So the point is that few people read old non-fiction books for their original
purpose (i.e., ‘convey knowledge’), but only for secondary reasons—any
useful observations the originals made would have been observed in newer,
clearer works. In general, I agree with that.
But are there any exceptions?
Depending on what is called ‘old’… I found Einsteins introduction to
relativity one of the best layman’s introductions.
Much older, I would say that Plato’s/Aristotle’s writings on philosophy are
much clearer than the philosophy of the last centuries. They are misguided in
various ways, but at least that is clear—and I wouldn’t hesitate to
recommend someone to read those works to gain some insight in philosophy, not
just for their historical importance.
So the point is that few people read old non-fiction books for their original purpose (i.e., ‘convey knowledge’), but only for secondary reasons—any useful observations the originals made would have been observed in newer, clearer works. In general, I agree with that.
But are there any exceptions?
Depending on what is called ‘old’… I found Einsteins introduction to relativity one of the best layman’s introductions.
Much older, I would say that Plato’s/Aristotle’s writings on philosophy are much clearer than the philosophy of the last centuries. They are misguided in various ways, but at least that is clear—and I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend someone to read those works to gain some insight in philosophy, not just for their historical importance.