First off, it feels pretty meta reading about the act of reading, and how one needs to think instead of reading.
What comes to mind is the notetaking method, Zettelkasten. It's a personal knowledge management system that uses notecards (or digital equivalents) to manage knowledge and ideas. The term "Zettelkasten" is German for "slip box" and refers to the physical box used to store these notecards. But the part of this notetaking method that relates to this opinion article is the emphasis of not underlining someone else's text for your notes. But rather rewriting in your own words what the text means to you.
The Zettelkasten system encourages individuals to engage actively with the material by summarizing, questioning, and reflecting on what they've read or learned, and then writing these reflections in their own words. This method aligns closely with Schopenhauer's advocacy for thinking independently and forming one's own understanding and insights.
I should probably read Schopenhauer to understand further his idea of how genuine understanding comes from internal reflection and the integration of new knowledge into one's existing framework of ideas. Like, the actual logistics of how one goes about doing that. Is it all in one's head? Is someone writing this out?
I use a very loose version of the Zettelkasten method, and I find pairing it with AI helps me to think through some of my ideas. I might have a beginning notion of something; it's a bit rough. I'll ask GPT to explain my thoughts further. Now, Schopenhauer would be rolling in his grave, but I like to take the insights from GPT and reroll them into my own written thoughts. That's how a lot of my blog posts are written these days. Take my rough draft and run it through AI. Get some insights. Rewrite parts, expand parts.
Using AI is a bit like talking with someone about your work. A way of getting understanding and insights from another perspective.
Another good read from you regarding. It made me think about how we think. But if I'd have followed Schopenhauer's advice would I have read your article or known anything about this philosopher? In the majority of my experiences reading comes before the thought process.
When there is extremism or the politics we're experiencing then obviously writing is offered to do the "thinking" for you.
What would Schopenhauer do in law school? The application of law to facts facilitates critical thinking. It's based on books with billions of real life stubborn facts. That application doesn't seek a conclusion. Such decisions are blind to every thing except facts and law. That's where the term "Justice is blind" comes from. Even with that, far to often legal opinions seek a conclusion. These decisions are political, predictable and agenda driven. Those decisions are written to curry favor with an appointing authority or a segment of the population. I say Schopenhauer may or may not be right depending on what is being read or observed.
As far as AI, I've heard it maybe very helpful in the medical world. I have no idea. We'll see soon enough if it can be used to derail a Presidential election and radically change our rights. I'm old and an orphan so why should I care about AI unless it's used to foster fascism?
First off, it feels pretty meta reading about the act of reading, and how one needs to think instead of reading.
What comes to mind is the notetaking method, Zettelkasten. It's a personal knowledge management system that uses notecards (or digital equivalents) to manage knowledge and ideas. The term "Zettelkasten" is German for "slip box" and refers to the physical box used to store these notecards. But the part of this notetaking method that relates to this opinion article is the emphasis of not underlining someone else's text for your notes. But rather rewriting in your own words what the text means to you.
The Zettelkasten system encourages individuals to engage actively with the material by summarizing, questioning, and reflecting on what they've read or learned, and then writing these reflections in their own words. This method aligns closely with Schopenhauer's advocacy for thinking independently and forming one's own understanding and insights.
I should probably read Schopenhauer to understand further his idea of how genuine understanding comes from internal reflection and the integration of new knowledge into one's existing framework of ideas. Like, the actual logistics of how one goes about doing that. Is it all in one's head? Is someone writing this out?
I use a very loose version of the Zettelkasten method, and I find pairing it with AI helps me to think through some of my ideas. I might have a beginning notion of something; it's a bit rough. I'll ask GPT to explain my thoughts further. Now, Schopenhauer would be rolling in his grave, but I like to take the insights from GPT and reroll them into my own written thoughts. That's how a lot of my blog posts are written these days. Take my rough draft and run it through AI. Get some insights. Rewrite parts, expand parts.
Using AI is a bit like talking with someone about your work. A way of getting understanding and insights from another perspective.
Dear Mr. Terrance Mintner,
Another good read from you regarding. It made me think about how we think. But if I'd have followed Schopenhauer's advice would I have read your article or known anything about this philosopher? In the majority of my experiences reading comes before the thought process.
When there is extremism or the politics we're experiencing then obviously writing is offered to do the "thinking" for you.
What would Schopenhauer do in law school? The application of law to facts facilitates critical thinking. It's based on books with billions of real life stubborn facts. That application doesn't seek a conclusion. Such decisions are blind to every thing except facts and law. That's where the term "Justice is blind" comes from. Even with that, far to often legal opinions seek a conclusion. These decisions are political, predictable and agenda driven. Those decisions are written to curry favor with an appointing authority or a segment of the population. I say Schopenhauer may or may not be right depending on what is being read or observed.
As far as AI, I've heard it maybe very helpful in the medical world. I have no idea. We'll see soon enough if it can be used to derail a Presidential election and radically change our rights. I'm old and an orphan so why should I care about AI unless it's used to foster fascism?
Michael T.