This was an excellent article, Paul! It is subject that many consider too silly to elaborate. A guided demonstration of a particular hard text was a good call. I hope you can press this topic further, especially for those of us interested in learning philosophy.
I couldn't agree more Vivek. There is a HUGE problem where people don't state the obvious because it seems silly. But unfortunately many people get stuck on simple misunderstandings or silly problems. I want to eliminate that.
Definitely interested in reading more of this. I already enjoy reading or I probably wouldn't have started this article, but from what you have written I think this can increase my enjoyment and depth.
I’d love to learn more about your approach. I believe it could help me as I struggle to read a couple of very hard books I truly want to understand in my own way rather than having them explained to me.
Incredible article Paul, I have been doing something similar to this for two to three-years now, I write down words I don’t understand (every word) and it helps to ease the way through at a gradual pace. It also helps because I am a slow reader.
I like this approach. I often read books that I man enthused by intially, but find them a bit difficult and then "skim read " them without really understanding what I man reading. I will use the approach you have outlined in Level One, and see if it helps. I would like to see the next step please
Hi Dr. Musso, I've been following your work for some time now and thought that this was a nice article. I liked the Heidegger example - a guided demonstration is really helpful when learning.
The structure you have laid out, progressing from words up through larger sections of text, makes sense to me, so I think difficult sentences is the next logical topic. I really appreciate your including an example, so I can see how your analytical structure works in practice.
I would like to hear more about your reading system. I typically just read and reread and get what I can out of a text and move on. I get impatient. There's so many ideas to explore and so little time! I need to stop thinking that way.
In the past few months I've used LLMs to help me make sense of text I don't understand, but I realize I do give up the skill of learning to read hard texts that will pay off later.
Thanks for letting me know Kent. I do think patience is required to access those deeper layers of meaning and understanding -- but not as much as people think. A lot can change in 6-12 months!
The music analogy earns its keep here, reading really does break down on tempo more than on the notes themselves. Most people who fail at hard books aren't misunderstanding individual words; they're trying to read at the speed they read fiction, and the cognitive load doesn't compress.
One extension worth flagging for the sentence/paragraph levels you're planning to cover: a lot of philosophical writing has a *recursive* structure that doesn't show up at the word level. The author sets up a position they don't believe, develops it for two pages, then dismantles it. Readers who haven't internalized that structure read the dismantling as the author's actual view. That's a different kind of reading failure than the word-level kind — and it's the one that breaks people on Hegel, Heidegger,Wittgenstein. Looking forward to seeing how the system handles it
"Understanding words alone is not sufficient for understanding an.." - hanging sentence here in the "Level 1: Words" section. Looking forward to the rest of it.
Hi. I really like the structure of this method. Can anyone help me out. I’m new to philosophy. In my mind, some statements are too vague. Example: Nietzche: Idleness is the beginning of all psychology. What? Is psychology a vice?
I understand all the words. I’m not sure what he’s getting at. Yes, psychology can be a vice. Idleness is no good. What is the main point? TIA to anyone who has a thought on this.
This was an excellent article, Paul! It is subject that many consider too silly to elaborate. A guided demonstration of a particular hard text was a good call. I hope you can press this topic further, especially for those of us interested in learning philosophy.
I couldn't agree more Vivek. There is a HUGE problem where people don't state the obvious because it seems silly. But unfortunately many people get stuck on simple misunderstandings or silly problems. I want to eliminate that.
Definitely interested in reading more of this. I already enjoy reading or I probably wouldn't have started this article, but from what you have written I think this can increase my enjoyment and depth.
Wonderful John, thanks for letting me know.
I’d love to learn more about your approach. I believe it could help me as I struggle to read a couple of very hard books I truly want to understand in my own way rather than having them explained to me.
Wonderful Dirk, thanks for letting me know. Just curious, what are you reading?
Incredible article Paul, I have been doing something similar to this for two to three-years now, I write down words I don’t understand (every word) and it helps to ease the way through at a gradual pace. It also helps because I am a slow reader.
I have a definitions folder on my phone for words I’ve added over the years.
I do this as well. It really adds up over time! I have been doing it for 15 years and it has made me feel way more confident when I read.
Thank you for this really helpful
I will be waiting for the next step
Awesome, next up is level two!
I like this approach. I often read books that I man enthused by intially, but find them a bit difficult and then "skim read " them without really understanding what I man reading. I will use the approach you have outlined in Level One, and see if it helps. I would like to see the next step please
Interesting, Jane. I think "man" here is a typo for "am". I had to read this carefully! Let me know if this helps when you go apply it.
Hi Dr. Musso, I've been following your work for some time now and thought that this was a nice article. I liked the Heidegger example - a guided demonstration is really helpful when learning.
Thanks so much Cheng. It really helps me to know what helps YOU! I plan to do more video demonstrations in the future once I am less busy.
Please share more.
Will do! Is there anything in particular that would be helpful? The next article would most likely be about how to read difficult sentences.
The structure you have laid out, progressing from words up through larger sections of text, makes sense to me, so I think difficult sentences is the next logical topic. I really appreciate your including an example, so I can see how your analytical structure works in practice.
Great! Much more to come…
I like the way you broke things down. I just didn't realize it needed to be broken down. I think I learned that in school.
Thanks Lauren. If I was taught this in school, I certainly don't remember!
I'm older!
The man did the impossible, made learning vocab words interesting.
Bravo good sir.
Haha thanks Brian. I used to learn vocab from a vocab book and that was a complete waste of time. Context is king.
I would like to hear more about your reading system. I typically just read and reread and get what I can out of a text and move on. I get impatient. There's so many ideas to explore and so little time! I need to stop thinking that way.
In the past few months I've used LLMs to help me make sense of text I don't understand, but I realize I do give up the skill of learning to read hard texts that will pay off later.
Thanks for letting me know Kent. I do think patience is required to access those deeper layers of meaning and understanding -- but not as much as people think. A lot can change in 6-12 months!
The music analogy earns its keep here, reading really does break down on tempo more than on the notes themselves. Most people who fail at hard books aren't misunderstanding individual words; they're trying to read at the speed they read fiction, and the cognitive load doesn't compress.
One extension worth flagging for the sentence/paragraph levels you're planning to cover: a lot of philosophical writing has a *recursive* structure that doesn't show up at the word level. The author sets up a position they don't believe, develops it for two pages, then dismantles it. Readers who haven't internalized that structure read the dismantling as the author's actual view. That's a different kind of reading failure than the word-level kind — and it's the one that breaks people on Hegel, Heidegger,Wittgenstein. Looking forward to seeing how the system handles it
Amazing
"Understanding words alone is not sufficient for understanding an.." - hanging sentence here in the "Level 1: Words" section. Looking forward to the rest of it.
Hi. I really like the structure of this method. Can anyone help me out. I’m new to philosophy. In my mind, some statements are too vague. Example: Nietzche: Idleness is the beginning of all psychology. What? Is psychology a vice?
I understand all the words. I’m not sure what he’s getting at. Yes, psychology can be a vice. Idleness is no good. What is the main point? TIA to anyone who has a thought on this.
Basically, an entire essay concluding that if you don’t understand a word in a text, you should simply look up its definition… what a waste of time