[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 28 KB, 299x199, 300px-Great_Books.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15391416 No.15391416 [Reply] [Original]

/lit/'s opinion on these. Have an opportunity to buy for a few hundred bucks today. Worth it for what your getting? Are the translations for non-english works decent?

>> No.15391424

>>15391416
You know, this is actually funny because my grandma has these and I just helped her rearrange them last week. It’s honestly a pretty great value for what you get, I assume some of the translations aren’t great but they’re certainly passable

>> No.15391439

The Great Books with Euclid, Archimedes, Apollonius, Nicomachus sucks because the editor didn't care about the actual mathematics.

I think book III of Apollonius' On Conics is the worst offender. It's Taliaferro's translation and it is ABSOLUTE SHITE. :3

>> No.15391441

>>15391416
Worth it yes, and the translations, even if later writers might quibble with them - this always happens, and I think that series uses Constance Garnett's Dostoyevsky - are historically important as the most influential form those books took in the English-speaking world.

>> No.15391455

>>15391416
Good selection but for most there are better translations out there. I like that they have the complete Plato/ Socratic dialogues in one book though.

>> No.15391456

>>15391416
if you want to go the consooomer route, better to do it with a little bit more taste. the loud "Great Books" branding on the spine makes the set look very tacky.

>> No.15391465

>>15391456
That's the least of its problems. The old timey 1800s translations are the worst part.

>> No.15391475

Is loebs the only good choise for ancient greek/roman texts?

>> No.15391591

>>15391416
Don't buy the books, more importantly don't buy into the ideology that they represent.

People who take stuff like this seriously don't get how learning actually works. You can't encapsulate the entire history of western literature, philosophy and science in a neat little encyclopedic collection of tomes. The basic presupposition of this kind of project is that there is some kind of single unified western "conversation" that all these authors are participating in, all asking and answering the same questions. It's an egregious liberal fiction that should have been buried in the 1900s.

Plato and Hobbes are not trying to answer the same question. They are not providing solutions to the same problems. A polis is not a nation-state. A seventeenth century nation-state is not a twenty first century nation-state.

If you want to actually understand anything and not just be a pseud for the rest of your life, you have to understand historical writers through the lens of their contemporaneous writers and through the lens of their historical background. And that necessarily includes minor writers, as well as being historically well-informed about what was happening in England when Milton was writing, for example.

This is unappealing to the average /lit/izen because it involves having more modest epistemic goals than "understanding the entire canon". But that kind of insane goal is what produces pseuds. You see it all the time here. "I've read Locke and Berkeley, that means I can move on to Hume". No, retard, you can't depict the history of ideas as some kind of museum for you to just "move on" to the next exhibit once you've seen the last one. Reading seriously is more akin to participating in an archaeological dig. I.e. it takes time and requires you to bring to bear on a writer like Hume your knowledge about the context of the scottish universities, the relations obtaining between scotland and england at the time, your knowledge of Francis Hutcheson and Schaftsbury (two minor writers who had a *far* greater influence on Hume than Locke or Berkeley).

If you don't want to do this, then it's perfectly permissible to just get a passing understanding of these writers and thinkers through encyclopedia entries. Those are your options, either get a passing understanding through secondary sources, or a proper understanding by immersing yourself in the writers' historical context and his influences whether major or minor in their own right. *Don't* try to occupy this halfway house between the two, where you buy into scams like the Great Books series that claim to give you a curated guide through the western canon. No such thing exists, and you'll be worse off than if you'd just read the wikipedia pages for all these writers.

Sorry for my autistic screed. Museumbrain and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

>> No.15391624

>>15391591
The point of the series is just to provide an overview of western thought. We're never going to live in ancient Greek circumstances so we shouldn't read their philosophy?

>> No.15391708

>>15391624
missed the point so hard lol

>> No.15391762

>>15391624
>The point of the series is just to provide an overview of western thought
But that's the whole problem. That's what I was saying about museum culture and museumbrain. You've been trained to think that you can just have an "overview" of a vast array of heterogeneous writers and historical contexts, but this simply isn't how these things work.

>We're never going to live in ancient Greek circumstances so we shouldn't read their philosophy?
At one end of the spectrum there are those who have been born and raised in a certain place, and on the other end there are complete tourists who turned up yesterday, not knowing anyone, not knowing the language etc. But does that mean that there's nothing in between those two extremes? Obviously not. But learning about the context in which Plato wrote for example is a complex task. It's also necessary if you want to understand him properly. My point about the Great Books series is that it's literally just a waste of your time. You'll be presented with a bunch of unrelated documents, out of context. You'll barely be able to understand most of it and the rest you'll misinterpret. Like I say, you're better off just getting a quick summary of Plato from the stanford encyclopedia or something than wasting your time trying to understand the primary source in a totally decontextualized form, as it is presented here.

Note I'm not even saying you need to speak ancient Greek to understand Plato. I'm just trying to warn you that the kind of people that designed the Great Books series believe that we basically do live in ancient Greek circumstances and that anyone can pick up any author and understand it. Aka they think it's all just one "great conversation" (this is literally how a lot of these people describe the history of western thought), as if Plato and Kant were in the same room when they wrote their great works.

>> No.15391797

>>15391456
They're for reading, not for showing off.

>>15391465
You're one of those pieces of shit who wants 1800s books translated to sound like modern subliteracy, eh? You're an enemy of literature.

>> No.15391805

>>15391591
DILATE

>> No.15391816

>>15391591
>People who take stuff like this seriously don't get how learning actually works.
Yes, they understand precisely how it works. Secondary writers are secondary, the main thing is to earn the vote. You are dog food that needs its fucking clit torn out. Fuck off.

>> No.15391821

>>15391762
This is why you read and watch secondary documents to explain the texts. It offers a nice selection of important philosophy but obviously you don't atop there. I have nothing against the great books in and of themselves.
>>15391797
I prefer colloquial translations I can understand.

>> No.15391822

>>15391762
>simply isn't how these things work.
Yes it is.

> But learning about the context in which Plato wrote for example is a complex task. It's also necessary if you want to understand him properly.
You seem to think that the reader of the Great Books series won't also be reading contextual information. Nobody uses these books like that. They're a beginning. You're proposing a snobbish attitude which is itself a relic.

>> No.15391832

>>15391821
>I prefer colloquial translations I can understand.
They're lies. Literature has never been written in the language of the canaille. Why don't any of you seem to understand what self-education MEANS? The point is to improve yourself. I was reading Dickens when I was ten. To put it in terms you'll understand: Just. Get. Gud.

>> No.15391836

>>15391591
>>15391762
This fellow is completely right.

>> No.15391843

>>15391591
>Schaftsbury
fucking kek

>> No.15391849

>>15391836
No, he's wrong. The Great Books are worth having and reading. Secondary context is available and will obviously be sought. He's projecting assumptions onto OP's reading habits. Foolishness.

>> No.15391854

>>15391416
I own a few, generally pick them up at garage sales.

>> No.15391862

>>15391849
>The Great Books are worth having and reading.
No, he has a point.

If you want to know a philosopher or a subject, you wont learn anything if you read wide and out of context.

I get his point, it take time to understand something.

>> No.15391892

>>15391862
You will die never having read Plato. There is only one lie, there is only one truth. Obey or be turned into a fucking lampshade you cunt.

>> No.15391903

>>15391416
Why drop $200-$300 on a massive load of books when you're not even sure if you want to read all of them? Buying each author/book individually wouldn't be any more expensive, and you're more likely to avoid spending money on stuff you're not actually going to read if you consider each author/book on their own before buying. It's not like any of the texts in the set are particularly hard to find elsewhere, many of them are even in the public domain.
That's the practical argument, from a more subjective standpoint I would say that anyone who spends that much money on "A Complete Set of the Great Books of the Western World™" is most likely trying to cheat their way into being seen as well-read without actually having to do any work.

>> No.15391907

>>15391862
Primary texts are primary for a reason, you need to read them and stop making excuses. Why greentext the inarguably true statement that the great books (and cut the shit, the Great Books *are* the great books) are worth having and reading? It's so easy to lose our chance at redemption by buying into Marxist, relativist drivel. Read the great books.

>> No.15391913

>>15391903
>when you're not even sure if you want to read all of them?
Where did he say that? Why do you all assume that nobody is a real reader?

>> No.15391925

>>15391862
>>15391907
Not all of the texts need secondary sources either. Fiction like Cervantes and Melville can be read easily with no second hand explanations.

>> No.15391937

>>15391892
>You will die never having read Plato. There is only one lie, there is only one truth. Obey or be turned into a fucking lampshade you cunt.
?? Are you somekind of great books religious nut? You know, instaid of the Bible you worship the Great Books as some kind of bourgeois totem of identity?

>Primary texts are primary for a reason
I think the fellows argument was, and I agree, is that you dont just read Plato, without the context and get something in return.

If you want to read Plato and understand him, you will need to read a lot of extra material, because if you move from Plato to Beowulf and then to Bacons, whats the point exactly.

You will forget 99% of it, not understand it and you will be barely wiser.

>> No.15391952

>>15391925
>Fiction like Cervantes and Melville can be read easily with no second hand explanations.
I seriously doubt that, I havent read either of them, but I reread the Decameron like a lot of people here and I would not have understood a lot of the humor if I was not familiar with medieval mores and culture or with Christianity.

>> No.15391978

>>15391937
The idea that OP has no idea of context and will never read any other volumes comes entirely from you and your own snobbery. You're denying the basic utility of these books because you want to demonstrate that you know the *very* bourgeois correct attitude to have to this collection. Well done, you've successfully imitated one of the postures of a Harvard legacy from 50 years ago. Now learn to read.

>> No.15391985

>>15391937
>bourgeois
Found the Marxist, life-denying, life-destroying wrecker. Fuck off.


>>15391952
>I seriously doubt that, I havent read either of them,
Not a surprise. Go back to your one real book and miles of nigger treason.

>> No.15392006

>>15391978
>snobbery
I am a different guy, and I didnt claim any of the things you attribute to me or the other fellow, so yeah, learn to read yourself.

Why not take a subject, spend half a year reading about it, reading several sources and guides to it, memorize passages and concept, etc until you understand it.

I dont blame you if you can not, thats not how I read, but trying to pull down people because they are better then you and who actually read and learn with a purpose, thats just sad,

>> No.15392011

>>15391591
What a shit, insecure take. If you have a high IQ, then you can jump straight into Hume or Hobbes or whatever and understand them as perfectly as could be. If you were to study the historical background of every author you read then it will take you years to go through just three of four writers. Unless you are doing professional research on these writers, that would be an immensely stupid thing to do. And besides, the world those writers lived in is not as terribly alien to ours as you make it out to be. Sure, a 17th century state is not the same as a 21st century one, but they're not so fundamentally different as to make it impossible for moderns to understand what an ancient state was like without the help of extensive research. A good introduction, along with extensive footnotes, will give you all the historical background you would ever need. A layman shouldn't study texts the way a scholar researching them would. That's retarded.

>> No.15392015

>>15391416
Buy it

You must know the classics to know man

>> No.15392026

>>15391985
>Found the Marxist, life-denying, life-destroying wrecker. Fuck off.
So you think anyone who uses the word bourgeois it automatically a marxist? Do you inhabit the universe of loony toones cartoons?

>>15391985
>Not a surprise. Go back to your one real book and miles of nigger treason.
Sigh, you dont read books just to get browny points. Do you even enjoy reading, because I havent read most of the works in your Great Books, but I have certainly read a lot.

Never mind, your just the conservative version of a Christians fundamentalist.

>> No.15392033

>/lit/ can't tell the difference between reading the great books of the western canon and buying a $300 set of "Encyclopedia Britannica Presents The Great Books of the Western Canon"
Says a lot about this board desu

>> No.15392058

>>15392006
You can barely write English, fuck off.

>>15392011
Correct.

>>15392026
You are propagating Marxist treason, where no text is worth more than any other, and we must read a thousand victims rather the real writers.

You don't read, and you never have. Fuck off.

>> No.15392065

>>15391591
based and knowledgepilled

>> No.15392070

>>15392033
There's no point in this relativism, the books they included are the bedrock. They won't be the whole library of anyone who buys them, but if you have them, you have most of the essentials. Why are people so determined to consumerize and relativize themselves into the pit? The truth IS the truth.

>> No.15392102

>>15391591
borges destroyed this position in 3 pages of spanish prose: "Pierre Menard, autor del Quijote"

the autistic mind needs charts, it needs those images where you have to read "Early greek mythology" and "Ancient Greek Literature: An Overview" before you read the iliad. They actually can't comprehend that great literature expresses something independent of context, something universal for all times and all places

>> No.15392103

>>15391475
only if you know/are studying greek or latin. the translations themselves aren't meant to be enjoyable to read

>> No.15392108

>>15392102
This guy gets it.

>> No.15392127
File: 25 KB, 800x800, 800px-Project_Gutenberg_logo.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15392127

>>15392070
Why does the idea that you don't have to spend hundreds of dollars at a time to be well-read bother you so much?

>> No.15392149

>>15392127
What I'm saying has nothing to do with spending money. Nobody who denies that there are higher and lower works will ever be a serious reader. The OP is a reader. Stop persecuting real people, and fuck off back to your nigger treason.

>> No.15392188

>>15391416
I am inheriting a copy of the series from my father.

They are a wonderful treasure. Having the foundational works of Western civilization available to read is a powerful tool. As you read you'll see how these ideas are the roots of how we think and how society is structured today. You'll also find your reasoning and logical thinking becoming stronger.

The wisdom in these books is far greater than the comparative junk and miscellany we are taught in public school and even many universities.

>> No.15392228

>>15392149
What the fuck are you talking about?
I'm not trying to talk the OP out of reading the canon, I'm trying to convince him not to spend $300 on a status symbol.
>What I'm saying has nothing to do with spending money.
You better fucking apologize to the OP, then, since he wanted to know whether spending that much money on a set of books was worth it.

>> No.15392248

>>15392228
It hasn't been a status symbol for decades. You probably weren't even born the last time it was a status symbol. It's a collection of books, and they don't confer status now. Even here, on /lit/, there are people who hate books and want to destroy literacy. If you have books, and you paid for them, you will read them. If you tell yourself you can just read a fucking ASCII file on Project Gutenberg, you'll die never having done it. There is a thing called self-discipline, and those who lack it demand the one remedy of purgatorial fire. Stop bandying words with yer born master.

>> No.15392274

>>15391591
but you're literally the pseud here though

>> No.15392318

>>15392248
What the fuck?
If the only way you can convince yourself to finish a book is out of some obligation to recoup an investment, YOU'RE the one without any self-discipline. What a fucking embarrassing thing to say.
>If you tell yourself you can just read a fucking ASCII file on Project Gutenberg, you'll die never having done it.
I read ebooks all the time, as do many people on this board. It's actually pretty fucking easy.

>> No.15392417

>>15392318
I'm talking about the nature of fallen humanity. There's nothing about money in what I've said, I'm talking about the difference between having the books physically there, guilting your idleness, versus having the book in one tab of your browser. No serious reading has been done online. Fuck off with your nigger nonsense, I don't have to suck off the fucking shit of anus nigger Satan.

>> No.15392458

>>15392417
You fool.

>> No.15392517

>>15392458
You are a Marxist and a wrecker, I don't care if I seem like a fool to you, you think illness is health and ignorance is knowledge.

>> No.15392581
File: 1.05 MB, 3264x2448, 1545480102744.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15392581

OP here, decides I'm NOT going to buy them. Lots of good arguments in this thread as to why or why not you should own these.
Someone posted for $400 the complete set and the fact is I could use that to buy better copies of the texts I actually want. I own a number of the texts that are included in the set so buying them would be redundant and unnecessary.

But really, the argument for secondary literature is what really got me thinking. These books are so vastly different in some cases and hardly can be called a "set". There only connection being that they shaped Western culture and order chronologically? Why do they need to be read in that order? Why do I need to read a mix of literature and philosophy without the need for secondary literature.
>j-just wanted them for the pseud-cred alright I said it

>> No.15392633

>>15392581
You let people bully you into giving up something real.

>> No.15392706
File: 16 KB, 512x512, trex_portrait.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15392706

>>15392633
I didn't get the hint of bullying. People were offering their opinions and I happened to agree with them. I could use that money and buy the "western canon" right now with better texts available. Not like they are hard to find.
>What is real? Are the ideas contained in these texts real? Surely not

>> No.15392817

>>15392581
It's the right decision OP. Don't let anyone talk you out of it. But also don't be scared off reading by some of the rhetoric that people have been using about how you can't read things out of context. It's true, but the amount of context you need for a text is highly variable. You really don't need to be a professional historian to understand Plato or Homer, you just a fair bit of awareness that their society was remarkably different in many ways, and that the questions they were concerned with aren't always obvious to modern readers. That's where reading good quality secondary literature can throw a huge amount of light on historical writers.

Like everything in life it's all about balance and moderation. Don't dive straight into a hard, classical text and expect it to reveal its secrets without any work on your part. But, equally importantly, don't get stuck in the prison of thinking you need to read every single book on Plato before you read the big guy himself. Both are mistake you see people making all the time. Mostly, it's about being honest with yourself, taking your intellectual ego out of the question, and asking "am I having a meaningful encounter with this text?".

The difference between a pseud dilettante and a truly academic or intellectual person is the exact same as the difference between a loud brash tourist and someone who takes the time to live in a place, and learn about it patiently. Of course, you'll never be an ancient Greek, and you shouldn't seek absolute understanding of ancient Greek society (for example), but even Plato didn't have this kind of understanding of his own society. Like I say, you only need enough information to have a productive encounter with the text.

>> No.15392904

>>15392149
>Nobody who denies that there are higher and lower works will ever be a serious reader
You're conflating two distinct things. Yes, obviously there are better and worse books. But to claim that all the good writers are in conversation with each other (as your Allan Bloom and great book types always do) is ridiculous. Many great writers are unintelligible apart from their influences, some of whom are almost completely forgotten by modern readers. Also, your a brainlet if you take the received hierarchy of "major" and "minor" historical figures seriously without investigating things for yourself. Hume is a good example because people objectively do not understand him because they buy into the "British empiricism" meme which says that "Locke-->Berkeley-->Hume" form a coherent self-contained conversation with each other. There's no reason to think that someone like Hutcheson or Shaftsbury were inferior thinkers to someone like Berkeley (in fact, both were almost certainly superior, especially Hutcheson). But because of humanist retards with no historical sensitivity, everything has to be compressed and simplified to fit into "the great conversation".

>> No.15393043
File: 305 KB, 650x435, stack.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15393043

I have a few volumes, decided to acquire them simply because it was the best and most accessible offer i could get of the works within. They have been of indiscritible help to me -specially the Plato collection, but I would prefer a more renomed edition of them and wouldn't buy the whole bunch even if was a complete bargain.

>> No.15393110

>>15391416
Why spend money on books that can be downloaded? I buy only books that I can’t get from WWW. Well, I also buy for aesthetic reasons, when I really like this particular book as a work of art.

>>15391903
This.

>> No.15393122

Are these the Mortimer Adler ones? Adler's philosophy and the overall intent behind the project are pretty beautiful. Nobody reads Adler anymore sadly.

>> No.15393315

>>15391416
>tfw got this entire set in pristine condition for $75

>> No.15394355

>>15392581
400 dollars is too much. I’ve seen complete sets offered for almost half that. If you see it for 200-300, than it would be worth consideration.

>> No.15394497

>>15391591
Incredibly good take.