Greetings,
Reading is a skill, we teach it to children, and it is vital that we do so. For the most part, we restrict what our children read, because certain content is not for their eyes, because they simply would not understand the content, or because their young minds simply could not take it. Adults do not have such restrictions on their reading. Well, actually there is some restrictions on what they are allowed to read, some books are "banned", other documents are "restricted" due to their classified or sensitive nature.
There are also a host of other texts people will read, and they will cause them to have an emotional response. This is often because of the nature of the text as compared to the cultural upbringing of the individual, or the historical significance of the author, or what the text may have led to or been used for. It is these text which I would like to address. To truly read something as an intellectual, and appreciate it for its intellectual value, the emotional response needs to be removed. This is the only way that we may gain a greater understanding of our world, both the positive and the negative, for only this way will we be able to combat the negative. If we do not understand it how can we hope to do anything about it?
I have read Industrial Society and Its Future, the manifesto of Theodore ("Ted") Kaczynski known as the "Unabomber"; he conducted a nationwide bombing campaign across the United States which lasted for 17 years and killed 3 people and injured 23 others. Why would I want to read the manifesto of some "madman"? It contains some interesting information, and an interesting view of society. Does this potentially make me one of his disciples? Is it going to inspire me to go on a bombing campaign in order to change the world? I think not. I do not believe this is the way to change the world, nor do I now believe that his methods were correct. I read it to understand his perspective, to understand him. To understand why he thought it was necessary to do what he did. A person's writing is a small window into their mind... including what you are reading now.
So the question is can you read something with emotional content, without the emotion clouding your impression of the document? If you can, this is an intellectual or academic reading of the document. This is a logical, as in read with logic rather than emotion controlling you, reading of the document. The intellectual discussion of a document should contain no emotional content, only discussion of what's present in the document, nothing of what emotion may have placed there.
Emotion clouds our senses, derails the intellect, gets in its way, sees things in the intent of the writer which are not necessarily present or meant in the words. It will put meaning to words which are on the page, often to the most extreme, positive or negative, depending on the document being read. Keeping emotion at bay may be particularly difficult when the document is particularly personal. We feel this when a letter is written to us, because it is personal, but it is also felt when it may attack one of our belief systems, or raise the spectre of one of the ghosts of the past, some dark secret of history; maybe not even personal history, it may be cultural history.
Let's take the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, there are those who would tell you that reading his works is tantamount to reading the work of the Nazis, due to the concepts which they took from his work and then turned and twisted to suit to their purposes. Something anyone who has actually read Nietzsche's work can tell you. Further anyone who has delved into his life can tell you it was his sister not Nietzsche himself who invited the Nazis in and gave them access to his papers. Nietzsche was not in any state to be receiving guests by that stage, his health would not allow it, as anyone who read his biography could tell you.
Nietzsche's work bears the mere taint of Nazism and there are people who will not read it because of this, because it sets them afire, sets their emotions in a frenzy. How can they call themselves led by their intellects if this is the case? There are works which bear the marks of history which have much greater reason to cause such response, but in the individual who is reading academically, reading letting their intellect guide them rather than their emotion it should not. How about Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler? If this is not the heart of what real Nazis feel what else could be? If a person was to read this it could tell us what the Nazis believed, what philosophies brought them to power, what ideals that similar movements even follow today, because they are still reading it. Aside from that, if a person wants to understand Adolf Hitler it is the best source, because he wrote it. For the historian, it is a primary source, just like a birth certificate, or a school newsletter, nothing more. This is the way that such documents should be approached, with the emotional content removed.
Another document which sparks controversy was published more than 500 years ago, yet its mention, in certain parts of the community sparks debate and emotional response. The book I speak of is the Malleus Maleficarum by Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger, published in Latin, and is also known as the "Hammer of Witches". This book has been the subject of much debate since it was published. In some circles it is considered an "evil" book because it supposedly drove the witch trials in the 16th- and 17th-centuries, and it certainly has some part to play here. Ironically,
"The top theologians of the Inquisition at the Faculty of Cologne condemned the book as recommending unethical and illegal procedures, as well as being inconsistent with Catholic doctrines of demonology." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum)
In any case, it is another text, which just at its mention will strike people an emotional response. The book itself is a view into the perspectives of the subject, at least from one point of view, from the period. For the historian, especially one investigating such practices, of either side, from that period, it is a primary source. It needs to be read academically, intellectually, without any emotion attached to the reading to gain the greatest benefit. Without such reading, the information will be interpreted, bent by a person's emotional response to the content, and a warped sense of the contents will be gained.
The intellect is used to read a thing. The individual then allows their mind to interpret what they have read. If, the emotion is allowed to override the intellect in the interpretation process, then the interpretation becomes warped, or may even be blocked. The emotion will allow an interpretation based on only what it feels, the intellect requires evidence to reinforce the interpretation, some proof of the interpretation. For the academic, and the academic reading, the intellect must win out. This is how we gain information, this is how we gain facts. Not truth, truth is a matter for philosophy, but facts.
The emotional content should be acknowledged. You should accept how the document makes you feel, but you need to get past this to read the document properly. You should even record how the document makes you feel when reading it, as this is important information, put it as a side-note. But, the emotional content should not dominate the discussion of the document, at least for an academic discussion of the document. How the document makes the person feel, or how the document may make others feel is irrelevant to the document's academic relevance or use. There would not be many documents left if all the documents with "emotional content" were destroyed, indeed it is vital that these documents are preserved so we remember where we went wrong, so we can improve ourselves.
Arguments. It is said that there are three sides to an argument; one side, the other side, and the truth. A person who wants to get anywhere near the elusive "truth". Needs to read documents from both sides of a discussion or argument, only then will you begin to understand the entire picture. Most of the time we know "our" side very well, but the other side is very hazy. They may not even be an enemy per se, we just don't know "them" particularly well, so we don't communicate well. When the miscommunication occurs because we don't know "them" and they don't know "us" this is when they become "the enemy". Could they have stopped becoming "the enemy" by knowing them better? Likely.
Miyamoto Musashi says, “It is difficult to know yourself if you do not know others.” By reading what is written by the other side of an argument, or by an opposing intellectual discussion, or an opposing political thought, we not only begin to know them but also know our own strengths and weaknesses. Sun Tzu, the ancient military strategist talks about knowing enemy and knowing yourself. To do this in an intellectual sense requires us to read what they have read and understand the documents which form their foundation. This cannot be done if a person is choked with emotion every time the read something by the person, or about their political view, or concerning their way of life.
Remove the emotion from your reading and read intellectually, let your logic what its designed to do, read from an academic perspective, and you will discover all sorts of different things about the world.
Cheers,
Henry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.
No comments:
Post a Comment