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.

I believe the letter “b” it traces back to the hieroglyph for “foot”, not the one for a “house.” See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_(hieroglyph)

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.

Thank you for pointing me to the Catherine Project–it looks very interesting to me.

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:

https://goodlifeodyssey.com/nothing-inherently-exists

You are right that the 60% of restaurants that will fail are likely the ones that were on the edge anyway, however, this is a different distinction.

I think the more important distinction is that this is 60% of ALL restaurants, not 60% of the 10% of new restaurants (or 6% of restaurants).

(I made up the 10%, but I'm sure it is small.)

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?