Fahrenhype?
I don’t understand
It is a play on Fahrenheit 451. Good book if you have not read it.
Ah. Nuanced.
The ruling class in that book make a very similar argument to your post. It also has some really cool elements like re-envisioning history.
And book burning.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you’re higher than the tower of babel at its peak
A person who reads a lot might become something like a meth-head. Crippled and diseased.
If everybody’s doing it then nobody notices, of course. And the non-reader would become the suspicious deviant.
A person who reads a lot might become something like a meth-head. Crippled and diseased.
Would you care to elaborate on that? Seen from the outside it sounds quite… nonsensical but I may very well be too much of a reader myself to still be able to understand too complex notions. Or maybe I’m already dead?
I’m extending the metaphor of reading as drug.
That I understand (I can read ;)), what I don’t understand is how you manage to come to such an odd conclusion. Based on what?
If reading is like a drug. And a drug, consumed in large quantities, produces disease. Then reading, in large quantities, produces disease.
It’s logically straightforward.
If reading is like a drug. And a drug, consumed in large quantities, produces disease. Then reading, in large quantities, produces disease.
It’s logically straightforward.
Not any more than saying ‘if cold is hot than too much hot can freeze you to death’. As long as the premise is not true (not a fact) no valid conclusion can be made out of it.
In your situation, saying “if reading is like a drug” doesn’t magically turns reading into an actual drug (the ‘if’ part is key). It still is an hypothesis that need to be demonstrated/validated.
Ah, so it’s actually a retort that you wish to express. Specifically, “But reading isn’t like a drug!”
Well I disagree.
A person who reads a lot might become something like a meth-head. Crippled and diseased.
Have you heard of any evidence for that, or did you just make it up without thinking about how little sense it makes?
It is an interesting thought experiment for sure. Anything can be an addiction and I am sure people have been addicted to reading.
I like defining an addiction as a repetitive behavior that significantly disrupts your ability to function. I think the second part is most important. If you can lead a normal life and still read a lot of books, do drugs, gamble, etc. it isn’t a problem.
I am not referring to addiction. I am referring to the effects of intense, periodic, prolonged mental concentration over years and years. It will warp your perspective as surely as abusing your average recreational drug.
The way I understand it the brain makes pathways that get reinforced through usage and time. In this respect if we do anything repeatedly it will reinforce those pathways. Reading lots of books would reinforce this type of pathway.
I think the element you are missing is the damage. What damage does reading do if it is not an addiction and only reinforces pathways in the mind. When you do drugs it reinforces other pathways but also does actual damage through a number mechanisms.
Drugs do damage and that’s the difference? Rather broad and speculative.
It depends on the drug honestly. But yes, generally there is irreversible neural and physical damage caused to the body.
Take huffing for instance. It is a very powerful addiction that causes a lot of brain damage. But is it really the chemical being huffed or is it another mechanism like oxygen deprivation.
This is why I say it depends and once again I think most the damage would come from the results of addiction (which is just pathways being reinforced in the mind). A lot of time with drugs like meth most of the damage comes from people not taking care of themselves (not eating, sleeping, etc.).
Yes, I get the concept of damage. The point is the difference here. Because I’m comparing the derangement of the two. The damage is not really relevant to that. It’s the fact that there’s derangement that matters.
Reading cured my gout and foot fungus.
No, it isn’t. No more than concentrating on anything else is. It’s kind of sad that so few people read books anymore that it’s perceived as being like a trance. What about daydreaming or watching a movie or playing a video game? Are those trances or like drugs? I’d say those are at least as if not more escapist than reading a book.
I’m in a deep trance while I’m reading your comment. No, wait, I’m sitting on the toilet doom scrolling…
Ah, but it isn’t just concentration. It is (for many of us) prolonged, intense, daily concentration upon thoughts. Performed over years.
That is powerful and (because we are all embedded in it) invisible.
Son, are you showering in the caves of Delphi?
Dude what is with this guy and his psychotic threads tonight?
“We should expose all of our private information because it becomes useless then and society will become a utopia”
“Don’t read, it’s actually drugs and bad for you”
Dude, take your fucking meds
My brother in Christ, what you said, is some of the dumbest shit I’ve ever heard.
I ASSURE you, books are not as powerful as 5 tabs of acid.
I’ve done acid. And ya. But.
I’m looking at reading here because of the intense, prolonged and (for many of us) daily concentration involved.
The concentration of attention is the active ingredient here. It is a smooth and powerful modifier of consciousness. And its effects stick and compound over time.
So if it’s only because of intense, prolonged, daily concentration, then wouldn’t things like video games, watching TV, or even just a normal day of work at a white collar job count? Does taking a long drive count? How about studying for a test?
To a degree, yes. But reading is especially potent that way.
Music would be a more apt comparison and has been shown to alter consciousness to a degree.
I’m going with reading because of the intense, prolonged and (for many of us) daily concentration involved.
The concentration of attention is the active ingredient here. It is a smooth and powerful modifier of consciousness. And its effects stick and compound over time.
reading fiction is 100% additive. One of the things that muted my reading is I had to not be reading fiction during the school year to get through college. Usualy do one book over winter break and a few over summer. Nothing for spring because its to short and second semester always seemed worse so was generally catching up.
Ya I get that it’s addictive but it isn’t the drug-effect I’m looking at here. I’m looking at the deranging effects of periodic prolonged intense mental concentration. It’s as powerful as any drug.
Reading is a direct extension of oral storytelling, which is a defining human activity. So a better parallel would be to eating—and non-readers are the ones in an abnormal state, like being chronically malnourished.
