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

Don't think this person has actually read works thousands of years old for Philosophy class, but the modern translations+commentary. I always interpreted learning Philosophy to be learning the _counterarguments_ to these old famous theories. Cause the ones set in stone/proven are no longer part of Philosophy.

Generative Artist ~ In the beginning there was code, and the code had a groove ~ Creator of Skulptuur (see http://skulpturen.nl) and other impossible things

Or in other words, that person's experience of Philosophy is not really the one I got :-)

Definitely agree no use to read (say) Kant firsthand (except for curiosity, historical interest, etc), his writings on the Categorical Imperative are relatively short (still hard to read), but only contain about four actual examples, and most of what we learn about Kantianism is interpretation by later philophers.