Simple and Complex Ideas: Books

Pantagruel

To what extent can you read one person's summary of a book, and claim to be acquainted with the actual ideas of the author? To what extent does a Wikipedia article substitute for reading the full text of the original works? The people who wrote the Wikipedia article certainly did not get their information from...Wikipedia.

Books have a 'flavour' which is more than just the logical form of the contents of the ideas. The introduction to a book tries to (and does) capture this, giving you a sense of the overall ideas, a sense of the manner in which they are presented, a sense of the author's life and the world he inhabited. But for obtaining the entirety of the information that is available, there is no substitute for basking in the original texts, as completely as possible, to obtain a sense of the full meaning of the presented ideas.

Which is why different people have an affinity for different authors. One must be prepared to understand the circumstances of the author's life and times in order to extract the full meaning from his works. And not everyone can relate to circumstances that differ radically from their own. Learning isn't just about learning ideas, it is about learning that there can be radically different perspectives of the same thing.

It is not just about reading the right books, or the right book, but, What is the right book for me right now?

Jack Cummins

↪Pantagruel

I think that some people are beginning to prefer summarised idea, such as those in Wikipedia. However, while it can be useful to find such summaries it is worth looking at actual texts, including electronic and paper books. I believe that it is worth looking at all possible options. But, I must say that I still like grovelling in corners of shops, looking through rows and piles of books, and often feel that I can find exactly what I am looking for in that process.

Looking at books in shops and libraries seems to me to be part of the research process. But, I think that we can blend all the possibilities, but, hopefully, with a view to gaining meaningful knowledge. I believe that we all come from slightly different perspectives on this. Personally, I only use Wikipedia as a basic overview, and find it useful as a starting point. However, I prefer to go off and find books because they feel more intimate and more meaningful in a deeper sense.

Pantagruel

Looking at books in shops and libraries seems to me to be part of the research process. — Jack Cummins

Yes, the entire process contributes to the "informational outcome" is the abstract level takeaway I guess... :)

fdrake

Books have a 'flavour' which is more than just the logical form of the contents of the ideas. The introduction to a book tries to (and does) capture this, giving you a sense of the overall ideas, a sense of the manner in which they are presented, a sense of the author's life and the world he inhabited. But for obtaining the entirety of the information that is available, there is no substitute for basking in the original texts, as completely as possible, to obtain a sense of the full meaning of the presented ideas. — Pantagruel

:up:

In terms of cultivating intellectual virtues, I agree that the more thorough the study the better someone understands a domain (obv), and there's no better way of doing that than practicing with the ideas - studying them, writing about them, coming up with examples etc. Though I wonder (only half joking) if the virtue of temperance also applies to the pursuit of knowledge...

Looking at books in shops and libraries seems to me to be part of the research process. But, I think that we can blend all the possibilities, but, hopefully, with a view to gaining meaningful knowledge. I believe that we all come from slightly different perspectives on this. Personally, I only use Wikipedia as a basic overview, and find it useful as a starting point. However, I prefer to go off and find books because they feel more intimate and more meaningful in a deeper sense. — Jack Cummins

While a book is a centralised unit of analysis of a topic, it isn't necessarily articulated in terms of the research question you're pursuing - and may perturb or redirection that pursuit depending on what you find in the book.

To me studying a book is a much different flavour of inquiry, and generates a different kind of understanding, than pursuing a particular question. In a sense, questions use texts as well as writing them.

Insert ideas about intertextuality here.

T Clark

To what extent can you read one person's summary of a book, and claim to be acquainted with the actual ideas of the author? — Pantagruel

while it can be useful to find such summaries it is worth looking at actual texts, including electronic and paper books. I believe that it is worth looking at all possible options. — Jack Cummins

For non-fiction, very often when I look at original sources I find unexpected and surprising information. Examples:

Special relativity - "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" - Einstein does not show or prove that the speed of light is a constant in all reference frames, he assumes it.
Evolution - "On the Origin of Species" - Darwin identifies the primary mechanism of evolutionary change as natural selection, but he also considers inheritance of acquired characteristics, Lamarckism, as a possible mechanism.
Uncertainty principle - "Quantum theoretical re-interpretation of kinematic and mechanical relations" - Heisenberg's derivation of the equation for the limit on measurements of position and momentum is based on assumptions that are no longer considered correct.

Pantagruel

For non-fiction, very often when I look at original sources I find unexpected and surprising information. Examples:

Special relativity - "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" - Einstein does not show or prove that the speed of light is a constant in all reference frames, he assumes it. — T Clark

I have Einstein's Special and General Relativity, I've been meaning to re-read it and your post reinforces that....

T Clark

I have Einstein's Special and General Relativity, I've been meaning to re-read it and your post reinforces that.... — Pantagruel

You should read the original paper too. It's well written and clear and is available on the web. The first couple of pages are simple and straightforward, then it gets more difficult, but it's not that long.

Jack Cummins

↪fdrake

I think that the way in which a book doesn't always focus on a specific research question can be frustrating. At times, I have kept looking for books which answer one I looking for and can't find it. But, of course, it often opens up further ways of looking and thinking, and often the initial area of questioning gets so much wider.

Ideally, I like to have time to spend reading a book at leisure. Sometimes, when it needs to be read for a specific purpose quickly, it seems to spoil it, especially if it involves too much skim reading, although sometimes this does seem to be a way of drawing out the main ideas quickly. Reading is a wonderful experience, but can take up a lot of time, so I think that it needs to be a combination of processes, depending on whether it is for specific ideas, or whether it is simply for the value of the book in it's own right.

Manuel

↪Pantagruel

The question is almost impossible to answer. You've laid it all out. For example, I've tried to read Hume a few times, he never clicked with me, nor has Locke nor Aristotle. On the other hand Plato, Schopenhauer and Russell have. I used to get more out of Peirce than I do now, by quite a margin. I used to love Heidegger, now I don't see the point. But I am beginning to like Husserl.

Outside of Schopenhauer, I have not read the entire works of anyone, but I have read many parts of books, some in some significant detail. Then there's fiction. When it's good, I get even more philosophy out of that than I do from a lot of current analytic philosophy.

I can't get Chomsky out of my head. The same is true of Tallis to a large degree.

You may read all the classics, but if they don't register with something in you, it's as if you did not read them. So the only thing I can think of is to try and find whatever it is that connects with you. That's the only way to learn is to be engaged and test ideas with other ideas and to argue, etc.

Pantagruel

I can't get Chomsky out of my head. — Manuel

Quite.

Tom Storm

It is not just about reading the right books, or the right book, but, What is the right book for me right now? — Pantagruel

And for some of us there is never the right time for certain books and authors. People often read books the way they travel to other countries, to have bragging rights. But have they understood what they have read? In my experience books are quickly forgotten and misinterpreted or simply not read closely enough by readers. I wonder what the point is.

You may read all the classics, but if they don't register with something in you, it's as if you did not read them — Manuel

Exactly. Reading, in my view, needs to be a dynamic process - a relationship with the text.

While I would never like to come down against reading, I do think in some people's lives, it might profit them more to get out there and do things rather that passively and inadequately receive other people's insights.

There are a number of works mentioned often in passing that quite properly could be a lifetime's study and you'd still only touch the sides.

Manuel

↪Tom Storm

:up:

Exactly it depends on how you read. You can read passively, as when, say, many religious people read sacred texts or cramming a textbook for an upcoming exam. Alternatively you can read actively, that is testing an author's comments against your own experience and reasons.

Sure, going out there are trying stuff out will certainly give you plenty of material, the key thing is trying to understand the experience in a critical manner. Many people interpret experience in a negative or passive manner, leading to strong nationalism for instance.

fishfry

To what extent does a Wikipedia article substitute for reading the full text of the original works? — Pantagruel

I describe this as "knowing" versus "knowing about." To know brain surgery takes a lifetime. To know "about" brain surgery takes about thirty seconds of skimming the Wiki article on the subject.

The problem comes when so many people think they know, when they only know about.

Simple and Complex Ideas: Books

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions