@docMJP i may have been uncharitable at first. my issue is essentially this stops just short of being truly useful for any field, including latin. even the philosophy; what good Thomist can’t engage more broadly? i agree that education is intrinsically good; even wrt that this fails imo
@docMJP why are you acting like these aren’t questions any math/physics undergrad couldn’t answer? like, you don’t learn how analysis (not saying calculus) and geometry are related by pondering a seminal work. you do it by writing proofs; that’s not present here at the college level
@stuartjms@docMJP im not really sure what you mean. having context in the natural sciences won’t help you understand tolstoy, and none of the theology taught here would since he was a heretic. and besides, good books are not didactic; style and structure make a good work.
@agostino_harry@cant_find_dogs@SimonSimplicio you don't learn math by reading the seminal works of mathematicians. you learn math by doing proofs. there is none of that here beyond literal high school geometry.
@dilf_farts @LoganView64206@miniapeur i think it’s really good for building intuition but ultimately knowledge has to come from doing proofs and exercises