For centuries we’ve tacitly accepted that automation wipes out people’s livelihoods. When the tools threaten academic or "high cognitive" work it becomes a world-historical crisis of meaning.

History, at least, gives us no reason to think there is an exhaustible list of central human activities.

Yes! There's a similar kind of argument you can find for wielding violence as a political weapon: that it's symmetrical and therefore justified.

But I don't want to live with that symmetry, and so I won't thank anyone for reinforcing it.

A curious thing I learned from reading 𝘒𝘶𝘩𝘯 𝘷𝘴 𝘗𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘳 is that Kuhn himself was in favour of strong deference to the reigning paradigm.

Popper, on the other hand, was not only willing to usher in revolution, but to prescribe it!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuhn_vs...

I’m genuinely unsure about this. Copyright and patents didn’t exist everywhere or to the same degree historically. I’d really want to know whether places before they adopted strong IP were obviously worse at innovating and creating.

I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting to be valuable; we are social creatures and we want our existence to matter to other people.

I do think though that "being valuable" and "being the best" are not the same thing.

And even where determinate, hopelessly diffuse.

What you're talking about relates to durability and not quality of learning.

It's the kind of teaching that treats pupils like machines, and treats machines as the ideal pupils.

The folks on wikiquote.org haven't located the source either. Doesn't really fit with Arendt's thinking.