Chapter 12 CHAPTER 10 JUDGING A BOOK FAIRLY

At the end of the last chapter, we said that we have come a long way to get here.We have already learned how to outline a book.We also learned four rules for interpreting the content of books.Now we are ready to do the final stage of analytical reading.At this stage, all your previous efforts will pay off. Reading a book is a conversation.Maybe you don't think so, because the author keeps talking all the way, but you have nothing to say.If you think so, you just don't understand your obligations as a reader—and you're not seizing your opportunities. In fact, the reader is the last one to speak.The author has said all he has to say, and now it is time for the reader to speak.The dialogue between the author and the reader of a book is no different from an ordinary dialogue, and everyone has a chance to speak without interruption.If the reader is untrained and disrespectful, anything can happen in such a conversation, but it will never be organized.Poor author can't defend himself at all.He can't say, "Hey! Can you disagree with me when I'm done?" And he can't protest when the reader misunderstands him or misses the point.

In general conversation, both parties must be polite to go well.What we think of as politeness is not politeness in general social etiquette.That kind of politeness doesn't really matter.What really counts is the etiquette of thinking.Without such etiquette, conversations can turn into arguments rather than productive communication.Of course, our assumption is that such conversations are about serious issues, and one can express the same or different opinions.Whether they can express themselves well becomes very important.Otherwise, this activity is of no benefit.The biggest benefit of having a good conversation is that something can be learned.

What makes sense in general conversation makes more sense in this particular conversational situation—a dialogue between the author and the reader borrowing a book.Let us assume that the author is well trained, so in a good book he plays the talking part well, and how does the reader reciprocate?How is he going to complete this conversation satisfactorily? Readers have an obligation, and an opportunity, to speak back.The opportunity is clear.There is nothing stopping a reader from posting their own comments.In any case, there is a deeper relationship of obligation in the nature of the relationship between the reader and the book.

If a book is to convey knowledge, the author's goal is to instruct.He is trying to teach the reader.He wants to convince or induce the reader to believe something.The author's efforts are only successful when at last the reader says, "I've learned. You've convinced me that something is true, or that it's possible."But even if the reader is not persuaded or induced, the author's attempts and efforts are still worthy of respect.The reader needs to return him with a thoughtful judgment.If he cannot say, "I agree." At least he must have reasons for disagreeing, or a skeptical statement about the issue.

In fact, what we want to say has been said many times before.A good book deserves active reading.Active reading does not stop in order to understand what a book is saying. It must be able to comment and criticize before it can be considered as a real completion.A reader without self-expectation cannot meet this requirement, nor can he analyze or interpret a book.Not only did he not put in the effort to understand a book, he even put the book aside and forgot about it completely.It was worse than not appreciating a book about which he had nothing to say. ※ Teachable is a virtue What we said earlier that readers can talk back is not something that has nothing to do with reading.Now comes the third stage of analytical reading.As with the previous two stages, there are some rules here.Some rules are etiquette of general thinking.In this chapter, we are going to talk about this problem.Other special conditions for critical views will be discussed in the next chapter.

It is generally believed that ordinary readers are not qualified to review a good book.Readers are not equal to writers.In such a view, the author can only accept criticism from fellow writers.I remember that Bacon once advised readers: "When reading, don't refute or find fault; don't believe too much, take it for granted; don't talk or comment. Just consider and consider." Walter Scott (Sir Walter Scott) will "People who doubt or despise the author when they read it" lashed out. Of course, there is some truth in saying how impeccable a book is, and how much reverence it has for its author, etc., but there is also something wrong with it.Readers may be like children, so a great author can educate them, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to speak.Cervantes said: "No book is so bad that it cannot find any good." Maybe he was right, and maybe he was wrong.It would be more certain to say this: no book is ever so good as to be unassailable.

Indeed, if a book inspires the reader, it means that the author is above the reader, and unless the reader fully understands the book, he should not criticize it.But when they can do so, it means that they have raised themselves to the same level as the author.Now they have a new position and can exercise their privileges.It would be unfair to the authors if they did not use their critical talents now.The author has done his job—to keep the reader on his toes.At this point the reader should act as if he were a peer, with whom he could speak or reply. We are dealing with the teachable virtue—a virtue that has long been misunderstood.Teachable is often confused with servility.A person who is passive and submissive may be misunderstood as a teachable person.In contrast, being teachable, or being able to learn, is a very active virtue.No one can learn anything at all without the automatic and spontaneous exercise of independent judgment.Perhaps he can be trained, but not taught.Therefore, the most learning reader is also the most critical reader.Such a reader will finally be able to respond to a book, and will try to organize his own thoughts on the issues discussed by the author.

We say "finally" because in order to be taught one must first fully understand what the teacher says, and one must understand fully before being criticized.Let us add: Effort alone is not enough to be called teachable.The reader must know how to judge a book, just as he must know how to understand what a book is about.This third group of reading rules, that is, guides the reader to train his own ability to be taught in the last stage. ※ The role of rhetoric We often find that the relationship between teaching and being taught is reciprocal, and there is an equally reciprocal relationship between the skill with which an author can write thoughtfully and the skill with which a reader can thoughtfully master the book.We have seen that good writing and reading are based on the principles of grammar and logic.The rules we've discussed so far have been concerned with the writer's effort to be understood, and the reader's effort to understand the work.Some of the rules of this final stage are beyond comprehension and require commentary.So, this involves rhetoric.

Of course, rhetoric has many uses.We usually think of it as something to do with speech or publicity.But in the most general sense, rhetoric has to do with any kind of human communication. If we speak, we not only want others to understand us, but also want others to agree with us.If the purpose of our communication is serious, we hope to persuade or persuade the other party—more precisely, persuade the other party to accept our theories, persuade the other party to be ultimately influenced by our actions and feelings. When making such communication, if the receiving party wants to be equally serious, then not only must there be a response, but also a responsible listener.You need to respond to what you hear, and you need to pay attention to the intention behind the other person.At the same time, you have to be able to have your own opinions.When you have your own opinion, it's your opinion, not the author's.If you do not rely on yourself, but only on others to judge for you, then you are a slave, not a free person.Ideological education is highly praised for this reason.

From the perspective of the narrator or author, rhetoric is to know how to persuade the other party.Because this is also the ultimate goal, all other communication behaviors must also be to this extent.Stressing grammar and logic skills when writing will make the work clear and easy to understand, and it is also a process to achieve the goal.On the other hand, from the reader's or listener's standpoint, the art of rhetoric is knowing how we respond when others try to persuade us.Likewise, grammatical and logical skills allow us to understand what the other person is saying and prepare to comment.

※ The importance of postponing comments Now you can see how the three arts of grammar, logic, and rhetoric are coordinated and mastered in the crafted process of writing or reading.Among the skills in the first two stages of analytical reading, proficiency in grammar and logic is required.Among the skills of the third stage is the art of rhetoric.The reading rules at this stage are based on rhetorical principles in the broadest sense.We would think of these principles as a form of etiquette that allows readers not just to be polite, but to respond effectively. (Although this is not a general perception, etiquette should have these two functions, not just the previous polite function.) You probably already know what the ninth rule of reading is.It has been said many times before.Don't talk back until you hear clearly and are sure you understand.Unless you're really happy with the first two reading stages you've completed, you won't feel free to express yourself.Only when you do these things do you have the right to criticize and the responsibility to do so. That is to say, in fact, the third stage of analytical reading must finally follow the first two stages.The first two stages are coherent with each other, even beginners can merge the two to some extent, while experts can merge them almost completely coherently.He can divide the whole into many parts, and at the same time find out the elements of thought and knowledge, reach a consensus with the author, find out the theme and exposition, and then reconstruct a whole.In addition, for beginners, most of the work required in the first two stages has already been completed as long as the inspectional reading is done well.But as far as commenting is concerned, even a reading expert must be the same as a beginner, and he cannot start until he fully understands it. Here's the ninth rule we elaborate on: before you say "I agree," "I disagree," or "I hold off on comment," you must be able to say, "I get it." Three opinions represent all review positions.We hope you don't make the mistake of thinking that by commenting you mean disagreeing with the other person.This is a very common misconception.Agreeing with the other party's statement is the same as disagreeing with the other party's statement. It takes effort to make a judgment.Agreeing or disagreeing may be right, and both may be wrong.Agreeing without understanding is just stupid, and disagreeing without knowing is rude. While it may not be obvious at first glance, suspending comments is also a way to comment.That is a position where something has not been expressed.What you're saying is that, by any means, you're not convinced yet. You may wonder, these are just common sense, why bother to explain?There are two reasons.The first point, as stated earlier, is that many people confuse a comment with a disagreement (even "constructive" criticism is a disagreement).Second, although these rules seem reasonable, in our experience we find that very few people actually apply them.This is the truth that the ancients said that it is all about talking but not practicing. Every author has the painful experience of being blindly criticized.These critics do not feel that the first two steps of reading should be done before criticizing.Usually these critics think that they don't need to read, just comment.Anyone who speaks will encounter some critics who actually don't understand what he is talking about and ask sharp questions.You may remember this example yourself: one person is speaking on stage, and the people in the audience come out in one breath or at most two: "I don't know what you are talking about, but I think you are wrong." I don't know where to start with such criticism.The only thing you can do is to politely ask them to restate your argument and explain what they have criticized you for.If they can't, or can't restate your point in their own words, you know they don't really understand what you're talking about.At this point you are absolutely justified in ignoring their criticism.Their opinions don't matter because those are just criticisms without understanding.Only when you find someone who really knows what you're talking about as well as yourself do you need to rejoice in his approval or agonize over his disapproval. In the experience of teaching students to read various books for so many years, we have found that there are few people who follow the rules and many people who violate the rules.Students often have no idea what the author is talking about, but criticize the author without hesitation.Not only do they disagree with what they don't understand, but what's worse, even if they agree with the author, they can't put it into words.Their discussions, like their readings, are word games.Because of their lack of understanding, opinions, whether positive or negative, are meaningless and ignorant.Even if it is to suspend comments, if you don't know what the content of your suspended comments is, this kind of suspension position may not be wise. There are a few more things to note about this rule.If you're reading a good book, it's best to pause before you say "I get it."You have a lot of work to do before you can say that with honesty and confidence!Of course, at this point, you'll be judging your own abilities, which makes your responsibility even more difficult. Of course, saying "I don't understand" is also an important judgment, but only after you've done your best to say it because of the book, not yourself.If you've tried your best and still can't get it, maybe the book really doesn't get it.For a book, especially a good book, such assumptions are beneficial.When reading a good book, not being able to understand the book is usually the reader's fault.Therefore, in analytical reading, before entering the third stage, a lot of time must be spent preparing for the work of the first two stages.So when you say "I don't understand," pay special attention to the possibility that there is no fault of your own. In the following two situations, you should pay special attention to the rules of reading.If you have only read part of a book, it will be more difficult to determine whether you understand it, and you should be more careful in your criticism at this time.There are also times when a book is related to the author's other books and must be read in order to be fully understood.In this case, you have to be more careful about saying "I see" and raise your commentary spear more slowly. There is a good example of this self-righteous state of affairs.Many literary critics arbitrarily approve or disapprove of Aristotle's Poetics, without realizing that his main thesis in analyzing poetry rests on some of his other works on psychology, logic, and metaphysics.They really don't know what it is they are for or against. The same thing happened to other authors, like Plato, Kant, Adam Smith, and Marx—people who couldn't put all their thoughts and knowledge in a single book.And those who criticize Kant without reading his Critique of Practical Reason; criticize Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations without reading his Theory of Moral Sentiments; or discuss The Communist Manifesto ", but have not read Marx's "Das Kapital", they are all for or against something they don't understand. ※ The importance of avoiding arguments The rationale for the second rule of critical reading is as clear as the first, but requires more elaboration and explanation.This is rule ten: When you disagree with the author's point of view, express your opinion rationally and do not argue or argue unreasonably.There is no need to win that argument if you know or suspect that you are wrong.In fact, you might actually be famous in the world if you win an argument, but honesty is the better strategy in the long run. Let's start with the example of Plato and Aristotle to talk about this rule.In Plato's Symposium, there is a dialogue: "I cannot contradict you, Socrates," said Agathon; "let us assume that you are right." "Agaton, you should say that you cannot refute the truth, because Socrates is easily refuted." This passage is also mentioned in Aristotle's "Poetics".He said: "In fact, this is our duty. In the pursuit of truth, we must destroy some of the things closest to our hearts, especially philosophers or lovers of wisdom like us. Piety goes beyond friendship." Plato and Aristotle give us a piece of advice that most people ignore.Most people aim to win an argument without realizing that what they are learning is the truth. He who thinks of talk as war wins by opposing for the sake of opposing, and succeeding in opposing whether he is right or wrong.People who read with this mentality just want to find objections in the book.These argumentative people love to find fault with eggs, and they completely ignore whether their mentality is biased. When the reader is in conversation with a book in his study, nothing prevents him from winning the argument.He can control the whole situation.The author was also not present to defend himself.If he wanted the vanity of the author to show himself, he could easily do so.He almost didn't have to read the entire book to do it.All he had to do was turn over the first few pages. But if he understands that the real benefit of a conversation with the author—teacher, living or dead—is what he can learn from it; You will understand that it is useless to argue.We are not saying that readers cannot be extremely opposed or specifically pick faults with the author, what we want to say is: just as he opposes, he must also be mentally prepared to agree.Whether he wants to agree or disagree, there is only one thing he should worry about-the fact, what is the truth about this matter. More than honesty is required here.What the reader sees should be acknowledged need not be said.Don't feel bad when you have to agree with the author, not disagree.If he felt that way, he was a habitual polemicist.As far as this second rule is concerned, such readers are emotional, not rational. ※ Resolve disputes The third rule is very close to the second.What is described is another condition before criticism is made.This is to suggest that you treat different points of view as possible solutions to problems.The second rule urges you not to be argumentative, and this one reminds you not to fight hopelessly against different opinions.A man who fails to see that it is possible for all reasonable people to agree on an opinion will despair of the rough and tumultuous course of a discussion.Note that we said "it is possible to agree on an opinion", not that every reasonable person will agree on an opinion.Even if they don't agree now, they may become yes after a while.The point we want to emphasize is that unless we think that a different opinion will help solve a problem after all, it will be in vain. Two facts that people do agree and disagree with, come from the complex nature of human beings.Man is a rational animal.Reason is the source of strength for human beings to express their consent.The imperfect parts of human animality and reason are the cause of many disagreements.Humans are animals of emotions and prejudices.The language they must use to communicate is an imperfect medium, clouded by emotions, colored by personal preferences, shuttled by inappropriate thoughts.But to the extent that man is rational, these difficulties of understanding can be overcome.Disagreements arising from misunderstandings are only superficial and correctable. Of course, there is another kind of disagreement that comes from unequal knowledge.When the more ignorant argue with those who are superior to themselves, they often mistakenly express opposing opinions.However, the more educated have the right to correct the mistakes of the less ignorant.Controversies caused by such dissent are also correctable.Disparities in knowledge can always be resolved by teaching. Still others are deeply hidden, and perhaps submerged in reason.This is elusive and difficult to explain rationally.In any case, what we have just said is the form of most disputes—controversies that can be resolved with increased knowledge as long as misunderstandings are ruled out.Both of these antidotes, though often difficult, usually work.Therefore, when a person talks with others, even if he has different opinions, there is still hope to reach a consensus in the end.He should be ready to change his mind before he can change the minds of others.He always thinks first that he may have misunderstood, or has a blind spot on a particular issue.In the midst of an argument, one must never forget that this is an opportunity to teach others as well as to be taught oneself. The problem is that many people don't see controversy as a process of teaching and being taught.They think that everything is just a matter of opinion.I have my opinion, and you have yours, and we all have a sacrosanct right to our opinions, just as we have the same right to our property.If the purpose of communication is to increase knowledge, communication from this perspective will not be rewarding.This kind of conversation is at best like a ping-pong game where everyone disagrees, no one scores, no one wins, and everyone is satisfied because he didn't lose—and in the end, he still insisted on his original point of view. We wouldn't—and couldn't have written this book—if we shared that view.Instead, we believe that knowledge can be communicated and that disputes can be resolved through learning.If real knowledge (not personal opinion) is the focus of disputes, then in most cases these disputes are either only superficial and can be resolved by consensus or exchange of minds, or, if they do exist, they can still be resolved by The long-term process is resolved with facts and rationality.The rational way to dispute is to have long-term patience.In short, disputes are things that can be debated.Unless the two parties believe that through the disclosure of relevant evidence, they can reach an understanding through rationality, and then resolve the original dispute, otherwise the dispute is meaningless. How does the third rule apply in the reader-writer dialogue?How can this rule be translated into a rule of reading?This rule applies when the reader finds himself at odds with some point of view in the book.This rule requires him to first make sure that the difference of opinion is not due to misunderstanding.Assuming that the reader is very careful not to put forward the rules of judgment unless he really understands and has no doubts, then what next? Next, the rule requires him to make a distinction between true knowledge and personal opinion.Also believe that, intellectually speaking, this contentious issue can be resolved.If he pursues the question further, the author's point of view will guide him and change his mind.If this did not happen, it would suggest that his argument was probably correct, at least symbolically, and that he was also able to instruct the author.At least he could hope that if the author was still alive and present, the author might change his mind too. You may recall a little bit of this topic at the end of the last chapter.If an author's thesis has no theoretical basis, it can be regarded as the author's personal opinion.A reader cannot learn from reading if he cannot distinguish between a theoretical account of knowledge and an exposition of his personal opinion.At most, he is only interested in the author himself, and he reads this book as a personal biography.Of course, such a reader does not care whether to agree or disagree, he is not judging the book, but the author himself. In any case, if the reader's primary interest is the book itself, rather than the author, take seriously the responsibility to comment.At this point the reader is to distinguish between true knowledge and the difference between his personal opinion and that of the author.Therefore, the reader has to go the extra mile beyond expressing an opinion for or against it.He must find reasons for his views.Of course, if he agrees with the author, he shares the same theory as the author.But if he disagrees, he must have a rationale for doing so.Otherwise he just treats knowledge as a personal point of view. So here's rule eleven, respect the difference between knowledge and personal opinion, and seek out the rationale before making any judgments. By the way, we don't want people to think that we claim to have a lot of "absolute" knowledge.The self-evident truths we mentioned in the previous chapter are truths that cannot be proved or denied to us.However, most knowledge cannot be absolute.All knowledge we possess is subject to correction at any time.Everything we know is backed by theory, or at least some evidence, but we never know when new evidence will emerge that may disprove what we now believe. However, this still does not change our repeated emphasis on the importance of distinguishing knowledge from opinion.Knowledge consists, if you will, in defensible opinions—opinions that are supported by some kind of evidence.Therefore, if we really know something, we need to believe that we can use what we know to convince others.As for "opinion," in the sense in which we have been using the word, it signifies judgment without theoretical support.So when we talk about "opinion," we use it all the time with words like "just" or "personal."It is child's play to say something is true when we have no evidence or reason to support a statement other than our personal feelings and prejudices.Relatively, if we have some objective evidence in our hands that reasonable people can accept, we can say that this is the truth, and we also know that it is true to say so. We now want to summarize the three rules discussed in this chapter.What these three rules together state are the conditions for critical reading in which the reader should be able to "debate" with the author. First: Ask readers to understand a book first, and don't rush to start criticizing it.Second: I implore readers not to argue or blindly oppose.Third: View intellectual disagreement as a largely solvable problem.This rule goes a step further by requiring readers to find a theoretical basis for their differing opinions, so that the issue is not just said, but explained.Only in this way can there be any hope of solving this problem.