How to Read Philosophy

Productively: Some Hints

Mr. Graves

 

Sometimes a student is puzzled about how to read essays on philosophical subjects in a way that will make them more accessible and useful in real life.  Some essays use unfamiliar concepts, or technical language.  Essays, which are not contemporary sometimes, suffer from phrasing or vocabulary, which seems peculiar.  And, occasionally, the fact that an essay is argumentative, as opposed to explanatory, is puzzling in itself.   The following is a brief series of suggestions for making your reading more productive.

 

I.              First, a couple of overall suggestions:

 

 

A.   Take a couple of minutes before you begin reading to get the right mood (or mindset, or attitude) for reading philosophy.  Reading philosophy is not like reading a newspaper or a weekly magazine; it requires active reading.  And philosophy is much easier to read & understand when you read it on its own terms.  So prepare yourself to search for, & think in terms of, ideas, issues & stands, concepts, arguments, agreements, and disagreements.

 

B.   Read the selection at least two or three times.  One approach widely regarded as good involves skimming the selection once, noting words you don't know for sure.  Jot them down on index cards, and write the definitions on the other side.  (Then you can: 1. Pull them out as you read the second time, so that you can get each definition you need without really stopping your reading; and, 2. Use the cards that contain central terms as flash-cards when you study for tests.)  Then read a second time, slowly and thoughtfully, looking for the author's thesis and main argument(s).  Then read it a third time, picking up details and more subtle meanings in comfort.

 

C.   Break the essay down into its natural components (that is, its parts, or elements), and come to understand what each part is doing.  A part should always be easier to understand by itself than it would when combined with a number of other parts.

 

 

II.            Listed below is one systematic approach to reading argumentative essays.  You really need to be able to answer questions A, B, C, F, and G in order to consider that -- in one important sense -- you have read the essay at all. You should be aware that you are reading productively if you can do A through I well.  You should be aware that you are reading very productively if you can answer each of the numbered questions listed below:

 

 

Begin by determining the issue(s) with which the essay deals.  An issue is a question about which people take differing stands or positions:

 

A.   What is the work's main issue?  Are there smaller issues within that issue which concern -- or should concern -- the author?

 

Then consider the essay's concepts:

 

B.   What are the essay's central concepts?  For instance, to understand Jeremy Bentham's essay on hedonistic utilitarianism, you need to understand concepts such as utility, the principle of utility, interest, and, later, intensity, propinquity, fecundity, purity, etc.

 

C.    What are the meanings of those central concepts?  For example, you cannot understand Bentham's essay if you don't understand that the principle of utility is the principle that an act is morally right insofar as it maximizes good for the persons involved, and minimizes bad for those persons; and that an act is morally wrong insofar as it maximizes bad for the persons involved, and minimizes good for those person.   

 

D.   (For each concept considered) is this the same thing that we normally mean when we use this concept, e.g., in discussion and writing?  If not, in what way(s) does this differ from our normal meaning?  For instance, does Bentham mean the same thing(s) by "pleasure" that most of us would if we were using that term in conversation?  (It appears that he does...)

 

 

 

E.    Can these concepts be analyzed into sub-concepts?  Are there types or kinds of whatever is being discussed?  For example, one type of deceit is lying; another is cheating.  Again, one kind of deceit is the deception of others; another is self-deception.

 

 

Then consider the work's arguments, first by analyzing them:

 

F.    What is the author's thesis -- her main or ultimate conclusion?  (This will be the claim that the body of the paper defends in an argumentative essay, and the claim that the body of the essay explains in an expository paper.)  For example, the thesis of the argumentative part of Bentham's writing was that the principle of utility is the fundamental principle of all morality.

 

G.   What are the author's premises for her conclusion?  How does she defend her main premises?

 

H.   What kinds of premises does the author offer?  For instance, does the author use statistics?  Analogies?  Examples?  (If so, invented or real-life?)  Pure reasoning?  Cause-and-effect analysis?

 

I.      What is the author's perspective (that is, her frame of reference, or point of view)?   For example, it becomes clearer as you read Jeremy Bentham that Bentham was a hedonistic utilitarian.

 

 Then evaluate the work's arguments:

 

J.    What parts of the author's work are convincing or persuasive?  Why?

 

 

K.   What parts of the author's work are not convincing or persuasive?  Why not?

 

 

L.    Could the author's arguments be made better?  If so, how?  If not, why not?

 

Finally, relate this work to other readings:

 

M.   Has the author addressed any issues that you have seen addressed by others?  If so, what issues?

 

 

N.   In what ways is the authorπs perspective, thesis, and/or arguments similar to any you have seen before?  For instance, both John Hospers and Mary Midgley argue against moral relativism.

 

 

O.   In what ways is the authorπs perspective, thesis, and/or arguments different from any you have seen before?  For instance, Kant is a deontic rationalist, while Bentham is a consequentialist empiricist.

 

 

P.   In what ways is the authorπs perspective, thesis, and/or arguments opposed to any you have seen before?  For example, Ruth Benedict is a moral relativist, while John Hospers is a moral absolutist.

 

 

Q.   Do you see any arguments created especially to support or attack stands or arguments, which you have seen elsewhere?  For instance, Kant argues specifically against consequentialists.