Is there really a "wrong time" to see the world?

"A danger of travel is that we may see things at the wrong time, before we have had an opportunity to build up the necessary receptivity so that new information is as useless and fugitive as necklace beads without a connecting chain. The risk is compounded by geography in the way that cities contain buildings or monuments that may only be a few feet apart in space but are leagues apart in terms of what is required to appreciate them. Having made a journey to a place we may never revisit, we feel obliged to admire a sequence of things which have no connection to one another besides a geographic one..."


I disagree with de Botton a bit here. I would not consider this a "danger". I don't think a lack of such "receptivity" would leave a traveler in mass confusion or with a less valuable experience.
There is just a different experience. If you knew absolutely nothing about a place that you were visiting, would it not be just like visiting an alien planet? Would that be a worthless experience?

Personally, I find the juxtaposition of different structures from different time periods to be beautiful and something that is certainly unique to every individual place. Even though I may not have extensive knowledge on everything that I come across, I don't feel that what I'm retaining is "useless". It's concepts and ideas of places that fascinate me the most.

A few days ago I climbed the Strasbourg Cathedral, which I find to be the most impressive landmark in the city. I know a little of its history, but thinking back, I don't think a complete lack of knowledge would have made the experience any less. A lot of what surrounds the cathedral is hundreds of years younger, but that does not take away from the ability to admire it all as a whole. It's amazing and admirable in itself that these "unlike" things are able to coexist and form the identity of a city.
For example, one of the most surprising sights from the top of the cathedral was the European Parliament building, strikingly different in style from all else that was visible. It was a nice reminder of what Europe is today as opposed to when the structure that I was standing on was brand new. However, they both equally are a part of Strasbourg, and I think that's something to reflect on.

This leads me to de Botton's dismissal of the significance of geographical relations. I believe that the "geographic connection" of things has significance. The "geographic connection" of anything is worth interpreting and analyzing. There's reason and purpose for why things are located as they are. It's the questioning of this, and not the dismissal, that gives people a reason to truly appreciate places and landmarks when travelling.

-Maria