3 ms·

I think this is possible to an extent, but the saying “oh you have to read philosopher X to really understand that” feels more like “oh you have to listen to ba

I think this is possible to an extent, but the saying “oh you have to read philosopher X to really understand that” feels more like “oh you have to listen to band X to really understand their music”. Sure you _could_ explain the music along all the various dimensions, but the actual experience of the music _itself_ is the experience worth having. Same is true of most philosophy in my experience. I mean, you can read all the summaries and theses on Nietzsche's work that you want, but it won't be the same as _reading_ Nietzsche.

layer8 4y ago
Reading the original work is of course its own experience and can be worthwhile for that experience. But it shouldn't be necessary in order to understand the philosophical ideas and arguments, just like for example it absolutely isn't necessary to read Einstein's original papers to understand and discuss relativity. It can give some flavor, or a better understanding of the historical development, but that is non-essential for the actual subject matter. In philosophy, however, there is a sentiment that you have to trace the historical development and debates to be able to understand the subject matter. Whereas the actual philosophical matters of fact, the truths that we are trying to come up with in philosophy, surely shouldn't inherently depend on the happenstances of the historical course of philosophical debate.