I hope you don't mind if I chime in, because I was in this exact position last year. You don't have to be perfectionist about it but if you can read in chronological order it can really help make sense of things. I had no sense of how radically the world changed post-Enlightenment until I read my way through it. I was shocked.
I definitely approve of that approach! I just think if that is too daunting for some they shouldn't feel it absolutely necessary to approach it that way. With the exception of a few select authors, all my favorite books are pre-enlightenment.
Great summary! Great point on the marking up of books. I compare it to fishing - it's not enough to catch the fish, you have to take a picture with it. There's something human in trophy taking - and that's how I feel making footnotes on page 637 of Gibbon. I was here!
I would recommend Aristotle's Ethics be read early and often followed by Crito and Plutarch's Solon. A foundation of virtue must be laid to support the heavy and often conflicting house of knowledge. The Great Books are not all "Classical" books, but all Classics are great.
For example, the works of Marx and Freud are "Great Books" according to Adler, while Nietzsche and Boethius were never included in the set. Adler had his reasons, I am sure, but Boethius are Nietzsche are much deeper influences to our culture. The immediacy of the Cold War no doubt influenced Adler, and he was likely conflicted a hundred times. But WE, as autodidacts, must discern what is true and beautiful (and ugly) and select that over what is merely "inquiry" which was the idol of Mr. Adler and Mr. Hutchins. Marx and Freud have been largely exposed as flawed thinkers while Boethius and Nietzsche have had a much deeper effect.
I hope you don't mind if I chime in, because I was in this exact position last year. You don't have to be perfectionist about it but if you can read in chronological order it can really help make sense of things. I had no sense of how radically the world changed post-Enlightenment until I read my way through it. I was shocked.
I definitely approve of that approach! I just think if that is too daunting for some they shouldn't feel it absolutely necessary to approach it that way. With the exception of a few select authors, all my favorite books are pre-enlightenment.
Great summary! Great point on the marking up of books. I compare it to fishing - it's not enough to catch the fish, you have to take a picture with it. There's something human in trophy taking - and that's how I feel making footnotes on page 637 of Gibbon. I was here!
I would recommend Aristotle's Ethics be read early and often followed by Crito and Plutarch's Solon. A foundation of virtue must be laid to support the heavy and often conflicting house of knowledge. The Great Books are not all "Classical" books, but all Classics are great.
For example, the works of Marx and Freud are "Great Books" according to Adler, while Nietzsche and Boethius were never included in the set. Adler had his reasons, I am sure, but Boethius are Nietzsche are much deeper influences to our culture. The immediacy of the Cold War no doubt influenced Adler, and he was likely conflicted a hundred times. But WE, as autodidacts, must discern what is true and beautiful (and ugly) and select that over what is merely "inquiry" which was the idol of Mr. Adler and Mr. Hutchins. Marx and Freud have been largely exposed as flawed thinkers while Boethius and Nietzsche have had a much deeper effect.
Yet, Marxism is alive and well.