4 ms·
Who cares if other people, who most likely wouldn't have read the manual for their computer, still don't? I mean, Google is obviously supplanting the manual fo
by lukeschlather 15y ago
Who cares if other people, who most likely wouldn't have read the manual for their computer, still don't?
I mean, Google is obviously supplanting the manual for a lot of things, but the point is much the same. If people read the fucking manual, they'll have a lot fewer problems. And a lot of the classics are pretty damn good manuals for life.
- pyre 15y agoI'd venture that someone could spend a lifetime attempting to read/listen to the 'classics' and still not fully accomplish that goal. So does this mean that we should all dwell in the past and eschew the future? Or that we should eschew the past and focus on the future?
- yters 15y agoThe future is often the past repeating itself, but most aren't aware of this.
- jwhitlark 15y agoThat one is trotted out a little too often. I much prefer Twain's "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme." It's important to know of the past, but many who use this argument are simply afraid of the present, and are attempting to denigrate new ideas and discoveries.
- yters 15y agoI said often, not always. Also, it tends to be an amalgam of different pasts. Like right now what the US is doing in the Middle East looks a whole lot like Athens during the Peloponnesian War, and what we're doing financially looks like what Japan did. So, I do think it is an accurate phrase, but misunderstood.
- pyre 15y agoYou're not going to find out about 'what Japan did' by reading 'the classics' though. The past is encompassed in more than just classic literature.
- yters 15y agoQuite true, but classics focus on distilling principles. If the authors' thinking was valid then, there isn't any reason it shouldn't be valid now, as I've been arguing that at least parts of the past repeat.