Is reading too much a depravation of the mind?

[ecks]

What do you guys think is better, reading or thinking for yourself and coming with your own conclusions about life? In my opinion, reading too much forces you to absorb other people's opinions about life, and kind of makes you the author's mouthpiece. From a different perspective though, books give you different situations which you might or might not encounter in the real world. In my opinion, it is best to experience something rather than read about it, it gives you a lot better realistic view. Any opinions?

 

[«FickleMinded»]

--I don't think so...

 

[mehastings]

--I don't think so...

Me neither. Look at The Lovely Bones. That book was tremendously popular, but who would actually want to experience being raped and murdered and then having to watch your family destruct. While this book does give a description of the afterlife and Heaven, I take it at face value. It is simply the vision of the author.

Many books give fictional accounts of things I will never have the chance to experience, and wouldn't have thought much about. I just finished a book about Jamaican immigrants in England post WWII. It isn't a topic I would have spent a lot of time pondering on my own.

 

[novella]

What do you guys think is better, reading or thinking for yourself and coming with your own conclusions about life? In my opinion, reading too much forces you to absorb other people's opinions about life, and kind of makes you the author's mouthpiece. From a different perspective though, books give you different situations which you might or might not encounter in the real world. In my opinion, it is best to experience something rather than read about it, it gives you a lot better realistic view. Any opinions?

Don't be silly. Reading is the primary way humans learn. How do you know about the big ideas of the world if you can't read? How can you expand your vocabulary (which is an idea-building tool) if you don't read? To me, a world without reading is all surfaces.

Think about it. You're ten years old and want to be a smart, compassionate grown-up. How do you get there? Reading is essential.

 

[Hollis]

Plus, the reality of being able to experience even a tenth of what you can read about comes down to a big factor...money. Or rather, lack of.

I personally think LACK of reading makes you more susceptible to not being able to think on your own. The better read you are, the more knowledge you seek out, I'd think the better informed you'd be - the more complete your view of life and the world would be - the better you'd be able to form your own opinions about just about anything.

 

[Inkheart]

In my opinion, reading too much forces you to absorb other people's opinions about life, and kind of makes you the author's mouthpiece.

It would, if the only material you read dealt with one particular opinion or notion. As a reader, you delve into an abundance of topics by different authors with quite different views on life. In this case its still up to you to form your own opinion. Although it must be said that alot of people tend to prefer an author whose opinion they already share.

In my opinion, it is best to experience something rather than read about it, it gives you a lot better realistic view.

Of course experiencing something is better than reading about it, but people dont substitute their lives for the pages of a novel. They're complimentary. In fact reading probably encourages experience rather than replacing it.

Books and life are symbiotic.

I'm sure most people will agree.

 

[ecks]

I just finished a book about Jamaican immigrants in England post WWII. It isn't a topic I would have spent a lot of time pondering on my own.

Well, if you've never thought about it and it doesn't concern you, why read about it? Isn't it a waste of time? Because knowledge in itself is useless, but knowledge that is applied can lead to something.

How do you know about the big ideas of the world if you can't read? How can you expand your vocabulary (which is an idea-building tool) if you don't read?

Who says you have to know about all those lofty ideas that don't concern you? By reading you gain knowledge but you do not gain wisdom. I believe that reading should be focused on something relative to yourself, not some lofty ideas that you will never apply in real life.

Although it must be said that alot of people tend to prefer an author whose opinion they already share.

The best books are the ones that usually restate your thoughts, the ones where you are thinking something, it's on the tip of your tongue but you cannot put it into words. The author does the effort for you to put his thoughts, which are similar to yours, into words. Therefore, very rarely do people read something that is the opposite of their thought, in fact they try to shun away from it, since it totally corrupts their thought.

Please, do not criticize me for questioning reading, I'm not, I'm just saying that reading too much without experience can be negative, it gives you an idealistic, rather than a realistic perspective on life.

 

[hay82]

I'm just saying that reading too much without experience can be negative, it gives you an idealistic, rather than a realistic perspective on life.

Far from all books give you an idealistic perspective on life, I would actually say that it's not books you have to worry about to supply you with those views.
Don't really think I have ever heard anyone say that knowledge in itself is useless before, and I don't agree. Everything you learn helps expand your horizon, how can that ever be a waste of time?

 

[Ell]

If the only reading you do is based on your own experiences and reinforces what you already think and believe, then I'd say you'd have a far from realistic perspective of life.

I'd say it's a prescription for narrow-mindedness and parochialism.

 

[novella]

Well, if you've never thought about it and it doesn't concern you, why read about it? Isn't it a waste of time? Because knowledge in itself is useless, but knowledge that is applied can lead to something.


Who says you have to know about all those lofty ideas that don't concern you? By reading you gain knowledge but you do not gain wisdom. I believe that reading should be focused on something relative to yourself, not some lofty ideas that you will never apply in real life.


.

Maybe you don't apply so-called "lofty ideas" in your life, but I apply them every day in mine.

Don't you wrestle with ethical questions? Wouldn't you like to know what the repercussions of your country's economic policies might be? Aren't you curious about the development of culture, the role of genetics in human development? Don't you care about your own history, not the history of wars and moon shots, perhaps, but the history of people, the development of rational science, why an adolescent is prone to certain behaviors? How the brain functions? How the body works?

All of this knowledge is useful and can be applied to my real life. It all concerns me. Reading on these subjects can presage wisdom. These are all relative to myself. Can I experience them or know about them by just living in my own bailiwick, going about my business, without reading about them? Definitely not.

It seems that your argument is in favor of willful ignorance. Reading doesn't detract from experience, it enlightens the mind to the meaning of experience.

There is nothing "idealistic" about reading around an interesting subject. In fact, its the best way to understand all the points of view involved.

Do you think ignorance=realistic?

 

[ecks]

Don't really think I have ever heard anyone say that knowledge in itself is useless before, and I don't agree.

Why, isn't it? If I read about politics, studied it from the inside out, listen daily to the news about the new decisions our politicians make, but had no real involvement in politics, except a vote which is so small of a fraction of a percentage, what have I really achieved? How can I apply my knowledge, except to argue on and on about what a particular politician should do, which leads ultimately to you only cheering for a particular party.
And perhaps I am arguing for willful ignorance. To know everything is not always the best, since the more you know, the more you will see faults with everything, and you will be unable to make a decision. See, if I read conservative literature, and agreed with it, then turned around and read liberal literature, and also could see where they're coming from, how am I to say that a conservative is more right than a liberal in his decisions? Only when you are narrow minded will you be able to make a decision, and know fully in your own self that you are making a correct decision, not caring what others think of you.

 

[novella]

Only when you are narrow minded will you be able to make a decision, and know fully in your own self that you are making a correct decision, not caring what others think of you.

Yeah, most morons are completely confident that they're making the "correct" decisions despite knowing nothing about a subject.

Nice flamebait, 'tardo.

 

[ecks]

Nice flamebait, 'tardo.

What do you mean?

 

[Motokid]

"Only when you are narrow minded will you be able to make a decision"

ecks, I see from your profile that you're only about 19 years old or so. Is this correct?

Do you plan on applying your "narrow minded" is best philosophy when it comes to buyng a car, or a house? How about when it comes time to having children, or making a decision about marrage? What about choices concerning jobs, insurance, health care, retirement investing, and higher education?

Why can't a genuine thought process be reached about liberal/conservative by reading up on both sides of the issues? Isn't that the best way to decide?

 

[jenn]

What do you mean?

maybe if you read more you would know.

 

[jenn]

i think what novella means and she will correct me if i am wrong is, argue away my friend, but have an arguement. don't just say the sky isn't blue to strike something up. you will find the members of this forum love a debate, LOVE IT. but they also don't want their intelligence insulted by someone who is going to say ridiculous things just to stir the pot. we have a pot stirrer and he is great at his job, perhaps you could take a look at some of his earlier work.

 

[novella]

What do you mean?

There is no rational argument against willful ignorance. You've said you don't value book learnin.

So what are you doing here? Obviously your answer to everything is that you just don't want to know.

A person who posts to a site like this in order to troll for argument for the sake of argument and who takes the position of willful stupidity is a flamebaiter and a retardo.

Hence "Nice flamebait, 'tardo."

Is that clear enough?

You really want to do this much reading? I thought you didn't want to know. I'm sure you've learned all this by experience, and isn't that enough?

I want to add that you're welcome to discuss anything here. The mods' tolerance level is pretty high on most subjects.

But I have my own opinion of your proposition and rhetorical position, and I'm giving it to you.

 

[ecks]

There's no need for calling me a retard and all that. I'm simply thinking out loud, and you guys are shutting me down like I have nothing better to do than sit around forums and annoy people. See, maybe you, novella, are showing willful ignorance right now, since you denounce my point and do not even want to understand it since it would corrupt your thought process and it would change the way you look at things, hence willful ignorance. And there's nothing wrong with that, people do it all the time unconciously.

Do you plan on applying your "narrow minded" is best philosophy when it comes to buyng a car, or a house?

Don't most people do that all the time? Aren't commercials designed for that specific reason, to show to the viewers that one product is the best? Most of the time they don't even show a reason why this product is better, they just have some graphic that catches your attention and makes you associate a thought or a feeling for a product. Hence, you're ignoring all the other products because you "feel" that the particular product is the best.

Why can't a genuine thought process be reached about liberal/conservative by reading up on both sides of the issues? Isn't that the best way to decide?

Have you ever tried it? Try reading something by Ann Coulter and then turning around and reading something by Noam Chomsky, just for an example, and see what happens.

You've said you don't value book learnin.

Where did I say that? I said that reading too much and irrelevant informations is useless, but reading about relevant information and stuff that pertains to you, that's useful.

What I am trying to say is, people ignore facts and opinions of others unconsiously every day unconciously, but then they turn around and say that ignorance is wrong and not rational. And it is wrong precisely because other people, or some books, not all, ingrain that into our brain. See, in my opinion, it is human intuition to be ignorant of other cultures and think that yours is the best one. And if you know about every culture, you would have to be really careful what you are saying in order not to offend someone. That's why we have all this political correctness going on. Then you know about every culture, and you have a kid, and you have to reteach all this stuff to him again? Why do that, when you can get him focused on something particular, so he gets really good at it. Now, don't twist my words around and say that I am in favor on teaching only one view of life, and saying everyone else is stupid. I'm saying that teaching irrelevant information that does not apply is useless. Please, take this with a grain of salt and think about it before dismissing it as crazy talk or something.

But I have my own opinion of your proposition and rhetorical position, and I'm giving it to you.

And please do, I haven't shut you down once and have listened to you, haven't called you silly or a retard, have I?

 

[novella]

See, maybe you, novella, are showing willful ignorance right now, since you denounce my point and do not even want to understand it since it would corrupt your thought process and it would change the way you look at things, hence willful ignorance.

Perhaps it is not my lack of perception, but your lack of clear expression that is the problem? You see, I am not alone in thinking that you are discounting books as a source of knowledge. Read the thread!

I'm saying that teaching irrelevant information that does not apply is useless. Please, take this with a grain of salt and think about it before dismissing it as crazy talk or something.

Can you please say what kind of information you would consider irrelevant.

Nobody considers the political opinions of Ann Coulter "information." There is a world of difference between fact and editorial.

Having a lot of information does not force anyone to be politically correct. Why do you think knowing about other cultures can be a bad thing? There is a logical disconnect in your argument.

You can form whatever opinion you want once you have the facts, but you can get many more facts by reading.

It's illuminating that you support your point of view by mentioning Coulter and Chomsky, whose writing is pure hyperbolic opinion that no discriminating person would call fact.

BTW, if you addressed the meat of my post below, re "lofty ideas" perhaps I would not think you were flamebaiting. Selectively responding to minor points without addressing the central argument isn't sufficient, in my opinion.

See post below: Do you not need such lofty ideas as the practical repercussions of ethical decisions, human biology, how the universe is mapped, basic psychological constructs, physical health, historical perspectives on current events, economics in your daily life? I think everyone does, if they are at all engaged with the world.

This is not a superficial point--it's the main point. It's impossible to learn sufficientlyl about these ideas without reading about them.

 

[ksheppard]

I love to learn and one of the main ways I do that is through reading. To my mind, there is no irrelevant knowledge as long as there is room in my mind to hold it. The more I can learn about other places, other cultures, other people, the better I am able to interact with the world and with other people who have been shaped by those factors.

With regards to your Ann Coulter/Noam Chomsky example, I feel I am well read enough and knowledge enough to be able to read both critically - to agree or disagree with parts of both. This doesn't mean that reading both is a waste of time - both are influential authors with large spheres of influence. By reading both, I can gain an understanding of their world view and the world view of those who agree with them, thus allowing me the opportunity to better interact with both.

How about an example of what you think irrelevant information is?