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

To be something is to do something, and to be a philosopher is to do philosophy. If philosophy requires the study of books, then that which prevents one from studying books prevents one from doing philosophy.

But book themselves may have a share of culpability, in that they’re static, archives of what was. — tim wood

I think that's a very one-dimensional and reductive view of books. Books are as variable as people and thoughts. Some are static, some are archival, and many are not.

I wonder if someone who thinks that books are necessarily static and archival must also hold that the posts that are written on a philosophy forum are necessarily static and archival?

I think it very much depends on the reader and which books they choose to read. There is an art to writing and an art to reading. Reading can be a way of thinking. When that is the case, although the book has already been written, what is said, although situated in time, need not be limited to that time. 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.

I think it very much depends on the reader and which books they choose to read. — Fooloso4

Yes, this would seem critical.

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

Not sure I am grasping this. Can't books do both almost simultaneously? I often read books to have something in my head along with memories to draw upon later. Is that forward looking?

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

Many of the great readers I know - who read deeply and voraciously - lack life skills and are the sorts of people whose relationship with the world might be called 'theoretical'. I think some people are propelled into reading on account of other deficits - practical skills, ability to relate to others, etc.

I think reading is a bad word to use to describe a person's relationship with a book. Reading is incomplete unless it comes with comprehension and thought. Like others, I can read Heidegger until the cows come home (for example) and yet never acquire a useful reading of his works. It's interesting how people can read a work and yet somehow avoid making contact with the author's ideas.

It's interesting how people can read a work and yet somehow avoid making contact with the author's ideas. — Tom Storm

The skill of grammar allows us to understand what others are saying, and this skill is going by the wayside. Those who read well tend to be good at understanding verbal or written communication, and therefore they will be good at understanding the linguistic parts of the world. Does someone who is skilled in grammar lack non-linguistic skills? Possibly, but not necessarily. I don't think literacy necessarily involves a neglect of the non-linguistic, but those who spend all their time in the realm of language probably do lack non-linguistic skills.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

By static and archival, I meant fixed; — tim wood

I think books are the highest form of discourse, and to criticize books is a fortiori to criticize every other form of discourse. Hence my point about posts on TPF. Like the words written in books, the words we say and write are also fixed. Like books, we can say new things as we grow and change our minds.

When you say many are not, what do you mean? — tim wood

By static I think of that which is not dynamic, and by archival I think of that which catalogues existing things, especially the past. I don't think books like the Bhagavad Gita or Dostoevsky's The Idiot are static or archival. I don't even think Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics are static and archival, and the proof of this is that they generate new insights and new interpretations with each passing decade.

The thoughts most worth thinking will generally be written in books. Books have displaced oral tradition as the normative form of passing on wisdom. Those who ignore books ignore the thoughts most worth thinking. The alternative to books is your own mind, or the words of those you know, or the internet, none of which surpass books insofar as intellectual achievement is concerned. One disparages books at their own risk.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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

Discourse can be dialogical, but it need not be. Still, a book can be a page in a discussion. Not infrequently in history have books been written in response to other books.

You mean unlike books, yes? — tim wood

No, what I mean is that a book is a linguistic work of art(ifice). Other linguistic works of art include things like pamphlets, speeches, a spoken sentence, a magazine article, etc. Limiting ourselves to naturalism for the moment, we can say that all linguistic works of art are "fixed," to use your term. 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.

I do not think books do this: people - readers - do this. — tim wood

But do you admit that some books more than others consistently cause people to do this? If so, then one book's meaning need not be as static or fixed as another's.

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

It is relatively new only in the medium of written language. The same dynamics have always attended oral traditions, including things like pedagogy and subversion.

If discussion is like a game of tennis, reading a book is like hitting the ball against a wall. — tim wood

Last week I remarked to my cousin that some of the best tennis players to come out of our school spent the most time with the wall.

But the problem with the analogy is that a book is a reflection or projection of an author, and because the author is dynamic so too is the book. Of course, static authors will produce static books, and we should not deny that, but someone who approaches Plato's Republic the same way they approach Galen's anatomy has placed all books on a level in an undue manner. Plato's wall is often more productive and fruitful than the players available for play.

What are books for? Certainly not for talking to someone in a short back-and-forth dialogue. If the author is living I may read his book and write a book, in response to which he then writes another book. But if the author is dead then even this is not possible. I suppose I would just say that if you want to speak, then you don't read a book. Reading a book requires listening, not speaking.

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

Given the connection between books and philosophy in your OP I took the question to be about books that address philosophical issues.

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

Yes. I agree. I have spent long periods of my now long life without meditation/study of books. On the other hand, my time with books has been in large part a time with others as a student, a teacher, a friend talking about what we have found in the books we read.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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

But what is a book but words and what are words but communication and what is communication other than information? How is it meaningfully different to see a bird in a tree than to reduce to symbols "the bird is in the tree"? That is to say, reading a book about a bird is an experience of life just as is seeing a bird. The book is but another way to obtain information, and it is through words we learn of other people's experiences, not exclusively, but almost.

If you say you are to absorb what you experience, challenge it, and then move on, that is a theory of living, but I don't see how you can limit that to only symbolic experiences. I also am not sure we see the thing in itself anyway, so the visualization of the bird might be nothing more than a symbol anyway.

This is part of my greater theory that all language and all experience is poetry.

And all you touch and all you see
Is all your life will ever be
Pink Floyd

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1

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

Probably not. I have no answers. The best I might be able to do is give them a sense of phronesis, I cannot impart wisdom but perhaps can help them to appreciate the value of an attitude of thoughtfulness.

I think I must agree with you, here. — tim wood

Okay, good.

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

I agree that it would be a mistake to study books to the exclusion of all else. The question that then arises with respect to knowledge and understanding is this: Is it a mistake to seek knowledge and understanding to the exclusion of all else, or does the mistake only have to do with books (or any other singular medium)? I would want a deeper critique than "excessive focus on books is bad," because there is something arbitrary about isolating books as a medium of communication.

I then wonder if this is connected to your earlier thread about the search for meaning. Probably a life spent focused on any one finite thing to the exclusion of all else will fail to be a fully meaningful life. In Christianity this is just called idolatry (which is closely aligned with adultery - giving your essential life to something other than God). 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. So too with books. If books are not turned into an idol they can be a wonderful creature.

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

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?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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

I’ll just respond to this because it’s shorter.

I agree with the purpose of books concept, but don’t completely agree that once their challenges are disposed of books should be set aside. While this may work for an individual, a society needs people who don’t put the books away even when their challenges have been disposed of. These writers need the book simply because even if the individual has a perfect understanding of the book, they need it for reference in order to add credibility to their own creations.

This philosophy would generally apply to all books if not for one factor, which is memory. Books may be read many times, and even if you can understand the concepts of the book, some need to be reread anyway (to take new meaning from the text).

So maybe the conclusion is that it applies to some books more than others, and philosophical texts less than most.

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

I don't see that the quotes in your OP recommend attending to books to the exclusion of all else. I would want to see the context of Gilson's quote, but as it stands it seems to say, "If you want to be the best philosopher you can, then you should not marry." This is related to the Rings & Books thread. It is basically a question of the specialist vs. the generalist, which is not so easy a question.

Well, at least to look for something beyond - and maybe wisdom to recognize that what is present is also the beyond. — tim wood

Right.

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

How would this analysis apply to poetry? Is the meaning of a poem fixed? Has the author fixed it? The difficulty that arises is that words are not necessarily isomorphic communications. Words involve a spectrum of meaning, and that spectrum can be used intentionally. So we could say that a poem is fixed and a phone book is fixed, but the poem is much less fixed than the phone book.

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

Perhaps I should have been more explicit and said, "Supposing that the meaning [of a book] is fixed and this is bad, is there then something whose meaning is not fixed?"

Syllogistically:

1. Anything whose meaning is fixed is limited and to that extent bad.
2. The meaning of a book is fixed.
3. Therefore, books are limited and to that extent bad.

The commonsensical implication of (1) is that there is something whose meaning is not fixed, and this thing is therefore better than a book. (What are we comparing books to?)

Books here I take as the construction of an interior world of increasing semiotic abstraction. And that can run counter to life’s other enterprise of living in the day to day real world.

One could substitute a mobile phone here as the modern complaint. Too much texting instead of too much reading. But the fixity of books is at least a sign of the intent to communicate ideas of matching endurance.

So we have a real life dilemma. We have created a world where we expect people to have abstractly structured thoughts. And yet there is also the other thing of the daily routine. The question becomes not which extreme is correct but pragmatically can they be balanced?

I say yes. But this has to be realised early enough in life for life to be built around it. And to be balanced, both sides of this modern educated life must feed back to support each other.

One can earn a living by being a professional abstracter, but then might ought to go part time to look after the house and kids. One can spend hours of the day reading, but then also ought spend as many hours exercising and socialising to keep the old brain cells in peak condition.

So identifying the possible positive feedback loops between wife and books - how each might be arranged to complement the other - is what you would call the win-win.

It things are arranged as a negative feedback loop, life ain’t going to be so hot. :wink:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

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

I think you have to give a role to chance in all this. Especially in the modern world where the life choices are so many. A favourite teacher could tip a decision on career choice. At every point in life you might have gone some other way.

So balance in a physical sense can just mean a state of poised criticality. A random jitter always able to be tipped towards some other basin of attraction.

One could really work to find some life balance in a purposeful way. And one can also be bounced about by life in a resilient fashion. Psychologically, these would seem like different strategies and so you would aim for some sensible balance of those too.

It becomes a game of not having rules about rules as a rule. Sort of been my life plan anyway. Or play the game hard but don’t take the game seriously.

Criticality means being reactive but also falling into meta stable patterns. It might be a useful framing as it actually is a basic concept in explaining life and mind. Organisms have to live on the “edge of chaos” as that then allows them to be the ones that stabilise the instability by throwing biological or neurological information into the mix. Live in an energised environment and tip it in some consistant chosen direction.

This is why life is complex. It is both good to go with the flow and to regulate the flow. To not sweat the small stuff and also pay attention to details.

Being caught between contradictory impulse is itself the inherent character of the “good life”. The wife/book dilemma might only show that you are properly alive in that modern sense we humans have constructed as our dominant dynamic, the essence of our critical state. The two directions in which we must energetically swing as post Enlightenment beings.

Not saying that the modern world gives everyone this as a fact. But it does seem the image of an ideal.

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

That's nice if you have servants, novices (or a compliant wife) to take care of your physical needs, and then you need not occupy yourself with any other activity, just sit in your tower, think absurdities and wait to be waited on.
Poor old Abelard didn't have a whole lot of choice in the matter.

I'll tell you one thing about books as a source of information: They don't have six pop-up ads on every page you're trying to read.
You can also have an internal dialogue with the author - it doesn't matter that he can't hear you; your thought process is still moving forward, without unwelcome interruptions or divergences.

The meaning may have been fixed by the original author. If he was writing about cement foundations, one should hope so. Some texts are effective only when their meaning is fixed and unambiguous. Eg a Stop sign.
Sometimes the author meant to send a specific message, and was unintentionally ambiguous enough in his wording to leave it open to different interpretations. Eg. the US constitution.
More widely open if it was written a thousand years ago in a different language and culture, and even more if the reader has access to other sources of that same message.
Sometimes the author intends such ambiguity, so that thoughtful reader is forced to carry on a dialogue with the text and find more than one way to understand it.

Finally, what's wrong with moving forward while having access to many thousands of rear-view mirrors?

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...

There are many mixed messages in this post, but in part your question concerns the obsolescence of books as a medium; and yes, they do seem to be becoming progressively more obsolete. It's sort of a novelty now, like a glimpse of a famed painting on one's phone. One can fast-track through philosophy on YouTube in a few weeks without reading a word, and any philosopher here probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference; you don't need to go to uni to fast-track STEM either, this can be FT'd in a short time.

It's sort of sad that we look upon this external world of ours with such a jealous eye, and lie to ourselves about what we really want. Is that really about books? If we lie, what is it we really want? The one that is shining and glimmering in the beautiful morning. The one that eliminates all unknown unknowns and settles on the dirty ground like a snowflake. And of course, there is no denying it, it is like fate itself; the towering will and all it's untimely representations. A snowflake can break apart in the air, or it can fall onto the ground totally untouched. What does it matter which one it becomes?

your question concerns the obsolescence of books as a medium; and yes, they do seem to be becoming progressively more obsolete. — kudos

The book format used to be pretty much the only economically efficient distribution format for intellectual publications, even though the monographic article format has always been the most suitable.

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.

Furthermore, quite a few alternative formats have become as popular, if not more popular than the book format.

The ability to comment online to an article, the Q&A format, such as StackOverflow, the forum posting (like this very discussion), the various social-media formats on Twitter/X, Facebook, Instagram, and so on, are also increasingly eating into the market share of the venerable "Gutenberg" book format.

The book format is simply not necessarily the best publication format in all circumstances.

Another thing about physical books: they don't need to be plugged in or recharged; they keep working when the power is cut off by weather, malfunction or sabotage. (You should lay in some candles, though.)

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.

This being said, the word-symbol in book form has a quality of being a part of a greater unity that is just not present in the Internet. 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. The Internet makes understanding 'easy' in a way books can't, because they can never pass over their authority, and thus Internet discourse tends to reduce synthetic histories to the level of an individualized symbol. Undermining of authority becomes a substantial notion, a pretext for knowing itself.

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

Well sure. Books don't photosynthesize, metabolize, or metastasize--so not life itself. But like all symbolic things: an arrangement of stones, scratches on a rock, structures, figures drawn in clay, writing, drawing, painting, music, film, dance, metalworking, pottery, ceremonial acts, etc... they are a part of life for which we would be greatly impoverished to do without.

Books are written, made, stored, and read for a future audience, whether the audience is of one's own time or a future time, a century or a millennium hence. WE can look backwards (as we ought to do for purposes of navigating life successfully).

A lot of people do turn away from books. "I haven't read a book since high school, since college..." they say--and it generally shows as a bad choice.

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

A printed books is static and stable. The text won't change. 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. Your highlighting may be transmitted to Amazon, for instance, which can show how many people have highlighted a given passage. Any digital book on your device could be withdrawn by the distributor, if need arises (like a copyright dispute). If electricity should fail (collapse of technology) your library would disappear once the device's battery was exhausted (in a few hours of reading).

A thief can steal a thousand books on a tablet reader far more easily than stealing a thousand books.

On the other hand, an electronic text delivered by the internet can be easily enriched by looking up information was doesn't have front of mind (or in mind at all). When an author cites a famous bridge, one can (usually) find a photograph or drawing of the bridge by using search--in just a few seconds. Were one reading the paper book in a large library, it might take one 30 minutes to find the book that has the drawing of the bridge in question.

As for documents that exist entirely within the Internet -- they are put up on a web sites ranging from pure trash to solid gold. Let the reader be very wary and guarded!

Any digital book on your device could be withdrawn by the distributor, if need arises (like a copyright dispute). — BC

You can counter this practice by rejecting the use of proprietary software and by insisting on reproducible-build free and open-source software only.

On a desktop device, this can routinely be achieved by using a suitable Linux distribution, such as Debian Linux. Installing additional software should be done from its standard repositories only.

Alternative sources of software are acceptable only if you pertinently know that the software will still respect your user rights under the General Public License (GPL or compatible).

On the desktop, the copyright barons have effectively lost the war. It is still up to the user, however, to prevent them from reinstating their reign of tyranny by resolutely rejecting their software.

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.

It may sound mystical, but printed books have a fate component that I enjoy. It was that book you found in the bargain bin with the cover that looked interesting that set a whole sequence of life-altering events in motion. In a certain Tolkenian way, the books have a way of seeking you out. There are so few surprises left in life that can match the feeling of life making sense.

It didn't cause huge life-altering events, but I've had that experience--a book on architectural terracotta in a bin that I found fascinating. I had not given terracotta more than a couple of seconds thought prior to this book. Oh, so that's what that building, cornice, entrance way, etc. is covered with! The book sent me on a mission to discover architectural terracotta in downtown Minneapolis which I had a good time photographing. I recently read of a new building in Chicago that was going to make use of terracotta cladding.

Amazon has lots of the equivalent of left-overs, remainders, returns, etc. in digital form; the problem at Amazon is finding them among the 10 billion books in stock.. Using the right, key, search word is the critical piece in unearthing the obscure, interesting, cheap (usually digital) book. Sometimes the results include collections on topics -- urban problems, for example, or westward expansion in the 19th century.

Forgotten Books is a London company which sells really obscure old (no longer covered by copyright) books that have been digitized. Some of the titles are interesting, a lot of it is just obscure.