Comment by handrous | Hacker News Reader

Comment by handrous | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Why should I read these decades, centuries, millennia old books as a beginner [1]? In no other field are beginners asked to read old primary texts.

I think there are a few reasons:

1) I can't explain why, but, unlike physics or math, distillations and commentaries often miss key points and insights, and not uncommonly badly misrepresent works. Reading one then the other makes this clear. It's also the case that the canonical works are often (not always!) well-written, so difficult to improve on—possibly this is a side-effect of how philosophy works, as a field.

2) (I think this one's very important) Historical works of philosophy (which, see above, also have a tendency to be quite good for what they are) are, in themselves, a bit like exercises in math. Skipping wrestling with (at least a good number of) them is like trying to learn multivariate calculus without having yet put pencil to paper and worked through any exercises, for any kind of math, your entire life. In math, you have to do the work, to learn the material. Critically reading touchstone works in philosophy is philosophy's equivalent of doing the exercises, to a substantial degree.

3) The way philosophy has developed is kinda like rap: a lot of it won't make any damn sense—or, worse, will seem like it does, but actually you're getting entirely the wrong idea—unless you're familiar with the work of the person this track's responding to, and then that one is also part of a larger conversation, et c. Maybe that's a bad way for it to have developed, but that's what we've got.

Your is the best answer up till now. So let me respond.

1. I think you misunderstand me. I am not interested in distillations and commentaries. I am interested in building upon the works of past philosophers, improving their weak arguments, supplying better arguments that they missed out on, finding better examples than what they used, and finally going past what the said, and saying even more. The replacement of Nietzsche's books should be books that say somewhat similar things, but which are better arguments than Nietzsche. This must be possible for any intellectual discipline, because any such discipline by definition must create transferable knowledge and skills. And if you are not, the problem cannot be with the character of your intellectual discipline, but with the social structure and practices of your discipline.

2. To follow upon point 1, and to answer your points 2, take the example of GR again. What Einstein wrote is simpler and probably easier to understand than good modern graduate textbooks on the subject - the latter have far more sophisticated arguments, and they go explore the area far more than Einstein ever did. Because of course, physicists and mathematicians kept building and improving.

Similarly, what I expect is that philosophers should constantly be making better and more sophisticated arguments, that require more and more skill and acumen to understand. But a beginner starts with very carefully constructed arguments that easy to understand, yet astounding, and as her skills increases, she is given more and more difficult arguments to grapple with. this is how things happen in other intellectual disciplines by design. But not in philosophy, and I truly don't understand why.

How do you expect to build upon the works of past philosophers if you haven't actually read them?

The "replacement" for Nietzsche's books, if that's a goal, must also address WHY Neitzsche's arguments are weak or insufficient. It must also address, to a degree, structuralism/post-structuralism, postmodernism, etc. This is not a process wherein Nietzsche (or Heidegger, or Hegel, or whomever). Questions of "how ought one live?" are not narrowly focused. Simply because you did not study philosophy and seemingly disregard the idea that different people may adhere to different ethical systems (as one part of philosophy) does not invalidate the discipline. There is no universal, provable "right" answer to "what is ethical?" Certainly there is overlap between virtue ethics and utilitarianism and intuitionism for how one might behave, but the reasoning behind them all differs.

Humans are not omniscient. Philosophers are not omniscient. It's disingenuous to talk about general relativity as an example, and much more cogent to talk about theoretical physics (to which I can't speak with any authority except as a lay reader who's aware of multiple theoretical frameworks which cannot be simultaneously true). Sure, you can have "more sophisticated arguments (mathematics)", but the answers to some of these questions may never be known. In philosophy, we will NEVER know the answers to questions about the human condition, the nature of knowledge, etc. Just because it's not mathematics which are "transferable" and can build on top of each other does mean that the knowledge is not transferable or that the arguments do not get more sophisticated.

Exactly what you're describing DOES happen in philosophy, and has always happened.

I'm jumping into this thread, but I think I see how you're talking past each other. Here's my read of the situation.

Take an idea like Newton's Law of Gravity, and let's separate the words that Newton wrote, and the content of the ideas behind those words. Many people, over decades, have considered how to best to present and teach the content of the idea in the best way possible. The same happens with Einstein's General Relativity.

Current practicing astrophysicists, even those whose career is making measurements of General Relativity, have very likely never read neither the original words of Einstein nor Newton's words on Gravitation. This is not a scandal because the physicist's attitude is: who cares about the words used in the original description, when what matters is the content of the idea?

Further, if smart and pedagogically minded people can work and re-work the actual content into a much more understandable distillation of the actual idea, why not use that? Everyone still realizes that it's Newton's idea.

Contrast this with a philosopher working on some modern topic that built on some ideas of Nietzsche -- saying they have never read the original words would be seen as an admission of professional neglect. But even a 1st year undergraduate, what's taken as an important thing is to read the actual words of Nietzsche (perhaps in translation) and not someone's presentation of the ideas in their best possible form.

So, let's circle back to the original distinction: the idea and the words originally used to express that idea. In physics, you attempt go to the best exposition of the idea (which is rarely the original words). In philosophy, there is a primacy given to the words themselves that is bizarre from the physicist's perspective.

Finally to address what you wrote here:

> The "replacement" for Nietzsche's books, if that's a goal, must also address WHY Neitzsche's arguments are weak or insufficient.

This isn't what is being asked for. Easier perhaps to shift into the physics example.

When learning of Newtonian Gravity you learn about the concept in the best form possible (again, not the original words used by Newton but a modern presentation of the content of the idea). That's the equivalent of what's being asked for w/ Nietzsche.

You may later learn how Newton's ideas are incorrect just as you may later learn ways in which Nietzsche's arguments could be improved, but that's for later.

The missing idea in philosophy is having the best presentation of the content of the idea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com