I agree in general, but Feynman’s books are different. I usually read textbooks cover to cover; then go on to solve the hardest problems I can find at that level (sometimes they are from the book, sometimes from different sources).
Most books, I make some progress on some problems, get stuck on others, and generally have a good grasp of the overall landscape and where I am lacking; then I go back and reread (and practice) the missing pieces.
But Feynman’s lectures are different in that they make you feel you understand a lot, without really giving you any tools to address things he did not address (and basically only address those things he did address in the same way).
I am not saying they are bad - 25 years later, I still remember (and occasionally use) some of them; most recently insights from the chapter on minimum principles. I am just saying that it only became useful after I already had a good (but not great) grasp of the material from other sources — despite giving that impression when read as introductory.
Most books, I make some progress on some problems, get stuck on others, and generally have a good grasp of the overall landscape and where I am lacking; then I go back and reread (and practice) the missing pieces.
But Feynman’s lectures are different in that they make you feel you understand a lot, without really giving you any tools to address things he did not address (and basically only address those things he did address in the same way).
I am not saying they are bad - 25 years later, I still remember (and occasionally use) some of them; most recently insights from the chapter on minimum principles. I am just saying that it only became useful after I already had a good (but not great) grasp of the material from other sources — despite giving that impression when read as introductory.