4 ms·

I'll go ahead and claim that most of these books are pretty dry these days. Historically significant, yes, and everyone should definitely know of them and what

by msvan 14y ago

I'll go ahead and claim that most of these books are pretty dry these days. Historically significant, yes, and everyone should definitely know of them and what they're about. But reading them probably won't make much of a difference to your life. The same information can be found in other places these days, in forms that are more comfortable for the brain to digest.

passionfruit 14y ago
Reading large works like these may stimulate your thinking much more than getting the same information in a shorter format.
- derrida 14y ago
  I think msvan may have been referring to books too. For instance: Origin of the Species spends a great deal of time presenting evidence for why evolution should be believed. At the time this was of course necessary to convince all of the skeptics. Now, it can be sort of dry. Dry as in "not stimulating". It's much more interesting to follow a book that deals with things that are controversial today. Reading Dawkins for instance is likely to push some buttons even in those who accept evolution. It's also arguable that this sort of thing isn't science, it's just philosophy (the idea of the Meme, for instance) and if it is philosophy, how can we separate the philosophical import of evolution from the science of evolution. Yes, saying this is likely to rile up some Dawkins defenders, but then I've proven my point, the issues it discusses are not dry the way that pages and pages of evidence presented for an argument you already accept the conclusion of is. But I shouldn't really speak, I barely read these days.
- notahacker 14y ago
  That depends on the individual work, and how you respond to authors tending to assume you have the same knowledge and interests in the subject matter as a typical expert, a century or five back. If your reaction to reading The Prince, for example, is to go off and read other historical analysis of the many obscure conflicts he references, and discussions of the extent to which certain comments may have been intended as satire, then it might make a stimulating starting point for study. If you're simply looking to gain insight into the motivations of people in power, then you'd be better off reading an article-length summary of his key points and prioritising on to short-form content about Westphalian states and the limitations of democratic processes. Ultimately, you'll learn more relevant lessons from that than you would from Machiavellian observations on the castle of Milan causing more trouble for the Sforzas than it saves or the susceptibility of the Spaniards to cavalry and the Switzers to close combat. If you want to learn about markets, capitalism and pricing, then economists of all stripes will agree that the Wealth of Nations is commendably broad and readable but very outdated in its examples; many of the features of modern capitalism and the entire theories behind modern anticapitalism simply hadn't been invented then. If you want to learn that "capitalism is an economy of greed, a force of nature unto itself", it's a strange, rather agrarian-focused introduction that won't give you any insight into modern debates about welfare or Wall Street.
calibraxis 14y ago
For some of them, I think it's better to first read works from knowledgeable dissidents. Then when reading those books, it's easier to spot the ideologies contained in them which you otherwise might have missed. (Since we have been trained since childhood to accept these ideologies without even noticing them.) Take Wealth Of Nations' insidious creation myth of markets, downplaying government policy in favor of barter myths. To someone like Neal Degrasse Tyson, raised in that mythology, it seems plausible that such a human social arrangement is in fact a force of nature. But if you read Graeber's Debt: the First 5000 Years, or maybe even Chomsky's Understanding Power, the myths get deflated. (http://www.zcommunications.org/debt-slavery-and-our-idea-of-freedom-part-1-by-david-graeber http://www.zcommunications.org/debt-slavery-and-our-idea-of-...) (Though I suppose with capitalism's negative externalities which threaten to turn the Earth into another Venus, maybe there is no significant distinction between it and a force of nature...)
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  Here's what amuses me about the idea of false consciousness. On the one hand, there's a view that history and the world we live in is a monstrous construct, the brilliant triumph of an elaborate, ruthless and flawlessly clandestine scheme orchestrated by generation upon generation of secret master minds. The alternative is that history is just one damn thing after the other. A complex system for which "it was caused by Secret Masters!" is a pisspoor explanation. Whether you blame it on the capitalist class, Ascended Masters or Jews, it's all the same. It's weak. I take Chomsky about as seriously as I take any other species of conspiratard (Illuminutties, birthers, truthers, Adam Curtis ... all the same to me). Good luck fighting the good fight, comrade. Workers of all countries, unite to read this tedious sophomoric drivel and march in pointless rent-a-crowd parades against vague notions!

by msvan 14y ago

passionfruit 14y ago

Reading large works like these may stimulate your thinking much more than getting the same information in a shorter format.

derrida 14y ago
I think msvan may have been referring to books too. For instance: Origin of the Species spends a great deal of time presenting evidence for why evolution should be believed. At the time this was of course necessary to convince all of the skeptics. Now, it can be sort of dry. Dry as in "not stimulating". It's much more interesting to follow a book that deals with things that are controversial today. Reading Dawkins for instance is likely to push some buttons even in those who accept evolution. It's also arguable that this sort of thing isn't science, it's just philosophy (the idea of the Meme, for instance) and if it is philosophy, how can we separate the philosophical import of evolution from the science of evolution. Yes, saying this is likely to rile up some Dawkins defenders, but then I've proven my point, the issues it discusses are not dry the way that pages and pages of evidence presented for an argument you already accept the conclusion of is. But I shouldn't really speak, I barely read these days.
notahacker 14y ago
That depends on the individual work, and how you respond to authors tending to assume you have the same knowledge and interests in the subject matter as a typical expert, a century or five back. If your reaction to reading The Prince, for example, is to go off and read other historical analysis of the many obscure conflicts he references, and discussions of the extent to which certain comments may have been intended as satire, then it might make a stimulating starting point for study. If you're simply looking to gain insight into the motivations of people in power, then you'd be better off reading an article-length summary of his key points and prioritising on to short-form content about Westphalian states and the limitations of democratic processes. Ultimately, you'll learn more relevant lessons from that than you would from Machiavellian observations on the castle of Milan causing more trouble for the Sforzas than it saves or the susceptibility of the Spaniards to cavalry and the Switzers to close combat. If you want to learn about markets, capitalism and pricing, then economists of all stripes will agree that the Wealth of Nations is commendably broad and readable but very outdated in its examples; many of the features of modern capitalism and the entire theories behind modern anticapitalism simply hadn't been invented then. If you want to learn that "capitalism is an economy of greed, a force of nature unto itself", it's a strange, rather agrarian-focused introduction that won't give you any insight into modern debates about welfare or Wall Street.

calibraxis 14y ago

For some of them, I think it's better to first read works from knowledgeable dissidents. Then when reading those books, it's easier to spot the ideologies contained in them which you otherwise might have missed. (Since we have been trained since childhood to accept these ideologies without even noticing them.) Take Wealth Of Nations' insidious creation myth of markets, downplaying government policy in favor of barter myths. To someone like Neal Degrasse Tyson, raised in that mythology, it seems plausible that such a human social arrangement is in fact a force of nature. But if you read Graeber's Debt: the First 5000 Years, or maybe even Chomsky's Understanding Power, the myths get deflated. (http://www.zcommunications.org/debt-slavery-and-our-idea-of-freedom-part-1-by-david-graeber http://www.zcommunications.org/debt-slavery-and-our-idea-of-...) (Though I suppose with capitalism's negative externalities which threaten to turn the Earth into another Venus, maybe there is no significant distinction between it and a force of nature...)

jacques_chester 14y ago
Here's what amuses me about the idea of false consciousness. On the one hand, there's a view that history and the world we live in is a monstrous construct, the brilliant triumph of an elaborate, ruthless and flawlessly clandestine scheme orchestrated by generation upon generation of secret master minds. The alternative is that history is just one damn thing after the other. A complex system for which "it was caused by Secret Masters!" is a pisspoor explanation. Whether you blame it on the capitalist class, Ascended Masters or Jews, it's all the same. It's weak. I take Chomsky about as seriously as I take any other species of conspiratard (Illuminutties, birthers, truthers, Adam Curtis ... all the same to me). Good luck fighting the good fight, comrade. Workers of all countries, unite to read this tedious sophomoric drivel and march in pointless rent-a-crowd parades against vague notions!