[akoculu]

When was the last time you were threatened (“we’ll will bang on your door and take down your accounts”) by a company like Kik and you defended the principles and values you believed until the end?

I’m quite familiar with both western and eastern traditions, don’t know any better source than Ghazali’s “the alchemy of happiness” about how people make decisions.

It’s kind of ironic to see people being triggered by just the mention of it though — just reflects what your heart tends to reject impulsively. I wish you curiosity.

P.S Here’s the full quote, it entertainingly describes the ignorance here:

“first, they didn't look at the dates of the emails. They don't understand the timeline.

second, they can't relate to standing your ground in a high pressure situation involving threats.

and third, they haven't read Al-Ghazali yet, don't quite understand how (free) people make decisions”

[nindalf]

[flagged]

[bayindirh]

They are citing something which changed their life significantly, and leaving pointers to the same thing if you're interested (or need further explanation).

If getting wisdom from others is not your thing, I can respect that, but low-key insulting them for leaving you pointers for a more enlightened place is rude.

You can instead say "I don't understand why Al-Ghazali relates to this", and that would be completely OK.

[nindalf]

The author made an implicit assumption, and you're making the same one, that they're filled with wisdom received straight from al-Ghazali. Firstly, only wankers act like they're wise and their audience isn't. Secondly, they said "haven't read al-Ghazali yet", implying that it's only a matter of time before everyone reads him.

Lastly, it's fine to quote someone but you need to explain how it's relevant to the conversation. The author could have summarised al-Ghazali's idea about free will or whatever and it would have been fine. But he didn't even bother, as if the ideas so basic and well known that it's not even worth doing.

I'm pretty comfortable with the way I've poked fun at the author's pompousness. If you need further explanation it's because you haven't read Chanakya yet.

[bayindirh]

I'll read Chanakya, but I don't see how he's supposed to appease to your taste and style of writing.

I don't think that you're pompous because you cited somebody I don't know that existed. I'm not a god. People show me things I don't know, I take note of them.

Maybe I won't agree with the direction you show me, but at least I have a new direction to discover.

This is the difference.

[skrebbel]

Fwiw I don't completely agree with you but I appreciate your enthusiasm for the word "wanker" in this thread.

[akoculu]

And surely you read Ghazali and know what you’re talking about.

[overbytecode]

Why does it make him sound like a wanker? That’s a very uncharitable reading for no particular reason.

[nindalf]

[flagged]

[bayindirh]

Let's consider an example about a tangible phenomena: Gaussian Integration, Quantum Entanglement, Crystalline Structure Formation in Alloyed Metals with Heat Treatment, Combustion Dynamics in a Gasoline Engine, etc.

Let's put the same sentence:

"I'd love to explain to you, but if you haven't read $SOURCE_MATERIAL, you wouldn't understand it anyway".

Does it sound pompous and insufferable?

[nindalf]

Look mate you're a fan of this writing, that's fine. I respect your opinion. Let's agree to disagree.

[bayindirh]

I'm not a fan, but accept them as they are.

Of course we can agree to disagree. I'm not trying to win anything, but just express my perspective.

Have a nice day!

Politely pushes forward a freshly brewed mug of tea across the counter.

[GuinansEyebrows]

i haven't read it, now i'm interested in it, and frankly you sound like much more of a "wanker" at the end of things for centering your own (lack of) experience in this discussion.

[oftenwrong]

Given that this post is meant to explain your perspective at the time, I think it would make sense to explain it at least a little. At the very least, I am curious. What does Al-Ghazali have to say about making decisions that influenced you? I have not read Al-Ghazali yet.

[olalonde]

It seems what you really meant was:

> And third, they haven't read Al-Ghazali, don't quite understand how I make decisions.

Not everyone makes decision guided by the heart. Many people lean more on reason and logic.

[akoculu]

> Many people lean more on reason and logic.

Yes, when theres's no impulse strong enough to outweigh reasoning. You don't need Ghazali for this, Kant also explains it. Before suggesting that I rephrase things, I think you should explore the domain first.

[olalonde]

That’s beside the point. It’s perfectly valid to draw inspiration from Kant or Al-Ghazali for your decision-making framework, but neither explains how people actually make decisions in general-their work is fundamentally normative. By the way, I'd be surprised if a true Kantian would have arrived at the same decision as you.