It is necessary to read, as indicated by the same Griboyedov, "with feeling, with a sense, with an arrangement", and this is true in relation not only to the reading technique, but also to its process in a global sense. A rare case when you can read everything, like Pliny the Elder, who not only read, but also made extracts, saying that there is no such bad book that at least was not useful in any way (his nephew Pliny the Younger: Epist. , III, 5, 10). If you are not Pliny and do not intend to write a new "Natural History" in 37 books, then it is better to follow the advice of Seneca, who, condemning the reading of many books, said: "He who is everywhere is nowhere" (Epist., 2, 2) and " what matters is not how many books you have, what matters is how good they are ”(Epist., 45, 1). If you read madly and uselessly, you will get about the same thing that happened to the pastor - the hero of the tale of the gallant soldier Schweik:
“... In his old age, this abbot began to study Saint Augustine, who is considered to be the holy fathers of the church. He read there that everyone who believes in antipodes is subject to damnation. He called his maidservant and said: "Listen, you once told me that you have a son, a mechanic, and that he left for Australia. If so, then he, then, became an antipode, and St. Augustine commands curse everyone who believes in the existence of antipodes. "-" Father, "the woman answers him," after all, my son sends me both letters and money. " no Australia exists. It is the Antichrist that seduces you. " On Sunday, he publicly cursed her in the church and shouted that there was no Australia. Well, they took him straight from the church to an insane asylum. ”
Yaroslav Hasek. Adventures of the gallant soldier Švejk. Per. P.G. Bogatyrev.
The brain definitely cannot bear it. At least in the popular sense of the word. But grief from the mind, alas, really exists. The main reason is that books make a person think, critically look at the world. The better someone is able to analyze what is happening (and books develop this skill), the more he understands imperfection, rather even the abomination and hypocrisy of the world and people around them. With this kind of awareness, despondency comes.
Yes, it is generally difficult for smart people. Well, imagine a stupid person (just stupid, not stupid) and a smart person, living in equally disgusting conditions. An intelligent person knows that there are much better conditions, that his life is terrible and unhappy. A dumb person simply does not realize this. For him, the conditions in which he lives are natural and often seem to be the only true ones. And which of them is happier in the end?
Here, in general, you can argue for a long time. It cannot be said that the mind downright makes people unhappy, but it lays in them a feeling of awareness of their own imperfection, inferiority, and at the same time the desire to get as close as possible to the ideal, to do something great, to understand everything that is possible and impossible. p>
So I'll say this: if you want to be happy - to hell with your mind. But if you are ready to spend your whole life in search, accumulating knowledge and constantly wanting to know even more - on a good journey.
The myth that after reading many books you can go crazy is most likely invented by people who have read only one book in their entire life (we will not specify which one). For example, to develop speed reading skills, you need to read 10 books a day, and then you get hooked on this business and, after reading your home bookcase, you start robbing electronic libraries.
The classic work of Griboyedov really reveals the depravity of a noble society of that time. However, this is just a way to convey the meaning of an expression, which has much more facets.
Woe from the mind is such a negative state that is associated with the level of intelligence and the knowledge available. Excessive values of these values are most often implied. Close to this expression is another phrase: "The less you know - you sleep better", indeed, knowledge sometimes hurts and gives more difficulties than ignorance.
Now let's figure out what it means to "take out the brain." The most frequent meaning of this phrase is the appearance of difficulties in contact with reality due to changes in the processes of interaction with incoming information, however, this is not about organic changes in the brain (or the central nervous system as a whole), but about a state of overload of consciousness (intellectual or emotional, and maybe together).
As for reading "multi-books" and the likelihood of the brain being removed after. Based on my own experience and the experience of the majority of conscientious students in our world, I will answer - a very high probability. A classic example is the projection of medical students of various studied symptoms onto themselves, a similar problem for students of psychology, one need not speak about philosophers.
In general, similar situations occur in any area, with the only difference in how exactly a consequence of the overload of our consciousness with new information appears. Over time, this goes away, as soon as the knowledge gained is "assimilated" and already become part of our consciousness.
In the future, the study of a large amount of scientific information (including through books) can destroy some "romanticism" in ideas about the world. A person who is accustomed to face facts, to trust only data obtained empirically in reliable research, can begin to think pragmatically, neglecting his own emotions and feelings, or maybe completely forgetting about them.
Over the years, your scientific worldview will become less flexible, established. You will be a prominent conservative scientist who, due to the abundance of his own knowledge in a particular field, will not be able to accept the progressive position of a young graduate student and will retire.
Yes, "grief from wits" can arise from reading. " multibooks ". But if you approach this issue more consciously, critically examining all the information that comes your way, realizing that in communicating with people, pragmatism often interferes, rather than contributes, then you will rather be happy in your exploration of the world than bogged down in intellectual melancholy .
It's not how many you read them, but how you read them and what you do about it later. Sergei Povarnin wrote well about this ("How to read books"). Thoughtful reading, understanding the place of an artistic work in literature / the purpose of reading a scientific book will never harm. The drunken "swallowing" of books is likely to weaken attentiveness and make such a reader a stupid dreamer (there are smart dreamers who understand what can be done with their dream, and not just hate the system in a warm entrance).
There is no risk of brain blowout, don't worry. Although it is not insignificant what to read - there is an opinion that some books do "endure". In the old days, there may have been some kind of correlation between reading books and mental disabilities, but it's not about causation, of course. It's just that sociopathic psychological disorders led to the need to replace communication with books - now there are simpler substitutes for society (the Internet, etc.), so even this correlation should have come to naught.
True, it is not entirely clear why this is a reference to this work: no one could take out the brain there: the speech in the work is that with the development of the brain such qualities as self-esteem and self-esteem come, which "interfere" with a person in a society where honor, nepotism is widespread and even praised and ignorance.