Man, I did not expect that outpouring of kindness at the start of the video. Everything you said is much appreciated. I'm glad to have made a video you consider great and to have left an absence for you to fill in. Your advice is essential for lifelong reading, that step from casual enjoyment to continuous engagement. For myself, many of these symbols emerge organically over time: I notice a type of information that I value across books, and then some distinctive squiggle arises out of necessity for that information. With enough books these squiggles accumulate into familiar markers of meaning (I'm guessing the process was the same for you, iterative and steady). That first impulse to annotate symbolically actually came from my mom whose books have mixed into my collection over the years; I was reading her old, bent copy of Capital and noticed all these clever ways to divide information. From that day on I experimented with my own delineations. I hope our videos serve as gifts of annotating inspiration just like how my mom's book was for me. Funnily enough, you and I use a couple of the same symbols but employ them for different purposes (except, weirdly, we have the exact same system for defining words), and you also have symbols-like the exclamation mark-that I haven't used yet but are so obvious I can't believe I didn't think to use them already, haha. My copy of A Global Theory of Intellectual Change came in, by the way. It'll still be a while before I get to it, but I want to thank you for bringing it to my attention. Where did you hear of it? It seems right up my alley and yet has remained unknown to me all these years.
Oh you have made much more than just one video that I consider great my friend! I don’t know why it doesn’t surprise me that there are so many similitudes between your annotating choices and my own. I also have a similar story in relation to reading my mother’s notes in her books, but our relationship is not as symbiotic as your own seem to be ha, ha. Anyways, I am glad I was able to add my own footnote to your video! As for the Collin’s Sociology of Philosophies my plan of reading it goes way back to my first year in university. Back then, I was compulsively reading philosophy histories wherever I could find them, and right around then, a Spanish philosopher called Ernesto Castro said on an interview that he believed that book to be the very best History of Philosophy ever made and a while later he even made a series of videos about it. I tend to take his recommendations extremely seriously because despite having attended philosophy classes in multiple universities, he is the only person I ever considered a real teacher on the subject, his videos really saved me when I was working in construction with no friends or time to carve nice pictures in the cave systems of by inner world. Nevertheless, my very ‘practical mind’ decided that I had to read every other philosophy history on my TBR before getting to it, a task that I just finished three years later at the dawn of this 2025. You can probably tell I was the kind of kid who would leave the nice food on the plate for last. I hope you let me know when you start reading it! There are a few books that I would like to break down on my channel like I did with Adorno’s and Hegel’s, and this is probably the one I anticipate the most along with Spinoza’s. I look forward to our many discussions about it :)
@@materiagrix That's a great bit of background to your knowledge of that book. Thanks for explaining so thoroughly. I have a similar completionist impulse when it comes to reading: I anticipate some great work, then line-up necessary precursors, to the point that it's taken me years to read what I really want to read out of a self-made necessity. I'm glad to have found someone with equally odd tendencies-I'm not alone in my compulsions! I'll definitely keep you posted! We'll have to video chat, not for RUclips, just between us. Once we're both halfway through that work (and Solenoid, too) would be a great time. I'll let you know once I'm done with all my other readerly requirements. By the way, I've also toiled through a few different philosophy overviews (Russell, Grayling); I think the one that flowed how I wanted was Appiah's Thinking It Through, but that only covers contemporary philosophy in a textbook-like format. Are there any others that for you were positive experiences? Also, go ahead and send me an email so we can get in touch that way. Should be near the description for my profile, a little button to reveal email.
That sounds great. Of the books you mentioned I prefer Russell’s, but I haven’t read Appiah’s. I just finished Durant’s ‘Story of Philosophy’ and although the first half was amazingly written, and it is very good for some figures like Kant, Bacon and Spinoza, overall it felt way too partial, and incomplete. In Spain the one I hear about the most is Copleston’s (Ernesto Castro swears by it), but I have never read that one cover to cover. My preference is Anthony Kenny’s History of Western Philosophy; It is very rigorous and not entirely dry, but my favorite thing about it is the structure, the book is divided in half between a history of philosophical thought and a history of philosophers. For something that goes beyond the West, I think Collin’s might be it, but I also recommend the podcast ‘History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps’ as a more leisurely approach. I haven’t been able to find your email, maybe send me a message to this one: grixetc @ gmail . com
Yes this is very helpful. There is a book I am almost done with and now I wish I had annotated the hell out of it but I did not even think about it until it was too late. The symbols you use have given me some ideas on how to figure out a language like you said. Thank you!
@@jennyjaybles Well there comes the joy of rereading, you’ll get another chance to annotate it at some point haha. I‘d love to see what symbols you come up with! I am glad I could help :)
Man, I did not expect that outpouring of kindness at the start of the video. Everything you said is much appreciated. I'm glad to have made a video you consider great and to have left an absence for you to fill in. Your advice is essential for lifelong reading, that step from casual enjoyment to continuous engagement. For myself, many of these symbols emerge organically over time: I notice a type of information that I value across books, and then some distinctive squiggle arises out of necessity for that information. With enough books these squiggles accumulate into familiar markers of meaning (I'm guessing the process was the same for you, iterative and steady).
That first impulse to annotate symbolically actually came from my mom whose books have mixed into my collection over the years; I was reading her old, bent copy of Capital and noticed all these clever ways to divide information. From that day on I experimented with my own delineations. I hope our videos serve as gifts of annotating inspiration just like how my mom's book was for me.
Funnily enough, you and I use a couple of the same symbols but employ them for different purposes (except, weirdly, we have the exact same system for defining words), and you also have symbols-like the exclamation mark-that I haven't used yet but are so obvious I can't believe I didn't think to use them already, haha.
My copy of A Global Theory of Intellectual Change came in, by the way. It'll still be a while before I get to it, but I want to thank you for bringing it to my attention. Where did you hear of it? It seems right up my alley and yet has remained unknown to me all these years.
Oh you have made much more than just one video that I consider great my friend! I don’t know why it doesn’t surprise me that there are so many similitudes between your annotating choices and my own. I also have a similar story in relation to reading my mother’s notes in her books, but our relationship is not as symbiotic as your own seem to be ha, ha. Anyways, I am glad I was able to add my own footnote to your video!
As for the Collin’s Sociology of Philosophies my plan of reading it goes way back to my first year in university. Back then, I was compulsively reading philosophy histories wherever I could find them, and right around then, a Spanish philosopher called Ernesto Castro said on an interview that he believed that book to be the very best History of Philosophy ever made and a while later he even made a series of videos about it. I tend to take his recommendations extremely seriously because despite having attended philosophy classes in multiple universities, he is the only person I ever considered a real teacher on the subject, his videos really saved me when I was working in construction with no friends or time to carve nice pictures in the cave systems of by inner world. Nevertheless, my very ‘practical mind’ decided that I had to read every other philosophy history on my TBR before getting to it, a task that I just finished three years later at the dawn of this 2025. You can probably tell I was the kind of kid who would leave the nice food on the plate for last. I hope you let me know when you start reading it! There are a few books that I would like to break down on my channel like I did with Adorno’s and Hegel’s, and this is probably the one I anticipate the most along with Spinoza’s. I look forward to our many discussions about it :)
@@materiagrix That's a great bit of background to your knowledge of that book. Thanks for explaining so thoroughly. I have a similar completionist impulse when it comes to reading: I anticipate some great work, then line-up necessary precursors, to the point that it's taken me years to read what I really want to read out of a self-made necessity. I'm glad to have found someone with equally odd tendencies-I'm not alone in my compulsions!
I'll definitely keep you posted! We'll have to video chat, not for RUclips, just between us. Once we're both halfway through that work (and Solenoid, too) would be a great time. I'll let you know once I'm done with all my other readerly requirements.
By the way, I've also toiled through a few different philosophy overviews (Russell, Grayling); I think the one that flowed how I wanted was Appiah's Thinking It Through, but that only covers contemporary philosophy in a textbook-like format. Are there any others that for you were positive experiences?
Also, go ahead and send me an email so we can get in touch that way. Should be near the description for my profile, a little button to reveal email.
That sounds great. Of the books you mentioned I prefer Russell’s, but I haven’t read Appiah’s. I just finished Durant’s ‘Story of Philosophy’ and although the first half was amazingly written, and it is very good for some figures like Kant, Bacon and Spinoza, overall it felt way too partial, and incomplete. In Spain the one I hear about the most is Copleston’s (Ernesto Castro swears by it), but I have never read that one cover to cover. My preference is Anthony Kenny’s History of Western Philosophy; It is very rigorous and not entirely dry, but my favorite thing about it is the structure, the book is divided in half between a history of philosophical thought and a history of philosophers. For something that goes beyond the West, I think Collin’s might be it, but I also recommend the podcast ‘History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps’ as a more leisurely approach.
I haven’t been able to find your email, maybe send me a message to this one:
grixetc @ gmail . com
Yes this is very helpful. There is a book I am almost done with and now I wish I had annotated the hell out of it but I did not even think about it until it was too late. The symbols you use have given me some ideas on how to figure out a language like you said. Thank you!
@@jennyjaybles Well there comes the joy of rereading, you’ll get another chance to annotate it at some point haha. I‘d love to see what symbols you come up with! I am glad I could help :)
Interesting setup and process. I'm still trying to figure out what I like and what works for me. Great vid
@@TriumphalReads I look forward to see what that is! Thank you!