Reading old books is advice given by Professor Steven Smith at the
conclusion of Yale lecture series PLSC 114: Introduction to Political
Philosophy. [1] It is also advice repeated by someone prominent like
Snowden (I recall vaguely) in answer to the question of intellectual
self-defence in an age of shallow wilful deceit.<p>Obscure books have a magnetism so I collect and read them. I love
wandering through those "bookstores" (which are really private
collections with a public storefront) in York, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and
Oxford, and finding titles that are unthinkable to the modern mind,
and which evoke a highly spiritual sense that mixes revelation,
melancholy, wonder and an excited sense of the forbidden (I am sure
many a hacker can relate to this).<p>Most can be bought for a few quid and I generally read only a little
of each, but keep its title/contents in mind as a reference for
inspiration. Note for insatiable progressives: minus the fire hazard a
good bookshelf provides decent thermal insulation and pleasant
acoustics, even if you can't read anything unless it's on a
screen. Just reaching out to a shelf now I find:<p>"The riddle of the universe: Being an attempt to determine the first
principles of metaphysic, considered as an inquiry into the conditions
and import of consciousness by Edward Douglas Fawcett, London 1893.
It's got a strange marbled cover and smells of time-travel.<p>I paid 2 bucks for it. If nothing else it contains one of the most
original takes on Idealism , Shelling and Hegel, and a delightful
"Criticism of Critique" which would make anyone who likes to denounce
post-modernism feel like they'd been handed a light-sabre.<p>[1] <a href="https://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/plsc-114/lecture-1" rel="nofollow">https://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/plsc-114/lecture-1</a>
Interesting choice of Victorian occult fluffery. The author of the piece <i>does</i> describe it as fantasy, but it's responsible for a whole host of exciting real-world madness in the 20th century and afterwards.<p>It's important to recognise that until the internet made it much easier for people to discuss ideas and find counterarguments, there were large numbers of people floating around claiming that the contents of these books were not only beyond reproach, but that <insert group invented in the 20th century> was an unbroken descendant of one of the mythical groups invented by Victorian pseudohistorians.
I share a similar fascination/interest in unusual books. I am currently in the process of collecting all the books on Autogenic Training written in my native language. There is a formidable wealth of knowledge that would otherwise not even be lost, but never acknowledged. These books are out of print and can be found in online marketplaces or some bookstores that deal in used books. I'm not interested in first editions or collectibles at all, just the information in the book.<p>Previously, my interest was in 19th century bodybuilding and strength training books, along with WWI special forces diaries. It certainly contributed to my enjoyment of life and a certain, unusual way of looking at things (although the direction of causality can go both ways).
One day I mean to get around to reading "The Anatomy of Melancholy" by Robert Burton:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anatomy_of_Melancholy" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anatomy_of_Melancholy</a>
The author of the article seems to show more "curiosity" than "interest". What is "weird" is to join approaches and topics out of contexts ("I read many fitness books today, it's entertaining").
Any non-fictions in the list except Oliver Sacks’s “Hallucinations”? The list lacks for some descriptions and IMO any fiction book just don't deserves to be called "unusual".