"Suppose, for example, that you read an article about how to make a chocolate mousse. You like chocolate mousse, and so you agree with the author of the article that the end in view is good. You also accept the author's proposed means for attaining the end -- his recipe. But you are a male reader who never goes into the kitchen, and so you do not make a mousse... In the case of the reader of the article about chocolate mousse, he is probably, by his inaction, expressing his view that, although mousse is admittedly delicious, someone else -- perhaps his wife -- should be the one to make it."
-- How to Read a Book
What did they mean by this /lit?
I think a certain someone would have something to say about this...
>>8177108
I know this was written in the 40s and I appreciate the publisher is leaving the text in tact and merely adding new material but I could not help but laugh when I read this
>>8177093
This is what Aristotelians actually believe.
>>8177559
fucking kek
>>8177093
Go in the kitchen!
WAT DID HE MEEN BY DIS LOL
>>8177093
>implying that it's necessary that a mousse be made at all
fucking liberals reeeeeeeeeee
>>8177093
He's saying that certain articles are appreciated more so by people who are actually involved with topics of said articles.
Someone without any knowledge of QM/math isn't going to be riveted by a research paper on QM until someone communicates the findings into layman terms.
![adler[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/0gfGYZz.png "adler[1]")
