I wonder then what impact algorithms have on how we read - if we are awash with information but the information has been curated for us by algorithms (driving search engines and apps) which keep us in an echo chamber of our own skewed world view - we perhaps read unconsciously with intent without any idea how much the apparatus of our thinking has begun to tilt all in one direction. I think the corrective must be, as you say, to return always to the primary source material.
Agreed. Algorithms reinforce the intent with which we read – and ‘read’ the world. But it requires more than just returning to the primary source material. What I was trying to get at with that distinction is that reading with intent has created and maintained habits of mind that block us from reading primary sources, *even*when*we*have*them*in*front*of*us*. This is Orwell’s claim that the hardest thing to do is to see what is right in front of our nose – even if, or especially if, what is in front of our nose are words on a page. It requires effort, first to distinguish between when we are reading with intent or with consent, and then effort to try to do the latter over the former, and finally, effort to maintain that reading and to forge new habits of mind, even if they go against convention or dominant and accepted readings.
For example, I keep seeing people (and this has been repeated ad nauseum for 70 years) that the ‘opening line’ or ‘opening paragraph’ or ‘first line’ of Camus’ the Myth of Sisyphus begins with: ‘There is but one serious philosophical problem and that is suicide…’ And from there the predetermined notion – the intent – that he is developing a philosophy of the absurd – is thus reinforced and maintained, and handed on from reader to reader, to be repeated, unquestioningly and without forethought.
And yet, the actual opening line of the book reads: ‘The pages that follow deal with an absurd sensitivity that can be found widespread in the age – and not with an absurd philosophy which our time, properly speaking, has not known…’ Reading this with consent – and the paragraph that follows, where he says that while others take the absurd as a ‘conclusion’, he will take it as a ‘starting-point’ only – leads one to begin the book by considering that he is not attempting to develop a philosophy of the absurd at all and the absurd is only a starting point – so what is his end point? It is within that context, that we then read the next line: ‘There is but one serious philosophical problem and that is suicide…’ But already our frame of reference has shifted, and this becomes something unfamiliar.
I understand. And sorry - I see now that my conclusion ('just return to the primary source') was facile and misunderstands the point you were making about how habits of mind or biases influence us even with the primary source directly in front of us. (Did I accidentally read your essay with intent?!) Actually, I did understand your point - just responded sloppily. And I think became sidetracked with the idea that a foundational issue is the failure to read the primary source at all, with intent or otherwise! Or else, a failure to check back with it, after consulting other commentaries. I'm often stuck by the inaccurate ways essays or criticism will quote sources - either out of context, or with critical parts of a sentence missing - I suppose this goes to what you're saying about the Myth of Sisyphus - that to overlook that first paragraph or two is to misunderstand what follows. ('Certain personal experiences urge me to make this clear,' writes Camus at the end of that first bit. Oh dear.)
I haven't read the Myth of S but would like to. I was going to ask whether there was a translation you preferred (I found the first pages fairly challenging) but it looks like, from the bits you quote, that you have the same translation as me (perhaps it's the only English one...?) - so it must be my feeblemindedness holding me back rather than the translation. It's ok. I will just have to proceed very slowly and stumblingly (a reading technique I've perfected over many years). Actually, your brief discussion of the Myth of S is already helpful and enlightening.
Don't apologise. You are correct, there is a systemic failure to read primary sources. Or to read them entirely. I remember back in the day we used an anthology to read a chapter of Saussure's Course in General Linguistics. But then I read the entire book, and it was the opposite of what we were being taught.
I wonder then what impact algorithms have on how we read - if we are awash with information but the information has been curated for us by algorithms (driving search engines and apps) which keep us in an echo chamber of our own skewed world view - we perhaps read unconsciously with intent without any idea how much the apparatus of our thinking has begun to tilt all in one direction. I think the corrective must be, as you say, to return always to the primary source material.
Agreed. Algorithms reinforce the intent with which we read – and ‘read’ the world. But it requires more than just returning to the primary source material. What I was trying to get at with that distinction is that reading with intent has created and maintained habits of mind that block us from reading primary sources, *even*when*we*have*them*in*front*of*us*. This is Orwell’s claim that the hardest thing to do is to see what is right in front of our nose – even if, or especially if, what is in front of our nose are words on a page. It requires effort, first to distinguish between when we are reading with intent or with consent, and then effort to try to do the latter over the former, and finally, effort to maintain that reading and to forge new habits of mind, even if they go against convention or dominant and accepted readings.
For example, I keep seeing people (and this has been repeated ad nauseum for 70 years) that the ‘opening line’ or ‘opening paragraph’ or ‘first line’ of Camus’ the Myth of Sisyphus begins with: ‘There is but one serious philosophical problem and that is suicide…’ And from there the predetermined notion – the intent – that he is developing a philosophy of the absurd – is thus reinforced and maintained, and handed on from reader to reader, to be repeated, unquestioningly and without forethought.
And yet, the actual opening line of the book reads: ‘The pages that follow deal with an absurd sensitivity that can be found widespread in the age – and not with an absurd philosophy which our time, properly speaking, has not known…’ Reading this with consent – and the paragraph that follows, where he says that while others take the absurd as a ‘conclusion’, he will take it as a ‘starting-point’ only – leads one to begin the book by considering that he is not attempting to develop a philosophy of the absurd at all and the absurd is only a starting point – so what is his end point? It is within that context, that we then read the next line: ‘There is but one serious philosophical problem and that is suicide…’ But already our frame of reference has shifted, and this becomes something unfamiliar.
I understand. And sorry - I see now that my conclusion ('just return to the primary source') was facile and misunderstands the point you were making about how habits of mind or biases influence us even with the primary source directly in front of us. (Did I accidentally read your essay with intent?!) Actually, I did understand your point - just responded sloppily. And I think became sidetracked with the idea that a foundational issue is the failure to read the primary source at all, with intent or otherwise! Or else, a failure to check back with it, after consulting other commentaries. I'm often stuck by the inaccurate ways essays or criticism will quote sources - either out of context, or with critical parts of a sentence missing - I suppose this goes to what you're saying about the Myth of Sisyphus - that to overlook that first paragraph or two is to misunderstand what follows. ('Certain personal experiences urge me to make this clear,' writes Camus at the end of that first bit. Oh dear.)
I haven't read the Myth of S but would like to. I was going to ask whether there was a translation you preferred (I found the first pages fairly challenging) but it looks like, from the bits you quote, that you have the same translation as me (perhaps it's the only English one...?) - so it must be my feeblemindedness holding me back rather than the translation. It's ok. I will just have to proceed very slowly and stumblingly (a reading technique I've perfected over many years). Actually, your brief discussion of the Myth of S is already helpful and enlightening.
Don't apologise. You are correct, there is a systemic failure to read primary sources. Or to read them entirely. I remember back in the day we used an anthology to read a chapter of Saussure's Course in General Linguistics. But then I read the entire book, and it was the opposite of what we were being taught.