Foundations of knowledge

While reading The Origin of Species, I got to thinking more about the existence of classics in any given field. By “classic,” I mean the seminal books that virtually all the later books refer to and are based on.

So in biology, Darwin’s book (probably both Origin and The Descent of Man) is a must-read for anyone who’s serious about the field. Whether or not you agree with him, you have to read it to truly be well-versed. You can’t just read commentary about Darwin; you have to read him, the original, straight from the source.

In mathematics, Euclid’s Elements was the standard textbook for around 2,000 years. Sounds like a classic. :) In fact, the Wikipedia article says, “Not until the 20th century did it cease to be considered something all educated people had read.” That’s what I’m getting at — books that everyone should read. (Specifically everyone interested in that field, but it applies to more general self-education as well.)

In physics, Newton’s Principia sticks out as a must-read. Vitruvius’ De Architectura is a classic of architecture. SICP seems to have become the de facto computer science classic. As far as writing goes, Strunk & White comes to mind. Typography has Robert Bringhurst’s The Elements of Typographic Style.

Can you think of other classics? Do all fields have them, or only some? (My examples are almost all from the sciences, interestingly.)

It’d be nice to put together a list of these kind of classics — I know that for me, when I get interested in a field I like to go to the original. Is there a classic for sculpture? For botany? For astronomy? For history? For economics?

Hey, this is what librarians do! (Fancy that. :))

Hmm.. I’ve not read it, but for economics there’s Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations.

Of course, you may have already thought of this, but the Honors Great Works list is a fairly comprehensive look at the classics. The literature section includes science, social science, philosophy, politics, and literary classics, plus a very short non-Western section. (I highly recommend Silence by Endo Shûsaku.)

Even better, the packet also includes lists of classic art, music, theatre, and film. It works pretty well as a life-goal list of things to see and read. I’m not doing too bad on the lit section, but the music section looks dismal.

I was at the Provo Library today, walking through the non-fiction. I turned around and the first book that caught my eye was Origin of Species. Completely on accident. So, I took that as a sign and checked it out.

Also, I think the reason we shy away from learning directly from the classics today is that the primary sources written today are fairly unreadable. Ever tried to read a scientific journal today? Jargon filled garbage, and some of the worst written sentences I’ve ever seen. Deciphering primary texts requires a degree, and even for someone in the field, it’s almost impossible.

Because our modern “classics” are unreadable, we assume older texts are probably also impossible.

Rikker: Good call, I hadn’t thought of that one.

Liz: I agree that many of our modern “classics” are unreadable. The style in scientific journals is atrocious. It’s a pity, because good research deserves to be well-written.

I wish the Great Works list were divided up by subject instead of time period, but oh well. :)

Rikker: I think Marx’s Das Kapital must be considered along with The Wealth of Nations–the socialist/capitalist conundrum seems to be the central arguement in modern-day economics.

I agree, John. And someday I intend to read Mein Kampf, not because I feel any kind of kinship with Hitler, but because it’s important to know what turned him into a monster. (I don’t necessarily expect to find that in the book, of course, but there’ll be hints here and there, I’m sure.)