Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Edwarda who wrote (37079)	5/8/1999 10:02:00 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

I've read them all- but I would never say it is imperative to read them. I have read the Norton Anthology of poetry from cover to cover, I love poetry. It is like chocolate. But Although I used to think it was beneficial to read classics (for other people, I never worried about myself) I now think what I stated previously- that one should be read for enjoyment. Of course in school I do believe children need to be familiar with at least the main classics that gird up our cultural history. They need to be familiar with the classics because of the references to them to be found everywhere - or at least be familiar with them until those references disappear. What you are talking about as being "well rounded" is a classical education. I used to think a classical education was the foundation for a decent and interesting person. I would require such an education in my friends, but merely for my own self- interest so I have people I can talk to. I am not sure it has merit in and of itself- which is (I think) what Nihil is saying. (Although I can never be quite sure). I love Henry James- I just re-read Washington Square - which for Henry is an easy read. I highly recommend it if you haven't read it yet. There was a movie made of it recently which distressed me so much by not following what I remembered of the book that I had to re-read the book to see just how badly the movie had erred. However, I am not sure James is essential to anyone's education.

To: Edwarda who wrote (37079)	5/8/1999 10:34:00 AM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 108807

Edwarda, I agree. Allow me to amplify your point. Where is science and the philosophy of science on that list? Where is Darwin's The Origin of Species Where is Isaac newton? Where are Freud and Einstein? Where are James Watson and Francis Crick? I thought the original question had to do with works that should be known by all well-educated people, rather than a compendium of works that cultured people ought to read. The remainder of my comments are aimed at the composition of the essential list rather than the complete list. What strikes me about such lists is how much they reveal of the prejudices of the list maker. Aristotle is almost universally included on such lists, but any scientist worth his salt will tell you that he was absolutely atrocious as a scientist. Why are Jane Austin's novels on that list? I didn't think her books were that good. If you read one you've pretty much read them all. What about the Odyssey? Here is a book I thoroughly enjoyed, but why is it on virtually everybody's list, while E.L. Doctorow's Ragtime or Norman Mailer's The Naked and the Dead aren't? Do antiquity and irrelevance somehow augment the importance of a work? I have a sneaking suspicion about the origin of many of the books on these lists. I think that they were originally compiled by antiquarians who were attempting to teach dead languages, and by European historians who developed and nurtured a romanticized view of Greek and Roman culture. I like to suggest a yardstick for inclusion on these lists. Only works that address the question of who we are and how we got to be this way and where we are going should make it onto the list. TTFN, CTC

To: Edwarda who wrote (37079)	5/8/1999 1:08:00 PM
From: jbe	Respond to of 108807

Edwarda, your mentioning Nietzsche & the Existentialists brought back a memory. Years ago, as an adjunct, I taught a course in a local college, called "Russian Literature in English Translation." The students, representing a broad range of ages and professions, were going for master's degrees in English Lit. We were reading Crime and Punishment, and discussing Raskolnikov's dream, the one in which he sees a drunken muzhik whipping his horse, who has fallen down from exhaustion, right across the eyes. As an example of life imitating fiction, I pointed to Nietzsche, who had studied Dostoyevsky closely, and who, on the day he "officially" went mad, ran out into the street and collapsed, where he was found with his arms around a mare, who had ALSO collapsed, after a flogging by a coachman. (I still think that was an extraordinary coincidence.) Blank stares. Realizing in time that the class could not place Nietzsche, I said a few things about him, emphasizing how great an influence he had had on the Existentialists. More blank stares. These were graduate students in the English Department, and they had never even heard of Nietzsche or the Existentialists. You really should be able to presume a commonality of knowledge, at least within a given field. It is very difficult to teach people with such huge gaps in the very areas they are specializing in. And yet many teachers themselves have the same problem! That is why I am so much in favor of survey courses. Boring as people say they are, they do provide students with a "road map" of what is out there. Even if they don't have time to visit all the sites on the road map, they at least know where the sites are. Think I will post on that separately, when I have the time. Joan