[Wellsy]

And is this a problem if so?

I was thinking of how Jordan Peterson is criticized as not having engaged with Marx beyond the communist manifesto and thus has criticisms that entirely miss points in his other works.

Or how Louis Althusser latter denounced his expertise in Marx and claimed limited reading of his works.

And I also think how a modern biology student would get Darwin’s theory of natural selection second hand because why read the original?

Is there a lot lf nuance lost when academics and students don’t read original works? Or are quick summaries fine? It allows breadth over depth for practical convenience.

[Rancid]

And is this a problem if so?

I was thinking of how Jordan Peterson is criticized as not having engaged with Marx beyond the communist manifesto and thus has criticisms that entirely miss points in his other works.

Or how Louis Althusser latter denounced his expertise in Marx and claimed limited reading of his works.

And I also think how a modern biology student would get Darwin’s theory of natural selection second hand because why read the original?

Is there a lot lf nuance lost when academics and students don’t read original works? Or are quick summaries fine? It allows breadth over depth for practical convenience.

It matters in many cases, and doesn't in many others.

If you want to critique something, then you most definitely should be reading the original text. You should also be reading up about the cultural and historical landscape when the original text was written as well. If you just using some of the original points to spring board you own work, then I guess it's ok?