I have been reading through the Discworld books in publication order, and they have been downright delightful.
I have only finished the first eleven, but thus far all of them have been fun and most of them have little nuggets of wisdom that really do invite thought into a deeper theme. Thus far my favorite has been Mort, but I also ended up really liking Sourcery as well.
I hadn’t read any Pratchett while he was still alive, I hadn’t even heard of him in fact, but given how prolific he was and the level of cleverness in his stories, I wish he was still alive.
I wish he was still alive too, but I think the books had come to an end, at least the mainline ones. The problem was he started taking it in a very Victorian direction and I felt like it lost the dark grittiness the earlier books had. He was at his best when riffing off others, Shakespeare and Tolkien and the other influences that were, again, a bigger part of the earlier books.
I think it was Going Postal or Monstrous Regiment where I thought to myself I don't look forward to these the same anymore. Before then I would read a new Discworld in one sitting. However, when I look back it was the Truth (book 25) where I felt the direction went off for me, even though I continued to enjoy them. I mean, 25 incredibly funny books is an amazing and wonderful thing anyway (I think Thief of Time 26 was very good).
I haven’t read Discworld. Although funnily enough I worked in a team where our services were named after Discworld characters, so I’m aware of _some_ lore lol.
That said.. it’s kind of daunting to start a series with so many books, and I consider myself a prolific reader (~30-40 books per year).
I used to avoid the Discworld books because the first one I listened to as an audiobook had too many squeaky-voiced characters in it. But a few years later I read Mort and really liked it (might be something to do with the father-daughter relationship in it). Since then I have read a couple of the others.
To me, what made Mort so good is the coming of age aspects of it, both for Mort and Death.
Death is having a bit of an existential crisis and trying to figure out what being a human actually is, and the main issue of the story is teenage Mort being unwilling to accept the unfairness of the world and as a result saves the princess who was slated to die.
The genius part to me is when, at the end, when Death and Mort are fighting, upon seeing Mort’s willingness to die for something he believes in, Death finally realizes the most important part of being a human: compassion, and he ultimately redeems himself and achieves some level of humanity by deciding to spare Mort purely out of compassion. To me it ended the story so perfectly; it was an ending that felt earned and ultimately felt very in tune with the themes that the book (and Discworld as a whole).
Thus far what I have liked about the series has ultimately been a rejection of cynicism. The heroes of the story become heroes almost entirely out of their willingness to believe in something.
I always wondered about the idea posed in this short story. Does the "everything that can happen does happen" theory apply to free will? If there really are infinite universes, is there a one when I'm walking a street full of people and out of nowhere we all start singing Ode to Joy in perfect unisono? Or get naked and have a massive orgy? No law of physics rules this out.
I've always wondered if this (kinda widespread?) theory stems from most people thinking that "infitnity" includes every possible option, which is not true.
Mathematician here, so educated layman on the physics but expert on infinity if you like.
Mathematically, "infinity" doesn't imply every possible option. But in terms of quantum physics, yes it kind of does include every possible option. There is a kind of joke classroom exercise in quantum physics class to calculate the probability that a piano would instantaneously rematerialize a meter away from its previously observed location. Its 10^-[ ridiculous number] but still thats not zero.
The size of physical reconfiguration of a person's brain to cause them to break out singing is a much smaller deviation so comparatively likely. So 10^-[somewhat less ridiculous nunber]
Doesn't infinity include every possible option (possible meaning that it can happen within rules of physics)? If the model of the universe is one where events are happening with some probability, then if the probability is nonzero and the number of universes is infinite, then the event should happen in some of the universes.
It appears to me unnecessary to say much about the terrors of death. The subject has been sufficiently enlarged upon by various writers; besides, every one knows and feels for himself that life is sweet and death is bitter. However old a man may be, however broken in health, however miserable his circumstances, the thought of death is an unwelcome one. There are three principal reasons why all sensible people fear death so much:
First, because the love of life, the dread of death is inherent in human nature. Secondly, because every rational being is well aware that death is bitter, and the separation of soul and body cannot take place without inexpressible suffering. Thirdly, because no one knows whither he will go after death
> However old a man may be, however broken in health, however miserable his circumstances, the thought of death is an unwelcome one
I have read that studies consistently find there are states of ill-health sufficiently unpleasant that patients generally and consistently report they would genuinely prefer to be dead.
We also recover from many things so being sick once more is something we might recover from. Some know it's a there time and other really could have years so hope plays a part too
You weren't dead for infinity. Death is a state that only exists after life, because by definition death is the cessation of life. The state of non-being before birth and the state of non-being after death may be the same, but the context of the existence of a physical living body in the interim matters.
I stood beside the caskets of my mother, my father and my grandmother. Trust me, life is finite and death is real.
>I stood beside the caskets of my mother, my father and my grandmother. Trust me, life is finite and death is real.
Yeah, many of us have stood beside, behind, slightly in front of, or perhaps at some angle to the caskets of some loved one. This makes us exactly zero percent experts in how final death is, since of course we have no real clue one way or the other. That's a statement of fact, taking all religion aside. Given that we don't yet know what consciousness itself is or what it emerges from for our perception, we can't say anything certain about its nature after death. You're trying to be clever with weary cynicism, but know no better than anyone else.
There is nothing called plum. All there is experience. Changing experience. Appearing in awareness. The awareness is constant. Among time. Only constant.
Makes good sense. If we were like Lions, every action we’d ever do would be roughly correct (can still be a mistake, but not wrong). To echo Death, you can see how I’m failing at describing this because I’m still constrained by right and wrong.
For example, a Lion committing infanticide is not immoral. By all definitions of an animal, nothing a human does is immoral.
… TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET - Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME…SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
‘Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what’s the point -’
> […] By all definitions of an animal, nothing a human does is immoral.
> So why are we immoral then?
On what do you base the idea that morality exists? (If you reject the supernatural.) If there is nothing more but the natural world, then what does it matter how the molecules that make it up are arrange (or act)? Why should one arrangement of molecules be determined to be better or good(er) than another?
More seriously, you've just described the "moral" of the story of Adam and Eve. In that view of the world our problem is that we understand morality (thanks to that apple eating strumpet) and therefore can make choices. Animals, infants, and the simple-minded have no such concept and therefore can't be held responsible for violating it.
This, of course, all nonsense and implies a sort of paternalistic universe, but it was always going to be that way. Everything we know is defined by it's relationship to something else we know, and we don't know God. We know Dad.
Fundamentally it's a way to make God seem like less of a child-abusing jerk. A sky-daddy who "punishes" those who understand morality, but grants slack to the cutie-patootie babies and puppies is just nicer for people to believe in.
I always saw it as a mind-hack by the powers that be: by declaring everybody is a sinner simply by virtue of being born as the progeny of other sinners you start off with your life in the balance and only the church can absolve you. That's just high pressure sales for a service that you might otherwise find you can do perfectly without.
>Fundamentally it's a way to make God seem like less of a child-abusing jerk. A sky-daddy who "punishes" those who understand morality, but grants slack to the cutie-patootie babies and puppies is just nicer for people to believe in.
I think this is far too modernist an interpretation. When Genesis was written the characterization of God wouldn't have been interpreted as a "child-abusing jerk." God's behavior reflected what was expected of a father and a king given the culture and morals of the time, as well as the cold and indifferent brutality of the natural world, and was little different in those regards to other sky-father gods.
Bear in mind this same God doesn't "grant slack to the cutie-patootie babies and puppies" either, at all. People sacrificed animals to God and God engaged in infanticide more than once.
Let’s take God’s punishment unto man from the events of Eden for a moment.
If you don’t hold a creature given morality accountable, then that creature is fundamentally the same as a creature that was not given morality. We’d be asking God to “undefine” us.
Remember, even with the punishment, most don’t understand the accountability that comes with our extra gift.
Let me put it another way. I’ll use the potential of all possibilities, with respect to all possible creations. The potential for a God to create everything is there. So, a Jellyfish, or, a rainbow colored one, or, a giant rainbow colored one. It’s possible a creature with perfect morality could have been created, no morality, some morality, and so on.
So, it’s possible to create both a human that will be judged and one that will not be judged. The one that is to be judged can yell and scream “but why but why but why”, to which the answer would be “because, by definition, this is the definition of the thing created”. If it was said that a Lion was to eat antelope, then that is the case. If it was said a Lion was to eat jellybeans only, then that is the case. It’s what was defined.
—-
If I promote you to CEO but give you none of the powers of a CEO, then I did not make you a CEO.
So, we know we were given morality. Why should the definition not be complete with inevitable judgement? We’d be asking to be redefined.
Readit News
I have only finished the first eleven, but thus far all of them have been fun and most of them have little nuggets of wisdom that really do invite thought into a deeper theme. Thus far my favorite has been Mort, but I also ended up really liking Sourcery as well.
I hadn’t read any Pratchett while he was still alive, I hadn’t even heard of him in fact, but given how prolific he was and the level of cleverness in his stories, I wish he was still alive.
I think it was Going Postal or Monstrous Regiment where I thought to myself I don't look forward to these the same anymore. Before then I would read a new Discworld in one sitting. However, when I look back it was the Truth (book 25) where I felt the direction went off for me, even though I continued to enjoy them. I mean, 25 incredibly funny books is an amazing and wonderful thing anyway (I think Thief of Time 26 was very good).
That said.. it’s kind of daunting to start a series with so many books, and I consider myself a prolific reader (~30-40 books per year).
To me, what made Mort so good is the coming of age aspects of it, both for Mort and Death.
Death is having a bit of an existential crisis and trying to figure out what being a human actually is, and the main issue of the story is teenage Mort being unwilling to accept the unfairness of the world and as a result saves the princess who was slated to die.
The genius part to me is when, at the end, when Death and Mort are fighting, upon seeing Mort’s willingness to die for something he believes in, Death finally realizes the most important part of being a human: compassion, and he ultimately redeems himself and achieves some level of humanity by deciding to spare Mort purely out of compassion. To me it ended the story so perfectly; it was an ending that felt earned and ultimately felt very in tune with the themes that the book (and Discworld as a whole).
Thus far what I have liked about the series has ultimately been a rejection of cynicism. The heroes of the story become heroes almost entirely out of their willingness to believe in something.
(Sorry, I'm a layman.)
(I'm a layman, too)
Mathematically, "infinity" doesn't imply every possible option. But in terms of quantum physics, yes it kind of does include every possible option. There is a kind of joke classroom exercise in quantum physics class to calculate the probability that a piano would instantaneously rematerialize a meter away from its previously observed location. Its 10^-[ ridiculous number] but still thats not zero.
The size of physical reconfiguration of a person's brain to cause them to break out singing is a much smaller deviation so comparatively likely. So 10^-[somewhat less ridiculous nunber]
(Still a layman, though.)
Something to think about.
First, because the love of life, the dread of death is inherent in human nature. Secondly, because every rational being is well aware that death is bitter, and the separation of soul and body cannot take place without inexpressible suffering. Thirdly, because no one knows whither he will go after death
I have read that studies consistently find there are states of ill-health sufficiently unpleasant that patients generally and consistently report they would genuinely prefer to be dead.
What if you had nothing to fear and nothing to doubt?
You were dead for infinity.
How can you be dead for infinity and alive now. Makes no sense.
Only explanation is it's infinite.
0 - 1 second alive is not 1 second.
It's infinite.
I stood beside the caskets of my mother, my father and my grandmother. Trust me, life is finite and death is real.
Yeah, many of us have stood beside, behind, slightly in front of, or perhaps at some angle to the caskets of some loved one. This makes us exactly zero percent experts in how final death is, since of course we have no real clue one way or the other. That's a statement of fact, taking all religion aside. Given that we don't yet know what consciousness itself is or what it emerges from for our perception, we can't say anything certain about its nature after death. You're trying to be clever with weary cynicism, but know no better than anyone else.
For example, a Lion committing infanticide is not immoral. By all definitions of an animal, nothing a human does is immoral.
So why are we immoral then?
‘Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what’s the point -’
MY POINT EXACTLY.
From Hogfather, Terry Pratchett
> So why are we immoral then?
On what do you base the idea that morality exists? (If you reject the supernatural.) If there is nothing more but the natural world, then what does it matter how the molecules that make it up are arrange (or act)? Why should one arrangement of molecules be determined to be better or good(er) than another?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/After_Virtue
Mostly because it's easier than the alternative.
More seriously, you've just described the "moral" of the story of Adam and Eve. In that view of the world our problem is that we understand morality (thanks to that apple eating strumpet) and therefore can make choices. Animals, infants, and the simple-minded have no such concept and therefore can't be held responsible for violating it.
This, of course, all nonsense and implies a sort of paternalistic universe, but it was always going to be that way. Everything we know is defined by it's relationship to something else we know, and we don't know God. We know Dad.
Fundamentally it's a way to make God seem like less of a child-abusing jerk. A sky-daddy who "punishes" those who understand morality, but grants slack to the cutie-patootie babies and puppies is just nicer for people to believe in.
I think this is far too modernist an interpretation. When Genesis was written the characterization of God wouldn't have been interpreted as a "child-abusing jerk." God's behavior reflected what was expected of a father and a king given the culture and morals of the time, as well as the cold and indifferent brutality of the natural world, and was little different in those regards to other sky-father gods.
Bear in mind this same God doesn't "grant slack to the cutie-patootie babies and puppies" either, at all. People sacrificed animals to God and God engaged in infanticide more than once.
Deleted Comment
If you don’t hold a creature given morality accountable, then that creature is fundamentally the same as a creature that was not given morality. We’d be asking God to “undefine” us.
Remember, even with the punishment, most don’t understand the accountability that comes with our extra gift.
Let me put it another way. I’ll use the potential of all possibilities, with respect to all possible creations. The potential for a God to create everything is there. So, a Jellyfish, or, a rainbow colored one, or, a giant rainbow colored one. It’s possible a creature with perfect morality could have been created, no morality, some morality, and so on.
So, it’s possible to create both a human that will be judged and one that will not be judged. The one that is to be judged can yell and scream “but why but why but why”, to which the answer would be “because, by definition, this is the definition of the thing created”. If it was said that a Lion was to eat antelope, then that is the case. If it was said a Lion was to eat jellybeans only, then that is the case. It’s what was defined.
—-
If I promote you to CEO but give you none of the powers of a CEO, then I did not make you a CEO.
So, we know we were given morality. Why should the definition not be complete with inevitable judgement? We’d be asking to be redefined.
-- Gummo