How important is our reading as the foundation for philosophical explorations?
I am raising this question because I was looking at answers in threads which I created and observed such a mixture of people coming from the basis of their reading of others' ideas from reading, and those based on the person's own thoughts. I realise that both are important but I do see it as a tension. I think that reading is extremely important, and keep finding more and more to read as I go along, paper books and ebooks.
We have so much possible access to knowledge, especially in the age of the internet. Personally, I go online for a certain amount of information and research, but I prefer reading books. I like to read the ideas of thinkers from ancient times to the present in philosophy, and in other disciplines. However, I try to stand back and think independently too, as I am sure that most people on this site do. There may be some who prefer to think for themselves mostly, and this probably has some advantages too. Definitely, some people probably spend a lot more time reading than others. Of course, even participating on this forum is an aspect of reading, but it is interactive.
There are people who place different degrees of emphasis on reading and I think that it is probably about getting the right balance. While I am in favour of as doing as much reading as possible, to widen the scope of my understanding, it may be possible to become so immersed in the ideas of others that we may start to drown our own individual voices. So, I am asking people what they think about this, and how they find the right balance for themselves. How can we improve our approaches to our reading to make it a solid basis for our philosophical adventures and investigations?
We have so much possible access to knowledge, especially in the age of the internet. Personally, I go online for a certain amount of information and research, but I prefer reading books. I like to read the ideas of thinkers from ancient times to the present in philosophy, and in other disciplines. However, I try to stand back and think independently too, as I am sure that most people on this site do. There may be some who prefer to think for themselves mostly, and this probably has some advantages too. Definitely, some people probably spend a lot more time reading than others. Of course, even participating on this forum is an aspect of reading, but it is interactive.
There are people who place different degrees of emphasis on reading and I think that it is probably about getting the right balance. While I am in favour of as doing as much reading as possible, to widen the scope of my understanding, it may be possible to become so immersed in the ideas of others that we may start to drown our own individual voices. So, I am asking people what they think about this, and how they find the right balance for themselves. How can we improve our approaches to our reading to make it a solid basis for our philosophical adventures and investigations?
Comments (119)
I like to think of this in terms of the story: "Alice in Wonderland" and the question: "How deep does this rabbit hole go?" The more I (and maybe you) seem to learn (from reading), is the more questions that pop-up. There may be no end to it.
I like your idea of how the reading pursuit can sometimes become'frantic and promiscuous'. I often go out reading alone, having dates with my books. Being able to remember books, and process books is important and it is not easy. Sometimes, I find it best to read a book quickly and read it again more slowly. I definitely find that my concentration varies, but I find that I can concentrate on reading more than most practical tasks. I rarely write notes on books I am reading. I do feel that discussions which I have on this forum makes them come more to life so much more than when I do not converse with others about the ideas which I have read.
I agree! But, doesn't that create a "bias" to what you already believe? Does that bias keep one from having an open-mind? So, which is more important - an open mind, or bias-conformation?
It is a bit like unwinding spirals, a constant search for treasures. I definitely feel that one area opens up so many more. The more I engage on this forum seems to leave me with new topics to think about and further avenues for reading. I have so many books to read and I often wonder about spending more time reading them rather than on this forum. The only problem which I end up with is that the reading life can be so lonely, because most of the people who I interact with on a daily basis read hardly at all, and definitely not philosophy books.
That may be because they (and you) might be biased to what they already believe - which I just posted to Tom Storm.
I am sure that it is true that we all come from biases in what we think and read. I am wishing to explore as widely but in doing so, it is easy to become lost. To just pursue all ideas without a commitment to any particular set of ideas could lead to a relativistic approach to knowledge.
I am inclined to be able to enter into the world picture of many thinkers, to the point where I can be swayed to the viewpoint, for some time. But, after a while I usually gravitate back to my former perspective, but probably it takes some really powerful thinker to lead me to longer term shifts. But, generally it probably involves seeing from different positions, as you speak of in many of your posts and threads, the wide and narrow, short and longer frames of reference. I believe this applies to our reading lives as much as any other aspects of thinking.
I just thought that in relation to your own questions, in connection to this one, we are probably all slightly different in the way in which we take in information. You are interested in the relationship between the eye and the brain, which is about processing information. I think that some people are more orientated towards sound, or possibly sound in conjunction with images. I know that some people find it far easier to watch television than read books. On the other hand, I know that I find it extremely difficult to concentrate on television, whereas I could spend all day reading and writing.
Again, I'll bring out one of my favorite quotes from Franz Kafka:
It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet.
The world is right there for us to see. It's not hiding. We don't necessarily need other people to show us the way. I carry a model of the world around inside me - Whatever was there before I was born plus 69 years of experience, learning, reading, thinking, watching... When a question comes up, it's the model I go to for answers.
That's not to say reading and learning isn't important. I have ideas about how the world works that are wrong, either because I don't have the right information or because I've come to the wrong conclusions. There are also lots of aspects of the world I don't know about. And then there are issues I haven't thought through.
As for reading philosophy, I find that most of it leaves me empty. The experiences and understandings that Kant, Plato, Schopenhauer, and all those guys write about are not the experiences and understandings I have. They take something I see as pretty simple and make it much more convoluted. On the other hand, Lao Tzu speaks to me in a profound way - the universe in 81 verses and 5,000 words.
I think that we are probably best going for the authors which speak to us. I remember being on courses and having to read certain texts could be complete drudgery. In English literature at school, I had to read certain classics, some of which I could not relate to at the time. It put me off reading any novels for a few years and I only found my way back into fiction through reading cult fiction writers, like Irving Welsh and Philip K Dick, but, at some stage, I got round to more classical writers, including Jane Austen, who I detested when I had to read her for exams.
I don't really think that ideas are hidden, although at one point I noticed the amount of non fiction books on my shelf that had titles including the word 'secret'. I think that there is a danger of looking for answers in books entirel, when it is in front of us. I don't believe that our eyes are served well by staring at printed pages or computer screens constantly.
I sometimes feel that I should be reading Kant and Schopenhauer, and I have read portions of their writings. When I do read the philosophers I try to do so as if I was meeting them as individuals, as great minds to learn from. We can meet them without going out, but I try not to stay indoors. But, whether we stay inside or go out, read others' ideas or not, we are still alone with our own thoughts really, trying to sense of the world and how it all works.
Yes, it does create a lop-sided education. The effects this has on the reader will vary. I'm not sure may people aspire towards an open mind. I also suspect that often the mind is partially closed before the reading even begins. But I am a pessimist.
Hence my enacted preference for threads based on an explicit text.
If you don't read, you know fuck all.
I must have hit a nerve. If you are so well read then why don't you actually engage me in that thread? Put me in my place, maybe?
I don't know, despite that ToothyMaw seems to have thought that Antifa was going to invade the suburbs was bona fide news in the wayback when Trump was in office, I do kind of feel like a university-level education ought not to be requisite for someone to voice their opinion on the internet.
Unless one need a university education now in order to be able to read...?
Quoting Jack Cummins
In our encounters regarding books we both have read, what counts as a "person's own thoughts" shows up in the different representations of what was said to be said in the books. That sort of thing is often counted as "interpretation" but sometimes it seems different people are reading entirely different texts.
I read more or less as my work life permits. That changing condition has given me different ways to read. Is it a specification, a menu, a joke, or a poem? The words strike differently at different times.
I have read a number of books many times over several decades. So, that sense of familiarity and expectation prompts me to listen without having to reproduce it somehow. But the experience has also made me less certain about what is going on. It is still alive.
Obviously, you don't, but I also that there's a certain absurdity of expectations within conversation as to what a person could have reasonably read. To hold a good conversation about necropolitics, you would have to have read the book of the same title by Achille Mbembe. Though a good author to recommend, it would be absurd in most political conversations to expect for the other party to have read Necropolitics. It seems fairly often to be the case to me, especially in online forums, for people to be referred to a list of books to read so as to understand this concept or another without just simply giving them a succinct explanation of it.
It depends on the conversation, I guess.
I agree. So, should we read anyway?
Reading serious philosophy is hard work. So you have to push yourself to do it, it's like training. Academic training can be useful in that it makes you articulate your thoughts and consider objections and different points of view.
The other thing is to read thematically and synoptically. Philosophical literature is so vast in extent that you could read full-time and barely scratch the surface. Find some key themes or ideas and explore them through the history of ideas. Reading synoptically means reading the better secondary sources, especially useful for extremely complex works like Kant's. They will often provide an overview of the structure and intentions of a work which makes it much easier to comprehend.
I was in one Sydney's excellent bookstores about 10 years ago and overheard a conversation between someone apparently a lecturer in philosophy and a student. Whoever this guy was, he was extremely knowledgeable with an extraordinarily melliflous voice and an amazing lexicon. He said, during the course of the conversation, and somewhat tongue-in-cheek, 'the Greeks, the Medievals, the Germans - that's all you have to know, the rest is rubbish!' :-) Obviously a polemical point, but there's something in the idea that Western philosophy is 'footnotes to Plato'. I'm painfully aware of my lack of grounding in the Classics, but am gradually remedying that - at least as you say we have unlimited access to the actual texts nowadays.
So - read seriously, synoptically, and thematically, get a feel for the history of ideas, and don't neglect Plato. That would be my advice.
Big question. I am no authority on this. I find it hard to read these days - I get bored easily and I am too old for hard work. Plus I am not really looking for anything.
I have an old fashioned view that younger people should try to get in a good survey of what's out there (including early fiction) just to expose themselves to ideas they might not encounter in ordinary life. I've never seen wide reading do harm. But I have met many a dull monomaniac who has only read in the area of their worldview -spirituality/politics/science/psychology.
I really like this statement.It is a good reason for reading even though one may not want to do it at the time.Quoting Wayfarer
Does this say anything about the bias he may have had at the time of his conversation?
I see what you're saying, and do, in part, agree, but am not sure that that sort of thing can be avoided here.
Being said, and this is less common here, in casual conversation on, let's say, r/Anarchism, it does become the case that a person has a basic question about Anarchism, like, "Is a global revolution even possible?", before being referred to a series of texts that will take them months, if not years, to read before ever being able to respond within the conversation.
I’m here as an alternative to university - I came in with a ‘philosophy’ that has developed and changed and is finding a place in the wider philosophical context. I’ve had to do a lot of reading along the way, and come face to face with my own ignorance more than a few times.
Quoting Wayfarer
I have found all of this to be very helpful advice. I think we need to be prepared to have our ideas challenged when we read, and to relish it. Reading only those works with which we think we’d agree only trains us to be ignorant. We can be quite protective of our own thoughts when we read.
One thing I’ve learned from my reading is that many of the most influential philosophers throughout history have one or both of two interesting characteristics: they are notoriously difficult to understand, and/or their philosophical position is far from static. This has been a comfort for me.
I am going to ignore your insult so as to further expostulate.
To use Anarchism as an example. Even were you to cite a widely read text, let's say Mutual Aid, were you to cite a particular passage from that text, one that was not often cited, you couldn't reasonably expect for the other parties, even assuming that most of them have read it, to remember it well enough to hold a detailed conversation about it. Despite this, it is quite often the case that a person claims some sort of intellectual superiority because of a lack of knowledge of some particular reference or another.
If you would like to talk about that particular passage, you could cite it in the original post and post either a section of it or a link to the entire thing. If you would like to cite it as evidence, you can do more or less the same thing. In a casual conversation about Anarchism, despite that Mutual Aid is a widely circulated text, it wouldn't be fair to cite a relatively obscure passage from it as evidence of another person's ignorance. I'm not saying that this sort of thing is too common here; I'm just saying that it's common enough online to note.
To apply this metaphor to Philosophy, I, for instance, haven't read The Phenomenology of the Spirit. I have, however, read Being and Nothingness. In Being and Nothingness, Jean-Paul Sartre references The Phenomenology of Spirit. To understand those particular passages well enough to make arguments about them at the graduate level, you do need to read The Phenomenology of Spirit. To gain a general understanding of Being and Nothingness, you do not. To understand the concept of false consciousness, you kind of only really need to read the Wikipedia page on it. In a passing conversation on false consciousness, you only have to be aware of what the idea is. In an in depth conversation, you probably should've read Being and Nothingness. It would still be absurd, however, to be vexed at that a person engaged in a conversation about false consciousness hasn't read The Phenomenology of Spirit. Only discussing those specific passages or the relationship between the two texts would warrant that. All that I am saying is that it depends upon the conversational context. Sometimes, there's quite a lot that you should have read and sometimes you don't actually have to have read anything at all.
As I say, it was tongue-in-cheek, perhaps exagerrated for effect. But he was, as far as I could tell, a lecturer or professor in academic philosophy, specifically metaphysics (he was urging the student he was talking to to enrol in post-grad studies, from what I could tell), and I think there's some truth in it. Much 20th century philosophy no longer engages with the classical concerns of philosophy.
Quoting Possibility
'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines' ~ Emerson, Self-Reliance.
I want to make clear that I don't deny the value of these writers. I think I used to, but I have met people who were saved by Kant, Dante, or other classical writer. I mean that seriously, if not entirely literally. I find it moving to read about the differences those authors made in people's lives. I recognize the value, it's just not my way.
What insult? I didn't think I'd got there yet...
I wouldn't worry about getting the mods to delete the bit of disagreement you had on the thread, because it doesn't interfere too much with the flow of the discussion. You could go back and edit any of your own posts. If you ask for a all the discussion between you and Banno to be removed it may mean that they have to delete this whole thread. I don't want the entire thread to be deleted because there are comments which I plan to reply to during today.
I think that we do approach life and writers from different angles. Some people don't need to delve into books, and it probably also depends on whether we have any mentors in our lives. I think that Carl Jung and his idea of the collective unconscious, probably saved me, along with William Blake and, a few bands like U2 and REM.
But, of course, you have Lao Tzu to inspire you.
That is intriguing. I have heard people say this occasionally about fiction writers (never philosophy) but I always assumed it was hyperbole. I've enjoyed writers and books but nothing I've read has ever made a difference to my overall happiness (as far as I can tell). I think I got any consolation I ever needed from classical music.
I do agree that it is helpful to have threads which are based on specific ideas, and they probably work better than those which are just created from people's own opinions. Even if there is not one specific text being used, it is usually apparent if the person who is writing it has done any background research.
With philosophy, as it is about ideas, it is easy for people to think that they can say anything they wish to. However, in the twenty first century, it does seem to me that any serious discussion needs a certain amount of academic rigour.
I do agree that this forum can be an alternative to the sheer academia of university, but with a certain amount of knowledge being of great importance. I think that it is a fine balance. On the last academic course I did, which was mandatory for work, every single point in writing had to be backed up by a published writer. As there was a strict word limit, and so much to cover, there was not even any room for discussion of the quality of the research being cited. The validity of the research was simply that it was published and that meant it counted as evidence. It seemed so ridiculous that I decided that I was never going to do an academic course again, and would write fiction instead as opposed to evidence based research.
When I get into discussions on the forum, I often become aware of great gaps in my knowledge. Some of the posts I look at are completely over my head. Even without evidence based research, there is just so much specialised knowledge. It is hard to juggle between getting a broad philosophy overview and following specific lines of thinking.I am more inclined to prefer to see the advantages and disadvantages of various perspectives, but I think that a lot of people on the site have preference for people who are committed to specific viewpoints.
I like your comment about how a lot of the importance thinkers were misunderstood is reassuring for most of us, because, generally, I think people who are interested in philosophy are regarded as a bit eccentric. I read an article which suggested that Dostoevsky could barely tie his own shoelaces, although it is unclear whether it was true. But, I did wonder if he could have been dyspraxia. I believe that I am dyspraxia because I could never catch a ball and I am so poor at household tasks, like cleaning. Someone told me that I must have learning difficulties because I am so poor at practical tasks. I think that many people are too inclined to label others and not try to understand anyone who is a bit different.
This may be a good thing. I think that a sensible balance is best, but you have to have that constant influx of information. There are a lot of books waiting to be read! At the end of the day, my goal is to enhance the functioning of my own mind, and that requires information. Why would I try to do that by pulling myself up by my own bootstraps when generations of people have already dedicated so much time and effort to the project?
An analogy is in order but do take this with a grain of sodium chloride. Everything, if not most things, come in some kind of container as it were. So, milk comes in cartons, gas comes in tanks, chocolate comes in packets,..., information comes in books. As a matter of course, the container is usually disposable i.e. the contents are what matters. Books, whether paper-based or electronic, by extension the written word, are containers in that they hold information and if most containers are dispensable, books too should be dealt in a similar fashion if only for the sake of consistency.
Now, it must be borne in mind that some containers, whatever might be inside them, are themselves of great interest in that they have some kind of intrinsic value. Books in particular and language in general maybe valuable in and of themselves and more likely than not worthy of formal study.
However, the truth is a book is, all said and done, primarily a medium for recording and transmitting information and, sometimes, misinformation. That being the case, to be concerned by reading (books) is barking up,the wrong tree. If it so happens that information could be put on a better medium than books, we would be asking the same question about whatever medium that is. That, of course, is a fascinating in itself but is, in a way, to miss the point.
I agree. The trick seems to be in: "who decides how much rigour is required?. It seems to be an "unwritten" specification. And, it probably depends on who is having the discussion - and with whom. In academia, writing requirements are often dictated - but not so often in a discussion.
:point: :100:
It is interesting how you point out the role of interpretation and I see your point. Certainly, in another thread there is discussion about consciousness and it appears that this word has such different meanings for different people on the forum. So, it does depend on the frame of reference.
However, I think that we are able to develop the frames of reference. I can remember at age 16 reading Shakespeare's 'King Lear' and reading all kinds of ideas into it, which I can see now were ludicrous, because they were based on the ideas which came much later, so he would not have been aware of them. I was failing to understand within the Elizabethan world picture. So, it is about being able to step inside the viewpoint of the author as far as that is possible. The more we understand the context in which they are writing this makes it more possible. If we were studying the ideas of Lacan, for instance, the more familiar we are with postmodernism and psychoanalysis makes it more likely that we will make a more correct interpretation of what the writer is saying.
The biggest danger, of course, is that areas of thought become so specialised, relying on jargon. However, I do agree with the interpretation problem, however clearly we try to write. Some books are so ambiguous, and a most obvious one which we discussed about a month ago is Jung's 'Answer to Job'.
Yes, reading is fundamental. So is interchanging ideas with others.
On the other hand, I've known cases of people who read certain books and just get completely lost from rational discourse. So, one has to be a bit careful.
I see your point about containers and recordings, but I do see this as the best possible source for viewing the ideas of the past. I would love to be able to meet Kant, Kierkergaard, Sartre, with you and others on the forum, and discuss metaphysics, while drinking coffee, but as that is not possible, reading is the best option.
As it is, people are beginning to do things a bit differently now, with the internet and videos. But, I am a big fan of books, so I am glad I don't have to watch videos of all the most famous thinkers of the past, although it would be interesting to see what they really looked like, rather than how we imagine them.
You were insinuating that I was a waffle, which is clearly an insult. I don't really care, though.
Books are essentially information coded in light - shapes, sizes, color, spaces, are certain features of writing that seem to matter but, all things considered, they're basically characteristics of light, at least in the sense they have to be seen to be interpreted correctly.
Notice that written language, though light-based, is actually about sound. So, though the word "light" is in light-mode, its meaning is in the sound lait. In other words, when we're reading, what we're really doing is listening.
I was wondering about what the first word ever spoken was. My theory is that, supposing the first spoken word is x, x has to be, its more likely that, something heard instead of seen. To symbolize something seen with a sound is harder, requiring the ability to associate two different kinds of information (visual to auditory) than mimicking (auditory to auditory) what's heard in my humble opinion. Thus, the first words every spoken would've been sounds mimicking prey, predators, water, etc. I digress though.
It is hard to get the right balance between being swamped by information and thinking ones own thoughts and finding one's own writing voice. Really, it would be wonderful to be so captivated by another's way that it influenced the whole perception. I have seen books on how to write like Hemmingway, and it would be such an experiment to try to write like Nietzsche or Sartre, for example. It does seem that even on this forum we all have our own unique styles. I worry about churning out replies and threads in a samey way, like the familiar formula beats and chords of a Status Quo song.
I probably don't wish to digress too much into the subject of light here, as I created a thread on the metaphysics of light. However, I do love reading on à kindle, which really has its own inner light.
It is hard to know what the first human words were, but it does seem that children begin saying mama and papa. I can remember as a child being given a notebook to draw in and filling it with squiggles from cover to cover, and telling my mum that I had been writing.
But, going back to first languages, I think that they may have been more sophisticated than we imagine, because there was Rome and Egypt. Obviously, we don't know what came before but the development of Sanskrit and other early alphabets and symbols does indicate high levels of thought. Cultures like the Aborigines also seem to be complex, and I do believe that anthropology is a very important field for thinking about the development of humanity.
I am probably not systematic enough in my reading. I have started a collection of writings on Plotinus, Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness,' and reading several other non fiction ones, and about 3 novels. I have downloaded so many books, about 1500 on my Kindle and I got a free tablet with my phone. I worked out how to download on that and discovered recently that I can't download any more because it has its maximum amount of large files. Fortunately, the majority of the books I got were free. But, I am trying to get through some of my paper books as well. I like to read about 5 books a week, but it does depend on how big they are and what they are. Some books can be read in one sitting, whereas others have to be read slowly.
I have read Plato's 'Republic' and 'Phaedo'. I do find overviews helpful and I reread Bertrand Russell's ' History of Western Philosophy' recently. I have been planning to start Iris Murdock's 'Existentialism and Mystics', ever since the thread on mysticism. So, I will be busy, and not enough hours in a day really, especially as I am applying for jobs as well. But, when I was working in the past, I used to try to read for a bit before going to work, because reading can be so meditational.
I think that it can be helpful having guidelines for writing but I prefer room to maneuver. While studying there were just so many rules and regulations, that there seemed to be no scope for creativity. I like a blank white space on a paper or a screen and the potential it has rather than being given too much structure. At one stage, I used to write morning pages, as suggested by Julia Cameron in, 'The Artist's Way', which was to write 3 pages of thoughst as soon as possible each morning. I did this for about a year and I felt that it was a really helpful practice for reflection.
I think that you are right to stress the danger of reading so much that one can become lost from
'rational discourse'. If I have been reading a lot I sometimes find that I bring unusual words into conversation and people look a bit puzzled and I have to remember not to do this. But, in the house I am living in I am the only one whose first language is English, so I am getting practice at trying to speak as simply as possible.
Very much so. One can get caught up in fancy jargon and people get confused unnecessarily.
Since this is a philosophy forum, I won't mention any specific philosophers, but, I had in mind people reading someone like, Deepak Chopra and getting lost in almost total verbal salad which often grossly distorts the relevant science, usually quantum physics in his case.
But there are certain philosophical traditions that I personally think lead to irrationality. Of course, that's a very personal preference which varies from person to person.
Goodness. Do you find you have really absorbed and understood this many books in one week? What is your memory of them some time later?
I don't usually remember the novels unless they are outstanding. With the non fiction, I usually remember the ones which seem really important and try and read them again at some point. But, I have probably always read that amount of books, and I have a few eye problems, which may be from eyestrain, so try not to read too much late at night.
My view is that mornings are for reading, afternoons for doing important activities and evenings for relaxing to music, but, of course I like the heavy stuff whereas you like the classical.
I have only read a little Deepak Chopra, but I have a friend who thinks he is wonderful. However, discussion of quantum physics can be like 'word salad'. But, my best recommendation for word salad is James Joyce's, 'Finnegan's Wake', but it is meant to capture the whole idea of the stream of consciousness.
You are open to many possibilities, that's a good trait in general.
I'd only be careful in taking science out of context, that could be if not dangerous, then problematic at least when attempting to make sense of evidence.
Some people love Finnegans Wake. Can one call it a novel? I suppose. I can't read much into it. But in the arts, whatever moved you or gets you thinking is legitimate, I think.
I agree that good reading involves "being able to step inside the viewpoint of the author as far as that is possible." But I don't subscribe to making the historical context the last word on the experiences. To open oneself up to listen to what is being said, the reader must be addressed directly. Socrates is kicking my ass along with Gorgias'. The jester in King Lear does not have a high regard for my judgements either. Spinoza is appealing directly to me to come to my senses. Kafka says: "I am the problem; No scholar to be found far and wide." You don't get to talk that way if you don't look for one first.
Regarding interpretation, it shows up too early in the game of reading together. The words are barely formed and they are immediately painted. I am sympathetic to Susan Sontag's Against Interpretation for this reason. We have a lifetime to form opinions. The encounters are few and easily missed.
I think the project of the dialectic, where we struggle with each other to develop a better understanding, is at odds with the vision of an encyclopedia where the universe has been mapped and everything and every concept is in a place that can be related to each other.
Yeah, but he didn't save me. He just picked me up and gave me a ride.
As I said, I've never had much respect for the convoluted thought processes of our western great philosophers. I was shocked when someone I care about and respect told me how much Kant had meant to them. How his and others' writing had provided a safe mental space in a difficult life. That wasn't the only time I heard about something like that. I still like to joke about how these guys can take something so simple and wonderful and make it impenetrable and painful. But I always keep my friend in the back of my mind.
That's just a case of the pot calling the kettle a black waffle.
While I am willing to admit to being a talkative diletante, as I think that I am the only person of the opinion here that reading philosophical texts is only so enjoyable and that I have put better thought into existential literature, Criterion films, albums, and role-playing video games and clearly ramble, as well as thought that it was a good enough dig, I do think that people should generally object to the usage of "waffle", as it is effectively a euphemism for another four-leter word, and an often misued one at that, as in its proper context it refers to a person who is just simply a problem, that almost everyone takes as offhandedly sexist. I assume that Banno is from the U.K., though, where that sort of thing is, for whatever reason, considered to be acceptable, and have not taken offense because I thought that his joke was clever and have chalked the rest up to cultural difference.
I just jumped in because @Banno is a pain in the butt. He just needs to be metaphorically smacked every so often.
I am not aware of any sexist meaning for "waffle" or any related word.
Quoting thewonder
No, no, no. It is much, much worse than that. Much worse. Banno is from (here, let me whisper in you ear ...Australia).
Oh, well, that'd make sense, I guess.
It basically has the same connotations as a certain expletive used to describe female reproductive organs. Oddly enough, what I object to is not its use, but how it is used. I have traced its usage to ascribe a certain intellectual fainiancy to a drunken letter that Guy Debord wrote to Charles Auguste-Bontemps, which has made it very difficult to explain that people shouldn't both shouldn't use it and that Debord had done so improperly. That a member of the Italian Socialist Party could use it to describe someone like Benito Mussolini would be apt, as, in the United States, we do know that it is reserved for people who create wholly unwarranted and unnecessary problems, but, as there are better ways to insult such people, I do think that people should avoid using it because of its clearly sexist connotations. For some reason, particularly within radical circles in the U.K., this is thought to be forthright heresay, however.
Waffle? So you thought I'd called you a cunt?
How odd. Rest assured, if I had desired to call you a cunt, that's what I would have done. There's a certain subtleness in conversational Australian that is lost in foreign parts, but for the most part we are pretty direct.
Well, okay, then. When I looked it up, though, the definition that I found does have the same connotations as that other term, at least, as it is commonly misused in the U.K..
With some difficult philosophical texts, I find that I'll go through a process to gain an understanding them. I read Homo Sacer once, again while noting the references that were lost on me, again after looking some of them up and taking notes, and once more just straight through. From this, I have developed kind of a process so as to better understand texts that I find to be particularly difficult. It's also, perhaps, notable that my notes look kind of like a visualization of a concept from A Thousand Plateaus and greatly differ from what you would expect from your average Chemistry major. Taking them is more of a way of focusing attention and visualizing concepts than it is a manner of recording information. As only I can be myself, I am unsure as to whether or not I should recommend this to others. Most people would probably assume for them to be some sort of mess-aesthetic art.
An aside:
I came to a number of realizations about reading philosophy upon discovering that I knew absolutely nothing of the theories of one, Ludwig Wittgenstein, but, before doing so, a notable absurdity to my general approach to reading philosophical texts is that I read nearly every journal of Lacanian Ink on lacan dot com without ever having read a single work of Jacques Lacan or even watching one of his lectures. I have both come to appreciate and fear that this, along with the postmodern left-wing philosophy and books published by semiotext(e) that I breezed through have become embedded within whatever you want to call my subconscious.
Within the context of its use in the U.K., a "cunt" is a person who is psychologically and intellectually weak and lacking in integrity and resolve in a manner that is thought to be womanly. A "waffle" is just a euphemism for exactly the same sort of person. To describe speech as "waffle" is just to suggest that it is pretentious prattle. To call someone a waffle is just a euphemistic way of calling them a cunt, as "waffle" also denotes a vagina.
What I expect to have happened here is that Banno agrees with my assessment of the usage of the term and has chalked up his insinuation to colloquial speech in order to save face. Cleary I am correct and a "cunt" is just a fucking problem.
Being said, I did actually not take offense to his original comment as, as I have already stated, I thought that it was a pretty good dig and am not the sort of person who takes great offense at insults, at least, when I can rationalize their having been levelled. I am only so well read and do tend to ramble. Though somewhat philistine, I thought that his quip was fairly clever. I have only expanded upon this because I have devoted a considerable portion of my time to thinking about insults.
I just wish to prevent the thread becoming derailed by people's personal disagreements, by asking people about the role which reading has within their pursuit of philosophy. Of course, reading is only a means of communication of ideas, so the exploration of reading is really part of the process of becoming aware of the established thinkers from the past as a basis for developing our own ideas and understanding.
Good call. I think it might be interesting to differentiate between kinds of reading. In most cases reading philosophy is not effortless or breezy, like reading a brochure. Unless one is a genius, I imagine the reading process is punctuated by pausing and reflection and re-reading and cross referencing and pondering. Especially if it is a complex work in an intricate prose style.
I have noticed over the years that where people claim to have read key works, when you ask specific questions about an aspect of the text, they often seem not to remember this part. Have they not read closely enough? Should they have accompanied the reading with greater analysis? I guess this is why at university key works are taught, not just read.
To know a text well, it could take months, years, a lifetime of study and yet people (I'm thinking of a couple of friends here) often plough through philosophy texts like they are easy conquests.
Sorry for the distraction.
Really, I found 'Finnegan's Wake' almost completely unreadable. I spent a couple of hours skimming through it. I mainly wish to read it because I found 'The Portrait of a Artist as a Young Man' and 'Ulysses' to be fantastic. I am also interested in the whole idea of a stream of consciousness, going back to William James, although the two writers use it so differently.
I have to admit that I do skim read sometimes, especially science, which may mean that I get some ideas out of context. I try to make sure that I get to grips with the main idea, and don't miss important parts, but I may end up leaving out some central parts. However, it is sometimes not easy to understand some aspects of technical detail unless one has the necessary science knowledge, and I come more from an arts background.
I have probably been guilty of reading certain texts and missing important parts. Funnily enough, part of the reason I began reading parts of certain texts was because when I was a student I was encouraged to do this. It was tutors pointing to what they saw as key chapters. However, when I read philosophy books now, I do like to read all the chapters, but I probably read some of them too quickly. I often take a book out with me and don't come home until the have finished it. I am sure that certain books really deserve much more analysis, but the problem is that there are just so many important books to get through.
It is interesting that you speak of certain texts being embedded in your subconscious. I have wondered about this, but not sure that whether this happens when we skim through them. It would probably depend how subliminal perception works, but my understanding is that in advertising this happens by certain images stimulate parts of fantasy, and the need to have certain objects in relation to this fantasy. So, I wonder how the subliminal works in our reading. It may mean that we are able to gain some of an overriding picture of a certain author. However, when we do skim ideas, the danger which I see is that it may be like being in a conversation with someone and not really listening attentively to what they are saying. However, I do feel that I seem automatically to skim read at times, almost looking at a paragraph or a page in one go, and I do get the impression that some of the ideas are absorbed in some way.
I do think that it is worth trying to not limit interpretations of texts just to their historical contexts. In some ways, all ideas are interlinked and thinking about ideas can be so much richer and imaginative if looked at in this way. I like seeing parallels in ideas which I so different, such as between Jung and Nietzsche. I believe that it is important to be aware of the contexts in which specific ideas developed, but it is also important to not become too narrow in interpretation because it may be that combining certain ideas from very different historical context, or even from different disciplines, may give birth to new ideas and perspectives.
Happy Tuesday!
I think you already arrived at the answer, in that, generally speaking, it's mostly about achieving a balance. And, one should try to be reasonable (treat like cases likely/different cases differently) in their approach or determination as to which discursive hat to wear. Obviously, some domain's or subject matter (like formal logic/abstract study of propositions, symbols, etc.) requires more technical knowledge than others (than say ethics). (Not that I'm an expert in any of them.)
But since nobody really broached this thought, I'll offer an analogy. Some may consider doing philosophy is a little like writing a book, writing music, or creating or inventing something/anything novel in their respective fields of expertise, etc.. Accordingly, an architect who copies Frank Lloyd Wright designs, or an individual songwriter/musician who exclusively performs cover music (copies pre-recorded original's) is doing simply that--regurgitating/copying something that was previously designed/written/recorded. That same individual can also decide to possibly design something novel or in this sense write their own music. That individual took those influences from the original design/recordings, and decided to make them their own. So just like Schopenhauer was influenced by Kant, Eric Clapton was influenced by B.B. King.
Since to me everyone here is unique, yet the same, I say bring to the dance your own influences and your own sense of creativity, where it's appropriate. In some cases, allow yourself to practice philosophy based upon not only your own formal training, but also your real world experiences, that is as much a part of your own truth (and your truth only), as someone else's truth that you read about.
Don't be afraid of yourself :smile:
Skimming is fine, for anything, I think. But that's just to get a general idea. Sometimes a philosopher/scientist/author is simply not for you.
Sure, technicalities in science are quite difficult for the non-expert, which is why popularizers such as Sean Carroll, Brian Greene and others are very, very helpful.
I've read Pynchon, which I've heard is as hard to read as Joyce, though this is debated. I think part of Finnegans Wake is simply meant to frustrate the reader.
There was a joke at the engineering company I used to work for - an expert is someone who knows five things about a subject. There is truth in that. With only a limited amount of knowledge, you can often carry on a conversation on a technical subject so that you at least don't look foolish. That truth also applies here on the forum. If you have an idea and you don't want to look stupid, you should at least do a minimal amount of research. If you do that, you arguments will generally be stronger than those we often see here.
Recently it has become more important to me that I dig into the ideas I care about. I'm trying to get rid of "seems to me" and "I think I heard that" from my posts. That is the motivation behind my current thread on the Tao Te Ching. I've read it and thought about it for many years, but now I'm trying to really put in the effort to understand it and use it.
Yes, I try to keep a balance and I realise there are limits to how much it is possible to read, because I have to do other things as well. Recently, I listened to much less music because books have taken over. Fortunately, I don't have a television, because most of my friends say they spend so much time watching it. I think that my time on this site is giving me some idea about what texts in philosophy are essential, although we probably all have ones which really appeal to us individually.
I do believe that it important to be able to write from one's own angle, because it is authentic. At least, this site does give scope for us to experiment in such a way. When there is no possibility of this, having to write just seems so dull and monotonous. When I was doing studies for training in nursing the way we were expected to write was so dry and it was like everyone's work was almost identical. I think that I managed to squeeze some bits that were from the personal in at times, but I had to be careful.
It is so good to read all the different writers on this site, because it does seem that most have their own style, which comes through regardless of what is being discussed. It would be so boring if all different people writing sounded identical, even if they wrote like Kant or Wittgenstein. I probably would not rush to my phone to read them as soon as I get up in the morning.
I think that you are right to say that certain writers are just not meant for us. I think that it is also about reading them at the right moment. I remember how I used to look at Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness' and think that I could not relate to it at all. So, it was a surprise when I began reading it recently and it seemed to really speak to me. It is the same with fiction and it was only about 3 or 4 years ago that I felt able to read Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. However, I can't read all this heavy writing all the time, so I do read gothic fantasy, science fiction and steampunk too.
You are right that a certain amount of knowledge makes discourse possible on all kinds of topics. However, I do think that it can be the case when people keep referring to certain theories it is sometimes apparent that they are hiding behind it. I do even wonder sometimes if I read so much to block out my mum thoughts. I don't think I am doing that now so much, but when I had loads of stress at work, I used to spend practically all my days off immersed in my books. But, I do try to read mindfully, rather than as a way of shutting out certain thoughts.
You do seem to be doing a very detailed discussion of The Tao de Ching. It must be one of the longest running threads at present. I have looked at the book briefly but it doesn't seem to be the one I need at the moment, but it may be at some point. But I have always read a lot and have spent so much time in libraries. I remember discovering the shelves on psychology and philosophy when I was about 13. I really wanted to read these books then, and having to study all the range of school subjects was a bit of a nuisance. But, I have not worked since last May so I am able to indulge, and it will miss all the reading time if I get a new job.
Yes, I agree with this. I used to really like Heidegger. When I read him now, it does little to me. It doesn't connect nearly as much, though I do still find some value in him.
I had a "postmodernism" phase many years ago, in which I liked Foucault, Deleuze and Lacan. I now think Lacan and some parts of Deleuze are just awful, unhelpful and can quite literally make you think irrationality about how the world works. But my opinion on Derrida never changed, he just plays with words and tries to sound complex. Other would fiercely disagree. That's fine.
The opposite happened to me with Whitehead. I use to think his main work was mostly incomprehensible jargon, with little to no value. I now think he's very interesting, even if his verbosity takes away some extra value that would be there had he been better in expressing his ideas.
That's very interesting, Manuel. Can you tease this out? What appealed then and what do you think happened to that connection?
Quoting Manuel
I never bothered.
I have not read any Heidegger but I do wish to, at some point. I definitely went through a postmodernist phase, in connection with sociology and art. I did not read all the main texts though. I may read more on Lacan and Baudrillard, but I think that postmodernist ideas of deconstruction went to far in some ways, ending up with a picture of cultural relativism. Some of the writings are extremely difficult. The one book which I have wanted to read, but could not get into, was Lacan's 'The Psychoses', but that is because I have worked in psychiatry.
I do really enjoy reading psychoanalytic writings, but not just Freud and the mainstream ones. I am really interested in the area in between psychology and philosophy. I found ' Beyond Freedom and Dignity' by BF Skinner to be interesting, but not that I agreed with it . I have realised recently that one of my main interests is the philosophy of mind. I definitely think I need to explore phenomenology, but the texts do look like heavy weather. I will probably need loads of strong coffees to even begin this.
It's a long story, so I'll have to compress what I say. I stumbled on Heidegger via Hubert Dreyfus' interpretation. I thought he was doing something original, kind of offering an in depth analysis of manifest reality in a manner than was thoroughly philosophical, without basing his thought on modern science. I liked the idea of collapsing the man-and-world distinction, or at least, closing the gap in many respects.
He has an amazing gift of presenting very ordinary situations in a very thoughtful manner. Heck what could be simpler than someone using a hammer? But he made it stand out.
Over time and trying to explain his thought plainly, I discovered that I was mostly saying obvious things in different ways. And I could not see a way how to add to his project without continuing in a path that leads to what I think is a wrong way to think about how people relate to the world. I find his emphasis to exaggerate those moments of "flow" or not thinking about what we do things when we do them.
I still think his was a good way to try a new kind of philosophy and some of what he says still sounds impactful, but I think a more rationalist take on such a philosophy would be more fruitful for what I'm interested in.
You did well. Saved yourself from a lot of nonsense. Not all, to be fair, but much of it is just bad.
Yes, I think so too. Plus the way Postmodernism uses science is embarrassing, just look at Sokal and Bricmont's Fashionable Nonsense and The Sokal Hoax and you'll see what actual scientists have to say about what many of these figures said. It's not even wrong as the phrase goes.
Psychoanalysis has many branches, some of which seem to depart quite a bit from Freud. You'll gain much more by reading any of these than reading Lacan, honestly. I studied him for almost two years and I would be embarrassed to present Lacan's "thoughts", as they are so arbitrary and treated like gospel.
Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and these types actually have interesting things to say. But there's only so much time and many people to read, so you'll have to decide what type of thought you are most attracted to eventually, I think. But it's always good to read different views irrespective of what you may be sympathetic with.
You were more advanced than I was. When I was 13, I was searching the library for adult books with sex in them. That and science fiction.
I am lucky to have lived a childhood free of necessity and full of the desire to learn. I had no chores as a boy, didn’t have to cut the grass or fetch water from the spring or eggs from the chicken house, etc, and had access to books from both school and public libraries, and from bookstores. I therefore learned from my earliest years that the key to life was contained in books. They have always remained my polestars, even now when I have become an old man and have less of the leisure I enjoyed as a child.
As far as independence of thought from what one reads goes, I believe that, to achieve such individuality, freedom and independence, all depends upon a couple things: first, your intimacy with the text: are you grazing the book to pick out things consonant with what you already believe, or is it rather a challenge? Do you approach the book as though, like Socrates’ lover in The Symposium, you are destitute of knowledge and in desperate need of a guide? That difference means everything. The second thing your independence hinges upon is your own native ability to discern the truth. Finally, when you have nourished yourself enough on the book, have gained enough knowledge and wisdom to dare consider that you see something a Plato or Aristotle, or Rousseau or Nietzsche didn’t see, then, and only then, should you believe it in your own heart, and publish it to the world...
...Machiavelli made such a dare and transformed the world—but was he right? Others have since questioned it—but, nevertheless, his idea took hold, and we all owe our secret belief that man really believes what his passions say he is, rather than what his reason does, is the ultimate truth...
...I think most ppl nowadays, especially philosophers, are conformists. In this day, it means throwing out a theory that is as entirely radical as possible, contradicting all norms as much as possible. This is the current badge of the philosopher: can I turn black into white, large into small, good into bad with a neat intellectual turn? When I see this sort of thing in this forum I instinctively turn away, ignore it. It is conformism parading as radicalism.
There was something odd that I did in the past, which was to leave Jefferson Airplane's Surrealistic Pillow on display in my room and unwittingly organize the rest of it to go with it. I think that a partial purpose of dreaming is to process information. I had effectively habituated myself to find myself within situations where I would find people who liked Surrealistic Pillow. In retrospect, I should have done this with John Lennon's Imagine.
Despite that, I feel like I must have had some reason to immerse myself within the ethereal language of the aesthetic of my room and wonder if I haven't done something similar with my rapid reading.
I think that reading at an exceptional rate lets you pick out certain concepts to create an understanding of rather quickly. It teaches you how to be quick witted and inventive. The experience, however, is somewhat manic. Though a partial symptom of the chemical composition of my brain, I found that my thoughts were often disorganized and that I had difficulty formulating any theory that even bore the semblance of coherence. It teaches you to think very quickly, but not to process information well.
Another thing that I noticed, however, was that I did seem to somehow absorb the information, despite that I would often quickly forget what I had immediately read. I even somewhat intentionally read through a few texts like this for the sole purpose of absorbing the information as such. The latter half of Bracha L. Ettinger's The Matrixial Borderspace is a good example of this. I understood all too well that I could not understand the text with what rudimentary knowledge I had of Lacanian psychoanalytic theory about a hundred pages in, but merely finished it so as to somehow embed the information within my psyche.
I now wonder if I didn't have some sort of reason for conditioning myself as such as well. There are certain habits that I've developed that I've both come to be skeptical of and trust that most would take to be indicative of some form of neurosis or another. I know, for instance, that, when I talk for considerable length that it is because I don't know what it is that I am trying to figure out. That I talk for considerable length, however, kind of poses a serious predicament, as it has the effect of isolating me from most of the rest of society, which, I think, is kind of a paradox, as, somehow, I'm usually ultimately trying to figure out how it is that I can feel welcome within society. Being said, the habit of rapid reading which I have since abandoned, I suspect, was not wholly indicative of madness and does bear some form of rationale. As to what that is, I can only guess.
I have said more than once that I took no offense, though you are correct of my idiosyncrasies.
It's funny how we all do things in different stages and ways. Even though you think that it sounds as if I was advanced to be interested in psychology and philosophy when I was 13, I don't think anyone thought that I was advanced at all. I probably spent more time in the library trying to avoid getting beaten up in the playground. I didn't find many who I could discuss my interest in the mind with, and most people thought I was about 12 when I was 18.
I'd say it adolescence, and all the angst, messed up my own reading for quite some time, and I was extremely at a Catholic school, but sex, drugs and rock'n'roll was there as a subtext. The most interesting exercise I was ever set was in Religious Studies, where we asked to write our own spiritual autobiography. I found that it really got me thinking about my own inner dialogue with ideas.
I do read science fiction, but not until after university, when I found a way into it in the form of cyberpunk and fantasy writing, such as Marion Zimmer Bradley and Ursula L Gunn. I do think that science fiction is able to address a lot of philosophical issues in such a lively way.
There are plenty of philosophy professors in academics, but not many philosophers.
I may not follow through with Lacan's ideas, and hope that your reading on Lacan was not wasted. I knew someone who used to write about Lacan and her writing was so hard to follow.
I think that the diverse areas of psychoanalysis are fascinating. I do think that Freud was an extremely interesting writer as well and worth reading, even if to just end up disagreeing with him. My favourite book by him is, 'The Origins of the Uncanny'. I don't read so much psychoanalysis now, but I have read a fair amount already because I studied art psychotherapy, and this focuses on the psychodynamic approach. I think that the ideas of Melanie Klein are interesting, especially her ideas on splitting, and for considering the psychology of projection, including projected hatred. I would like to explore this more.
But, of course, we have to narrow our focus down because it is not possible to read everything, and to try to do so, would probably result in complete confusion and chaos in thinking.
Well Žižek is entertaining and sometimes says interesting things and he's a Lacanian. But learning about Lacan for me didn't help me with Žižek. I don't think it was a waste of time necessarily, one finds out what roads not to follow.
Agreed with what you say about not being able to read everything, it would be a total mess in terms of not being able to establish your own thinking because too many ideas are clashing in your head.
I believe that the way in which the subliminal affects us is complex. It is interesting to hear about you wondering about the way displaying the cover of 'Surrealistic Pillow' had. When I was going through a dark period I had loads of posters of metal bands, like Slipknot, Metallica and Korn over the wall. I was also listening to that music and was unsure what this was doing to me on a subliminal level. I do still listen to dark metal music at times, but try to be a bit balanced because I do think music, art and books affect us subliminally. I do read dark fantasy, like Stephen King and Poppy Z Brite, but I am aware that it all affects our subconscious, and I certainly pay attention to dreams.
I also spent vast amounts of time in the library. I grew up in southern Delaware and then we moved to southern Virginia. I spent some summers on the Eastern Shore of Maryland and in Vermont. In all those, places, the library is one of the things I remember most. In the Massachusetts town I live in now, we have a decent little library with access to books from a dozen other libraries. The same is true for electronic books, so I rarely have to pay to read Kindle books anymore. I don't know if they have it where you are, but Libby is a great app that allows you to borrow Kindle and other electronic books from many libraries. You should also check out Hoopla. I do love libraries - and books.
Quoting Jack Cummins
With that opening, I'll recommend "NPC" by Jeremy Robinson. It is the most philosophical science book I've read. Also well written. If you happen to be a member of Amazon Unlimited, it's free.
I have found that reading a book on Kindle has made a big difference in the depth of my reading. Being able to get the definition of a word or name or look it up on the web, Wikipedia, or Google Earth has really helped make my reading more satisfying. I sometimes find myself going off on a tangent for 15 minutes before I finally get back to the text. I have a hard time reading paper books these days. I always miss the access to background information.
Are you familiar with Christopher Lasch. He was a very good writer on social and political philosophy. He came at social issues from a psychoanalytic perspective.
Woody Allen has a joke:
I took a course in speed reading. Now I can read "War and Peace" in 20 minutes. It involves Russia.
I have not read any writing by Christopher Nasch, but I did come across his ideas about the culture of narcissism in sociology and I am sure that it a very valid critique.
As for Kindles, I think that they are wonderful but I have experienced a few problems. The first one I had was a paperwhite one and the battery stopped charging properly. I took it into a computer shop and the man there told me that he would change the battery. When I went back, he said he couldn't get it back together and he needed to get a part from America. I kept phoning him and he told me that the part was in customs and when it arrived it didn't fit. So, he decided to order a Kindle from Scotland and take it apart for the correct bit. Eventually, that arrived and the transplant surgery took place on my Kindle. However, when I went to collect it the light had stopped working and after the man tried to repair that, he discovered that it had lost its memory.
The man in the shop ordered a new one and managed to transfer my all my books onto the
new one, which my mum named 'Lord Fire.' At this moment, Lord Fire is working fine, but one slight problem is that some of my older books won't open any longer, which is a bit frustrating. But, I do believe that Kindles are a revolution in reading, especially being able to carry around a whole library, unlike carrying heavy books.
Though I am loathe to cite arguments either in favor of censorship or assume that young people are made of clay, there are grains of truth, I think, to that certain forms of media do have kind of psychological effect. I found for gunning down terrorists in the desert in Call of Duty to, to some extent, reinforce negative depictions of Arabs within American media and to desensitize me to the violence of fourth-generation warfare. If you become aware of such things, however, you can kind of deprogram what is untenable of what certain kinds of media teach you to do so as to be able to enjoy it.
We must have varying reading styles, as though I kind of feel like its a waste of paper, I can pay attention to anything that isn't printed on a page. I used to have an entire file cabinet of books and articles that I had printed out.
That's a good Woody Allen joke, by the way.
I'll tell Woody you said so.
The really important thing for me is the ease of looking up information directly on the page. Also - I don't use a Kindle. I read on my cell phone. It's always with me.
I like to keep my options open for reading in all different ways and I still do like books, as in traditional books. My mother laughs when I speak about paper books, and there are many people who don't wish to use anything other than paper books. Sometimes, I do find that it is easier to locate specific passages in them by flicking through pages rather than on devices.
I am also aware of some people who keep books more as objects on shelves than to read them, although this seems a bit odd to me. It makes them more like pieces of collectable objects, or even like items of furniture.
As far as my phone is concerned, I am getting so used to writing on it, and, find it quicker to do than writing in a notebook. I know some people who are getting to the point where they find it hard to physically write with a pen any longer. It must be that they lose the muscle memory of writing with a pen. I do feel that even the wording of my writing appears a bit different depending on whether I am writing with pen and paper, or onto a device. It is so much easier to edit on a phone or tablet. But, I like to keep all the options available for both writing and reading.
I read your answer and have been wondering about it because it seems that you are querying our purpose in philosophy. I can see that there may be attempts to turn black into white, and many other shallow solutions. Part of my problem with what you are saying is a possible implication of your post to mean that we should only engage in philosophy if what we are saying is so distinct as to stand out and be worthy of publication.
If we should only engage if we are at that point in our life where we feel that what we are saying is so important doesn't that mean that we would be shut out from all discussion of philosophy at all?I am not convinced that philosophy should just be left in the hands of the experts, and we are able to develop our knowledge of it through discussion of our own reading, rather than just remaining silently alone with our thoughts.
A few months ago, I was reading a paper book after not having read one for a while. I came across a word I wasn't familiar with and pushed on the page with my finger to get the definition.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I get a lot of the Kindle books I read from the library or Kindle Unlimited. If I come across a book I really like, I sometimes will buy a paper copy to keep. That's mostly because I want to thank the author, although I do like the look of a bookshelf with lots of books on it.
. Look friend ...
. I think you already know What I do say about it ...
. But ... I would like to tell you ... that ...
. Reading is important ... but ... as a means. Reading is important ... as the mother is important ... tremendously important ... when a child is trying to take his first step ... right?
. But ... please ... don't make reading an end. Don't be a so-called intellectual.
. Kahlil Gibran once said, beautifully, in his book "The Prophet" - "You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth" ...
. The same happens friend ... you're a bow ... your reading is an arrow ... but please remember ... the arrow is poiting to the inner truth ... to the ultimate book ... to your inner book ... the knowledge about this inner book ... is not borrowed ... by any philosopher ... by any physicist ... is virgin ... that's the true knowledge ... is given to you by nature ... by tao ... or whatever you want to call it ... right?
. Make your reading a preparation ... for self-realization. Why do I say this? Because ... there's a state much higher than intellectuality ... and unfortunately ... the majority never experienced this state which is beyond any mind activity ... which is beyond any kind of rationalization ... the society does not like when people really know ...
. The key to being human in the highest manner is to be balanced with the mental and emotions. Of course, one with a keep intellect is fortunate for themselves and others if balanced by common sense, compassion, and a general love of life.
. Intellect and intelligence are similar at least in appearance, but only in appearance.
. The intellectual person is not necessarily intelligent and the intelligent person is not necessarily intellectual.
. I'm not an intellectual ...
. You can find a farmer so intelligent that even a very great professor, a very great intellectual, will look like a pygmy in front of him.
. Intuition is frequently the master over the intellect ...
Thanks for your reply, because, sometimes, while I have ideas and wish to pursue them on the site, I do feel that many prefer to look more to those who are seen as having more expertise and knowledge. I do believe that we are all entitled to express our ideas, and the beauty of this site is that it is not just in the domain of the experts or academic circles.I see reading as important in connection with those who have thought about certain ideas, but I do think that intuition is valuable too.
Your response to my post has caused me to take closer consideration of the notion of “publishing” something...
...in its basic meaning, to publish something is to make it public, to reveal it to everyone and anyone whomsoever. This is, nominally, what we do here in this forum: anyone—at least anyone who is a member—may say whatever he will, and read the same of others—at least of other members...
...so it is not strictly true that what we say here is published; for it does not exactly go out into the general public. This fact lends a certain intimacy to it. I have spoken with several ppl in this forum, and we have exchanged rather personal details of our lives with each other. Were these revealed to the ppl I physically consort with in my geographical community, I might blush before them. This lends, as I have stated, a certain intimacy to conversations had here, and that is just one of the several advantages such a place as this, in the internet ether, has over the solid “real” places we inhabit as corporeal beings. That is why, early on, I resisted the impulse of the moderators to censure and ban certain posts and posters for inappropriate speech: for one of the dearest advantages of this space seems to me to be that one can say openly what he really thinks and feels—no matter how much it offend someone—or anyone.
Such a forum is encountered in The Republic of Plato. Socrates chances upon Adaimantos and Glaucon among others at Cephalus’ house, and when the last of these leaves to perform the ritual sacrifices, the rest are free, under Socrates direction, to debate the best form of government. This is the sort of salutary “publishing” I was NOT speaking of when I said that one should only publish something after long study and reading. The sort of publishing I was speaking of is the sort that Socrates never did: only his disciples dared do so (in writing), and only after they realized that philosophers and philosophy were an endangered species, and needed public support in the form of writings in order to rehabilitate them...
...but that same impulse, a millennium and a half later, encouraged a Machiavelli to publish The Prince—not intimately, just to his friends, but to anyone who could read. The world was becoming a different place: Copernicus and Galileo showed that man and the earth occupied no special place in the cosmos. If man and the planet were to become ordinary, how could any prince or king claim sovereignty?
You have also got me thinking what it means to get published. One aspect of our writing on this site is that what we write can be seen by the general public because it is online and can be viewed by the public. However, as there is so much on the web and on the site the likelihood of posts we write being read is fairly remote. But, I am consciousness of the fact that what I write being online. At times, I have disclosed about myself in interaction, but I am a bit cautious, because, for example, I am aware that a potential employer could google my name. Generally, I try to write what I can stand by with a certain person of accountability.
The other aspect which I was thinking about was how so many writers are self published. So, just because something is published doesn't in itself give it credibility. I believe that it is fairly easy to publish one's own writing and I know a couple of people who have done this. So, there is plenty of scope for new Machiavelli's really.
I find that I sometimes forget and almost start clicking on paper books too, especially when I wish to turn pages. I agree that buying books does seem like a good thing because it means paying authors. I think that we are getting to the point where people expect to have books and music for nothing. Of course, we want to be able to have access even if we have not got enough money but I know plenty of people who just assume that they should be able to have free books. Books were freely available in libraries before we were able to get them on devices but the original had been paid for.
I also have found that it is a shame not being able to lend the books which I am reading to others. Funnily enough, even though I believe that Kindles are marvellous, none of my friends have them. They don't read like I do but they do say that they would only wish to read actual books. But, the one thing that I have found is that it is sometimes so much easier to get hold of books by downloading them. I also probably would have never read all the classics which I have done if they had not been available at the click of a switch. It seems almost like magic really.
Well, and so am I. I reveal information about the character of where I live, its general location, my sex and race, certain details of my life that only a few would know, etc. But, of course, I don’t reveal my address, social security number, exact date of birth, etc. There are so many Todd Martins out there in the world, even in the Southern USA, that I don’t really fear anyone stalking me up in here...
...btw, this brings to mind an incident that happened to me a few years ago. I was standing on a street corner smoking a cigarette in the local town here, when I noticed police approaching on foot—not unusual, since the station was across the street, and they come by here frequently on their way to downtown. But they failed to just greet me and pass me by; instead they approached me directly, and one of them asked, “Are you Todd Martin?”
I replied that I was, and was then asked to accompany them down into the alley, to have a talk. I agreed, and followed.
In the alley I found myself opposite three police officers, and they began an interrogation: where did I live, what was I doing here, had I posted anything recently online, etc. I answered everything honestly, since I knew I had nothing to hide. As I spoke with them, I continued to smoke my cigarette, but I had nothing to do with my other hand, so I stuck it in my pocket. “Please, take your hand out of your pocket”, I was sternly admonished, which task I slowly and carefully accomplished. I was aware of the holstered pistols on three hips...
...soon my cigarette was finished, and I cast the butt aside onto the pavement. Now I had nowhere to put two hands, and, without thinking, began to slip them both into their respective pockets...”Please take your hands out of your pockets,” I was told by the middle cop: “you’re making me nervous!”...
...looking back on that moment, I realize how lucky I was to be a well-mannered unbelligerant white guy: a recalcitrant black fellow in the south would probably have had pistols drawn on him, if not fired. At any rate, I was finally asked to produce my ID...which was in my back pocket in my wallet; so, I slowly reached my hand back and slowly pulled it out, took out the card, and offered it them. The middle cop took it, looked it over, glanced at me and said, “Well, it looks like you’re not the Todd Martin we’re looking for”, and they took their leave of me...
...but not without apology: the middle cop asked for my phone number, said he would contact me after he had done a little research. Soon after, he called me, and invited me to join him in his office at the station, which I did...
...in his office, into which he graciously invited me, I sat opposite him as he described how a certain Todd Martin had posted threats against him on Facebook. He showed me the threats on his computer, and a picture of the guy (he looked nothing like me). Then he began detailing to me how these threats had caused him to contract high blood pressure, go to doctors; how they had disrupted his family life, etc. I felt sorry for the guy, a police lieutenant about to retire, and now faced with this! Just an hour ago he stood opposite me as an enemy...and now I sat opposite him as a confidante...I’m certain, had I been a dreadlocked belligerent black man, I would never have been invited as a friend into a police lieutenant’s office...
...so that, I suppose, is a commentary on having a certain name, being a certain sort of human being, and having a certain rather perilous occupation from which you are about to retire...if only you can save your skin so long. I suppose it is also a commentary on current race relations.
Your experience points to the way in which people often make assumptions based on such a limited basis. I know that people don't assume that I am interested in philosophy and reading when they meet me because I can look a bit scruffy, especially when I am wearing my baseball cap.
But, I have found that people sometimes object to me reading and writing in pubs. I have experienced comments like, 'This is not a library' and I even got asked to leave once for writing in a pub. But, it is hard to find quiet places to read, and even in my local library there are so many children activities going on that it can be so noisy.
But, going back to the general topic, I do believe that this site is one way of thinking about our reading, because, otherwise, it can become an isolative experience. However, I do think it is good to not be influenced too much by certain people's ideas and interpretations, especially when they become dogmatic.
Out of curiosity I just Googled my own name. Of course, the famous tennis player topped the list, and I was a tournament player in my own day; but I didn’t win the NCAA championship, and never made it to the finals of the US Open. Of the other Todd Martins there I can only say that I am much better looking than most of them, even in my late middle age...but it is heartening to see that THIS Todd Martin, ie, me, am not included among the many dozens of first ppl with that same name listed on Google. I kept tapping the “see more results” icon over and over only to discover that, if someone wanted to find me through that search engine, they’d have to do a lot of searching and spend a lot more time than I was willing to.
And here is a funny thing: I did not intend to make my user name in this forum my real one. When I first signed up to join TPF, I was asked my name. I typed in my real one, assuming I would be asked later what I wished my proxy one to be. But then I discovered, to my dismay, that my actual name became my user- one!
But my dismay soon turned into equanimity as I realized that others here, like you, have posted photos of themselves and gone by what seems to be their actual names. Those who so dare, either by mistake or design, must consider themselves to be nobodies; ie, ppl no one would want to research or track down for any reason, either as a potential employee, or as someone they want to get even with.