On Substack, a friend of the blog (who is aware of this space, Hi Dan) started an essay club.
Linked is the second essay, which called “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment”. CS Lewis at his spiciest–it’s incredible.
But what it did, was invigorate in me a love of persuasive essays and argumentation. I loved reading this and while I have used this space to do stream of consciousness/ idea exploration, trying to articulate my thoughts as a discrete argument feels like a fun challenge and it’s a good way to use this space since I’ve been putting a lot of mental energy into substack, but there’s a lot of ideas I still want to explore here–most recently, corporatism.
Speaking of Substack, I wrote a piece of fiction which is my magnum opus so far. Probably my best and most important work, it is a science-fiction story called “Father and Sun” and I encourage you to check it out and give it a read.
A blessed advent to you all!
AMDG
-Scoot
Times-Dispatch of Vichy Earth 
I had not seen that substack before. I read this post (https://mindandmythos.substack.com/p/contra-hanania-why-reading-books) and the one it references. Definitely a thought-provoking topic. I agree with what Ackerfeld said. I also agree with your quote from Seneca. And how much more true is this now, when rather than reading many books, attention is pulled in all sorts of different ways by social media and the Internet.
I would say that Hanania (and many of his commenters) don’t understand that old books were quite different from modern books. Modern books are not as dense as old books. In many cases you could just read a few chapters and get the information you want. However, old books were the product of a great deal of thinking and learning.
The reason people read them again and again wasn’t just because there weren’t as many books around, but because there was more thought put into them; you can’t get everything out of it in just one reading.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On a related topic, here’s an interesting question? Is it possible to be a universal genius now? Someone like Leibniz or Goethe who knew about almost all of the branches of knowledge available?
I would say yes, it is. A common argument against it is that there is more knowledge now. And there is, but much of it is highly specialized. In order to understand and make connections you don’t need to know everything about everything, but you do need understanding.
The reason why it’s hard to be a universal genius now isn’t primarily that there’s more knowledge; it’s distraction. Back in the day (and not even all that long ago) life was organized in such a way that people trained their ability to focus and understand. And one’s knowledge was reinforced with what one did. It was natural and expected that people would have time for uninterrupted learning and meditation. Now, our world is set up to distract people.
Hanania’s assumptions about learning are mistaken. It’s not just facts, it’s understanding. He says that we wouldn’t want to know what a philosopher from an Amazonian tribe thinks. But here’s the thing: that Amazonian philosopher may only know a few things, but what he knows, he knows well. Conversely, a modern man may know lots of things, but what he knows is often just cursory knowledge.
Which of the two options is better? Well, the Amazonian tribesman is self-sufficient in a challenging environment. The modern man, for all his supposed knowledge, is in a supposed utopia but can’t even make that work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hanania caused quite a stir by making a blanket claim without nuance. I think youve caught all the important distinctions—old books are substantively different than modern ghostwritten drivel!
LikeLike
Nailed it. Universal genius requires monastic single mindedness that is insccessible to modern man. Maybe we have different kinds if genius, but the next liebniz is going to have to work hard to first remove obstacles and THEN learn.
LikeLike
Thanks for sharing, Scoot!
@NLR: This is a really interesting question. I think ‘universal genius’ might be possible now, but not in the same way someone like Goethe was. IMO the secret to being a modern renaissance man is both factual knowledge across many domains, with some level of depth, but crucially, a clear and accurate framework for integrating this knowledge. It’s all well and good to be knowledgeable in the classics and an expert programmer (and scientist, and politician, and theologian, and…), but if you can’t see what links these seemingly very different fields, and have a clear idea of the core ‘truths’ at the heart of these fields, you’ve missed something.
LikeLiked by 1 person