Comments on: Foundations of knowledge http://www.topofthemountains.net/2006/08/04/foundations-of-knowledge/ "Hitch your wagon to a star." —Ralph Waldo Emerson Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:28:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Ben http://www.topofthemountains.net/2006/08/04/foundations-of-knowledge/#comment-3382 Ben Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:18:29 +0000 http://www.topofthemountains.net/2006/08/04/foundations-of-knowledge/#comment-3382 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.) 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.)

]]> By: John http://www.topofthemountains.net/2006/08/04/foundations-of-knowledge/#comment-3253 John Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:56:43 +0000 http://www.topofthemountains.net/2006/08/04/foundations-of-knowledge/#comment-3253 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. 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.

]]> By: Ben http://www.topofthemountains.net/2006/08/04/foundations-of-knowledge/#comment-3244 Ben Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:33:54 +0000 http://www.topofthemountains.net/2006/08/04/foundations-of-knowledge/#comment-3244 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: 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. :)

]]> By: Liz http://www.topofthemountains.net/2006/08/04/foundations-of-knowledge/#comment-3151 Liz Sun, 06 Aug 2006 03:40:39 +0000 http://www.topofthemountains.net/2006/08/04/foundations-of-knowledge/#comment-3151 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. 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.

]]> By: Liz http://www.topofthemountains.net/2006/08/04/foundations-of-knowledge/#comment-3150 Liz Sun, 06 Aug 2006 03:32:13 +0000 http://www.topofthemountains.net/2006/08/04/foundations-of-knowledge/#comment-3150 Of course, you may have already thought of this, but the <a href="http://honors.byu.edu/requirements_greatworks.cfm" rel="nofollow">Honors Great Works list</a> is a fairly comprehensive look at the classics. The literature section includes science, social science, philosophy, politics, and literary classics, plus a <i>very</i> 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. 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.

]]> By: Rikker http://www.topofthemountains.net/2006/08/04/foundations-of-knowledge/#comment-3144 Rikker Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:41:45 +0000 http://www.topofthemountains.net/2006/08/04/foundations-of-knowledge/#comment-3144 Hmm.. I've not read it, but for economics there's Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Hmm.. I’ve not read it, but for economics there’s Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations.

]]>