📚great video. I love the wisdom and beauty that the writing in older books are full of. However, since having a stroke my cognition of writing in general is not so great, and it takes me some time to digest and understand the meaning of what is being said. My memory was also affected, so I have to re-read the same page over and over again to retain any of it! Takes a long time, but I think worth it.
📚Only thing I would add is that Lewis always encouraged reading fairy tales and stories meant for children. Phantastes was children's lit in his day, but for us, that could mean reading children's stories from our current time. He insisted that no one was ever too old to read "fairy stories", as he called them. And in my experience, children's stories (and children's TV shows, too, sometimes) tend to do really well at approaching difficult topics from a down-to-earth and often more hopeful perspective.
My aunt was one of my earliest reading mentors, and she alternated between classic novels and modern novels. She might be reading Mark Twain one week and Tom Clancy the next. It's a good way to read.
One's "old" reading doesn't have to be philosophy or religion, either. There are old writings on carpentry, hiking/fishing/hunting, sports, sailing, food, fashion, astronomy, horsemanship, and so on.
It's true. I did a video on an old book for boys from the 1940s that has some of the coolest inscrutions and advice: ua-cam.com/video/fVGSAFIbHhk/v-deo.html
best intellectual youtuber of this gen, thanks for helping students (like me - junior year in Brazil) expanding our knowledge in a "not boring and educative" way.
This is especially important for history. Our perspectives on any given historical period or person are so varied that it’s almost essential to 1) read primary sources 2)a couple “old” histories or commentaries about the period, then 3) a more modern take on the period.
A lot of people read Phantastes first because it made such a big impact on Lewis, but most MacDonald scholars I know recommend starting with something easier (similar to your Plato suggestion which I will be taking). I do know some readers who love Phantastes from the start because they are open to embracing it for what it is and aren't trying too hard to figure it out, but many people struggle with the unconventional structure and dream-like quality. I usually recommend the Light Princess or other shorter fairy tales to begin with.
Thanks! I really enjoyed your video and look forward to seeing more. I've gotten kind of deep into MacDonald firstly because of Lewis but then through my friend Kirstin who is an excellent MacDonald scholar. She has helped me understand and appreciate Phantastes on more levels and has lectures on youtube: ua-cam.com/video/dEwN2QDdCFc/v-deo.htmlsi=V_D1MINWg-sGY4PI
I actually was debating with my wife the other day about fiction books. I’m biased to only read old fiction books because, in the same thought as C.S. Lewis, how can I know they’re good if they haven’t stood the test of time?
📚 So, this brings up a good point that I, unwittingly, partake in: we should alternate between old and new books. As a self-help junky, I’ve found that modern books do tell of modern maladies, but I find that I consistently must dip into the old tomes to really strike gold. I’ve found that I tend to gravitate towards books written between 1890-1940. Something about that period, which I would haphazardly assume was a period of struggle and turmoil, which called for a new type of living. As such, we’re in the same type of situation nowadays, so I find that the knowledge contained in those old books rings as true today as it likely did back then. Great video!
📚📓📒 I am working through the classics as my old books. I am fascinated by philosophy which is one reason I visit your channel regularly. I enjoy C. S. Lewis and J. J. Tolkien. Thank you for your time here.💚💚💚
I recently started my 'Gilgamesh to Wherever I Get to Before I Die' project and your video echoes something I decided to do by accident. Read the text. Don't look at the introduction or the notes (unless absolutely necessary). If there's a reference or word you don't understand note it down. If it seems essential to understand that before reading on then look it up. Otherwise read on. When you done look back through at your highlights/references/words and look them up. Read the introduction. Then look at secondary sources. Then re-read. It makes the process a longer one but you really get something out of it. Like I discovered that there's a whole trend of Goddesses of War and Love in the Middle East/Mediterranean, including Ishtar. But I've definitely become a fan of primary source before secondary sources.
Interesting approach. I recently decided to use a "workout" approach to reading. I use a three day "bro :P" split. Hard day - one from the Great Ideas of Western civilisation series - where the language and concepts are both hard, Medium day - one of the more contemporary writers where the language is easier but concepts are still somewhat challenging like economics or philosophy, and Easy Day - Comics and cartoons - C.C. Tsai's series on Chinese philosphy, Asterix, Calvin and Hobbes, and such. I find that my reading "endurance(Time spent reading)" and "strength (ability to understand Medium day books)" has been steadily improving. I can see how the C.S.Lewis approach has a similar intent of ensuring a deeper understanding of a particular subject. Great observation and thanks for putting up a cast on this topic. 📚
This is great because I’m just getting into improving my knowledge on thoughts and ideas that I have and this process can be overwhelming, especially being from a small island where philosophy and theology and just reading on a whole is not a thing. This journey is difficult.
📚another insightful and helpful video. Absolutely start off with primary texts and supppenent with kectures and supplemental/complementary texts. Rarely used strictly “secondary” lit. Had great success with this method teaching Intro to Phil. (20yrs) I will send you a typical syllabus. Grad seminars did typical primary + heavy secondary. 👍
I would suggest to discover or discern what "old books" are in a genre is look at the bibliography of the modern book you are reading. Scholars and writers do a lot of the work for us in finding "primary source" material.
On the reading of old books By C.S. Lewis There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about “isms” and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said. The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator. The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire. This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology. Wherever you find a little study circle of Christian laity you can be almost certain that they are studying not St. Luke or St. Paul or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Hooker or Butler, but M. Berdyaev or M. Maritain or M. Niebuhr or Miss Sayers or even myself. Now this seems to me topsy-turvy. Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o’clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why - the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity (“mere Christianity” as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones. Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books. All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook - even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united - united with each other and against earlier and later ages - by a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century - the blindness about which posterity will ask, “But how could they have thought that?” - lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H.G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them. I myself was first led into reading the Christian classics, almost accidentally, as a result of my English studies. Some, such as Hooker, Herbert, Traherne, Taylor and Bunyan, I read because they are themselves great English writers; others, such as Boethius, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Dante, because they were “influences.” George Macdonald I had found for myself at the age of sixteen and never wavered in my allegiance, though I tried for a long time to ignore his Christianity. They are, you will note, a mixed bag, representative of many churches, climates and ages. And that brings me to yet another reason for reading them. The divisions of Christendom are undeniable and are by some of these writers most fiercely expressed. But if any man is tempted to think - as one might be tempted who read only contemporaries - that “Christianity” is a word of so many meanings that it means nothing at all, he can learn beyond all doubt, by stepping out of his own century, that this is not so. Measured against the ages “mere Christianity” turns out to be no insipid interdenominational transparency, but something positive, self-consistent, and inexhaustible. I know it, indeed, to my cost. In the days when I still hated Christianity, I learned to recognise, like some all too familiar smell, that almost unvarying something which met me, now in Puritan Bunyan, now in Anglican Hooker, now in Thomist Dante. It was there (honeyed and floral) in Francois de Sales; it was there (grave and homely) in Spenser and Walton; it was there (grim but manful) in Pascal and Johnson; there again, with a mild, frightening, paradisial flavour, in Vaughan and Boehme and Traherne.
In the urban sobriety of the eighteenth century one was not safe - Law and Butler were two lions in the path. The supposed “paganism” of the Elizabethans could not keep it out; it lay in wait where a man might have supposed himself safest, in the very centre of The Faerie Queene and the Arcadia. It was, of course, varied; and yet - after all - so unmistakably the same; recognisable, not to be evaded, the odour which is death to us until we allow it to become life: an air that kills From yon far country blows. We are all rightly distressed, and ashamed also, at the divisions of Christendom. But those who have always lived within the Christian fold may be too easily dispirited by them. They are bad, but such people do not know what it looks like from without. Seen from there, what is left intact despite all the divisions, still appears (as it truly is) an immensely formidable unity. I know, for I saw it; and well our enemies know it. That unity any of us can find by going out of his own age. It is not enough, but it is more than you had thought till then. Once you are well soaked in it, if you then venture to speak, you will have an amusing experience. You will be thought a papist when you are actually reproducing Bunyan, a pantheist when you are quoting Aquinas, and so forth. For you have now got on to the great level viaduct which crosses the ages and which looks so high from the valleys, so low from the mountains, so narrow compared with the swamps, and so broad compared with the sheep-tracks. The present book is something of an experiment. The translation is intended for the world at large, not only for theological students. If it succeeds, other translations of other great Christian books will presumably follow. In one sense, of course, it is not the first in the field. Translations of the Theologia Germanica, the Imitation, the Scale of Perfection, and the Revelations of Lady Julian of Norwich, are already on the market, and are very valuable, though some of them are not very scholarly. But it will be noticed that these are all books of devotion rather than of doctrine. Now the layman or amateur needs to be instructed as well as to be exhorted. In this age his need for knowledge is particularly pressing. Nor would I admit any sharp division between the two kinds of book. For my own part I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books, and I rather suspect that the same experience may await many others. I believe that many who find that “nothing happens” when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand. This is a good translation of a very great book. St. Athanasius has suffered in popular estimation from a certain sentence in the “Athanasian Creed.” I will not labour the point that that work is not exactly a creed and was not by St. Athanasius, for I think it is a very fine piece of writing. The words “Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly” are the offence. They are commonly misunderstood. The operative word is keep; not acquire, or even believe, but keep. The author, in fact, is not talking about unbelievers, but about deserters, not about those who have never heard of Christ, nor even those who have misunderstood and refused to accept him, but of those who having really understood and really believed, then allow themselves, under the sway of sloth or of fashion or any other invited confusion to be drawn away into sub-Christian modes of thought. They are a warning against the curious modern assumption that all changes of belief, however brought about, are necessarily exempt from blame. But this is not my immediate concern. I mention “the creed (commonly called) of St. Athanasius” only to get out of the reader’s way what may have been a bogey and to put the true Athanasius in its place. His epitaph is Athanasius contra mundum, “Athanasius against the world”. We are proud that our own country has more than once stood against the world. Athanasius did the same. He stood for the Trinitarian doctrine, “whole and undefiled,” when it looked as if all the civilised world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius - into one of those “sensible” synthetic religions which are so strongly recommended today and which, then as now, included among their devotees many highly cultivated clergymen. It is his glory that he did not move with the times; it is his reward that he now remains when those times, as all times do, have moved away. When I first opened his De Incarnatione I soon discovered by a very simple test that I was reading a masterpiece. I knew very little Christian Greek except that of the New Testament and I had expected difficulties. To my astonishment I found it almost as easy as Xenophon; and only a mastermind could, in the fourth century, have written so deeply on such a subject with such classical simplicity. Every page I read confirmed this impression. His approach to the miracles is badly needed today, for it is the final answer to those who object to them as “arbitrary and meaningless violations of the laws of nature.” They are here shown to be rather the re-telling in capital letters of the same message which nature writes in her crabbed cursive hand; the very operations one would expect of him who was so full of life that when he wished to die he had to “borrow death from others”. The whole book, indeed, is a picture of the tree of life - a sappy and golden book, full of buoyancy and confidence. We cannot, I admit, appropriate all its confidence today. We cannot point to the high virtue of Christian living and the gay, almost mocking courage of Christian martyrdom, as a proof of our doctrines with quite that assurance which Athanasius takes as a matter of course. But whoever may be to blame for that it is not Athanasius. The translator knows so much more Christian Greek than I that it would be out of place for me to praise her version. But it seems to me to be in the right tradition of English translation. I do not think the reader will find here any of that sawdusty quality which is so common in modern renderings from the ancient languages. That is as much as the English reader will notice; those who compare the version with the original will be able to estimate how much wit and talent is presupposed in such a choice, for example, as “these wiseacres” on the very first page.
I like this heuristic from Joshua Gibbs' book, "Love What Lasts". Basically an old book (of the sort C.S. Lewis means) is any book in which the author has been dead for 100 years or more.
What’s ironic about this introduction to “On the Incarnation” is that it directly leads into John Behr’s preamble that stretches out for 60 pages before the primary text.
📚 I liked the episode. I started the St. John's reading list and am planning on incorporating a study of philosophy with it. Starting at the earliest and working forward to today. I figure that will give me a better understanding when later philosophers reference the older ones. I have learned that who made the translation of older books is an important factor in understanding the material. This happening when I was reading Homer. For those that are interested in reading fiction, I reference an old copy of ARCO's Reading Lists for College-Bound Students. As a side note, not sure what is going on with the video edits. For me, it gets a bit too off-putting. Thanks for the discussion, good material!
You have no idea how much this helps me make deciding what to read less intimidating. Especially when it comes to reading philosophy. I’m consistently feeling myself tugged from both modern/commentaries and old/primary books. The idea of going from old to new consistently, eliminates the worry of only reading one “era” too long. Not to mention burnout that comes from that. Excellent advice as always! 📚
A book is relatively old if it was published before the reader was born. I like the idea of starting with some fiction you enjoy and pulling on the threads as you say to read their contemporaries and influences. You can work your way backwards through the Canon that way. I like to find an author I like and read at least their major works. Then a biography, memoir, or their letters can be a good secondary source to mine for their influences and contemporaries. It can also introduce you to topics or ideas in history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc. All threads you can also keep pulling away at. In this way you can go deep into the past and cover a broad range of topics.
Good stuff! Got on a kick last year of reading the works of the Puritans. Reading Watson and Charnock and the like has been way more enjoyable and profitable than just reading what people say about them.
i've always gone to the original text first... then secondary only if it is difficult to understand. I love Plato, especially the cave allegory on reality. It cracks me up. LOL! I used to collect and READ books published in the early 1800's.
Hadot is a treasure trove about the Ancients, not only the Stoics. Luckily, I do speak and read French well enough to be able to read the original works. “Exercices spirituels et philosophie antique” is my favourite. I don't think it has ever been translated to English.
Towards the latter days of Lewis his views seem to have developed towards the Reformed faith. In his scifi trilogy "The Space Trilogy" he appeals to the Westminster Shorter Catechism. I was curious to know what theology do your views fall in line with?
As a semi-recent college grad (2021), I wholeheartedly agree regarding reading primary vs. secondary sources. Reading primary sources is great because not only are they far more enjoyable, but we also get to form our own opinions/ thoughts on a certain piece before learning what other people have to say. I may be biased though - I hated reading secondary sources as I found them far too long.
Hold on: The Symposium is the worse Platonic dialogue? Maybe it’s my commitment to the view of classical political philosophy communicated by the Straussians and, in particular, Bernadette, but I must know why you said that. Also, The Republic is great and its powers are equal to that of The Laws, but The Symposium is so often ranked as one of the better dialogues. 2:50
@ Lol. Come on, brother, I know you have a more serious reason than that. I love the work your doing on your channel but if the involvement of distasteful activities and bad behavior is our measure for what is philosophically and aesthetically good or not then let’s get rid of Heidegger, Nietzsche, Aristotle, and every other Thinker that offers a gross instance in their writing. Nonetheless, I appreciate your response.
Great vid Parker! Coincidentally I am struggling through Carmilla by Sheridan Le Faneu (1872). Old English is tricky. However, I agree with steveryan9661 … the Bible is a good go-to…. the modern brain can definitely get the gist of what’s happening regardless of the language, particularly in the violent and adult-rated short stories as they are so gruesome and shocking much like modern news and some types of clickbaity short form content.
Old: works published prior to 1990, as this was when revisionism had picked up momentum in the fields of history, theology, and social sciences. Modern/New: post 1990.
if you wanted to see all the talking about old books and how one should act as a true Stoic?.... just watch President Obama sitting next to Donald Trump at the Carter funeral. All lessons taught in years seen in action and in practice... no book can beat that scenery ... 📚 CS Lewis would be proud !!
I knew as soon as he said that it was about the homoerotic themes. So old books are great, but only if the context is perfectly comfy. That sounds pretty limiting to me.
Nobody wants to read someone who is trying to be like someone else... They would just read the original if they wanted that. You should be more concerned with authenticity than imitation.
Actually we had this priest and teacher, a Greek Orthodox Archimandrite, in Theology University, who said to us (I'm talking late 00's to early 10's) that "go back to the primary sources". He said this in a class about ecclesiastical literature of the eighth century, but he said it would apply to philosophy too. An atheist and antitheist myself (in Theology we used the term "αρνησίθεος" - the one who denies the existence of God) but I did learn a lot of philosophy things, even if I didn't graduate. Theology and the church among the bad things had their good aspects too here in Greece, essentially keep the tradition of study and learning alive, in a society that up until recently saw ancient history and philosophy as just a way to brag about our so-called golden past. No regrets from my studies in Theology and Religion. Even though I still remain an atheist, I learned the very valuable know-how of Humanities.
Try the Best Data Recovery Tool to Recover All Your Lost Files: bit.ly/4gryeYo
“If the world is against the truth, then I am against the world.” - St. Athanasius
Anthanasius conta mundum 🔥🔥🔥
📚great video. I love the wisdom and beauty that the writing in older books are full of. However, since having a stroke my cognition of writing in general is not so great, and it takes me some time to digest and understand the meaning of what is being said. My memory was also affected, so I have to re-read the same page over and over again to retain any of it! Takes a long time, but I think worth it.
📚Only thing I would add is that Lewis always encouraged reading fairy tales and stories meant for children. Phantastes was children's lit in his day, but for us, that could mean reading children's stories from our current time. He insisted that no one was ever too old to read "fairy stories", as he called them. And in my experience, children's stories (and children's TV shows, too, sometimes) tend to do really well at approaching difficult topics from a down-to-earth and often more hopeful perspective.
My aunt was one of my earliest reading mentors, and she alternated between classic novels and modern novels. She might be reading Mark Twain one week and Tom Clancy the next. It's a good way to read.
Talking about C. S. Lewis with a Frog and Toad t-shirt? *takes sip of coffee... I'm in.
Haha was hoping someone would like the shirt!
@@ParkerNotes I had them all as a kid. Now almost 60 y.o. and I still remember mom and dad doing the voices. "Hello, lunch!" said the snake.
I wouldn't sell my frog and toad shirt for anything
@@ParkerNotesOh, we do. 😊
@@ParkerNotes Frankly, it's The Tick tattoo peeking out from under the t-shirt sleeve that got me. That is what I'm seeing, right?
One's "old" reading doesn't have to be philosophy or religion, either. There are old writings on carpentry, hiking/fishing/hunting, sports, sailing, food, fashion, astronomy, horsemanship, and so on.
It's true. I did a video on an old book for boys from the 1940s that has some of the coolest inscrutions and advice: ua-cam.com/video/fVGSAFIbHhk/v-deo.html
I'd love to find more of those old books
@@ParkerNotes I had _Fun for Boys_ as a kid!
best intellectual youtuber of this gen, thanks for helping students (like me - junior year in Brazil) expanding our knowledge in a "not boring and educative" way.
This is especially important for history. Our perspectives on any given historical period or person are so varied that it’s almost essential to 1) read primary sources 2)a couple “old” histories or commentaries about the period, then 3) a more modern take on the period.
A lot of people read Phantastes first because it made such a big impact on Lewis, but most MacDonald scholars I know recommend starting with something easier (similar to your Plato suggestion which I will be taking). I do know some readers who love Phantastes from the start because they are open to embracing it for what it is and aren't trying too hard to figure it out, but many people struggle with the unconventional structure and dream-like quality. I usually recommend the Light Princess or other shorter fairy tales to begin with.
@@Scribblore this is such a valuable insight!! Thank you, I'll grab that and some of his other stuff too
Thanks! I really enjoyed your video and look forward to seeing more. I've gotten kind of deep into MacDonald firstly because of Lewis but then through my friend Kirstin who is an excellent MacDonald scholar. She has helped me understand and appreciate Phantastes on more levels and has lectures on youtube: ua-cam.com/video/dEwN2QDdCFc/v-deo.htmlsi=V_D1MINWg-sGY4PI
I actually was debating with my wife the other day about fiction books. I’m biased to only read old fiction books because, in the same thought as C.S. Lewis, how can I know they’re good if they haven’t stood the test of time?
I feel this. I'm always hesitant to read new SF when there are so many gems on the list that I know will be great reads
Yeah, same.
📚 So, this brings up a good point that I, unwittingly, partake in: we should alternate between old and new books. As a self-help junky, I’ve found that modern books do tell of modern maladies, but I find that I consistently must dip into the old tomes to really strike gold. I’ve found that I tend to gravitate towards books written between 1890-1940. Something about that period, which I would haphazardly assume was a period of struggle and turmoil, which called for a new type of living. As such, we’re in the same type of situation nowadays, so I find that the knowledge contained in those old books rings as true today as it likely did back then. Great video!
New park notes vid?! Gonna be a good day!
Haha let's go!
we have a lot in common - gonna keep following this channel
🙌🙌 let's go!
📚📓📒 I am working through the classics as my old books. I am fascinated by philosophy which is one reason I visit your channel regularly. I enjoy C. S. Lewis and J. J. Tolkien. Thank you for your time here.💚💚💚
Thank you for the insight. I have had a story in my head, but it has been difficult to put my thoughts to paper. 👍
@@isaacixtupe8983 haha thank you!
I recently started my 'Gilgamesh to Wherever I Get to Before I Die' project and your video echoes something I decided to do by accident. Read the text. Don't look at the introduction or the notes (unless absolutely necessary). If there's a reference or word you don't understand note it down. If it seems essential to understand that before reading on then look it up. Otherwise read on. When you done look back through at your highlights/references/words and look them up. Read the introduction. Then look at secondary sources. Then re-read. It makes the process a longer one but you really get something out of it. Like I discovered that there's a whole trend of Goddesses of War and Love in the Middle East/Mediterranean, including Ishtar. But I've definitely become a fan of primary source before secondary sources.
Interesting approach. I recently decided to use a "workout" approach to reading. I use a three day "bro :P" split. Hard day - one from the Great Ideas of Western civilisation series - where the language and concepts are both hard, Medium day - one of the more contemporary writers where the language is easier but concepts are still somewhat challenging like economics or philosophy, and Easy Day - Comics and cartoons - C.C. Tsai's series on Chinese philosphy, Asterix, Calvin and Hobbes, and such. I find that my reading "endurance(Time spent reading)" and "strength (ability to understand Medium day books)" has been steadily improving.
I can see how the C.S.Lewis approach has a similar intent of ensuring a deeper understanding of a particular subject. Great observation and thanks for putting up a cast on this topic. 📚
I sure am glad I stumbled upon this channel long ago. Right up my alley. 📚
This is great because I’m just getting into improving my knowledge on thoughts and ideas that I have and this process can be overwhelming, especially being from a small island where philosophy and theology and just reading on a whole is not a thing. This journey is difficult.
📚 Solid vid, I LOVE C.S. Lewis. He's certainly a favorite author and theologian of mine.
This was so insightful, the curiosity doesn't cut it when all you need is a little direction. Thanks! 📚
📚another insightful and helpful video. Absolutely start off with primary texts and supppenent with kectures and supplemental/complementary texts. Rarely used strictly “secondary” lit. Had great success with this method teaching Intro to Phil. (20yrs) I will send you a typical syllabus. Grad seminars did typical primary + heavy secondary. 👍
📚📚 Love the video. I want to read old books and I found the 1:1ratio recommendation with modern books very good.
I would suggest to discover or discern what "old books" are in a genre is look at the bibliography of the modern book you are reading. Scholars and writers do a lot of the work for us in finding "primary source" material.
Totally agree
I don't watch every video, so maybe this is a couple late, but I love the new set and straight on camera angle
📚A secondary source about how we should prioritise primary sources?
I kid. Great video once again.
Great video as always! 📚
On the reading of old books
By C.S. Lewis
There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient books should be read only by the professionals, and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus I have found as a tutor in English Literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take a translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the Symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book ten times as long, all about “isms” and influences and only once in twelve pages telling him what Plato actually said.
The error is rather an amiable one, for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew, the great man, just because of his greatness, is much more intelligible than his modern commentator.
The simplest student will be able to understand, if not all, yet a very great deal of what Plato said; but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on Platonism. It has always therefore been one of my main endeavours as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire.
This mistaken preference for the modern books and this shyness of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology. Wherever you find a little study circle of Christian laity you can be almost certain that they are studying not St. Luke or St. Paul or St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or Hooker or Butler, but M. Berdyaev or M. Maritain or M. Niebuhr or Miss Sayers or even myself.
Now this seems to me topsy-turvy. Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet.
A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light.
Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o’clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why - the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point.
In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity (“mere Christianity” as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books.
It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.
Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.
All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook - even those, like myself, who seem most opposed to it. Nothing strikes me more when I read the controversies of past ages than the fact that both sides were usually assuming without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united - united with each other and against earlier and later ages - by a great mass of common assumptions.
We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century - the blindness about which posterity will ask, “But how could they have thought that?” - lies where we have never suspected it, and concerns something about which there is untroubled agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. H.G. Wells and Karl Barth. None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill.
The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing; and their own errors, being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one, not because either is infallible, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the books of the past, but unfortunately we cannot get at them.
I myself was first led into reading the Christian classics, almost accidentally, as a result of my English studies. Some, such as Hooker, Herbert, Traherne, Taylor and Bunyan, I read because they are themselves great English writers; others, such as Boethius, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Dante, because they were “influences.” George Macdonald I had found for myself at the age of sixteen and never wavered in my allegiance, though I tried for a long time to ignore his Christianity.
They are, you will note, a mixed bag, representative of many churches, climates and ages. And that brings me to yet another reason for reading them. The divisions of Christendom are undeniable and are by some of these writers most fiercely expressed. But if any man is tempted to think - as one might be tempted who read only contemporaries - that “Christianity” is a word of so many meanings that it means nothing at all, he can learn beyond all doubt, by stepping out of his own century, that this is not so.
Measured against the ages “mere Christianity” turns out to be no insipid interdenominational transparency, but something positive, self-consistent, and inexhaustible. I know it, indeed, to my cost. In the days when I still hated Christianity, I learned to recognise, like some all too familiar smell, that almost unvarying something which met me, now in Puritan Bunyan, now in Anglican Hooker, now in Thomist Dante. It was there (honeyed and floral) in Francois de Sales; it was there (grave and homely) in Spenser and Walton; it was there (grim but manful) in Pascal and Johnson; there again, with a mild, frightening, paradisial flavour, in Vaughan and Boehme and Traherne.
In the urban sobriety of the eighteenth century one was not safe - Law and Butler were two lions in the path. The supposed “paganism” of the Elizabethans could not keep it out; it lay in wait where a man might have supposed himself safest, in the very centre of The Faerie Queene and the Arcadia. It was, of course, varied; and yet - after all - so unmistakably the same; recognisable, not to be evaded, the odour which is death to us until we allow it to become life:
an air that kills
From yon far country blows.
We are all rightly distressed, and ashamed also, at the divisions of Christendom. But those who have always lived within the Christian fold may be too easily dispirited by them. They are bad, but such people do not know what it looks like from without. Seen from there, what is left intact despite all the divisions, still appears (as it truly is) an immensely formidable unity. I know, for I saw it; and well our enemies know it. That unity any of us can find by going out of his own age.
It is not enough, but it is more than you had thought till then. Once you are well soaked in it, if you then venture to speak, you will have an amusing experience. You will be thought a papist when you are actually reproducing Bunyan, a pantheist when you are quoting Aquinas, and so forth. For you have now got on to the great level viaduct which crosses the ages and which looks so high from the valleys, so low from the mountains, so narrow compared with the swamps, and so broad compared with the sheep-tracks.
The present book is something of an experiment. The translation is intended for the world at large, not only for theological students. If it succeeds, other translations of other great Christian books will presumably follow. In one sense, of course, it is not the first in the field. Translations of the Theologia Germanica, the Imitation, the Scale of Perfection, and the Revelations of Lady Julian of Norwich, are already on the market, and are very valuable, though some of them are not very scholarly.
But it will be noticed that these are all books of devotion rather than of doctrine. Now the layman or amateur needs to be instructed as well as to be exhorted. In this age his need for knowledge is particularly pressing. Nor would I admit any sharp division between the two kinds of book. For my own part I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books, and I rather suspect that the same experience may await many others. I believe that many who find that “nothing happens” when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand.
This is a good translation of a very great book. St. Athanasius has suffered in popular estimation from a certain sentence in the “Athanasian Creed.” I will not labour the point that that work is not exactly a creed and was not by St. Athanasius, for I think it is a very fine piece of writing. The words “Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly” are the offence. They are commonly misunderstood. The operative word is keep; not acquire, or even believe, but keep.
The author, in fact, is not talking about unbelievers, but about deserters, not about those who have never heard of Christ, nor even those who have misunderstood and refused to accept him, but of those who having really understood and really believed, then allow themselves, under the sway of sloth or of fashion or any other invited confusion to be drawn away into sub-Christian modes of thought. They are a warning against the curious modern assumption that all changes of belief, however brought about, are necessarily exempt from blame. But this is not my immediate concern. I mention “the creed (commonly called) of St. Athanasius” only to get out of the reader’s way what may have been a bogey and to put the true Athanasius in its place. His epitaph is Athanasius contra mundum, “Athanasius against the world”. We are proud that our own country has more than once stood against the world. Athanasius did the same. He stood for the Trinitarian doctrine, “whole and undefiled,” when it looked as if all the civilised world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Arius - into one of those “sensible” synthetic religions which are so strongly recommended today and which, then as now, included among their devotees many highly cultivated clergymen. It is his glory that he did not move with the times; it is his reward that he now remains when those times, as all times do, have moved away.
When I first opened his De Incarnatione I soon discovered by a very simple test that I was reading a masterpiece. I knew very little Christian Greek except that of the New Testament and I had expected difficulties. To my astonishment I found it almost as easy as Xenophon; and only a mastermind could, in the fourth century, have written so deeply on such a subject with such classical simplicity. Every page I read confirmed this impression.
His approach to the miracles is badly needed today, for it is the final answer to those who object to them as “arbitrary and meaningless violations of the laws of nature.” They are here shown to be rather the re-telling in capital letters of the same message which nature writes in her crabbed cursive hand; the very operations one would expect of him who was so full of life that when he wished to die he had to “borrow death from others”. The whole book, indeed, is a picture of the tree of life - a sappy and golden book, full of buoyancy and confidence. We cannot, I admit, appropriate all its confidence today. We cannot point to the high virtue of Christian living and the gay, almost mocking courage of Christian martyrdom, as a proof of our doctrines with quite that assurance which Athanasius takes as a matter of course. But whoever may be to blame for that it is not Athanasius.
The translator knows so much more Christian Greek than I that it would be out of place for me to praise her version. But it seems to me to be in the right tradition of English translation. I do not think the reader will find here any of that sawdusty quality which is so common in modern renderings from the ancient languages. That is as much as the English reader will notice; those who compare the version with the original will be able to estimate how much wit and talent is presupposed in such a choice, for example, as “these wiseacres” on the very first page.
I like this heuristic from Joshua Gibbs' book, "Love What Lasts". Basically an old book (of the sort C.S. Lewis means) is any book in which the author has been dead for 100 years or more.
Stopped following your channel for a while, and I regret it. Your channel is everything I’m looking for.
🙌🙌 glad to have you back!
What’s ironic about this introduction to “On the Incarnation” is that it directly leads into John Behr’s preamble that stretches out for 60 pages before the primary text.
The St Vlad press edition I mean
📚 I liked the episode. I started the St. John's reading list and am planning on incorporating a study of philosophy with it. Starting at the earliest and working forward to today. I figure that will give me a better understanding when later philosophers reference the older ones. I have learned that who made the translation of older books is an important factor in understanding the material. This happening when I was reading Homer. For those that are interested in reading fiction, I reference an old copy of ARCO's Reading Lists for College-Bound Students. As a side note, not sure what is going on with the video edits. For me, it gets a bit too off-putting. Thanks for the discussion, good material!
I got put off reading Plato's The Republic, now I know why. The version I have has the analysis first! Time to start from the source.
Lewis' books are great 📚
🙌🙌
You have no idea how much this helps me make deciding what to read less intimidating. Especially when it comes to reading philosophy. I’m consistently feeling myself tugged from both modern/commentaries and old/primary books.
The idea of going from old to new consistently, eliminates the worry of only reading one “era” too long. Not to mention burnout that comes from that.
Excellent advice as always! 📚
A book is relatively old if it was published before the reader was born.
I like the idea of starting with some fiction you enjoy and pulling on the threads as you say to read their contemporaries and influences. You can work your way backwards through the Canon that way. I like to find an author I like and read at least their major works. Then a biography, memoir, or their letters can be a good secondary source to mine for their influences and contemporaries. It can also introduce you to topics or ideas in history, philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc. All threads you can also keep pulling away at. In this way you can go deep into the past and cover a broad range of topics.
Good stuff! Got on a kick last year of reading the works of the Puritans. Reading Watson and Charnock and the like has been way more enjoyable and profitable than just reading what people say about them.
Good job, thanks.
i've always gone to the original text first... then secondary only if it is difficult to understand. I love Plato, especially the cave allegory on reality. It cracks me up. LOL! I used to collect and READ books published in the early 1800's.
Hadot is a treasure trove about the Ancients, not only the Stoics. Luckily, I do speak and read French well enough to be able to read the original works. “Exercices spirituels et philosophie antique” is my favourite. I don't think it has ever been translated to English.
Towards the latter days of Lewis his views seem to have developed towards the Reformed faith. In his scifi trilogy "The Space Trilogy" he appeals to the Westminster Shorter Catechism.
I was curious to know what theology do your views fall in line with?
I've been reading and studying Christian mysticism. I find it helpful to choose an old book from the bibliography of the modern book 📚
As a semi-recent college grad (2021), I wholeheartedly agree regarding reading primary vs. secondary sources. Reading primary sources is great because not only are they far more enjoyable, but we also get to form our own opinions/ thoughts on a certain piece before learning what other people have to say. I may be biased though - I hated reading secondary sources as I found them far too long.
I would love to hear you speak about Epicureanism, too.
Hold on: The Symposium is the worse Platonic dialogue? Maybe it’s my commitment to the view of classical political philosophy communicated by the Straussians and, in particular, Bernadette, but I must know why you said that. Also, The Republic is great and its powers are equal to that of The Laws, but The Symposium is so often ranked as one of the better dialogues. 2:50
@@demetrie94 the pedestry is gross
@ Lol. Come on, brother, I know you have a more serious reason than that. I love the work your doing on your channel but if the involvement of distasteful activities and bad behavior is our measure for what is philosophically and aesthetically good or not then let’s get rid of Heidegger, Nietzsche, Aristotle, and every other Thinker that offers a gross instance in their writing. Nonetheless, I appreciate your response.
Love your channel, but shocked to hear you say Symposium is the wordy dialogue of Plato. It’s in my top 5
I think he said the worst dialogue not the wordy. Either way I agree with you, he is profoundly wrong about the Symposium.
@richardpankey6483 its because boy on boy action makes him uncomfortable.
So in other words... stop watching this video and read an old book
Haha exactly
We build knowledge upon knowledge and turn it to wisdom and active doing; then, it becomes knowledge again.
Dang, was hoping you'd talk more about that collection of Robert E. Howard Conan stories in the thumbnail 🤣
I'll do more of that on my other channel, Truth Suffers. It's my SF, fantasy, and philosophy channel
Great vid Parker! Coincidentally I am struggling through Carmilla by Sheridan Le Faneu (1872). Old English is tricky. However, I agree with steveryan9661 … the Bible is a good go-to…. the modern brain can definitely get the gist of what’s happening regardless of the language, particularly in the violent and adult-rated short stories as they are so gruesome and shocking much like modern news and some types of clickbaity short form content.
📚
📚📚
This is especially true when reading the Bible. Read the Bible first, then consult a secondary source, There are few books older than the Bible
Repping frog and toad is wonderful. Well done.
Those who do not learn from history are DOOMED to repeat it.... forget who said it, but it's true.
😀📚
Old: works published prior to 1990, as this was when revisionism had picked up momentum in the fields of history, theology, and social sciences.
Modern/New: post 1990.
Handsome Bankers light Park!
if you wanted to see all the talking about old books and how one should act as a true Stoic?.... just watch President Obama sitting next to Donald Trump at the Carter funeral. All lessons taught in years seen in action and in practice... no book can beat that scenery ... 📚 CS Lewis would be proud !!
I’m still bitter about how C. S. Lewis finished the Out of the Silent Planet series.
📚😎
Ah a fellow Chemex user, what is your favorite coffee roaster?
My local one 🙌 Tala Coffee
Modern secondary books suffer from too much modernism, always apologizing for the past and reading into it that which was not intended.
The Symposium is the worst Plato dialogue? Bro, you’re high.
them debating on whether boy lovers should gratify their adult male lovers made me nauseous
@ So, is it a homophobia thing?
I knew as soon as he said that it was about the homoerotic themes. So old books are great, but only if the context is perfectly comfy. That sounds pretty limiting to me.
@@luoboeguy Yeah, thats was disappointing. I expected better from him.
book stack
📔📕📖📗📘
Nobody wants to read someone who is trying to be like someone else... They would just read the original if they wanted that. You should be more concerned with authenticity than imitation.
I think i will get 3:1, 3 old books and 1 new book 😂😂
Now that's a good ratio!
@@ParkerNotes Yeah lol
Actually we had this priest and teacher, a Greek Orthodox Archimandrite, in Theology University, who said to us (I'm talking late 00's to early 10's) that "go back to the primary sources". He said this in a class about ecclesiastical literature of the eighth century, but he said it would apply to philosophy too. An atheist and antitheist myself (in Theology we used the term "αρνησίθεος" - the one who denies the existence of God) but I did learn a lot of philosophy things, even if I didn't graduate. Theology and the church among the bad things had their good aspects too here in Greece, essentially keep the tradition of study and learning alive, in a society that up until recently saw ancient history and philosophy as just a way to brag about our so-called golden past. No regrets from my studies in Theology and Religion. Even though I still remain an atheist, I learned the very valuable know-how of Humanities.
Bookcase emoji
bookstack emoji jajaja
📚
📚📚📚
📚📚
📚
📚📚
📚
📚
📚
📚
📚
📚
📚
📚
📚
📚
📚
📚
📚
📚
📚
📚
📚
🫡
📚
📚
📚
📚
📚
📚