The proposition, from Seneca and Theophrastus and through St. Jerome, being that the would-be philosopher – or theologian – must devote himself to meditation and the study of books. — tim wood
But book themselves may have a share of culpability, in that they’re static, archives of what was. — tim wood
I think it very much depends on the reader and which books they choose to read. — Fooloso4
To be brief: if one is studying books and thinking about them, is he looking forward or backwards, and in which direction is he living his life? And if the books themselves are determinant, we can ask if the books themselves are forward-looking or back? — tim wood
My own tentative answer is that books look backwards and are a part of life but not life itself. And further, to live a life, a person must at some point turn away from books – to embrace other occupations and multiply them, not fly them! — tim wood
It's interesting how people can read a work and yet somehow avoid making contact with the author's ideas. — Tom Storm
By static and archival, I meant fixed; i.e. their text is set. When you say many are not, what do you mean?Some are static, some are archival, and many are not. — Leontiskos
By static and archival, I meant fixed; — tim wood
When you say many are not, what do you mean? — tim wood
Hmm. Not a criticism, just a hmm. Is yours to say that the book is a path of sorts that individual readers can travel to varying distances? Or an open field to be continually explored, investigated, expanded? I do not think it is quite to the point to invoke beginner readers v. advanced - that distinction not really a matter of the book itself.The reader is not looking backward but inward. While the book does not change the reader can, and in that way the book changes for that reader. The book that was cast aside in my youth remains ready for when I am ready for it. — Fooloso4
I had to look up discourse, and I find that discourse can refer to a back-and-forth, a discussion, which a book cannot do, or itself a fixed text.I think books are the highest form of discourse, — Leontiskos
You mean unlike books, yes?Like books, we can say new things as we grow and change our minds. — Leontiskos
I do not think books do this: people - readers - do this. And it can be an open question as go whether theirs is exegesis or eisegesis.they generate new insights and new interpretations with each passing decade. — Leontiskos
Agreed. And just this arguably why the admonition to study them. I reckon my break is to question the ultimate worth of the study-in-itself. Perhaps a thousand years ago it might have been felt to be the way to heaven, and no doubt some people think so today. But most of us - and I think you're an example - are so accustomed to the sense of entitlement and freedom to question and test a text that we begin to think of reading as a kind of interaction, forgetting, if we ever knew, that such freedom is relatively new.The thoughts most worth thinking will generally be written in books. — Leontiskos
I had to look up discourse, and I find that discourse can refer to a back-and-forth, a discussion, which a book cannot do, or itself a fixed text. — tim wood
You mean unlike books, yes? — tim wood
I do not think books do this: people - readers - do this. — tim wood
Agreed. And just this arguably why the admonition to study them. I reckon my break is to question the ultimate worth of the study-in-itself. Perhaps a thousand years ago it might have been felt to be the way to heaven, and no doubt some people think so today. But most of us - and I think you're an example - are so accustomed to the sense of entitlement and freedom to question and test a text that we begin to think of reading as a kind of interaction, forgetting, if we ever knew, that such freedom is relatively new. — tim wood
If discussion is like a game of tennis, reading a book is like hitting the ball against a wall. — tim wood
An example comes to mind: to build the foundation for a house, you might well look at a book that tells how to do that. — tim wood
And this all-a-piece with the notion that meditation/study of books, at the expense of all else, is a destructive practice. — tim wood
I think I must agree with you, here.So again: does your critique of books also apply to the posts you write on TPF? It seems that your critique will apply to every (completed) linguistic work of art. — Leontiskos
and because the author is dynamic so too is the book. — Leontiskos
If there's disagreement between us, it may be here. I hold that as the text is fixed, so too the meaning. That leaves on the one hand understanding the text, on the other interpretation. Understanding a discipline, interpretation an exhibition.then one book's meaning need not be as static or fixed as another's. — Leontiskos
Has any of it taught you how to tell the young both what to do and not do in such terms as they get it? I suppose knowing these might be accounted wisdom, but how to tell it! (Or do we in age forget that youth, and each age, is governed by its own imperatives - another topic.)I have spent long periods of my now long life.... — Fooloso4
Still for brevity’s sake, I reach the conclusion sans argument that while books are to be read, they are also to be challenged, and once challenged and the challenges disposed of, to be set aside or even discarded in favour of the business of living a life. I leave it to the discussion to settle what books this applies to, whether all, some, or none, or what types. — tim wood
Has any of it taught you how to tell the young both what to do and not do in such terms as they get it? — tim wood
I think I must agree with you, here. — tim wood
My overall point, now getting obscured, is that an original standard of behaviour, to study books to the exclusion of all else, is now pretty much dismissed. And that granted, it's worth (imho) a dive into the reasons for that dismissal. The most general expression of which seems to be that such a life is for most just not a life at all, and a life misspent. The roots for this seeming to be at least the enlightenment, the sense of freedom and liberty and duty under these, and a sense of the possibility of a science of the world. This latter being a movement from the acceptance of the mysteries of things to the possibility of understanding them, the desirability of that understanding, and the invitation to do so based on a Cristian model that perfection is here in the world (because God made the world and thus it is perfect) and here to be understood - the methods of understanding to question and to test. — tim wood
If there's disagreement between us, it may be here. I hold that as the text is fixed, so too the meaning. That leaves on the one hand understanding the text, on the other interpretation. Understanding a discipline, interpretation an exhibition. — tim wood
Usually a mistake, I say. Sex and marriage come to mind, concerns for Heloise and Abelard; one can study and read about them and ask others about them all the day long, but not really know about them until they're experienced - and then one is launched on whole new and unexpected paths of discovery and knowledge to be learned. And even geometry: if a person does not him- or herself go through a few proofs on their own, they cannot really be said to know geometry. And I think this is just common sense, which makes me wonder just what the sense, common or otherwise, that informed the judgment of some people in the Middle Ages.Is it a mistake to seek knowledge and understanding to the exclusion of all else — Leontiskos
Well, at least to look for something beyond - and maybe wisdom to recognize that what is present is also the beyond. But I like what you said and how you said it.Yet the point is not to avoid finite realities, but instead to see in and through them something beyond them. The problem is not the focus on the finite reality, but the fixation and coagulation on the finite reality. — Leontiskos
Indeed it is! I'll add here some clarity that I chose to leave out of the last post. By "fixed" I mean that a text establishes a field of meanings, or a set of meanings within a horizon of possible meanings, or however works best to express it. That is, those that can be got from the text, and not those that are not got from the text but are speculatively inferred from it.This is a fairly complicated subject. To begin to breach it, I would ask: Supposing that the meaning is fixed and this is bad, is there then something whose meaning is not fixed? — Leontiskos
I reach the conclusion sans argument that while books are to be read, they are also to be challenged, and once challenged and the challenges disposed of, to be set aside or even discarded in favour of the business of living a life. I leave it to the discussion to settle what books this applies to, whether all, some, or none, or what types. — tim wood
And I think this is just common sense, which makes me wonder just what the sense, common or otherwise, that informed the judgment of some people in the Middle Ages.
And while knowing the answer to that may not change what we do, it seems it might be instructive to know with some exactness just what their error was, why or how the the exclusive study of (in their case) books was thought better than life itself. — tim wood
Well, at least to look for something beyond - and maybe wisdom to recognize that what is present is also the beyond. — tim wood
Indeed it is! I'll add here some clarity that I chose to leave out of the last post. By "fixed" I mean that a text establishes a field of meanings, or a set of meanings within a horizon of possible meanings, or however works best to express it. — tim wood
Or, is there something whose meaning is not fixed? I say no. Meanings can be wide and broad, but there must be some connection between meaning and text, else the meaning is properly identified as being independent of the text. — tim wood
And this seems to be the answer. It also makes available a possible account for choices made in the Middle Ages - or any age. Assuming people try to do the best they can, it becomes a comment on quality of life when those with the means opt for lives of meditation, the study of books, and disengagement. That is, the then correct "balance" being found more-or-less in removal - with an assurance in faith that they would live again in a better time!The question becomes not which extreme is correct but pragmatically can they be balanced? — apokrisis
I don't think philosophy gives ready answers to these, instead going in circles or into dead-ends. But the world seems to, and simply. — tim wood
The proposition, from Seneca and Theophrastus and through St. Jerome, being that the would-be philosopher – or theologian – must devote himself to meditation and the study of books. In context, a quote from Seneca’s Letters to Lucilius (now on my reading list):
“To interrupt philosophy amounts to not being a philosopher, for from the very moment of the interruption philosophy vanishes.... It is necessary therefore to resist other occupations. Rather than multiply them, fly them” — tim wood
To be brief: if one is studying books and thinking about them, is he looking forward or backwards, and in which direction is he living his life? And if the books themselves are determinant, we can ask if the books themselves are forward-looking or back?
...My own tentative answer is that books look backwards...
your question concerns the obsolescence of books as a medium; and yes, they do seem to be becoming progressively more obsolete. — kudos
A book is an economically efficient distribution bundle of articles, i.e. chapters, that may -- or may not even --be closely related. With the advent of the internet, it has become equally efficient, if not more, to publish just the individual articles online. Hence, the very reason for bundling them has disappeared.
My own tentative answer is that books look backwards and are a part of life but not life itself. And further, to live a life, a person must at some point turn away from books — tim wood
Words on the Internet are just a part of the Internet, which is not a unity but a network of differences. For this reason, I think books have a referential and authoritarian quality that the Internet does not have. — kudos
Any digital book on your device could be withdrawn by the distributor, if need arises (like a copyright dispute). — BC
The electronic versions of a book are dynamic: As long as one is in contact with the Internet (devices, cables, wifi, electricity, signals, etc.) the book and the distributor are connected and monitored.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.