Chapter 18 How to Read Philosophy
Philosophy, according to Aristotle, begins in wonder. While children begin with deep curiosity, adults and schooling often dull it. The task of philosophical reading is to recover that childlike wonder while combining it with mature understanding and judgment.
What are the main questions that philosophy attempts to answer? Distinguish between first-order and second-order questions. (p. 266 -269)
There are two groups of questions that philosophy attempts to answer.
Those questions about being or existence, or change and becoming, are speculative or theoretical questions.
Questions about good and evil, right and wrong concern what ought to be done or sought, and belong to the practical (or normative) division of philosophy.
Questions about what is and happens in the world, or what men ought to do or seek (the questions mentioned above) would be considered first-order questions.
Second-order questions concern our first-order knowledge, such as the content of our thinking when considering first-order questions, and the language used to express such thoughts.
What are the five different philosophical styles or methods (in the Western tradition) that Adler identifies, and how does recognizing these styles help a reader understand philosophical works? (p. 273 – 279)
- The Philosophical Dialogue – as seen in Plato’s Dialogues, is conversational or colloquial. It is a heuristic style, with the reader being led to discover things for themself by asking questions and having discussions.
- Philosophical Treatise or Essay – essays or treatises that state the main problem, go through the subject matter, treating any problems either along the way or at the end. They contain a philosophical beginning, middle and end. Tis is a straightforward exposition.
- The Meeting of Objections – perfected by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica, this is a combination of question raising and objection meeting. A question is posed, the opposite or what is considered the wrong answer is given, and then arguments are stated in support of the wrong answer. These opposing answers are then challenged and refuted. This method supports the idea that truth evolves out of opposition and conflict.
- The Systemization of Philosophy – developed by Spinoza and Descartes, this method attempts to organize philosophy in a way similar to mathematics. Philosophical treatises were written in strict mathematical form, with propositions, proofs, corollaries, etc. This method is not appropriate for all philosophical discussions, such as discussions of metaphysics and morals.
- The Aphoristic Style – adopted by Nietzsche and other French philosophoers. Wisdom books written in the East are in this aphoristic style, written is short, enigmatic statements. An advantage of aphoristic style is that it is heuristic – short statements have the reader doing much of the work of thinking, in response to the statements given. This method is not really expositional, however, and so the statements are not as developed. A statement may touch on a subject and suggest some insight but then the author moves on.
How should a reader approach philosophical arguments differently than arguments in practical or scientific books? What special considerations apply? (p. 282 – 284)
The task of the philosopher is to explain the nature of things, as opposed to describing the nature of things, as scientists do.
When reading scientific books, you can often verify claims through observation or experiment – things that can be seen or touched, experienced with the senses. With philosophy, you’re engaging with concepts and reasoning about fundamental questions that may not be empirically testable.
With science, the reader’s main focus is inductive arguments (recall from Chapter 17 that science’s primary arguments are those that establish a general proposition by reference to observable evidence), and so with philosophy the reader must pay attention to the philosopher’s principles, fundamental assumptions and matters they consider to be self-evident.
Why do the authors suggest that reading philosophy requires more active engagement and critical thinking than other types of books? What makes philosophical reading particularly demanding? (p. 284 – 285)
Philosophy requires examining your own experience and common human experience as evidence. The reader must think along with the philosopher, testing the philosophical claims against their own reasoning and experience. This requires honesty about your own thinking and potential biases
What do the authors say about the role of context and the “great conversation” when reading philosophical works? How should a reader relate one philosopher’s ideas to another’s? (p. 285)
Philosophers throughout history are engaged in an ongoing conversation about the same fundamental questions. When great philosophers disagree on a question, it often signals that the problem is genuinely difficult, perhaps unsolved or even unsolvable.
The responsibility of the reader is to make up your own mind, judging what is true or false based on your reading. The reader is not a passive observer in this conversation, but an active participant, judging what is true and false based on your own reasoning and experience.
What do the authors say about the reading of “canonical texts?” (p. 287 – 288)
Canonical texts are those texts that are considered “sacred” or “holy” in older traditions. For example, The Holy Bible is not read as literature by religious adherents, but rather the revealed Word of God. Mao Tse-tung’s Little Red Book is read in much the same way. Canonical works are read by adherents of whatever institution they are part of – whether political, religious, or other – reverentially. Adherents read without questing the right reading of canonical books. Canonical books are books for which there is only one right reading (for adherents), and are read, essentially, without freedom.
** Note – assume much of the content following each discussion question is a paraphrase and comes from the book How to Read a Book.
Click here to print Chapter 18 Discussion Questions.
Michelle Home Scholar 