|
I can't help but think that trying to maintain that critical balance while reading about philosophy could lead to learning more about the life/times of the philosopher and therefore broadening one's scope though. I mean it has to prompt the reader to ask questions like: Why did author x say this or that? or What would be the larger ramifications of x, y or z being like the author thinks it should be? As you said gmw we shouldn't just accept what we read as gospel (so to speak) but should ask the questions that come to mind. I'm thinking there is a big difference between just reading about a theory of philosophy and really understanding it and why the author held their particular belief. Mark Twain once said 'that the difference between the right word and the almost right word was akin to the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug.' I'm thinking that something of the like is also apparent between merely reading a theory of philosophy and understanding how the author came to that belief and what its deeper meaning is. And learning more about a topic is always good.
|