When getting into a writer, I try to get as much primary and secondary material as I can to fully understand their work. Do you do the same?
>>24977317Hell no
Secondary sources are secondary. That means that you should read them second, and you should accord them secondary status in your arguments. With respect to the first point, you should always read the material from an author before you turn to the secondary sources. It will be tempting to read the secondary sources first, since the material could be very difficult, but taking this easy way out will ultimately be self-defeating, for at least three reasons. First, the secondary material itself is very difficult, and without grappling with the text on your own first, many of the issues raised in the secondary literature will not make sense. Second, and more importantly, reading secondary material first taints your reading of the primary material in a way that makes it difficult to be creative or insightful. Papers written after reading the secondary material first usually end up simply taking a side already defended in one of the secondary sources; papers written after serious initial engagement with the text on your own can bear out totally new interpretations. Third, secondary literature steals from you the experience of struggling with the text, trying to figure out what the key parts are and how to interpret them, and thinking about whether you find the arguments plausible.
>>24977317No. The only thing that matters is the book.
>>24977317Only a website of full retards would think they know more than academics who have spent their entire lives studying an author and his time. OP’s strategy is the correct one. In fact only after reading secondary sources should someone even comment after all why would anybody want to hear something you think is original but has been written about for years.
>>24977581Are you reading literature or larping as an academic?
>>24977317This is based as fuck, and what all my professors do anyway. Not to this extent, as none of them are like specific philosopher specialists but instead topic specialists. Had one professor that had multiple hegel books, sartre, heidegger etc but they also had the entirety of Hegel in German along with a bunch of secondary lit on heidegger and Hegel.So this is a totally normal practice, although I'd say X specialists will have even more secondary lit on that specialty than just a Metaphysics guy or whatever.
>>24977587I have no connection to academia. But it’s definitely an American custom to lack respect for authority. There is a lot of scepticism about Covid, global warming etc.. Even Protestants are essentially people who thought they knew better than the “experts” who had been carrying Christianity for over a millennium. So on an American board already pre disposed to outcasts and conspiracy theorist types it’s only natural to think that the primary source is all that matters. IMO these people are retards because how could you think you know more. Narcissistic yet funny. I read about 100 books a year. My recommendation :1. Read source and use AI for questions about plot or confusing points. (Like I’m reading Pedro Paramo but the Spanish names don’t stick in my head and I lose track of the baby mamas). AI can help ads some context especially if you’re unfamiliar with the time and setting. 2. Now if you want to learn more than start looking at biographies, JSTOR; academic literature, influences of the author etc…3. If you really like the work then read others by the author or reread and you’ll appreciate so much more. 4. Repeat step 2Like an onion you’ll keep peeling back layers and learning more. But frankly there’s no way to get there on your own. The information contained in good literature will never be 100 percent accessible without help. To not consult this help is akin to saying I don’t really give a fuck (another American belief).
