The Lindy Effect[1] is a good answer to this question. In a sort of pseudo-evolutionary way, timeless ideas have a way of persisting because they are well-adapted for consumption no matter what the cultural milieu. There is, of course, survivorship bias to take into consideration, but I think this is a useful heuristic.
Not that I believe you shouldn’t read new books (because you should sometimes) but that would be a more interesting question: “Why should you read new books?” Because given the half-life of information/facts/data, it’s a risky proposition from a opportunity cost standpoint. You’re basically hoping the book becomes a classic — and therefore it has staying usefulness and that answers the original question on why you should read classics — or you simply what to be plugged into the zeitgeist for networking or other reasons.
Unrelated, I am always fascinated by classics, especially ones from antiquity, because they really demonstrate how very little we’ve changed as a species. The problems facing Seneca or Cicero and the questions they asked themselves aren’t all that different from the ones we have today.
Not that I believe you shouldn’t read new books (because you should sometimes) but that would be a more interesting question: “Why should you read new books?” Because given the half-life of information/facts/data, it’s a risky proposition from a opportunity cost standpoint. You’re basically hoping the book becomes a classic — and therefore it has staying usefulness and that answers the original question on why you should read classics — or you simply what to be plugged into the zeitgeist for networking or other reasons.
Unrelated, I am always fascinated by classics, especially ones from antiquity, because they really demonstrate how very little we’ve changed as a species. The problems facing Seneca or Cicero and the questions they asked themselves aren’t all that different from the ones we have today.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect