[user-the-name]

There are plenty, plenty of people who are as good or better to read.

There is only one of any given person, that is not an argument to read them either.

[yowlingcat]

A problem with privileging "good" is that it is socially constructed, and social constructions of good can sometimes reveal themselves rather painfully to be fads of the time which ironically are anything but good, such as Lysenkoism [1].

On the contrary, real insights tend to stand the test of time, which is why Nietzsche continues to remain relevant and timeless. Lysenkoism, not so much.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

[user-the-name]

You are somehow turning a remote possibility into a near-certainty in this argument.

[nate_meurer]

There's more than a remote possibility that anyone you think is worth learning from has done or said things that other people consider awful.

Your logic is exactly the reason many people tell us we shouldn't bother learning too much about, say, the founders of American democracy.

[user-the-name]

Why do you care with "other people" think?

You should have a strong moral compass, and you should be able to tell right from wrong, and awful from decent. And you should let that compass guide you in everything you do, including who you give the precious resource that is your attention to.

Framing it as "other people consider awful" makes it sound like you do not actually agree that awful people are all that bad, and that is a moral failing on your part.

[nate_meurer]

No, you completely missed the point.

Everybody has done and said awful things. If you don't want to read the works of sinners, then you won't be able to learn from anyone.

My example highlighted folks like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, unrepentant slaveholders who happen to be keystones of American democracy. They said and did awful things in life. Do you think therefore that you have nothing to learn from them?