I don't think I am. He says, "You need to read the classics." I say, "No, I just need to know their key insights."
I further say that people who think you need to read a particular classic are typically wrong, as others have assimilated its insights -- and become capable of discussing the related issues -- without having to read it.
How is that not responsive? Where do I make an issue of reverence for authorities?
OK, "reverence for authorities" might a red herring here. Please disregard that and accept a fractional apology; I think my observation still stands.
Robin's saying "the expected value of your reading (something like) a classic is higher than the expected value of equivalent time spent reading (something like) my blog".
He isn't saying "you need to read the classics (and nothing else will do)", in spite of what the title says. You sound as if you're reacting to the title only - and an idiosyncratic reading of it at that.
Your poi...
This thread is for the discussion of Less Wrong topics that have not appeared in recent posts. If a discussion gets unwieldy, celebrate by turning it into a top-level post.
This thread brought to you by quantum immortality.