Read on Twitter
1. On Great Books and other Literature – A thread. Introductions, guides, handbooks & companions abound. One reason is institutional. Publishers make money, professors get tenure. Another is pedagogical. Philosophy is hard (even clearly written philosophy). Help is helpful. https://twitter.com/zenahitz/status/1295347048452161539">https://twitter.com/zenahitz/...
2. But should we be worried that introductory forms of literature are taking the place of the great books many of us teach in the classroom? That students won’t develop the philosophical skills they need? I don’t think so. I think it’s a pseudo-problem.
3. I am unaware of my undergraduate students running off to the library, Amazon, or Libgen to get ahold of introductions, guides, companions, or handbooks. They seem largely unaware that such sources exist.
4. If they are not getting the skills they need to develop as thinkers and philosophers it’s not due to secondary sources. Their first thought is to check YouTube, Wikipedia, or some other online source like SparkNotes.
5. This is the real problem. Now, in my classes, students are not permitted to use such sources, but they do it anyway (it’s probably the same in your classes). I tell my students that they’d be better off looking for answers in the text, coming to office hours, or emailing me.
6. It’s been my sense that graduate students and faculty are the one’s drawn to the introductory sources. Maybe that is where the problem lies, not with undergraduates.
7. If that’s the case, then I’m even less worried, since many graduate students are invested in secondary texts precisely because they already hold the great works in high esteem, as works worth struggling with.
8. I recognize my assessment may be off, but it seems to me great books and primary texts are widely read, appreciated, and viewed as worth struggling with, perhaps more so than ever.
9. One reason the great books are held in such high esteem as works with struggling with is because the secondary literature has helped many appreciate their value. Even with the help of such sources, there’s plenty to struggle with in the primary works.
10. One difficulty I have with the idea of decentering secondary literature even for undergraduates is that the approach can mystify for students how it is professors and other teachers are able to see the arguments and ideas in the primary texts so easily.
11. It can seem one must be a genius to read or do philosophy, as if it’s not for everyone. First, it’s obviously not easy, even if it may look that way to some. Second, we’ve spent a long time learning about the texts, even if they are outside of our specialty.
12. Finally, we’ve used (at least, many, if not most of us) various secondary sources to develop an understanding of the primary works that extends beyond what we might have been able to achieve without such sources. I find that this is not obvious to my students.
13. I’ve read, as part of my professional duty, much of what is available in English on J. G. Fichte’s philosophy, as well as works in other languages. I still struggle seriously with his texts.
14. They are much clearer now (I just struggle in different ways), and this is because I’ve benefited enormously from the literature I’ve read. I’ve read the primary texts along with the secondary literature, moving back and forth – it was and remains a valuable experience.
15. I think this is typical. And, it’s not new. Kant’s contemporaries were reading secondary sources on Kant – in fact, Fichte contemplated writing a book on Kant’s Third Critique (notes of his attempt exist).
16. When using secondary literature with students, I work to get them to see a distinction between how one might use the literature: the first approach is introductory – using the literature to understand some basic ideas or arguments in the text that you’ve struggled with.
17. Many of us do that, have done it, and will continue to do it. The second approach a dialogical approach – here the point is to use the secondary source as a dialogue partner. The aim is to figure out where your interpretation stands in contrast to this other interpretation.
18. In some cases, this may spawn a thesis or point of criticism a paper might explore.
19. I see this latter use as essential to developing the skill of being a philosopher – learning to have a philosophical and critical dialogue with someone (living person or text) whose interpretation of the great books (or of an argument/problem) differs from one’s own.
20. There’s the additional skill of defending one’s own understanding of the text. This is a skill-oriented use of secondary literature. It involves the activity of philosophizing along with the literature, secondary and primary.
21. This approach has a long philosophical tradition that extends far beyond the more recent flourishing of handbooks, companions, and introductions we’ve seen develop during our period of late capitalism.
22. I’ve thought a lot about these issues as I teach in a department that really values the great books, and while I’ve not read all the posts on this debate, I do agree with the view some have noted:
23. we do not read primary texts in a vacuum, but with our own backgrounds, with our own personal and social concerns, with guidance from teachers, editors, translators, and in some cases, with secondary sources.
24. Philosophy today, as in the past, involves knowing how to read, write, and negotiate these various sources.
25. My general attitude is that you should read what you find valuable and enlightening. For me it’s great books, overlooked works, secondary literature, contemporary analytic and Continental philosophy, as well as The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I prefer the good stuff.
