> Is x,y,z worse than reading books? [..] People fetishise them.
If you chose not to read books yes it is worse. There are many books you can read that will give you a massive amount of information about a subject, not only hard facts but soft philosophical issues. I've experienced The Trail by Kafka as radio/play/movie/book, it is amazingly good as a book.
I do not care if you do not think the same or if you can not experience the same thing as I can when I read books. I do not want you to deprive others of that feeling though.
> Is the only acceptable use of your free time as an adult reading non-fiction about finding the meaning of life?
Of course not! You could also read about productivity. Or maybe a biography of Napoleon? I think those are both fine (got to check with my boss first).
> Are you a person who is deeply, seriously, curious and will just read book after book after book? Good, go to college.
Unfortunately I found myself more and more like this, after I opted not to go to college (well, not books per say, but I have started to consume more literature in general trying to get deep knowledgeof how things work).
> most fiction books I read don't have any deeper meaning
That's fine; keep doing what you enjoy. But there is life-changing fiction, so it is not as though there is nothing a person could choose to read that would be great.
> I'd also advise against letting friends and family recommend books to you.
Family, sure. Friends, no, those are some of my most valuable book recommendations. My friends generally share my interests in at least some categories
>I read about five books a year, so even though it feels like I’ll read an endless number of books in the future, I actually have to choose only 300 of all the books out there to read and accept that I’ll sign off for eternity without knowing what goes on in all the rest.
makes you want to take some time off and read, doesn't it?
> I'm shooting for 3 books this year, and that's a 200% increase over last year!
I mean... there's probably no point forcing yourself if you don't want to. People who read a lot of books, myself included, don't do it because we're diligent, we do it because we enjoy it.
There's nothing special about books. You might as well say "I am going to finish 3 video games this year" or "I am going to go fishing three times this year".
If the achieving of goals itself is what brings you enjoyment, then by all means, go for it.
I suppose there's also a case to be made for people who tend to not take enough time off and who need to set themselves goals for leisure time for that reason.
> for a book you're going to spends dozens of hours on.
Is that a feature? I'm constantly frustrated by books that use many words to say little. Wasting hours on such books tends to be negative value, and I shouldn't buy them even for two cents..
>Sure, if you think you were born to have fun, doing something such as reading books will be "fun" too, since it's different from your normal life. But you aren't actually seeing the real value in reading.
>One of the main reasons books exist is so my company can be more "high-class", since those who don't read often are usually not as fun to hang out with.
FTR I think this is an insane way of thinking, but I thought I would try and translate it to the best of my ability to words people can actually understand
> Text books are important, but in my view the case for books is lessening. (unless you like fiction, ...
making a molehill out of a mountain, aren't we? more specifically, i think, a hasty generalization. just because you don't read fiction or something doesn't mean that others also don't.
i'll agree with you if we're talking about the NICHE of instructional/scholastic/informational/reference books. i don't read those types of books.
when you use the term "reading a book", though, you're typically referring to reading for recreation/entertainment, which is typically going to be fiction/literature. i do read those, and so do the vast majority of my family and friends.
> Learning to plow through uninteresting books for the sake of it doesn't sound like a worthwhile use of someone's time.
Of course not, but that's just a very specific edge case of "go read books".
When I recommend for someone to go read a book, I consider it implied that they should find good, interesting and constructive books to read, not the opposite.
I personally think reading is as objectively good for the mind as walking is for the body.
Walking is objectively good and healthy for everybody and anybody, bar physical conditions and edge cases.
However, you could go walk in weird ways in boring or dangerous and unhealthy places and that's not ideal, but who would purposefully do that?
Depends on the person. :-)
reply