How important is it to read the popular classics of philosophy and literature?

Great Debates
1

I haven’t read a single work written by Shakespeare. I vaguely know the plot line of Hamlet and Otello, but that’s that. Similarly, I haven’t read anything by Nietzsche. I’ve tried, but couldn’t bear the writing style and just thought better off it. Also, I haven’t read the poetry of Schiller, or Goethe. I haven’t read the works of Sartre or Rousseau. I haven’t seen the paintings of Chagall or Renoir, nor do I know the terms used to refer to the artistic styles of Dali or Picasso. I don’t know any of this stuff, and yet I believe I know enough. I’ve read many contemporary books, fiction and non-fiction, about broad topics that span literature, philosophy, history, and sociology. I’ve read hundreds of thousands of articles in print newspapers and online. I’ve read status updates on Facebook, tweets on Twitter, and short messages on my phone. I’ve watched a lot of documentaries, films, series and plays from around the world. I believe I have some valid opinions about what goes on in the world, and believe I can express myself clearly and eloquently - to a certain extent - without knowing the ‘classics’.

Make no mistake, for I am no advocate of ignorance on any level, and I do not take pride in being oblivious to the aforementioned works/authors, but I find that there is an overwhelmingly large segment of any intellectual society treating the above works and authors as though they are the infrastructure of knowledge without which there can never be proper knowledge. Trust me, I did my best reading such works, but I couldn’t. In the case of translated works, I found that translation does - as it should - play an essential role, such as in the cases of The Brothers Karamazov and The Cloak (otherwise translated as The Overcoat - and I don’t like this version), both of which I’ve read in English and became fond of. But I do know that the writing style must have been distinctly good.

So yeah. I believe I know enough about the world to be able to express myself and articulate my thoughts without having to know the structure and definition that someone gave to that body of knowledge, although I would gladly learn about that structure/definition if I became interested in it or if I thought it to be of any value to the subject matter or any other subject matter.

That’s all. What do you think?

2

So, you’ve stopped learning?

That may be. But it’s a pretty meager thing, to be satisfied with “a certain extent” of validity in your opinion, clarity in your expression.

3

I find it much easier to argue that one should read/experience and appreciate some of The Classics, than that one must read/experience all of them. In my experience (and I’m sure many other people’s as well), I’ve read classics that have really spoken to me, that I’ve enjoyed or been influenced by or gotten a lot out of. And I’ve read, or tried to read, classics that I’ve found boring and that don’t do much for me at all.

Not all classics are going to be interesting or important to you. But some of them will be, and the ones that won’t, will be so to others (that’s why they’re classics), or might even be so to you if you tried them again at a different point in your life.

And, yes, older works are very often less accessible, and sometimes less worth the effort required to appreciate them. On the other hand, I can see C.S. Lewis’s point about reading old books:
[QUOTE=C. S. Lewis]
There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about “isms” and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said. The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator….

Every age has its own outlook. It is especially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books…. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but, Jack, is it fair taking Plato as your example? A lot of old books are far less reader-friendly than he.

4

This discussion comes up every once in a while when folk ask, “What should an intelligent person know/read.” Tough to come up with a universal definitive list. But I think you could probably come up with a lengthy list and say someone should have read some number of works off that list, and should be somewhat minimally familiar with another number of the authors and works.

The same can be said about film. Or TV. Or classical or pop music. I don’t think I could identify a single Taylor Swift song. But I’ve got some minimal awareness of who she is and I know a lot of people feel strongly about her.

There is some benefit to going to original sources. If you do not read the original work, then you are forming an opinion about it based on someone else’s opinions of it. So much of EVERYTHING that goes on is “spin.” Every once in a while it is nice to go back to an original source, and form your own opinion.

With writers in a language other than your own, you are also dealing with the quality of the translation. I’ve read wonderful and not-so-wonderful translations of the same Russian novels. So you can’t read EVERYTHING. And you can’t read just classics to the extent that you ignore more recent work.

Right now, I’m working through The Origin of Species. Evolution has always been one of the things I’ve been most interested in, and I’ve read many books about Darwin, but never one of his books. Gotta admit it is slow going, but I’m glad to be doing it.

5

Are you even in high school yet considering that virtually every high school (at least in the Anglophone world) includes Shakespeare in their curriculum?

6

That about sums it up.

7

Well, in the case of Shakespeare, I think just reading his plays is half doing it wrong. You have to read it enough to get a handle on how the lines are delivered, but it doesn’t really work for me until I’m watching it acted out.

In the case of Chagall’s work, I think seeing it is it’s own reward. Even reproductions are great. Bur Renoir? Ugh, no thanks whatsoever.

But either of these is really a matter of taste. If the art doesn’t work for you, it doesn’t. Slogging away at understanding it isn’t going to bring you much enjoyment. It doesn’t sound like you’ve sworn off experiencing new things. It sounds more like you feel obligated to enjoy the things that you’ve heard are classics, have tasted, and didn’t like.

I don’t think the creators of the works themselves want you to slog through them as some sort of gymnasium of culture (ok, maybe Nietzsche did). Unless you’re working in the field they’re in, I don’t see why you need a deep understanding of them. Plus, our tastes change. I used to not be crazy about Monet, then I started to “get” certain paintings. Now, I really like him.

8

With artforms that have been around a long time (e.g. novels), or a really long time (painting), they’re no longer developing in a linear obviously-getting-better way. Their development is much more fragmented and smaller in scale, hard to appreciate nowadays. What some of the classics give you is a sense of wonder in how the work set a new, enduring standard - in a way that is no longer possible as the artform has matured. The most revered classics, like a Rembrandt painting, or *Ulysses *, say, are almost anti-influential. They have a timeless, preserved quality IMHO. Like a summit of excellence was reached that cannot be repeated, and all the other artists and writers had to take a step back and do something else.

9

Sort of like how the woman said she didn’t like Shakespeare, because all he did was string together a bunch of well-known quotes. :smiley:

One should experience as many of the classics as possible. It isn’t possible to experience them all, more’s the pity, but C. S. Lewis’ quote is appropriate.

I would add that one ought not only to experience the classics, but also trash - especially classic trash. One appreciates Dashiell Hammett or Raymond Chandler more after reading Mickey Spillane.

Regards,
Shodan

10

You certainly don’t have to read the great works of literature, but these works weren’t randomly picked out of a hat, “Oh, we’ll call these ones great”. They are great because of the powerful and overwhelming effect they have when read. Some of the most memorable reading experences of my life have been reading Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, Boswell’s Life of Johnson, Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy, the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides, the works of Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden, Montaigne, Rabelais, the list goes on (I’ve been reading voraciously for the last 50-odd years).

As I say, no one will make you read these books but it’s to your impoverishment if you don’t.

11

This is one case where renting a tape/DVD of a film adaptation of the book is actually a good choice for learning it, and not just a way of saving time on your book report.

12

Don’t bother with his books, just read his
[quotes]
(Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikiquote). Very aphoristic writer, Nietzsche.

13

And, if a given Shakespeare play has never been adapted for the screen, you can probably find a recorded live-theater performance of it on YouTube. Likewise with a lot of other classic plays.

14

I find it vitally important to be familiar with the classics even if you have not actually done the grunt work of reading them. But the reading is often its own reward. (I have complete Shakespeare on my Kindle, as well as P.G. Wodehouse, Lovecraft, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Marcus Aurelius, and a ragbag collection of other authors. I never in the position of having nothing worthwhile to read regardless of my mood.)

15

I don’t know one damn thing about Taylor Swift other than “female singer”, yet I’m convinced I’m a reasonably informed citizen.

16

Classics indeed! :smiley:

(Well, they are if you want any DopeCred.)

17

Reading or watching Shakespeare will in fact help you fit in with society better, because he had a tremendous impact on the language and even on our ways of thought. But that’s not why you should expose yourself to his works. You should expose yourself to his works because you are quite likely to enjoy them. For centuries people have enjoyed the works of Shakespeare just on their merits as entertainment-- why deny yourself that? It’s possible, of course, that you won’t enjoy his works: Some don’t. But how would you ever know that if you don’t even try?

18

The thing I like about reading the classics is I’m constantly catching obscure references made to them on Television and movies. It’s like, “Hey I got that! That was a shout out to A Tale of Two Cities!” or “Hey, that was from Catcher in the Rye!”.

It’s the small joys in life. :slight_smile:

19

Yep, he stopped learning right after high school. Shame really.

Yeah, it’s always a nice feeling when that happens.

20

You sure that’s all you know? No idea whether she sings pop or opera? Is young or old? Thin or fat? Skin and hair color? Wildly popular or niche market? Successful in the awards?