3 ms·
For me, I question the infallibility of original authors. It’s certainly a testament to greatness that their works have survived criticism for a long time, but
by wenc 5y ago
For me, I question the infallibility of original authors. It’s certainly a testament to greatness that their works have survived criticism for a long time, but a lot of the value of their work came from the incremental work done by those who came after. Who is to say that people who came after were not greater than the originals? Derivative work can be better than the originals.
Take Freud or Rousseau for instance. They certainly were pioneers but a lot of their works were superseded and refined. Reading them in the originals helps establish the baselines but those baselines were not infallible. Western civilization is based on disputation and questioning the canon.
- rg111 5y agoThis makes sense. Derivative works, and works done on great people by other great people is always interesting and have a lot to offer. Infallibility of classic authors is something that you can be aware of to a greater degree only if you read the originals. This is especially true if you are considering the works of people from a culture where people are persona-worshippers, and don't find any fault in famous people that are long dead. tl;dr- reading original works also enables you to see the flaw in others' work, thinking processes, drawing conclusions among others.