3 ms·

"Reading the book, I felt as if my mind was rocked by explosions." If you've only had this experience from _one_ book, you aren't reading enough. "Questions t

"Reading the book, I felt as if my mind was rocked by explosions." If you've only had this experience from _one_ book, you aren't reading enough. "Questions that had puzzled me for years suddenly began making sense in this new world." If, on reading a book, you don't know of at least one other set of alternative answers, you aren't reading enough. No doubt Chomsky is a powerful and persuasive writer. But there are many thought-systems of similar extraordinary explanatory power. At some point you have to realize that the ones that hit you, hit because you share their basic premises and took the time to understand the explication of the thought-system. Without the ability to identify and examine those premises, your thinking is more an accident of which powerful system clicked with you first. You have to read enough to intelligently criticize those opinions you hold most dear and believe most certainly. It's very hard. The "terrifying side effect" of being "left all alone" is not quite so terrifying as the gut-wrenching feeling you don't actually know _anything_. It is an amazing and wonderful and terrifying experience to see the world in a new way. But you cannot stop at _that_ new way of thinking.

jonknee 14y ago
> If you've only had this experience from _one_ book, you aren't reading enough. He was 17 years old when he read the book.
- BrokenPipe 14y ago
  And later in the comments he said the same happened to him with other books. i.e. purely intellectual math. The more I read about Aaron he more I'm impressed and even though I didn't read enough about Chomsky I think he's right on far too many issues (the ones I encountered so far).
johnfn 14y ago
You really need to do some more research before you make statements like "you aren't reading enough". In fact, I don't think I've read or heard of a person more well-read than Aaron. For example, he read 130 books in 2009[1]. That's a book every 3 days. [1]: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/books2009 http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/books2009
- obstacle1 14y ago
  >I don't think I've read or heard of a person more well-read than Aaron Mosey on over to your local University, flail your arms around until you hit a non-STEM grad student, and voila -- you've met someone who reads at least this much, probably much more. Further it isn't difficult to read one light book every three days (looking at Aaron's list, the vast majority of titles are light reads). Retention and understanding are also dependent on how well you read, i.e. how deeply you focus and digest information. Plenty of people read hundreds of books each year, but read so quickly that nothing sticks. It's only when they read a title that feeds into some deep-rooted emotional issue or agrees with already-established biases that they claim "genuis! mind-shattering!" and so on. Could have been the case here, and I think that's the spirit behind saying "you aren't reading enough". It isn't always a question of volume, but rather whether or not you're actually reading.
- chernevik 14y ago
  "Well-read" doesn't equate with "much read". It's a long list, but most of it is left of center contemporary analysis. The only notable right-wing book is "Seeing Like A State." But for a little Plato, there zero philosophy or political philosophy there. Had he gone on to read the entirety of "Republic", rather than Book One, he'd have seen an exercise in criticism, exploration of ultimate values, and theoretic construction -- if nothing else, a demonstration that Chomsky himself was following a model. There is no Rousseau, which might have hinted at where Chomsky started, and neither Locke nor Hobbes, which might have suggested an entirely different approach. No Boethius, which later would have been a very apt touchstone for a person feeling the weight of persecution. Nor is there much story on the list. No Shakespeare, no Milton, one Hemingway, no Faulkner. No poetry. Nothing about about what it is to be a man, to live in conflict with one's self and with others, or to live among contradictions. Some of it is just a waste of time. "Secrets of the Temple" is at best a nothing book. Perhaps he read more widely and deeply at some other time than 2009. But there is precious little on this to challenge a progressive-liberal viewpoint, or to provide a basis of fundamental criticism, or to suggest a perspective on politics generally. To read like this is neither healthy nor interesting. It certainly isn't "well read".

jonknee 14y ago

> If you've only had this experience from _one_ book, you aren't reading enough. He was 17 years old when he read the book.

BrokenPipe 14y ago
And later in the comments he said the same happened to him with other books. i.e. purely intellectual math. The more I read about Aaron he more I'm impressed and even though I didn't read enough about Chomsky I think he's right on far too many issues (the ones I encountered so far).

johnfn 14y ago

You really need to do some more research before you make statements like "you aren't reading enough". In fact, I don't think I've read or heard of a person more well-read than Aaron. For example, he read 130 books in 2009[1]. That's a book every 3 days. [1]: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/books2009 http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/books2009

obstacle1 14y ago
>I don't think I've read or heard of a person more well-read than Aaron Mosey on over to your local University, flail your arms around until you hit a non-STEM grad student, and voila -- you've met someone who reads at least this much, probably much more. Further it isn't difficult to read one light book every three days (looking at Aaron's list, the vast majority of titles are light reads). Retention and understanding are also dependent on how well you read, i.e. how deeply you focus and digest information. Plenty of people read hundreds of books each year, but read so quickly that nothing sticks. It's only when they read a title that feeds into some deep-rooted emotional issue or agrees with already-established biases that they claim "genuis! mind-shattering!" and so on. Could have been the case here, and I think that's the spirit behind saying "you aren't reading enough". It isn't always a question of volume, but rather whether or not you're actually reading.
chernevik 14y ago
"Well-read" doesn't equate with "much read". It's a long list, but most of it is left of center contemporary analysis. The only notable right-wing book is "Seeing Like A State." But for a little Plato, there zero philosophy or political philosophy there. Had he gone on to read the entirety of "Republic", rather than Book One, he'd have seen an exercise in criticism, exploration of ultimate values, and theoretic construction -- if nothing else, a demonstration that Chomsky himself was following a model. There is no Rousseau, which might have hinted at where Chomsky started, and neither Locke nor Hobbes, which might have suggested an entirely different approach. No Boethius, which later would have been a very apt touchstone for a person feeling the weight of persecution. Nor is there much story on the list. No Shakespeare, no Milton, one Hemingway, no Faulkner. No poetry. Nothing about about what it is to be a man, to live in conflict with one's self and with others, or to live among contradictions. Some of it is just a waste of time. "Secrets of the Temple" is at best a nothing book. Perhaps he read more widely and deeply at some other time than 2009. But there is precious little on this to challenge a progressive-liberal viewpoint, or to provide a basis of fundamental criticism, or to suggest a perspective on politics generally. To read like this is neither healthy nor interesting. It certainly isn't "well read".