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: Chuzzlewit who wrote (37099)	5/8/1999 10:42:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Aristotle was excellent on reasoning. He is credited with being the inventor of formal logic, set forth in the Organon. I believe that instruction in formal logic, as well as informal logic, is essential. I really do. I don't know about his scientific works. I heartily recommend Rhetoric, a difficult book, for every writer, lawyer and politician. What books are on your pile of "essentials"?

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (37099)	5/8/1999 10:49:00 AM
From: Edwarda	Respond to of 108807

Your point on the sciences is well taken, Chuzz. Good morning. Since Mailer is a neighbor, I tend to forget him. 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. Most of the books worth reading--and a great many that are not--fit this description. I'd go on, but there's this pesky chat request....

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (37099)	5/8/1999 2:11:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Respond to of 108807

> 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? < Homer's Odyssey is like the universal Play-Doh from which all tales of quest and adventure are modeled. It is an archetype and an easy read to boot. I ascribe supreme relevance to it, and to a lesser extent to the Iliad. As for Newton and Crick and Darwin - unlike works of literature, works of science are not as completely dependent on the author's use of languages. Textbook compilations serve adequately to transmit the core ideas. I imagine that the original texts are of more interest to historians of science than its practitioners.

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (37099)	5/8/1999 2:32:00 PM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Here's my top 4: amazon.com amazon.com amazon.com amazon.com

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (37099)	5/8/1999 6:37:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I have to disagree with what appears to be your opinion that Jane Austen is inferior to E.L. Doctorow. Eeeeeek.

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (37099)	5/8/1999 8:36:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

In Praise of Survey Courses. Chuzzlewit, I do not think that educated people will ever be able to read all the "essential" books (even if we could agree as to which ones are "essential"). I would venture to suggest that it is less important which particular "essential" books we have personally read than to know what the books are that for one reason or another, by one person/group or another, are considered to be essential, and why. I have not read Kant, for example. (God knows I've tried!) But I know who he is; what the over-all thrust of his philosophy is; why he is considered important; and where he fits in the general cultural context of his time, and in the development of philosopy. I have also to confess I have never read any of Christopher Marlowe's plays. But I know they are out there, and some day I may have the time/desire to look into them. And so on. I think you could probably come up with similar examples from your own experience. Now, to the point: everybody seems to deplore survey courses. They are said to be "dull." Maybe. But it seems to me that in this age of rampant specialization, general survey courses (History of English Lit., History of Art, History of Music, History of Science, etc.) provide something many students will not get elsewhere: that is, a quick guided tour of the "world of culture" (I know that sounds corny, but couldn't think of a better term on the spur of the moment). They may not have the time, or even the time, to visit the monuments. But at least they will know where the monuments are, and where to find them if their interest awakens later. Person A may never develop a taste for poetry, for example, and so will prefer to read Darwin, say, rather than Dante. But at least he will know who Dante was. He will be able to orient himself in the cultural landscape, in other words. To me, that is what is essential. Joan

To: Chuzzlewit who wrote (37099)	5/8/1999 11:12:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

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. Which is PRECISELY why Aristotle, and Plato, and Shakespeare, and Jane Austen, and the Odyssey, and the Iliad, and the Aneid, and Trollope, are on the list. These people may not talk about how we got to be this way physically, but they talk about how we got to be this way as thinking people and help us understand where we should be going. But your criteria is sorely deficient. Some books should be on the list because they are works of art, because they elevate us, because they make us better people, because they make us richer. The music of Mozart doesn't "address the question of who we are and how we got to be this way and where we are going," but the world would be a far poorer place if we didn't have his music to listen to. The poetry of Donne doesn't fit your criteria, but it enriches my life enormously. Stop thinking with your mind and start thinking with your soul.