3 ms·

The thing about a lot of these classic papers is that they are often not very easy to digest compared with modern retellings of their subject matter. They typi

The thing about a lot of these classic papers is that they are often not very easy to digest compared with modern retellings of their subject matter. They typically represent the genesis of an idea that became influential and has since been popularized. Even if the paper's authors are gifted writers (which isn't common), these papers represent early iterations of the presentation of an idea. Later, people who specialize in writing will come along and refine the presentation.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dredmorbius 4y ago
There's a flipside to this viewpoint: it's often (though not always) helpful to read and know the original formulation of a concept. Even if there is a better subsequent development, the original statement is the idea as presented. More importantly, for ideas which have literally changed our understanding, they represent the border between the before and after worlds. Often much of what makes such explanations so foreign is that we come to them with our "after" minds, already fertilised with the ideas contained, rather than the beginner's mind, or the prior-belief-system's indoctrination, which is how contemporary readers would have arrived at the material. Much derivative treatment of great ideas is itself not particularly good or clear, so readers and students are left with the problem of having to hunt down good sources. Better to specifically call these out if you know them rather than do cast a broad aspersion on the original authors' treatments. This question arises often in the study of philosophy, as well as other fields, and though there are some original authors who are notoriously prickly (Hegel, by most accounts, Kant can be difficult), there are a surprising number who are clear, and even fun and amusing to read. I'd say don't be afraid of original sources". If they prove difficult, look for recommended better treatments. But if you can* rely on originals.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dredmorbius 4y ago

There's a flipside to this viewpoint: it's often (though not always) helpful to read and know the original formulation of a concept. Even if there is a better subsequent development, the original statement is the idea as presented. More importantly, for ideas which have literally changed our understanding, they represent the border between the before and after worlds. Often much of what makes such explanations so foreign is that we come to them with our "after" minds, already fertilised with the ideas contained, rather than the beginner's mind, or the prior-belief-system's indoctrination, which is how contemporary readers would have arrived at the material. Much derivative treatment of great ideas is itself not particularly good or clear, so readers and students are left with the problem of having to hunt down good sources. Better to specifically call these out if you know them rather than do cast a broad aspersion on the original authors' treatments. This question arises often in the study of philosophy, as well as other fields, and though there are some original authors who are notoriously prickly (Hegel, by most accounts, Kant can be difficult), there are a surprising number who are clear, and even fun and amusing to read. I'd say don't be afraid of original sources". If they prove difficult, look for recommended better treatments. But if you can* rely on originals.