In short
Podcast Episode Notes: The Best Authors Respect the Reader's Time
Podcast Overview
- Podcast Title: Naval
- Episode Title: The Best Authors Respect the Reader's Time
- Episode Description: Discussion on philosophy, reading practices, and the value of high-density literature.
- Transcript Link: [nav.al/density](http://nav.al/density)
---
Key Concepts and Arguments
Philosophy and Its Accessibility
- Philosophical Approach:
- The speaker identifies as an "industrial philosopher" aimed at mass appeal.
- Critique of traditional philosophy (e.g., Aristotle, Schopenhauer) for being obscure and convoluted.
- Preference for contemporary thinkers and ideas shared through platforms like Twitter.
- Value of Concise Philosophy:
- Emphasis on high-density ideas exemplified by Schopenhauer's shorter essays, which are compared favorably to Twitter-style philosophizing.
- The importance of brevity and clarity in philosophical writing.
Reading Preferences
- Recommendation Against Traditional Philosophy:
- Suggests skipping classic works in favor of modern thinkers like David Deutsch.
- Highlights the limitations of older philosophers when addressing contemporary issues (e.g., science, politics).
- High-Density Literature:
- Advocates for reading works that offer a high density of ideas.
- Examples of preferred authors include:
- David Deutsch: Known for high-density thoughts.
- Arthur Schopenhauer: Particularly his shorter essays.
- Jorge Luis Borges, Ted Chiang, Neil Stevenson: Noted for their density and respect for reader's time.
Timeliness versus Timelessness
- Lindy Effect:
- Encourages reading "Lindy" books—those that have withstood the test of time—especially concerning human nature.
- Differentiates between timeless knowledge (human nature) and timely knowledge (technical skills) which can become obsolete quickly.
- Avoiding Low-Density Works:
- Expresses a disinterest in lengthy historical narratives lacking high-density insights.
- Prefers summarization (e.g., "The Lessons of History" by Will Durant) over extensive series.
The Reader's Experience
- Respecting Time:
- Advocates for literature that condenses complex ideas into digestible formats, aligning with modern consumption habits (TikTok, Twitter).
- The ultimate goal of reading is to gain wisdom and apply generalized principles to existing knowledge.
---
Conclusion
- Summary: The episode emphasizes the importance of high-density literature and philosophy that respects the reader's time. It critiques traditional philosophical texts for their obscurity and promotes modern authors who convey complex ideas succinctly. The speaker champions the idea that while some works are timeless and rich in human insights, others quickly become outdated and are less worthy of the reader's attention.
Key Takeaways
- Seek high-density works that offer valuable insights and respect your time.
- Embrace contemporary thinkers and ideas that are accessible and relevant.
- Balance timeless knowledge with the necessity for practical, timely skills in reading and learning.
Written by AI. May contain mistakes. Listen to the episode to check what was said.
Transcript
Automatic transcript. May contain errors.0:00Unlike Schopenhauer, you're an industrial philosopher, like an industrial designer. Your philosophy is designed for the masses. Like everybody else on Twitter, we're philosophizing for wide adoption. People suggest you read the great books, read Aristotle and Littgenstein and all the supposedly great philosophers. I mean, I've read almost all that stuff and I've gotten very little value from it. Where I have gotten value is the philosophizing of people on Twitter like you. Anybody who wants to read philosophy, I would just tell them to skip it and go read David Deutsch. You are not wrong. I can't stand any of the philosophers you talked about.
0:41I don't like Plato either. Every other piece of philosophy I picked up and put down relatively quickly because they're just making very obscure arguments over minuté and trying to come up with all-encompassing theories of the world. Even Schopenhauer falls into that trap. When he tries to talk to other philosophers, he's at his worst. When I like him is in his shorter essays. That's where he almost writes like he's on Twitter. He would have dominated Twitter. He has high density of ideas, very well thought through, good minimal examples and analogies. You can pick it up and read one paragraph and you're thinking for the next hour.
1:14I think of a better writer, a better thinker, and a better judge of people and character thanks to what I read from him. Now, he's writing from the early part of the 19th century. Whenever he wanders into topics that are scientific or medical or political, he's obviously off base. That stuff doesn't apply anymore. But when he's writing about human nature, that is timeless. When it comes to anything about human nature, I say go read the Lindy books, the older books, the ones that have survived the test of time. But if you want to develop specific knowledge, get paid for it, do something useful, then you want to stay on the bleeding edge.
1:47That knowledge is going to be more timely and obsolete more quickly. Those two make sense. What doesn't make sense to me is just reading stuff that's not Lindy or that's not about human nature, but is old. I also shy away from stuff that's low density in the learnings. like history books. I like The Lessons of History by Will Durant because it's a summarization of the story of civilization, which was his large 12-volume series. But I'm not going to go read the 12-volume series. I've read plenty of history. I know he's referring to these kinds of things. So I'm not just taking his word for it on high-level concept.
2:17But at the same time, at this point in my life, I want to read high-density works. You can call it the TikTok disease or the Twitter generation, but it's also just being respectful of our time. We already have a lot of data. We have some knowledge. Now we want wisdom. Now we want the generalized principles that we can attach to all of the other information we already have in our minds. We do want to read high-density work, but I would argue that Schopenhauer is very high-density work. All my favorite authors are very high-density. Deutsch is extremely high-density. Borges is very high-density.
2:47Ted Chiang is very high-density. The old Neil Stevenson was very high-density. Then he just cut high-volume, high-density, high everything. But the best authors respect the reader's time. And Schopenhauer is very much in that vein.
From the publisher
Transcript: http://nav.al/density
