Of these last four, the first three are criteria for disagreement. Special criteria for points of criticismġ2.
Demonstrate that you recognize the difference between knowledge and mere personal opinion by presenting good reasons for any critical judgment you make.ī. Do not disagree disputatiously or contentiouslyġ1. Do not begin criticism until you have completed your outline and your interpretation of the book-understanding before criticismġ0. General maxims of intellectual etiquetteĩ. The third stage of analytical reading: rules for criticizing a book as a communication of knowledgeĪ. Determine which of his problems the author has solved, and which he has not and of the latter, decide which the author knew he had failed to solve. Know the author's arguments, by finding them in, or constructing them from, sequences of sentencesĨ. Grasp the author's leading propositions by dealing with his most important sentencesħ. Come to terms with the author by interpreting his key wordsĦ. The second stage of analytical reading: rules for interpreting a book's contentsĥ. Define the problem(s) the author has tried to solve. Enumerate its major parts in their order and relation, and outline those parts as you have outlined the wholeĤ. State what the whole book is about with the utmost brevityģ. Classify the book according to kind and subject matterĢ. The first stage of analytical reading: rules for finding out what a book is aboutġ.
(My formatting didn't survive copy/paste, alas!) Among the very first small epiphanies that occur on contact with this book is that he takes his subject seriously. What follows is a one-page summary, mainly chapter and section headings. By what techniques could a reader extract the matter of the thing. The underlying proposition was that faced with a difficult book, the question was how to "get" it. Mortimer Adler some years ago wrote a book titled How to Read a Book.
0 kommentar(er)
