Why should I ever bother with primary philosophical texts if

>>9444603
the insight the papers give you would be specific whereas the texts would be fundamental?

>>9444603
Depth vs breadth

don't read them, then

you should read them because that way you may be able to form a better interpretation and application for the stuff
reading other's interpretations and anals if a great tool, of course, but isn't it kinda harder to develop your own ideas then, no?

and I dunno about you or the philosophy you read, but to "get" the continental stuff I deal with, one really needs to read the primary text, read some interpretations/anals, re-read the primary text or at least parts of it, read some more secondary sources, re-visit some of the stuff the particular work builds on... and so on

>>9444661
Your interpretation vs the interpretation of a guy who spent lifetime studying that one text, along with biography and history surrounding the author

Which one is more likely to be more insightful?

>>9444671
Insight will always come from you.

>>9444671
I choose to get both.

Only ever reading the primary sources would be equally pretty stupid. Very limiting.

In addition to this, interpretations aren't always uncontroversial. And comparing different ones will be pretty hard if you don't bother to learn the source.

>>9444675
That, too, but less relevant desu.

How much do you trust your own capacity for intuitive comprehension and understanding of a philosophical text?

Depending on your own answer to this question, I suppose you may with ease determine what would yield you more cohesive insight of the matter.

>>9444671
>a guy who spent lifetime studying that one text, along with biography and history surrounding the author
>implying I'm not aiming to become one of those guys
fyck off if you don't have proper goals m8

>>9444603
>not reading both

lightweight

>>9444671
You've mistaken the nature of the dichotomy. It's your interpretation of the original text vs. your interpretation of the interpretation of someone who spent their whole life studying the original text. Sometimes the interpreter writes with greater clarity than the original author, but the only worthwhile interpretations are written on the presupposition that you have read the original, so this clarity is only valuable if you read both.

Why not read the actual text, then the guys notes on the text, then the text again?

>>9444603
do you eat your steak chewed and spat into your gaping retard mouth as well?

eat the steak, think about it. ask how other people thought about it. maybe order it again and come to a reasoned conclusion.

>>9444603
who is the jowly jezebel

>>9444603
sets a poor precedent. And on top of that you might pick up on something others have missed. Basically the "fresh set of eyes" idea. Its more likely that interpreters will be more on point with the philosopher or philosophy in question, but still you need a good understanding of the content in question in order to determine if the author interpreting the philosopher in question is off base. Hope that made sense.

>>9444603
stupid fuck

>>9444603

because interpretations are always additive, not deductive. you don't get to the bottom of hegel by reading findlay; you get findlay's idea of the texts of hegel. besides, interpreters of philosophy are usually writing to introduce a text with the assumption you will go on to read it, and so only provide the conclusive skeleton without the argumentative meat, or are writing to build upon or critique a philosophy, and therefore assume you have read it and will have an idea of the context and the argument surrounding the passages put under examination. so with neither do you get an understanding of what the philosopher believes his argument capable, or the working out of that argument, which enables you to judge for yourself. there's no excuse for laziness

>>9444909
>food anal-gees
A better one would be to compare a primary text to a raw piece of meat

I wanna SEX Alice.

>>9444996

camgirl. missalice or something like that

>>9444603
wish i could get paid to jerk off on camera

File: 2017-04-30 10.00.37.png (967KB, 1055x1009px) Image search: [Google]

967KB, 1055x1009px

>>9446221
>crystals

DROPPED.

>>9446499
Wait what is the idea behind this supposed to be?

>>9444603
please refrain from posting her i will literally get rock hard

>>9444603
Why should I bother with films when youtube video essays grant greater insight?

> start reading analysis/interpretation
> try to reconstruct the primary text
> turns out better than the original
> mfw I'm fucking genius

Because intepretations can be wrong.

If you're too dumb to make your own judgement about original texts tho, then yeah it's the better option.

>>9446705
New Age hippie shit. Camgirl is so emotionally btfo she exists in a fantasy world rather than attempt to grapple with science and reason. This is what a lack of faith has wrought. Just look at this utter nonsense: https://crystalfaqs.com/2015/05/11/stop-charging-your-crystals-clear-them-instead/

sage

>>9447254
So my interpretation can be wrong as well and it has a lot bigger chance than interpretations by professors who dedicated their lives to a certain field.

>>9444603
it doesn't grant greater insight. There difference is like that between merely being told about the grand canyon, vs actually seeing it for yourself. Always best to get it straight from the horse's mouth, where you are n the presence of true wisdom