion or a world view they want to share.
Books, as a medium, are older. Old books are filtered by time. They also let us learn about peoples who have different assumptions than we do. You can do this by reading about other cultures that exist today.
Books, as a medium, let one pause and think. You can write in the margins. It's possible, but more difficult, to do this when watching a show, listening to an audio book, or listening to a podcast. I like that I can listen to podcasts when I run or clean the dishes, but I grasp much less then when I read.
I agree that it's not enough to not watch TV. You need to discriminate regardless of the medium you're consuming, but I believe books are a better way to learn than most other mediums. Therefore, skipping television is probably a good idea if your goal is to develop a deep understanding of the world.
I've been searching for a community to discuss philosophical and literary classics. I live in NYC, and have tried to find an in-person group.
It's been tough to find, especially when you're busy. One observation I've made is that, since everyone has different interests, it's helpful to be willing to engage with other people's interests. Thus, you probably need to be willing to read books you wouldn't have picked up on your own.
I also have a blog with a small email list, but I suspect the deep conversations are more likely to occur in person with someone who you have an established relationship.
I enjoyed reading everybody's comments. I've been in a long conversation with a friend about the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā---a Buddhist text that argues that nothing _inherently exists_, including, presumably, space-time. I don't find all of the arguments in the text convincing, partly because it is based on a number of outdated metaphysical assumptions, but it is very interesting none-the-less.
My discussion with my friend went back and forth, and we eventually decided that most things don't inherently exist, including people, chairs, and atoms. We ended up on the fence as to whether the "wave function of the universe" inherently exists. Anyway, I captured the essence of our conversation in a dialogue that may be of interest to other HNers:
I'm also a New York resident, and my wife is a nurse practitioner who worked during COVID.
"how many restaurants is one life worth?"
It would take quite a few restaurants. However, you are ignoring the fact that letting all of the restaurants close will also kill people. I don't know how large this effect is, but we also don't know how many people will get COVID due to restaurants being open. It's complicated.
As a society we are okay with people driving cars, yet we know automobile accidents kill people.
I would ask you: How many car trips are worth one life?
It has been a few years since I read some of Spengler's "Decline of the West". As I recall, he believed that history had a certain determinism to it; it had universal laws like the laws of physics. I don't think it does, and I have a hard time understanding how he could have thought this was true. See https://goodlifeodyssey.com/universal-historical-laws for an essay about this, but basically what one dictator ate for lunch can have big effects. Thus, no law could account for such complexity. Its like he took the idea that history repeats itself and over-generalized it.
Spengler also seemed to believe it was impossible to "truly" understand how people from earlier times thought. But then he made some very strong claims, like stating that the ancients didn't have a sense of time. Once again, there is some truth here, but he over-generalizes.
> Did the Ancient Greek person really read these as fervently as a modern religious person reads their holy book?
I doubt they viewed Homer like religious people view their sacred texts. However, Ancient Greek writers do quote and discuss Homer extensively. For example, Herodotus and Thucydides reference (and speculate) about Homer. Plato's dialogues refer to Homer a lot. Seneca, several hundred years later, is still quoting Homer with the assumption that his audience will know the poems quite well.
I'm not sure I understand what you are asking if anyone actually likes reading the Iliad. I can't speak for others, but I enjoyed it thoroughly. It vividly paints the horror and the glory and beauty of war.
If I recall, there are only a handful of fragments from Sappho that survived. Is this what you were referring to? (Or perhaps I a mistaken and the collection I had only included a few.)
The introduction to the Robert Fagles' translation of the Iliad has a fascinating, and more up-to-date, essay about the authorship of the Iliad and the Odyssey---the so called "Homeric Question."
More evidence, from archeological digs and from the text itself, has come to light and I think there is less skepticism these days in general.
I studied engineering in undergrad, and have only become interested in "classics" for the past couple of years. Homer is great. I've only read Fagles' translation, but plan on Pope next. I've been amazed at how much reading the classics has affected the way I view the world. I find stories and references popping into my head all the time, and when they do you feel this great connection to centuries (millenia!) of humanity.
I look forward to expanding a bit outside of the Western Canon. Also, one wonders about the many stories that have been lost over the centuries.
> Epic very specifically defined the "market" as iOS devices.
That is true, but I think it is debatable whether that is a reasonable way to define "market".
It would be as if a vendor wanted to sell their goods in a grocery store. The grocery store says no for some reason. The vendor disagrees and sues them, saying they have a monopoly on all grocery store sales on that particular corner.
"Wait, but there is a grocery store across the street?"
Well, in their law suite they defined market to be just that corner---they excluded the other corner where the Android grocery store is selling things.
The Wikipedia article for "b" seems to list both the "foot" and the "house" hieroglyphs in the development on the sidebar... not that Wikipedia is always correct.
I think the professor in that video is quite well known and has written several books on Egyptology, so I doubt he would be completely off base on something so basic. In any event, you're absolutely right that there the house hieroglyphs is related. I was wrong to question that. But it seems that the "foot" hieroglyph maybe has some relation too. If you find anything more about this, I'd be curious to hear what it is.