Hacker News Reader

I think this is with you, not with the books. Maybe you're talking about when you were a teenager or before -- I did a poor job of reading many books when I was younger, too.

But most adults don't read good novels or tracts on philosophy or sociology and then come out learning "nothing." I promise that there is much more than "nothing" inside. I think it's awfully pessimistic to say that you can't learn anything from books after your experience; books are more or less the only window into almost the entire history of human thought and storytelling, and not being able to incorporate that history into yourself is a problem.

You're the essence of the problem, messieur.

What's so pessimistic about it? Whatever floats your boat, pal. If books enrich you, keep reading. Do not force everyone else to do so, though. Might be that there are other sources of enlightenment. Nature, nice chicks, long discussions, Italian restaurants etc. It's pure symbolic violence what you do right now, pal.

Easy test, though.

Speak to a random literature folk, who graduated five years ago, or so. By average, he is completely clueless. You recognize he is smart, uses much complicated buzzwords than you've ever heard of, but chances are, you do not expect him to change the world, nor get laid.

It should be obvious what's my point. If you're smart, books might help you. If you're average, books won't change it significantly and sometimes might make things much more worse, clouding your mind or hiding your ignorance behind overly complicated concepts. Accidentally, most of the world is not that smart, and it's perfectly OK.

That's why I say that books are overrated, and we should ask yourself a question whether we really get so much from them as we think we do. Chances are that some people will keep reading but others would be more happy dancing, drawing or being next Sasha Grey or Stoya, without this guilt they don't read enough books.

By the way, I don't say that there is "nothing" in books. Nothing can be something, too. However, the knowledge about Humbert Humbert and a little girl he loved, is, for me, nothing significant.

I have to admit, you've got a point. I feel a little bit like the Christian who insists on starting every conversation with a discussion about how you ought to let Jesus into your heart. I will think a little bit and see if I can defend my position this evening.

Thank you. I appreciate your honesty.

"I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it."

-Sherlock Holmes, A Study In Scarlet

I lke mnmalism.

From silly to hardcore stuff, like philosophy, sociology and literature critique. From novels to strictly technical books about management.

I was able to fluently speak about postmodernism, and I was a complete imbecile.

If your idea of hardcore is literary critique and postmodernism, perhaps you were reading the wrong (IMHO) books. Have you ever tried "Surely you're joking, Mr Feynman", "Godel, Escher and Bach", or anything by say, Terry* Pratchett?

* whose opinion of literary critique is neatly summed up by this quote:

'I save about twenty drafts -- that's ten meg of disc space -- and the last one contains all the final alterations. Once it has been printed out and received by the publishers, there's a cry here of 'Tough shit, literary researchers of the future, try getting a proper job!' and the rest are wiped.'

The question to ask yourself is what exactly were you trying to learn from philosophy, sociology and literature critique? And why did you think such books would benefit you?

If you read the wrong types of books, the ones that do not resonate with your goals, then you will gain nothing. Reading Tolstoy, when your goals are in physics, will seem like a waste of time, a mere pleasure, sort of like watching a movie or taking a walk. But when your goal is to become a good writer, a better teller of stories, then reading Tolstoy can be an epiphany of sorts. You see how his stylistic effects can be applied to your own writing; how a novel can capture the spirit of the times much more effectively than any historian could, and so on and so forth.

Knowledge is only good when applicable, otherwise it is useless.

I agree. However, I find this approach very rare. The current trend it that every erudite should read Hemingway, Nabokov, Catch 22, and many other books. I think it is worth time for some people, but not for the whole society.

My approach, shortly speaking, was that I've found most of the stuff not challenging at all. So, I raised the bar, reading literature critique. Then, I realized it is pure bullshit, and jumped into sociology, then into philosophy, then into philosophy of mathematics and it turned out that pure textbooks are much more interesting after all.

Shortly, I agree it depends on the goal. Keep in mind, though, that people's goals vary a lot. And that's my point rephrased otherwise: if you are not interested in reading something, give up. Unfortunately, the current trend is to read books, and if you find nothing in them, the problem is in you. I try to fight with this symbolic violence, whenever possible.

@klipt, I don't want to create so many responses so I will give you the feedback here.

Yes, I read all the books you've mentioned, except Pratchett, which bores me to hell. I've found Goedel's proof itself more enjoyable to understand than the books about it. The commentaries, in this particular case, seemed mostly unnecessary. (I don't like this fetish of Goedel's work that extrapolates its misunderstanding to all other ares; eg, Putnam)