I need a good righteous rant every once in a while..the hysteria around impeachment — StreetlightX

There's that word 'hysteria' again. What hysteria ? Who is it that is doing the 'righteous ranting' here ?

The argument that there exists a type of fascism in the form of Trump is not an extreme hysterical reaction. — Amity

Synder is not particularly bright when it comes to political analysis. — StreetlightX

That is your opinion. I can only go by what he said in the Ch4 interview - the points made calmly and not in any way 'hysterical'.

5 min Ch4 interview related to the fragility of democracy. Yale professor Timothy Snyder :

https://www.channel4.com/news/some-of-todays-politicians-have-learned-propaganda-tricks-from-1930s-fascists-says-yale-professor

BTW I enjoyed your righteous ranting about impeachment recently in one of the Trump threads. — jamalrob

You give this a thumbs up ? Really ?

Where can we read this righteous ranting ? In that sad, Bigly, rag tag Behemoth of a Trump discussion ?
Is this thread gonna be Trump II ?
Heaven forbid.

from video :"I do hear this argument that this is a proto-Nazi, a kind of fascist development in American society, that one must stand in opposition to it. It's an extreme, almost hysterical reaction, I think. It's an indication of people who have for too long have had their way at the editorial pages and in college classrooms and so on. — StreetlightX

I disagree. The argument that there exists a type of fascism in the form of Trump is not an extreme hysterical reaction. Also, this is dismissive of objective, academic analysis as explained here:

5 min Ch4 interview related to the fragility of democracy. Yale professor Timothy Snyder :

https://www.channel4.com/news/some-of-todays-politicians-have-learned-propaganda-tricks-from-1930s-fascists-says-yale-professor

quoting from jamalrob's video: ''The notion that we got to get him out at all cost worries me deeply. I worry about this because those people are not going to go away, even if president Trump goes away. If you don't defeat those people at the ballot box, if you usurp their expression of democratic intent through extraordinary means, you invite the reaction. The way to defeat Trump is to get 50.1% of the vote, and vote him and those who support him out of office". — StreetlightX

'Those people' are not going to go away. Which people, the hard right extremists ?
Under normal circumstances, it is clear that the ballot box and a majority is the way to defeat a would-be President. The majority are unlikely to be extremists, by definition. Neither are they 'deplorables'.

Impeachment is not carried out lightly. In this case, I think the steady accumulation of Trump's action and behaviour have led to where it must be dealt with.

But I voted for him in the first place because of misguided optimism that he would actually shake things up and focus on practical things that mattered. — Terrapin Station

Most people love a message of Hope and Optimism.
Politicians on both sides use this as cover for their real agenda.
You fell for his bullshit. You were not alone.
How easy it is to fool even those with intellect...

Interesting video. Good to focus on the issues away from the lengthy Trump and Brexit threads.

I think Clinton totally lost it when she spoke of a 'basket of deplorables'.
Her contempt and disdain in this generalisation of voters was clear. It was not clever.
It exacerbates the 2 party divide. But not quite as bad as the Trump strategy and rhetoric which won.

In the video many expressed their views as to why they voted the way they did. So, is anyone wiser after watching this ?

There is a desire to understand what led people to vote the way they did, rather than dismiss them. Their concerns should be ours. — jamalrob

The what that leads to why.
A common thread which the hard right are relying on.
Self-interest dressed up as national concern.
This is not to be dismissed.

The word 'populism'. That needs to be addressed. What does it mean - is it just another handy tool to bash people with ? The people or mob against the ruling class elite - whatever that means ? More generalisations and black-and-white thinking.

We know how the Tories are going to frame the next general election.
Simple divisive messages.
No Deal Brexit v Corbyn.
Patriotism v Traitors.
Us v Them.
People v Parliament.
Friends v Enemies.
Optimism v Pessimism.

Simple slogans and empty promises.

Sounds like same old, same old but not really.
The language of war fills the air with its stink.

Johnson is an amiable buffoon compared to the Donald. But hopefully they will hold hands and ride off into the sunset. — Wayfarer

That is how Johnson presents.
Both represent a continuing danger; creating and reinforcing extreme divisions by hate-filled rhetoric.
Riding off into the sunset is for the white-hatted goodies in American westerns.
Fiction. Fake news.
They will no doubt both prosper whatever the future brings...

https://www.channel4.com/news/government-is-trying-to-collapse-brexit-talks-says-keir-starmer

Current state of affairs: Keir Starmer talks honestly and sensibly. Of what use against extreme Tory machinations and misrepresentations i.e. lies.

never mistake anything Trump does for a strategy. It's only ever impulse. — Wayfarer

I agree Trump is impulsive, dangerously so. However, it arguably takes place within an overall strategy.
It's fascism but not as we know it. There are parallels between Trump and UK's Johnson in Brexit.
5 min Ch4 interview related to the fragility of democracy. Yale professor Timothy Snyder :

https://www.channel4.com/news/some-of-todays-politicians-have-learned-propaganda-tricks-from-1930s-fascists-says-yale-professor

The post has now been deleted. But glad you kept it as an example.

We mod each other, you're welcome to report me. — StreetlightX

Already done.
Not that it will make much difference.
Edit : Well, it seems that the post I flagged up has been deleted.
But will it make a difference to the underlying attitude...

At some other time I might have agreed, but not now and have doubts about doing so on this forum. — Fooloso4

I am with you. Out of here.

Sensible and civil as ever :up:

I would report this but hey you are a moderator, go figure :brow:
Ah, what the hell...

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. — Fooloso4

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

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. — Fooloso4

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

Too often it becomes an intransigent clash of opinion and a need to win the argument, to demonstrate one's own superiority. — Fooloso4

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.

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? — Fooloso4

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

Which edition are you reading ?
— Amity

http://www.bocc.ubi.pt/pag/Aristotle-rhetoric.pdf translated by W. Rhys Roberts — Fooloso4

Great. Not many pages...

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. — Fooloso4

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:

Latest from Guardian:

'Boris Johnson will ask the EU for a Brexit extension if deal not reached by 19 October

Government documents submitted to Scotland’s highest civil court today state that the prime minister will seek a Brexit extension from the EU if no withdrawal deal is reached by 19 October.

Boris Johnson said he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than seek a further delay, and the revelation in court appears to be in direct contradiction of that statement and throws the question of whether the UK will leave the bloc on 31 October into fresh doubt.'

'In the Scottish court of session, Aidan O’Neill QC said the commitment within the submissions were inconsistent with what Johnson said in parliament yesterday.

The government had sought to prevent these documents being released to the media, and it will raise questions over the contradiction between the prime minister’s public and private stances.'

So, when will he, the 'Father of Lies' come clean in Parliament ?

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. — Fooloso4

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 ?

Best comprehension is always relative and falls short of what is there to be understood. — Fooloso4

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.

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. — Fooloso4

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:

On a forum like this there will be a lot of obstacles. I think it works much better in a more structured environment. — Fooloso4

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

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. — Fooloso4

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 ?

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. — Fooloso4

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 ?

What could be worse? :sad: — TheMadFool

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...

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...

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. — TheMadFool

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' ?

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! — tim wood

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 ?

I started reading Aristotle's Rhetoric again a few months ago — Fooloso4

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.

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. — Fooloso4

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 ?

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”...

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

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.

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

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.

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. — Valentinus

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.

To me there's much to be confused about. — TheMadFool

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.

Thanks. I should really have posted the full quote; another informative and succinct summary.
And, of course, there's that other word:
Zetetic.

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. — Fooloso4

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. — tim wood

Underlying is love; — tim wood

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...

the hazard of misreading is always there — tim wood

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

Misologic.
From @Fooloso4 in the 'Mortimer Adler, How To Read' thread.

'...the dialogues typically end in aporia, but the danger is what he [Plato] calls misologic or nihilism.'

Misology is defined as the hatred of reasoning; the revulsion or distrust of logical debate, argumentation, or the Socratic method. (Wiki)

Appreciate your further explanation.

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

When you asked sink or swim my immediate thought was float. — Fooloso4

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

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. — Valentinus

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.' ?

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...?

there must be an optimum method right? — TheMadFool

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

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. — uncanni

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...

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. — uncanni

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.

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

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

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. — tim wood

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.

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. — Fooloso4

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. — tim wood

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. — Fooloso4

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...

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. — Fooloso4

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

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.''  — Robert Kanigel

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.

Ditto. Well, that was easy !
You are both well read and have widely read. Adler had something to say about the differences in levels of understanding. In the discussion I linked to I disagreed with him...but perhaps I was wrong.

Somewhat similar to StreetlightX, I will gravitate towards a topic (e.g. ethics, politics, economics, pessimism), but usually not for too long because of my terrible ADHD, so I typically bounce around topics. — Maw

I'm a bit bouncy too and that's without ADHD. Perhaps I just get impatient and bored :wink:

I also tend to read clusters of books with similar themes or authors, so I can cross-relate readings as I go. Helps to build a more robust picture of whatever it is that you're reading on. Like, I plan to do a bunch of Spinoza study soon, and have a whole series of Spinoza related books lined up.

Occasionally I'll start a thread here in order to pursue a theme that I want to articulate better. I think the absolute best way to demonstrate understanding to yourself is to put arguments or points of view in your own words. Trying to respond to criticisms also helps to really show yourself that you grasp a point of view. The most fun is in connecting different topics that you wouldn't have considered 'connectible' had you not discussed it. — StreetlightX

Thanks for this. I look forward to any new thread you start.

I like the 'most fun' bit - showing the value of discussion in helping to grasp difficult topics or a philosopher. And making connections. Unfortunately, not everyone can hold a library of related books as reference. Or even get them from a library. I rely so much on the internet and 'freebies' to get that bigger picture.

[ Also, if a group discussion is to take place e.g. on Spinoza, it would be good to have advance notice of useful texts or resources. Perhaps there is already such a list in the ' Resources' section of the forum ?]

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. — Valentinus

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.

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

Some elaboration would be appreciated.