BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Stranded

  
 
rhizome
01:51 / 15.04.04
My question is basic...so basic in fact it may answer itself...

I read in a previous quote at some point something about "how to read philosophy." I am nothing of a philosopher in the academic realm...i have read little...how is philosohy translated? It seems as though sometimes it is written in a different language with the same symbols. Vocabulary is twisted to construe a different meaning than in other, less philosophically based readings. I will read deleuze and find myself lost in his words before i can realize i have read half the essay. What is the mindset one should find to study these matters? it seems almost like it is an essentiality, if you will, a stripped down version of reality to reveal a truth or theory, bringing something out of context to redefine it, or even simply define it better. Please help...I must understand. Bear in mind I have never, as of yet, been involved in philosophical discourse in a public realm...merely within my own rantings, which are normally kept to myself.
 
 
Spaniel
11:43 / 15.04.04
Not sure this thread should be in the Headshop, but...

My tactics in the first year of my philosphy degree were:

1) Read a secondary text before you tackle the primary -preferably one with "beginners" in the title.

2) Read the primary text.

3) Re-read the primary text.

4) Discuss with pals. Preferably pals that know something about the subject.

Remember, it does get easier.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
13:20 / 15.04.04
If there's an introduction, particularly if the work is translated make sure that you read it. Every philosopher has a trick to their written work, Benjamin for instance is incredibly detailed, if you don't scrawl through three times but think you've understood it anyway than you're almost certainly misinterpreting his point. In his earlier work Derrida generally clarifies his point about a third of the way into an article and then piles a host of inexplicable information on to the top. If you read anything 19th century than the best employed trick is to pace yourself differently- the comma indicates the pace.

In fact you can read by era- if it's Greek you read it as if you're babbling, if it's 20th century than detail is always the beast to conquer, if it's 19th century pretend you're a character from a Jane Austen novel.
 
 
Ex
14:04 / 15.04.04
It seems as though sometimes it is written in a different language with the same symbols. Vocabulary is twisted to construe a different meaning than in other, less philosophically based readings.

Yes - I find this particularly tricky, and a good philosophical dictionary can help you know when someone is using a particular word to mean something outside its everyday usage. (eg OED will give you seven meanings for "discourse" and it's only by the final one that's you're approaching anything like the meaning that Foucault gives it - a modern philosophy dictionary would cut straight to the chase). I can't reccomend an edition - I had high hopes for a recent book called Megawords but all the entries I have any understanding of seem misguided or underwritten.

Of course, then you have to go back to the texts and expand on that definition. Because if you could compress the meaning of a philosophical piece of terminology into a couple of paragraphs, then there would be less books. And understand that there'll be disagreement between writers on the meaning of terms, and even within the same writer's work over a period of time.

Also worth bearing in mind that a piece of philosophical writing, if moderately famous/notable, is often famous for one or two points or theories. But it'll also have a bunch of other stuff in there too. (trying to think of an example - the bits Laura Mulvey writes on the gaze and identification are in amongst loads of other stuff, but they're the ones that get excerpted and come to be taken to be her final word. Most people never get beyond Will to Power in the History of Sexuality. The final chapters of Gender Trouble - dusty and uncreased although arguably fascinating).
So the "beginners" secondary texts can let you know what other people have thought were the one or two Good Points in an essay or book. You may disagree. But it's handy to have that as a frame of reference.
 
 
Why?
18:36 / 15.04.04
Reading philosophy can be very tough, and it's very tough to know where to start. I agree that it can be helpful to read a "beginners guide" or the introduction by the translator in order to get a reference, but there is a downside. I enjoyed both "The Simpsons and Philosophy" and "The Matrix and Philosophy", but I already had a background and found that some of the essays could be misleading for someone with no prior knowledge.

When I was in school, my professors did not want us to read the introductions to our texts, and I think it was for a good reason. They didn't want us to be influenced in our reading by the interpretation of one person. (at least not a person who wasn't the professor of that course ) So I read the texts only and found it very rough going by itself, but I did have my own interpretation of the parts I was able to access. Usually our class discussions were very helpful, but if you're reading on your own, you don't have that luxury. I started in on Nietzsche on my own and had a terrible time until i took a course on him.

All that said, my recommendation for someone reading on their own would be to give the text itself a brief read. It doesn't have to be in depth, and you don't have to understand everything, but you should start with the text (it is, however, okay to use a dictionary for terms you've never heard or don't understand).

Then once you have the text in your head, consult secondary sources- articles and essays and such. Keep in mind that these sources are just another person's interpretation. They may elucidate some points, but they may not always be the only right answer so keep an open mind. (I think as philosophy gets denser it actually becomes less exacting and more interpretable.)

Finding a person or group of people to discuss the themes and topics that you find interesting is also a great step toward understanding philosophy. Often it isn't until you're forced to put your thoughts about philosophy into words for someone else that you really understand what you think yourself. Happy Hunting!
 
 
rhizome
19:52 / 15.04.04
all of this helps a great deal...

to tell the truth, i didn't even know if there was a specific way of reading philosophy...maybe not specific but more deliberate i should say.

thanks for your help...more suggestions welcome.

if you have any suggestions on what to strt reading that would help also.
 
 
Bomb The Past
21:45 / 15.04.04
Along with most of the other respondents I'm going to assume that you're wanting to read 'Continental' philosophy than the rather more anglicised 'Analytic', Classical, or early modern philosophy, since you mention Deleuze. I find that different styles require different reading strategies and unfortunately Continental philosophy seems to be the most difficult (for me at least).

When you come to a text the first thing to bear in mind is what problem or question the philosopher is grappling with. If you get lost somewhere thinking through how this particular section of text links in with the bigger picture will help to re-orient you.

Secondly, a great deal of Continental philosophy is either commentary upon or re-interpretation of the work of other philosophers. This makes it exceedingly difficult for beginners to get a foothold, especially when reading more contemporary theorists. For example, when reading Deleuze you might be dealing with issues that need to be put in the context of Lacan's thought, who inherited them from Marx, who was reacting to Hegel, who in turn was theorising against the background of Kant's thought. This history forms a structure not dissimilar to your namesake of the rhizome. It is helpful, and sometime essential, to know a little about this history so you can pick up the allusions to thinkers and issues present within the text. I'd recommend reading at least a sketchy history of the tradition that you interested in reading within.

With regards to secondary texts, I agree with Why? that it's best to see if you can make any progress without them at first. The temptation is always to read secondary sources as a way to ease yourself in, but there is often a temptation to let the commentary dictate your reading of the text. However, some stuff (read: Derrida) is so difficult that reading secondary texts can become a necessity. If you're really stuck you could always ask a fellow 'lither in this thread.

Make sure you understand the terminology that's being used, and as Ex says, if you suspect a word has multiple or specialised meanings look it up in a philosophical dictionary. I'd recommend The Penguin Dictionary of Critical Theory by David Macey, though their Philosophy dictionary is pretty good too (though maybe not for Deleuze, Lacan, Foucault et al).

Finally, take it really really slowly. I tend to read theory at about a third of the speed I'd read a novel; any faster and it just doesn't sink in at all. Make sure you pause after each paragraph and ask yourself if you have a good inkling at what the author is getting at, even if you might not understand it fully. It can be frustrating at times, especially when you have to re-read a page five or six times, but it's vital to be honest with yourself about whether you understand something.

Then, when you're done, read it again!
 
 
Jackie Susann
00:18 / 16.04.04
Most people I've talked to about this try to relate whatever they're reading to something they're interested in and know well. One guy I know is doing his thesis on surfing, so he translates all the ideas into surfing, another guy who's writing on hotted up cars does the same thing (and will go into the most phenomenal rants about the deterritorialisation of the road surface or the performativity of 'grunt', etc.). I always try to figure out which pop song the theory reminds me of, i.e., Justin Timberlake's Senorita for Althusser's 'Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses'.

One idea I had the other week was to read any theory you found too confusing as if it was a self-help book. Regardless of the actual topic, imagine they are describing a personality type (either one to aspire to, or one to break away from). Then once you've figured out what the incompossible personality, i.e., is, translate it back into the context it came from.
 
 
astrojax69
03:07 / 16.04.04
wow, how do you read philosophy! like, how do you play sport...?

rekkun the way i'd start someone is to get them to read bertrand russell's history of philosophy and have a good dictionary of philosophy handy (thomas mauntner did an excellent one for penguin in 1997), then get into which ever era of thought takes your fancy - knowing the context is crucial!

and the advice to never read introductions is great, though it is fine to dabble in them once the book is read, or at least on the way to being understood!

the other technique i think helped me through my studies was to get a hold of the issue the philosopher is discussing then sketch out your own arguments for your point of view. then read, with the mental tool of these markers you installed in your mind along the way - the text will surely here and there refer to an issue you have discussed with yourself and you can see which way the author is going.

(a hostile text is much more fun and worth perservering with and your tutorial contributions can be firery!!)
 
 
Lord Morgue
11:00 / 17.05.04
There is the Complete Idiot's Guide to Philosophy, but I would never (cough cough)admittoreadingitmyselfofcourse...
 
 
sdv (non-human)
12:09 / 17.05.04

Depends what you are interested - but there are two basic rules I believe myself. Firstly there is no substitute for reading the source texts. (I'm really a specialist in continental philosophy). So with some caution I'd say contrary to 'Anna de...' that for example that you shouldn't read texts about specific philosophers until you've at least begun reading the philosopher concerned. For it's critical in my opinion to avoid books on Deleuze until you've read some of him, read Lyotard's PostModern Condition before reading books on postmodernism. Read some Freud before attempting to read others on him etc.

The other point is that you should always start in the present where you will have some shared experience and work backwards. For example if you like utilitarian approaches to the world start with Peter Singer and work backwards - never start in the past with Mill and Bentham and work forwards. This is especially critical with philosophy as we are always reading philosophy outside of it's socio-historical context and consequently extracare needs to be taken when considering a philosophical concept.

It's a bit like music we always start in the present and gradually expand what we appreciate and like backwards, sidways and forwards...
 
 
Tom Morris
07:54 / 18.05.04
I have found that it is often the path you take through philosophy that makes it interesting and that you shuold read it in whatever fashion makes sense to you.

But, yes, this is all good advice. Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy is a good starting point, and it's good to have a layperson's dictionary and a dictionary or guide to some of the more specific terms (I have an Oxford Shorter and the New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought - the latter is not perfect, but it was cheap).

I've mostly been reading earlier modern philosophy: Russell, Nietzsche, John Stuart Mill etc. I need to brace myself before I throw myself at the modern continental philosophers. The 'paragraph reading' suggestion is a good one, and also having a notebook beside you to scribble down things that you think are particularly worthwhile, or that you ought to re-read or research or mull over in your mind.
 
  
Add Your Reply