💾 Archived View for dioskouroi.xyz › thread › 29430291 captured on 2021-12-03 at 14:04:38. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
________________________________________________________________________________
There was, and still is, one reason that I had discovered by chance and by observation, that enables me to read original, classical works.
That is- "dilution by lesser minds."
Once in 10th grade, I read up a poem on my curriculum in advance before the teacher taught it. I explained it to myself, it made sense and I found it interesting.
Then the teacher explained it, and ai realized that, the teacher doesn't really _get_ the poem. He cannot fully grasp all dimensions of it. And he explained it in a much lesser way.
(I have had much better teachers who taught me how to understand poetry in the first place.)
That day was just the beginning.
From then on, I always read the originals- it translates to reading the claasical works by Plato, Ariatotle, reading old poetry, and reading religious scriptures, and reading the original scientific papers rather than the coverage by popular media.
_Lesser men dilute things_. _All_ things.
They cannot fully grasp the entirety of a work, and explain only the part and up to the extent that they understood.
This limitation also applies to me, but I get much more out than other people can.
This is very limiting for me, and leaves me to desire much more.
I learn so much better- both qualitatively and quantitively when I read original sources rather than rely on other people's explanation, or the common understanding available.
Yes, I am upping it to say that entire societies have gotten many things wrong when it comes to understanding and "getting" stuff created by great people.
(There are people who actually gets stuff, but many keep it to themselves and don't correct others.)
Sounds like it comes from a place with unhealthy amount of hubris? May be that is true, but what I say is extremely true.
A friend of mine -- a literature major -- in college asked me why we Engineers didn't want to "acknowledge the origins" of the work we studied. He said that he thought he would much rather read the original works of Newton or Leibniz to understand calculus as opposed to the "dry" textbook I was reading.
I think the issue is that the original work is not the clearest explanation. You have to invent new vocabulary for the context, new notation and explain it at the same time. The textbook is a much more efficient delivery mechanism for understanding and it is honed over time.
The original texts are often inscrutable, and they have a different rhythm to them. It reminds me of watching the great movies. Occasionally there will be one that has not aged -- like the Godfather. More often, I can't believe people enjoyed this (examples withheld).
100%.
The context has changed, we live in a different world and have different expectations. If you've spent years studying philosophy you'll understand Kierkegaard, if you've listened to music from the 50s you'll understand why the Beatles were so revolutionary, if you watched sitcoms from the 80s you'll understand why Seinfeld was so off the wall.
We as a culture have absorbed these great works into our expectations. Most people couldn't explain existentialism, pop song structure, or postmodern humor but they understand it now at some gut level.
We’ve also absorbed the Protestant Reformation, the Counterreformation, the Thirty Years War, and the English Civil War into the background of our culture: see the implicit suspicion of the Pope and global organizations in any right wing YouTube video. One can be completely ignorant of the world historical events of early modern Europe and still have absorbed their cultural impact. But that doesn’t make you any less ignorant of the sequence of historical events, new ideas, and great works that form the rational account of why our present culture and experience is the way it is. Sure, one can be ignorant and still function in human life, being carried along by the undercurrents of the time and culture in which accident assigned your life span. The question is why a thinking person would consider it acceptable to leave it at that.
The title of this thread "Reasons to read the original works of great thinkers" does not match the article title. I thought it was going to be about study such as done at St. Johns College, where students read the original source "Great Books" rather than modern textbooks.[0] But that does not appear to be the actual subject of the article.
[0]
https://www.sjc.edu/academic-programs/undergraduate
I agree that reading the works of great thinkers of the past can be valuable. But I am annoyed when people [1] suggest that I start my exploration of a field by first reading those greats. This most often happens in philosophy, but in others as well.
Neither of the listed reasons in OP, nor any other reason I have ever heard, convinces me that the best way to start learning about Marxism is to read Marx. Yet, this has been suggested to me several times.
[1] which apparently does not include OP based on this article