don't mind this comment, it was an attempt of me summarizing what I have watched in order for me to understand. something I just thought it would be fun to do The first point, is that if you have formed a concept (otherwise interpreted concretely) based on what you've read, no memorization would be required. It's not the words, it's the idea you've gotten out of it. The second point being that no claim would be meaningful on it's own, like a puzzle piece it needs to be connected with other ideas to form some complete image. The third point pertains to either building their point with another one or arguing with/against (the latter essentially) their idea. These key premises seem subtle but they are what connects phrases (sometimes it could be a word you've passed by that would provide an another point or a message that this isn't their only idea, etc.) The fourth point is when texts just start to feel like a slush of words, you may need to input something concrete and real and apply it there. In my own allegorical view, it's like an algebraic sentence. When you replace the variable 'x' with a number, you have a solvable equation. The fifth point is it is there as an argument to be understood, whether agreeable or disagreeable. In order that an idea stands out more to you, you must try to argue against it, even something plausible as to see how the idea applies to different fields of other philosophy and or areas in life. The sixth point is that philosophy deals with difficult and seemingly pretentious ideas at first read. In midst of forming concepts based on what you've understood, you may pass by a seemingly simple phrase when at the second read it comes up as a surprising statement of an idea. There can be many interpretations to a philosophical work, and they can change through experiences or gathering diverse ideas growing up and maturing in life.
Well first off you need a oxford dictionary and need to think about how you can't even make sense through your nihalistic philosophy you get to analyze all these words you never heard of the actual psychology is hidden somewhere in the middle if you can get that far
i like this guy. he's right about reading a text more than. I 've been reading philosophy for years, and i can tell you that not only does a text reveal more the second time round at the same sitting, but years later, perhaps especially years later, as both one's life experience and knowledge gleaned over the intervening years changes enables you to see with different "eyes" and understand with more understanding. Read, reread, read again!
real. same with thematically dense works of fiction, re-reading them a few years later brings out enriched perspectives, or even re-appreciations for the themes with a more mature and nurtured mind
Number 6 definitely works not just with philosophy but all texts. It is regularly practiced in school where the class has to read something then they study or enact it in class.
I am amazed by how you have literally posted everything I need. I was having trouble understanding the book of ethics and I watched your video on it. It made me wonder if I could find something to help me read. AND here it is!
One good reason rereading works is that by the second read, you have an overall sense of where the arguments are going, so you can see them being developed as you read. Also, trying to explain an argument to someone who hasn't read the text can help you see where your own lack of understanding might be.
This applies to programming as well. Technical books need to be read with understanding; you don't memorize what you see. Abstractions are key to understanding problems but you need concrete examples to make it stick in your mind and come up with a real-world/practical design. The average person needs to read more than thrice to completely understand a book; above average people need less iteration.
I’ve recently started a philosophy course and literally had no idea what went on in the lessons, let’s just say I struggled relatively hard and I thought my answers and beliefs were not plausible enough compared to the other students in my class but I now have a more broad and concrete understanding of philosophical texts and meanings, thank you : )
Excellent advice. I only learned these concepts through years of struggle. Certainly wish someone would’ve laid it out like this for me back then! You seem like a great teacher!
This is pretty similar to how to read a mathematical proof, but philosophical arguments are no where near as rigorous and inarguably correct as a well-formulated proof is.
So "Dr. _ J. Eckle..." completely flew under your radar? Jekyll was the humanity of the man. Human eyes staring at a person represent that person's guilt.
I hold a doctorate in Sociology of Law but I have always had a keen interest in Philosophy. Naturally, I stumbled upon your videos. This is your third video I've watched in two days. Your videos are simple and elaborate. Excellent content, great examples and anecdotes. Keep up!
Professor, you've opened up my brain to think philosophical or even abstract level of thinking. Now, I don't receive anything as a truth but I need to observe, syinthesize it before its conclusion. Keep posting video like this prof
@@arnold2011 I was going to suggest that maybe he had a mirror off camera, but but I would say your jacket observation makes more sense. Incidentally, men's shirts and jackets have the buttons on the right and buttonholes on the left so that he unbutton his shirt or jacket while drawing his sword with his right.
For so many years I'd been cynical of philosophy, i thought it was writing overcomplicated texts about nothing meaningful. I'm so glad I came across your channel, because it made me realize nobody ever explained philosophy to me in an engaging and understandable way, like you do! Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge with us :D
You are correct my friend, a notable part of philosophy is actually about nothing. It is nothing masquerading as something but it is not something at all.
I am not contradicting. But the mind understand things based on prior learning, knowledge. So we need to pause, sometimes. For instance, my quick eyes read divisible. Yet my quicker brain interpreted it as visible. Body visible. Mind invisible. This is how we get ourselves entangled in a different kind of bramble. The bramble of over confidence :) 🇲🇾
Interesting that he claims not to remember anything from a work of literature. My best understanding of philosophy comes mostly from literature, say 90% versus 10%. Possibly because I absorb the story readily. In the case of Albert Camus, who is both a great philosopher and prose writer, I understand his works like 'The Stranger', which has had a lifetime impact on me, more so than any of his straight philosophy works. Given the far greater numbers of those that read literature as compared to philosophy, I would suggest this is the case for most readers.
9:02 Well, I have never studied philosophy and therefore not a single philosopher till this day - but I do like philosophy and critical thinking, and related subjects. 😅 It happens to me all the time that I try to knock and break one objection that nobody might even think, but my chaotic mind does this all the time - and when I am speaking, I make it whole lot difficult for the listener to understand the my main points. Whereas, if I see other people, they just don't care about anything and can finish a talk in a minute or two that I might take 15 minutes to end. Why is that guys? I feel difficulty communication - because my brain is thinking in a whole different spectrum and the listener can't catch up with that, and they losses interest - and I can't speak less because it feels to me that it's not enough, or just point isn't strong or I haven't said the right thing it might not the truth either. Wtf is with this mind of mine?
1. Understand the material. 2. Be aware of the author's reasoning. 3. Be aware of the writing's flow and structure. 4. Exemplify abstract concepts/ideas. 5. Look for counter-argument or limitations. 6. Re-read and apply methods 1-5 until comprehension is complete. I've already unconsciously applied all of these methods in my self-learning, well I guess I'm on the right track.
A comment on your last point. My physics teacher in school said, whenever someone doesn't understand a problem from the book, he just reads the task to them without adding anything and then asks: do you understand now? Almost every time students understand😄
Imho shouldnt be surprised. Probably all hand writing nowadays, and much printed material, is in 'modern Hebrew' cursive / ktav rahut Ashkenazi. I'm just learning and wud prefer (that everybody just use English!🤬) 'printed' Ashuri or Sefardi solitreo but
Dear professor JK, i just challenged myself and started reading a book by Bergsaun, time and fee will.....i hardly understood anything. The suggestions in this video will surely help. Thank you sir
Number 0) Texts are the result of the circumstances that prompted their writing: Be sure you understand that texts have historic contexts and ideas can be lost in translation, or acquire different meanings when they come from other places and times. Also, the text that you are about to read probably belongs to an already established framework, or starts a new framework in response to a previous one. Familiarize yourself with the history of those frameworks and the words used to synthesize its concepts, for some words might not have the same meaning as current vernacular texts. You can do a lot of this guesswork by using etymology and phylology, but if you want to be very precise a philosophy specialized dictionary or a syllabus is your best friend.
The last tip really works the best . And the rest is also very helpful. I’m reading spinoza’s ethics for the tenth time now, I am shocked how much I ve got from it . And it’s scary to think what I might have missed if I hadn’t done it.
People love ignoring signposts in Nietzsche lol. I have been reading philosophy for years and I have never heard an explanation how one should do so. Very good video!
people that like a movie will watch it again. then tell you all the things they didn't notice the first time. btw, i just subscribed because i like the way you write on the transparent screen so that the viewer can read it that's just cool.
TL;DR: You first must understand the relationships in the original language. I stopped at 1:45 because Kaplan made a fatal mistake. Here is what it is. The meaning in the original language does not mean just the connotative but the denotative. An example from κοινε: Johm 1:1 "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος." which in English has been translated in the KJV as "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The problem with "understanding" this in English starts with the first word and goes on from there let me take the second word ἀρχῇ with is translated as "beginning." It Greek it relates the different words than in English. Strong translates this as beginning but also as "to be the first to do." The complex of associations is different in κοινε ("Common Greek") is different from the English. Even more so in other languages, for example, the difference between "Chinese" and "中国" is huge. The ideograms call it the "Middle Kingdom" as in the middle of the world similar to the Mediterranean Sea is the "Middle Earth Sea" in Latin. And do not get me started on Λόγος.
#6. Try reading 'it' from the end back to the beginning, like it's a detective novel that you need to understand quickly. If you know who did it, you'll be able to spot the clues real easily, and know why the clues are introduced. Works for Science and Engineering text books as well. You still have to read it forward. Also read the introduction three times - the authors hide a lot of nuggets in there! It's all about getting ahead start on the 'understanding' (or avoiding the misunderstanding and confusions of ignorance), looping back to #1, read to understand. Further, encourage others to think you know something about it, so they will explain to you (rubber duck style) the problem so far and you'll most likely already have the hidden/missing piece from your reading, and they'll have told you where the difficult to understand points are. Pair learning.
findings: 1. Focus on Understanding rather than speed. 2. Relate the paragraph with ultimate truth, structure of mind and material world( ब्रह्म, अहम वृत्ति, प्रकृति). 3. Always dig into the real meaning which known as signpost here. 4. Read the same text again for better understanding.
On the concrete example, you just took some random piece of the argument and after I listen and read to it wow I can only just wow for few minutes. Because I realised Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia just talking about Newton's Law before his discovery with Descartes. And thankyou so much for making a guide vod like this, I have tried to read philosophy many years ago and nothing I can get, now will try it again.
Oh my god!! Thank you so much for this! I've struggling for a long time to properly read and understand philosophy and answer questions accordingly! Thanks to you, I can pinpoint where I was lacking!
I question your statement that you’re saving your best piece of advice for the end. Because that’s the best way you can teach this course. Or is it you get better reviews from RU-vid? If you have your viewers, watch your videos all the way to the end instead of quitting halfway through. So are you lying, is this philosopher not a philosopher not a soffit but a liar
I'm a bit surprised this has to be brought up in a college course on philosophy. It might be the difference between reading something like a magizine or newspaper article, or even a set of directions for some as compared to a topic of interest. Interest might be a stretch and could possibly be replaced with purpose. Point being you can read, even memorize but not Know what you are reading, you can also know (little k) but not Know (big K). This is the purpose of the rock example, leading one to Know. More complicated than this I am sure, and there can be some hazards along the way depending on ones view of the topic in the text. I agree that resubstituting in concrete objects is very useful and should be kept very basic, to keep it all less confusing, possibly leading to misinterpretation. Great video content friend.
One trick I’ve started practicing is physically reformatting the text. Books and print have this awful habit of trying to perfectly space out every line which means adding unnecessary hyphens to words which slow down reading flow and comprehension. It’s much easier to find a digital copy without the added hyphens. A second tip is breaking up the sentences and adding an entire blank line between each one. There are online text editors that can assist with automating the task. It helps my brain “get ready” for a really long run on sentence full of abstract ideas so I can fully digest each sentence before moving onto the next.
This is just "how to read" anything remotely abstract in general. If you don't instinctively do these things when reading any text, how did you finish high school?
but if the oppresion renders the opprest uncapable, to fullfil their basic morla obligations, aren´t they there for reliefed of criticism? just practising your advice. by the way the Audio here and in other videos is pretty right sided and in comparision to the intro quite quiet it is easy fixable if you are interessted!
Example #1 ALMOST worked on me on the left hand squiggles, on the right hand "Hi friends" Then I noticed the first squiggle was "shalom" = "hi" in Hebrew Then all the words disappeared So I am guessing the other word was "chaverim", but it's just a guess. Maybe "achim", maybe "tuchsim", who knows? Ifn I had expected you to write Hebrew, I would have paid attention You made it SEEM like I don't need to pay attention
