Philosophy and the Ethics of Reading
Dr. Jeffrey Centeno
“Take up and read.”
Saint Augustine, Confessions
“Read your fate, see what is before you, and walk on into futurity.”
Henry David Thoreau, Walden
The following reflections are occasioned by my recent encounter with two contemporary influential literary achievements that bring to light the ethical challenge of reading. These are Harold Bloom’s How to read and why (2000) and Nancy Malone’s A spirituality of reading (2003), respectively. Both works are significantly timely in this age of internet, of online games, that, as one editor quips, “threatens to eclipse the practice of reading,” most especially among young people today. World-renowned educational theorist Howard Gardner is most astute in his observation, thus: “Too many children have a little sense of why one should read, because they reside in environments where adults do not read.”
Dr. Jeffrey Centeno
“Take up and read.”
Saint Augustine, Confessions
“Read your fate, see what is before you, and walk on into futurity.”
Henry David Thoreau, Walden
The following reflections are occasioned by my recent encounter with two contemporary influential literary achievements that bring to light the ethical challenge of reading. These are Harold Bloom’s How to read and why (2000) and Nancy Malone’s A spirituality of reading (2003), respectively. Both works are significantly timely in this age of internet, of online games, that, as one editor quips, “threatens to eclipse the practice of reading,” most especially among young people today. World-renowned educational theorist Howard Gardner is most astute in his observation, thus: “Too many children have a little sense of why one should read, because they reside in environments where adults do not read.”
For both Bloom and Malone, reading, though a solitary act, offers a privileged meeting and a spiritual journey with the author/s, and it aims at cultivating and sustaining wisdom. (That is what “commentary” is etymologically all about. It is a meeting of minds.) Moreover, the paradox of reading as a personal praxis lies in the fact that it is in reading that we are most in communion with the rest of humanity. For what is written is an expression of some of humanity’s aspirations and ideals, say, the classics. But ultimately, for Bloom and Malone, we read in order to discover and improve ourselves. For, reading consists primarily in the heightening of self-understanding in relation to the information we derive from our exposure to other thoughts and experiences and to the appropriation we attain from the same.
Therefore, for example, in reading Plato’s Dialogues or Kant’s Critiques, or Fr. Rannie Aquino’s column Pensées in the Manila Standard Today, we open ourselves to the possibilities of expanding the limits of our understanding in grasping the main points of the arguments of individual these authors. That in doing so, we necessarily risk that our perspectives be challenged in the face of other positions, let alone questioning as readers of the authors’ express claims. Any shift in perspective, however, need not be significantly dramatic at first, for the formation of consciousness is a gradual development. Yet, by every reading or meeting with the Other that the author is, we test our own thinking, become aware of our own biases, and perchance introduce to our consciousness new ways of looking at things. Edward de Bono’s influential lateral thinking theory is quite evident here. Briefly, by lateral thinking is meant “the ability to look at things in different ways.” This implies being able to read between the lines and to transform our initial understanding of views into something more adequately integrative, in the light of present questions. Reading then is a moment of mirroring ourselves, depending on the vantage point from which we see the world and from which we accordingly allow ourselves to be seen.
In the light of this preliminary account, I now turn to what I strongly feel is imperative in the act of reading. That is, reading is a philosophical praxis. To be more specific, the relationship between philosophy and reading is arguably an ethical one, because the search for truth that is mediated through a sustained deciphering of the text transforms the reader in the very engagement of reading. Reading is definitely a mode of being, for the vision that one gathers from one’s reading of the text effects a certain action in the reader that, at the same time, can always be related to the vision that it affects. Hence, phrased à la Cartesian in inspiration: “I read, I am.”
The questions that the text poses enlarge the mind of the reader. That is why it is important to recognize the fact that the act of reading essentially demands a philosophical attitude that is characterized by fundamental criticism and basic openness towards the truth-claims of the text. As Robert Ginsberg writes on the teaching of philosophical reading: “The skill of reading philosophy requires the exercise of philosophical thinking. . . . Philosophical reading means an active engagement of the alert intellect with reasoning set forth. It involves questioning the text, sifting it, weighing it, reformulating it, thinking it.” In short, the reader in a patient and resolute interpretive effort with the text is supposed to be aplomb with curiosity and wonder – at the very least – that are primordial initiations into a life of free thinking and democratic being. Accordingly, philosophy can be best argued as a struggle with texts constantly requiring rigorous, meticulous, and scrupulous attention and interpretation. It cannot settle for less. For at stake is growth in self-knowledge.
Reading or interpretation can mean two things. First, it means reconstructing the text in terms of identifying the intended meaning of the text. What is the author saying? Who was the original audience of the communication? When, where, and how was the text written? These are the central questions that normalize this model of reading. And, finally reading can likewise signify “deconstructing” the text in view of transforming its historical sense. What is the author of the text actually not saying by her explicit claim? What is the text telling me here and now? What can I learn from the message of the text that I can apply to my present conditions? These point to the potential applications of a transformed mode of reading. As regards the emphasis on the “postmodern” sense of reading, every interpretation must be seen as always an interpretation of the human condition that bears the experiences, circumstances and interests of the reader. Therefore, in reading one opens oneself to the possibility of being shaken up by the arguments and insights of the text. This means more than being informed by the facts and data that are presented in the text. As David Ulin graphically proposes: “Simply to think about earthquakes is to discover yourself in a territory defined by paradox, everything gets shaken up. . . . Again, the issue is interpretation; it’s one thing to observe phenomena, to track magnitudes and dates in an effort to see patterns, and another to say what they mean.”
Briefly now, as to the persistent question regarding the possibility of an “objective” reading against “subjective” reading, that are usually believed to characterize the two kinds of reading, what we can advance at the moment for consideration is the clarificatory motion that no reading is absolutely objective nor absolutely subjective. This is so, since reading necessarily involves both the subjectivity of the reader and the objectivity of the text. In short, the most prudent characterization we can give to the entity of reading is that it is inextricably relational, social, and dialogical. Reading is therefore “interactive,” in a manner of speaking.
Philosophy then as an activity of interpretation whereby the reader negotiates with the various layers of opinions and propositions en route to the truth of the text implies a committed response to the challenge of unfolding the truth hidden in the text. I am aware of the controversy surrounding this claim, whether or not truth is something that is discovered or constructed. Since, according to common current selling point, the question of the text that is popularly at issue in current hermeneutics can be extended to mean even non-discursive realities, as well. Yes. The analogy of the “text” that the self is refers essentially to the experience of being woven, as it were, into the fabric of integral relations (e.g., social, cultural, political, etc.) that define one’s identity. In the words of the cultural theorist Edward Said: “Texts are protean things; they are tied to circumstances and to politics large and small; and these require attention and criticism.” Hence, objects of textual interpretation are not to be dissociated from their practical sources and influences. For which reason, the interpretive force of philosophy demands the measure of an ethical practice of reading that conscientiously takes into cognizance the social and political scope of genuine perusal. That is, as Jacques Derrida eloquently emphasizes: “Political, ethical and juridical responsibility requires a task of infinite close reading. I believe this to be the condition of political responsibility: politicians should read.”
So, what are we doing when we are reading? In answer, we candidly say: Insofar as reading is admittedly a fundamental dimension of the whole learning process that culminates in learning to exist, when reading we are on a journey towards deeply knowing ourselves. And, in order to embark on this journey towards self-discovery, we need to observe the following precepts: be attentive, be intelligent, be reasonable, and be responsible – to extend here Bernard Lonergan’s all-purpose convenient formulation of transcendental learning to the challenge of reading.
Let us love to read that we may learn to live, “for to live is Christ,” (Philippians 1: 21).
Therefore, for example, in reading Plato’s Dialogues or Kant’s Critiques, or Fr. Rannie Aquino’s column Pensées in the Manila Standard Today, we open ourselves to the possibilities of expanding the limits of our understanding in grasping the main points of the arguments of individual these authors. That in doing so, we necessarily risk that our perspectives be challenged in the face of other positions, let alone questioning as readers of the authors’ express claims. Any shift in perspective, however, need not be significantly dramatic at first, for the formation of consciousness is a gradual development. Yet, by every reading or meeting with the Other that the author is, we test our own thinking, become aware of our own biases, and perchance introduce to our consciousness new ways of looking at things. Edward de Bono’s influential lateral thinking theory is quite evident here. Briefly, by lateral thinking is meant “the ability to look at things in different ways.” This implies being able to read between the lines and to transform our initial understanding of views into something more adequately integrative, in the light of present questions. Reading then is a moment of mirroring ourselves, depending on the vantage point from which we see the world and from which we accordingly allow ourselves to be seen.
In the light of this preliminary account, I now turn to what I strongly feel is imperative in the act of reading. That is, reading is a philosophical praxis. To be more specific, the relationship between philosophy and reading is arguably an ethical one, because the search for truth that is mediated through a sustained deciphering of the text transforms the reader in the very engagement of reading. Reading is definitely a mode of being, for the vision that one gathers from one’s reading of the text effects a certain action in the reader that, at the same time, can always be related to the vision that it affects. Hence, phrased à la Cartesian in inspiration: “I read, I am.”
The questions that the text poses enlarge the mind of the reader. That is why it is important to recognize the fact that the act of reading essentially demands a philosophical attitude that is characterized by fundamental criticism and basic openness towards the truth-claims of the text. As Robert Ginsberg writes on the teaching of philosophical reading: “The skill of reading philosophy requires the exercise of philosophical thinking. . . . Philosophical reading means an active engagement of the alert intellect with reasoning set forth. It involves questioning the text, sifting it, weighing it, reformulating it, thinking it.” In short, the reader in a patient and resolute interpretive effort with the text is supposed to be aplomb with curiosity and wonder – at the very least – that are primordial initiations into a life of free thinking and democratic being. Accordingly, philosophy can be best argued as a struggle with texts constantly requiring rigorous, meticulous, and scrupulous attention and interpretation. It cannot settle for less. For at stake is growth in self-knowledge.
Reading or interpretation can mean two things. First, it means reconstructing the text in terms of identifying the intended meaning of the text. What is the author saying? Who was the original audience of the communication? When, where, and how was the text written? These are the central questions that normalize this model of reading. And, finally reading can likewise signify “deconstructing” the text in view of transforming its historical sense. What is the author of the text actually not saying by her explicit claim? What is the text telling me here and now? What can I learn from the message of the text that I can apply to my present conditions? These point to the potential applications of a transformed mode of reading. As regards the emphasis on the “postmodern” sense of reading, every interpretation must be seen as always an interpretation of the human condition that bears the experiences, circumstances and interests of the reader. Therefore, in reading one opens oneself to the possibility of being shaken up by the arguments and insights of the text. This means more than being informed by the facts and data that are presented in the text. As David Ulin graphically proposes: “Simply to think about earthquakes is to discover yourself in a territory defined by paradox, everything gets shaken up. . . . Again, the issue is interpretation; it’s one thing to observe phenomena, to track magnitudes and dates in an effort to see patterns, and another to say what they mean.”
Briefly now, as to the persistent question regarding the possibility of an “objective” reading against “subjective” reading, that are usually believed to characterize the two kinds of reading, what we can advance at the moment for consideration is the clarificatory motion that no reading is absolutely objective nor absolutely subjective. This is so, since reading necessarily involves both the subjectivity of the reader and the objectivity of the text. In short, the most prudent characterization we can give to the entity of reading is that it is inextricably relational, social, and dialogical. Reading is therefore “interactive,” in a manner of speaking.
Philosophy then as an activity of interpretation whereby the reader negotiates with the various layers of opinions and propositions en route to the truth of the text implies a committed response to the challenge of unfolding the truth hidden in the text. I am aware of the controversy surrounding this claim, whether or not truth is something that is discovered or constructed. Since, according to common current selling point, the question of the text that is popularly at issue in current hermeneutics can be extended to mean even non-discursive realities, as well. Yes. The analogy of the “text” that the self is refers essentially to the experience of being woven, as it were, into the fabric of integral relations (e.g., social, cultural, political, etc.) that define one’s identity. In the words of the cultural theorist Edward Said: “Texts are protean things; they are tied to circumstances and to politics large and small; and these require attention and criticism.” Hence, objects of textual interpretation are not to be dissociated from their practical sources and influences. For which reason, the interpretive force of philosophy demands the measure of an ethical practice of reading that conscientiously takes into cognizance the social and political scope of genuine perusal. That is, as Jacques Derrida eloquently emphasizes: “Political, ethical and juridical responsibility requires a task of infinite close reading. I believe this to be the condition of political responsibility: politicians should read.”
So, what are we doing when we are reading? In answer, we candidly say: Insofar as reading is admittedly a fundamental dimension of the whole learning process that culminates in learning to exist, when reading we are on a journey towards deeply knowing ourselves. And, in order to embark on this journey towards self-discovery, we need to observe the following precepts: be attentive, be intelligent, be reasonable, and be responsible – to extend here Bernard Lonergan’s all-purpose convenient formulation of transcendental learning to the challenge of reading.
Let us love to read that we may learn to live, “for to live is Christ,” (Philippians 1: 21).