[weichi]

Most of the comments here are completely missing the point of the article.

The article is not about whether the ideas espoused by old philosophers are worth learning about, or about whether old philosophers are worth reading. The article asks the question of why philosophers prefer to read the original works of old philosophers, instead of reading descriptions of these ideas by authors who have demonstrated competence is explaining philosophical ideas. Which is the way that education is handled in most (all?) scientific fields.

[westoncb]

Interesting. I was just writing about this yesterday:

If the book's ideas were of lasting consequence, it's a near certainty that more clear statements of them have been produced in the intervening years. You may lose some of the aesthetics of the original—but often times the true aesthetic value is debatable (or at least relative), and if it's truly there it still may not be worth losing the increased clarity and further refinement of ideas found in later works.

[Senderman]

I have to disagree with the author of that paragraph. Concepts usually get diluted as they pass from person to person, not more clear. They also mention there is often times a "debatable" aesthetic value - to me, that's all the more reason to at least look at the original work and make your own interpretation.

[westoncb]

> Concepts usually get diluted as they pass from person to person, not more clear.

That is only possible if the concept has no practical utility. If the concept is being used, the historical pattern is improving refinement.

The author of the article provides a nice list of reasons why that would be the case (Bob is a modern day expositor of Alice's older, original idea):

Alice’s understanding of the Alice effect is probably the most confused understanding of it in all of history, being the first ‘understanding of the Alice effect’ to set itself apart from ‘confusion and ignorance about the Alice effect’.

In the billions of lifetimes that have passed since Alice’s time, the world has probably thought substantially more about The Alice Effect than Alice managed to in her lifetime, at least if it is important at all.

Alice’s very first account of the effect probably contained imperfections. Bob can write about the theory as it stood after years of adjustment.

Even if Alice’s account was perfectly correct, it was probably not perfectly well explained, unless she happens to have been a great explainer as well as a great physicist.

Physics has made many discoveries since Alice’s time, such as Claire forces, Evan motion and Roger fields. It might be easier to understand all of this by starting with the Roger fields, and explaining the Alice effect as a consequence. However literature from the likes of Alice is constrained to cover topics chronologically by date of discovery.

Bob speaks a similar version of English to me

Bob can be selected for having particular skill at writing and explanation, whereas Alice must be selected for having the scientific prowess to make the discovery.

Bob is actually trying to explain the thing to a 21st Century reader, while Alice is writing to pique the interest of some seventeenth century noblemen who lack modern intellectual machinery and are interested in issues like whether this is compatible with religion. An accurate impression of a 21st Century reader would probably cause Alice to fall over.

[Senderman]

I see your point. I had never thought of 'clarity' as being synonymous with 'utility', but I can't argue with it.

[AgentME]

Sometimes it's useful to see the original version of an idea: it can be easier to see what line of thought led to it, and what necessity the idea addressed. Further refinements may improve the idea, but obscure the source and original context of the idea, which might make it harder to fully understand or appreciate.

[westoncb]

The basic idea there makes sense to me, but I actually think later writers will be better at putting it into context as well, partly because they have more information on the context, and partly because the tendency when someone is first developing a new idea is to just get it working, rather than immediately analyzing where it fits in the history of ideas.

That said, I think it's definitely valuable to go back and look at original sources after starting with a more efficient, contemporary exposition.

[lefstathiou]

I believe it is worth considering also that there is an extremely strong survivorship bias taking place with these works in particular. The works of Plato, Socrates and Aristotle have survived millennia and while most works can likely be successfully summarized, over enough iterations there are bound to be a few that cannot. Reasonable people can disagree of course and this is all subjective anyway.

[agensaequivocum]

Plato can be summarized to and extent. Aristotle, however, is so concise in his language that there isn't much that could be removed. His conclusions can be summarized but one would not understand why he said what he said.

[ianai]

I know I understand best what a philosopher says when I no longer feel as though I were reading and instead feel like s/he is talking to me through the pages. I would liken understanding a technical concept to being able to reproduce what another person did. Understanding a philosopher requires something like building up their worldview from their words. I’d liken it to being able to reproduce what the person thought and did.

[AbrahamParangi]

There are other fields where the former approach is taken over the latter— such as painting, sculpture, literature and other kinds of art.