Can a dead person get well?
lol

I only have one book, and it's myself.

My reading in Philosophy has just begun, so I don't have much of a Philosophical bookshelf to speak of. My bookshelf is packed with literature & chess books, but to give an idea of what I read, my purchases over the last 2 weeks have been:

Hermann Hesse: Klingsor's Last Summer, Peter Camenzind
J.D Salinger: For Esme With Love and Squalor
John Steinbeck: Tortilla Flat
William Styron: Sophie's Choice
Thomas Mann: The Holy Sinner, Confessions of Felix Krull, Confidence Man
Royal Highness, Death in Venice and 7 other stories, Essays

Descartes: Meditations on First Philosophy
Religion and Philosophy (unknown ed. until it arrives)
The Concise Encyclopedia of Western Philosophy & Philosophers
edited by J.O. Urmson & Jonathan Ree

If you are looking for good introduction texts to philosophy, I suggest Frederick Copleston's The History of Philosophy series.

I agree with de Silento on the Copelston texts as a good introductory to philosophy series. I have found volumes 4 and 5 on the rationalists and empiricists invaluable to me. Whats great about the series is that they give you a brief yet very thorough history of the philosopher himself before they get into the material. Knowing the background of the philosopher is very helpful. But you don't have to read the book from page one because each philosopher has its own section, which is a relatively short section considering the density of some of texts they are famous for. And it makes sense, like a cliffs notes version of the original text. Further, it tells you what to look for when you do read the original text. Great series.

Thanks for the suggestion, I have had a look at a local online bookstore and they have the complete series. I also noticed it is currently 11 volumes which would cause considerable distress to my pocket, though I guess I don't need to buy them all at oncee. Would you recommend buying the individual volumes or would the concise compiled edition (below) be a suitable introduction?

Copleston's History of Philosophy, Concise Edition - edited by John Cumming
ISBN:0826471307

Yeah, it's a great series. You can indeed buy the individual volumes if you want. The series is not connected in any way accept for the chronology of the philosophers in the different books. You could pick up volume 5 and not notice that that there are any other books in the series. I only have volumes four and five on modern philosophy, but I have found them especially useful. They function as a very good companion reader, where you could read the original text of Descartes meditations on first philosophy and follow along in the Copelston book, which underlines the key features you should look for. But now in hindsight, I could have just read the Copelston books and got the same amount of relevant information.

This is a link to amazon with all the books on it. They are not that badly priced since when I bought them a while back. I originally paid $50 for each book. But this was also at the school bookstore, so go figure.

Amazon.com: history of philosophy copleston

They're free at the library. Or the pseudo-library: Barnes and Noble.

Just found this thread. I'm filled with the most wonderful emotions now. Yes, my library and its many (philosophical) aspects: I feel I have to tell you about it! It seems so easy at first glance, yet I wonder if I will be able to really tell something sensible here. How can I tell something sensible about my own heart and soul, about my life's meaning, about what is both my job and my hobby, and this since so many years? In fact I thought an awful lot about libraries and books in my lifetime, and since a few years I forgot a lot about them too. But I'll always have a special relationship with books, and I will die with books as I have lived with them. I'm a faculty librarian for twenty years now, but I will not tell you about my professional dealing with books or with any other information-carriers. Just a few words about my private collection, or rather my private obsession; just some fragmentary approaches and loose associations. I have been collecting books for 35 years, estimating my present library at around 4000 volumes and a little less titles. First a pic to get into the mood, a corner of the main "library room":

[Infra]

Some start then. I often thought about writing my own monography about this. A possible framework:

A) Generaliter:
-What defines a library and why is my collection of books a library and why is it not?
-The "book", a dubious notion (cons. idealiter et realiter). Artistic creation versus edition versus copy.
-How did my library develop and how does it still do? What are my personal principles for selection and acquisition?
-What is (in general) the present composition of my collection, according to various criteria (form and content)?
-How to obtain (the right) books? About bookshops and their magic. The flea-market: cheap and wonderful.
-Order, access and classification principles. Why the SISO is insuffici?nt. The practical problems of reclassification
-The economic value of books versus their cultural value. The cost of books versus their personal significance.
-Still the financial aspect: bargains and investments, various rates of return. My most expensive book. My most valiable book.
-Heterogenuity versus homogenuity of the collection and the influence of them on value, both financial and scientific.
-My various attempts of description and making a catalog. The manual catalog until 1999.
-The ordinary edition, the facsimile, and the antiquarian book. Poetry, atlasses and reference works.
-The complete works, the paperbacks, the book of illustrations. The quality of editions and editors.
-Age, rarity and curiosity of my books. The age distibution-curve. The personalised edition. The signature.
-The problems of conservation. The practical aspects of storing. That growing crack in the ceiling.
-Practical living in a house filled with books. What does it do to the significant Other(s)...

B) Specialiter:
-Some subjects
-Some writers
-Some series
-Some titles
-Some anecdotes
-Some touching between books and objects

c) Sub Specie Philosophiae (only a few possible subjects):
-The philosopher's "class".
-The act of reading, the art of reading.
-The heterogenous library as a "Microcosmos" aut "Mappa Mundi".
-Is the library related to laboratory and museum?
-The computer and the books: fact and fable.
-Reading versus collecting: complexity and complementarity.
-"Catchabulae et Amicorum". The shared library. Books and Friendship.
-Books and culture, books and knowledge, books and the individual.
-The psychopathology of bibliomania.

Did I say a start? It was not even that. Must be continued...

Hello there,
I have O/S maps ....I can't read you see but I do use maps a lot:shocked:
TTFN

Books, both birth and agony! Shall I speak or shall I be silent about them? My library, most magic of all places, my Garden of Eden! Nay, I cannot hold myself, I must sing, I must dance! Mods, spit on it, hold my madness. Save the world and banish these words. Beware and behold, I will now say the 666 names of God...

Diogenes Laertius, Platoon, Aristoteles, Epicurus, Sextus Empiricus, Empedocles, Theon of Smyrna, Jamblichus, Porphyrius, Epictetus, Seneca, Cicero, Boethius, Marcus Aurelius, Lucretius, Horatius, Vergilius, Livius, Ovidius, Propertius, Quintilianus, Petronius, Apuleius, Augustinus, Anselmus, Albertus Magnus, Raymundus Lullus, Thomas Aquinas, Johannes Buridanus, John Wycliff, Francis Bacon, Jacob Boehme, Johannes Comenius, R?n? Descartes, Balthasar Graci?n, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, David Hume, Blaise Pascal, Benedictus De Spinoza, S?ren Aabye Kierkegaard, Ludwig Feuerbach, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Arthur Schopenhauer, Henri Bergson, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Martin Heidegger, Jean Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, Jos? Ortega y Gasset, Herbert Marcuse... the Septuaginta, the Vulgata, the Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, der Ulfilas, die Gantze Heilige Schrift, the Authorized version, the Statenvertaling, the Babylonian Talmud, the Qor'aan, Lao-Tse, Confucius, Mencius, the Veda's, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Dhammapada...

(Puffing) I'm not good at this anymore, getting out of breath after a fraction of a fraction of a fraction... Just adding that several of these are complete editions, and that we have barely touched science, literature, art... Two things though:

1? Eat your heart out folks: I have the richest library of you all! (So nice one can just say that here, knowing that this statement will immediately be seen in the right perspective. Just know your pride and it vanishes).

2? "Io. Grolieri et Amicorum". I'm a librarian, can I be of help?? With checking something out maybe, textual, or a reference? Perhaps verify something in Euclid, or in Heath's Archimede? (That Almagest is not on the right place. It is with Newton and Einstein now. Perhaps better with Kepler and Galileo). To be short: my personal resources are Huge. And as you see I like to display them, proud like a kid. Make me happy and let me and my stuff be of help to you. My coffin is too small to take it with me anyway.

I don't think the original topic of the thread was as much "my library is this big" but rather "how does my library reflect who I am." It's kinda like the Capital One credit card commercial question "what's in your wallet?"

This brings up a question that developed from the very beginning until now. Does the size of your library reflect just how familiar you are with philosophy? Does it really matter? Can you have just one book in your library and still be an accomplished philosopher? If you do have a lot of books in your library, how does its organization reflect your primary interests in philosophy? It seems like many people have gotten in the hang of just listing the books they have rather than the deeper aspects of their library.

For example, there are five new books I have that I just got off of Amazon, namely "A Guide for the Perplexed" series. I bought them but I do not have time to read them, so I just filed them in my shelf where I thought at the time they should go. Heck, I paid good money for them, I'm sure as heck going to display them in a prime spot to remind me of that. Thus then main question. Why are those books the way they are? Why did I put them all together as a series instead of putting them in their respective sections (i.e. greek, roman, post modern, etc.). Am I arrogant to arrange the most complex books in the most noticeable spot but ones I may not completely understand? Could my most favorite philosophy book "philosophy for the periodontal ligament" (an analysis of ultimate tooths... hahaha get it? ultimate tooths! BaZING) be hidden in the bottom left corner because it's not as cool as Aristotle Metaphysics?

Sure, I could not agree more. Perhaps one could even coin the hypothesis that one can be "wise" without a single book? So many are "wise" in my experience, considering books utterfly superfluous, except maybe for burning them. Does anybody remember "Fahrenheit 451"? Ok, it's off topic, but allow me just a few more words on my library please. How do I assess the situation here?

I consider myself as rather well informed in philosophy and several other cultural matters, and much of what I know comes from my books. Of course I know that many people do immensely more with less books than I do. The ratio of my "mind" to the number of books I possess is far from "economical". But books are fun to collect and I even discovered that you can read them and that this does quite something to you. I still read a lot (less than before for health reasons), but of course the large majority of my books I haven't read and I will never read. I'm just a bibliophiliac for the most valuable stuff or a bibliomaniac for the rest. I even consider the investment aspect, I recently bought a book for 7 ? that costed 200 ? in Amazon Antiquarian. That may be an awful way to treat books, but it could be worse (could be raining).

(D..., it IS raining! Why do I always have to quote that old Mel Brooks joke?!)

Western Civilization has books at its core. And I have a mission: I'm a saviour and protector of them. Since I was 15 I knew I wanted to be a librarian. I love books, I take care of them, I bring them on the right path. There it is, forgotten in a mildewed cartboard box: "Manuel de Politesse", by Soeur B?atrice (Tours: M?me, 1889). Now you either leave that where it is, in its hostile environment, forgotten, threatened by oblivion and destruction. Or you listen to its soft cry: hold me, bye me, save me... I often have books restaurated or bound again at my own expense. Hey, do I have really have to excuse me for this hobby? Or for my other collecting hobbies? While some go shooting innocent animals for fun? Or make a habit of wrecking the nerves of their fellow human beings? Besides, the 4000 volumes I possess are few compared to the 50000 at work, it's a permanent state of excitement. My colleague in the Central Library manages a cool million, that lucky b.... It's all in the mind... ;-)

Of course you are right, Vid. But books are my personal amusement and imho there's no absolute rule on how people should be dealing with them. And I know I do respect books and what they stand for. What's the "sin", the immoral aspect of possessing a book that you don't read? Maybe you'll read it tomorrow? There are many books I read half, or just the 17 pages of the Introduction, or sometimes I am just looking at the illustrations (these in Lewis Carroll are great). My books are teaching me a lot, even if I'm not doing the cursoric reading they may in fact require. And why not dare to say it: some books are just horribly boring, why should I ever read that awful stuff? Perhaps the immoral side is that I am hampering another to read the book while I only possess it? Perhaps I should give all my books away, and find them in the cartboard box again? Unread?? I remember that person who said he "needed" the book, who said he would "study" it. After a few months he returned it, no time to read it, and why was I asking three times to return it? It was a present for a real reader, so the book remained better unread with him than with me.

My books do give me thoughts, though they may not give me the same thoughts as others, and there may be the rub. My thoughts may not be as deep or informed or profound, but they are my thoughts, and I have a right to obtain them where I can, and to express them where I like. I gave a few thoughts on books in some previous postings, and I do claim the philosophical relevance of at least a few of the implied questions. But I know that my mind is small, nothing compared to a "real" philosopher. Perhaps the most obvious conclusion is that I should quit collecting and give away all my books to those who are worth it. Perhaps to those who need only a few books, or who need no books at all? Aah humbug!

Personally, I am not too fanatical about philosophy in particular. I see it more as a tool like mathematics or biology more than the common conception of it. I think a majority of people find some sort of poetry and rhythm in the study, which I admit I saw in the beginning but not so much now. But I totally agree with you, books are very fun to collect. There's just something so satisfying about seeing a collection of books, no matter the size, and picture the potential of using them.

This reminds me of perhaps a great pain that I'm sure you have experienced with your collection? acidic paper. This is the bane of a small portion of my books that I had to buy because they were out of print. One of them is a 1929 print year of Taswell Langmead's English Constitutional History. I can describe the book, which was somewhat used before I bought it, as "crispy" to say the least. But I guess most old books suffer from the wood based lignins. But today I don't think many modern publishers are indeed changing to archival wool based pulp additives even though there are proclamations that they have sworn off acid based paper. Penguin, which publishes many ancient classics still uses acidic paper. None too pleased with that. I know there is a spray you can use called "Bookkeepers" which basically deacidifies the paper but leaves a little bit of a chalky residue from the magnesium in the solution. I tried it out on another book and it completely eliminates that crusty odor and I even got a good deal of flexibility back in the page.

Hm, quite a mix of emotions again. Vid, you know what you are doing, don't you? Enabling me to talk about books here? Could be dangerous for all of us. What if I couldn't stop talking anymore? What if I started loosing all sense of relevance and proportion? What if I entered the realms of the awfully anecdotical, like telling you about that goldmine I once found, being the uncredible collection of a deceased booklover? Why can some "do" with only a few books? Because the association-field, the content -both actual and potential- of each separate book is metaphorically "infinite", my pathetic project being to collect an infinity of infinities. Take Shakespeare for example: take him to that island, and you'll take the world with you (you know the old question of course: if you could take but one book with you to an uninhabited island...?). Ok, I guess we understand each other, and I will not give an extensive reaction on your posting, especially not about the technicalities of conservation. Personally I have only a few books with brittle paper, but I am more concerned about the general conservation-conditions in a house that is also inhabited by humans. This may not be the best temperature or the best of relative humidity, and there is also too much light here; I can almost hear the molecules snap. No, just a few random theses now, that may be provocative enough to invite a broader audience. Mind I tend to use some (?) rhetorical exageration, but everybody here will be able to see that in the right perspective. On the Forum one must speak loud enough to be heard, and these matters are not unimportant...

-From the conservational point of view the computer is often the enemy of the traditional book. The massive digitisation drains funds and energy from the careful conservation of a medium tested by the centuries, being the paper "codex" or hard-copy book. Hard-copy books are vulnerable and will always have many enemies, but (quality) paper is also relatively resistent and parchment is almost eternal. And this while the various ways of digital coding and formatting are still hardly established, and will almost certainly become a huge problem in the future. The present day pre-occupation with digitisation suffers from a short term perspective, and is in fact largely determined by the personal ambitions and the commercial interests of those involved. Some librarians are career-minded and would do anything to stay in the spotlight. Thousands of books becoming less important than their power-points.

-Books are free to go their own way through the world, eventually to be found in a mildewed cartboard box (*). The digitisation of the book may lead to the control of a few firms and their assets (G..?) over mankinds cultural heritage. In fact G... doesn't give a d... about the "real value" of the books they digitise, or about mankind's cultural heritage. They only want to consolidate their market-position, create a return-on-investment, get break-even and increase their stock value, all this on a worldwide competitive information-market. And digitisation happens to be another way to attract "traffic"; the rest is for the marketing departement, where they learn to use the right words towards librarians and to manipulate their ideology. In fact the whole thing is just another economic power-play and culture is not only a market, it is becoming a hostage. I hope people realise that after digitisation G... will try to destroy all hard-copy books, because in spite of all efforts they will not easily destroy by themselves. Hey, somebody has some rusty old gun for me? ;-)

-The digitisation of the world's books has only a relative worth from the point of view of access and indexing, but it is NOT stimulating reading. On the contrary the computer hollows out reading, being the time-consuming and effortful assimilation of massive amounts of information (War and Peace is in the dutch translation over 1000 p., I overcame it ;-) ). The computer reduces the immense "Gestalt" of the book to a number of excerpts or citations. And once the young have found what they were looking for, they will hardly look any further, and hardly suspect there's a context or even a whole world behind the excerpt. By the way a little poll: who has ever read a complete book on a computer screen? Seems that reading War and Peace like that is just a perceptual problem for old farts like me, but I wonder...

Yes, old fashioned, reactionary, loving the smell of them, still seeing the magic, still feeling the discovery, here he is: the boy who was once dazzled by books and stayed for hours on the attic, reading, browsing, becoming the book, the book becoming himself, his heart, his ever-lasting love. I'm an old fart indeed, and I distrust computers, simple as that, but the book keeps me young at heart and passionate, as a reader as well as a collector. I think we somehow agree folks, and I'm happy to be around. But about books, and today's world... what are your thoughts??

(*) "Habent sua fata libelli". Books have their adventures (destiny?).

On the subject of book preservation, I have mixed reactions about book digitalization. In a way, it seems as though technology constantly improves and digitization is just the latest flavor. Microfilm was replaced by digitization and microfilm has a very short lifespan. Yet it was cutting edge at the time. Now we have Hard Drives and now SSD's which show increasing promise as containing larger amounts of data, but are just as complicated and susceptible to decay as microfilm. But I do believe that digitization is the future of the book. Archival paper, currently the best on the market, has a practical lifespan of 100 years. Yes it can be preserved to a point ten times longer? perhaps even longer, but the book then suffers from a half-life of not being practical. Interestingly enough, the term book essentially means "runes inscribed on beechwood." What poetic and ironic twist for a book to come full circle with the etymological origins of its own word. Though not on beechwood, the information is inscribed in binary on an invisible digital slab.

But wouldn't digitization free the book from the constraints of profit margins? A book in its physical form is constrained by tradition forms of ownership, but digitization is a whole new venue. In a sense, though digital laws are in place, the exchange of digital media is still unrestrained. A person who is willing academically but unable to pay a specialty bookstore for a copy of Taswell Langmeads Constitution can simply go on www.openlibrary.org and review copies from 1860 -1960 without paying a cent. No profit in this for openlibrary, only for the person. In a way, it is freedom through dispersion. The more available the digital media, the less valuable the media is, even thought the information is priceless.

But I do agree with you that a digital book is not as stimulating to read as a physical book. Its actually quite annoying. I only read certain books online because I don't want to go through the hassle of getting to archived books at my old university and only being allowed to look at them in the confines of the storage room. The law library is especially strict about out-letting books. But I did read the last Harry Potter book digitally? and I have to say that it was actually really good to read it online. When I downloaded it, I also downloaded the audiobook and I thought it was actually a good experience. I think that's what digital books have to provide, a benefit above and beyond the traditional physical book to make it worth the choice. In my own case, in a few years I have to purchase a law library. But why should I spend $23,000 on a law library (that honestly is not that thorough for that much money) when I can spend $3000 for a subscription to an online legal database which is there for life, indexed, etc. Just buy a kindle and bring my law library with me. This is an option that I am seriously considering, even though I am very into books... it's just practical.

I like books as much as the next person, but I like the information more. If it means digitalization to preserve the information, then so be it. People will adapt I suppose.

Hi Vid. Just a few remarks that I wanted to deliver here before going to bed. But I didn't see how to quote yet :-( . I'll show your words in a different type.

"On the subject of book preservation, I have mixed reactions about book digitalization. In a way, it seems as though technology constantly improves and digitization is just the latest flavor. Microfilm was replaced by digitization and microfilm has a very short lifespan. Yet it was cutting edge at the time. Now we have Hard Drives and now SSD's which show increasing promise as containing larger amounts of data, but are just as complicated and susceptible to decay as microfilm. But I do believe that digitization is the future of the book. Archival paper, currently the best on the market, has a practical lifespan of 100 years. Yes it can be preserved to a point ten times longer? perhaps even longer, but the book then suffers from a half-life of not being practical. Interestingly enough, the term book essentially means "runes inscribed on beechwood." What poetic and ironic twist for a book to come full circle with the etymological origins of its own word. Though not on beechwood, the information is inscribed in binary on an invisible digital slab."

The most sensible way would be to determine the factual life-span of each medium, and that may not be so simple; there's beautiful hand-made paper with a life span that goes quite beyond a hundred years, but of course it's not meant for general use. But in the case of digital media nothing is known for sure yet, except that these media are under permanent construction. But there are imho a few other things that we need to consider here. Digital copies are only useful if the necessary reading equipment is available, as well as the conditions for that equipment to function properly. Some around here may have worked in third-world countries. They may have witnessed some pathetic try to link a computer to a sattelite-antenna and to a studdering generator, to make the magic of the Internet available for the whole village. Of course the complete set-up being ruined after the first rain-season, or a week later by lack of technical support. And then some good old "beechwood" might help, with the runes clearly visible to the naked eye. Your perspective is that of the comfy western world, where technology is readily available because there is a market and money. Alphabetisation world-wide is way better served by establishing a small library in the local community-center, and having some dedicated book-lover around who keeps the whole thing together, yet also assuring a rational distribution. As was done and still is done in the western world, I mean The Public Library movement. Not everybody has a pc yet, and may I remind you that many people can not even afford one, in particular on a worldwide scale? Yes, there's another thread here: illiteracy -digital or not- and poverty, a vicious circle. That story begins around your corner...

"But wouldn't digitization free the book from the constraints of profit margins? A book in its physical form is constrained by tradition forms of ownership, but digitization is a whole new venue. In a sense, though digital laws are in place, the exchange of digital media is still unrestrained. A person who is willing academically but unable to pay a specialty bookstore for a copy of Taswell Langmeads Constitution can simply go on www.openlibrary.org and review copies from 1860 -1960 without paying a cent. No profit in this for openlibrary, only for the person. In a way, it is freedom through dispersion. The more available the digital media, the less valuable the media is, even thought the information is priceless."

Permit me to object. When you buy a book the information is yours as much as information can ever be, and the hard-copy makes sure that the information is relatively permanent. It is available for you as well as for all the others who will ever have or read the book, in the present and in the future, as long as the copy "lives". As to digital media the information is often only available while you pay for it and as long as you pay for it. I'm not talking about off-line media like cd's or dvd's here, that may have their own disadvantages, and that are also market-determined as a format; who still remembers the cd-i? But there is more and more a careless tendency to buy information without possessing some local back-up, whether digital or hard copy. At that moment your future library is in the hands of your information provider, whose interests may be completely opposite to yours, and who will permanently calculate the amount of money he can get from your needs. You seem to pay less indeed, until the valve is closed for some reason, even unvoluntary, and then you have nothing left, money gone and no info. This problem is particularly clear in the field of electronic journals, where the hard-copy versions tend to disappear, while at the some time the editor is increasing the price of his journals manyfold each year. Digitalisation is around to stay, so many universities built and manage their own Digital Archives. But each alternative operates on a billion-dollar information market, where the Law seems to support the powerful and the greedy, instead of the bearded idealists in their messy t-shirt. I guess that free circulation of information will be systematically prevented in the future, considering the immense financial interests involved. What is the tendency for the moment? Difficult to say, but the battle has just begun...

"But I do agree with you that a digital book is not as stimulating to read as a physical book. Its actually quite annoying. I only read certain books online because I don't want to go through the hassle of getting to archived books at my old university and only being allowed to look at them in the confines of the storage room. The law library is especially strict about out-letting books. But I did read the last Harry Potter book digitally? and I have to say that it was actually really good to read it online. When I downloaded it, I also downloaded the audiobook and I thought it was actually a good experience. I think that's what digital books have to provide, a benefit above and beyond the traditional physical book to make it worth the choice. In my own case, in a few years I have to purchase a law library. But why should I spend $23,000 on a law library (that honestly is not that thorough for that much money) when I can spend $3000 for a subscription to an online legal database which is there for life, indexed, etc. Just buy a kindle and bring my law library with me. This is an option that I am seriously considering, even though I am very into books... it's just practical."

It may be practical but it is also vulnerable, from the hardware as well as from the software point of view. Let's drop a book and a "kindle" from the same height, let's say five meters or something (this is Europe). The book is only slighty damaged but your expensive kindle is gone, kaputt, foutu, and so is all the information on it, including your multimedia and your notes and addresses and the pics of your kids, or whatever possible with that kind of thing. Oh, just buying the newest model and downloading the information again. But that book on the First Amendment that I needed isn't there anymore?? Sorry sir, we took that out of the package, while nobody was interested and while it does not reflect he current tendency to equal creationism to evolutionary biology... Yes that's all rhetorical, but the flexibility of digital information may also have its risks, while we are able to change and even destroy it faster than ever. The attitude of your law-librarians being just trying to protect what they serve, the solid ground of the printed word...

"I like books as much as the next person, but I like the information more. If it means digitalization to preserve the information, then so be it. People will adapt I suppose."

Books are more than information, plain and simple. They are faithful and trustworthy friends, companions throughout life. Imagine your house without a single book or a single newspaper, just the huge screen of your MONSTER (Massive On-Line Newly-Styled Technological Electronic Resource). Now the Government goes at war, and the two remaining Information Providers are supporting that, digitized information being the easiest to delete or change by just a few key-strokes. Would you still feel as comfortable as with books? People adapt too easily indeed, and their convictions are too easily manipulated. The books to read here are Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury and 1984 by George Orwell. Yes, at least some of my collection I read...

Hello, happy I can still edit. I just wanted to add that a rational investigation could prevent a senseless polarisation in this matter. One could list the advantages as well as the disadvantages of both media (paper and digital), compare the lists and make some general statement. I think the conclusion would be obvious: they are complementary, for the personal use of individuals as well as in a library context. One often hears the term "hybrid" library nowadays, expressing a philosophy that tries to make the best of both worlds, each side adding some value to the other (take the automated catalogue). As an individual (and certainly as a hobbyist) one has more freedom in accentuation than libraries: one can either be a book-nerd or a computer-freak. And of course in all cases the major constraint is the available budget. It's important not to confuse the professional dimension with personal preferences though, and certainly not with prejudices or frustrations. For large personal investments (like your law-library) the investigation must also be extended to analysing your information needs, articulating your general and more specific purposes, etc. Just like in a professional context. Always prepared to help...

The way I multi quote is this way?

1.Click on "quote post"
2.Copy the bracketed heading of the quoted post? so it would be something like (quote=THE QUOTED NAME HERE)
NOTE: I did ( ) parenthesis instead of [ ] brackets because otherwise this would be "quoted"
3.Then put the content you want to address in between that header and the end quote (i.e. [/quote]

So take for example a section of your previous post "The most sensible way would be to determine the factual life-span of each medium, and that may not be so simple"

I quote from that specific post by copying it into a word processor (or the post thing here, copy and paste the header from that post, then copy and paste the section I want to address, and then insert at the end of the section the [/quote].



I usually write all of my responses on word before I post, so this way works best for me. You may or may not like it, so try and see.