Reading Philosophy

A reader writes:

I enjoy your blog at leiterreports. This sounds strange, but would you consider doing a blog on 'reading philosophy'? Reading philosophy isn't like reading done in other fields. The big issue that would be interesting, I think, to get feedback from others on is: how long does it typically take you to read a philosophy journal article, and what kinds of philosophers take the most time to understand. It would be interesting to have some kind of crude scale.

In a general sense, I just often find it frustrating, being a philosopher, to be able to speed-read other literature, only to have to spend hours upon hours to make my way through philosophical literature.

Comments

[Richard]

Obviously this depends on the length and complexity of the text, not to mention my ability to concentrate, but usually I'd expect to spend 1-3 hours reading something. 12 pages an hour is a good rate, I think.

The texts I read fastest are the ones I'm already familiar with, not necessarily those regarded by others as clear or easy reads. So while I could rip through 20 pages of Heidegger in an hour and a half, 12 pages of David Lewis might take just as long. Of course, some philosophers are easier to read than others: Dummett is more difficult than Putnam, and Davidson harder than Searle. But familiarity plays a big role.

Ideally I'd read everything twice, but life gets in the way of that ambition.

[Mark Wales]

Some random points in no particular order:

I find it can vary a lot: it largely depends on the clarity of the writing. For example Lewis often wrote quite technical papers, yet they are very easy to read.

Papers that use abbreviations for all their main arguments and terms are much more work as you keep on having to refer back to the beginning (or keep detailed notes) just to know what's being said: this is a practice that should be stopped!

Sign-posting is important too: if the writer doesn't tell you where they're going it can get quite confusing (although I just read a paper that was more sign-posting than actual content: every other line seemed to be saying what the next line was going to say).

My method for reading (stolen from a Richard Feynman autobiography) is to read through the paper quickly once to get a general idea of what's being said (and to work out which bits are tangential to the main point); and then to read through again while making notes - if I don't make notes I forget most the main points.

The quickest paper I've ever read was Gettier's "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?", but that's largely down to its length!

[Anonymous Grad Student]

I am only a graduate student, so take this comment with a grain of salt. However I tend to find that the length of time required for me to read a typical journal article varies greatly in relation to a few factors:

1) How clearly is the piece written in the first place? Some philosophers are just not the best writers and their prose can become tiresome.
2) How much formalization is involved? This clearly bears on (1). The more formalization the longer it often takes to read and think through, and the more tiresome the task becomes.
3) How familiar am I with the field? In many cases, I find that being "read up" in a certain field, or on a certain question enables me to breeze through large, expository, portions of new papers written on that field or question.

[Steven Hales]

Nicholas Rescher reportedly said that there are two kinds of philosophers: those who read philosophy, and those who write it. Advice cum grano salis!

[Jared]

Read philosophy with at least a pen/pencil for notes, and a notebook for longer comments (or, I guess, a blog nowadays...) And maybe the question shouldn't be how long you have to spend on a text but how many times you have to re-read a text. I'm comfortable with 3 readings.

[Jonathan Ichikawa]

I agree with the consensus that the general answer is 'it depends'. But I'd like to highlight a variable that hasn't been mentioned yet; in addition to differences in clarity, writers vary tremendously on how DENSELY they write. To take two examples, I think that Alvin Goldman and Timothy Williamson both write admirably clearly, but that Williamson's writing is much denser; there's more philosophy per page in Williamson by a wide margin. I consider this a stylistic matter; it's not obviously better or worse to write densely. But the upshot is, I'm guessing that I'll read Goldman more than twice as fast than I read Williamson.

[Kevin Schutte]

I'd be interested in knowing how philosophers choose what to read (or reread), if anyone would like to comment on that. It always seems that everyone whose books I read has read more than I'll ever have time to read.

[Mikhail Emelianov]

I'm not sure if I would agree with the premise - "Reading philosophy isn't like reading done in other fields" - as someone who reads the majority of my philosophy in a foreign language, I find that those texts that are difficult to read are not necessarily technical or complex, but poorly written - both in terms of style and in terms of argumentation. That is, a good book is a good book whether its topic is a philosophical topic or a history of operatic performance in Paris, and a dull book's a dull book... Someone mentioned Heidegger - I think H's lectures are a very fast read because his thought develops with such speed or concentrates on the essential elements with such precision that reading him is a pleasure, whether one agrees with him or not.

[Mohan Matthen]

There are many fields where it is hard to read quickly. Mathematics is an example. But the odd thing about philosophy is that difficulty of reading is not just about content, but also about the writer. Here's a question: do some of us argue more densely than is strictly necessary? (Why try to anticipate difficulties that may or may not arise?) Are we as a discipline prone to epicycles -- to introducing complications rather than getting rid of a theory and starting afresh?

[Alan Bowden]

This may seem somewhat controversial (and if off the mark make me look bad), but my guess is that not every book referenced has been read cover to cover and repeatedly. I know I pick and choose chapters. With articles it is slightly different in that they are obviously shorter and generally more focused. As to repetition, well, in the course of writing something I will go back again and again to the arguments but I do agree that when compared to reading other books the time taken can seem frustrating.

[Tamler Sommers]

Mohan and Alan ask:

1. Do some [philosophers] argue more densely than is strictly necessary?

2. Are we as a discipline prone to epicycles -- to introducing complications rather than getting rid of a theory and starting afresh?

3. Is every book referenced read cover to cover and repeatedly?

Let me add a few more questions in the same vein:

4. Are some philosophers prone to awkward behavior in social situations?

5. Is the Eastern APA an unpleasant experience for some job candidates?

6. Can every philosopher dunk on Kevin Garnett?

In all seriousness, could any sane person answer 'no' to the first three questions?

[Tamler Sommers]

Sorry, that should be "could any sane person answer 'no' to the first two questions, "yes" to the third?...

[Alex Leibowitz]

As others have said, it depends on the philosopher -- and what he's doing. Kant is very difficult to make sense of sometimes, but his overall project is so daring and interesting that I haven't found him too frustrating. Some philosophers (Quine and David Lewis come to mind) are stylists in their own right, so that it's always a pleasure to read them. The worst of the philosophers I've read, up to this point, would have to be Tyler Burge.

The main problem in reading philosophy, I think, is getting used to all the jargon. I think that the more familiar one is with an author's terminology, the quicker one can read him.

[Peter Freund]

I find it helps to outline everything I read. I've heard some merely use a pencil in the margins. Of course, this depends on the writing style. If it's very dense, then it may be hard to summarize all the main points, esp. if it's a sustained argument. I then can build up a database of outlines for later review. This of course takes more time and energy, but without outlining, there's little chance of it staying in my long-term memory.

[Mohan Matthen]

To Tamler: as you realized, I meant my questions at least a bit rhetorically. (Who's Kevin Garnett, by the way?) But I did mean to make one serious point: in math (I take it), difficulty is content-driven. In philosophy, it is only partly so -- some authors are more difficult than others, though they are not saying anything intrinsically more difficult. I think this is because we don't have consensus on standards: how much argument is enough? Jargon is somewhat responsible: but convoluted argument is to blame as well.

[Mike DePaul]

I've got to agree with Mohan M: Not all the difficulty with philosophical writing is content driven.

Particularly editing papers for JPR, I have noticed two things about philosophers that tend to make their work more difficult to read:

(1) Philosophers do not much like punctuation marks, commas in particular.

(2) Philosophers do like long sentences.

These of course work together to make things more difficult to read than is necessary.

Working through some papers has driven me to considered imposing a word limit for individual sentences. I wonder how an author would react if I were to accept a paper on the condition that he or she rewrite so that no sentences were longer than, say, 50 words -- to pick a nice round number.

[Nick]

"I just often find it frustrating, being a philosopher, to be able to speed-read other literature, only to have to spend hours upon hours to make my way through philosophical literature."

I think part of the issue about being able to speed read over other literature while spending hours on philosophy is simply because you are a philosopher. Not a biologist, not a literary theorist, not a sociologist... "Other literature" tends not to be in your primary field and the importance of you understanding it in a nuanced and sophisticated way is not as high. As someone who is primarily a historian with a strong interest in philosophy, for example, I'm often able to speed read through even dense philosophical texts, picking up the main arguments, gathering some opinions about them, connecting these insights with my own projects, etc. Whereas if I'm reading a history journal in my field, I'll have to be more alert, careful, and skeptical about what the author is saying.

I see what you're getting at. Philosophy is often expected to consist of dense arguments that need to be followed carefully step by step. But I think that's true of all fields, in differing senses, once you've become immersed in them. Science journal articles, for example, are often both far worse written and denser than even convoluted and banal philosophy articles.

[John Scherer]

I would tend to agree with Nick, above.

Specialization has a peculiar way of requiring more from any reader digesting work from her field.

I often times find myself desiring to go back to pieces of fiction in order to clear my head after long reading sessions within philosophy. Once that is done, I feel more capable when it comes time to digest and reflect upon "dense" philosophical prose.

Interestingly enough, though, authors like Rorty, or Cavell (in an fascinating sense) blur the line between this literature/philosophy distinction whereby I find the writing of these two authors (specifically the work of Rorty) to inhabit a unique middle-ground. Criticisms of charlatanry or lack of rigor aside, I would be comfortable in stating that the very ability these sorts of authors possess makes philosophical writing take on a new existential significance--something which, I'm certain, can only aid the field.

[gradstudent]

What about what's going on in your mind aside from reading the text itself? When you read, are you trying to think of examples to illustrate or refute the author's points? Are you already formulating possible objections, drawing conclusions by connecting points from various parts of the paper or chapter, considering what historical influences may have shaped the terminology or content of the argument, things like that?

I guess I ask this because it ties into a broader question I have about reading and doing philosophy, which is, what kinds of things change the activity from being a merely academic one to being an activity of reflection on 'real life' issues, or things that matter to you personally, or things you can see instantiated in your daily life and interactions? I am still having trouble finding philosophy actually illustrated in my life, rather than just involving words on the page, so to speak.