Schopenhauer's views on learning/reading

Schopenhauer has some interesting views on book-learning. He says that too much reading is bad and is a reversal of natural learning. Whereas people naturally make observations which inspire ideas, book-learning gives one ideas which are generally misapplied. He believed that if you filled your head too frequently with other people's ideas, you'd lose your ability to think independently.

I'm only just starting on Schopenhauer but this line of reasoning intrigued me. Can anyone expound on these ideas?

What needs to be expounded upon? He states it plainly, reading too many books is bad for your intellectual health.

I want to know what others think about it. Also, what would you consider 'too much'? He also states that one should completely avoid all but the great literary works.

He's right, what else do you...
Oh, I get it.

Depends what end you are reading to. If you are researching a topic in which there amassing a huge amount of knowledge is important and the way you think about it is straightforward then it's probably fine. Also depends on the person

He is absolutely correct, a sensitive mind is like a sponge and reading too many shitty books will make you a shitty writer, period. Even if you are conscious that they are shitty books going into it they have a tendency to rub off on you. Time and distance can heal wounds inflicted by bad books, having read some truly god awful shit in your youth as we all did will not harm you in the long run IMO but if you are an adult indulging in YA novels (which is basically what Schop's mom was in the business of writing IIRC) you are quite literally poisoning your mind.

YA lit is television put to paper and there is almost universal agreement that too much television rots your brain. It should be uncontroversial then that bad books are bad for your intellect. He goes further though and says that even good books can be bad influences since they can redirect you away from otherwise profitable paths of intellectual inquiry. Look at philosophy and how philosophers tend to build on each other and fit their works into the framework of the previous generation, but when cutting thoughts to size to fit into this frame, something is lost and often that something is valuable.

I forgot to finish with this: Schopenhauer basically believes that you should resort to reading only when you are 'stuck' on something, whatever issue it is, when your experiences and own cleverness cannot bring you to a satisfactory conclusion on an issue you should resort to reading. Reading is something akin to reading a strategy guide or wiki when stuck on a puzzle or boss in a video game. You are robbed of some achievement, but if you cannot overcome a boss without reading the wiki, you won't get a chance at taking on the rest of the challenges in the game.

So in some sense there is advocacy for reading, but doing so strategically to get past the tough stumbling blocks and into areas where your intellect can more gainfully express itself. There's no sense in pounding your head against a rock but even less sense in indulging in philosophy or other intellectual endeavors like a color by numbers book where you just apply what someone else thought to whatever problem you encounter.

Great post.

OP here. Thank you for your interpretations. I'm not convinced that his stance was quite so extreme, though I'm only just starting on his discussions

>I want to know what random Veeky Forums shitposters think before I put more faith into one of the smartest people ever

This is a board dedicated to discussing literature. I assumed that people who concern themselves with reading frequently would have something interesting to say about this. You're the only shitposter here.

He also said that most books are not good and bad books are poison for the intellect. Better not to read anything than to read bad books.

From this point of view you could advocate reading fiction as a not-too-assertive playground to enterain ideas in

(You)s are to shitposters as smegma is to cock-hungry servant boys.

Schopenhauer had an appreciation for fiction in that he thought escapism was a fundamentally good thing to indulge in. He tends to favor music and fine arts over literature but I'm certain he would express some appreciation for something like LOTR, if not in how it is written or what ideas it espouses, in how it can engross a reader.

Nice sentiment but in practice, I imagine, totally wrong. The fundamental flaw that le old sad man seems to think'll happen is you not knowing what your actual opinion is as you'll spend too much time lost in others' thoughts but so long as you read things in a very personal way where you make sure to judge it on your own terms, take in what resonates, reject anything you deem wrong, then you're fine.

Just imagine someone who tries to think for themselves for everything and only will consult a book when 'stuck'. The likelihood/certainty is that there'll just be a giant expanse of realms of thought that haven't been considered and which decimate ideas which were previously thought to be true. Being humbled over and over, not just because of the authority of 'great' thinkers but because they are actually great thoughts is how one becomes truly wise.

This. It's too late to think the whole word with your own mind. You have to use your ancestors' insight and suggestions.

This only applies to books about learning something, not fictional stories. If you're only reading fiction to learn something, you're going to get burnt.
Of course if you spend to much time reading about something you're trying to learn and you don't put it into practice you're just wasting your time, but you should also cross reference from different sources.
There is no way a person can know if a book is shitty if they haven't read other books to compare it to. My mother cannot tell the difference between YA quality writing and an amazingly written book because she does not read very often. If she's in the mood to read she'll just look at the best sellers, because she judges popularity as quality.
>Schopenhauer basically believes that you should resort to reading only when you are 'stuck' on something
What if I'm just winding down from work and I just want to read some poetry or something? I'm not always faced with a problem. What did he do in his free time?

>What did he do in his free time?
Write autistic essays.

i think his ideas on these kind pf topics are exaggerations to get another point across. like his 'suggestions' about the prerequisites to read his book. or maybe not even to get a point across but simply to wank out. he was quite kranky.

i think it truly depends on the person and their mental needs.

He read about two hours a day if I recall (not including the newspaper). Its worth keeping in mind he still read more than others. I think he just didn't think you should just sit inside all day reading.

in this advice/essay I'd think Schopenhauer assumes a Plato to Kant knowledge base. he is basically saying don't read memes, flavors of the week, and to read deeply

Read Plato

There is an old saying which goes like "never reading is better than reading a little"

the idea is that if you never read, you will function like a normal human using your common sense, but if you read a few books, they will influence you a lot, they will become your guide. They will taint your mind.
Imagine someone who has only read a few communist books, and never debates about those ideas, or refutations of those ideas.

If you read a little what you read becomes your dogma, so, never reading a book is preferable to reading a only a few books.