There's literally no reason why reading the full 1,000 pages of Kant's Critique (for example) is better or more valuable than just reading the Wikipedia (or any secondary summary, really).
It's all purely a question of time investment. Why would I waste 80 hours slogging through Kant when I could study something actually valuable? In what way will reading Kant benefit me? Why shouldn't I use that time to study math, or history, or some other actually valuable intellectual field? Even if understanding Kant's ideas will benefit me, why is it more valuable to read the whole thing rather than just a summary? Is there some hidden doctrine that the Wikipedia editors and History of Philosophy book writers have all tacitly agreed to leave out of their summaries?
Even if I were to finish the entirety of the Critique, whoever wrote the Wikipedia article or History of Philosophy book would no doubt still have a better understanding of Kant than I would. I'd have to read Kant over and over, read his other works, read various commentaries, etc. to get to their level. But again, that just brings us back to the original question. Is there any reason this is worthwhile when I could just read a summary written by someone who already did all this work?
Everytime I ask this question, people just say "umm because you...le should!" or jump to calling me a midwit, etc. but nobody can give an actually good defense of reading these "classics".
Of course this applies even more to most lesser books. It's been remarked that most nonfiction books published nowadays could just have been blog posts, and I agree. Even the ones with a solid core tack on tons of pointless crap. A book should have to justify its length. If it's just repeating itself over and over, I'm going to drop it.
Of course this doesn't apply to fiction, or any classics that actually use their length well, like the Republic.
Midwit take
But why is it a midwit take? You read all this philosophy and you still can't give a reason why you did it.
I'll bite. The information density of the 1000 pages of Kant's Critique is what should make it hypothetically worth it to read it, if you're out for information density. Reading a book in full from front cover end to back cover end rewards one with a well-deserved achievement: having achieved the mental work of reading everything in the object is the reward. A midwit as described on this board is one lacking in the work ethic to finish what he starts for the full 100% and then gives it another 20-80% in which he reflects upon his work, allowing for more cultural production, keeping the humanity pedestrians pedestrianing. It is arguably (I'm not the anon you replied to) a midwit take because on the extreme ends of the number line there is, with the negative first and the positive last
>Do 0% work
>Do >0% but <100% work
>Do 100% work
The midwit falls in the second category, by virtue of 'mid' standing for 'middle' and 'wit' for 'good sport about doing the homework' and, truth be always told, if admitting that he falls in the second category he or she is worthy of the title he admits to hold.
Mea culpa if I sound beligerent - ego est midwittus also.
Midwit detected
all these post don't engage with the OP and amount to nothing more than downvotes.
>I'm a fricking moron
thank you OP, very cool
Most people who study math become fancy calculators, most people who study history become alcoholic high school teachers. Does not really matter what you study, unless you put in the effort to be at the top of your game you end up in the same place as most everyone.
If you are going to read summaries of philosophy at least do yourself a favor and head over to plato.stanford.edu, wikipedia is shit.
This.
You sound like a moron; arguing with a pretentious c**t like you is a dead end.
In a word? Originality. You don't read a work just to understand it. You read a work to get something out of it that only you will get. This could simply be a slight variation in an existing perspective on one section or it could be a whole new way of interpreting the text. Either way, it's useful. Beyond this it's also useful to read the work itself because you'll be far more likely to remember, and thus be able to draw more robust conclusions, if you do.
If you've ever taken part in a seminar at university, you'll get where I'm coming from. It's always easy to see who has done the reading and who has relied on wikipedia. You will get far more out of the book and out of discussions around the book if you take the time to grasp what the book is saying yourself. Summaries can be very helpful but only as a secondary measure.
>”I hate reading!” Post #8984529425
Whew op you big brain bastard you. Yeah no you figured it all out. I'm stunned you didn't figure out that reading Wikipedia was a waste of time. I'm equally stunned you were able to figure out that blogposting about not reading here was the most productive thing you can achieve. You are the pinnacle of human achievement. Congratulations.
Didn't even finish reading the OP but he is definitely a gay.
>In what way will reading Kant benefit me?
this nibba has not yet pondered a priori knowledge and it shows
All the wordcels itt saying "it's just valuable because uhh...it just is, ok midwit?" like I predicted lol
It's valuable because I enjoy it.
>I've had sex
>well, I watch pornography and jerk off, it's basically the same thing
you're actually just moronic
>reading Kant is like having sex
stay deluded
thanks for confirming that reading philosophy is just intellectual masturbation. tbh it's no different than reading genre fiction slop.
>it's no different than reading genre fiction slop
What do you read that's better than genre fiction?
Soviet mathematics textbooks.
Cool
Link? Give me some recs.
This is where you live. Thinking you have knowledge when you actually know nothing. Skimming off the top and never truly putting in the work to develop wisdom and understanding.
that's a lot of words when you consider that it all reduces to "ur dum."
see
>Even if I were to finish the entirety of the Critique, whoever wrote the Wikipedia article or History of Philosophy book would no doubt still have a better understanding of Kant than I would. I'd have to read Kant over and over, read his other works, read various commentaries, etc. to get to their level. But again, that just brings us back to the original question. Is there any reason this is worthwhile when I could just read a summary written by someone who already did all this work?
>Everytime I ask this question, people just say "umm because you...le should!"
You may have to strain your brain for this one, OP but perhaps someone may want to read can't... For fun?
There is a lot of yapping in nonfiction books but the trick is that you have to enjoy reading and then it's not a problem. There's no point in slogging through kant if you don't enjoy it, but some people enjoy it so they do it. It is masturbatory.
>Chudspeare
Shakespeare is not a Chud. He is a simpcuck. as I illustrated here:
https://archived.moe/lit/thread/21083042/#21083042
If you’re truly interested in what Kant has to say you should read the entirety of his book and not just a summary on Wikipedia. If you’re not really interested then why even bother with the Wikipedia page?
>Even if I were to finish the entirety of the Critique, whoever wrote the Wikipedia article or History of Philosophy book would no doubt still have a better understanding of Kant than I would.
Philosophy isn’t just something you read, so by all means yes, learn from people who have a better understanding of it than you, there are probably better places to find them than Wikipedia though. But you shouldn’t blindly listen to what they have to say, and if you haven’t read the original work, you have no choice but to entirely trust them, you’re unable to challenge their view in any way.
>Is there some hidden doctrine that the Wikipedia editors and History of Philosophy book writers have all tacitly agreed to leave out of their summaries?
Yes. You're only getting the 6/10 experience. AI won't help you either, it'll only accurately summarize something on the level of news articles decently.
It's about retention and being able to follow through the ideas to their conclusions, for the most part. Someone like Kant might be long winded and someone like Schopenhauer will be repetitive, but repetition hammers the nail home. You'll most likely forget a wikipedia summary, not be able to identify the more nuanced points made, etc.
I will agree there are some classics that shouldn't be read, but the ones that shouldn't are the ones that typically aren't. Like that piece of shit The Wealth of Nations should remain forgotten.