1 ) Most people do not have enormous amount of time to read, so the question is always if one should NOT read something actual and read a classic instead.
2) People who Do have lots of time end up reading Both actual and classic material, which is probably why you find those who read the classics superior, it’s just they are more into it.
3) Academics advise towards reading the classics among other reasons because they have been advised the same way, and chosen the same way, so Choice supportive bias plays a role there.
4) In addition, they prefer that their students read something they are already familiar with than something they themselves will have to become acquainted with in order to judge. It’s easier to judge Hegel than Bostrom.
5) Very motivated people tend to lose motivation when not allowed to have their own ideas, and with time become meme-copies of classic people, in part this happens because they are obligated to read Plato, Aristotle, etc… and end up losing faith in the intellectual world. High young achievers such as Feynman, Eliezer, Russell, Kripke, Wittgenstein and others take deep pride in having been outsiders in their studying methods.
5) To Dodge the Nearest Mistakes: We are all mistakers, trying to fit the map more and more to the territory. If I read Plato, I’ll be reading an old scrapped map made with coal in a rush by someone with alzheimer. If I read Feynman, I’m using satellite technology to provide a three dimensional visualization that scales up to centimeter range.
I agree with you so much. Since I have limited time (like everyone) I should maximize learning/time when pursuing learning. Some old classics are still worth their weight (e. g. Plato Republic). Most however, are not.
Even tho a lot of crap books exist today due to unedited selfpublishing and whatnot one can make the case that in general, there are better books out there for nearly any learning purpose than the original.
I’d argue that a original work has historical significance and that someone can learn something by analyzing it. On the other hand one is advised to learn the initial concept from a modern textbook (e. g. modern evolution theory is much more advanced than what darwin thought of).
I disagree with a few points
1 ) Most people do not have enormous amount of time to read, so the question is always if one should NOT read something actual and read a classic instead.
2) People who Do have lots of time end up reading Both actual and classic material, which is probably why you find those who read the classics superior, it’s just they are more into it.
3) Academics advise towards reading the classics among other reasons because they have been advised the same way, and chosen the same way, so Choice supportive bias plays a role there.
4) In addition, they prefer that their students read something they are already familiar with than something they themselves will have to become acquainted with in order to judge. It’s easier to judge Hegel than Bostrom.
5) Very motivated people tend to lose motivation when not allowed to have their own ideas, and with time become meme-copies of classic people, in part this happens because they are obligated to read Plato, Aristotle, etc… and end up losing faith in the intellectual world. High young achievers such as Feynman, Eliezer, Russell, Kripke, Wittgenstein and others take deep pride in having been outsiders in their studying methods.
5) To Dodge the Nearest Mistakes: We are all mistakers, trying to fit the map more and more to the territory. If I read Plato, I’ll be reading an old scrapped map made with coal in a rush by someone with alzheimer. If I read Feynman, I’m using satellite technology to provide a three dimensional visualization that scales up to centimeter range.
Your usage of “actual” appears to be based on a false cognate.
I agree with you so much. Since I have limited time (like everyone) I should maximize learning/time when pursuing learning. Some old classics are still worth their weight (e. g. Plato Republic). Most however, are not.
Even tho a lot of crap books exist today due to unedited selfpublishing and whatnot one can make the case that in general, there are better books out there for nearly any learning purpose than the original.
I’d argue that a original work has historical significance and that someone can learn something by analyzing it. On the other hand one is advised to learn the initial concept from a modern textbook (e. g. modern evolution theory is much more advanced than what darwin thought of).