Did the typewriter influence Nietzsche's philosophy?

Interesting thoughts here. Robert Hassan is not a philosophy professor, but one of communications, it should be noted. Nonetheless, he appears to have made some informed criticism about how adopting a modern (for his day) portable typewriter, by the different mechanics from pen and ink, and the different writing speed, may have influenced Nietzsche's thought process, and his thoughts.

That said, this is not implausible. Professors of literature, creative writing and psychology, along with those of neuroscience at times, talk about how journaling — when done with pen and ink — can have influence on our own mental attitudes.

Now, that means the question actually is, did it influence him THAT MUCH?

Here, I am at least moderately if not highly skeptical.

And, the idea that switching — albeit, a forced switch — from pen to typewriter "restructured his consciousness"? True, but in the sense of being a truism. ANYTHING we do restructures our consciousness, contra quasi-New Agers.

Beyond that, any change in Nietzsche's style of philosophizing may be correlational only, or correlational first, causal second. And, the growing tumor causing his growing blindness may have been the primary causal agent.

The "patron saint of the internet" — including the Sacred Heart of Acutis!

No, really, in a "you can't make this shit up."

Francis the Talking Pope has decided there should be a patron saint of the Internet, and per that link, he's got his boy.

Carlo Acutis, who died of leukemia in Italy in 2006 at age 15, will be canonized during the Jubilee for Adolescents on April 25-27, according to Vatican News. The church has attributed two miracles to Acutis, who was born to Italian parents in London and was informally known as “God’s influencer.”

I remember that, at one time, the Vatican was having outsiders, allegedly at least somewhat skeptical, look at the two alleged miracles.

I guess that's out the door, and instead, the miracles are marked "Top Secret":

The church has not detailed the miracles.

I think part of the deal is that Rome feels it needs a patron saint for everything.

In that case, per Monty Python:

Who's the patron saint of sperm?

Indeed, Rome DOES feel that. And per this Guardian piece on the modern canonization process, it started with — who else? — John Paul II.

Until 1983, when Pope John Paul II attempted to modernise the process, a Cause could not even be opened until the candidate had been dead for 50 years. (He reduced the waiting period to five years, halved the number of miracles required, and did away with the office of the “devil’s advocate”, established in 1587, whose role was to raise objections to every case.)

That last part gets back to what I said above. Before JPII, these "devil's advocates" wouldn't be members of the Vatican hierarchy and could theoretically not even be Catholic.

Other changes have happened over the decades and centuries. The need for an "incorrupt body" was tossed eons ago, for example.

Essentially, like a "god of the gaps," you have "saints of the gaps" now. Their "miracles" are far fewer because of modern scientific knowledge. And, it doesn't allow for further medical and scientific advances, nor in the case of medicine, does it allow for secularly "miraculous" spontaneous remissions.

Here's Jacalyn Duffin, a historian, and a hematologist, on that:

“The truth is that sometimes things happen that have no scientific explanation. If I can’t explain it, who am I to tell the patient, who believes that she can explain it, that she is wrong?” Duffin said. “Why can’t we have miracles and not believe in God? Wonderful things happen that cannot be explained.”

Exactly.

Acutis? He even has a sacred heart, like Jesus!

This autumn, a fragment of Acutis’s pericardium, the sack that encircles the heart, toured North America.

Oy.

And, this is why Spanish Catholics mocking Aztecs for human sacrifices with bleeding hearts, and their modern successors, have no room to talk.

If a patron saint of the internet isn't enough, surely a patron saint of social media is next. Besides saints of the gaps, you get sainthood of the gaps.

Finally? To switch from systematic or dogmatic theology to exegetical theology, per divisions within religious studies and religious criticism? How can you talk about patron saints for issues not mentioned in the bible? This is kind of like originalism vs non-originalism in US constitutional studies, but cutting across fundamentalist vs non-fundamentalist modes of exegesis.

Re-reading and rethinking Aron Ralston

 Per my Goodreads review, which I am expanding even more than I normally do on some of these blogged reviews, I read "Between a Rock and a Hard Place" nearly 20 years ago, soon after it came out.

This book hasn't aged that well. Or Ralston hasn't aged that well. Or, besides the accident recovery itself, my view of Ralston is different. Or, all of the above.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place by Aron Ralston
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I first read this nearly 20 years ago, not too long after it came out, as noted above. I might have written a review on my now-defunct Amazon account that I never transferred over here.

Anyway, had I rated it back then, it would have been 5 stars.

Today? 3.5, rounded downward.

Per others rating it 3 stars or less, obviously, and more noted by me on second read? The one-upmanship. The nearly getting two friends drowned in the Colorado below Havasu Falls. The nearly getting two friends killed in an avalanche just months before this happened, and having them both become ex-friends, and per Ralston, as of the time of the book, having never contacted him again.

I remember reading all of that on my initial read, but I don't think that stood out as much as it did with a second pass.

The accident itself? An accident. (I've gotten lost way backcountry in the Needles District of Canyonlands and had to spend an overnight on a canyon floor.) The not telling people details of his trip? Understand. But, there still seems to be a bit of arrogance behind it. Not a lot. But a small bit.

Beyond that? I'm more of a secularist, if I would, than at the time I read this book or got lost in Canyonlands. That was in 2004, and arguably partially my own fault. I saw someone high above me, exiting the particular canyon, after I first got lost, coming back out. I couldn't tell if they were ascending or descending, and didn't want to wait, so continued to try to find my own way. Fortunately, I remembered some tinajas with water in from the last monsoon rain (it was late July, obviously a lot hotter than for Ralston).

I remembered those tinajas after running through prayers to the Christian god, including Jesus, then Yahweh, Allah, Buddha, Krishna, and even a Zeus or other ancient deities, as I recall correctly. Then, I stopped, and said that, I'm an atheist, and if I'm going out now, I'm going out my way. Shortly after that, I remembered the tinajas, hiked a mile, maybe a mile and a half, back down trail, and drank water with tadpoles in it. For whatever reason, I couldn't find my way back out that day. I did try crossing a bouldered area to the south, to try to get to a trail that would lead to one campground, then realized it was getting late in the day and I didn't need to sprain an ankle, let alone tear up knee ligaments or break a leg, so I wound up spending a night on the canyon floor.

But, I got out the next day. No rescue needed, fortunately. No book to write about it. No motivational speaker fees. (I have incidents more serious than that in my life, by far, which could have a book written about them, but that hasn't happened. Perhaps there is a small degree of bitterness, and not just toward Ralston. So be it.)

The one-upmanship is also reflected by a few other issues in the book.

Per places like 14ers.com, and Wiki, using USGS standards, there are 53 not 59 14ers in Colorado. (I've climbed six myself.) Tree line in much of Colorado is 11,500, not 11,000; it can push 12K in spots. Air at 14,000 feet is more like 62 percent of sea level than 50 percent. I checked out of curiosity eons ago, after either my second or my third 14er. It doesn't drop to 50 percent until you get above 18,000 feet. I noticed all of this when first mentioned, something I wouldn't have done on first reading of the book, when I had done only two 14ers, counting the drive up Pikes Peak a decade earlier, then hiking down 300 feet (per USGS) and back up.

Then, the motivational speaker part? His newest video on his speaker for hire website, his "hire me," is four-plus years old. The newest news, from when Obama made Browns Hole a national monument, is nine years old. Off YouTube, his Shitter page is almost 3 years old since last post; ditto on Facebook. And here, we're getting to the not aging well, with more ahead.

Per his Wiki page? That unborn son he thought was calling? Does he have much visitation right, having divorced his ex-wife 12 years ago after 2.5 years of marriage? Eighteen months later, he and his then-girlfriend filed mutual assault charges against each other. That might have dried up the motivational speaking.

In other words, the post-accident part of this book hasn't aged well. Also, I don't believe the hyperbole at the end that, because of everything he gained, he wouldn't trade getting his hand back. (I was in a car wreck eight years ago; fortunately, my shattered left arm healed to near 100 percent of normal. But, had I lost it, yes, today, I'd still want it back.)

Per Neil Young, maybe he has faded away more than burning out. If he's reasonably content with that, fine.

Finally, I note what one other lower-star reviewer noted: Aron hiking with the Discman and headphones. Would he have heard the chockstone shifting more quickly without that? We don't know. We do know that he wasn't experiencing all of nature because he couldn't hear it.

View all my reviews