Chapter 20 The Fourth Level of Reading – Syntopical Reading
This is a longer chapter, and more discussion questions reflect this. But syntopical reading pulls together everything we have learned so far.
What is the fundamental paradox of syntopical reading, and how does Adler propose to resolve it? (p. 305)
When we read two or more books on the same subject, this implies that identification of the subject matter has occurred before reading begins, however, in a sense, identification of subject matter must come after the reader, not before.
In what ways is syntopical reading “cumulative” of the earlier levels of reading (elementary, inspectional, and analytical)? Why must inspectional reading of all books on your bibliography precede analytical reading of any individual work? (p. 305 – 306)
The two steps in inspectional reading (skimming and superficial reading) anticipate the first two steps in analytical reading. Skimming helps prepare for the first step of analytical reading (identifying subject matter, what kind of book it is, and outlining the structure) and superficial reading helps prepare for interpreting a books content, by coming to terms with the author, stating the propositions, and following arguments).
Inspectional and analytical can be considered anticipations or preparation for syntopical reading.
Inspectional reading can actually be a powerful tool for the reader in preparation for syntopical reading. When examining a bibliography of potential books to read on a particular subject, inspection all the books on the list before moving on to read any of them syntopically will help determine which books on the list of potential reads actually need to read on the subject,. Inspectional reading will also give a clearer idea of the subject you are studying.
Analytical reading skills remain essential – you must still come to terms with authors, identify propositions, follow arguments, and interpret content. But analytical reading is now not for the sake of fully understanding that book on its own terms; rather, you read analytically to extract what serves your syntopical purpose.
What does it mean to say that in syntopical reading, “the books serve you, not the other way around”? (p. 309)
In syntopical reading, we are reading not to achieve an overall understanding of a particular book, as we would if reading a single book analytically, but rather we want to read a book (one of several books) to find what it contributes to the problem or topic we are focused on. What we obtain from a particular book may not be what the author intended as the book’s purpose.
Recall that in analytical reading (of a single book) the role of the author is instructor and we the readers are receiving instruction – a relationship Adler describes as master and disciple. How we go about analytical reading reflects this relationship. However, because in syntopical reading, we are in charge, taking what we need from a particular book regardless of what the author’s intent is, the reader is the master in this situation.
What is meant by “bringing authors to terms,” and why must the reader impose a neutral terminology rather than accept any single author’s language? (p. 310)
“Bringing authors to terms” means essentially, we are forcing an author to use “our” terms, rather than their terms, like we do when we are reading a single book. We need to establish a common vocabulary that allows us to discuss all the authors’ contributions coherently, even when they use different words for similar concepts or the same words for different concepts.
Syntopical reading is thus fundamentally an exercise in translation: creating a meta-language that respects what each author contributes while remaining neutral among competing frameworks.
How do you determine what questions to ask when authors may not have explicitly addressed those questions themselves? (p. 311 – 312)
You frame questions that both illuminate your problem and can be answered, explicitly or implicitly, by most or all of your authors.
While authors may not have explicitly treated your questions as questions, their texts often contain implicit answers that you can infer.
However, you cannot put words in authors’ mouths or thoughts in their minds, and so if an author provides no clear answer, you must honestly record them as silent or indeterminate on that question. The art lies in formulating questions general enough to admit multiple authors’ contributions yet specific enough to generate meaningful answers.
What constitutes a genuine “issue” in syntopical reading, and how do you distinguish between issues that are explicitly joined versus those you must construct through interpretation? (p. 312)
An issue exists when a clear question receives two or more opposing answers from different authors. A genuine issue is most cleanly joined when authors understand a question in the same way but answer it in contrary or contradictory ways. More often, however, differences in answers must be attributed partly to different conceptions of the question itself or different views of the subject.
A task of the syntopical reader is to define the issues in such a way that the differences in answers are joined as well as can be.
What is the goal of analyzing the discussion, and why might the truth consist “in the conflict of opposing answers” rather than in any single set of propositions? (p. 313 – 314)
The goal is not to definitively answer the questions yourself or to declare which authors are right and wrong, but rather to present the ordered discussion itself as the vehicle of truth.
For perennial problems where good minds have disagreed across centuries, presuming that truth resides in any single position would be both presumptuous and reductive. Instead, truth emerges from the dialectical interplay of competing answers, many of which have persuasive evidence and convincing reasons supporting them.
The reader’s task is to ask questions in a defensible order, show how they are answered differently and explain why, and point to supporting texts. The truth consists in understanding the full landscape of the discussion – seeing what’s genuinely at stake, recognizing the strengths and limitations of various positions, and understanding how different answers connect to different premises or values. This analysis can clear away deadwood and prepare the ground for original thinkers to make breakthroughs that weren’t possible when the problem’s structure was obscured.
What does Adler mean by “dialectical objectivity,” and what specific techniques does he recommend to maintain it? (p. 315 – 316)
Dialectical objectivity means striving to look at all sides of issues while taking no sides, presenting the discussion without prejudice to any partisan viewpoint, and treating all positions impartially.
While achieving this ideal is impossible, readers should aspire to it.
Techniques for approaching this ideal include:
(1) Constantly referring back to the actual texts, reading relevant passages repeatedly to check your interpretations.
(2) Quoting authors in their own words when presenting their positions, so readers can judge whether your interpretation is fair, even summarizing in your neutral terminology. This provides a check for the reader to see if their interpretation of the author is correct.
(3) Maintaining deliberate awareness of subtle ways partiality intrudes, such as through tone, emphasis and neglect, shading of questions, coloring of remarks, and even the order in which answers are presented.
(4) A firm intention and deliberate effort to balance question against question, forgo prejudicial comments, and check tendencies toward over- or under-emphasis.
Using the example of the idea of progress, how does one distinguish between a “general controversy,” a “special controversy,” and “subordinate issues”? (p. 319 – 320)
The general controversy about progress concerns the primary question that all authors addressing the subject must answer: Does progress occur in history? This controversy includes all the various ways of saying yes, no, or “we cannot know” – every significant author on the topic takes a position within this controversy.
The special controversy involves issues joined only among a subset of authors – specifically, those who assert that progress does occur (the “progress authors”). These issues concern the nature and properties of progress: Only progress authors debate these questions because those who deny progress occurs have no reason to discuss its properties.
Subordinate issues are even narrower debates within the special controversy: progress authors disagree about the specific domains where progress occurs – knowledge, technology, economics, politics, morality, or the fine arts. An author might assert progress in some domains while denying it in others, creating a complex pattern of agreement and disagreement.
The structure moves from most general (engaging everyone) through special (engaging a subset) to subordinate (engaging specific aspects).
How does the Syntopicon serve as a practical solution to the fundamental problem of syntopical reading? Briefly describe the three ways the Syntopicon can help beginner readers. (p. 321- 323)
The Syntopicon breaks the paradox by providing a reference work that tells you where to find relevant passages on numerous subjects without prejudging how those passages should be read. It’s a topical index to the Great Books (of the Western World) that lists under some 3,000 topics the specific pages and passages where each topic is discussed.
The Syntopicon works to help beginner readers in three ways:
(1) initiatively by overcoming intimidation and getting readers started with manageable passages rather than whole books, helping read in the great books before reading through them,
(2) suggestively by arousing interest in related subjects and authors, and
(3) instructively by teaching interpretation skills, using contrasting passages to sharpen understanding, and revealing the multiple meanings within rich passages when read across different topics.
** 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 20 Discussion Questions.
Michelle Home Scholar 