Mortimer Adler, How to Read a Book.

It depends.

I was curious about this book and even tempted to buy it once or twice. Generally I find it more useful to write my own thoughts on ‘how to read a book’. I don’t agree with everything stated above and I’d be surprised if anyone did - I learn more about reading from Kant’s COPR and certainly didn’t adhere to those guidelines. Plus most people who read philosophy don’t actually read it. They just read ‘guides’ and then enter the text loaded with preconceptions - especially in academia where students have to cram rather than read complete texts.

From my experience the best way to read such stuff is the hardest way. That is to approach it like a battle, to wrestle with the ideas and meaning. To oppose what is written and to try to bend to the will of what is written. I read Kant with a combination of disgust and repulsion, and with appreciation and awe.

If you’re not struggling then what you’re reading is banal or you’re not trying hard enough. Assume both to be equally true and the chances are you’ll learn how not to try if nothing else :)

I bought it because I didn't know how to read a book, but then I realized that I couldn't read How to Read a Book, either.

Finally someone explained to me that the first step is to open the cover.

I often read the last chapter first and then the chapters in reverse order. This helps me form a mental scheme of logical relations. I speed read nowadays, that is easier than struggling. I increasingly take notes during this process. Then I go back to favourite bits in more detail. Some books have been presented without much reason to their serial format. The more I dip into science, philosophy, history, you name it, the more I can "place" what I am reading.

I've not read Adler. What is above looks good as stated - bearing in mind in most cases I am doing most of this at the mental level only. D A Carson contrasts the 1972 edition of Adler unfavourably with the first edition.

Quoting Terrapin Station

I bought it because I didn't know how to read a book, but then I realized that I couldn't read How to Read a Book, either.

Finally someone explained to me that the first step is to open the cover.

Woody Allen once said "I took a class in speed reading. We read 'War and Peace' in 20 minutes. It involves Russia."

Reply to T Clark

Haha, I love that old Woody Allen stuff.

I have found that the books I've read 8-10 times are the ones I understand really well. I always have my trusty pencil in hand and write copious notes and responses in the margins.

I approve of the approach taken by Saint John's College - a critical reading and discussion of the "great books". One learns to read to read a book by way of example and interpretative practice under the guidance of more advanced students or tutors, based on the assumption that the books themselves are the teachers.

One thing Adler does not mention is learning how to ask questions of a text and listen for the answers. In line with this is noting apparent contradictions and figuring out how the author reconciles them or how these contradictions point to a higher level of understanding beyond the contradictions. The assumption here is that if we can see the contradictions they have not gone unnoticed by the greatest minds.

Quoting tim wood

What follows is a one-page summary, mainly chapter and section headings.

Useful outline.

Here is an online summary. Apparently, it takes 17 minutes to read.
https://fastertomaster.com/how-to-read-a-book-mortimer-j-adler/

After a quick skim through, I like the idea of reading as a conversation with the author. To keep an open mind. 'Books are imperfect creations of imperfect creatures'.

There's a bit about ensuring the right environment for reading; all the better to focus.
'Respect each session: as life-changing meeting of minds'.
I wonder at 'life-changing'...the potential is there, for sure.

'Active reading is like active listening'.

Quoting Fooloso4

One thing Adler does not mention is learning how to ask questions of a text and listen for the answers. In line with this is noting apparent contradictions and figuring out how the author reconciles them or how these contradictions point to a higher level of understanding beyond the contradictions.

I take it that Adler means trying to understand by restating the position in your own words. If you can't then you have to pose questions as to correct meaning.
As you say, the question then is 'how to ask the right questions and how to listen for the answers'. So, what is the answer ?

Reading actively means mastering four levels of reading:

Elementary reading – Turning symbols into information;
Inspectional reading – Getting the most from a book in a given time;
Analytical reading – Thorough and complete reading for understanding;
Synoptic reading – Exploring a subject through wide reading.

Each level in turn is examined after three general tips.

Quoting Fine Doubter

I speed read nowadays, that is easier than struggling. I increasingly take notes during this process. Then I go back to favourite bits in more detail.

I tend to skim read and then go back to take notes.
How do you take notes if you are speed reading ?
Some write in the margins or highlight. I can't bring myself to do that.
I tend to have blank paper and pen beside me. Use abbreviations, asterisks and all kinds of punctuation marks !! ?? ( ) [ ] < >.

Quoting Fine Doubter

The more I dip into science, philosophy, history, you name it, the more I can "place" what I am reading.

Yes. I think having a kind of mental map, time-line or context is helpful when reading.

Quoting uncanni

I have found that the books I've read 8-10 times are the ones I understand really well. I always have my trusty pencil in hand and write copious notes and responses in the margins.

Really ?
That seems a bit excessive. But I guess whatever works for you. Do you read differently each time and with a different purpose?

A section in the Adler summary about reading for understanding:
There is a distinction between the 'widely read' where there is a lot of reading but with less understanding and the 'well read' where there is less reading but with greater understanding.

Not sure I agree with this. I think both the 'widely read' and the 'well read' can have both increased reading and understanding. It depends on the individual.

'I...write copious notes and responses in the margins'.
You must have exceedingly big margins :gasp:

Reply to Amity I have notes all over my books that make their way into my publications. It's just how I do it.

Reply to uncanni
I understand that's the way you do it.
I guess I would need to see an example.
If you have a publication (product) using your notes, could you show the process from start to end ?
Or back to front ?

I really am fascinated by this; it is not an idle curiosity.
And I had another question you didn't answer...

Quoting Amity

Do you read differently each time and with a different purpose?

Interesting question: Do we ever read the exact same thing when we re-read? For myself, each reading deepens and broadens the interconnections I make among ideas and concept. Each reading fills in some of the blank spaces that weren't synthesized on the previous reading. Also, keep in mind that in between readings, I may read various other things that make the next reading easier.

The 10 readings was my practice in graduate school when I was teaching myself critical theory, and that was only for the most difficult books, like Bakhtin, Derrida, Lyotard, Irigaray, etc. I should have clarified that I no longer need to read a challenging book that many times. Of course, I read Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte over and over for the pure pleasure of the prose.

I can describe the process to you, because all the notes are in my books, and of course the article itself is different..

Quoting uncanni

Do you read differently each time and with a different purpose?
— Amity

Interesting question: Do we ever read the exact same thing when we re-read? For myself, each reading deepens and broadens the interconnections I make among ideas and concept.

Quoting uncanni

Each reading fills in some of the blank spaces that weren't synthesized on the previous reading. Also, keep in mind that in between readings, I may read various other things that make the next reading easier.

Thanks for elaboration. How do you keep a note of the interconnections made between different texts. Do you use some kind of shorthand code ?

Quoting uncanni

I can describe the process to you, because all the notes are in my books, and of course the article itself is different..

I think you meant to write 'can't' - my initial hopes dashed.
I didn't expect you to draw an arrow from your book notes to the finished product.
However, if your article gives references to books you used, then it should theoretically be possible for you to pinpoint the important notes used, no ?

If you don't care, or have the time, to share more, then I understand :smile:
You have already been most generous, thanks.

Quoting tim wood

the effect that a work of the imagination has on you.

I wasn't going to respond to this. When someone focuses on a writer I am not familiar with, it seems disrespectful of the OP, but I find that I can't stop thinking about your post. I've only got a little time right now, but I'll come back later and give a more comprehensive set of thoughts. For now, I'd like to focus on one aspect of reading fiction I think is relevant.

There was a recent thread I found really interesting - Is meaning something separate from words. In that thread, I tried to make the case that non-verbal art, e.g. music and painting, doesn't mean anything until someone puts it into words. The paradox of fiction is that, even though it is an art of words, it also doesn't mean anything until someone puts that meaning into (different) words. Seems like Adler is describing a process for extracting meaning from a book. For non-fiction, I am less at odds with Adler's approach than I am with fiction.

Fiction can be experienced without words in the same way that visual art or music can. In reading fiction, it is the experience, not the meaning that is important. Here is a link to a passage from a book by John Gardner - October Light - that I used in that previous thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/326674

Fiction can be experienced in the same way that the French horn player describes for music in the linked passage. I think that is the important thing for us to get out of fiction - the experience, not the meaning. I'll write more later.

I hope you think this is relevant.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Fine Doubter

I've not read Adler. What is above looks good as stated - bearing in mind in most cases I am doing most of this at the mental level only. D A Carson contrasts the 1972 edition of Adler unfavourably with the first edition.

I've not read Adler either - just the summary I linked to.
This is of a later edition which adds 'Inspectional and 'Synoptical' reading.

I found those sections useful. I think @tim wood must be using the original ?
What especially did Carson object to ?

Quoting tim wood

In my experience (of others' books), the margins are filled with notes, questions, answers, ideas, challenges, the book itself having been taken over by the reader and turned into a personal memoir of the acquisition of the author's ideas contained

I have seen some highlights, scribbles and squeezed-in thoughts but none that have taken over the book.
That is one way to make a book your own, for sure.

Quoting tim wood

I have myself got inexpensive composition books (sewn-in pages, about $1 at Walmart) and tried to build a something similar to accompany the text.

Yes. I have a number of notebooks where I attempt to sort out my thoughts when reading.
It is sometimes too easy to copy sentences and quotes without paraphrasing in own words.
As long as we keep the references in place...

Quoting tim wood

But to start I have to learn not to fall asleep reading it.

Yes indeed. There is advice on providing the right setting for a serious 1:1.

'The final tip for active-reading is to set your reading environment up for success.
Make sure your environment is well lit, tidy and allows you to focus.
Treat every session with the same respect as a life-changing meeting of minds.'

Quoting Amity

I think you meant to write 'can't' - my initial hopes dashed.
I didn't expect you to draw an arrow from your book notes to the finished product.

No, I meant "can," but I had to rush off after I wrote that part.

What I don't understand is why your hopes were dashed; surely you have a system of your own that helps you to tackle the more difficult texts. I'm wondering if you're putting me on.

I don't think that someone else can teach me to be a good, close reader; that's something I have to teach myself with lots of practice.

Reply to tim wood Thank you very much for the reading tips.

I see a paradox though. If you don't know how to read how can you learn it from a book which you, obviously, have to read?

If you can read a book about how to read then you already know how to read.

I guess books come in varieties and so we can read a technical book about how to read fiction or non-fiction or a cookbook for that matter.

Quoting uncanni

No, I meant "can," but I had to rush off after I wrote that part.

What I don't understand is why your hopes were dashed; surely you have a system of your own that helps you to tackle the more difficult texts. I'm wondering if you're putting me on.

I don't think that someone else can teach me to be a good, close reader; that's something I have to teach myself with lots of practice.

Apologies for the misread.

My hopes were dashed because I don't 'get' how you can write copious notes and interconnections with other texts in the small margins of a book so that they can be easily managed. Especially after umpteen readings with all the potential changes, deepening or expanding views.
Unless I suppose it is digital...

I tend to be sincere in my questions, explorations and discussions. Hope that reassures you.

Yes, I have gone through various types of note-taking, outlining, editing etc. in order to produce academic essays. Way back.

However, I don't have a settled way of 'close reading' via note-taking.
You are right, it takes practice, patience and perseverance.
Perhaps I was/am looking for a magic wand...witchcraft or wizardry in the art of...

Quoting Amity

Perhaps I was/am looking for a magic wand...witchcraft or wizardry in the art of...

That I can supply!! But my description will be a bit poetic, because the experience is profound for me.

I also write copius notes on the empty pages at the beginning of a book, the title page, etc. It's very important that I start "dialoguing" with the book by beginning my own writing process. There was a book that I read repeatedly and ended up erasing and whiting out notes once I had moved far beyond them, in order to begin synthesizing my own ideas, putting what I understood into my own language.

With this particularly difficult text, translated from the Russian, on the first couple of reads, I summarized each main idea and numbered it on each page. Then I'd start at 1 again on the next page. This helped me to remember the sequence of the construction of particularly complex concepts/arguments. (Actually, it was Bakhtin, which we are discussing on my Bakhtin topic.) https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6713/mikhail-bakhtins-dialogic-imagination

I erased all that when I totally understood how he constructed his ideas.

After I understood the steps of the construction, then I could begin to weave all the textual elements together and see wider patterns and designs (textiles). There are a series of movements in the act of synthesis, as ideas can be synthesized in different ways and combinations.

Then I started writing my responses and interpretations of what he was writing--and even objections and disagreements in places. For me, this entire exercise has always been about creating my own ideas and syntheses; I've never been good at spouting dogma. I always look for what hasn't been said.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Follow the masters of interpretation. I am partial to Leo Strauss and Jacob Klein, especially their readings of the ancients, but the skills are transferable to reading others as well. Strauss became a controversial figure, but largely because his critics did not learn from him how to read and thus the misread and misunderstand him

Since the topic is Adler I will leave it here.

Adler's depiction of analysis suggests a map where different ideas can be found in relation to one another. The approach has merit as a way to start talking about works. It is certainly the case that many ideas do have relationships with others. But I have two objections and one observation.

It is difficult to hear what is being said if the words already have a place in the commonly received collection of what has already been said. From that point of view, there is no reason to say anything more than has already been said. Reading should catch you alone and unaware of the dangers that lie ahead.

Listening to the new is a problem for books read many times or just for the first time. One quality pertaining to reading very familiar texts is that the words become interwoven in ways that stop being an argument for this or that formula of dispute or decision whereby some predicate can be repeated by another predicate.

Adler's depiction of criticism does not include a place for that form of life.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

But for the rest, you've got a lot going on. I buy the idea - not my idea - that at one time generally, but now mainly with children, and in those occasional moments when experience irrupts into adult consciousness, as with poetry, or again with an experience of redintegration, or music, that words were not as they are now, i.e. mainly the abstract signs of abstract categories of things, but rather the names of things the things themselves being the source of experience, and their names then becoming a secondary source of that same experience.

Quoting tim wood

Whereas words as signs - univocal - are shorn not of meaning but of significance, shorn of the immediate experience of them, leaving only their abstract "gesturing/pointing" at objects we have little or no real interest in, being, rather, disinterested observers/watchers of them.

I'm not sure if I get the distinction between words and names, at least not in this context. I wrote previously:

Quoting T Clark

Fiction can be experienced without words in the same way that visual art or music can. In reading fiction, it is the experience, not the meaning that is important.

You describe "...moments when experience irrupts into adult consciousness, as with poetry, or again with an experience of redintegration, or music.... " I'm saying that those moments, i.e. direct experience of art without descriptions or meaning, can happen with literature as well as music, etc. I have that experience all the time while reading literature. I'm not sure, are you disagreeing with that or saying something else entirely?

I also said that is the purpose of art, the proper goal of art, including literature. It seems to me that the meaning of a work of literature is something different from that and that the purpose of the process of interpretation described by Adler is to establish the meaning of the book or story.

Quoting tim wood

In short, in reply I'd venture that what you encounter in art is a lost part of yourself that is not easily recognizable as such, and attribute it to the art itself - which is also legitimate because it reminded you of that which makes for you possible the experience of the art as art.

I don't think I understand. Of course a work of art, including literature, interacts with my feelings, memories, attitudes to have its effect. Everything we experience does.

I think I am probably missing your point. Also, I think I confused myself.

Quoting uncanni

It's very important that I start "dialoguing" with the book by beginning my own writing process. There was a book that I read repeatedly and ended up erasing and whiting out notes once I had moved far beyond them, in order to begin synthesizing my own ideas, putting what I understood into my own language.

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and techniques in reaching an understanding. Not many people are willing to set this out. You have inspired me to read Bahktin.

Yes. The whole processing of someone else's thoughts requires listening and taking note of what is being said, not what you think is being said. For that to happen the mind might have to struggle against ingrained beliefs or ways of thinking. It can end up tied in knots if it unravels the text too swiftly and without due attention. I think writing about it helps to clear the mind.

I can see now how you make room for new or advanced notes as you progress and produce your own understanding. I understand the continual erasing; it clearly works for you.
However, for me, I think something might be lost over and above the words.

If a note pad was used then I think you could follow your strains of thought and more easily see the interconnections between texts. For all you know, the original thought might still be of value. I would keep any 'old' writing in, at least, a temporary 'bin'. I used to do that when 'editing' my essays; placing drafts or unused paragraphs in a separate file. For me, there existed the danger of cutting out the fresh ideas and overworking the material.

My view is that mental discourse, or quick flash, between one thought and another can easily be broken. The expression of inner dialogue might be restricted if only a book's white spaces are used.
Then again, thankfully, we are all unique in our mental processing and understanding. Otherwise, what would there be to discuss.

Quoting uncanni

With this particularly difficult text, translated from the Russian, on the first couple of reads, I summarized each main idea and numbered it on each page. Then I'd start at 1 again on the next page. This helped me to remember the sequence of the construction of particularly complex concepts/arguments. (Actually, it was Bakhtin, which we are discussing on my Bakhtin topic.)

I have read this a few times and still can't visualise it. How do you link the numbers of the main ideas if you start again on each page ? This sounds confusing. I think perhaps I should leave it there. There are limits to such descriptions...

Quoting uncanni

There are a series of movements in the act of synthesis, as ideas can be synthesized in different ways and combinations.

This is new to me. I would like to hear more about this. What are the series of movements ?

Quoting uncanni

For me, this entire exercise has always been about creating my own ideas and syntheses; I've never been good at spouting dogma. I always look for what hasn't been said.

Looking for something that hasn't been said is quite the challenge. Creating own ideas and publishing them likewise. I will read more of your thoughts in this forum. Or if you can recommend anywhere else ?

This has been productive, thanks.

Quoting Fooloso4

Follow the masters of interpretation. I am partial to Leo Strauss and Jacob Klein, especially their readings of the ancients, but the skills are transferable to reading others as well.

Where can I follow any 'how to' descriptions or prescriptions on close reading ?
Or did they not spell it out ?

Quoting tim wood

The St. John's Great Books program is (I'm pretty sure) in part based on Adler's own ideas about great book, what and which they are, and how to read them

Interesting. What makes you think this ?

Quoting Valentinus

It is difficult to hear what is being said if the words already have a place in the commonly received collection of what has already been said. From that point of view, there is no reason to say anything more than has already been said. Reading should catch you alone and unaware of the dangers that lie ahead.

I hear this but I I don't understand. There is plenty of reason for you to say more...
Reading a book does not necessarily mean there are dangers ahead. Is this a necessary part of reading ?
This all sounds too prescriptive...a bit like the Do's and Don'ts of Tim's outline.

Quoting Valentinus

Adler's depiction of criticism does not include a place for that form of life.

Some elaboration would be appreciated.

Quoting Amity

This is new to me. I would like to hear more about this. What are the series of movements ?

Synthesis of ideas is never static; it's always in movement. This is how one might avoid a tendency to "materialize" one's beliefs and render them totalitarian, absolutely correct. I learned this from reading Theodor Adorno. Hillel also says, "Learning not increased is learning decreased." I think that about says it all.

Adorno used the Greek phil. concept of hypostasis as a metaphor to deconstruct, so to speak, the notion that ideas have an inviolable solidity, meaning or truth to them. For one thing, he was a dialectical materialist, so this is a world view about as far away from Platonic concepts as you can get, since (historical) contexts and meanings are in continual transition and transformation.

In one essay, he used the concept of hypostasis to create a metaphor based on the medical meaning of an accumulation of sediment which has separated from the liquid it was suspended in. He was referring to the action of ideology as mystification and distortion of ideas about a social reality.

This brief summary may not help at all to explain, but it's the best I can do. Adorno taught me never to "cling" to my ideas: it's not healthy.

Uncanni, thank you for the wonderful Hillel quote which has been my own viewpoint for a long time now. (Everyone else - I'll bring details to screen - am visiting screens at moment.)

Quoting tim wood

understanding before interpretation - is sometimes not-so-easy

I do not think that we first understand and then interpret. Interpretation is the way in which we come to understand.

Quoting tim wood

So perhaps the question to you might be how you handle a book you want to understand but that at first seems opaque?

It depends on the book and author. My own training was based on reading primary texts and asking questions about them - "What does Plato mean when he says this?" "Why would he say this?" "Is it true?" We were not given any introduction and knew nothing of secondary literature. It was up to us to try and make sense of it. It was up to us to form our own opinions about the issues raised. While there are certainly limits to this approach, the benefit was to learn to engage with the text rather than have it explained.

In my opinion a reliance on secondary literature can prevent us from learning to carefully attend to the text. On the other hand, without some guidance we may not make much progress with some texts. Here commentaries can be our teachers. Since they continually point back to the text they can enhance our engagement with the text.

Other secondary literature is of value though in orienting us with regard to such things as how terms are being used and who and what problems the author may be responding to. I see the works of philosophers as a dialogue across the ages. If we drop in in the middle of a conversation it can be difficult to know what is going on.

But the secondary literature can give us very different answers and so if we want to understand a primary work we cannot be too reliant on secondary literature. The truth is though, that even some professional philosophers do not read primary works. Heidegger had much to do with the current revival of interest in the ancients. Both Strauss and Klein, who I mentioned above, were at one time students of his. Although they became deeply suspicious of him, what they learned from him was to return to the source.

Quoting tim wood

The St. John's Great Books program is (I'm pretty sure) in part based on Adler's own ideas about great book ...

That is not the case. See the Wiki articles on Great Books and Saint John's.

Quoting Amity

Where can I follow any 'how to' descriptions or prescriptions on close reading ?
Or did they not spell it out ?

It is mostly by way of example. One guiding principle is to assume the superiority of the author to the reader, that whatever problems or contradictions the reader finds are things the author is aware of. Apparent contractions are to be treated as signs of something deeper, to look closer to, to see if and how they are reconciled by the author. But it may be that some things cannot be reconciled, that philosophy is ultimately aporetic.

Quoting Amity

This all sounds too prescriptive...a bit like the Do's and Don'ts of Tim's outline.

I meant to echo what Fooloso4 said about not letting secondary writing cancel the experience of letting primary writing speak for itself. Perhaps my expression of it is prescriptive. I see it more as a challenge to myself than as a rule or method that leads to particular results.

What I dislike in Adler's description of criticism is the assumption that all ideas can be stated as arguments that we can stand outside of and view together. Taken to an extreme, the encyclopedia comes to replace the knowledge it would organize.

Quoting tim wood

If this is confusing - it confuses me - think about a time you have attempted to share, say, some Bach or Beethoven with an adolescent (younger children, especially young children, can be transfixed - stopped in their tracks - by those composers), only to have that adolescent not comprehend even a little bit what he's hearing, certainly incapable of any appreciation.

I was thinking about this again. Isn't the attitude expressed in Adler's procedures exactly what drives some young people away from reading? To me, with young people it would make more sense to focus on the experience - what they find enjoyable, intellectually stimulating, or moving.

I have three children. My daughter, the eldest, was a reader from the beginning, as am I. My two sons were not. I always felt bad about that, that they wouldn't experience the pleasure and value of reading. Also, it made it harder to buy birthday and Christmas presents for them. Then, when they were in their late teens or early twenties, they started reading on their own, for their own reasons. I love it that I can have discussions with them, especially my youngest. They have sophisticated understanding of literature. They also write well, which was a surprise, given their academic history.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

I trust you're far enough along to both have realized and to some extent experienced just how problematic - to be kind - the "sink or swim you're on your own" approach can be.

Yes. There may be rare cases of autodidacts who can do it alone, but far more common are those who fancy themselves autodidacts who cannot. We are in need of and greatly benefit from having good teachers. Some of those teachers may be people we have had the pleasure of studying with, but given the constraints of time and geography it is "books on books" that serve as our teachers. They do not simply provide information and explanation, they guide us in our own reading of the philosopher in question.

Many years ago when I was in graduate school I met privately one on one with Gadamer who taught periodically at Boston College. I was considering doing work on the interpretation of texts, the meaning and significance of interpretation and its relation to originality. Being the kind and gentle man he was he simply suggested I first spend the next twenty-five years doing interpretation. I think it was good advice.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

And I shall remind myself to think twice and twice again if I imagine to suppose you're mistaken about anything on these matters again!

Well the third time then you might be right.

Quoting tim wood

P. C. Smith

I thought the name sounded familiar. He translated Gadamer's Hegel's Dialectic, Dialogue and Dialectic, and The Idea of the Good in Platonic-Aristotelian Philosophy, but since I usually skip translator's introductions unless I know the translator I don't know if I ever read him. I will have to take another look.

Quoting tim wood

The Hermeneutics of Original Argument

What is original argument? I just looked it up. It refers to rhetoric, a subject that is misunderstood and receives too little attention these days. Sounds interesting. I started reading Aristotle's Rhetoric again a few months ago but got distracted by other things and other books. Unlike some here who, based on the "Currently Reading" topic can quickly read through books, I am a slow reader. I will die before I read everything on my bookshelf, but continue to buy more.

Quoting Fooloso4

The St. John's Great Books program is (I'm pretty sure) in part based on Adler's own ideas about great book ...
— tim wood
That is not the case. See the Wiki articles on Great Books and Saint John's.

About St.John's, Great books and how they are read:
1986 article.
Quoting Robert Kanigel

At St.John's... Its ''great books'' list, the work of a seven-person committee elected by the faculty, has changed some in half a century: Montesquieu, Dickens and 50 or so other authors are no longer read, while Melville, Schrodinger and Faulkner, among others, are now included. But the program itself remains much as it was 50 years ago, an island of idealism in the currently pragmatic educational sea. In sum, according to George Doskow, who has been on the faculty since 1965, ''We read the best books we can find and talk about them as well as we can.'' 

From wiki: 'The emphasis is on open discussion with limited guidance by a professor, facilitator, or tutor. Students are also expected to write papers.'

In seminar, the first rule freshmen encounter is: No unsupported opinions. ''You have to come to your point reasonably, or find something in the text that deals with it,''...
...In time, the early freshness fades. The reading is interminable, sometimes approaching a thousand pages a week, as John Schiavo's wife, Monika, also a graduate, recollects.

Students are asked an initial question e.g. about Roussea and the general will. There is silence until a few students put forward suggestions. Not all can do this. And some kind of a lengthy conversational groping takes place. With no notes taken, apparently.
----------
https://www.sjc.edu/academic-programs/undergraduate/great-books-reading-list

St. John’s College was founded in 1696 and is best known for the Great Books curriculum that was adopted in 1937. While the list of books has evolved over the last century, the tradition of all students reading foundational texts of Western civilization remains.

Works listed are studied at one or both campuses, although not always in their entirety.
VIEW THE ENTIRE ST. JOHN’S GREAT BOOKS READING LIST AS A PDF

If limited to the 'great books' of the Western canon, it provides a narrow way of looking at the world.
'It is not for everyone'. I would agree.

Quoting Fooloso4

My own training was based on reading primary texts and asking questions about them - "What does Plato mean when he says this?" "Why would he say this?" "Is it true?" We were not given any introduction and knew nothing of secondary literature. It was up to us to try and make sense of it. It was up to us to form our own opinions about the issues raised. While there are certainly limits to this approach, the benefit was to learn to engage with the text rather than have it explained.

Quoting tim wood

I trust you're far enough along to both have realized and to some extent experienced just how problematic - to be kind - the "sink or swim you're on your own" approach can be.

Quoting Fooloso4

Yes.There may be rare cases of autodidacts who can do it alone, but far more common are those who fancy themselves autodidacts who cannot.

How did you cope and engage with the St.John's approach ? As a student or teacher?
Clearly, you derived benefit from it. What about others. Was it really a case of 'sink or swim' ?
At that age, I would probably sit in silence and listen.
Floating in a sea or sigh of incomprehension...

Quoting tim wood

In as much as the list included Kant's three Critiques and Hegel, you can see it would be no joke to complete it. Also, that the experience, pressed onto the young, could only be more-or-less wasted on many of them.

Indeed. However, it is not really pressed on them.They know what they sign up for. Some are very excited about this way of learning; deliberately seeking it out.
It doesn't sound like my cuppa tea. However, as part of life experience, it would not be wasted.

Quoting tim wood

Not a real paradox. How did you learn anything? And there's an ambiguity in (y)our use of "read."

What if all paradoxes aren't real?

Anyway a book on how to read can teach us how to read - there must be an optimum method right?

Quoting uncanni

Synthesis of ideas is never static; it's always in movement. This is how one might avoid a tendency to "materialize" one's beliefs and render them totalitarian, absolutely correct. I learned this from reading Theodor Adorno. Hillel also says, "Learning not increased is learning decreased." I think that about says it all.

Well, thanks to you and others here, I am learning something new every day :smile:
I have always had a sense that a flexible mind is a healthy mind. However, I am not sure how well I synthesize ideas...especially when reading. There is still a tendency to pick out only those passages that fit own agenda. Important parts might be disregarded...

Quoting uncanni

Adorno..was a dialectical materialist, so this is a world view about as far away from Platonic concepts as you can get, since (historical) contexts and meanings are in continual transition and transformation.

I am interested in the dialectical, having just attempted to read Hegel...with limited understanding.
I note the difference between dialectical materialism and idealism...but have little knowledge.

Quoting uncanni

This brief summary may not help at all to explain, but it's the best I can do. Adorno taught me never to "cling" to my ideas: it's not healthy.

Yet again, you have been most helpful - it's a pleasure to read you.

Quoting TheMadFool

there must be an optimum method right?

How do you read ? Or look, listen and learn ?
Do you have only one way ?

Pick a book, any book !
https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/120742.Mortimer_J_Adler_s_reading_list
What...only 96 ?
There must be more.

Here, 137:
https://thinkingasleverage.wordpress.com/book-lists/mortimer-adlers-reading-list/
From 1972 edition.

Rather than a prescriptive list, as in St.John's or any university, the choice is yours.
And that is where an initial survey comes in useful. From the online summary:

The final step in skim reading is to:
Decide whether to read the book or not.

If you only live for 700,000 hours (~80 years), do you really want to invest ~6 of them in this book? Is reading this book going to rock your world? Is it one of the ~1,000 good or ~100 truly great books that Adler and Doren suggest might exist?
If not, you may want to read something else.

Hopefully, you can see how a quick upfront skim and one simple question can save hundreds of hours of frustration and effort.

I would add another decision. Whether or not to continue.
Life's too short to spend months or years on Hegel :wink:
Unless you are a serious academic...or a glutton for punishment...
Are you a failure if you give up on a book before the end ? Has it been a waste of time ?
Better to have read half a book than none at all...?

Quoting Amity

How did you cope and engage with the St.John's approach ? As a student or teacher?

The instructor for my intro to philosophy class was a graduate of St. John's, but neither the philosophy major nor the undergraduate degree was based on this approach, except to the extent that most of the texts in the philosophy program were primary texts and, at least in classes with this professor, we did a close reading and discussion of the text rather than passively listen to him lecture. When I taught I used primary texts but, as has become much more common, most of the students either did not read the material or did not work to understand it.

Quoting Amity

Was it really a case of 'sink or swim' ?

No. In both cases, as a teacher and as a student, only a few dedicated students learned to swim but most did not sink, at least if sinking meant failing the class.

Quoting Amity

At that age, I would probably sit in silence and listen.

Grades were based in large part on term papers.

Quoting Amity

Floating in a sea or sigh of incomprehension...

When you asked sink or swim my immediate thought was float.

Quoting Valentinus

What I dislike in Adler's description of criticism is the assumption that all ideas can be stated as arguments that we can stand outside of and view together. Taken to an extreme, the encyclopedia comes to replace the knowledge it would organize.

Have you read the book ? Can you quote or reference the relevant parts ?
I don't see this assumption in the brief outline provided by Tim:

B. Special criteria for points of criticism
12. Show wherein the author is uninformed
13. " " " " " misinformed
14. " " " " " illogical
15. " " " author's analysis is incomplete.
Of these last four, the first three are criteria for disagreement. Failing in all of these, you must agree, at least in part, although you may suspend judgment on the whole, in view of the last point.

And I have no idea what you mean by:'Taken to an extreme, the encyclopedia comes to replace the knowledge it would organize.' ?

Reply to Fooloso4 Appreciate your further explanation.

Quoting Fooloso4

Floating in a sea or sigh of incomprehension...
— Amity

When you asked sink or swim my immediate thought was float.

Well, some great minds think alike :wink:
I credit Tim's original either/or for providing the inspiration...

Quoting uncanni

For one thing, he was a dialectical materialist, so this is a world view about as far away from Platonic concepts as you can get, since (historical) contexts and meanings are in continual transition and transformation.

I think that this is based on a common but fundamentally misguided reading of Plato. Very briefly: the dialogues typically end in aporia, but the danger is what he calls misologic or nihilism. Plato presents a salutary public teaching - Forms, recollection, transcendence, but dialectic always falls short of knowledge of Forms. The public teaching is philosophical poetry. Plato, like Socrates, was a zetetic skeptic. The philosopher is a lover of wisdom is always in pursuit of it and never in possession of it. The image of knowledge is static and timeless but the dialogues are in motion and in continual transition and transformation. They are not based on knowledge the philosopher does not posses but on an examination of opinion.

Reply to Amity
The methods for criticism are framed within the larger task of analysis:
[quote="M Adler";d6716"]I. The first stage of analytical reading: rules for finding out what a book is about
1. Classify the book according to kind and subject matter
2. State what the whole book is about with the utmost brevity
3. Enumerate its major parts in their order and relation, and outline those parts as you have outlined the whole
4. Define the problem(s) the author has tried to solve.[/quote]

If the book being read adopts these criteria for it own purposes, then perhaps the expository task of explaining meaning this way is not a simplification or translation of ideas into the most easily digestible form possible.

But if the book makes use of many explanations and arguments to serve a number of purposes that may not all agree with each other or to show a limit of expression, then the encyclopedic type of exposition excludes itself from participating in the conversation past a certain point.

My objection is also fueled by M Adler's arguments in his other works regarding the promotion of "common sense" articulations of philosophical thought over the uses of the esoteric. While the pragmatism of this approach is commendable as a means to improve our public discourse, it avoids the difficulties of hearing many works through their own voices.

Quoting Amity

However, I am not sure how well I synthesize ideas...especially when reading. There is still a tendency to pick out only those passages that fit own agenda. Important parts might be disregarded...

I believe that this is inevitable unless one has a photographic mind (which I certainly don't). I like the way you put it, and you make me realize that there always is an agenda that shapes my focus.

Reply to Fooloso4 I never was that into Plato (beyond the required freshman course on Western Civ that I took in the 70s), so it's all Greek to me...

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

I wonder though if they're all in some sense on the same ground, on equal footing, or if some thing or single class of things underlies reading in all its manifestations and purposes.

Quoting tim wood

Underlying is love;

Yes. A love of stories - our own and others. To listen. To compare and contrast life experience. To observe and note. To turn the pages and chapters until the end. Following, being followed or simply appreciating the view on our own creative path. Without too much waffle along the way...

Quoting tim wood

the hazard of misreading is always there

Indeed. Also potential misleading and misrepresentation.
But that's another story...

Quoting Amity

How do you read ? Or look, listen and learn ?
Do you have only one way ?

Thanks.
To me there's much to be confused about.

Quoting TheMadFool

To me there's much to be confused about.

Is this a temporary or a permanent condition ? How serious is it ?
How much 'much' ?
Specifically on how to read, can you give an example of your confusion ?
Or is it Adler's book itself where the problems lie ? Can you name and describe at least one ?
More than a single line would be useful...if you seriously want help. To clarify.
I don't have all the answers it must be said. But others might.

Quoting Valentinus

The methods for criticism are framed within the larger task of analysis:

I am still unsure about this. I will have another look at some point. Or if someone else can help me understand this...as it relates to Adler and the objection as framed earlier.

Quoting Valentinus

I see it more as a challenge to myself than as a rule or method that leads to particular results.

Thanks. I think I begin to understand your objection lies in the formulaic approach.
You approach a book as it is; giving you the challenge to read and understand it in your own way.
That's fine if you have the maturity, intelligence, confidence and perhaps a natural inclination to close analysis. Untrained beginners might find Adler helpful as a spring board.
Once they have a few 'rules' or some guidance, then they can adapt to suit themselves.

Quoting Valentinus

My objection is also fueled by M Adler's arguments in his other works regarding the promotion of "common sense" articulations of philosophical thought over the uses of the esoteric. While the pragmatism of this approach is commendable as a means to improve our public discourse, it avoids the difficulties of hearing many works through their own voices.

I haven't read any Adler so you are at an advantage. Would it be possible for you to give a reference, or is it something that is generally well-known ?
What does his 'common sense' approach to reading philosophy entail ?
What is wrong with making philosophical reading more accessible to the general public rather than the few who wish to chew laboriously through the likes of Hegel ?
You say it is commendable as a way to improve public discourse. So, is not reaching the many of far greater importance and deserves to be promoted. It might lead more to proceed to the so-called 'great books' than would otherwise be the case. Or it might lead to a wider path.
Not many can pick up Plato and read it without some kind of help. There is not just one voice; there is quite the clamour to listen to.

Not all books have to be read analytically.
The final level. Synoptic reading.
From the online summary: https://fastertomaster.com/how-to-read-a-book-mortimer-j-adler/#synoptic

Synoptic reading is the art of exploring a question or subject by reading widely. It’s not about reaching conclusions. Instead, it’s about putting together a really good map. It’s about discovering and noting the landmarks, the sights and the hazards so that when you do set out on the journey, you’re the best-informed traveller out there.

The most significant shift here is from a book-focussed perspective to a subject-focussed one. Where analytical reading treats a book as an end in itself, synoptic reading treats a book as a means; as an input to a wider discussion.

That’s why the first part of synoptic reading is less about “how” and more about “what”...

Quoting Fooloso4

Unlike some here who, based on the "Currently Reading" topic can quickly read through books, I am a slow reader. I will die before I read everything on my bookshelf, but continue to buy more.

One response to the question in the 'Currently Reading' thread was by @StreetlightX
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/22/currently-reading/p21
Also @Maw and @180 Proof.

I think it demonstrates that it is not a case of either/or. You can read quick, quick, slow.

Streetlight describes how he reads as a 'churn through books at a fairly high rate' rarely returning to books in their entirety.There is a return to relevant parts of a book according to theme or author. This means that readings can be 'cross-related' helping to build a 'more robust picture'.

This links up to Adler's final level - synoptic reading - which is basically an initial literature review.

After this, a thread might be started to try and improve understanding.
Streetlight suggests that the best way to do this is to put forward arguments or views in your own words. Then, by responding to any criticisms or objections this helps the clarification process. It can also lead to making connections that might not have been made under own steam.
That is the theory anyway...it sounds good to me.
However, in practice, it might just serve to confuse even more.

Your thoughts ?

Quoting Amity

I think it demonstrates that it is not a case of either/or. You can read quick, quick, slow.

One problem with this is that if one reads quickly without sufficient care and attention what one then returns to might not be what would be returned to otherwise.

Quoting Amity

... rarely returning to books in their entirety.

Depending on the author this may be the problem. In the Phaedrus Socrates likens the well crafted speech to a living animal in which every part has a function as part of a whole. Based on this model every part of a well crafted book serves a function. The whole must be understood in light of the parts and the parts in light of the whole. Of course not every book is written this way.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Fooloso4

I started reading Aristotle's Rhetoric again a few months ago

I take it slowly and with careful attention.
So, is this a re-read ?
How do you keep track of main points and ideas and any interconnected views ?
And how would ensure best comprehension ensued ?

What do you think of the idea that a discussion thread might prove of benefit, as per @StreetlightX ?
Do you think a Reading Discussion Group would best be served by a leader who has carefully dissected the text first ? Or who has undertaken a literature review, including secondary resources ?

Or does it depend on the nature or purpose of the reader who might simply want to jump in the deep end and explore. Sink, swim or float...

Whatever the what, why, how and wherefore - it takes a lot of time, energy and effort.

Quoting tim wood

After this, a thread might be started to try and improve understanding.
— Amity
I'm tempted, but would you do the honors. Imo it's an excellent idea and could make a great thread!

I was referring to @StreetlightX and his method of reading and understanding. A thread is started after a review of the literature pertaining to a theme.

What do you mean by me doing the honours ?
To what end ?

Quoting Amity

So, is this a re-read ?

The first time was many years ago when I was a student. Can't say I remember much about the book or the class except that we also read some of Lincoln's speeches.

Quoting Amity

How do you keep track of main points and ideas and any interconnected views ?

I don't have a method or at least not one that I have formalized. There are things that catch my attention and many that escape my attention. Writing about or teaching a text forces me to be much more attentive and rigorous then just reading, but the practice of the former helps with the latter.

Quoting Amity

And how would ensure best comprehension ensued ?

Multiple readings of both the whole and the parts. If I don't understand something I attempt to reconstruct the argument. If after reading a section several times it is still not clear I move ahead hoping that what comes later will shed light. Best comprehension is always relative and falls short of what is there to be understood.

Quoting Amity

What do you think of the idea that a discussion thread might prove of benefit

That might be of some benefit but I think it is more a matter of practice and discovering what is possible by looking at what others have done. I find that writing is a way of thinking. If I am working on something it is often the case that I do not know what I am going to say until I say it and revise it and see how well agrees with the text.

Quoting Amity

Do you think a Reading Discussion Group would best be served by a leader who has carefully dissected the text first ?

On a forum like this there will be a lot of obstacles. I think it works much better in a more structured environment.

Quoting Amity

Or who has undertaken a literature review, including secondary resources ?

I think a careful dissection of the text works best together with the guidance of secondary sources. A survey of the literature may be helpful but for me at least it is a matter of taste and temperament as to which secondary sources I trust.

Quoting Amity

Or does it depend on the nature or purpose of the reader ...

That is an important and often overlooked or rejected aspect. To treat philosophy as if it were an objective, universal science is in my opinion a mistake. I am guided by the admonition know thyself. It is the from which and to which philosophical inquiry moves.

Reply to Amity
This website has a large collection of Adler. He was also an important developer of the Encyclopedia Britannica. The man was a scholar worthy of much respect. I just happen to disagree with his opinion on a number of matters.

By saying that the encyclopedic format shouldn't replace works, I do not mean to say that it is useless.

Quoting Amity

Is this a temporary or a permanent condition ? How serious is it ?
How much 'much' ?
Specifically on how to read, can you give an example of your confusion ?
Or is it Adler's book itself where the problems lie ? Can you name and describe at least one ?
More than a single line would be useful...if you seriously want help. To clarify.
I don't have all the answers it must be said. But others might.

I just know I'm confused. I don't know how to describe it. It's something like being alone on the boat of confusion and watching the ship of knowledge full of people who've, in some sense, got it sail by. To be frank I never understand anything. I once had great difficulty with 1 + 1 = 2. I still do actually.

I watched a video where a math teacher said you can't divide by zero because (in a very confident manner) it would break math. She understood something which I didn't.

Quoting TheMadFool

I just know I'm confused. I don't know how to describe it. It's something like being alone on the boat of confusion and watching the ship of knowledge full of people who've, in some sense, got it sail by.

So, you feel 'at sea' in the sphere of general or particular knowledge ?
Well, that's fine. Nobody knows it all, even if it appears as such. It's all about learning; reaching some kind of understanding, even as we might misread...

From your discussions, you are more than capable of steering your own boat of curiousity. Many here do. Perhaps collectively we are a navy of fools...creating whirlpools of nonsense. Have you learned anything from participating in the forum ?

So, right now, I'm resting in safe harbour after a bout of mal de mer.
Steady as she goes !

PS any reason you chose the name 'The Mad Fool' ?

Quoting Amity

PS any reason you chose the name 'The Mad Fool' ?

What could be worse? :sad:

Reply to Valentinus
Thanks for the link. Excellent website full of 'radical' reading. One thing that stands out about Adler is his clarity of writing. That makes it easy for any objections or criticisms to be made, and responded to.
Will read more...

Quoting TheMadFool

What could be worse? :sad:

Worse things happen at sea. That was SO obvious :sad:
Never mind, keep your secret to your self. It's not always wise to give people what they ask for...

Reply to Amity :up: :ok:

Quoting Fooloso4

How do you keep track of main points and ideas and any interconnected views ?
— Amity

I don't have a method or at least not one that I have formalized. There are things that catch my attention and many that escape my attention. Writing about or teaching a text forces me to be much more attentive and rigorous then just reading, but the practice of the former helps with the latter.

So, how far have you got with Aristotle's Rhetoric ? What things have caught your attention and is your memory so well-trained that it can retain such without marking them out in some physical manner ? From what you say about writing things out, it sounds like you must make and take notes when you are working on something. All the better to revise understanding of the text.

If you were to teach this text, how would you structure the process ?

Quoting Fooloso4

Best comprehension is always relative and falls short of what is there to be understood.

Understood. Teaching and learning has to start somewhere with someone outlining their understanding.
In academia, this is generally pretty much formulaic; students relying on lecture and reading notes as a basis.

Quoting Fooloso4

What do you think of the idea that a discussion thread might prove of benefit
— Amity

That might be of some benefit but I think it is more a matter of practice and discovering what is possible by looking at what others have done. I find that writing is a way of thinking. If I am working on something it is often the case that I do not know what I am going to say until I say it and revise it and see how well agrees with the text.

I'm not sure what you mean by the part I have bolded. Where do you go for practice and discover what is possible, in what respect ? Inside your own head ? So, what have others done - what others ?

I agree. Writing is a way of getting thoughts out there. So, that is what happens in a forum discussion.
Generally, I think it of benefit to use discussions to clarify thought. Or even explore a burning issue.
However, it can be difficult to keep track...
Regarding online Book Discussion groups:
Quoting Fooloso4

On a forum like this there will be a lot of obstacles. I think it works much better in a more structured environment.

Indeed. However, I don't think it impossible to attempt some kind of a structured thread.
Just very challenging...

Quoting Fooloso4

I think a careful dissection of the text works best together with the guidance of secondary sources. A survey of the literature may be helpful but for me at least it is a matter of taste and temperament as to which secondary sources I trust.

So, how or where would you start dissecting Aristotle's Rhetoric ? Which edition are you reading ?
What secondary resources are there to be used as guidance ? Which ones do you trust ?

Quoting Fooloso4

Or does it depend on the nature or purpose of the reader ...
— Amity
That is an important and often overlooked or rejected aspect. To treat philosophy as if it were an objective, universal science is in my opinion a mistake. I am guided by the admonition know thyself. It is the from which and to which philosophical inquiry moves.

How would reading Aristotle's Rhetoric help in getting to 'know thyself' ?
What has the nature of your self to do with it ? Do you have a specific purpose in a re-read ?
To better understand than your earlier self ?
Why is this book, out of all your library stock, so important right now ?

Quoting Amity

So, how far have you got with Aristotle's Rhetoric ?

Not very far. I got side-tracked. I found a transcript of a class by Leo Strauss on the Rhetoric, started reading that and then got side tracked from that.

Quoting Amity

... is your memory so well-trained that it can retain such without marking them out in some physical manner ?

My memory ain't what it used to be. If I was working on something I would underline, but on first reading usually not. Rather than remember exactly what I read I would often remember roughly where in the book I read it so I could go back and find it.

Quoting Amity

From what you say about writing things out, it sounds like you must make and take notes when you are working on something.

Yes, but in general I don't make marginal notes. It tends to lock me into a particular way of looking at the text.

Quoting Amity

If you were to teach this text, how would you structure the process ?

Pretty much the same as with any other text. Two interrelated paths. One is to do an analysis and synthesis of the text. Start at the beginning, identify key passages, break them down in order to figure out what is being say, and as we move forward make connections from passage to passage. The other is to discuss key ideas.

Quoting Amity

I'm not sure what you mean by the part I have bolded. Where do you go for practice and discover what is possible, in what respect ? Inside your own head ? So, what have others done - what others ?

Discovering that there may be far more than what at first meets the eye. A good teacher opens the book up so you can enter a world that is not apparent to the casual reader, and can help you do the same by way of example.

Quoting Amity

So, that is what happens in a forum discussion.

Ideally it is, but the reality is often different. Too often it becomes an intransigent clash of opinion and a need to win the argument, to demonstrate one's own superiority.

Quoting Amity

So, how or where would you start dissecting Aristotle's Rhetoric ?

The book begins:

Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic

That is where I would start. Again, along two tracks. How does he explain and support this? What follows from this? How does this inform one's own reading and writing?

Quoting Amity

Which edition are you reading ?

http://www.bocc.ubi.pt/pag/Aristotle-rhetoric.pdf translated by W. Rhys Roberts

Quoting Amity

What secondary resources are there to be used as guidance ?

I don't know. I don't recall what led me to start reading it but I did so without surveying the secondary literature.

Quoting Amity

Which ones do you trust ?

As I mentioned above, I found the transcript of Strauss's class. I trust him. My approach is modeled on his, but his discussion is a continuation of the discussions from other classes.

Quoting Amity

How would reading Aristotle's Rhetoric help in getting to 'know thyself' ?

As with the "examined life", to know oneself is a lifelong pursuit. Perhaps a consideration of the role persuasion plays in your life.

Quoting Amity

Do you have a specific purpose in a re-read ?

I think I read something else by someone whose opinions I value emphasize how important it is and how it is neglected, and so, I was curious.

Added:

On persuasion and self-knowledge - I often find myself making cutting remarks only to delete them before posting. They are not likely to be persuasive and often have the opposite effect, making others more combative.

Quoting Fooloso4

If you were to teach this text, how would you structure the process ?
— Amity

Pretty much the same as with any other text. Two interrelated paths. One is to do an analysis and synthesis of the text. Start at the beginning, identify key passages, break them down in order to figure out what is being say, and as we move forward make connections from passage to passage. The other is to discuss key ideas.

This structure sounds perfectly sensible. Could you incorporate that into an online discussion ?

Quoting Fooloso4

A good teacher opens the book up so you can enter a world that is not apparent to the casual reader, and can help you do the same by way of example.

Well then, good teacher, if I brought you an apple would you open up for me the 'Rhetoric' ?

Quoting Fooloso4

Too often it becomes an intransigent clash of opinion and a need to win the argument, to demonstrate one's own superiority.

Is that why you have never started a discussion thread ? I think many don't participate or give up because of this kind of behaviour. Others seem to thrive on it.

Quoting Fooloso4

The book begins:
Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic
That is where I would start. Again, along two tracks. How does he explain and support this? What follows from this? How does this inform one's own reading and writing?

Well, now that you've started... :wink:

Quoting Fooloso4

Which edition are you reading ?
— Amity

http://www.bocc.ubi.pt/pag/Aristotle-rhetoric.pdf translated by W. Rhys Roberts

Great. Not many pages...

Quoting Fooloso4

How would reading Aristotle's Rhetoric help in getting to 'know thyself' ?
— Amity

As with the "examined life", to know oneself is a lifelong pursuit. Perhaps a consideration of the role persuasion plays in your life.

Ah well then...who could resist that ? Given today's politics...
But already I see how a discussion might lean to a narrow focus leading to intransigencies.
It's a toughie...

Perhaps we can discuss it elsewhere. Sometimes TPF is kind of a shit place to be :rage:

Quoting Amity

This structure sounds perfectly sensible. Could you incorporate that into an online discussion ?

Yes, but the anonymity of online discuss can be problematic. While there are some who remain silent in class who feel comfortable speaking online, there are others who become rude who would not otherwise.

Quoting Amity

Well then, good teacher, if I brought you an apple would you open up for me the 'Rhetoric' ?

At some other time I might have agreed, but not now and have doubts about doing so on this forum.

I added another comment to my last post.

Quoting Fooloso4

At some other time I might have agreed, but not now and have doubts about doing so on this forum.

I am with you. Out of here.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

what, exactly, do I (the teacher) what them to know or be able to do when I've done?

What I aim to do is make my role unnecessary, for the students to be able to do what I did and in some cases to do it better. What I want them to know about any particular book depends on that book. For example, one thing I want them to know when reading Plato's Republic is that the Forms are images. This is an exact reversal of the way they are presented. That this is so requires a careful reading of the text. The reason I want them to know this is because it leads to reflection on what the activity of philosophy is about and what it accomplishes. Briefly, it is the quest for wisdom and always falls short. That is part of what Socrates calls human wisdom. The other part is how we are to lead the examined life, how can we aim to do what is best if we do not know what is best.

Quoting tim wood

I, myself, have some problems with Aristotle (not just him) in that I read, comprehend, understand, get, but when I put down the book and try to review what I've just read, most of it has just flowed away.

This is a problem, especially if one is doing it on his own. Reading something and then discussing it helps enforce it. For whatever reason there are some things I remember, but I have always resisted having to memorize facts.