i've only found blinkist useful for helping decide if i want to invest the time into reading the full book. it's been much more useful than most reviews and such. i don't use it for literature though. mostly for personal development type books or motivational books. it's also of some use for biographies. i find it gives me the lay of the land before i actually read the book. for philosophy it would just gave me a false sense of security going into the reading. it sounds so simple in the blinkist summary, but it generally isn't once i get into the reading. it has also given conclusions that mislead me and were, based on my own reading, just plain wrong. so i think it is useless at best and misleading at worst for philosophy. i remember when i first started reading philosophy. picked up Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" because someone recommended it and then had to put it down and go find the works it was based on. this recursion continued until i was back into Crito and the Republic. no one warned me i was entering a conversation midway between when it started and when i stood. just found your channel today. enjoying your videos so far. cheers.
Oh my goodness this was so good! You made me laugh too and I’m super tired so that was a feat! I’m never going to say “literature!” ever agsin without jazz hands! Love it
Would also argue that the smartest scientists I know are less likely yo argue and most likely to ask questions and not be scared to show their knowledge gaps cause they know nobody knows anything lol
I know five people who are truly well read but only two of them understand Kant and Hegel hahaha. In philosophy it’s important to note that although most books are way simpler than the two you mentioned, when people claims to understand them, they normally mean that they understand the overall argument plus perhaps a few of the intellectual side quests that were fertilized along the way. Something like Hegel’s Phenomenology could only be reasonably understood as a whole by somebody who was willing to give up a lot of other readings in order to focus on it for a long time, consequently loosing general knowledge. But that is my point, it is called ‘well read’, not ‘well studied’ or ‘deeply read’. If you have read a hard book cover to cover and understand enough to have a conversation about it, as far as I am concerned, you can count it even if you didn’t completely get it. Otherwise, anybody who didn’t study philosophy could ever be well read in this specific genre. In some way this can be encouraging, because it opens the door for you to become world expert on whatever book or genre you are passionate about, I find that a much more interesting goal. Becoming well read, rather than by some sort of artificially imposed duty, can only genuinely be achieved as a collateral effect to being a naturally curious and inquisitive reader.
Yeah blinkist and co are such a disease to reading😂 people just want to push their ego by sounding smart about certain topics. As someone who reads “non literature”😂😂 as well, I feel bad for people who cant enjoy reading without it feeling like a chore, always just trying to maximize their efficiency :,))
At first I thought when you said you didn’t like Bloom that was the reason you disliked Blood Meridian cause Bloom praised it to the skies but I know it was because you just didn’t like the book. Anyway you can’t just “Wiki” a large knowledge of literature anymore than Rosie Perez did with the Jeopardy tv game show in that comedy the name of which I can’t recall and you’ve probably haven’t seen.⚛️❤️
I understand very little I just like what the squiggles on the wood shavings do to my brainy brain
i've only found blinkist useful for helping decide if i want to invest the time into reading the full book. it's been much more useful than most reviews and such. i don't use it for literature though. mostly for personal development type books or motivational books. it's also of some use for biographies. i find it gives me the lay of the land before i actually read the book.
for philosophy it would just gave me a false sense of security going into the reading. it sounds so simple in the blinkist summary, but it generally isn't once i get into the reading. it has also given conclusions that mislead me and were, based on my own reading, just plain wrong. so i think it is useless at best and misleading at worst for philosophy.
i remember when i first started reading philosophy. picked up Hume's "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding" because someone recommended it and then had to put it down and go find the works it was based on. this recursion continued until i was back into Crito and the Republic. no one warned me i was entering a conversation midway between when it started and when i stood.
just found your channel today. enjoying your videos so far. cheers.
Oh my goodness this was so good! You made me laugh too and I’m super tired so that was a feat! I’m never going to say “literature!” ever agsin without jazz hands! Love it
This video made me feel more well read 😊
Would also argue that the smartest scientists I know are less likely yo argue and most likely to ask questions and not be scared to show their knowledge gaps cause they know nobody knows anything lol
Being well read is about not much …. lol I loved this so much
I know five people who are truly well read but only two of them understand Kant and Hegel hahaha. In philosophy it’s important to note that although most books are way simpler than the two you mentioned, when people claims to understand them, they normally mean that they understand the overall argument plus perhaps a few of the intellectual side quests that were fertilized along the way. Something like Hegel’s Phenomenology could only be reasonably understood as a whole by somebody who was willing to give up a lot of other readings in order to focus on it for a long time, consequently loosing general knowledge. But that is my point, it is called ‘well read’, not ‘well studied’ or ‘deeply read’. If you have read a hard book cover to cover and understand enough to have a conversation about it, as far as I am concerned, you can count it even if you didn’t completely get it. Otherwise, anybody who didn’t study philosophy could ever be well read in this specific genre. In some way this can be encouraging, because it opens the door for you to become world expert on whatever book or genre you are passionate about, I find that a much more interesting goal. Becoming well read, rather than by some sort of artificially imposed duty, can only genuinely be achieved as a collateral effect to being a naturally curious and inquisitive reader.
Howard Bloom? Surely you mean Howard Wilkinson.
Howard? Are you sure about that?
the main pitfall is, I am getting old
Yeah blinkist and co are such a disease to reading😂 people just want to push their ego by sounding smart about certain topics. As someone who reads “non literature”😂😂 as well, I feel bad for people who cant enjoy reading without it feeling like a chore, always just trying to maximize their efficiency :,))
At first I thought when you said you didn’t like Bloom that was the reason you disliked Blood Meridian cause Bloom praised it to the skies but I know it was because you just didn’t like the book. Anyway you can’t just “Wiki” a large knowledge of literature anymore than Rosie Perez did with the Jeopardy tv game show in that comedy the name of which I can’t recall and you’ve probably haven’t seen.⚛️❤️