Why read books full of ideas, when you can just sit down and think for hours?

Because there is no way you will invent Calculus or Polyadic First Order Logic just by "thinking for hours". Human technological, scientific, and philosophical progress is fundamentally not a one-man job, but a job of many that build on others' work.

I actually reached the knowledge of Calculus independently, nobody believes me though. I'm quite gifted.

i'd believe you conceptualized calculus independently but not that you derived it with rigor

>knowledge of Calculus

In your own words, what do you think that involves?

Calculus. Math.

"Thinking" involves synthesizing the shit in your head. If the shit in your head is video games, anime, and high-school you have nothing to work with. After obtaining a solid knowledge base, then yes, go for it. Few do.

Goddamnit, I hate being a machine even if I'm good at it.

Prove that the integral over [0,1]X[0,1] of |f(x)+f(y)|dxdy is greater than or equal to that over [0,1] of |f(x)|dx for all continuous real-valued functions f

I must be a good person, because I do just sit and think for hours but I feel obligated to share my wonderful thoughts with the world.

Nah, I'm not gonna do it

cause maybe there was somebody who thinked it better than you?

idiot

Implying there is one pyramid of thought and we are all trying to get to the top of one pyramid.

That's limited thinking right there.

I don't think you can desu
I think your idea of "calculus" is "lolz nx^(n-1) m80s"

Because for the good reader, a book it like a conversation. Which usually heta us farther than just reflection.

You can believe whatever you want famalam

fpbp

why should he believe or disbelieve anything when you yourself are there and you can prove your claims

Only if you're an insecure child who can't stand the thought of knowing someone before you wasn't an insecure child.

Good question.

>valuing your intelligence is being an insecure child

t. IQlet

No, being insecure about your intelligence is being an insecure child.

Sure thing, Leibniz.

being too secure about your intelligence, however, is the best sign that you don't have too much of it. (as is the advocating to not err on the side of caution with this matter.)

If you really want to progress, you have to stand on the shoulders of giants.

All I think of when I'm by myself is 'I am so sad and lonely and I want to die a painless death'. So I read books to adopt other thoughtstreams

t. IQlet

you read books, which present ideas, and then you sit and contemplate them. those ideas serve both, in this immediate context, as a starting point, but also as a midpoint confluence of other "original" ideas you yourself have whilst going about your daily business.

as with every other Veeky Forums post, this is bad bait and only serves to troll. both those with the critical thinking skills and experience to know how shit your bait is themselves partake in trolling those who genuinely subscribe to your egocentricity. only via a radical transparency (sincerity) will anyone ever hope to break through the milieu in any meaningful way.

Over/underestimation is orthogonal to how faithfully you represent your abilities.
Fake self-discovered calculus guy is an example of insecurity breeding a superficial/imitative intellectual style.

Of course you don't want to overestimate your abilities, but being so thoroughly aware of them as to be justifiably confident as appropriate is a good thing, and is equivalent to building self-awareness

And the word is "brainlet."

>"fake"
>being this jealous

But their backs hab no latters.

i keked at this. guess its time for bed

Isn't it what you're doing when reading ?

thats false, i was gonna prove it for fun, but i realized its simply not true

the case f(x)=-x is the counterexample, it would only be true in the cases where f(x) is positive on [0,1], which makes the proof trivial...

I find insecurity in inactivity.

I actually think best while reading, guided by the stimulus of critiquing someone else's position. That is how this works, right?

Mirrors also don't operate in the same fashion as humans. Our thoughts aren't consistently one idea.

I always felt like the lyricism of that band was unimpressive incoherent acid rambling but their instrumentation is tight. I dated a girl that was in close with Brian and confirmed my first assumption. He's still a cool dude though. .

>not reading blank books
>not having a library of paper

step up

So you can have new ideas. Not much point in thinking if someone's already thought the same things. Get your thinking cap on user. Stop thinking in the past.

>mfw

Hahahaha FUCK, steppe it up m8
Maybe you should start reading after all

This is the metaphor

everybody is working on enormous pillars which are being made into buildings
you can build your own shitty buildings out of mud or you can study archetecture and watch what other people are doing and work on their buildings. And if you work hard enough one day you can start your own building that is unique with all the expertise you learned from helping other people build something.

And these things we are building is our vast knowledge base on things like physics, math, art, human psychology, etc.

>Are all readers masochists?

Yes and they evade reality / their own lives

le false equivalence

can you make an actual argument rather than just a one-liner

Because you have to expose yourself to external ideas to test your own

are you saying we have not progressed in thought at all in the history of humanity?

/thread

ideas are seeds you sow on your mind. you need both reading and thinking time.

Standing on the shoulders of giants.

That's an abstraction.

We have progressed in the physical realm.

Feels bad still? Oh well, you tried

>study others, then make something based on theirs
>unique

You're describing standard education, which of course exists. But it does not work out in reality for everyone to follow "one way."

There has to be a joker in the stack. There just always is.

To pretend there is a perfect system is to operate on a false assumption.

There is no encompassing knowledge of all life. There is always some new vantage point, a new perspective to be gained.

And everybody does not have to get along for society to work.

Destroy your assumptions of utopia, now.

Defenestrate the poststructuralists, epistemology war now!

All proofs are trivial to me. That's why I don't waste my time on them.

It is true, though, and quite intuitively so. That's not a counterexample Do you give up?

i think marcel proust :D

Fubini

I like this. Good post, genuinely.

Back to /pol/, uninspired memers

corollary question

is there a reason to write down your thoughts outside of pursuit of recognition? there are people making youtube videos and blog posts and books all day long and most of them are shit and are already forgotten. is there actually a point in me recording and releasing my thoughts aside from hoping that some stranger will understand my 'genius'?

sometimes i write my thoughts out in a word file and delete it, without saving. it just seems ultimately pointless to me because i know my own thoughts and nobody else cares.

Archiving the thoughts you inevitably forget with time, that you may reexamine them later in the course of self criticism and intellectual evolution

...And?

i missed the absolute value signs because im a moron

i mean you shouldve picked up that i misread the question when i mentioned that f(x) needs to be positive on [0,1] (aka take the abs value of f(x))

I dislike my thoughts

I do both.