About the harmfulness of knowledge relays
People in the transfer of "knowledge" play a big role. More often - negative. A teacher who talks about the "X-theme" mixes a significant part of his personality with the material. He understands a little differently, interprets a little differently, tells a little differently. Maybe it makes it even better than the original source. But more often - much worse. Otherwise . Not like the original source that he is trying to imitate.
We all know about the game a broken phone . But we are not afraid of interpreters and interpretations, although they seem to have to.
The media are important - they provide an opportunity to eat already digested information. Fast and at least something nutritious. The journalist himself could study the topic for several hours, and you learned the main thing from it in a couple of minutes. Actually, this is not bad, but nowadays many people talk about the usefulness of apples, and that apple jam is not bad either, but it’s not near the apples themselves. Likewise, knowledge is better in the original. But sometimes you can be content with jam - you decide.
One news agency refers to another, the other refers to the third, and the third compared the X schedule to the Igrek schedule and got the result that we all die. And if you yourself analyze this graph (the source), which, by the way, can even be difficult to find, then you can come to completely different conclusions. A journalist should try to dig deeper, receive confirmed and reliable information, try not to distort, but supplement, aggregate information in one place, refer to sources. Provide the information with which he worked so that the reader can easily go his way and, perhaps, see the news a little deeper, from a different angle. Moreover, sometimes it’s better to keep silent about your own opinion, if the topic is clear to your audience and they can draw their own conclusions.
To understand God, to try to do this, I think you only need to read the Bible, and not listen to the various enlightened ministers of the church. These are repeaters. The Bible is an interesting book, useful, and repeaters should not be trusted. Why do you need them? You are already able to understand everything yourself on any topic, studying the original or the source closest to it. At least it’s worth a try, but it’s worth starting from the original.
If you are an expert, the opinions of others will be useful. Note that often you will disagree with him - you already perceived this knowledge, and perceived it differently, so now you have your own, unique, “correct” point of view, unlike those around you. But, of course, communicating with others who have studied the topic can open up a lot for you. Important: only after you become an "expert" in this field, studying the original (I hope you worked with it). Or created their original, having developed their own philosophy or methodology of work.
Some knowledge is based on those that came before him. For example, Jung’s writings would not have been possible without Freud’s writings. Conclusion: we study first Freud, then Jung. Yes, it’s difficult, but I think the result is worth it.
We talk about God without reading the Bible, we laugh at Freud, without reading his writings, we banter at the USSR, without reading Karl Marx, we consider transference “another chimera” without studying it.
Originals of knowledge. It is important to be closer to the source. Try to read in the original language, study the source literature, watch a movie in the original voice acting and so on, and not live in a world where everything seems to be known, although no one touched on where this knowledge came from. " I have not studied, but I have an opinion " - a monstrous deformation of knowledge.
Did you learn something new from someone? Thank him, send him away and study the original.
Artemy Lebedev is a famous designer. He wrote a book about design, he sometimes writes on the Internet about design. His works are beautiful, interesting. From a commercial point of view, it took place. He is respected, and there is a reason. Consequently, his knowledge is worth something, since they personally work for him, and we can easily see this. And his entire design studio with hundreds of people working, probably not greatly violating his canons and principles - otherwise they would not have worked there. Therefore: he can be trusted. Studying Lebedev’s thoughts about design, we study Lebedev’s thoughts about design. Not the topic itself, but the vision of this topic by a specific person. Lebedev himself, when growing up professionally, did not read his own book on design, but became a good designer, after which he wrote Kovodstva.
If you didn’t like his work, you would hardly read his book. If the cook doesn’t cook well, his “Book on Tasty and Healthy Food” is strange to read, although if flies are found in his patties, he would hardly share his professional secrets. But, unfortunately, often we don’t know what dishes are obtained at the chef, and reading his book, it may seem that he cooks perfectly. Although you would definitely not eat that.
PS: Georgia 'under attack' - A fresh post on Habré, which is a good illustration of the topic above.
This is just my opinion.
About the author: journalist, sometimes trying to study something.
Copy-paste from my blog .