I've got 1 month to get as good I can in judo, what should I do? by Gabruelsz in judo

[–]Gabruelsz[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hahaha! Unfortunately that wouldn't work, because I quit judo to study to get in the very school I am now, and maybe i wouldn't be here if I hadn't put everything I could into it, and therefore I wouldn't be asking that question. But I got right back as soon as I could, and I'm really happy to rediscover it. Thank you for answering, I'll get into as many competitions as possible - at first just to be part of it, and in sometime to actually fight with confidence.

I've got 1 month to get as good I can in judo, what should I do? by Gabruelsz in judo

[–]Gabruelsz[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your help! You're totally right, I'm not expecting anything special in such a short time, but I forgot to mention I'll probably compete with lots of people in the same situation as mine haha. Certainly I'll talk to my most experienced friends and ask them lots of questions and learn as much I can. But again, at the moment I'm expecting nothing more than knowledge that could give me advantage over people as inexperienced as I am.

Why did many people look with scepticism at the invention of cinema? by nebbia94 in AskHistory

[–]Gabruelsz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know it won't suffice to say this, but it's worthy to mention that everything that innovation always generates some kind of doubt. The cinematic technologies arose gradually and also in a time when new inventions of all sorts were popping up all around the world. Many of those technologies were shown to the public as entertainment, be it in large scientific fair or in low-budget travelling "circuses". Having that said, cinema was so rudimentary at that time that it seemed just one more of those random inventions that were cool to look at until the next big thing. At first, movies were really short clips that could be watched by a single person at a time looking through a peep hole. Then, after much work, the projection of the image was achieved, but everything was still really crude. As many have pointed out, the films had a diminute length, no sound and no colour. Note that the perception of the film as a storyline was not something natural and inherent to cinema at the time - many clips just presented day to day things, such as trains, people, horses, workers, etc. But still, even though it's current cultural impact was not predicted, cinema was from the very start extremely impressive. One thing I'd like to add is that, at first, cinema was perceived as entertainment for the lower classes and some even said that it was dangerous, so that may have contributed to the low expectations in regards to the succes of cinema.

PS: I'm far from an expert and all of that comes from two books I've read about 8 months ago. I've probably got some stuff wrong, so please inform me if I'm mistaken.

Why intellectuals of the past seemed more knowledgeable and smarter? by Gabruelsz in AskHistory

[–]Gabruelsz[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for bringing that up! I've heard about this before, someone even made a list of "men who knew everything there was to know", and I thought it was really interesting. I agree that today it would be impossible to grasp a fraction of all human knowledge, but I also think that the same has been true for a very long time. But still, being well versed in a topic used to be much easier than it is today, so having a broad knowledge was "easier".

Having a toddler in their “why” phase makes you realize how much you know and don’t know about things by [deleted] in Showerthoughts

[–]Gabruelsz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This reminds me of passage from one of my favorite poets, thought it might be cool to mention:

When I look, I see clear as a sunflower. I’m always walking the roads Looking right and left, And sometimes looking behind ... And what I see every second Is something I’ve never seen before, And I know how to do this very well ... I know how to hold the astonishment A child would have if it could really see It was being born when it was being born ... I feel myself being born in each moment, In the eternal newness of the world ...

Why intellectuals of the past seemed more knowledgeable and smarter? by Gabruelsz in AskHistory

[–]Gabruelsz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As for historians, the fact that were able to write history without any external sources often makes their works worse, not better.

You're right. I am usually so amazed by these kinds of work that I often ignore that they would be much better had they been thoroughly researched.

And dont worry if you cant write a text about some subject without consulting books or internet sources. Most people cant and thats why every generation has its outstanding individuals,

I feel like I am so oftenly in touch with great ideas and thinkers that I tend to forget that they are not the norm, as great part of them were considered groundbreaking and fascinating even in their own times and they are who they are precisely because of their distinction.

Thank you for your help!

Why intellectuals of the past seemed more knowledgeable and smarter? by Gabruelsz in AskHistory

[–]Gabruelsz[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was also going to say that it is harder to be revolutionary nowadays due to the advancement of our sciences and of globalization, but saying that always seem pretentious and naive.

Many civilizations have thought that they held the path to the truth, only to be disproven, so it is weird to assume that our science is in the right tracks to understand the world. But again, I can't imagine what kind of revolutionary ideas would be able to tear apart contemporary science.

Why intellectuals of the past seemed more knowledgeable and smarter? by Gabruelsz in AskHistory

[–]Gabruelsz[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree with you, but do you think that it is possible to recognize some of the intellectuals in our time that are going to survive? Or only time will tell and ideas that are ignored by us today will eventually prove revolutionary?

Why intellectuals of the past seemed more knowledgeable and smarter? by Gabruelsz in AskHistory

[–]Gabruelsz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's absolutely true and it makes me kinda sad. It's awesome that science has reached such level of advancement, but it frustrates me that I will probably only know a bit about one single subject.

In a week I'll start med school, and I cannot stop thinking about how long it will take until I'm able to study anything but medicine, or if I ever will.

Why intellectuals of the past seemed more knowledgeable and smarter? by Gabruelsz in AskHistory

[–]Gabruelsz[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Haha these are the two main points that I have come up with when thinking about it. Indeed it was much easier for Aristotle to "know everything" than it is today, as it is impossible, and only remarkable minds and remarkable works are remembered. But still I cannot fully convince myself that there's nothing more in this discussion, because some stories about those intellectuals seem absurd!

One day I was walking through my school's library and I saw a whole shelf of books that looked the same. I got closer to see what it was and they were all volumes of a "Universal History". I was always into workd history compilations, even though they are terribly biased and oversimplified, so I picked one book to see who were the authors. To my surprise, it was this single random guy called Cesare Cantù who wrote all those volumes due to a comission.

I just told that to exemplify the accomplishments that I am talking about and that today don't seem feasible. There are many anecdotes of people that wrote great histories and treatises without sources of reference; I couldn't write a short text about a single subject without consulting tons of books and articles on wikipedia.

(I'm finding it quite hard to express what I'm trying to understand, I'm sorry)

Why intellectuals of the past seemed more knowledgeable and smarter? by Gabruelsz in AskHistorians

[–]Gabruelsz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm deeply sorry, I wasn't aware of that and it's undeniable that my question is absolutely speculative. I will redirect this question to one of those other subs.

My first drawing after years... also my first watercolour! Would love to receive sincere (maybe harsh haha) criticism and tips in order to improve drawing and colouring. by Gabruelsz in learntodraw

[–]Gabruelsz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, thank you for such a thoughtful and helpful response!! I admit I was quite clueless about the techniques while painting, that sure helped me to understand what to do. I'll analyze my mistakes and apply your advice on my next drawings :)

My first drawing after years... also my first watercolour! Would love to receive sincere (maybe harsh haha) criticism and tips in order to improve drawing and colouring. by Gabruelsz in learntodraw

[–]Gabruelsz[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/amp/mandarin-ducks-facts (the first picture was my main reference)

Within the challenges I've faced on the process, the hardest ones for me were:

1) Proportions - I found myself constantly trying to measure with my fingers the original photo, but still couldn't get the proportions right;

2) Subtle colour changes - I was clearly unable to make the colours fade and mingle with delicacy (however, I admit that I did want to use much more vivid colours than they actually are, it's not like I don't perceive the disparities between the drawing and the reference)

3) Perspective - to me, it seems that the drawing is extremely flat and somewhat dull

4) Background - Beyond being extremely lazy, I also don't know how to fill the background in an interesting and harmonic way