• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Do we learn something from the books we read or just filling up our free time?

J

jesika

New Member
Many people i know who are really addicted to reading can read 3-4 books at the same time, at least, but when i ask them what did they learn from these particular books they say almost nothing.
Do you try to learn something from the books you read or just doing it more like a habit?
 
I read for entertainment, not education. As Fantasy Moon said, a well written book will teach me something whether I'm seeking that or not.

Frankly, if I'm reading a murder mystery I don't think I should be reading with intent to learn. That's just a wee bit creepy.

OTOH, I have learned that if I ever decide to off my husband I have an entire garden full of poisonous plants. Foxglove, monkshood, lily of the valley, rhubarb leaves...he better not piss me off...mwa ha ha ha ha!
 
The main reason why I am reading is to learn something out of it. Literature is too sacred to be just a distraction among many others.

That being said, I do not limit myself to books about philosophy or some other informative subject ; writers like Balzac have a lot to teach me despite that the purpose of his books is not oriented toward validating a thesis or elaborating concepts.
 
I find that good writers often have points of view I never thought of. I look forward to those revelations.

That said, though, the bad people get caught, the lovers connect; the happily ever after desires are reached. Not much like real life.

I'm trying to learn to be more cynical. People say "It can't get any worse." BS. It can and often does. By being cynical (pessimistic) you're not disappointed so often, and sometimes you can be pleasantly surprised.
 
Zhizara said:
I find that good writers often have points of view I never thought of. I look forward to those revelations.

That said, though, the bad people get caught, the lovers connect; the happily ever after desires are reached. Not much like real life.

I'm trying to learn to be more cynical. People say "It can't get any worse." BS. It can and often does. By being cynical (pessimistic) you're not disappointed so often, and sometimes you can be pleasantly surprised.
Click to expand...

Have you heard about Schopenhauer? Your post is very much alike to his theory!
 
I just read the Wiki article on Schopenhauer, at least far enough to know that I don't agree.

I'm basing my feelings on the old book I remember reading called the Cinderella Principle. I couldn't find the correct author since there are several books by that name, but the gist was that we were raised as children on fairy tales and grew up to expect "happily ever after" and are set up for disappointment, because real life rarely turns out that way.
 
Zhizara said:
No, do you have a link you'd like to share?
Click to expand...

Not really, as my recommandations would be in french. This is briefly what he believes

"Schopenhauer believed that humans were motivated only by their own basic desires"

"For Schopenhauer, human desire was futile, illogical, directionless, and, by extension, so was all human action in the world"

"For Schopenhauer, human desiring, "willing," and craving [inevitably] cause suffering or pain."

Of course, it is possible not to desire, and thus not to suffer - the absence of "Will" then leaves place to boredom. Human life sway between these two extremes - Will and boredom.

As a global solution, the human kind must learn to acquire a generalized detachment toward the world by smothering his "Will of life".



He his a very interesting philosopher, althought very cynical ; he has had a lasting influence in occidental litterature. I am only 20, I believe it is a bit too young to adhere to such a drastic diagnosis :p but some people with more life experience can probably relate to him quite easily - it will probably be my case in a few years.
 
Marc___ said:
Not really, as my recommandations would be in french. This is briefly what he believes

"Schopenhauer believed that humans were motivated only by their own basic desires"

"For Schopenhauer, human desire was futile, illogical, directionless, and, by extension, so was all human action in the world"

"For Schopenhauer, human desiring, "willing," and craving [inevitably] cause suffering or pain."

Of course, it is possible not to desire, and thus not to suffer - the absence of "Will" then leaves place to boredom. Human life sway between these two extremes - Will and boredom.

As a global solution, the human kind must learn to acquire a generalized detachment toward the world by smothering his "Will of life".



He his a very interesting philosopher, althought very cynical ; he has had a lasting influence in occidental literature. I am only 20, I believe it is a bit too young to adhere to such a drastic diagnosis :p but some people with more life experience can probably relate to him quite easily - it will probably be my case in a few years.
Click to expand...

The part of the article I read that turned me off was the notion that we are just reacting to the world and have no free will of our own. That seems to me an easy out someone might use as an excuse for unhappiness or mistakes. "It's not my fault." Blaming anyone but themselves.

The statements you listed I don't agree with, except perhaps the first one. I'm almost 65, and have had a lifetime to look back on. The desire to know then what I know now stands out. Deciding what will make you happy is the hard part. Compassion for instance is the desire to make someone else feel better, but the real reason we are compassionate is that if we make someone feel better, then they are more pleasant to be around. We ultimately want to make ourselves feel good.
 
Zhizara said:
The part of the article I read that turned me off was the notion that we are just reacting to the world and have no free will of our own. That seems to me an easy out someone might use as an excuse for unhappiness or mistakes. "It's not my fault." Blaming anyone but themselves.

The statements you listed I don't agree with, except perhaps the first one. I'm almost 65, and have had a lifetime to look back on. The desire to know then what I know now stands out. Deciding what will make you happy is the hard part. Compassion for instance is the desire to make someone else feel better, but the real reason we are compassionate is that if we make someone feel better, then they are more pleasant to be around. We ultimately want to make ourselves feel good.
Click to expand...

He still believes in responsability ; denying free-will is not inconciliable with such a position. In fact, he has expressed his full support to capital punishment.

I personally abide to the idea that we are rigorously determined, althought I wouldn't develop the reasons here, it being too demanding in a language that I only have a partial knowledge of.

If you are implying in the second paragraph that everyone of our actions are guided by an egoistic motivation, I can only agree. We bring support to other people only to feel better ourselves, and this is true in all occasions - the human-kind is incapable of a completely unselfish action.
 
Marc___ said:
He still believes in responsability ; denying free-will is not inconciliable with such a position. In fact, he has expressed his full support to capital punishment.

I personally abide to the idea that we are rigorously determined, althought I wouldn't develop the reasons here, it being too demanding in a language that I only have a partial knowledge of.

If you are implying in the second paragraph that everyone of our actions are guided by an egoistic motivation, I can only agree. We bring support to other people only to feel better ourselves, and this is true in all occasions - the human-kind is incapable of a completely unselfish action.
Click to expand...

So true. Thanks for an interesting discussion, Marc.
 
I mostly read only if I can learn something. Even that something has to be new in many cases. That's why I read nonfiction. I rarely read for entertainment.

I understand most people do read for entertainment.
 
I probably learn something, or make a new connection, or spark a new interest in almost everything I read, even the silly crime novels and chic lit.
the book I'm reading now, A Fraction of the Whole, is making me look at Australia in a different way. As I had previously never read much on it my experience was basically "hey look at the Opera house", kangaroos and "crikey mate". Coincidentally, while I was reading this book I picked up another, The Secret of Lost Things which also features a main character who emigrates to New York City from Australia. Synchronicity...
 
I read non-fiction to learn, though I often find myself being entertained in the reading. I read fiction for entertainment, though I often find myself learning something.

Life without any entertainment would be pretty drab, and reading is one of my favorite sources of entertainment. I have one life to live and I am determined to enjoy it. :)
 
I read to learn, but it entertains me to learn. I like reading about other places and how people interact with each other and the world in general. Even though it's fiction, the author takes past experiences and uses them in their writing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top