How to read awful philosophers?

[BurgessLau]

I am about to begin a second reading of Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. My first reading -- if one can be said to "read" such things -- was the most unpleasant reading experience of my life. Consequently I have been thinking about what I can do to get the most value from such reading, with the least expense in time and damage to my subconscious.

I know I am not the only person in this forum who, for one reason or another, reads such material, at least occasionally. Perhaps a discussion of problems and solutions in doing such readings will be mutually rewarding.

THE PROBLEM

What attitudes, general approaches, and specific techniques would you recommend, based on your own experience in reading awful philosophers -- that is, philosophers (or others) whose styles are as bad as their themes? Examples from my experience are Kant, Kierkegaard, and Derrida. I have heard similar complaints about some Buddhist writers, Christian mystics, and neo-Kantian political theoreticians such as John Rawls.

Following are my answers to the problem of reading awful philosophers:

I. ATTITUDES

A. REVIEWING MY VALUE HIERARCHY. I remind myself that this reading is merely one step in achieving my highest value. As with certain dental work, such as root-canals, the experience may be unpleasant but it will advance me toward my goals. For example, for some individuals reading a certain text may be a requirement for a particular university course, the course may be necessary for a certain degree, and the degree may be a step in one's career, that is, in achieving one's central purpose in life, which in turn is a key to achieving one's ultimate purpose in life, happiness. Reviewing all those steps makes the project easier to take.

B. PUZZLE-SOLVING. I try to see this text as a murder-mystery detective might approach a puzzle: What are the items of evidence, what are the red-herrings, and who is the murderer standing behind the curtain of obfuscation?

C. ADJUSTING EXPECTATIONS. I remind myself that an obscure writer is either a defective thinker or dishonest or both. I remind myself that this obscure writer nevertheless is sending messages to his intended readers. Otherwise how is it that his supporters seem to "understand" the obscurity in generally the same way? (How did Toohey's followers "understand" what he really meant even though he often spoke in code?)

I therefore don't expect to understand everything -- only a few key points that the author says clearly, as beams of light through murk, or points that I have inferred from his key words or even from his style itself.

II. APPROACHES

A. SPIRAL. I sometimes follow a spiral of texts as a way of inoculating oneself a bit at a time. An example, for Kant, would be first reading the following items in the listed order:

- "Kant" entry in the handy, single-volume Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion: Eastern and Western Thought, by W. L. Reese.

- A 10-20 page "Kant" article in a multivolume encyclopedia of philosophy.

- The two long chapters on Kant in W. W. Jones, A History of Western Philosophy, Vol. IV (Kant and the Nineteenth Century).

- A full-length summary, commentary, or critique of Kant's whole philosophy or perhaps that part of the philosophy which appears in my target book, the Critique of Pure Reason.

B. KNOW THE HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL CIRCUMSTANCES. For example, knowing that Kant wrote at a time of Prussian censorship might explain some of his obfuscation (but I doubt it). Knowing the big problems that philosophers were addressing may explain some of what he says. An example is reading Plato after learning that his predecessors had debated changelessness versus ever-changing reality: His solution was to split reality, one for each state.

C. MAKE ASSIGNMENTS DOABLE. I try to divide the project into manageable pieces for daily study -- so as not to overdose. The pieces should be small enough that I can do one every day, even when the writing is at its worst. And this pace should be sustainable. For Kant's 700 page CPR, this might mean "reading" 20 pages per day for five weeks.

III. TECHNIQUES

A. Write one's own dictionary of the philosopher's key terms as he defines them (or doesn't).

B. Heavily annotate the text itself, using the techniques discussed in Edwin Locke's excellent Study Methods and Motivation, Part I, and Robert Mayhew's Ayn Rand's Marginalia.

C. Write a list of questions about the text before starting to read. Examples are: What does the author say his purpose is? Who is his intended audience? What is the subject of the book? What is the theme -- that is, what the author says about his subject?

D. Write a list of questions about the text as the reading progresses.

E. Find a suitable, specialized dictionary. For example, Howard Caygill has written A Kant Dictionary. His explanations are about as clear as one could expect, given the subject, and he cites specific passages in Kant's works.

IV. SUMMARY

How would you summarize your recommendations in an essentialized, crow-friendly form? My summarizing statement is this: Approach the book on multiple levels, stay mentally active, and don't lose perspective, but keep moving on, trying to understand as much as one can while wading through a swamp at midnight.

[Hal]

I like to write a lot of notes as I go along, both to summarize arguements and to record what I was thinking at the time. I also find it helps to write mini-essays on important sections to ensure I understand them - forcing myself to root through the text for specific quotations to back up my initial reading oftens prevents misinterpretation. It's not uncommon for me to write notes spanning 30-50 sides of A4 on a first reading of a particularly difficult and I find doing this to be absolutely essential to my understanding - I'd get completely lost without constantly going back to clarify and summarize what I'd read.

I think a good textual companion helps too - if there's a part of the text that just doesnt make any sense at all (hardly a rarity with Kant), It's useful having somewhere to turn for a second opinion.

Not reading when I'm tired helps too - once I get into something I often feel like I 'have' to finish it, which leads to me wanting to read it even if I'm not really in the right state of mind. I've gradually learned to stop doing this, since it leads to me understanding very little.

[danielshrugged]

Yesterday, I finished reading the Critique of Judgment. Next semester, I will read the Critique of Pure Reason. So I'm definitely interested in this topic and have some thoughts of my own. I'm a little busy right now, though, so I'll try to remember to post my thoughts in about a week.

One thing that comes to mind right away, though, is that Kant was, I think, a student of Leibnitz--so it helps to study and read Leibnitz beforehand.

[punk]

There is a saying to the effect that:

Whoever only knows about one society knows about none.

In a similar vein one could say that whoever knows one philosophy really only knows none. In studying philosophy which you do not agree with you will reach a better deeper understanding of the one you do agree with, and you should approach alien philosophers in that spirit.

An example.

If you read enough you will read some thinkers who will be presented as great and influential but will strike one as giving little more than a series of trite platitudes. This will happen when a thinker is so influential on a society that their ideas know make up the "common sense" of the culture. At this point it is really difficult to truly appreciate what they are doing.

If you start to appreciate alternative ways of thinking enough (by reading and understanding philosophies that contradict theirs) you will actually be able to read that influential thinker and see what they are really about. And moreover you will see that the influential thinker's thought goes far beyond what was taken up as "common sense". So you end up with a much deeper appreciation through reading contradicting thought.

So in the case of Kant. If you read Kant and make a genuine effort to understand Kant fully, you will be able to see much more deeply what Rand is doing.

Think of it this way if I have a white object on a white background it is harder to make out the object's features than if I superimpose it against a black background.

[Free Capitalist]

Burgess,

I'm glad you had this part of your approach written down:

"B. KNOW THE HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL CIRCUMSTANCES. For example, knowing that Kant wrote at a time of Prussian censorship might explain some of his obfuscation (but I doubt it). Knowing the big problems that philosophers were addressing may explain some of what he says. An example is reading Plato after learning that his predecessors had debated changelessness versus ever-changing reality: His solution was to split reality, one for each state."

I find that to be the most important part of learning, especially for philosophers whose ideas are unusual to our way of thinking. For example, I really couldn't understand where Presocratics came from, and to me claims by Thales that the world is made out of water seemed utterly primitive, something very simple people would say, not the venerable Greeks. Same for the rest of the Seven Wise Men of Ancient Greece, such as Solon the Athenian lawgiver. But then I've started reading more about their lives, about when they lived, whom they talked to, what kinds of very wise things they said (see my sig). These people became flesh and blood human beings, who had lives to live, who looked at the world, and gave their opinions, judgments, observations.

Same with Kant, if you really are going through the arduous task of understanding his philosophy, learning his biography will be a great step. For me, the only way to understand an unusual philosophy like that would be to "get into his head" and try to understand how the course of his life led him to write what he did. Was he a dusty academic weaving empty theories? Was he a closet radical attempting to undermine this hatefully pernicious optimism of the Enlightenment? All these questions a simple reading of his Critique cannot answer. And by the way, I haven't done this process for Kant but I have done it for Presocratics, and have found a lot of understanding for Thales (and also, in his case, a lot of respect for the man, a lot of admiration).

As a very simple example, did you know that Kant had only one portrait hanging on his wall, the portrait of Jean-Jacques Rousseau? That mental image alone is worth a thousand words, giving a lot of insight into his character, values, and motivation.

[AMERICONORMAN]

I have a suggestion on attitude.

Ayn Rand gives this advice in The Fountainhead, "Don't bother examing a folly. Find out what it accomplishes." It comes out of Toohey's mouth (I think when he reveals himself to Keating) but I think Rand meant it as sincere advise.

If you find out what the principles accomplish, you will be able to direct your investigation with better focus on the essence of the philosopher. I don't think Ayn Rand means that once you discover the purpose, then you don't have to worry about the rest of the mind of the man but that doing one will make the other one easier.

That's the only advise I can manage, though, I was very grateful for the advice already posted, certainly by the initial questioner.

Americo.

[gadfly]

One thing that comes to mind right away, though, is that Kant was, I think, a student of Leibnitz--so it helps to study and read Leibnitz beforehand.

I don't know about that, but Choco Leibniz is the best of all possible cookies.

(I realize the name is spelled differently, but I still chuckle when I see them in the grocery store)

[gadfly]

For example, knowing that Kant wrote at a time of Prussian censorship might explain some of his obfuscation

You have obviously thought about this topic in more depth than I have, so I'm afraid I can't offer you much insight regarding methods, but this sentence you wrote is something I had not heard before. What type of thing might Kant hide from censors?

[BurgessLau]

What type of thing might Kant hide from censors?

Irreligion and possibly atheism.

There is debate among modern scholars about Kant's views of:

(1) Religion (most believe he opposed it as irrelevant apparatus, while supporting some sort of direct relationship with God through moral feeling and awe of "the starry heavens above").

(2) God (his views changed, perhaps moving into atheism later, but the subject is not clear to me).

Kant was denounced, by a few people in his own time, for irreligion and atheism. There is some evidence to support both charges. Keep in mind that, in form at least, Kant was an Enlightenment man (while destroying the Enlightenment) and that he supported the French Revolution while living in an ultraconservative country, Prussia. He also treated Jews with respect, making him suspect again.

His enemies -- in the Lutheran Church -- would have loved to silence him even more than he aleady had been at one point in his life. I do not recall the details. Read Manfred Kuehn's massive intellectual biography: Kant: A Biography.

[Sherlock]

Burgess,

That is interesting information about Kant. I have not read any biographies, but obviously it would be worth my while. Thanks for the post.

[BurgessLau]

[...] Kant was, I think, a student of Leibnitz--so it helps to study and read Leibnitz beforehand.

Daniel, thank you for this suggestion. I have read only excerpts of Leibniz (note spelling), about his monad metaphysics, and even that was 40 years ago.

I just completed the three-page article on Leibniz (1646-1716) in Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, as a first step. I am not sure what my next step will be.

Many elements of Leibniz' epistemology, as described by Reese, appear in CPR. Not clear to me, though, is how much of that epistemology Kant (1724-1804) learned directly from Leibniz' writings or from Kant's own professors at the University of Konigsberg. According to Reese and other souces, if I recall rightly, much of Leibniz' writings were not published until after his death, but how long after I am not sure. I will try to find out the nature of Kant's study of Leibniz.

[Technofear]

I don't know about that, but Choco Leibniz is the best of all possible cookies.

(I realize the name is spelled differently, but I still chuckle when I see them in the grocery store)

That sounds good, what is it?