/lit/ - Literature

>Why waste your time spending years analyzing primary sources
I don't
>when you could just read secondary literature on the topic
I do

>>17352018
because it is not about knowing, but understanding what you are reading.
reading for information = pleb
reading for wisdom = schmurrt

>>17352018
because "people smarter than me" (which means """academicians""") were smart enought to cuck and get paid to write propaganda so I never read them.

>>17352018
Are you? Why?

>>17352054
I've tried but recently it's becoming more apparent that my 'understanding' of a primary text pales in comparison to the nerd professor that spends his entire life reading that same book (over and over)

So might as well focus on their well-educated interpretations

>>17352082
Facts. I first read secondary literature then if it interests me I will read the primary source. because normally the latter takes a lot of effort.

It's true, the thing is if you read a primary text it may speak to you in different ways affecting you differently. Making ideas have more heft, more memorable.

>>17352082
>why would I try to prove this mathematical theorem when others have done it? After I can always google the formula

>>17352018
How will I then feed my pseudointellectual ego?

>>17352217
This

>>17352155
Yeah that's the current route for myself at the moment. Secondary literature providing insight & a path to better read the primary if I'm interested enough

>>17352018
because they're not smarter than me

>>17352018
Why waste your time spending years living a first person life when you could allow other people to live your life for your in the third person? (by people smarter than you)

>>17352469
shitty comparison

>>17352048
>>17352049
>>17352190
>>17352440
>>17352469
Some of the most fucking idiotic people I've met are people constructing interpretations of major works not within their fields and genuinely believe in them

>>17352469
see mate, the thing is, like a lot of reddit comments and youtube replies, you think you are being ironic and destroying the other person by jizzing out logical strings of cum from your peanut. You aren't. You added nothing and should be ashamed of yourself. You should cry and cry and cry till your eyes pop out. Why? because you are what you despise. You are what you think you are fighting against. Stop it. No hard feeling but please don't use that peanut dick to create children or that brain to write something on paper. Just produce. Ok? alright mate now enjoy your day.

>>17352531
I meant don't produce on the last sentence

In my experience, secondary sources are often wrong or have a completely different interpretation of the source texts than I do. You're not going to run any huge risks entrusting secondary sources, just because it is the intellectual equivalent of swimming with the current. But, it is going to be very hard for you to make a name for yourself or to present anything that isn't totally boring if you don't read the source materials and think for yourself.

>>17352208
Yes, you'll notice that math textbooks often contain results that are beyond the scope of the material covered in that book, that the reader would be unable to prove themselves with the methods available to them.
It's hilarious that you actually think that you have the knowledge necessary to make sense of pretty much any primary source.
Reading primary texts is more like trying to prove a theorem yourself with no guidance from the book, and then you write down a bad proof but you think it works and then move on. You've done nothing but satisfy your ego while actually decreasing your knowledge by learning incorrect things.

>>17352440
Smarter than I...

If you ever have doubts, just complete the sentence. You wouldn't say, "they're not smarter than me am." You say, "they're not smarter than I am."

>>17352018
Sorry, I'm smarter than secondary literature writers, I always know more than their takes and only very occasionally receive something originally fruitful on their part that was seemingly an accidentae. Most secondary is only good when you cannot familiarise yourself with the object directly.

However if I were to dedicate time to writing secondary I have complete and utter confidence that I would transform any of the respective fields, and make my morally jousting views common to all the public in its obviousness. I would lead to a dear national and globally Western reform, even in the East, with the cultural absorption by people like the Japs, but I am too proud to write secondary unless it is of the highest value, and/or secondary to my personal and effect itself.

This is not a joke, I have built out the architectonics casually in my head of how I would go about writing and organising such information in essays and books, but I have no desire presently to set it out by that accidentae, as stated.

>>17352583
Dunning–Kruger LORD

>>17352613
Maybe you're just cattle.

>>17352217
Is
>>17352583
>>17352629

>noo don't read catcher in the rye, there's secondary literature about it by people smarter than you

>>17352018
>by people smarter than you
Because there aren't any, thus you proposition is logically inaccessible.

>>17352629
Maybe you are just the dumbest guy on earth

>>17352645
I'm not, but maybe this is why so many of you on this board are wholly incapable of presenting anything interesting. You never look and see for yourselves, so your opinions and ideas have no passion behind them. It's all 5th and 6th generation regurgitations.

>>17352680
Yeah, maybe. Probably not though since I've been published and others have cited to my work. And you?

>>17352704
Just because someone cited your it does not mean that what you said was not just stupid. Not only you discredited researchers who put years of work into their projects and are respected in academic circles, you did it without any foundation presented. Not only insulting all academics, but also revealing your lack of intellectual integrity and honesty

>>17352811
Well, wait a minute. I think you're just not thinking about this at all. The question OP presents is whether you should bother with primary sources and not just read secondary sources.

I'm saying, no, you should also read the primary sources because the secondary sources are often wrong or do not hold the same interpretations I have. It is obvious that I also read the secondary sources.

You seem to think I'm advocating reading only primary sources, but that wasn't said anywhere in this thread and that is not even contemplated by OP's question. You know, if you read more primary sources you wouldn't fall into these self-made traps.

>>17352018
... why not a little of both?

why not reading some of the primary source, try to somewhat get to grips with it and start to formulate an interpretation, but not analysis every little thing so its a slog (then going further and more in depth if you want), then read some secondary literature on the topic and see how it compares and relates to what you got from it. then you get the best of both worlds.

you shouldn't. first reason is that you won't have the proper context that the text is written. second barrier is the language with all the technical terms (mumbo-jambo) which are just waste of time

>>17352689
Waste your time reinventing a shitty wheel

Let's be honest. Most of you guys don't read secondary, nevermind primary sources.

>>17352583
This. Secondary sources are for pseuds who just want to talk about a book without understanding it.
>Hurr Durr, did you know Shakespeare didn't actually write any of his plays? Did you know Kant was actually racist?
The point of reading classics is to expose yourself to higher levels of thought, not to memorize trivia.

>>17352881
This attitude is why you'll never be anything more than mediocre.

>>17352924
On the contrary, I'm going into a professional field developing a skill that allows me greater insight than any layperson.

You on the other hand have no genuine academic input in any field you currently read & neither have the capability.

You are pseudointellectual manifest

>>17352850
>In my experience, secondary sources are often wrong or have a completely different interpretation of the source texts than I do. You're not going to run any huge risks entrusting secondary sources, just because it is the intellectual equivalent of swimming with the current. But, it is going to be very hard for you to make a name for yourself or to present anything that isn't totally boring if you don't read the source materials and think for yourself.

Your text screams "Do not read secondary sources!". You say that secondary are often wrong (then why read them?) which is an unactratice quality and follows it with "OR have a completelly different interpretation of the source texts than I do" making it seem like that is also a bad characteristic. You call them the "intellectual equivalent of swimming with the current" and say that "it going to be hard for you to make a name for yourself" if you are just reading secondary sources. I would not be surprised if you did not read them at all.

>>17352955
*greater insight for said field that I am studying for

>>17352959
>You say that secondary are often wrong (then why read them?)

So that you can write in response to the secondary source and argue the points that you find are wrong, obviously. Are you new to academia?

>>17352018
primary sources are always the most entertaining part of secondary literature... as good as a historian may be, like Adrian Goldsworthy, when reading his book on caesar the best bits are straight out of caesars writings, or ancient historians. after reading that book i decided to only read primary sources for topics im actually interested in

Read the primary source to know the actual text. Read secondary to maybe glean a different perspective/analysis.

I read deep philosophical works for pleasure because I realize substance is just another form of style, If I don't understand something or mentally check out for a page or two that is alright because intuitively grasping the content is my goal.

What do I do if the primary source is basically what amounts to schlocky clickbait today and almost no real primary sources exist on the subjects? I like pirates, but A General History is the only contemporaneous account and it’s clearly highly sensationalized. The only thing worse are the broadsheets and balladmongers which are entirely clickbait, not just mostly.

All the primary sources I've read had a shit load of commentary.

>>17352018
Because it is stimulating to do so

Midwits wouldn't understand this

>>17352531
Anon absolutely btfo

i only read secondary sources as references for things i already know

i'll admit all 90% of my hegel reading has been through secondary

>>17352588
No, it's me. Me completes the sentence. Common mistake but you'll learn.

It depends on why you’re reading the text, and what the text is.
But, the best workflow is surely to read the primary text, make notes, read secondary sources, make notes, then reread the primary text with the new secondary perspectives, and then make conclusive notes. It’s at this stage where you are ready to contribute to academia.

>>17352531
Little bit cringe bro ngl

>>17352592
>architectonics
>accidentae

Based word choices anon

You're all retards. Not one of you has mentioned tertiary texts and meta reviews. Covers both the primary text itself and the contrasts and agreements between secondary literature. It's like none of you are stem grads or something...

>>17353690
It's I. Cite a source or fuck off.

>>17352018
Holy shit--this is terrifying.
Culling is deserved. Most cattle are unnecessary now.

>>17352018
You're not thinking for yourself if you just regurgitate their opinions and interpretations of things. Just read both primary and secondary sources.

>>17354341
not him but me sounds better language nazi “source” faggot

>>17354273
nu

>>17352018
>Why waste your time spending years analyzing primary sources
I don't most of the time. I only do it with authors I really respect.

>when you could just read secondary literature on the topic
There are certain books that cannot be accurately summarized. Consider a book like Tragedy and Hope. Every page is basically a summary and thesis on a section of human history. It is already a summary of a very large topic (20th century geopolitics).

These are the only books worth reading in their original state imo.

>>17352530

Also applies to policy. Stop reading opinion columns; actually go to the .govs, read the documents, read the referenced statutes, and email officials if more information is needed.