reading and books.

According to Athur Schopenhauer the phenomena of reading is a process of repeating and reproducing the thoughts of an author; a passive process which barely demands any effort from the reader, except moving the eyes and opening the arena of the mind to the unfolding of sentences’ immanent meanings . In this perspective, the process of reading, and especially reading to an extent, is associated with the danger of stupefying and paralyzing the reader, gradually rendering her unable to think original thoughts on, and of her own. Furthermore Schopenhauer understands the workings of the memory in the same way as Sherlock Holmes[1]: The memory is like a limited storage room: for every unnecessary item one piles in there, the harder do the important things become to find (remember) when needed, and the less room remains for new knowledge. In the light of this understanding of reading, Schopenhauer’s ideal seems clear and reasonable: carefully select what you read[2], read only small amounts of literature, read rarely, spend long hours digesting and reflecting upon what is read, and, first and foremost, think for you self: create, write.

To some extent, I agree with this ideal of studying, but on the basis of alternative understanding of the phenomena of reading. In opposition to Schopenhauer I understand reading as an active and (re)interpreting / hermeneutic process, where the written thoughts of the author might acquire new meanings on the backdrop of a different socio-historical context. In this light, the creation, the independent thoughts, are reflections based on (enabled and limited by) historical, social, cultural, technical and political inheritance, relating to contemporary problems. In contrast to this perspective Schopenhauer presents a view of creation as the result of the solitary working of a genius or an artist: new thoughts conjured into existence from nothing or from the core of the writer’s soul. These thoughts have no preceding connection to anything else, and the language with which they at mediate are seen upon as a transparent and neutral. I find this perspective on innovation, somehow troublesome, since magnificent ideas, even if created in complete isolation, are to be judged upon their relevance to other human beings. When all this is said, I think that a discussion of intellectual limitation associated with too much reading is still worthy of attention. Gilles Deleuze, for instance, claims that his notion of a corpus without organs should be fairly easy to grasp intuitively, if you have not studied at all, but almost impossible otherwise[3]. He might be right; because I, who regard myself as moderately familiar with philosophy, have never had a clue to what it means (apparently, a book is an example of a corpus without organs[4]). Nevertheless, I think, if you are to break with a tradition, you are better off actually knowing it, and therefore capable of reflecting upon why you are abandoning it.

---

[1] Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1992:21): A Study in Scarlet in The Complete Sherlock Holmes. New York, Barnes & Noble Books.
[2] Schopenhauer would presumable recommend the authorships of Kant and himself, and advice against reading Hegel.
[3] Gilles Deleuze (2006:16): Forhandlinger 1972-1990. Frederiksberg, Det lille Forlag. Danish translation of Deleuze (1990): Pourparlers.1972-1990. Paris, Les Editions de Minuit.
[4] Gilles Deleuze & Félix Guttari (2005:6): Tusind plateauer – Kapitalisme og skizofreni. København, Det Kongelige danske kunstakademis billedkunstskolers forlag. Danish translation of Deluze & Guttari (1980): Mille Plateaux – Capitalisme et Schizophrénie 2. Paris, Les Editions de Minuit.