I agree this is a problem. In retrospect, reading Yudkowsky's Sequences was far more valuable to me than reading various pre-1900 philosophers' works firsthand.

I agree this is a problem. In retrospect, reading Yudkowsky's Sequences was far more valuable to me than reading various pre-1900 philosophers' works firsthand.

https://twitter.com/PradyuPrasad/status/1757745612072894477

Though ironically I think ancient philosophy is *more* valuable than 1600s stuff. Ancient philosophy is like, "these are some ideas on living a good life I've acquired by instinct". 1600s was starting to make deeper systematizations, but we were very inexperienced then, and 21st century systematizations are better.

Valuable in that they put down in words concepts that form the bedrock of the philosophical discussion. For example;  Heraclitus sees enduring being as cyclical change, while Parmenides views true being as unchanging, lying behind the appearance of change.  Concepts that permeates huge parts of interpreting life.