Everyone should read books and write alongside them a fully fledged summary with relevant citations, ideas, interpretations, criticisms etc and integrate them into a new/existing Wikipedia article so they never have to read the book again and neither do future generations.
Try to prove me wrong. Just try.
Other urls found in this thread:
If your goal is not "read and appreciate a book for the work of art it is" then sure
Look up "death of the author" negro
Lmao, imagine being such a pleb that you still stick with the death of the author schtick.
I agree desu. This is what textbooks usually do.
I dislike it when most fields do this but philosophy insists on reading the original book. One can always do that if you think it is necessary.
So I do not agree with your point that we never should read such a book again. But I can agree with you otherwise. Having to read all the original works in philosophy just shortens the time I could read about other fields.
plato.stanford.edu does a good job at this.
Literally no one could prove me wrong.
>wah wah pay attention to my shit bait
fuck off
sage
So you can't prove me wrong?
Prove you wrong? You're trying to argue that a "a fully fledged summary with relevant citations, ideas, interpretations, criticisms etc" will reliably be so comprehensive as to make reading the original work redundant. Aside from ignoring questions of subjective criticism and errors, pleasure from reading, or the ongoing state of research that makes such summaries obsolete, it's still an idiotic argument. One of the best features of a good work of literature is that it can't be reduced and encapsulated so easily. Trying to do something like you describe to, for instance, Four Quartets, or Ulysses, would end up with Wiki entries much longer than the original works, and they would still be pathetically incomplete.
What would the point be?
You're stripping away all of what makes reading enjoyable and just making it about milking a book for morals that may or may not exist, and tossing anything remotely interesting into the trash. It kills the job of the writer, and that of the reader at the same time. tl;dr: You're retarded, pure and simple.
Literally no argument aside from "not for fiction!!!"
Fiction is for plebs.
Also, the Wikipedia article being longer is nonsense and even if it was, at least it would contain all the criticisms too so your point is invalid like your brainlet self.
>doesn't know how to run a local wiki
Actually I used to have one in Xowa but realised it was retarded because it's not being updated live like online.
Prove that fiction is for plebs
Just started doing this with Plato at the start of the month. Is good
>reading for enjoyment
Don't have to, you've just done it for me.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Not an argument.
Literally not a single person has proven me wrong lol
Wise master of rhetoric will you bless my first born child? So that he too may grow to breathe the fumes of hot garbage upon the chans?
Bullshit. You've been proved utterly wrong, but this "chess with a pigeon" crap has gotten old.
Only fictionfags have had a point and even then, fiction is shit so they made no point at all
No post yet has proven me wrong
In before someone will post a MASSIVE reply with fancy words and nice rhetoric to claim this user I am replying is wrong
lol
it already happened desu
>Everyone should read books and write alongside them a fully fledged summary with relevant citations, ideas, interpretations, criticisms etc and integrate them into a new/existing
I was with you for this long.
Could have been a good thread about mentally retaining and better understand everything you've read but then you went full retard.
...
Sounds like you need others to tell you how to think.
Still no cohesive argument against this thread to be found
see
You are basically an intellectual cripple. You cannot form your own ideas, and run to secondary literature to provide them for you.
youtube.com
Vid related
...
Having a Wikipedia article does NOT mean that you won't be able to reach your own conclusion, retard.
It's simply a uniform place whereby all thoughts around a particular text, topic and all its criticisms can be brought together, brainlet.
Did you actually think I advocated stopping at reading the Wiki and never adding to it ever again?
Effort justification is an idea and paradigm in social psychology stemming from Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance.[1] Effort justification is people's tendency to attribute a greater value (greater than the objective value) to an outcome they had to put effort into acquiring or achieving.
>all thoughts around a particular text
All thoughts and interpretations of Hamlet would take way, way more time to read than Hamlet itself. This probably goes for most worthwhile pieces of literature.
I also don't think it would be as enjoyable.
Except this already is the case (to an extent) with the Hamlet Wikipedia page where a varied amount of interpretations has been placed into the page.