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

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

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.

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.

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”...

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 ?

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

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.

... rarely returning to books in their entirety. — Amity

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.

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 think I'm like most people in that I've tried a variety of different sorts of things and finally turned away from them because I just wasn't very good at them - a blessing to be able to try, and a gift being able to turn away! One of the miracles of Youtube is that I can now closely observe people who are good at that thing. The lesson I draw is that some people can do things that other people cannot do.

I expand this to include almost every form of endeavor. In expanded form I think it's useful to generalize judgment from better/worse to just difference - to acknowledge better/worse, and every other similar binary division. And that the better/worse of the extreme is something to attempt to appreciate (even that can be a problem!) but that otherwise is not especially relevant to most lives as they're lived.

Indeed, in a quality management system, the better can be as much a problem as the worse! Best in such systems is consistency - showing that in management systems at least, and probably most things in fact, that the understanding that leads to best is often not-so-simple or clear, even the "best" itself needing to be understood

Anyway. I'm pretty sure that reading is among the things that some people can do better than others. But, in the case of reading and understanding, the extreme is not in itself the best. "Best" itself needs to be understood, and often that "understanding" is a matter of definition, of deciding what's best.

Which is to say that the text, first of all, is a text, that is, a fixed artifact. One hazard of reading is a reader's supposing he is the fixed point about which the text moves (as understanding moves). But the text doesn't move. Navigation of the text, then, needs to be settled - and possibly adjusted along the way.

Sailing, it turns out, is an interesting metaphor for reading. Sailing is all about preparation, practice/training, equipment, disposition and determination, and execution, all in an environment that can be lethal to weakness or deficiency. Fortunately no one has actually drowned or shipwrecked in a book, but evenso a text is a kind of "sea" that imposes challenges to be met, to be traversed.

At the start, possibly, is the question the would-be sailor also faces: what, more-or-less exactly, is the goal and purpose of reading a particular text? (The answer can change, just as the wise sailor can choose to turn back to port if - when - the seas are higher or wind stronger than planned for.)

There's a single word that covers all of these considerations: propaedeutics. Like a tarp. It covers without necessarily being in any way specific. It means, for present purpose, that which is preparatory.

For the kind of reading that most of us would like to be able to do - to be a master mariner of the textual seas - calls for a propaedeutics of reading.

@Amity, would you consider setting out that call?

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.

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 ?

So, is this a re-read ? — Amity

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.

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.

And how would ensure best comprehension ensued ? — Amity

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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. — Amity

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.

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' ?

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

What could be worse? :sad:

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...

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...

:up: :ok:

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 ?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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 ? — Amity

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.

So, that is what happens in a forum discussion. — Amity

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.

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

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?

Which edition are you reading ? — Amity

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

What secondary resources are there to be used as guidance ? — Amity

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

Which ones do you trust ? — Amity

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

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

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.

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

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.

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.

My memory ain't what it used to be. — Fooloso4

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

To teach anything requires certain preliminary steps; many, no doubt, but at least these. Why, exactly, is this thing being taught? To what end, exactly, and for what purpose, exactly? And closely following is, what, exactly, do I (the teacher) what them to know or be able to do when I've done? Ideally, the exactitude wrings out all vagueness and generality, the teaching being a purposed engine without unnecessary parts, and all parts working in concert, the teaching having been engineered for its purpose.

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. (I have ideas as to why that is for me....) What my thoughts turn to, however, is the idea of muscle memory. To do anything well - even to come to an understanding of just what the doing really is - usually requires a considerable investment of time and effort in practice and repetition.

To be very brief, to teach, you have to yourself know, and then decide what is to be taught. The method of teaching, then, should employ as much practice and repetition of those things intended to be taught as needed. "Teaching" and the "taught" are here revealed as abstract ideas and labels that on being in themselves opened are found to be empty, in a sense as a signpost on a highway points, but is not in any way or sense the destination or the way, being at best an abstraction of the concept of direction.

As a corollary, I submit that memory itself can itself be trained through practice and repetition. (A caveat: some folks are going to be very good at it.) My own education included zero memorization; now, years later, I adjudge that a failure of that system.

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

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.

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. — tim wood

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.