The Best Authors Respect the Reader's Time
The Best Authors Respect the Reader’s Time
Summary
Nivi opens by provocatively calling Naval an “industrial philosopher” — someone philosophizing for wide adoption rather than the academy — and argues that Twitter-style philosophy from people like Naval and David Deutsch has been far more valuable to him than Aristotle or Wittgenstein. Naval agrees, confessing he cannot stand most classical philosophers because they make obscure arguments over minutiae. The exception is Schopenhauer, whose shorter essays read almost like Twitter posts: high density of ideas, minimal examples, and paragraphs that leave you thinking for an hour.
Naval then lays out a strategic framework for reading. For understanding human nature, he recommends “Lindy” books that have survived the test of time. For developing specific, monetizable knowledge, he advises staying on the bleeding edge where information is timely but quickly obsolete. He explicitly avoids low-density works like most history books, preferring instead authors who compress wisdom into the smallest possible space. His list of high-density favorites includes David Deutsch, Borges, Ted Chiang, and early Neal Stephenson. The central claim is that “the best authors respect the reader’s time” — they deliver generalized principles and wisdom rather than drowning you in data.
Highlights
”Schopenhauer Would Have Dominated Twitter”
“Even Schopenhauer falls into that trap when he tries to talk to other philosophers, he’s at his worst. When I like him is in his shorter essays. That’s where he almost writes like he’s on Twitter. He would have dominated Twitter. He has high density of ideas, very well thought through, good minimal examples and analogies. You can pick it up and read one paragraph and you’re thinking for the next hour.” — Naval Ravikant, 0:38
Clip command
yt-dlp --download-sections "*0:38-1:30" "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B933Rk_neu8" --force-keyframes-at-cuts --merge-output-format mp4 -o "schopenhauer-twitter.mp4"”We Want Wisdom, Not Data”
“We already have a lot of data, we have some knowledge, now we want wisdom, now we want the generalized principles that we can attach to all of the other information we already have in our minds.” — Naval Ravikant, 0:38
Clip command
yt-dlp --download-sections "*2:00-3:00" "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B933Rk_neu8" --force-keyframes-at-cuts --merge-output-format mp4 -o "wisdom-not-data.mp4"”Skip the Great Philosophers, Read David Deutsch”
“People suggest you read the great books, read Aristotle and Wittgenstein and all the supposedly great philosophers. I mean, I’ve read almost all that stuff, and I’ve gotten very little value from it. Where I have gotten value is the philosophizing of people on Twitter like you. Anybody who wants to read philosophy, I would just tell them to skip it and go read David Deutsch.” — Nivi, 0:00
Clip command
yt-dlp --download-sections "*0:00-0:38" "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B933Rk_neu8" --force-keyframes-at-cuts --merge-output-format mp4 -o "skip-philosophers-read-deutsch.mp4"Key Points
- Modern philosophy over classical (0:00) - Nivi argues that Twitter-style philosophizing from Naval and David Deutsch delivers more value than Aristotle or Wittgenstein
- Schopenhauer as high-density writer (0:38) - Naval praises Schopenhauer’s shorter essays for their tweet-like density of ideas, saying one paragraph can trigger an hour of thinking
- Lindy books for human nature (0:38) - For understanding timeless human nature, read the oldest books that have survived; scientific and political content from old books is obsolete
- Bleeding edge for specific knowledge (0:38) - To develop monetizable specific knowledge, stay current because that information becomes obsolete quickly
- Avoid low-density works (0:38) - Naval shies away from history books, preferring Will Durant’s condensed Lessons of History over the 12-volume Story of Civilization
- High-density favorites (0:38) - David Deutsch, Borges, Ted Chiang, and early Neal Stephenson are Naval’s preferred high-density authors
- Data to wisdom pipeline (0:38) - At a certain point in life you have enough data and knowledge; what you need now is wisdom and generalized principles
Mentions
People
- Arthur Schopenhauer (0:38) - 19th century philosopher praised for high-density writing on human nature
- David Deutsch (0:00) - Recommended as the single best philosopher to read, extremely high-density
- Aristotle (0:00) - Classical philosopher Nivi found little value in
- Wittgenstein (0:00) - Classical philosopher Nivi found little value in
- Plato (0:38) - Naval says he doesn’t like Plato either
- Jorge Luis Borges (0:38) - Very high-density author
- Ted Chiang (0:38) - Very high-density author
- Neal Stephenson (0:38) - Was very high-density, then became high-volume too
- Will Durant (0:38) - Lessons of History recommended as a condensed summary of his 12-volume series
Products & Technologies
- Twitter (0:00) - Platform where Naval and others practice high-density philosophical writing
Surprising Quotes
“I can’t stand any of the philosophers you talked about. I don’t like Plato either.” — Naval Ravikant, 0:38
“You can call it the TikTok disease or the Twitter generation, but it’s also just being respectful of our time.” — Naval Ravikant, 0:38
“I’ve read almost all that stuff, and I’ve gotten very little value from it.” — Nivi, 0:00
Transcript
Nivi: 0:00 Unlike Schopenhauer, you’re an industrial philosopher, like an industrial designer. Your philosophy is designed for the masses. Like everybody else on Twitter, you’re philosophizing for wide adoption. People suggest you read the great books, read Aristotle and Wittgenstein and all the supposedly great philosophers. I mean, I’ve read almost all that stuff, and I’ve gotten very little value from it. Where I have gotten value is the philosophizing of people on Twitter like you. Anybody who wants to read philosophy, I would just tell them to skip it and go read David Deutsch.
Naval Ravikant: 0:38 You are not wrong. I can’t stand any of the philosophers you talked about. I don’t like Plato either. Every other piece of philosophy I’ve picked up and put down relatively quickly because they’re just making very obscure arguments over minutiae and trying to come up with all-encompassing theories of the world. Even Schopenhauer falls into that trap when he tries to talk to other philosophers, he’s at his worst. When I like him is in his shorter essays. That’s where he almost writes like he’s on Twitter. He would have dominated Twitter. He has high density of ideas, very well thought through, good minimal examples and analogies. You can pick it up and read one paragraph and you’re thinking for the next hour. I think I’m a better writer, a better thinker, and a better judge of people and character thanks to what I read from him. Now, he’s writing from the early part of the 19th century. Whenever he wanders into topics that are scientific or medical or political, he’s obviously off base. That stuff doesn’t apply anymore. But when he’s writing about human nature, that is timeless. When it comes to anything about human nature, I say go read the Lindy books, the older books, the ones that have survived the test of time. But if you want to develop specific knowledge, get paid for it, do something useful, then you want to stay on the bleeding edge. That knowledge is going to be more timely and obsolete more quickly. Those two make sense. What doesn’t make sense to me is just reading stuff that’s not Lindy or that’s not about human nature, but is old. I also shy away from stuff that’s low density in learning, like history books. I like the Lessons of History by Will Durant because it’s a summarization of the Story of Civilization, which was his large 12-volume series. But I’m not going to go read the 12-volume series. I’ve read plenty of history. I know he’s referring to these kinds of things, so I’m not just taking his word for it on high-level concept. But at the same time, at this point in my life, I want to read high-density works. You can call it the TikTok disease or the Twitter generation, but it’s also just being respectful of our time. We already have a lot of data, we have some knowledge, now we want wisdom, now we want the generalized principles that we can attach to all of the other information we already have in our minds. We do want to read high-density work, but I would argue that Schopenhauer is very high-density work. All my favorite authors are very high density. Deutsch is extremely high density. Borges is very high density. Ted Chiang is very high density. The old Neal Stephenson was very high density. Then he just got high volume, high density, high everything. But the best authors respect the reader’s time, and Schopenhauer certainly did.
Naval Ravikant: 3:00 is very much in that vein.