3 ms·

> No one would claim to be an expert of a philosopher without reading and studying his book and articles. But, if the substance was more important than the form

> No one would claim to be an expert of a philosopher without reading and studying his book and articles. But, if the substance was more important than the form, it should not matter. One can master Gauss' mathematics or Einstein's physics without reading the original works. I don't think that's fair. I'd generally expect an expert (a professor, say) to be familiar with the original work regardless of whether it's philosophy or physics. You don't need to be fluent in Ancient Greek to get a philosophy degree. It's not as if there's an unwavering insistence on reading the original work in its original form.

jvvw 6y ago
I doubt there are many professors of mathematics who have read the original Gauss! Certainly in my field of mathematics, nobody ever talked about reading older work in its original. It feels like something only of interest for historians. Mathematical notation has improved immensely and the important ideas have been clarified and refined.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago
  Interesting, so even mathematics isn't immune from 'translations' from the original work, as in philosophy.
  - stevegalla 6y ago
    Broadly speaking, math is made up of theorems. The goal is to prove the theorem by establishing a proof, or disprove the theorem using a counterexample. In math textbooks and courses I’ve had, there tends to be footnotes on who produced some foundational result (statement of the theorem, proof, or counterexample). So you study or learn about the original work, but you’re not doing so from the primary source (original work). This could be because the proof of original work was: - in a different language, - required advanced knowledge the learner doesn’t have, - a more simplified proof was found, - a more enlightening proof was found, - an informal proof suffices, - the statement of the theorem is all that’s needed, - the proof is left as an exercise to the reader, - the proof is a special case of a more general proof, - or any number of other reasons

jvvw 6y ago

I doubt there are many professors of mathematics who have read the original Gauss! Certainly in my field of mathematics, nobody ever talked about reading older work in its original. It feels like something only of interest for historians. Mathematical notation has improved immensely and the important ideas have been clarified and refined.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
Interesting, so even mathematics isn't immune from 'translations' from the original work, as in philosophy.
- stevegalla 6y ago
  Broadly speaking, math is made up of theorems. The goal is to prove the theorem by establishing a proof, or disprove the theorem using a counterexample. In math textbooks and courses I’ve had, there tends to be footnotes on who produced some foundational result (statement of the theorem, proof, or counterexample). So you study or learn about the original work, but you’re not doing so from the primary source (original work). This could be because the proof of original work was: - in a different language, - required advanced knowledge the learner doesn’t have, - a more simplified proof was found, - a more enlightening proof was found, - an informal proof suffices, - the statement of the theorem is all that’s needed, - the proof is left as an exercise to the reader, - the proof is a special case of a more general proof, - or any number of other reasons