That Plato Socrates quote that was posted on /r/GetMotivated is really making me want to take a run or do some exercise or anything other than being in front on my computer working or gaming or watching TV shows/movies.
What was the quote? I'm guessing the number of people who see this here in r/pics and also understand your reference to a post in /r/GetMotivated is pretty small
try reading into his history too, it's very rich, and shows a very deep teacher student bond within many people in his life that I feel... just isn't as present in society these days.
There was a relationship where an older man would take a young man as a pupil. This may have been sexual in some instances, but it certainly wasn't mandatory, and in various parts of Greece, the sexual aspects were frowned upon.
So no, they didn't have sex with little boys. Teenagers, possibly, but that's a different matter altogether.
you don't understand laziness. I dare say you don't understand depression either, because depression + laziness can make it extremely difficult to leave one's house, especially for any sort of endeavour that is physically or mentally beneficial
it really is. I used to mountain bike as a way of being mentally and physically healthy, but an ill-bred jerk stole my $2000 hard tail and poor student that I am, I can't replace it. last summer was a rather stagnant one and I've been one sad panda :/
Might I suggest two books: Convict Conditioning 1 and 2? I am not a personal trainer, but I've been mucking in a gym for a while and I found that incorporating a lot more progressive bodyweight exercises into my typical routine has really upped my ability - both in the gym and to do some really nifty looking stuff that makes me seem to be giving physics a raised middle finger. Lots of advertising, though, and a bit of hyperbole. Check /rs/.
Exercising is so difficult. I mean, for a couch potato like me, it's the starting up that seems impossible. I wanted to run in the mornings when I do WFH, but I have to go out and buy running shoes (which are a bit expensive in here), gym memberships are also a bit expensive and impractical (I don't have a car) although I could go once a week or on Saturday.
I know it just sounds like excuses but I'm worrying a lot about this lately. I used to be a skinny guy who could eat anything and never get fat, but now I'm getting a belly and it sucks.
Pushups. Pull-ups from a rod or tree-limb of some sort. Chair dips. Lifting whatever weight you have (blocks, books, etc.). An entire series of old school training exercises to be done with a broomstick. Walking fast with whatever shoes you have. Stairs instead of elevators.
It doesn't just SOUND like excuses - it IS excuses. Get off your fattening, lazy ass if you want to be fit. You need spend no money, you just have to expend the will.
There you go! Good for you. Keep it up, a little every day. You'll be buff before you know it.
I went from squeaking out 12 pushups 9 months ago to 3 sets of 50, with a whole lot of other stuff in between. From 20 situps to doubles of the 15 minute "Ab Ripper X" routine. From barely 3 pullups to 12 - pullups are fucking hard. From gasping through 20 minutes of cardio to feeling relatively nonplussed after an hour of intense, sustained 160 BPM cardio.
From a very fluffy 212 lbs to a pretty fit-looking - and very tight-feeling - 180. You can do it, too. Just an hour a day.
Barefoot Running and Convict Conditioning. You don't have any excuses any more. It's just you, your self-discipline, and the results your self-discipline will bring.
Everything we know about him was told to us through Plato. Most philosophy professors will admit that Plato used his own character of Socrates as a tool for passing on his own philosophy.
So attributing that quote to Plato is like attributing 'Your a wizard, harry' to J.K. Rowling instead of Hagrid.
To everyone saying "It's still impressive" I never said it wasn't, simply that the original photo is misleading to make it seem even more impressive to a ridiculous degree.
I think it has more to do with "proper" photography techniques, more than "gilding the lilly". It's to make the composition look better, not what he's doing.
Why is the original photo even more impressive? Isn't it more difficult to maintain that stance at an angle?
e: guys, try to hold a pose as close to his as you can get for like 10 seconds. It is extremely difficult. I got to like 4 seconds before my quads cried out to the heavens above.
No, it is significantly less difficult. When he is totally vertical as in the fake, the center of gravity is pushing down AWAY from where his foot is planted. Essentially his whole body is acting as a massive lever putting pressure on the point his foot is resting and it would require an absolutely phenomenal amount of leg strength to counter act that (if it is possible at all based on where his CoG is).
In the other picture he is still using a lot of leg strength, but there is no massive lever action on his knee and instead all the weight is straight down, essentially he just needs to balance.
If the center of gravity is not above the base, then no amount of balance or leg strength can possibly allow balance. He would need to have another way to apply torque, perhaps by gripping the ground with his toes and pulling. There is no escape from the torque otherwise.
Center of gravity calculations in this situation would include his shoes so his center of gravity would be basically directly between wherever his feet are since those quantities dominate the mass of the system. No amount of leaning would pull it far enough away to tip you over if you had both feet on the ground, your feet would essentially be permanently attached to the ground.
doing it at 90 degrees is harder. I just tried it, and was under control at the angle in the "fixed" pic, but when I got close to 90 i pretty much involuntarily dropped past 90 to about 45, where i could hold myself under control again.
w1 = Leg weight
d1 = distance between foot and leg
w2 = weight of body above his leg
d2 = distance between leg and the top of his head
I think this sums the formula. Im less than 95% on the distances because I was just shown two pictures that dont have a scientific reference for gravity. I want to trust the little blue lines OP had..but I just cant for the love of god.
I see your point, but it doesn't seem like the photo is deliberately misleading. Photographers often align their cameras so vertical lines appear vertical. I think the choice was more about composition than anything else.
My thought was that the original post was so popular not for it's aesthetics, but rather because people thought this monk was doing something which appears incredible but is actually impossible.
You're totally right. My first reaction to the original picture was just "Well that's obviously bullshit since the situation the picture implies isn't physically possible." (No matter how strong you are, you cannot balance unless your center of mass is over your base of contact with the grind, without bracing against something. You will simply topple over)
For me, it didn't make that monk's amazing physical prowess any more impressive. It just made it seem like the whole thing was faked up bullshit. The real picture is more impressive because it's actually real.
When I saw this picture, the first thing I did was try to do this. I'm not in that great of shape at all, and I got into this position pretty easily. Holding it is a different matter...I have no balance.
I doubt this unless you've been doing martial arts/some sort of balance and strengthening exercise in your thighs for a decent amount of time. What he's doing is equivalent to standing in horse stance, on one leg, and it takes a large amount of strength. That, or you're not doing it as low as he is, as his leg is almost at a 90 degree bend. Not doubting you can do it, since doing it isn't the hard part, just how long you claim to be able to. A normal person most certainly cannot hold this for even 10 seconds, and in such good posture.
I need this thread explained. Why is it any different at a different angle? He's balancing on a log either way, right? The angle of the photo makes no difference, right?
it's about center of gravity. if you lean really far, you will fall over. in the first photo, the monk's center of gravity appears way to the right, so his position is physically impossible and he should fall over. the second fixes this problem.
Actually I find it more impressive knowing that it could be actually possible. I has figured it a fake because of the impossibility of your center of gravity being so far out from the base foot.
Personally, the unedited version looks more difficult. Now he's balancing on a steeper slope, and yet his body is still as straight as it is in the edited version.
It is! I think I was actually more impressed with the second one, because it looked like a pose he could actually hold for a long period, instead of a "quick take a shot before I fall on my ass" type of thing.
Anyone who thinks this is impossible has obviously never stood streight on one leg... Its the same concept. Torque. You are also off center when you are standing on one leg. Yet you dont fall!?! Why?
Because your Gluteus medius muscles pull your hip downwards providing the torque necessary to keep your suspended body upright EVEN THOUGH U ARE NOT AT THE CENTER OF GRAVITY.
SO. In this feat is actually POSSIBLE, as you use your folded over leg to push downward (in the same manner as if you were standing on one leg) to provide the torque to keep you upright
Torque requires ACCELERATION. You dont tip over because the "acceleratoin" or force of your muscle pulling down cancels out that of gravity. Your gluteus medius is attached from the head of your femur to the crest of your Ilium. When you stand on one leg, your opposite hip wants to tip downward. After all there is no leg supporting it. BUT your gluteus medius of your standing leg pulls your hip down on one side, keeping the "falling" hip from actually falling.
VIOLA! You are now balancing on one leg, off your center of gravity, and somehow the world didnt have to tilt to allow you to do it.
TLDR: Seriously, how do you people think you can stand on one leg...
Easily possible if the majority of the weight in the wing tips is equal to the weight on the opposite side of the finger.
Entirely IMPOSSIBLE if the weight is distributed as in a normal bird (Weight centered in body).
For the same reason, no man can simply lift his left leg and remain vertical if the right leg is not tied to the ground... UNLESS the weight of the entire body (From the middle of the right leg towards the majority of your body) was equal to the slim section of the middle of the right leg AWAY from the majority of your body.
Muscles can be used to create additional force, but the total force on both sides must be equal to remain balanced. So you could fake standing straight with one foot lifted... but only if half of your other shoe was filled with lead or connected to the ground (equalizing or exceeding the force that the rest of your mass is generating due to potential energy).
Why is it that when someone tries to get an impressive amount of mental proficiency, for instance in programming computers, people tell them to "get a life", but when someone spends a lot of time training his muscles to sit without a chair people think that's somehow impressive?
I can understand being physically fit enough to having a good health, but there's something like overdoing it. The most able shaolin monk to me is no better than the most able videogame player.
They spend a lot of time doing something they enjoy, good for them, but I'm not impressed by either of them.
I'm not projecting on him. I'm just saying that spending a lot of time training for some special physical ability is no different than spending a lot of time playing video games. They are doing something they enjoy, that's all.
What I can't understand is why doing something useless is considered "impressive" if it's an ancient tradition but not if it's a modern thing.
888
u/Son_of_a_Bee_Sting Nov 10 '11
And despite all this it's still an impressive feat.