I have to admit that personally I don’t see a golden thread in the post. What was the core argument?
As far as I understood it the pot reasons about “relative per-capita intellectual impressiveness of people who study only condensations and people who study original works”.
Which is… to be honest, just a mockup. Who cares about the “impressiveness” while studying? Why should one optimize “impressiveness” in ones study?
Personally I think that original works carry a lot of baggage. For example the language is older, the theories sometimes incredibly outdated, … etc.
It’s fun to read about this “new discovered oil” and that “this black oil will never run out!” but tbh not all books age the same. Plato ages well but 500 year old books on eye surgery are probably completely useless by now.
So I’d argue that there’s value in the “modern, condensed” form. Some expert which tells me “this obscure line has the meaning of x. Don’t mistake it for an y”.
I have to admit that personally I don’t see a golden thread in the post. What was the core argument? As far as I understood it the pot reasons about “relative per-capita intellectual impressiveness of people who study only condensations and people who study original works”.
Which is… to be honest, just a mockup. Who cares about the “impressiveness” while studying? Why should one optimize “impressiveness” in ones study?
Personally I think that original works carry a lot of baggage. For example the language is older, the theories sometimes incredibly outdated, … etc. It’s fun to read about this “new discovered oil” and that “this black oil will never run out!” but tbh not all books age the same. Plato ages well but 500 year old books on eye surgery are probably completely useless by now.
So I’d argue that there’s value in the “modern, condensed” form. Some expert which tells me “this obscure line has the meaning of x. Don’t mistake it for an y”.