IrishOboe

‘Way back in September I gave an incomplete review of Mortimer Adler’s “How to Read a Book” and said that last point would have to wait.  It’s a topic rather dear to my heart, so I find it hard to find the right words to express it.  I've worked on this part on and off for a while and I’m not in a position right now to do it real justice, so I’ll just have to settle on some quotes and comments.  Sorry to disappoint those who wanted more, but if I don’t get something in before the baby comes it won’t happen at all!

The following quotes are from chapter 10: Criticizing a Book Fairly

“We will consider [the rules of this stage of reading] as a code of etiquette to make the reader not only polite, but also effective, in talking back.  (Although it is not generally recognized, etiquette always serves these two purposes, not just the former.)” p142

“Do not begin to talk back until you have listened carefully and are sure you understand. . . Rule 9. You must be able to say, with reasonable certainty, “I understand,” before you can say any one of the following things: “I agree,” or “I disagree,” or “I suspend judgment.”  These three remarks exhaust all the critical positions you can take.  We hope you have not made the error of supposing that to criticize is always to disagree.  That is a popular misconception.  To agree is just as much an exercise of critical judgment on your part as to disagree.  You can be just as wrong in agreeing as in disagreeing.  To agree without understanding is inane.  To disagree without understanding is impudent.” p.143  (I would add that when reading a book you must rely on your own judgment whether you’ve understood or not, but in conversation, you can always – and should always – check with the person speaking to see if you’ve understood correctly.  How many marital arguments are based on a simple variation of word use!)

“You yourself may remember an occasion where someone said to a speaker, in one breath or at most two, ‘I don’t know what you mean, but I think you’re wrong.’  There is actually no point in answering critics of this sort.  The only polite thing to do is to ask them to state your position for you, the position they claim to be challenging.  If they cannot do it satisfactorily, if they cannot repeat what you have said in their own words, you know that they do not understand, and you are entirely justified in ignoring their criticisms.  They are irrelevant, as all criticism must be that is not based on understanding.  When you find the rare person who shows that he understands what you are saying as well as you do, then you can delight in his agreement or be seriously disturbed by his dissent.” P. 143-4 (Oh, it sounds so simple!  If only I could ignore so easily the comments of others made in ignorance.  I do, however, treasure the conversations I have with those who make the effort to understand and respond – whether the criticism is favorable to me or not!)

“To say ‘I don’t understand’ is, of course, also a critical judgement, but only after you have tried your hardest does it reflect on the book rather than yourself.” p 144

“Rule 10: When you disagree, do so reasonably, and not disputatiously or contentiously.” p 145

“Most people think that winning the argument is what matters, not learning the truth. . . But if he realizes that the only profit in conversation, with living or dead teachers, is what one can learn from them, if he realizes that you win only by gaining knowledge, not by knocking the other fellow down, he may see the futility of mere contentiousness.  We are not saying that a reader should not ultimately disagree or try to show where the author is wrong.  We are saying only that he should be as prepared to agree as to disagree.  Whichever he does should be motivated by one consideration alone – the facts, the truth about the case.  More than honesty is required here.  It goes without saying that a reader should admit a point when he sees it.  But he also should not feel whipped by having to agree with an author, instead of dissenting.  If he feels that way, he is inveterately disputatious.  In the light of this second maxim, his problem is seen to be emotional rather than intellectual.”p 147

“[T]he person who, at any stage of a conversation, disagrees, should at least hope to reach agreement in the end.  He should be as much prepared to have his own mind changed as seek to change the mind of another.  He should always keep before him the possibility that he misunderstands or that he is ignorant on some point.  No one who looks upon disagreement as an occasion for teaching another should forget that it is also an occasion for being taught.

The trouble is that many people regard disagreement as unrelated to either teaching or being taught.  They think that everything is just a matter of opinion.  I have mine, and you have yours; and our right to our opinions is as inviolable as our right to private property. . . Conversation is hardly better than a ping-pong game of opposed opinions, a game in where no one keeps score, no one wins, and everyone is satisfied because he does not lose – that is, he ends up holding the same opinions he started with. . . Rule 11, therefore, can be stated as follows: Respect the difference between knowledge and mere personal opinion, by giving reasons for any critical judgment you make.” p 148-9

“[In summary,] the first [maxim] requires the reader to complete the task of understanding before rushing in.  The second adjures him not to be disputatious or contentious.  The third asks him to view disagreement about matters of knowledge as being generally remediable.  This rule goes further: It also commands him to give reasons for his disagreements so that issues are not merely stated but also defined.  In that lies all hope for resolution.” p 151

A note on this section: it is obvious that Adler is talking about intellectual exchange and the concepts involved in inter-personal relationships are hardly touched.  I believe they are deeply connected, but I haven’t the time to go into it.  I’ve read a few books that deal with the topic (and most deal at least in part with various concepts Adler brings out above), but by far, the Bible is the most thorough and most challenging . . .

And this all this talk about how what Adler writes speaks to a deep desire of mine in conversation, he has a sobering word for me.  I’m afraid I must quote a long passage to get to it, but it is also a very good summary passage.  My comments are in [brackets].

Prejudice and Judgment (p.154-155)

“Now let us consider the situation in which, having said you understand, you proceed to disagree.  If you have tried to abide by the maxims stated in the prvious chapter, you disagree because you think the author can be shown to be wrong on some point.  You are not simply voicing your prejudice or expressing your emotions.  Because this is true, then, from an ideal point of view, there are three conditions that must be satisfied if controversy is to be well conducted.

"The first is this.  Since men are animals as well as rational, it is necessary to acknowledge the emotions you bring to a dispute, or those that arise in the course of it.  Otherwise you are likely to be giving vent to feelings, not stating reasons.  You may even think you have reasons, when all you have are strong feelings.

"Second, you must make your own assumptions explicit.  You must know what your prejudices – that is, your prejudgments – are.  Otherwise you are not likely to admit that your opponent may be equally entitled to different assumptions.  Good controversy should not be a quarrel about assumptions.  [Another source of many a marital argument: failing to realize or express the different assumptions of each party!] If an author, for example, explicitly asks you to take something for granted, the fact that the opposite can also be taken for granted should not prevent you from honoring his request.  If your prejudices lie on the opposite side, and if you do not acknowledge them to be prejudices, you cannot give the author’s case a fair hearing.  [I have always been shocked how an “if … then” statement is interpreted to mean I believe the “if” part, when in fact, often I don’t believe it precisely because the logical consequence is not true.  But if the “if” statement is offensive enough, the listener cannot get past it at all and doesn’t hear the “if” or the rest and misses the point entirely.  I still don’t know how to deal with this, other than to tone my analogies down as much as possible.]

"Third and finally, an attempt at impartiality is a good antidote for the blindness that is almost inevitable in partisanship.  Controversy without partisanship is, of course, impossible.  But to be sure that there is more light in it, and less heat, each of the disputants should at least try to take the other fellow’s point of view.  If you have not been able to read a book sympathetically, your disagreement with it is probably more contentions than civil.  [ARGH!  This is when I start to create heat and not light.  I do not enter conversation expecting the other to change his mind to mine entirely and immediately.  In fact, I generally think I have no chance and all I’m trying to do is ask that they see my point of view.  Often it seems people arguing are just begging for the other to see their point of view – not agree with it, but see it as valid.  If I feel someone has understood my point of view they can say some very hard and critical things and I appreciate it, but if they clearly have misunderstood and are arguing against something I have not said it drives me CRAZY!  At this point in the book I’m feeling quite smug with myself, but that was soon to be destroyed . . .]

"These three conditions are, ideally, the sine qua non of intelligent and profitable conversation. . . But the ideal here, as elsewhere, can only be approximated.  The ideal should never be expected from human beings [emphasis mine].”

[Ouch.  Some may find it hard to believe, but I generally think more highly of others than myself.  I have always been painfully aware of my weaknesses, but for some reason think others are immune to such weakness.  They appear so strong!  I assume they are always logical and fair, don’t get caught up in emotion and say things they don’t mean, always express themselves accurately, always have logical and thoroughly thought out reasons for believing what they believe, are perfectly able to suspend judgment and desire to understand to my point of view before they react, etc. etc.  This is a very foolish way to operate in conversation with real humans.  So what do we do?  Adler makes a proposal, but I’m not sure it’s so helpful in real life.]  The section continues:

“We ourselves, we hasten to admit, are sufficiently conscious of our own defects.  We have violated our own rules about good intellectual manners in controversy.  We have caught ourselves attacking a book rather than criticizing it, knocking straw men over, denouncing where we could not support denials, proclaiming our prejudices as if ours were any better than the author’s.

"We continue to believe, however, that conversation and critical reading can be well disciplined.  We are therefore going to substitute for those three ideal conditions, a set of prescriptions that may be easier to follow.  They indicate the four ways in which a book can be adversely criticized.  Our hope is that if a reader confines himself to making these points, he will be less likely to indulge in expressions of emotion or prejudice.

"The four points can be briefly summarized by conceiving the reader as a conversation with the author, as talking back.  After he has said, “I understand but I disagree,” he can make the following remakrs to the author: (1) “You are uninformed”; (2) “You are misinformed”; (3) “You are illogical – your reasoning is not cogent.”; (4) “Your analysis is incomplete.”"

[the rest is Janet again]

Ha!  As a lover of logic, how many times have I easily pointed out the flaw in someone’s logical argument only to be blasted with resentment and realize too late I have deeply offended my conversation partner.  But nobody likes to have someone triumphantly point out that they are wrong.  The question for me is, how do you express one of those four points without getting your partner in a tizzy?  We cannot control how others react, but we can be more or less provocative with the way we say things.  If that is an issue in marriage and in family, how much more difficult it is when we’re doing with another family culture or another culture entirely?  The way in which you say something is of extreme importance to how it will be received, no matter how pure your intent is.  How do you make your intent match how another person receives something?

One thing is for sure, we must have a great amount of grace for everyone because we will all make mistakes in this regard and give an impression that we had no intention of giving because we are ignorant of the other persons conversational culture.  We must be willing and eager to first assume we have misunderstood and seek for clarification gently before we judge or react negatively.  That’s hard to do when you’ve been deeply hurt, but I appreciate those people who have given me grace and the benefit of the doubt to check with me.  Those conversations aren’t usually easy (though sometimes they are), but they are very worth while when both parties can come together with grace and humility.

It still turned out to be long.  I treasure your thoughts!