How to Read a Book: the classic guide to intelligent reading

by Mortimer J. Adler

2. THE PHILOSOPHICAL TREATISE OR ESSAY

the Aristotelean treatise was a new style in philosophy.

Immanuel Kant, although he was probably more influenced by Plato in a philosophical sense, adopted Aristotle’s style of exposition. His treatises are finished works of art, unlike Aristotle’s in this respect.

3. THE MEETING OF OBJECTIONS

The philosophical style developed in the Middle Ages and perfected by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica

A question is posed; the opposite (wrong) answer to it is given; arguments are educed in support of that wrong answer; these are countered first by an authoritative text (often a quotation from Scripture); and finally, Aquinas introduces his own answer or solution with the words “I answer that.” Having given his own view of the matter, he then replies to each of the arguments for the wrong answer.

A proposition was not accepted as true unless it could meet the test of open discussion; the philosopher was not a solitary thinker, but instead faced his opponents in the intellectual market place (as Socrates might have said). Thus, the Summa Theologica is imbued with the spirit of debate and discussion.

4. THE SYSTEMIZATION OF PHILOSOPHY

Descartes and Spinoza. Fascinated by the promised success of mathematics in organizing man’s knowledge of nature, they attempted to organize philosophy itself in a way akin to the organization of mathematics.

5. THE APHORISTIC STYLE

This is the aphoristic style adopted by Nietzsche in such works as Thus Spake Zarathustra and by certain modern French philosophers.

The popularity of this style during the past century is perhaps owing to the great interest, among Western readers, in the wisdom books of the East, which are written in an aphoristic style.

The great advantage of the aphoristic form in philosophy is that it is heuristic; the reader has the impression that more is being said than is actually said, for he does much of the work of thinking—of making connections between statements and of constructing arguments for positions—himself.

At the same time, however, this is the great disadvantage of the style, which is really not expositional at all. The author is like a hit-and-run driver; he touches on a subject, he suggests a truth or insight about it, and then runs off to another subject without properly defending what he has said.

The treatise or essay is probably the most common form, both in the past and in the present. It can range all the way from highly formal and difficult works like those of Kant, to popular philosophical essays or letters.

Dialogues are notoriously hard to write,

geometrical style is enormously difficult both to w...

The aphoristic style is highly unsatisfactory from a philosop...

The Thomistic style has not been used very much in recent times. Perhaps it would not be acceptable to modern readers, but that seems a ...

Kant’s mature thought is often known as critical philosophy. He himself contrasted “criticism” to “dogmatism,” which he imputed to many previous philosophers. By “dogmatism” he meant the presumption that the human intellect can arrive at the most important truths by pure thinking, without being aware of its own limitations. What is first required, according to Kant, is a critical survey and assessment of the mind’s resources and powers.

the limitation of the mind is a controlling principle in Kant in a way that it is not in any philosopher who precedes him in time. But while this is perfectly clear because explicitly stated in the Critique of Pure Reason, it is not stated, because it is assumed, in the Critique of Judgment, Kant’s major work in aesthetics.

The philosophical problem is to explain, not to describe, as science does, the nature of things. Philosophy asks about more than the connections of phenomena. It seeks to penetrate to the ultimate causes and conditions that underlie them.

The major effort of the reader, therefore, must be with respect to the terms and the initial propositions. Although the philosopher, like the scientist, has a technical terminology, the words that express his terms are usually taken from common speech, but used in a very special sense.

What you perceive through your senses is always concrete and particular. What you think with your mind is always abstract and general.

“Having an idea” is just another way of saying that you understand some general aspect of the things you experience concretely.

Natural theology is a branch of philosophy; it is the last chapter, as it were, in metaphysics. If you ask, for example, whether causation is an endless process, whether everything is caused, you may find yourself, if you answer in the affirmative, involved in an infinite regress. Therefore you may have to posit some originating cause that is not itself caused.

Dogmatic theology differs from philosophy in that its first principles are articles of faith adhered to by the communicants of some religion. A work of dogmatic theology always depends upon dogmas and the authority of a church that proclaims them.

Faith, for those who have it, is the most certain form of knowledge, not a tentative opinion.

We use the term “canonical” to refer to such books; in an older tradition we might have called them “sacred” or “holy,”

A prime example is the Holy Bible, when it is read not as literature but instead as the revealed Word of God.

The characteristics of this kind of reading are perhaps summed up in the word “orthodox,” which is almost always applicable. The word comes from two Greek roots, meaning “right opinion.”

Journalists, much more commonly, enmesh the facts in interpretation, commentary, analysis of the news. These interpretations and comments draw on the concepts and terminology of the social sciences.

the hard scientist does is to say that he “stipulates his usage”—that is, he informs you what terms are essential to his argument and how he is going to use them. Such stipulations usually occur at the beginning of the book, in the form of definitions, postulates, axioms, and so forth.

Stipulation of usage is like establishing the rules of a game.

STEP 1 IN SYNTOPICAL READING: FINDING THE RELEVANT PASSAGES

STEP 2 IN SYNTOPICAL READING: BRINGING THE AUTHORS TO TERMS.

now you are faced with a number of different authors, and it is unlikely that they will have all used the same words, or even the same terms. Thus it is you who must establish the terms, and bring your authors to them rather than the other way around.

we must begin to build up a set of terms that first, helps us to understand all of our authors, not just one or a few of them, and second, helps us to solve our problem.

STEP 3 IN SYNTOPICAL READING: GETTING THE QUESTIONS CLEAR.

we are faced with the task of establishing a set of neutral propositions as well. The best way to do this is to frame a set of questions that shed light on our problem, and to which each of our authors gives answers.

The questions must be stated in such a way and in such an order that they help us to solve the problem we started with, but they also must be framed in such a way that all or most of our authors can be interpreted as giving answers to them.

STEP 4 IN SYNTOPICAL READING: DEFINING THE ISSUES

An issue is truly joined when two authors who understand a question in the same way answer it in contrary or contradictory ways.

STEP 5 IN SYNTOPICAL READING: ANALYZING THE DISCUSSION.

So far we have found the relevant passages in the works examined,

created a neutral terminology that applies to all or most of t...

framed and ordered a set of questions that most of them can be inte...

defined and arranged the issues produced by differing answer...

The truth, then, insofar as it can be found—the solution to the problem, insofar as that is available to us—consists rather in the ordered discussion itself than in any set of propositions or assertions about it.

we must show how the questions are answered differently and try to say why; and we must be able to point to the texts in the books examined that support our classification of answers.