How to Read Philosophy


Notes from How to Read a Book by Adler and Van Doren

  • Philosophy is essentially asking questions

Steps to Read

  1. Ascertain what question the philosopher is asking and responding to
    • may be explicit or implicit
  2. Determine authors controlling principles
    • affect how he answers the questions
    • may or not be stated
    • discover the hidden and unstated assumptions
  3. Decide whether author adheres to the controlling principles throughout the work
    • ensure his consistency
      • do his conclusions stem from his propositions?

Classifying Philosophy

2 Main Divisions of Philosophy:

  1. Theoretical philosophy
    • questions about being and becoming
    • have to do with what is or happens in the world
    1. Metaphysics
      • questions about being or existence
    2. Philosophy of nature
      • concerned with becoming—with the nature and kinds of changes, their conditions and causes
    3. Epistemology
      • philosophy of knowledge
      • questions about what is involved in our knowing anything
        • with the causes, extent, and limits of human knowledge
        • with its certainties and uncertainties
  2. Normative philosophy
    • questions concerning good and evil, or right and wrong, have to do with what ought to be done or sought
    1. Ethics
      • questions about the good life
      • what is right or wrong in the conduct of the individual
    2. Political Philosophy
      • questions about the good society
      • conduct of the individual in relation to the community

Philosophical Styles

  • 5 kinds of styles of philosophical exposition
  1. The Philosophical Dialogue
    • 1st in chronology
    • embodied by Plato in his Dialogues
      • Plato raises most of the persistent philosophical problems
      • Socrates asks in the course of the dialogues simple but profound questions
    • conversational style
    • style is heuristic—it allows the reader to discover things for himself
    • employs drama and comedy, when good
    • very difficult to do well, perhaps only ever by Plato
  2. The Philosophical Treatise or Essay
    • embodied by Aristotle
      • e.g., Physics, Metaphysics, Ethics, Politics, Poetics, On The Soul
      • recognizes the objections of other philosophers and replies to them
    • Kant adopted this style too
      • his are finished works of art, unlike Aristotles
    • states the main problem, goes through the subject matter in a thorough way, then treats special problems along the way or at the end
    • often more direct, clear, structured
    • doesn’t employ drama
    • most common
  3. The Meeting of Objections
    • developed in the Middle Ages
    • perfected by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica
      • combination of question-raising and objection-meeting
      • divided into parts, treatises, questions, and articles
      • form of all articles is the same
        • question is posed
        • the opposite (wrong) answer to it is given
          • arguments in support of it are educed
          • countered with an authoritative text
        • gives his own answer or solution responding to each argument
    • attempts to meet all possible objections to own answer
    • imbued with the spirit of debate and discussion
    • not common, but well suited
  4. The Systemization of Philosophy
    • developed in 17th century by Descartes and Spinoza
      • inspired by the success of mathematics in organizing man’s knowledge of nature
      • Descartes tried to give certainty and structure to philosophy
        • similar to how Euclid did to geometry
      • Spinoza
        • took it even further in his Ethics utilizing strict mathematical form
          • using propositions, proofs, corollaries, lemmas, scholiums, and the like
    • not a suitable form for philosophy as it is for math
  5. The Aphoristic Style
    • adopted by Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathustra
    • inspired by the use of this style from the East
    • form of short, enigmatic statements
    • advantage:
      • is heuristic
      • reader does most of the work of thinking
    • disadvantage
      • not expositional
      • touches on subject, hints at a truth or insight, then moves on
      • does not do well for debate and defense of ideas
        • philosophically lacking