Posts
In the last few weeks, I've been reading bits of classic literature for research purposes - and realised that CS Lewis is right. Plato is far easier to read than books about Plato. I had a look at his Republic and found it very readable. I also read the beginning of Chesterton's Orthodoxy and find it delightful.
My thinking, then, is to read more proper books. I'm making a list of twelve significant works of non-fiction from across the centuries that I hope to read in the next year, alongside other lousier more modern books. And my rule to myself is that I cannot resume my subscription to The Economist until I have read all twelve.
The list is provisional - and it is up to you, reader, to persuade me to ditch one of the books on my list in favor of another.
Here are the twelve:
1. The Republic Plato
2. Institutes Jean Calvin
3. The Social Contract Jean-Jacques Rousseau
4. Leviathon Thomas Hobbes
5. The Rights of Man Thomas Paine
6. On Liberty John Stuart Mill
7. City of God Augustine
8. Orthodoxy GK Chesterton
9. Understanding Media Marshall McLuhan
10. Thus Spoke Zarathustra Friedrich Nietzsche
11. The Wealth of Nations Adam Smith
12. In Praise of Folly Erasmus
This is partly personal taste - and a fair of amount of political theory there, but as good a place to start as any. Your comments, dire warnings and encouragements are welcome.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
just realised I've been meaning to read the Koran. Should that go on the list? In preference to what?
What, no Luther?! Freedom of the Christian, the Babylonian Captivity - or, if you are feeling intelligent and brave, the Bondage of the Will. Should trump Erasmus, in more ways than one!
P.S. Enjoying Hut 33 as ever.
It's the 500th anniversary of Calvin's birth this year, and so there are various in-a-year reading plans floating around for the Institutes. I started one but gave up in March - even with the Battles translation, which is supposed to be the most up-to-date, I found it very hard going. Will they kick me out of Oak Hill if I admit I find reading Calvin dull? :-) He may well have pioneered a load of great stuff, but there are modern authors who (building on that) say it all so much more understandably.
Anyway... my point is that if the Institutes is only one of 12 books you plan to read in a year, you are going to find it tough going. The recommencement of your Economist subscription is quite some way off.
I read Emile by Rousseau for an assignment, and to be honest found that fairly difficult too. (Hey, perhaps it's not them...) I don't know if the Social Contract will be any better.
Aside from by forays into Calvin, I have read none of the books on the list, so will now stand aside to let better-read men and women comment.
You'll really enjoy the Erasmus. He has some cracking one-liners. Seriously.
Great to see Plato - but what about some of the other classical greats:
Euripides The Bacchae
Herodotus Histories
Virgil Aeneid
They would beat Rousseau any day (not that I've read Rousseau, mind)
Rousseau is awful, both to read, and politically (set text, first year at Oxford). Alngsid Plato, Aristotle would be good, either Politics or Ethics.
At the danger of overdoing the theology, Edwards' Freedom of the Will is superb, and counts as philosophy as well as theology.
I read "Wealth of Nations" when I was at school, bored in the library one day. It was very readable, and gives you a lot of the ideas of economics without the bother of formal study. Most recommended.
I agree that Plato is easier to read than books about him. I think commentators have a tendency to over complicate. They also reference other stuff that I haven't read.
That said, how readable Plato is is down to the translation. I remember noticing "classics" that are written in English, are sometimes harder than those that aren't.
I bet out poor Greek friends probably find books about Plato easier, as they don't have to wade though ancient language.
Post a Comment