Chapter 13 Chapter Eleven For or Against the Author

The first thing a reader can say is that he got it, or he didn't get it.In fact, he had to say he understood before he could say more.If he doesn't understand, he should calmly go back and study the book again. In the second awkward case, there is one exception. The phrase "I didn't get it" could also be a comment in itself.But before making this comment, readers must have theoretical support.If the book is the problem and not the reader himself, he must find out what is wrong.He can find that the structure of the book is disorganized, that every part is disjointed and disjointed, or that the author ambiguously says important words, creating a chain of confusion.In such a state, the reader can say that the book is incomprehensible, and he is under no obligation to comment.

However, let's say you're reading a good book, which is to say an understandable one.Assume that you can finally say: "I understand!" Assume that in addition to understanding the whole book, you also fully agree with the author's opinions. In this way, the reading work is considered complete.The process of analytical reading is completely over.You have been inspired, persuaded or influenced.Of course, if you disagree with the author's opinion or suspend the comment, we will have further consideration.In particular, disagreement is more common. When an author argues with a reader—and expects the reader to rebut it—a good reader must be familiar with the principles of debate.He should be polite and intelligent when debating.That is why, in this book on reading, there is a separate chapter devoted to this subject.When the reader doesn't just follow the author's argument blindly, but goes head to head with it, he can finally offer meaningful comments of agreement or disagreement.

What it means to agree or disagree deserves further discussion.After a reader reaches a consensus with the author, and grasps his thesis and exposition, he is connected with the author.In fact, the process of interpreting a book is to achieve spiritual communication through the medium of words.Understanding a book can be interpreted as an identification between the author and the reader.They agreed to use such terms to illustrate an idea.Because of this identification, readers can see through the language used by the author what he wants to express. If a reader understands a book, how can he disagree with the book's arguments?Critical reading requires him to keep his own ideas.But when he succeeds in reading the book, he becomes one with the author's mind.What space does he have to hold his own at this point?

Some people don't know that the so-called "consent" actually includes two meanings, so the wrong concept forms the previous problem.As a result, they mistakenly believe that if two people can understand each other, it is impossible to disagree with each other.They think that opposing opinions come from pure ignorance. This error is easy to see when we consider that authors are commenting on the world in which we live.He may be right or wrong in claiming to give us theoretical knowledge of how things exist and act, or practical knowledge of what we should do.His claims are only valid if what he says is factual and relevant evidence is presented.Otherwise, it is baseless rhetoric.

For example, if you say, "All men are created equal." We might take you to mean that all men are born with the same intelligence, strength, and other abilities.But as far as our observation of the facts is concerned, we disagree with you.We think you are wrong.But maybe we misunderstood you.Perhaps what you are saying is that everyone has equal political rights.Because we misunderstood what you meant, our disagreement is pointless.Now suppose this misunderstanding is corrected.There are still two possible answers.We may or may not agree.But at this point if we disagree, there is a real issue between us.We understand your politics, but ours is the opposite of yours.

Issues about facts or directions—about what a thing is or how it should be done—are real only when both parties understand what the other is saying.When discussing a matter, both parties must have no opinion on the application of the text before talking about agreeing or disagreeing.This is because (not despite) that you can decide to agree with his arguments, or disagree with his position, when you come to an agreement with the author through your interpretation of a book. ※ Prejudice and fairness Now let's talk about the situation where you understand a book but disagree with the author.If you accept the rules discussed in the previous chapter, then your disagreement is because the author got it wrong at some point.You are not biased, nor are you emotional.Because this is true, three conditions must be met for an idealized debate:

The first point, because people have a rational side and an animal side, so when arguing, you must pay attention to the emotions you will bring into it, or the temper that arouses on the spot.Otherwise your argument will be more emotional than reasoning.When your emotions are strong, you may think that you have a good reason. The second point is that you have to lay out your premises or assumptions.You need to know what your bias is - it's your pre-judgment.Otherwise it is not easy for you to accept that your opponent also has the right to assume differently.A good debate does not fight over assumptions.For example, if the author explicitly asks you to accept a certain premise, you should not ignore his request because you can also accept the opposite premise.If your bias is on the opposite side, and you refuse to admit that it is bias, you are not giving the author a fair chance to express an opinion.

Third and finally, factionalism almost inevitably creates some blind spots, and to resolve these blind spots, try to be as impartial as possible.Of course, it is impossible to argue without wanting to divide.But when arguing, there should be more light of reason and less passion. Everyone participating in the debate should at least consider the other party's standpoint.If you can't read a book with empathy, your objection will feel more like an argument than a civilized exchange of opinions. Ideally, these three states of mind are necessary for intelligent and beneficial conversation.These three elements obviously apply to reading as well—that kind of dialogue between writer and reader.To a reader who is willing to adopt the method of reasoned argument, every suggestion is good advice to him.

But this is only an ideal, only an approximation.We dare not place such extravagant expectations on people.We have to admit quickly that we are also fully aware of our own shortcomings.We also violate the sensible rules of our own debates.We also find ourselves attacking a book instead of criticizing it, chasing it down, continuing to oppose it when we can't argue, and justifying our biases as if we were better than the author. Nevertheless, we still believe that author-reader dialogue and critical reading can be fairly disciplined.Therefore, we want to introduce a set of alternative methods that are easier to follow and can replace these three rules.This method points out four ways to criticize a book from opposing perspectives.We hope that even when readers feel like making these four comments, they don't get caught up in an emotional or biased state.

The following is a summary description of these four points.Our premise is that the reader is able to engage in a dialogue with the author and respond to what he has to say.After the reader says: "I understand, but I don't agree." After that, he can use the following concepts to explain to the author: (1) Your knowledge is insufficient (uninformed). (2) Your knowledge is misinformed. (3) You are illogical—your reasoning is not convincing. (4) Your analysis is incomplete. These four points may not be complete, but we think it is enough.In any case, this is indeed an important statement that a reader can basically make when he disagrees.These four declarations are somewhat independent.Using only one of them will not hinder the use of other key points.Each or all of the points can be used, since the points are not mutually exclusive.

However, again, the reader should not use these comments arbitrarily, unless he can prove that the author is lack of knowledge, wrong knowledge or illogical.It is impossible for a book to contain insufficient or incorrect knowledge.A book cannot be all illogical.And readers who want to make such comments must not only be able to accurately identify the author's problem, but also be able to further prove their own arguments.He wants to give reasons for what he says. ※ Judge whether the author's argument is correct Of these four priorities, the fourth is slightly different from the first three, and we will continue to discuss this.Let's talk briefly about the first three points before moving on to the fourth. (1) To say that an author is not knowledgeable is to say that he lacks some knowledge relevant to the problem he wants to solve.The caveat here is that unless the knowledge is actually relevant, there is no reason to make such a comment.To support your argument, you need to be able to state what knowledge the author lacks, how that knowledge is relevant to the problem, and how it would have led him to a different conclusion if he had it. Let us add one more point.Darwin lacked the knowledge of genetics, which was confirmed by the studies of Mendel and his successors.Among his greatest flaws is his ignorance of knowledge of the workings of heredity.Gibbon, however, lacks some of the pivotal points of Rome's fall that later historians have shown.Often, in science and history, knowledge lacking in earlier generations is discovered by later generations.Advances in technology and the extension of time have made this possible for most research investigations.In the field of philosophy, however, the situation may be reversed.It seems that as time goes by, knowledge only declines, not increases.For example, the ancients knew how to distinguish between human consciousness, imagination and understanding.In the 18th century, the difference between human imagination and thought was unknown in the works of David Hume, but earlier philosophers had already established this concept. (2) To say that an author's knowledge is wrong is to say that his ideas are wrong.Such mistakes can come from lack of knowledge, but they can also be much more than that.Either way, his argument is the opposite of the truth.What the author says is a fact or a possible fact is actually wrong and impossible.Such an author is asserting knowledge that he does not actually possess, and of course such shortcomings need not be pointed out unless they affect the author's conclusions.To make this comment, you must be able to state the facts, or be able to take a counter-position that is more likely than the author's to support your argument. For example, in one of Spinoza's political treatises, he mentioned that democracy is a more primitive form of politics than autocracy.This is completely contrary to the proven political history.Spinoza's erroneous view affects his subsequent discussion.Aristotle mistakenly believed that the female factor played an important role in the reproduction of animals, which led to a conclusion that was difficult to justify the reproductive process.Aquinas' mistake was that he thought that the celestial bodies and planets were distinct, because he thought that the former could only change their positions, but nothing else.Modern astronomers have corrected this error, making ancient and medieval astronomy a huge step forward.But his error is only related to part of the content.He made this mistake, but it didn't affect his metaphysical argument that all perceptible things consist of content and form. The first two criticisms are related.Insufficient knowledge may cause what we call knowledge errors.Also, some kind of intellectual error in anyone, that is, insufficient knowledge in that area.However, there are still differences in the negative and positive impacts of these two types of deficiencies.Without relevant knowledge, it is unlikely to solve a particular problem, or support a certain conclusion.Wrong knowledge can lead to wrong conclusions and untenable answers.These two comments fit together.Together, the point is that the author's premise is flawed.He needs to be enriched with knowledge.His evidence and arguments are not good enough, either qualitatively or quantitatively. (3) To say that an author is illogical is to say that his reasoning is absurd. Generally speaking, there are two forms of absurdity.One is the lack of coherence, that is, the conclusion emerges, but it cannot be connected with the theory mentioned above.The other is the inconsistency of event changes, that is, the two things that the author said are inconsistent.To criticize these two kinds of problems, the reader must be able to cite precise evidence, and that is the convincing force that the author's argument lacks.This shortcoming is especially brought up only when the main conclusions are affected by these absurd inferences.The more irrelevant parts of a book can be justified if they lack convincing. The third point is more difficult to illustrate with examples.Because a really good book seldom makes obvious mistakes in its inferences.And when they do happen, they are usually subtly hidden and only the discerning reader can uncover them.But we can tell you about a fallacy that appears in Machiavelli's The Prince.Machiavelli said: All governments, old and new, are chiefly sustained by laws.If the government does not have good armed forces, there will be no good laws.That is, as long as the government has a good armed force, there will be good laws. It is unreasonable to say that good laws come from good police force, and that as long as the police force is strong, the law will also be good.Let's ignore for now the highly suspicious nature of this issue.All we care about is the coherence of it.Even if it makes more sense to say that happiness comes from health than that good laws come from an effective police force, it doesn't follow that healthy people are happy people. In Hobbes' Elements of Law, he argued that all bodies are nothing but quantities of matter in motion.He said that in the world of objects there is no quality.But in another place, he maintains that man himself is nothing more than an object, a collection of atoms in motion.While acknowledging the existence of sensory qualities in man—colours, smells, tastes, and so on—he said they were all caused by the movement of atoms in the brain.This conclusion does not resonate with the first argument above, in which he said that bodies in motion have no qualities.All objects in motion he mentioned should also include any special group of objects, and the atomic motion of the brain should naturally be included in it. This third point of criticism is related to the first two.Of course, sometimes the author may not be able to draw conclusions from the evidence or principles presented by himself.Thus his reasoning would be incomplete.But here we are mainly concerned about the situation where the author's theoretical basis is very good, but the conclusions drawn are very poor.Finding the author's argument unconvincing because of an incorrect premise or insufficient evidence, while interesting, is not at all important. If a person sets a very complete premise, but the conclusion is full of questions, then from a certain point of view, his knowledge is wrong.However, whether these erroneous statements come from faulty inferences or due to some other shortcomings, especially lack of relevant knowledge, etc., the difference between the two is worthy of our careful scrutiny. ※ Judge the integrity of the author's discussion The first three points of criticism we have just talked about relate to the author's statements and arguments.Let's turn to a fourth point of criticism the reader can take.This is a discussion of whether the author has actually accomplished what he planned—that is, satisfaction with his work being accountable. Before we begin, we must clarify one thing.If you say you understand, but you can't find evidence to support any of the previous criticisms, then you are obliged to agree with any of the author's arguments.At this point you have absolutely no autonomy.You have no divine right to agree or disagree. If you cannot show with relevant evidence that the author is ill-informed, misinformed, or illogical, you cannot argue against him.You can't say like many students or others: "Your premises are not wrong, and your inferences are fine, but I just disagree with your conclusion." At this time, the only thing you can say may be that you "don't like" the conclusion .You are not objecting.You are only expressing your emotions or prejudices.If you've been convinced, it's time to admit it. (If you can't produce evidence to support the first three points of criticism, but still feel unconvinced by the author, you probably shouldn't have said you got the book in the first place.) The first three points of criticism are related to the author's consensus, theme and exposition.These are the elements that the writer uses to solve the problem when he starts writing.The fourth point—whether the book is complete—has to do with the structure of the book as a whole. (4) To say that an author's analysis is incomplete is to say that he did not solve all the problems he initially posed, or that he did not make the best use of the data at hand, or that he did not see The implications and criss-crossing relationships, or his inability to make his own ideas stand out.But that's not enough to say that a book is incomplete.Anyone can review a book like this.Human beings are finite, and any work they do is also finite and incomplete.Therefore, such comments are meaningless.Only when the reader pinpoints the problematic points in the book—whether through his own efforts or with the help of other books—can he make such a criticism. Let's make a brief explanation.In Aristotle's Politics, the analysis of forms of government is incomplete.Because he was limited by the times and he wrongly accepted the slave system, Aristotle did not think, or conceived, that the real democratic framework lies in the universal suffrage of the people.Nor could he imagine representative politics and the modern federal system.If anything, his analysis should extend to these political realities.Euclid's "Principles of Geometry" is also incomplete.Because Euclid did not think of other axioms between parallel lines.Modern geometry proposes other assumptions that make up for this deficiency.Dewey's How We Think, an analysis of thinking is incomplete.For he does not mention the thinking that occurs while reading, the thinking that occurs under the guidance of a teacher, and the thinking that occurs when researching discoveries.Nor is Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius' treatise on human happiness complete for Christians who believe in human immortality. Strictly speaking, the fourth point is not a basis for disagreeing with an author.We can only take sides on the fact that the author's achievements are limited.However, this fourth point, the thesis that a book is incomplete, may hold readers back from reviewing a book as a whole when they cannot find any reason to agree with a partial theory of a book by raising other points of criticism.From the reader's point of view, holding off on reviewing a book is a sign that the author has not fully addressed the issues he raised. When reading books in the same field, these four review criteria can be used for comparison.It is better if one book is more factual and less inaccurate than the other.But if we want to increase our knowledge by reading, it is obvious that a book that gives the most complete account of the subject is best.One author may lack knowledge that other authors possess; one author may make mistakes that another author would never have made; one author may not be as convincing as another, even on the same grounds. an author.But the only truly in-depth comparisons are those that compare the completeness of each author's analysis of their arguments.Comparing the number of effective and outstanding arguments in each book can be used as a reference to judge its completeness.This is when you will see how useful it is to be able to find common meanings with the author.The more prominent meanings, the more prominent discussions. You may also observe that the fourth point of criticism is closely related to the three stages of analytical reading.In the final stage of outlining, it is to know what problem the author wants to solve.The final stage in interpreting a book is to know which problems the author has solved and which problems have not been solved.The final stage of critiquing a book is to examine the integrity of the author's account.This has something to do with the outline of the book, whether the author clarifies the problem clearly, and it is also related to interpreting a book and measuring how well he has solved the problem. ※ Three stages of analytical reading We have now roughly completed the proof and discussion of analytical reading.We are now going to put all the rules in proper order and with appropriate headings: 1. The first stage of analytical reading: rules for figuring out what a book is about (1) Sort by book type and subject. (2) Use the shortest words possible to describe what the entire book is about. (3) List the main parts in order and by relevance.List the outline of the whole book, and also outline the outlines of the individual sections. (4) Identify the problem the author wants to solve. 2. The second stage of analytical reading: interpreting the content rules of a book (5) Interpret the author's keywords and reach a consensus with him. (6) From the most important sentence, grasp the author's important subject. (7) Know what the author's exposition is, find out the relevant sentences from the content, and then reconstruct it. (8) Determine which problems the author has solved and which ones have not.Then judge which are the problems that the author knows he has not solved. 3. The third stage of analytical reading: the rules of commenting on a book as if communicating knowledge A． General Rules of Wisdom Etiquette (9) Unless you have completed the outline structure and can interpret the whole book, don't criticize easily. (Don't say you agree, disagree, or hold off on commenting until you say: "I get it!".) (10) Don't be competitive, you must argue to the end. (11) Before making a comment, you need to be able to prove that you can distinguish the difference between real knowledge and personal opinion. B. Special criteria for critical views (12) Evidence of insufficient knowledge of the author. (13) Prove that the author's knowledge is wrong. (14) Proof that the author is illogical. (15) Demonstrate that the author's analysis and reasons are incomplete. Note: Regarding the last four points, the first three points are guidelines for expressing disagreement. If you can't provide relevant supporting evidence, you must agree with the author's statement, or at least part of the statement.You can only hold off on reviewing this book for the last reason. At the end of Chapter Seven, the first four rules of analytical reading have been proposed to help you answer a basic question about a book: What is the book in general about?Likewise, at the end of Chapter 9, the four rules for interpreting a book can help you answer the second question, which you must ask: What is the book in detail?How did the author write it?Clearly, the remaining seven rules of reading—intelligent etiquette for commenting, and special criteria for critical opinion—can help you answer the third and fourth fundamental questions.You must remember these two questions: Is this real?Does it make sense? The question "Is this true?" can be asked of any kind of reading we read. We can ask the question of "truth" about any kind of reading-mathematics, science, philosophy, history and poetry. Human beings use their minds If a completed work is praised for its authenticity, it can be said that there is no higher evaluation than this. Similarly, criticism for its authenticity is also an attitude to take a serious work seriously. But Oddly enough, for the first time in recent years, in Western society, there has been such a gradual loss of the highest standard of evaluation. The books that win the applause of the critics and attract the attention of the public are almost always works that make a mockery of the fact —The more exaggerated, the better. Most readers, especially those who read popular books, use different criteria to praise or criticize a book—whether the book is new, sensational, seductive, powerful Can confuse the reader's mind, etc., not in the authenticity of the book, the clarity of the argument, or the power to inspire people. The reason why these standards are outdated may be that there are many non-scientific authors in modern times. Sexually less demanding. We can speculate on the crisis that if any work about truth ceases to be the focus of attention, fewer people will write, publish, or read such a book. Unless what you read is in some way true, you don't need to read any further.Even so, you still have to face one last problem.If you are reading for the sake of knowledge, you are not reading intelligently unless you can judge the meaning of the facts presented by the author, or the meaning they should have.The facts presented by the author are seldom unintentionally or unintentionally interpreted.Especially if you read abstract works, they are all facts filtered according to a certain meaning or a certain principle of interpretation.And if you're reading enlightening work, there's no end to the question.At any stage of your learning, you should always look back at the question: "Does this even make sense?" The four questions we have asked summarize our obligations as readers.The first three are related to the communicative nature of human language.If the communication is not complicated, there is no need to make an outline.If language were the perfect medium of communication instead of being somewhat opaque, there would be no need to interpret each other's thoughts.If error and ignorance did not limit truth or knowledge, we would not need to criticize T at all.The fourth question distinguishes the difference between T information (information) and understanding (understanding).If the reading you read is mainly about conveying information, you have to go a step further and find out the inspiration.Even when you're inspired by what you're reading, you have to keep going to find out what it means. Before entering the third part of this book, perhaps we should emphasize again that these rules of analytical reading are an idealized reading.Not many people have read a book this way.And people who have used these methods may not be able to use these rules to read many books.In any case, these rules are only ideal standards for measuring reading level.If you are a good reader, you can read as well as you should. When we say that someone reads "well-read", we should have these standards in mind as a basis for measurement.Too often, we use such sentences to describe the quantity of a person's reading, not the quality of reading.A person who reads widely but not well is more worthy of sympathy than praise.As Hobbes said: "If I read as many books as the common people, I should be as stupid as they are." Great authors are often great readers, but that doesn't mean they read everything.Just in our life, reading is indispensable.In many instances, they read less than we did in college, but they read well.Because they are masters of the books they read, they are as good as the authors.They have the right to be called authorities.In this case, it is natural that a good student usually becomes a teacher, and a good reader becomes a writer. We are not trying to guide you to start writing, but to remind you that using the rules provided in this book, reading a book carefully, rather than reading a lot of books superficially, is the ideal state that a good reader can achieve .Of course, many books are worth intensive reading.But there are many more books just a glance away.To be a good reader, one must know how to use different reading skills to read according to the characteristics of a book.