4 ms·

My good sir, if you do think Feynman, Knuth, Cover, Isidori, etc are junk, then you are a monster. What you have just said is equivalent to saying that van Gogh

by TriinT 17y ago

My good sir, if you do think Feynman, Knuth, Cover, Isidori, etc are junk, then you are a monster. What you have just said is equivalent to saying that van Gogh's works are just boring blobs of paint, or that Lord Byron didn't know how to write. These books are the finest examples of condensed knowledge mankind has ever been able to produce. Sure, they are VERY hard to read, but 1000s and 1000s of years of accumulated scientific and intellectual progress should not be easy to absorb. These books are enough for a lifetime of reading. My list of books will still be relevant in 1000 years, while the OP's reading list will be worthless in less than a 100 years. Deep knowledge does not get stale. Don't you see the common thread among the books I have listed? Here it is: they are all "bibles" in their respective fields.

Alex3917 17y ago
"My list of books will still be relevant in 1000 years, while the OP's reading list will be worthless in less than a 100 years. Deep knowledge does not get stale. Don't you see the common thread among the books I have listed? Here it is: they are all "bibles" in their respective fields." I guess to me the worth-readingness of a book comes from the quality of the questions it asks rather than from the finishedness of the answers. If you actually spent a lifetime reading those books I don't think you'd really get any closer to understanding the core of the human experience.
- TriinT 17y ago
  "If you actually spent a lifetime reading those books I don't think you'd really get any closer to understanding the core of the human experience." True. But I might understand Nature herself. I would like to have a solid grasp of the basics of Physics, Chemistry and Math before I get to 40. Human experience is better understood through literature and art. It's not "deep knowledge" because it's too personal (as opposed to universal), but that does not mean it does not lead to deep thinking.
- caffeine 17y ago
  Book from the Sivers list's question: "How to create maximum profit with minimal effort" (Mark Joyner, the Great Formula) Book from TriinT's list's question: "What is the nature of reality, and how does it work?" (Feynman lectures of physics) Surely, we can all agree the second question is more interesting.

by TriinT 17y ago

Alex3917 17y ago

"My list of books will still be relevant in 1000 years, while the OP's reading list will be worthless in less than a 100 years. Deep knowledge does not get stale. Don't you see the common thread among the books I have listed? Here it is: they are all "bibles" in their respective fields." I guess to me the worth-readingness of a book comes from the quality of the questions it asks rather than from the finishedness of the answers. If you actually spent a lifetime reading those books I don't think you'd really get any closer to understanding the core of the human experience.

TriinT 17y ago
"If you actually spent a lifetime reading those books I don't think you'd really get any closer to understanding the core of the human experience." True. But I might understand Nature herself. I would like to have a solid grasp of the basics of Physics, Chemistry and Math before I get to 40. Human experience is better understood through literature and art. It's not "deep knowledge" because it's too personal (as opposed to universal), but that does not mean it does not lead to deep thinking.
caffeine 17y ago
Book from the Sivers list's question: "How to create maximum profit with minimal effort" (Mark Joyner, the Great Formula) Book from TriinT's list's question: "What is the nature of reality, and how does it work?" (Feynman lectures of physics) Surely, we can all agree the second question is more interesting.