This is one of those ones where you absolutely do not need to read them, not even in a "know your enemies" way.
For my sins I have read the Fountainhead and it is bad on almost every level. You would learn more about philosophy from Richard Allen's skinhead novels and the most abstruse post structuralist academics have better plot and characters.
Who would you say you should read in that way?
I guess Pound would be one of these people.I think that’s a good question and probably would be an interesting thread. I’ve not done nearly enough of it (I guess few people who read for pleasure have).
Not exactly enemies but Dworkin and Nietzsche are great writers I don’t agree with.
Also white supremacist stuff - but you need to read it with anti stuff to hand.
I feel I should read Adam Smith, Hayek and all that. But probably won’t.
Joe Muggs’ book on sound system culture. (jk).
... Pound offers a hierarchy of values, in which he gives you a panoramic picture of human history, very much like Griffith’s Intolerance, only in it, Pound shows levels of awareness, levels of civilization, levels of ethics and levels of lack of all these things. And you realize that you have a hierarchy of values too, but you’ve never perfectly articulated it. Every writer gives you a hierarchy of values. But by making this the central theme, Pound makes you face the question, “Will I accept this as the best hierarchy of values?” I can’t, because the guy had a screw loose. Great poet, but a little bit funny in the head at times, trying to synthesize Jefferson, Confucius, Picasso and Mussolini. So what you’ve got to do is struggle with Pound, and create your own hierarchy of values to convince yourself that you grok more than he did...