Can we just admit that skimming wikipedia and watching youtube

Probably not true, and also some philosophers are definitely worth reading for the prose, particularly Nietzsche, Plato and Aquinas. (even in translation if you are a pleb)

>>10036674
>Can we just admit that skimming wikipedia and watching youtube videos is a better way to understand philosophical books than actually reading them.

Please let this be bait.

>>10036674

You are right, but people won't admit it, because they don't want to admit that reading pages and pages of repetitive, self-referential text is a waste of time. If these books truly did have revolutionary insights we would easily be able to see what they were.

>>10036681
You read Plato in original? impressive

Even after reading philosophy most of my understanding of it comes from wikipedia's summed up version.

>>10036681
>reading for the prose
please explain, the words make sense by themselves but it gets all fuzzy when I try to put them together

>>10036674
Scholars have an inordinate respect for long books, and have a terrible rancune against those that attempt to cheat on them. They cannot bear to imagine that short-cuts are possible, that specialism is not an inevitability, that learning need not be stoically endured. They cannot bear writers allegro, and when they read such texts—and even pretend to revere them—the result is (this is not a description without generosity) 'unappetizing'.

>>10036674
I think what might get lost in skimming wikipedia or watching videos is that you are getting someone else's interpretation. You can also make the same argument for reading a translation.

You should really be reading philosophy in its original language.

>>10036833
Does this mean that if you're reading a translation, you might as well just skim Wikipedia instead?

all those creators on wiki/youtube read books

No.
Someone still has to read the book to write that wikipedia article or make that video.

I don't think there's anything wrong with reading a summary of a difficult text before diving in, but you cannot claim to understand complicated ideas in their fullness without reading the actual material.

>>10036982
It is impossible to prove your understanding of complicated ideas to others, no matter how much you read. See "The Immortal Bard"