Going in blind technique?

[Anonymous No.12928169]

I was wondering if anyone was familiar with this "going in blind technique" my professor has recommended me to start reading pic related's bibliography, batallie and a bit of freud. The issue is only have the greeks and a few medieval books(i'm and undergrad). Anyways from being on here all the time the thought of skipping years of thought seems incorrect and absurd to me but my prof. assured me that going in blind was by far the best technique and I would eventually go back on my own. Can anyone confirm that they've used this technique before? I suppose it makes sense since we can google pretty much anything we don't understand? I'm just so use to the linear progression you fags tell me about that this seems fucking absurd to me.

[Anonymous No.12928774]

I think that your professor just doesn't really care because you aren't going to remember any of it anyway.

>I would eventually go back on my own.
This is true but it is true because you will come out of it thinking you are starting to get it, and then years later you will think back after having read a lot more philosophy and realize that you didn't understand any of it at all.

I did this blind method and literally everything I read blind without the proper priors I had to go back and go over again completely from scratch for the most part. When I go and look at the notes I took for texts I was reading without proper background now it is all insanely cringe to the max. I didn't understand ANYTHING at all, and I thought I was getting everything.

Everything, even simple things in philosophy that seem straightforward are not, and you will only be wasting your own time by reading this way. I know looking back on it I was really only wasting my time.

[Anonymous No.12928856]

>>12928774
I did this with Foucalt and im pretty sure I understood him well but maybe I only think that now? I mean could it be the technique you used or could it be that you just realized later that you werent totally clear on understanding, kinda like how all philosophers have a turn in their philosophy and realize what they think they thought they disagreed and essentially polished their philosophies? My prof. says he done it when he was younger because wanted to read batallie and coudent stand going through decades of stuff eventually he went back out of wisdom and it all "connected" . Again i've only done this a few times and im young so maybe misunderstanding is a principle of growth?

[Anonymous No.12929197]

>>12928856
I guess what I would say is, nobody is going to stop you from reading some texts. Read whatever you want however you want, it is your life. I regret plowing through complex texts wikipedia-ing things I didn't know much about, because it made me feel competent when I wasn't at all. It is cringe. You can spot this type of misunderstanding in how young students speak/talk about various topics and texts a mile away. It is way easier to talk about things to someone who knows they don't understand than to try to argue with arrogant students with wiki-skim understanding.

All that is to say, read however best suits you, but don't get upset if people on /lit/ call you a dumbass continuously and your profs don't take you seriously.

Batallie is probably one that you could do this with. you aren't going to be too out of the loop going into Inner Experience blind, so that is a bad example your professor was using. Deleuze is another animal entirely. Don't take the word of a single professor as meaning anything, reality doesn't care what some academic thinks.