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.