HOW to read philosophy: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » HOW to read philosophy » HOW to read philosophy

HOW to read philosophy

Page: 1 2 3

HOW to read philosophy

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2224

Posted 07/04/09 - 11:42 PM:	#11
ManiacJack wrote: Did Caldwell just suggest Socrates and Plato are not only not the starting point, but should be avoided alltogether? er, no. I did not imply that they should be ignored, though Aristotle is a very good starting point. Anyway, you know fishermen swoop up tuna along with the dolphins, no?

Nicu
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 29, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 07/05/09 - 12:20 AM:	#12
2Ponder wrote: Today, I was browsing through the (disappointing) philosophy shelf of my local library, thinking about how interesting all the books looked and how much I wanted to read them. When I pulled one down and opened it, however, my eyes kind of glazed over in a matter of seconds, and I recalled how I'd already taken that book out twice and never gotten past the first paragraph. Then it hit me. I finally discovered the focal point of my love/hate relationship with the world of philosophy: I have no clue how to read a philosophy book. I've taken several philosophy classes (mixed results - 2 'A-'s, a 'B' and 2 'C's), but I've never really known what I was doing in any of them. I pick up the book that I'm supposed to be reading for class, open it, and then find myself waking up several hours later. I'm interested in what the author is trying to say (I keep telling myself), but I just can't read it. A friend of mine told me to 'browse' the book first, get the structure and main points, then come back and read it again to get the details. When I tried it, however, I got confused the first time through and tried delving into the text to get a better understanding, and I was suddenly no longer 'browsing', though I was still confused. Someone else told me to highlight without mercy, write anything that came to mind in the margins, and deconstruct every paragraph for its meaning as I encountered it. I tried that on Hobbes' "Leviathan", almost destroyed the book, and after 90 minutes was nearly crying. The only method that I've tried that remotely works is to simply read the same text again and again and again until I understand what's going on. I used it to great effect for my Intro. to Philosophy class in school, but we were only reading short texts, like Plato's "Apology", so the method worked. With longer works, like the ones encountered in more advanced classes, there just isn't the time to read "Critique of Pure Reason" 5 times in a semester, let alone 3 weeks. I just don't understand how I can tear up the colonial motifs of Shakespeare plays, write excellent essays on the parallels between T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land" and Picasso paintings, and point out subtle similarities between contemporary Irish drama and Beowulf, but can't even get through a damn philosophy essay that's more than 30 pages or written by Kant. Are there any other methods out there for reading philosophy? Philosophy Study Guide - http://www.philosophypages.com/sy.htm

2Ponder
[Insert witty title here]

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

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 11

Posted 07/07/09 - 10:40 AM:	#13
Thanks for all the input! It sounds like the general consensus is that, with practice, reading philosophy becomes easier over time; I guess I just have to keep plugging away at it and get used to it.
"Not all who wander are lost."

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 5574

Posted 07/07/09 - 12:54 PM:	#14
Yes, you are right. I like Caldwell's advice, locate the work you are reading on the map of philosophy. Since it is a big map, look at the course materials. What were the courses in and what thinker did you think interesting? Start from there because you already have some background. You mentioned this: I just don't understand how I can tear up the colonial motifs of Shakespeare plays, write excellent essays on the parallels between T.S. Elliot's "The Waste Land" and Picasso paintings, and point out subtle similarities between contemporary Irish drama and Beowulf, but can't even get through a damn philosophy essay that's more than 30 pages or written by Kant. Every science, literature and philosophy have a certain discourse, a way of presenting their thoughts. Philosophy is a large field so many thinkers have their own terms and key words, ideas they feel are important and around which many of their thoughts centre. These are quite outlandish at first because indeed philosophy is difficult. They are very meticulously petering out the concepts we use for thinking and for making arguments. So the reason why you have no trouble with comparative literature, but have with philosophy is because you are as yet unfamiliar with the language they use and the core concepts of the thinkers and perhaps even of philosophy itself. Every beginning is hard but you will get there, when all of a sudden Kant clicks together with Descartes and than with Hegel and Schopenhauer and suddenly you know where Nietzsche comes from, but hey isn't Foucault, albeit differently, not busy with the same stuff? And so on. I remember my first phil course was about Wittgenstein. Together with a friend we puzzled an hour about two pages of the Tractatus. And later when I completed my M.A, in phil I started a promotion, it was about Hegel. I spend a good half an hour on three pages of an introductory book to his thought ... I thought no way, but in time you get there and feel you know the subtle differences between being for itself, in itself, being there and being as itself And then later on you realise that it also depends on context what they mean, but hey about that time it is still very tough going, but than you know where it is all coming from and know your way around a little. Edited by Caldwell on 07/09/09 - 12:06 AM. Reason: spelling
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

philogos
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 05, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 07/14/09 - 08:20 AM:	#15
One way to approaching philosophical texts, especially if they're classics, is to: a) access an adequate introduction (abstracts, cultural background, influences, thematic outline). b) get your hands on a relevant glossary, encyclopedia, and dictionary (terminology and conceptual vocabulary). c) locate a number of critical commentaries and secondary literature (analyses, interpretations, critiques). d) you can then use this information to construct a framework for your reading of the text. e) in the initial reading you want to annotate the questions and problems that come up for you. f) a critical part of the reading involves summarizing or paraphrasing - you want to actively interpret and translate as you read to see where the gaps in understanding might be, and to consolidate recall of key passages. g) on your second pass through the text, once you have a general grasp of the structure and movement of the key arguments, you could conduct a more rigorous analysis. h) taking the information and actively ordering it into expository form would be recommended. Formulate an essay, powerpoint, video, present it to a friend, whatever, the key is to communicate your understanding of the text, in as much or little detail as needed. If you simply want to ace a test, this is probably going to be overkill. However, if your goal is to arrive at a deep, visceral understanding, something along what I suggested could be used.

John Kievlan
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 05, 2006

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 21

Posted 07/14/09 - 03:08 PM:	#16
2Ponder wrote: I'm interested in what the author is trying to say (I keep telling myself), but I just can't read it. A friend of mine told me to 'browse' the book first, get the structure and main points, then come back and read it again to get the details. When I tried it, however, I got confused the first time through and tried delving into the text to get a better understanding, and I was suddenly no longer 'browsing', though I was still confused. Someone else told me to highlight without mercy, write anything that came to mind in the margins, and deconstruct every paragraph for its meaning as I encountered it. I tried that on Hobbes' "Leviathan", almost destroyed the book, and after 90 minutes was nearly crying. I'm not you, so I can't be sure what exactly causes the eye-glazing, but I suspect you simply get very quickly to a point where it's just meaningless words that look suspiciously like "z-z-z-z-z"... My advice to you is to slow down. I know, you're looking at a long, difficult book so slowing down seems counterproductive. However, the thing about philosophy is that good philosophy isn't telling a story (like most books) so much as building a logical edifice, brick-by-brick. Each sentence depends precisely and logically on the sequence of preceding sentences and the ideas they have built. If you didn't understand (or just slightly misunderstood) sentence 5, then sentence 6 won't make much sense and by 8 or 9 you'll be totally lost and just desperately scanning it for broad ideas that make sense (a very bad way to read philosophy). So when you open the book, read the first sentence and really think about it. Understand the precise definition of every word (if you don't know what a word means, don't guess -- look it up). Make sure you see what the author is getting at in that sentence, and then move on to the next. If the next one doesn't quite seem to jive with the first, stop and figure out where the problem lies -- in your understanding of the first, or the second sentence. As you move deeper into the text you'll find your stride, because you'll be able to have confidence in your understanding of past sentences due to the fact that they've fit in perfectly with your understanding of all the other past sentences. Then you just have to worry about fitting new statements into the logical edifice you and the author are building together. If the logic starts to seem shaky, don't panic -- just back up a little and find out where you lost the thread, and then continue on. Don't be surprised if you have to re-read some paragraphs ten or twenty times before you're ready to move on. Don't let your disagreement with any of the author's statements prevent you from carrying on the building project, either: the objective here is to follow the author as he constructs his own understanding, so you really get the details and nuances of his ideas. Afterwards, you can critique it with intelligence P.S. Don't forget -- if you hit a passage you just can't understand no matter how hard you try, your philosophy professor is probably more than happy to explain it to you. Philosophy professors like to talk philosophy

enl1ghtened
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 20

Posted 07/16/09 - 08:30 PM:	#17
Philosophy is best understood through applying metaphor. Each object has a purpose. Find its purpose. Disect its function. Apply it to thought. The more we actually understand the world the more we actually understand ourselves. The world is full of spectrums and platforms, each supported by another below. Consciousness supported by the physical. Do not be afraid to think distantly, but when you find a thought do your best to break it down and find error in it. Learning to accept the world in its actual state is learning to accept yourself and your position within it.

karma.berlin
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 17, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 07/17/09 - 04:44 AM:	#18
Hi there, although I am studying philosophy in germany AND actually being german myself I am of the opinion that Kant , especially the serveral critiques are probably one of the most dificult choices one can make in reading philosophy (not only as a beginner !!!!)If you like to read Kant, why not start with a short essay like the "heavenly peace"? @sqeeco: really a great recommandation! I read the "Symposion" atschool firstly (nearly ten years ago), and it's one of my feavorites 'til today! In germany, there are a lot of, let's say, "pop-philosophers" writing bestsellers about introductions into philosophy now, but I would say, that the "Symposion" is a thousand times more exciting to read than every single book that these folks wrote. To the problem of reading: I would recommend to read a short introduction first, than browse the text or a short paragraph for the keywords (e.g. "eudamonia" for Aristotele's Nichomachean Ethics or terms like "reason " or "a priori" for Kants critiques). Try to understand these keywords first (=words, which are mentioned quite often or just seeme to by important in any way)first (feel free to consult a dictionary, an introduction or the internet - most of the time, keywords are more understandable if you have a look at them in the original language (e.g. the term "luck" is not an aeqivalent translation for "eudamonia" ! Knowing the ancient greek term and its use is half the way to understnding, even if you are not speeking the whole language!!! ).), THEN you should actually read the artical for the first time Afterwards, I wouldsay, the reading never stops - for understanding philosophy is a process which needs time and effort. E.g, a few years ago,I read Wittgenstein's "Philosophical investigations" for the first time and found it not only understandable but really easy (!). Years later, I am quite ashamed of my first opinion, because am thinking now, that I am just getting starting to gain insight into Wittgnsteins thinking....! Edited by karma.berlin on 07/17/09 - 04:50 AM

ElMarsh
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 21, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 0

Posted 07/21/09 - 03:15 PM:	#19
I sympathize with what you're saying - although I don't seem to have an issue with the more contemporary philosophers. The only thing that gets me is the absolutely obsolete and antiquated style of writing that some of the Early Modern philosophers use to write their 600 page essays. I would they would also tell us, what those ideas are... - Locke

Arsonade
Process Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 22, 2008
Location: New York City

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 32

Posted 07/28/09 - 04:03 PM:	#20
It seems you may have already tried something like this, so take this comment for what it's worth, but I always find that 'text crawling' or 'exposition de text' works best for me, and I've had extremely similar problems (also, you're trying to read Kant, one of my favorite little factoids about that book is that before he published it he sent it to a colleague of his, very educated, who replied that he had to stop reading half way through for fear of losing his mind. If anyone takes serious work to decipher, it's that. One way of looking at it is to think of the book as a puzzle or a code, come at it the same way you might come at a particularly difficult crossword or sudoku, Kant is trying to mess you up! Show him up at it :o)). Another positive thing that I've noticed is that if you keep at this (starting with easier and shorter books), every time, I notice that I get the 'hang' of the writing faster and faster until books that used to put me right to sleep and confuse the hell out of me, now seem like casual, fun reading, doing this over and over again makes you faster and more proficient in not only philosophy reading, but arguing, and writing, before you know it you may start writing like these men, and I can't be held responsible for your grades if that happens (seriously! how did Heidegger pass an English class?(answer: he was German)). :o) The whole thing does take discipline, sometimes you may find yourself not wanting to read, but you sort have to have a bit of faith that these canonical philosophers are canon usually because of the fact that when the text is deciphered, the ideas are well worth the work. Whitehead calls this an 'adventure in thought' and it feels like one. So my basic suggestion is to stick with text crawling, going through line by line, finding as many meanings as you can for words, and remembering them, or writing them down, look at every confusing line as a puzzle waiting to be solved, draw any connections you can to other ideas in other works and jot them down in the margins to remind yourself when you look through, develop a system of underlining, a ledgend, simple underlining to grab your attention, boxed underlining (drawing a box around the text in question) for essential ideas, stars of varying size meant to direct you towards parts of the text. That sort of thing. I have one more suggestion, this works for me, but I've been told it doesn't for a great deal. If you're in college, in all likelyhood you can find an abandoned classroom where nothing is going on, once in a while, find an unused classroom, get some chalk, and teach to a room of desks. draw diagrams, think of objections the 'students' might have, this forces you to say everything out loud, it makes it such that you understand the idea in question to the extent that you can adequately explain it to anyone. A little crazy, but it works for me. Hope I've helped. Good luck, we were all there once. -Adam Edited by Incision on 07/30/09 - 06:19 PM. Reason: capitalization, punctuation
-Ralph Waldo Emerson "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." He said ironically...

Page: 1 2 3

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