Need some advice about reading philosophy
December 20, 2007 5:33 PM Subscribe
Need some advice about reading philosophy
I need some advice about reading philosophy. I've had philosophy education before, but since then I've proceeded to continue to read and learn in my own time.
The whole process of reading books, both primary and secondary sources, is rewarding.
However, when I decide to come up with an analysis (i.e write down my thoughts on the philosophy so that I can put my thoughts together,) it later become obvious that I've really gotten some stuff confused.
Since I end up twisting up the philosophical ideas that I come across despite being careful to consult texts, how can I avoid this? If this is sounds like a weird question, it simply comes down to the fact that I don't like miseducating myself
I need some advice about reading philosophy. I've had philosophy education before, but since then I've proceeded to continue to read and learn in my own time.
The whole process of reading books, both primary and secondary sources, is rewarding.
However, when I decide to come up with an analysis (i.e write down my thoughts on the philosophy so that I can put my thoughts together,) it later become obvious that I've really gotten some stuff confused.
Since I end up twisting up the philosophical ideas that I come across despite being careful to consult texts, how can I avoid this? If this is sounds like a weird question, it simply comes down to the fact that I don't like miseducating myself
Be careful not to assume that the text you are reading contains any meaningful or "non-twisted-up" ideas at all.
posted by hAndrew at 7:20 PM on December 20, 2007
posted by hAndrew at 7:20 PM on December 20, 2007
Response by poster: haha.. should have written "twisting ideas" instead of "twisting up" ideas.
posted by gregb1007 at 7:26 PM on December 20, 2007
posted by gregb1007 at 7:26 PM on December 20, 2007
gregb1007, my son is a senior minoring in Philosophy and he will be coming home for Christmas late tomorrow night. If you don't get a decent answer in a day or two shoot me a mefimail and I will ask him.
posted by konolia at 7:34 PM on December 20, 2007
posted by konolia at 7:34 PM on December 20, 2007
I found that I did this until I took a much more significant look at context and process beyond just looking at the ideas themselves. A solid grasp of the history of Philosophy and the ideas and projects that have been involved over time helps immensely, at least for me, in understanding the positions of any given philosopher. Plato's theory of Forms, for example, seems to come out of nowhere, but knowing about Parmenides' and Heraclitus' works and the rise of the One-Many problem sheds a lot of light on just what he's trying to do.
Similarly, I find that it helps me a great deal not to just say "Oh, Locke, he said X Y and Z" but to try and really work at each philosopher's process so as to understand how they arrive at the end-results. Locke's not just the happy government guy, then, but the "State of Nature leads to basic civil society leads to rights and property and so on" guy. Often times in my notes I try to recreate the flow of some particular philosopher's work so I'm certain of just how they got from their premises to their conclusions. This way I'm not just remembering conclusions in a void, but trying to keep the system in mind.
In essence, what helps me keep Philosophy straight is to look at it as a system within a system. Knowing the overall system, the history of Philosophy, helps to situate any particular philosopher among his or her peers and pin them down as an empiricist, a pre-Socratic, or whatnot. Taking into account the philosopher's theory, then, I try to keep in mind their whole system rather than just the conclusions so as to really understand rather than just memorize.
If you're interested in reading a good, broad history of Philosophy, you might consider Sir Anthony Kenny's new series (1, 2, 3, 4 on Amazon). They're very recently published, and I've yet to hear anything but praise for them. I've read the first and second volumes and they've been hugely helpful, and I can only assume that the latter two would be equally so.
Just my perspectives as a 3rd year undergrad Philosophy nerd, but I hope they're what you were looking for.
posted by Rallon at 7:58 PM on December 20, 2007 [3 favorites]
Similarly, I find that it helps me a great deal not to just say "Oh, Locke, he said X Y and Z" but to try and really work at each philosopher's process so as to understand how they arrive at the end-results. Locke's not just the happy government guy, then, but the "State of Nature leads to basic civil society leads to rights and property and so on" guy. Often times in my notes I try to recreate the flow of some particular philosopher's work so I'm certain of just how they got from their premises to their conclusions. This way I'm not just remembering conclusions in a void, but trying to keep the system in mind.
In essence, what helps me keep Philosophy straight is to look at it as a system within a system. Knowing the overall system, the history of Philosophy, helps to situate any particular philosopher among his or her peers and pin them down as an empiricist, a pre-Socratic, or whatnot. Taking into account the philosopher's theory, then, I try to keep in mind their whole system rather than just the conclusions so as to really understand rather than just memorize.
If you're interested in reading a good, broad history of Philosophy, you might consider Sir Anthony Kenny's new series (1, 2, 3, 4 on Amazon). They're very recently published, and I've yet to hear anything but praise for them. I've read the first and second volumes and they've been hugely helpful, and I can only assume that the latter two would be equally so.
Just my perspectives as a 3rd year undergrad Philosophy nerd, but I hope they're what you were looking for.
posted by Rallon at 7:58 PM on December 20, 2007 [3 favorites]
Perhaps see if you can make friends with a philosophy professor of the relevant area of study, and buy him a beer and pick his brains regarding your confusion? Or participate in an online philosophy discussion group (e.g. here or here) and discuss your doubts? Or, when you realize your confusion, consider it an exercise in improving your depth of understanding to figure out where you went wrong and how to make it better?
posted by Malad at 9:56 PM on December 20, 2007
posted by Malad at 9:56 PM on December 20, 2007
(I teach philosophy.) Rallon's answer is very good. Also it would help a lot to know which philosophers you are having this experience with - some are much easier to read independently than others!
Knowing the history helps. It allows you to see what questions the person is trying to address. Historical philosophers often are thinking about the basic questions quite differently than we would today, because they're responding to specific views of people who came before them.
As you read, make notes -- I like to make pencil notes in the margin. In addition to figuring out what's being said in each paragraph, try to keep track of the progression of the argument. First Philosopher Jones talks about one topic, then another. Why does he move from the first to the second? Some possibilities:
-The second topic is an example of the first, or an analogous case.
-The second topic is a contrasting case to the first; maybe they are two extreme ends of a spectrum.
-The second topic is a case where Jones's initial theory won't work. He must come up with a way to modify the theory to handle this case. That modified, new theory will be the next topic.
-The second topic can only be understood on the basis of the first. Jones thinks that once we understand the first topic, we can see why the second has to be approached in a certain way.
-The second topic is Jones's response to what someone else said. First Jones described the other guy's view and second gives us his view.
(etc)
Philosophical books and articles are very complex strands of argument with transitions like this. Look for logical clue words ("with this in mind, we turn to...", "therefore", "by contrast"...) and try to think about why each new topic has been introduced. Once you've read one section, go back and outline the progression of the argument in that section. (write down your objections to the argument too!) Then go on to the next section.
If you're reading someone who's well-known, you could google to find assignments from intro philosophy courses on that person. This will give you one or two major questions to read with, which often helps. (For example if you were reading Locke, you might find a university website with some essay questions about Locke. See if you could answer them, or go back and read to figure out the answers. Writing papers is where students do most of their learning anyway, and you can replicate some of that experience for yourself. For every claim in a paper about what Jones thinks, remember you need to find evidence in the text -- you can't just say "I have a general sense that this is what he thinks", you should search back and find the place where he says or implies it. Often you'll find that you need to modify your first impression once you check back. This is a main reason why writing papers deepens our understanding -- we can't just rest content with our half-baked theories about the author, we need to go back and engage with what he or she actually said. This is a fantastic mental discipline to practice, for areas outside philosophy too!)
Also: It takes serious work to be able to read good philosophy and understand it; it's typically something one needs to read several times over a stretch of weeks or more to get a basic sense of what's going on, and even then one can work on this stuff for years and not catch everything. So don't feel discouraged if you are not getting it after one or two reads. It also gets easier if you do it with other people.
If you return and tell us which philosophers you're reading, I may be able to give better advice. Even famous historical philosophers vary hugely in their styles and the best strategies for approaching them.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:47 PM on December 20, 2007 [5 favorites]
Knowing the history helps. It allows you to see what questions the person is trying to address. Historical philosophers often are thinking about the basic questions quite differently than we would today, because they're responding to specific views of people who came before them.
As you read, make notes -- I like to make pencil notes in the margin. In addition to figuring out what's being said in each paragraph, try to keep track of the progression of the argument. First Philosopher Jones talks about one topic, then another. Why does he move from the first to the second? Some possibilities:
-The second topic is an example of the first, or an analogous case.
-The second topic is a contrasting case to the first; maybe they are two extreme ends of a spectrum.
-The second topic is a case where Jones's initial theory won't work. He must come up with a way to modify the theory to handle this case. That modified, new theory will be the next topic.
-The second topic can only be understood on the basis of the first. Jones thinks that once we understand the first topic, we can see why the second has to be approached in a certain way.
-The second topic is Jones's response to what someone else said. First Jones described the other guy's view and second gives us his view.
(etc)
Philosophical books and articles are very complex strands of argument with transitions like this. Look for logical clue words ("with this in mind, we turn to...", "therefore", "by contrast"...) and try to think about why each new topic has been introduced. Once you've read one section, go back and outline the progression of the argument in that section. (write down your objections to the argument too!) Then go on to the next section.
If you're reading someone who's well-known, you could google to find assignments from intro philosophy courses on that person. This will give you one or two major questions to read with, which often helps. (For example if you were reading Locke, you might find a university website with some essay questions about Locke. See if you could answer them, or go back and read to figure out the answers. Writing papers is where students do most of their learning anyway, and you can replicate some of that experience for yourself. For every claim in a paper about what Jones thinks, remember you need to find evidence in the text -- you can't just say "I have a general sense that this is what he thinks", you should search back and find the place where he says or implies it. Often you'll find that you need to modify your first impression once you check back. This is a main reason why writing papers deepens our understanding -- we can't just rest content with our half-baked theories about the author, we need to go back and engage with what he or she actually said. This is a fantastic mental discipline to practice, for areas outside philosophy too!)
Also: It takes serious work to be able to read good philosophy and understand it; it's typically something one needs to read several times over a stretch of weeks or more to get a basic sense of what's going on, and even then one can work on this stuff for years and not catch everything. So don't feel discouraged if you are not getting it after one or two reads. It also gets easier if you do it with other people.
If you return and tell us which philosophers you're reading, I may be able to give better advice. Even famous historical philosophers vary hugely in their styles and the best strategies for approaching them.
posted by LobsterMitten at 10:47 PM on December 20, 2007 [5 favorites]
Yes, you should write down your thoughts in the margins of the books of your reading. Philosophy is a dialogue, a dance, a kind of cinema, above all else. Like a movie, it can't be understood by analyzing each word. Instead you have to look for a whole shape and flow of the text. This is especially important for philosophers that don't offer up doctrine. (But then people also drastically misinterpret the most doctrinaire of philosophers, Plato, because they fail to grasp his larger project and focus on one line or two hence all the 'Plato is a fascist' commentary out there.)
So as soon as you read something you should respond with your own thoughts and ideas in the book itself. Deface the book. Rip off the front cover, rip off the back cover, destroy anything that gets between you and the ideas. You are not working with the bible here, these words are not handed down from God but from another man or woman. Read, write, read, write. With those philosophers that actually write well you will soon fall into a kind of rhythm and, like a movie whose ending becomes increasingly clear, you will begin to grasp just exactly what they're trying to do. Write down what you feel, what you think, and whatever you want. This will also force you to stay close to the text and, having underlined and noted all the key parts, allow you to go back and quickly identify the key points.
However, when I decide to come up with an analysis (i.e write down my thoughts on the philosophy so that I can put my thoughts together)
Don't try to be neutral and provide any sort of objective analysis of philosophical thought. Philosophy is not science. There is no real requirement of peer review and replicating experimental requirements. Instead your goal ought to be honesty. Accuracy is much less important than precision both in life and in philosophy. Instead of aiming for that single right interpretation try to aim for that single honest interpretation, that interpretation that truly captures your ideas and your feelings and your thoughts on the matter at hand. Your goal in this analysis is not to be Right (tm) or even completely accurate but to be honest and straightforward and precise. Don't be afraid to take a stand and, if it suits you, to twist some ideas because, hell, some ideas deserve to be twisted and they are created to be twisted.
Have fun.
posted by nixerman at 8:15 AM on December 21, 2007
So as soon as you read something you should respond with your own thoughts and ideas in the book itself. Deface the book. Rip off the front cover, rip off the back cover, destroy anything that gets between you and the ideas. You are not working with the bible here, these words are not handed down from God but from another man or woman. Read, write, read, write. With those philosophers that actually write well you will soon fall into a kind of rhythm and, like a movie whose ending becomes increasingly clear, you will begin to grasp just exactly what they're trying to do. Write down what you feel, what you think, and whatever you want. This will also force you to stay close to the text and, having underlined and noted all the key parts, allow you to go back and quickly identify the key points.
However, when I decide to come up with an analysis (i.e write down my thoughts on the philosophy so that I can put my thoughts together)
Don't try to be neutral and provide any sort of objective analysis of philosophical thought. Philosophy is not science. There is no real requirement of peer review and replicating experimental requirements. Instead your goal ought to be honesty. Accuracy is much less important than precision both in life and in philosophy. Instead of aiming for that single right interpretation try to aim for that single honest interpretation, that interpretation that truly captures your ideas and your feelings and your thoughts on the matter at hand. Your goal in this analysis is not to be Right (tm) or even completely accurate but to be honest and straightforward and precise. Don't be afraid to take a stand and, if it suits you, to twist some ideas because, hell, some ideas deserve to be twisted and they are created to be twisted.
Have fun.
posted by nixerman at 8:15 AM on December 21, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
That said, I've found a tremendous amount of success in a process that goes like this: read, outline, and then select an apparently important passage, which you then try to interpret by asking yourself questions about it, longhand or typed. Then repeat, on the same text, but using a different passage. For some texts, this will take a long time and a very good memory. For others, a few iterations will exhaust the value of the text.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:41 PM on December 20, 2007