Given that the vast majority of the world’s population does not question themselves, the author, or ideas presented to them and are, in your words, failed as Humans, reading too much is a sure way of getting confused. There are many industries exploiting ‘failed Humans’ and they all flourish — this is not hard to observe.

When talking about fruitful minds though, your point applies.

Given that the vast majority of the world’s population does not question themselves, the author, or ideas presented to them and are, in your words, failed as Humans, reading too much is a sure way of getting confused. There are many industries exploiting ‘failed Humans’ and they all flourish — this is not hard to observe.

When talking about fruitful minds though, your point applies.

The true freedom given by reading – and reading voraciously – is that it allows you to take in varying viewpoints on the same issue and synthesize those viewpoints into a new and – in some cases – wildly different point of view. Reading, for example, Aurelius, Nietzsche, Lao-Tzu and the Buddhist Pitaka would, using your assumption of the blind acceptance of print, provide the reader with a confused and blinkered world view. However, I see reading those texts as providing the reader the materials they needed to formulate a new person philosophy. It is only by maintaining orthodoxy with the texts that ‘too much reading’ is negative.

When one reads philosophy and does not question themselves or the author, then they have failed themselves as Humans. The true nature of humanity is in challenging the orthodoxy of society. Orthodoxy leads to stagnation. Constantly questioning the status quo destroys orthodoxy and, by reading constantly, one must – by necessity of being Human – have questions raised that demand answers.

The true freedom given by reading – and reading voraciously – is that it allows you to take in varying viewpoints on the same issue and synthesize those viewpoints into a new and – in some cases – wildly different point of view. Reading, for example, Aurelius, Nietzsche, Lao-Tzu and the Buddhist Pitaka would, using your assumption of the blind acceptance of print, provide the reader with a confused and blinkered world view. However, I see reading those texts as providing the reader the materials they needed to formulate a new person philosophy. It is only by maintaining orthodoxy with the texts that ‘too much reading’ is negative.

When one reads philosophy and does not question themselves or the author, then they have failed themselves as Humans. The true nature of humanity is in challenging the orthodoxy of society. Orthodoxy leads to stagnation. Constantly questioning the status quo destroys orthodoxy and, by reading constantly, one must – by necessity of being Human – have questions raised that demand answers.

We even think in ways we have learned from others. Reading can expand our knowledge – especially in areas we know well – without the trial and error of experience. It can save lots of time. Reading can also be the comparison of the writers thoughts with our experience – it need not be passive (in this regard using mind maps and putting the author’s thoughts in your own words can be helpful).

We even think in ways we have learned from others. Reading can expand our knowledge – especially in areas we know well – without the trial and error of experience. It can save lots of time. Reading can also be the comparison of the writers thoughts with our experience – it need not be passive (in this regard using mind maps and putting the author’s thoughts in your own words can be helpful).