Mark’s Reviews > How to Read a Book: the classic guide to intelligent reading > Status Update

Read the books that grow with your mind. In other words, the books that you can return to time and time again because as you grow smarter and more knowledgeable, you understand more of the book and have more to gain from it

The social sciences are difficult to read because authors usually don’t define their terms and they change throughout the text. They also use different methodologies in their work. The social sciences need to be read syntopically. To read syntopically, you must create a bibliography of books with a common theme. Then you must read all of the books inspectionally to determine which books deserve analytical reading.

Philosophy tries to answer almost child-like fundamental questions about the universe. These are first order questions. Second order questions are questions that these first order questions raise. Second order questions are the focus of most modern philosophy

Classical works of science should be read as a study of the history of science and its methods

History is fiction in the sense that the author needs to invent, to some extent, the pattern that historical events share or the motivations behind the actions of the characters, since neither of these things exist in the historical record

Nonfiction comments on the experiences in our lives. Fiction is itself the experience and we gain insight from analyzing this experience. The text itself does not analyze the experience

With practical books, we are chiefly concerned with the means and the ends

I read the chapter about references. The central argument is that you should only use references when you have attempted to understand the book by yourself but are still perplexed. I found his observation that encyclopedias are essentially dictionaries, but instead of words they list facts. I also found his comment that you should read the scholarly introduction of a book LAST to be disappointing but sensical

If the author’s analysis is incomplete but their reasoning and evidence is otherwise sound, you cannot disagree with the author but only withhold your judgment, according to Adler. Not sure I agree with this since having an incomplete analysis speaks poorly of the author and their book. Adler also argues that to be well read means to read a book well, not read many books

Readers disagree with authors on 4 different grounds: they are uninformed, misinformed, illogical, or they didn’t finish their reasoning. I have read the section about the first 3 reasons, next is the fourth. Adler claims these 4 reasons encompass all criticisms of a book, which I’m not sure about