Arising_uk wrote:Its simple enough, the orange is the original work, what you hear from the lecturer is what he's squeezed out, how do you know that like supermarket orange juice he's not added to or diluted the result if you've not tasted what actual squeezed orange juice tastes like?
In this case I am squeezing my own oranges so the that analogy doesn't apply. It's not about the author, it's not the author which is interesting, it's the ideas the author is able to convey to the world, a big and fundamental difference for me.
Arising_uk wrote:Its the other way around, you miss the context by not reading the whole thing, its your approach that gives the narrow view and a view that's not actually even yours.
Reading the original would not make my view more mine. It's how I receive what I get that decides that, and most of us here I think are quite our own masters and are not told what to think but chew on it and make up our own minds about it.
Arising_uk wrote:I'll grant that, if you find reading difficult and boring
Not in general, that was wrong of you against me, I did not say that in general, I was talking about philosophical books having a lot of stuff in it that is not interesting. It depends upon what you find interesting yourself, but for instance I'm not very interested in Heidegger, but not disinterested enough to not care what ideas he might present. Reading one of his works I would get a lot of garbage I didn't want to read, however, with a YouTube movie, I have the opportunity to get all of the essential pieces in one compact format with criticism and commentary added into it. That's what makes this professor who does these videos so genius for us consumers.
Arising_uk wrote:then they are a useful way of reading books by others about a subject but without having a video by the author or reading what they've actually said then all you are getting is what someone else says, not what the author said.
And I'm fine by it. As I said, it's not the author that matters. The historian is not the reason why I read history, for instance, it's the history which is the reason I would read history.
Arising_uk wrote:Not a good analogy as in either case the actual content is not affected.
Well quality is content, so it does matter, I won't watch a movie made for high-quality on low-quality on principle, it's not the same, it's not the right "content". So it makes a big and substantial difference, I've only ever watched one video camera shoot for instance, and that was in a movie where quality had very little to say (it was "The Dictator", where the jokes are the fun and less important to the visual show-off).
Arising_uk wrote:Would you prefer to watch shorter films where another editor has chopped out all the bits they found boring? If so then you might as well just watch the preview and be done with it but do you think you could then say you'd seen the film?
I'd say we already get that, but, it only works when you've covered a whole "story" that keeps essential items while discarding only the less valuable items from it. For instance the first hobbit movie was slightly too long because even thought the movie as a whole was one of a kind especially with its songs, I found myself actually bored for a few seconds in more than one part of the movie, it was especially when they filmed them just travelling. Where nothing happened and they were doing nothing of importance. That's a clear sign the movie could've been trimmed slightly more to perfect the jewel. Perhaps they could've saved up to 5 minutes of playtime just cutting the length of some scenes or discarding them all together. That they are making 3 movies I think is wonderful but it'll be a stark difference to movies where you only get a little bit of the goodies while in these movies they will produce lengthy boring scenes that has little value except making the movie longer.
Aye, Marjor.