How should I read philosophy?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » How should I read philosophy? » How should I read philosophy?

How should I read philosophy?
What have you found to be an effective method for yourself?

How should I read philosophy?

eski
<default rank title>

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 27, 2007
Location: Under the Sea

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 126

Posted 09/08/09 - 01:10 PM: Subject: How should I read philosophy?	#1
I've always had a hard time believing I have a thorough understanding of any philosophical work and I think this is due, not to lack of effort, but to an ineffective method of reading. Because of this I figured I'd ask the pros, being you seasoned philosophers, what method you use, or to examine an outline for my new potential method and judge if it's adequate. My old, ineffective method was just to write responses as I slowly maundered through a work(over and over again) and then read commentaries. So here's my new potential method. Feel free to comment on what you would add or take away to make my reading the most effective possible. Steps for complex reading: 1.) Read each paragraph multiple times and write responses/pithy outline. 2.) go over previous chapters more quickly and examine determined understanding of individual paragraphs to see if it fits overall system. 3.) summarize each chapter and see if they fit together (if they don't go back to step 1 or 2) 4.) read commentaries to see if they gathered the same information as me. 5.) Fix my view with a commentators viewpoint if they have a better argument in a given area. 6.) see which parts fit with my personal world view and apply them. (if sanity permits> these following steps as well) 7.) read other translations of the same work, if they exist. (in order to decrease chances of language getting in the way of meaning.) 8.) compare and contrast views acquired from different translations.
gnostiagnostiagnostic- I know that I don't know but I don't know that.

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 968

2 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 09/08/09 - 06:19 PM:	#2
I happen to know that your plan of attack is exactly what Satan requires the people in hell to do on Mondays while waiting their turn to have root canals done without novacaine. And, of course, in hell every day is Monday. The joke on Satan is that after that kind of philosophy assignments, the root canals come as a relief.
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 431

Posted 09/12/09 - 06:48 AM:	#3
Any Greek philosophy should be read in the bath. Seriously, I've found it helps.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 09/12/09 - 08:20 AM:	#4
brainpharte wrote: ... your plan of attack is exactly what Satan requires the people in hell to do on Mondays ... What happens in heaven is that one reads each philosopher sympathetically. The goal is to understand what it is like to look at things in this way, on the assumption that it is in fact more or less consistent and coherent. A little bit of background history, especially history of philosophy is quite helpful in this regard. Beating the poor fellow down paragraph by paragraph tends to lead only to uncomprehending antagonism and unhappiness.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

eski
<default rank title>

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 27, 2007
Location: Under the Sea

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 126

Posted 09/12/09 - 10:42 AM:	#5
brainpharte- haha this made me laugh. It isn't what I would call a fun method, but I don't read philosophy for this purpose. I read it for potential self improvement and enlightenment(for lack of a better word). sheps-What if you're too lazy to go to the library and too cheap to buy it so that you read off your' computer. Dangerousness! unenlightened- What if I read philosophers sympathetically and engaged the text the best I could (background information ect.), but ended up still feeling lost in the woods? So that when I read a book, for example pragmatism, I'll find that I couldn't tell you what the overall argument of the book was or even of a chapter in many instances. Perhaps I should clarify, what I don't mean is that I feel lost in the woods in philosophy itself. As far as philosophy is concerned I'm lost at the bottom of the ocean. What I mean is, I have a very hard time systemizing a work and feeling as though I understand what a given philosopher was on about. (What I mean by systemizing is putting an argument together within a chapter and placing it within the context of the whole work. In other words, fitting the puzzle pieces together within chapters and of chapters within an entire work.) Perhaps the actual problem could be that I'm too slow to acquire the level of understanding I wish to have. The thing is, I'm not the best reader (dyslexic) nor do I have the best memory. Ex: Play a game against me and I'll be asking you what the score is every time I get remotely distracted. I like to think that a good grasp of a given work is possible for me though, perhaps this is wishful thinking, but meh. (by good grasp I mean an understanding I'm satisfied with. I could hardly define this other then to say that I would like to look upon a work and say, "I think I generally got the picture. I'm satisfied, such that if a conversation started up about <insert philosophical work here> I'd know what I was talking about and not be bound to listening.")
gnostiagnostiagnostic- I know that I don't know but I don't know that.

ManiacJack
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: Statosphere, Earth

Total Topics: 78
Total Posts: 1052

Posted 09/12/09 - 11:36 AM:	#6
Read philosophy out loud.
Space Oil Peaked. Will Smuggle Priceless Astral Goods for Ultimate Price.

2Ponder
[Insert witty title here]

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 29, 2008
Location: The space-time continuum

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 09/12/09 - 06:46 PM:	#7
I speak from experience when I say that brainpharte's description of your proposed technique is spot on, eski. I tried the same system with Hobbes' Leviathan awhile ago and found myself contemplating suicide within an hour. I've been there, done that, got the t-shirt. That said, I'm having the same problem you are - I even started a thread on this very forum on the subject; "HOW to Read Philosophy" - and, therefore, have no other tried-and-true solution. Maybe there isn't one. Maybe everyone has their own perfect system (relativism, anyone?). Personally, being a literature student, I'm currently trying to ease my way into understanding philosophy by first getting accustomed to dissecting the arguments of literary critics. Hell, I have to do it for class anyway. My mentality behind it is that reading a work of philosophy is a lot like reading literary criticism, except literary criticism concerns itself with a book (or books) that can be read, while a work of philosophy is about an idea that cannot be reduplicated: The idea appears in the philosophers head, who suddenly screams "Eureka" (or "Werfen sie einen blick auf diese", or what-have-you) and then frantically writes out a treatise explaining the thought. Reading the ensuing philosophical work is a lot like reading a critique on a book that doesn't actually exist, and then trying to understand it. Basically, it's like trying to work your way up the ladder in Plato's Theory of Forms: The philosopher's initial idea would be in the Ideal State, but his work concerning the idea would be, due to the limitations of language, merely a shadow of this Ideal State. Reading this work, we see the shadow of the idea, and try to understand not only what it is, but also what it means, entails, assumes, and describes, all while seeing only the shadow. With this in mind, how well CAN one understand a philosophical argument? P.S. I'm sure I'll wake up tomorrow and re-read this post and see that I just wrote a lot of nothing, but I'm not on a lot of sleep right now, so I feel like I just came up with something incredibly deep and can't help from posting it, despite the high chances of it making me look like a fool in the future.
"Not all who wander are lost."

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 09/12/09 - 09:13 PM:	#8
eski wrote: unenlightened- What if I read philosophers sympathetically and engaged the text the best I could (background information ect.), but ended up still feeling lost in the woods? So that when I read a book, for example pragmatism, I'll find that I couldn't tell you what the overall argument of the book was or even of a chapter in many instances. Perhaps I should clarify, what I don't mean is that I feel lost in the woods in philosophy itself. As far as philosophy is concerned I'm lost at the bottom of the ocean. What I mean is, I have a very hard time *systemizing a work and feeling as though I understand what a given philosopher was on about. I find that 'ism-ising philosophers is rather unhelpful. Questions to ask yourself are "what is this fellow's problem - who is he reacting against - how does this way of looking at things make something easier, or clearer. So, is your pragmatist trying to cut through a historical confusion over the status of knowledge? Is his problem with the foundations of maths, or maybe science? Is he trying to escape from Cartesian dualism, or Humean skepticism? What's bugging him? You won't find the answers very often spelled out in a paragraph, but they will give you the overall shape and thrust of the argument. Why is he insisting on being pragmatic, and how does he be pragmatic in his writing? Edit: In the last resort, you are allowed to say, "This chap makes absolutely no sense to me, and I don't want to try and think like that." Edited by unenlightened on 09/12/09 - 09:27 PM
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

imoet
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 01, 2006

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 9

Posted 09/14/09 - 11:53 PM:	#9
Hah, this is also my problem. 90% of my understanding about philosophy comes from lectures or other people's interpretations. Probably the only book I think I understand fully is "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Ayn Rand. I also found out that, almost all of the non-English speaking pilosopher's books (Kant, Sartre, Camus, etc.) are very hard to understand. Edited by Incision on 09/15/09 - 01:44 PM. Reason: capitalization, spacing

Elston
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 10, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 17

Posted 09/15/09 - 02:14 AM:	#10
My "system" is fairly simple: 1) I casually read the book and decide relatively quickly if I think it's interesting or not. As someone mentioned: reading out loud sometimes helps (I alternate). An interesting book to me is one that conjures an emotional response. Even if I emphatically disagree with the ideas in a book that still means that it is stimulating. The books that numb with boredom are the ones that get tossed. 2) If the ideas interest me I'll read the book more closely with pen and paper - making detailed notes. This I find to be very helpful with retaining the ideas clearly. 3) Discuss the ideas with people. Apply them to your life or to art. Apply them to pop culture or history or human nature. Personally I detest the notion of 'forcing' myself to learn something I don't really care about. Granted, being severe and pushing yourself is important with studying, but I think this is only rewarding if you actually care about what you're reading. I strongly believe that most philosophy I read is garbage and generally a waste of time. And I'd be willing to believe in the mediocrity of philosophy in a dogmatic fashion if I hadn't been humbled (more than once) by realizing I simply misunderstood something. You can also try watching videos on youtube or listening to audiobooks (librivox). Edited by Elston on 09/15/09 - 02:48 AM

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.