Hide table of contents

Many thinkers worth reading wrote in past centuries:

  • 1600s: Bacon, Hobbes, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Leibniz
  • 1700s: Berkeley, Hume, Rousseau, Smith, Kant, Burke, Bentham
  • 1800s: Schopenhauer, Mill, Sidgwick

Some of them wrote in English and their texts are usually presented in the original, even when they use archaic spelling, punctuation, and style. (This is in contrast to foreign-language works which are often translated to a modern style.)

For example, in the past there were more uses of the comma, such as

  • Before any relative clause:
    • Dickens: “The objects he had lately pursued, turned worthless beside her”
    • Melville: “This august dignity I treat of, is not the dignity of kings”
  • Before any clause starting with “that” for any reason:
    • Austen: “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that…”
  • After any clausal or compound subject as far as I can tell:
    • J Robertson: “Whoever is capable of forgetting a benefit, is an enemy to society”

And these examples are from the 1800s. The situation was worse in prior centuries when punctuation was mainly prosodic rather than syntactic, i.e. it followed rules of rhetoric rather than logic. For example, Daines’s Orthoepia Anglicana (1640) advised using a comma to indicate one unit of spoken pause, a semicolon for two, and a colon for three. Before widespread literacy, most consumers of a book would be listening to it being read aloud, so prosodic punctuation made more sense, but as literacy rates improved, more consumers read books silently and it made sense to punctuate based on the logic of the sentence.

The website EarlyModernTexts.com modernizes many works (including works from all of the authors listed at the start of this post) so that the meaning can be understood more quickly and accurately. The texts were written by the late Jonathan Bennett and are often assigned to undergrads. Bennett explained his methods in “On Translating Locke, Berkeley, and Hume into English.” Usually I refer to his texts as “modernized” but “translated” maybe makes it more clear that the texts aren’t abridged; his text will line up with the original work paragraph by paragraph and typically sentence by sentence. He doesn’t always indicate omissions but is transparent about any text added.

He has more details on his website about how the texts are modified. Two examples of modernization:

Hobbes: as all sorts of manufacture, so also malice increaseth by being vendible.
Modernized: malice, like everything else made by men, increases when there is a market for it.

Hume: Every one will readily allow, that there is a considerable difference between the perceptions of the mind, when a man feels the pain of excessive heat, or the pleasure of moderate warmth, and when he afterwards recalls to his memory this sensation, or anticipates it by his imagination. These faculties may mimic or copy the perceptions of the senses; but they never can entirely reach the force and vivacity of the original sentiment. The utmost we say of them, even when they operate with greatest vigour, is, that they represent their object in so lively a manner, that we could almost say we feel or see it: But, except the mind be disordered by disease or madness, they never can arrive at such a pitch of vivacity, as to render these perceptions altogether undistinguishable. All the colours of poetry, however splendid, can never paint natural objects in such a manner as to make the description be taken for a real landskip. The most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation.
Modernized: Everyone will freely admit that the perceptions of the mind when a man feels the pain of excessive heat or the pleasure of moderate warmth are considerably unlike what he feels when he later remembers this sensation or earlier looks forward to it in his imagination. Memory and imagination may mimic or copy the perceptions of the senses, but they cannot create a perception that has as much force and vivacity as the one they are copying. Even when they operate with greatest vigor, the most we will say is that they represent their object so vividly that we could almost say we feel or see it. Except when the mind is out of order because of disease or madness, memory and imagination can never be so lively as to create perceptions that are indistinguishable from the ones we have in seeing or feeling. The most lively thought is still dimmer than the dullest sensation.

Notice that he omits the “landskip” sentence as a tangential flourish.

The texts all start with an explanation of his syntax:

[Brackets] enclose editorial explanations. Small ·dots· enclose material that has been added, but can be read as though it were part of the original text. Occasional •bullets, and also indenting of passages that are not quotations, are meant as aids to grasping the structure of a sentence or a thought. Every four-point ellipsis . . . . indicates the omission of a brief passage that seems to present more difficulty than it is worth. Longer omissions are reported on, between [brackets], in normal-sized type.

Below are some examples of the opening pages of a few of the texts (there are EPUB/MOBI files as well). Selected texts have been narrated into audiobooks, including Leviathan, The Prince, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, Descartes’s Meditations, Hume’s Enquiry, and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government.

 

 

Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

The EarlyModernTexts versions are what I read when I had to do my comprehensive history exam in grad school. I recommend them.

I didn't realize there was a resource out there to make these works more accessible. That's awesome!

I've been meaning to write a post about how Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" should be required reading for anyone who wants to change the world. I wish I had read it before joining an (ultimately doomed) effort to promote human rights and democracy in a country where the average person can't read. In hindsight, investing in literacy would've been a better use of our time. 

So say we have like, a finite amount of time, and there are probably better and worse compromises between "get the gist" and the main plot of history and "read thousands of pages of moderately difficult prose and probably miss the point anyway." (Like you're not mentioning that all these writers are writing against a context -- forex, we shouldn't assume Adam Smith would defend free markets in the Gilded Age, but he very much thought they were better than mercantile policy.)

Any thoughts on learning that way?

This is cool and I didn't know it existed. Thanks for sharing!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Are you looking for a project where you could substantially improve indoor air quality, with benefits both to general health and reducing pandemic risk? I've written a bunch about air purifiers over the past few years, and its frustrating how bad commercial market is. The most glaring problem is the widespread use of HEPA filters. These are very effective filters that, unavoidably, offer significant resistance to air flow. HEPA is a great option for filtering air in single pass, such as with an outdoor air intake or a biosafety cabinet, but it's the wrong set of tradeoffs for cleaning the air that's already in the room. Air passing through a HEPA filter removes 99.97% of particles, but then it's mixed back in with the rest of the room air. If you can instead remove 99% of particles from 2% more air, or 90% from 15% more air, you're delivering more clean air. We should compare in-room purifiers on their Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR), not whether the filters are HEPA. Next is noise. Let's say you do know that CADR is what counts, and you go looking at purifiers. You've decided you need 250 CFM, and you get something that says it can do that. Except once it's set up in the room it's too noisy and you end up running it on low, getting just 75 CFM. Everywhere I go I see purifiers that are either set too low to achieve much or are just switched off. High CADR with low noise is critical. Then consider filter replacement. There's a competitive market for standardized filters, where most HVAC systems use one of a small number of filter sizes. Air purifiers, though, just about always use their own custom filters. Some of this is the mistaken insistence on HEPA filters, but I suspect there's also a "cheap razors, expensive blades" component where manufacturers make their real money on consumables. Then there's placement. Manufacturers put the buttons on the top and send air upwards, because they're designing them to sit on the floor. But a purifier on the floor takes up
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
[Note: I (the primary author) am writing this entirely in a personal capacity. Funding for the bounty and donations mentioned in this post comes entirely from personal savings and the generosity of friends and family. Colleagues at Open Philanthropy (my employer) reviewed this post at my request, but this project is completely unaffiliated with Open Philanthropy.]   In 2023, GiveWell reported that it received over $250M from more than 30,000 donors, excluding Open Philanthropy. I expect (though haven’t confirmed) that at least $50M of this came from unmatched retail donations, meaning from individuals who don’t work at a company that offers a donation match. I can’t help but hope that there may be some way to offer these donors a source of matching funds that wouldn’t otherwise go toward charitable causes. Over the last couple of years, friends and I have spent >100 hours looking into potential legal, collaborative corporate donation matching opportunities. I think there may be promising ways to partner with corporate donors, but I haven’t found a way forward that I am comfortable with, and I don’t think I’m the best person to continue work on this project. Some donors may be choosing to give through surrogates (friends who work at companies that match donations) without understanding the risks involved. My understanding is that there can be several (particularly if donors send surrogates money conditionally, e.g., by asking them to sign an agreement to give through their company’s match): * The surrogate might inadvertently violate their company’s terms for donation matching. * The surrogate, donor, or company might fail an IRS audit if they don’t correctly report the donations + match. * The surrogate or donor might be sued by the company. * The company might discontinue its matching program and/or claw back funds from recipient nonprofits. “Getting to yes” with a corporate partner in a completely legal, transparent, and good faith way could direct signi