Why should you read "Great Books"? (THREAD)
Disclaimer: I'm writing this not for people who know the joy of reading great books, or who find it to be a devotional or joyful act in itself, but for the skeptics, especially those who say that reading has "diminishing returns."
1. Reading greats books sharpens the mind. It teaches you how others have thought, and gives you more agency, more terms, more range, in how you self express, how you discern. It is a kind of power. The canon is the gym of the mind.
2. Trivialities are fun now, but will lose their value over time. Don't wait to plan for retirement. When you're old you want to know how to spend your time. Start now with the contemplative life so you're prepared.
3. Calling on the wisdom of Great books comes in handy when times are tough. We are vulnerable even if we think we are self-sufficient. Just as preppers have cans of beans in the basement, you'll want Homer or the Bible stocked on your mental shelf.
4. Diversify risk. Portfolio managers invest in different asset classes. Books are an asset class. Don't put everything in them, but as far as asset classes go, they're solid. In a time when everyone is chasing the new, and staring at a screen, old things will get you "Edge.
5. The discipline of reading difficult works builds character. Not only will you get more marshmallows later, rather than one now, but you'll get better at delaying gratification, more generally.
6. Since you won't believe me if I tell you that reading great works is a divine commandment, or a virtue, or a path to self-knowledge, let me tell you that it is your best hope of being powerful, not only now, but in the long run.
7. It is your best hope for being able to look back at your life and feel some coherence to it, some meaning to it, some sense of being connected to a great chain of being, going backwards and forwards.
8. Come to sharpen the mind, to win the debates, to own your enemies, to become articulate and interesting; stay for the awe at the genius of humankind.

Fin.
P.S- saying we shouldn't read great books because the list is exclusive is like saying we shouldn't eat lentils, because quinoa was historically excluded on the list of grains. Eat both. Debating what should be on the list is a distraction from just reading a great book.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Zohar Atkins

Zohar Atkins Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ZoharAtkins

26 Dec
All critics of modernity, on both the left and the right, hold that the invention of the individual is iatrogenic.
The best, most honest responses to the critics of modernity is not to deny the side-effects of this invention, but to argue that, net-net, the damage caused is worth it.
Both the critique and the defense of the individual make use of evidence. Both commit one to a certain path that becomes self-fulfilling.

Social contract theory is but the first of many interventions needed to sustain the invention of the individual.
Read 15 tweets
23 Dec
Let's go! My @threadapalooza on Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908–1961), phenomenologist of perception and embodiment, whose work has influenced everyone from cognitive scientists to feminists to theologians to AI engineers. MMP was in the "Resistance" before it was cool.
MMP grew up Catholic, studied under Husserl and Kojeve, was influenced by Heidegger, was friends with Beauvoir and Sartre. He was a hard core Marxist, possibly even a Stalinist sympathizer. (He was formed by his experiences fighting against the Nazis.) 2
And no doubt, for him, his thought was all of one piece. But like any great thinker, his insights are not reducible to the conclusions he himself drew, political or otherwise. 3
Read 101 tweets
14 Dec
It's time for a @threadapalooza on Hans Jonas (1903-1993), a brilliant and under-appreciated philosopher, theologian, and scholar of "Gnosticism," who fled Nazi Germany to teach at the New School, and who was a pioneer in the fields of bioethics and environmentalism.
Jonas was a Jewish student of Heidegger's, whose thought, like Arendt's and Levinas's, is at once oppositional to and indebted to Heidegger's. 2
I should add Leo Strauss to the list above. 3
Read 100 tweets
14 Dec
One way to think of the difference between philosophy and theology is to compare Simone Weil and Kant. (Thread)

For Kant, the universe/God is unknowable and that is all that can be said.

For Weil, not only is God unknowable to us, but we are unknowable to God.
How does Weil know that we are unknowable to God? Strictly speaking, she doesn't. But her poetic imagination/faith allows her to transcend her not knowing. She feels the noumenal realm to be knocking on our wall as much as we are knocking on its. 2/x
The theologian and philosopher here agree on the boundaries of knowledge. But they diverge in how they react to this boundary. For Weil, a boundary implies or conjures up a real sense of longing. For Kant, it is what it is. 3/x
Read 13 tweets
7 Dec
Carl Schmitt was a Catholic, but his existentialist "decisionism" has more in common with Averroes and Kierkegaard than it does with Aquinas. (Mini Thread)
For Aquinas, reason and faith are cooperative. For Schmitt, the point is that the sovereign decision is not reasoned or reasonable, it's a kind of leap of faith. 2/x
No program or procedure can determine what the sovereign decides. The sovereign has maximal latitude. For Aquinas, reason is a guardrail. The sovereign is subservient to reason. 3/x
Read 7 tweets
7 Dec
Buddhists talk about Enlightenment the way Romantics talk about God the way psychoanalysts talk about the Unconscious: so close, and for that very reason, so far.
One lesson you can draw from this is that all sacred things, all non-goal goals, have a quality of being near AND far, here and gone, easy and hard.
Another lesson is that non-dualists can't help but objectify that which they think eludes and exceeds objectification.

There's no way to talk about ultimate things without turning them into entities.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(