Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky D'Angelo
IMHO, more books should be in the public domain. According to the following source works up to 1923 are currently in public domain in the US.
https://law.duke.edu/cspd/
I know it's not as simple as picking an arbitrary year but perhaps all books up to 1950 should be in public domain. To argue otherwise seems to be more in the interest of censorship ( i.e., making books less readily available) rather than profits. Thoughts? |
IMHO, it does not really matter all that much. Modern books are usually better than older ones. This is partly because modern books benefit from more up-to-date knowledge (though, they don't always), and partly because the publishing business is now very competitive, unlike in earlier days, years, or centuries; and competition means the best will generally rise to the top (i.e., get published). A great many older books ('classics') are much overpraised, but it took me a long time to figure out that it was the books which were lousy, and not my taste.
This does not necessarily apply to philosophy as much, though. Philosophy like science deals with truth that can happen anytime and any place (they are not chronotopic) but their methods are different. They also both currently use specialized nomenclature that keeps the layman out because it speeds up communication within their niche of people. Modern philosophy has taken a huge step backwards, though
The genius Stephen Hawking (RIP) in his book "The Grand Design" said that philosophy has failed to keep up with science so it is now obsolete (I realize that is controversial statement but bears consideration since he was a genius).
Project Gutenberg has Schopenhauer and Wittgenstein etc.. that is good enough for me. I don't need Sartre's existentialism. I think the modern founder genetics/dna James Watson said it best. He told an interviewer he was an Atheist. He told the interviewer that he doesn't think we are here for anything but just accidents of evolution. The interviewer asked him what his reason for living was. He said "I am anticipating a good lunch" (paraphrase) That latter statement demolishes Sartre's fanciful existentialism.