On two ways of reading philosophy
An Introduction
There are always two ways in which we read philosophy. These two are not separated, but always take place at the same time. There is, what Deleuze called, both a philosophical and a non-philosophical reading happening at the same time. The philosophical reading is interested in the logical coherence of concepts. We read a sentence in order to understand its argument, and to understand how this argument coheres with the text as a whole. On the other hand, there is the non-philosophical reading, which couldn't care less about the logical coherence of the concepts and their expression in arguments, but is only concerned with how the text affects us.
This second reading is narcissistic and egotistical in its attitude; it is not concerned with what the author in fact meant, but only with what the reader can personally gain from the text. How does it affect me? What creative powers do these concepts incite in me? This second reading is how we can explain why artists are so fond of certain philosophers, even when they don't possess the necessary philosophical-historical knowledge and terminology to truly understand the text. Our non-philosophical reading is not concerned with understanding, but with the collision of powers, how concepts affectively link up with the reader's personal life. This second reading is the one the strength athlete practices when his reading of Nietzsche gives him the vital energy needed for his next training session, or the one the spiritual seeker is engaged in when reading Plato or Schopenhauer. It is this second reading that gives life to philosophy, for it ensures its entrance and participation in the everyday lives of concrete people.
It can also be said that this non-philosophical reading is at the start of every philosophical reading. When one first starts reading Ancient Greek philosophy, one hardly possesses the concepts, language, terminology, and historical framework to truly understand these texts, but it is the non-philosophical reading that ignites the need to gather knowledge of the concepts, language, etc. This hardly expressible feeling that these Greeks were on to something, or that our personal lives can be enriched immensely if we were only able to understand what they were saying. It is this second reading that ensures the accessibility of philosophy to the peoples of all historical periods, and ensures its democratic character. One needs a certain education for the philosophical reading, but the non-philosophical reading is open to everyone.
The non-philosophical reading makes up the beginning of philosophy, and a person's entrance into its domain. As Aristotle famously put it, all philosophy begins with the desire to know, to escape from ignorance. Philosophy doesn't begin with knowledge, but with the absence of knowledge that incites the pursuit of knowledge. When one starts reading philosophy, the philosophical reading is closed off, one is not in possession of concepts or terminology, but one does read non-philosophically. One is affected by the text, one feels that there is something of value for which one had been seeking, that is of usage to one's personal life. This non-philosophical reading of course does not make up the essence of philosophy, it needs its concepts and their history. But without this non-philosophical reading, philosophy loses what makes it living, and it loses the possibility of its emergence within our lives. It would die as soon as the academies close and specialists die.
When one is reading philosophy, these two readings are happening at the same time, with one perhaps dominating over the other at different times. And with some people perhaps more disposed for the philosophical reading, and others for the non-philosophical reading. One is grappling with the concepts, trying to understand the argument, but at the same time one is thinking about what this knowledge can bring to one's personal life. How will this make me a better person? How can I use this Stoic text for my own entrepreneurship? How can I use these concepts for the development of my own philosophy? Perhaps, if one pursues philosophy as a vocation, one feels the need to suppress the non-philosophical reading most of the time. And this is a valid tactic for understanding the text, but the suppression can go too far, and get in the way of one's own creations. If we do not ask what a certain text can do for us, what it can lead us to create, philosophy dies at once. What does it mean to read Aristotle's Ethics if one is not concerned with becoming a better person because of it? In short, it means a massive waste of time. As Nietzsche said, one should be concerned with the past and delve into its hidden knowledge, but only so that we can use it to create a better future. And it is precisely today's non-philosophical reading that ensures a text's relevance for the future.
The non-philosophical reading seems to often emerge from our own personal problems that we struggle with at given times. These problems determine what we will be reading, and what we will be paying attention to in the text. The athlete reading Nietzsche to gain energy for his next training session will be unconcerned with Nietzsche's philological experiments. And the philosophy scholar seeking to write an article on a specific concept of Kant will go through Kant's texts only with an eye for this specific concept, perhaps giving less attention than necessary to other concepts. These personal problems cloud our perceptions, and this might get in the way of objectivity. But they are also of vital importance to the transmission of philosophy, not just as a collection of knowledge known as the 'history of philosophy', but as a living practice that is shaped and molded by our lives, and shapes our lives in return.
It is my purpose with this site to practice this dual reading of philosophy. To sometimes lean towards concepts, and at others towards life, but mostly to seek that balance in which philosophy finds its meaning. I invite you to join me.