My own intuition is some people can look at a 'million paintings' and be none the wiser. — Tom Storm

Sure. It's all about context. As a matter of interpretive skill (always a risk!), I can speculate that Vonnegut meant something like: if you care about art and developing your taste, the main thing is to look at lots of paintings. But that doesn't sound as good. What's the alternative? 'Prof. So-and-so is the art theorist who finally got it right. It suffices to grok Professor So-and-so and his selection of the 954 essential paintings.'

I'd say the same thing about philosophy. Any philosophy geek can give a list of their favorite books, but the main thing is to read lots of books, and those books talk about other books anyway, just as paintings 'talk' about other paintings.

In a similar vein, theorist and writer Stanley Fish has a polemic that in life philosophy doesn't matter. As you go about your business choosing a job or a partner or buying a house or selecting food off a menu, the questions of philosophy don't and can't enter into it. — Tom Storm

I think Fish is wrong here or only thinking of the academic philosophy game. Are you saying that Epictetus, for instance, can't help people with life? Or consider the industry of self-help books, which are ultimately philosophy books, if not well respected. If we go by quantity, it's the helps-with-life philosophy that's far more popular than the clever stuff.

My own intuition is some people can look at a 'million paintings' and be none the wiser. — Tom Storm

Fair enough. But if Vonnegut qualifies his statement too much it's just bad writing. Writers depend on their readers to sort it out.

I think Fish is wrong here or only thinking of the academic philosophy game. Are you saying that Epictetus, for instance, can't help people with life? Or consider the industry of self-help books, which are ultimately philosophy books, if not well respected. If we go by quantity, it's the helps-with-life philosophy that's far more popular than the clever stuff. — j0e

Is it a game? But yes, I think he means serious philosophy. He is not talking about principles like social justice or the virtue of non-judgment. Do we have much evidence that people make many serious decisions in life based on any reading - even pop-psychology?

I can speculate that Vonnegut meant something like: if you care about art and developing your taste, the main thing is to look at lots of paintings. But that doesn't sound as good. What's the alternative? — j0e

The alternative is to say nothing. My point is these are folksy maxims and they can't be assessed. They are as wrong as they are right.

I'd say the same thing about philosophy. Any philosophy geek can give a list of their favorite books, but the main thing is to read lots of books — j0e

I think it is much more valuable to learn to read a few books, slowly and carefully. Too often philosophy is tread as if it were merely information, and books treated as trophies or notches in a belt.

Since this threat is on Nietzsche, a couple of quotes:

Our treasure lies in the beehive of our knowledge. We are perpetually on the way thither, being by nature winged insects and honey gatherers of the mind. — Nietzsche

Of all that is written, I love only what a person hath written with his blood. Write with blood, and thou wilt find that blood is spirit.
It is no easy task to understand unfamiliar blood; I hate the reading idlers.
He who knoweth the reader, doeth nothing more for the reader. Another century of readers—and spirit itself will stink.
Every one being allowed to learn to read, ruineth in the long run not only writing but also thinking.
Once spirit was God, then it became man, and now it even becometh populace.
He that writeth in blood and proverbs doth not want to be read, but learnt by heart. — Nietzsche

think it is much more valuable to learn to read a few books, slowly and carefully. Too often philosophy is tread as if it were merely information, and books treated as trophies or notches in a belt. — Fooloso4

I sympathize with the value of slow, patient study. But imagine a fanboy of X who's just stuck in the charisma and perspective of a few thinkers. IMV, it's the clash of perspectives that sophisticates the mind.

Is it a game? But yes, I think he means serious philosophy. He is not talking about principles like social justice or the virtue of non-judgment. Do we have much evidence that people make many serious decisions in life based on any reading - even pop-psychology? — Tom Storm

It seems to me that it's (only a) game if no one uses it to make serious decisions. IMV, politics is deeply intertwined with philosophy (is applied philosophy, one might say.) To me it's bold indeed to suggest that reading general thoughts about life or how stuff all hangs together would have no effect on serious decisions.

If you expressing scepticism about the potency of some or even most self-help books, then I understand. But don't you think that some books sometimes make a big difference ?

But don't you think that some books sometimes make a big difference ? — j0e

I haven't read one and no one I know has ever disclosed reading one (that I can recall). But I understand they sell like the clappers. Any good examples - maybe I've heard of one or two and I have forgotten.

To me it's bold indeed to suggest that reading general thoughts about life or how stuff all hangs together would have no effect on serious decisions. — j0e

As I said, he's talking about big philosophical notions, not ideas or values in general. Everyone has opinions. But philosophical questions such as ethical relativism, theories of truth or the problem of induction make no practical difference to people's daily life. Anyway I'm not Fish and I can't defend his argument as he would since I didn't make it. But I suspect there's truth to it. Just as many people who hold a religious faith don't practice it in real life.

But philosophical questions such as ethical relativism, theories of truth or the problem of induction make no practical difference to people's daily life. — Tom Storm

I agree that those questions make little or no difference.

I haven't read one and no one I know has ever disclosed reading one (that I can recall). But I understand they sell like the clappers. Any good examples - maybe I've heard of one or two and I have forgotten. — Tom Storm

Well I'm too much of a snob to read them (more seriously, I can't bear the style) but my wife enjoys them, so I see the titles and read the blurbs. At the same time, I think Epictetus and Marcus are self-help books for masculine types, and I think stoicism has been somewhat helpful to me.

When you are going about any action, remind yourself what nature the action is. If you are going to bathe, picture to yourself the things which usually happen in the bath: some people splash the water, some push, some use abusive language, and others steal. Thus you will more safely go about this action if you say to yourself, "I will now go bathe, and keep my own mind in a state conformable to nature." And in the same manner with regard to every other action. For thus, if any hindrance arises in bathing, you will have it ready to say, "It was not only to bathe that I desired, but to keep my mind in a state conformable to nature; and I will not keep it if I am bothered at things that happen.

Men are disturbed, not by things, but by the principles and notions which they form concerning things. Death, for instance, is not terrible, else it would have appeared so to Socrates. But the terror consists in our notion of death that it is terrible. When therefore we are hindered, or disturbed, or grieved, let us never attribute it to others, but to ourselves; that is, to our own principles. An uninstructed person will lay the fault of his own bad condition upon others. Someone just starting instruction will lay the fault on himself. Some who is perfectly instructed will place blame neither on others nor on himself. — Epictetus

http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html

I don't count myself as a stoic (more of a pragmatic skeptic), but I'd call this a kind of wise cheer-leading. Speculation: self-help books help an individual articulate the goal (decide who they are striving to be.) They also contain folksy or half-scientific tips on how to get there, which may or may not be reliable. [I tried to read The Power of Now once and it was just terrible metaphysics. ]

:up: As you probably know Epictetus has been an influence on a range of helpful therapeutic interventions including rational emotive behavioral therapy and cognitive behavior therapy.

Actually don't know much about that stuff, but it makes sense that his work would be useful.

But imagine a fanboy of X who's just stuck in the charisma and perspective of a few thinkers. — j0e

It has been my experience that those who rush do a poor job of reading. Their heads are full of ideas but they do not take the time to think through the problems.

IMV, it's the clash of perspectives that sophisticates the mind. — j0e

This is part of the problem. Consider the root of the word of the word. One of the hardest things to do is think and write simply. Strip away the jargon and name dropping and what is laid bare does not amount to much. Of course there are exceptions.

In philosophy the race goes to the one who can run slowest—the one who crosses the finish line last. — Wittgenstein

My sentences are all supposed to be read slowly. I really want my copious punctuation marks to slow down the speed of reading. Because I should like to be read slowly. (As I myself read.) — Wittgenstein

It has been my experience that those who rush do a poor job of reading. Their heads are full of ideas but they do not take the time to think through the problems. — Fooloso4

Consider though that you introduced the theme of rushing. Reading lots of thinkers is something one does over a lifetime. Personally I've tended to become fascinated by this or that particular thinker for awhile. I 'suspend disbelief' and try to feel my way into their perspective, and I think a kind of 'irrational' , preliminary affection is helpful. For instance, reading to refute is an uncharitable half-reading. Reading a synopsis to chatter about over cocktails is...not ideal.

We could probably agree on quite a bit at this level of generality. What seems to matter is what happens in actual conversations with others. We just smash into others in conversations and get some sense of their seriousness and skill.

Perhaps you'll agree that mind-identified people can be vain and on the lookout for the vanity of others.

One of the hardest things to do is think and write simply. Strip away the jargon and name dropping and what is laid bare does not amount to much. Of course there are exceptions. — Fooloso4

I agree, but surely you are also aware of the anti-intellectualism that seizes on this kind of statement. It's too general. Who's unsimple in the bad way? Descartes, Derrida, Zizek, Plato, Chomsky, Marx , Freud, Popper,...etc. Everyone picks differently. What we don't like or don't understand is the tempting target. We then finds friends who agree, or our friends are friends because they agree (the usual tribalism.)

Reading lots of thinkers is something one does over a lifetime. — j0e

I might agree with the, but that depends on what you mean by "lots of books" and in what period of time. It also depends on what one means by reading and what it is one is reading.

...surely you are also aware of the anti-intellectualism that seizes on this kind of statement. — j0e

What I had in mind here was not the authors but the discussion of the authors. Cut through the jargon and it becomes clear that they have not really understood the author, and cannot defend what they say by giving a detailed analysis of the text that ties together the parts into a coherent whole.

Who's unsimple in the bad way? — j0e

On this forum Heidegger is often dismissed because people are unwilling to do the work to understand him. But this is different from what I was referring to above.

I strive to write clearly and concisely, but even on philosophy forums I have been accused several times of being hard to read. So what 'simple' means is relative.

Cut through the jargon and it becomes clear that they have not really understood the author, and cannot defend what they say by giving a detailed analysis of the text that ties together the parts into a coherent whole. — Fooloso4

I relate to thinking that so-and-so basically doesn't get it, that so-and-so is following the wrong breadcrumbs, relative to my interpretation anyway. I like to think that we usually start with some big that we must continually revise. What draws us to a thinker in the first place is perhaps a mere caricature in retrospect.

In this way Gadamer can be seen as attempting to retrieve a positive conception of prejudice (German Vorurteil) that goes back to the meaning of the term as literally a pre-judgment (from the Latin prae-judicium) that was lost during the Renaissance. In Truth and Method, Gadamer redeploys the notion of our prior hermeneutical situatedness as it is worked out in more particular fashion in Heidegger’s Being and Time (first published in 1927) in terms of the ‘fore-structures’ of understanding, that is, in terms of the anticipatory structures that allow what is to be interpreted or understood to be grasped in a preliminary fashion. The fact that understanding operates by means of such anticipatory structures means that understanding always involves what Gadamer terms the ‘anticipation of completeness’—it always involves the revisable presupposition that what is to be understood constitutes something that is understandable, that is, something that is constituted as a coherent, and therefore meaningful, whole.
...
Moreover, the indispensable role of prejudgment in understanding connects directly with Gadamer’s rethinking of the traditional concept of hermeneutics as necessarily involving, not merely explication, but also application. In this respect, all interpretation, even of the past, is necessarily ‘prejudgmental’ in the sense that it is always oriented to present concerns and interests, and it is those present concerns and interests that allow us to enter into the dialogue with the matter at issue. Here, of course, there is a further connection with the Aristotelian emphasis on the practical—not only is understanding a matter of the application of something like ‘practical wisdom’, but it is also always determined by the practical context out of which it arises.

The prejudicial character of understanding means that, whenever we understand, we are involved in a dialogue that encompasses both our own self-understanding and our understanding of the matter at issue. In the dialogue of understanding our prejudices come to the fore, both inasmuch as they play a crucial role in opening up what is to be understood, and inasmuch as they themselves become evident in that process. — SEP

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gadamer/

I know it's a big quote, but I think it's good stuff. What's your take on it?

Something we haven't taken account of is the possibility of creatively misreading thinkers. While in general I think we do want to grasp what they really thought, this is not the only reason to read (we aren't just biographers of their interior.)

On this forum Heidegger is often dismissed because people are unwilling to do the work to understand him. But this is different from what I was referring to above. — Fooloso4

I'd say yes and no. In my view there's always at least a slight risk in dismissing an ambiguous other. Deciding that a poster here or someone at the watercolor is a windbag is not obviously fundamentally different from deciding that Heidegger or Zizek is a windbag. (I've learned something from both myself.) But perhaps you'd argue otherwise?

I strive to write clearly and concisely, but even on philosophy forums I have been accused several times of being hard to read. So what 'simple' means is relative. — Fooloso4

:up:

I know it's a big quote, but I think it's good stuff. What's your take on it?

When I took classes with Gadamer at Boston College all of this was put aside. We simply read the text.

I met with him once and told him I was interested in exploring the significance of the practice of philosophy as interpretation. He told me he thought it was a worthy project but one that should wait until I had been interpreting texts for about 25 years. I never did take up that project but continue the practice of interpretation.

Something we haven't taken account of is the possibility of creatively misreading thinkers. While in general I think we do want to grasp what they really thought, this is not the only reason to read (we aren't just biographers of their interior.) — j0e

There are, as I see it, three related issues here. The first is a fruitful misunderstanding of the text that takes on a life of its own. The second, a deliberate misreading requires either having first sought to understand it and then appropriate it, or, and this is more often the case with those who do not attend carefully to the text, an attempt to be be clever, acting under the misguided assumption that they are equal to the author they are misreading. The third is the principle of humility, that the philosopher has something to teach us; that it is not a simply a matter of what they thought but, by attempting to understand what they are thinking they will help us in our thinking.

As you go about your business choosing a job or a partner or buying a house or selecting food off a menu, the questions of philosophy don't and can't enter into it. — Tom Storm

Well, that's bizarre ...

In my view there's always at least a slight risk in dismissing an ambiguous other. — j0e

I agree. Engaging them in discussion and reading what they have to say to others decreases that risk, but it is possible that their thinking is so far advanced that I simply can't comprehend.

.

I agree. Engaging them in discussion and reading what they have to say to others decreases that risk, but it is possible that their thinking is so far advanced that I simply can't comprehend. — Fooloso4

:up:

He told me he thought it was a worthy project but one that should wait until I had been interpreting texts for about 25 years. I never did take up that project but continue the practice of interpretation. — Fooloso4

Nice. I've only seen videos. I like his vibe. The recommendation to wait makes a certain kind of sense. Practice, practice, practice. That's the kind of thing I meant by seeing lots of painting, reading lots of books, 'feeling' one's way 'in.'

The third is the principle of humility, that the philosopher has something to teach us; that it is not a simply a matter of what they thought but, by attempting to understand what they are thinking they will help us in our thinking. — Fooloso4

Well said. This is what I was aiming at by talking of a preliminary affection or suspension of disbelief. I think we often check out thinkers because we notice that they are respected by people we already respect. It's something like the son's respect for a (good) father. We 'project' some kind of valuable totality on the though that we can't quite yet grasp. That projected gist is continually revised as we bump up against fragments that don't gel with it. 'But why would he say this, if the gist is...?' Our own prejudices become visible. Slowly our projected gist becomes less surprised by fragments that seem more and more to cohere into a valuable system of insights.

I like his vibe. — j0e

I did too. These were small classes, sitting around the seminar table. He had an air of gravity, but also a lightness from the pleasure of thought and discussion.

That projected gist is continually revised as we bump up against fragments that don't gel with it. — j0e

Another of my teachers, Leo Strauss, although I know him only through his books, said that when you come upon a contradiction take this as an indication that there is something more going on and that you must play an active role in discovering how it is resolved.

Another of my teachers, Leo Strauss, although I know him only through his books, said that when you come upon a contradiction take this as an indication that there is something more going on and that you must play an active role in discovering how it is resolved. — Fooloso4

I haven't studied Strauss but I was intensely influenced/inspired by the lectures on Hegel by his friend Kojeve. Anyway, I like the way Strauss puts it, an active role.