Regarding 1, use availability bias. Whatever is in front of you. Classics vs. Cannon is a nuance there. Fredrick Douglas, not classic, but certainly cannon. Ton

Regarding 1, use availability bias. Whatever is in front of you. Classics vs. Cannon is a nuance there. Fredrick Douglas, not classic, but certainly cannon. Toni Morrison, again, certainly not classic, bu absolutely literary cannon. If we can separate cannon from Classics, then the question of which classics becomes easy, because any single one will do because they express something that is independent and consistent in spite of the attitudes of the time. There is the small matter of when they were translated, by whom and under what conditions, but you're into the realm of scholarship at that point instead of engaging with the expression of an experience that has managed to persist in the face of change. The underlying premise of rhetorical questions that destabiliize an idea is that conflict itself is valuable and facilitates progress. While it is useful to have a critical or contra reference point as a control for deeper analysis of an idea, the challenge of the current era is we have a set of critical frameworks that exist to manufacture conflict without adding additional co-ordinates, or as a means to neutralize an opposing view. So yes, if we set the Classics against a backdrop of meaninglessness, as a kind of scientistic randomized control, the two questions of which ones to read, and the legitimacy of the culture that produced them appears to be a tantalizing and sensational conflict. But viewed through the lens of inconceivable longevity over millennia, they're a pretty good reference for the condition of our species. I'm trying to get into the habit of upvoting things I don't agree with, and I hope your comment survives so that its controversy isn't washed away.