(Over 60 diverse thinkers on how to get more from books)
Hare was an English theological writer.
Hare saw “desultory reading” as mischievous (Hare 1867, 151). By hasty, indiscriminate, discursive reading, where each book addresses a different subject, we weaken our mind because our thought becomes looser and discontinuous, and our attention, too relaxed (ibid.). This is so unfruitful that we forget what we have read after we have finished a book, or perhaps sooner (p. 458).
Hare charged Samuel Johnson1 with this desultory reading (1867, 476). Johnson is described at only looking into a book “to contemplate his own image in it; and when anything came across that image, he turned to another volume” (p. 477). This habit arose from his inability to enter other people’s minds. Hare saw Johnson as an erudite speaker, but lacking in the willpower to reason, which requires “meditation or imagination” cultivated by continuous exercise (ibid.).
A “well-regulated course of study” is needed to strengthen the mind (p. 151). Hare contrasts “desultory reading and a course of study”: the former being “a number of mirrors set in a straight line, so that every one of them reflects a different object”, while the latter is “the same mirrors so skilfully arranged as to perpetuate one set of objects in an endless series of reflexions” (p. 81). By reading multiple books on the same subject, one book leads us to review the statements and arguments of the other, exposing errors which we may otherwise have missed (ibid.). Further, the truths which the books mutually reinforce are better remembered not merely because they’re repeated, but also because we become more convinced of their verity (ibid.). This is not to say, though, that we should restrict ourselves to a single course of study—that would cramp and deform our mind (ibid.). Indeed, Hare suggests that “liberal exercise is necessary”, encouraging the study of poetry, particularly (ibid.). We also gain a “firmer footing” by reading original works rather than second- or third-hand sources (pp. 149–150). For Hare, then, we should learn about one subject at a time, comparing and contrasting original and relevant books, but we should also study a diverse range of subjects.
This mental labour, the effortful straining of our cognitive faculties to obtain knowledge braces our minds and makes our learning “more our own” (p. 150). The difficult, effortful work has benefit by itself. Hare relates (p. 458):
I have ever gained the most profit, and the most pleasure also, from the books which have made me think the most: and, when the difficulties have once been overcome, these are the books which have struck the deepest root, not only in my memory and understanding, but likewise in my affections.
He glosses: “Notions may be imported by books from abroad; ideas must be grown at home by thought” (p. 297). As growing these ideas is often effortful, we must have faith in the merit or value of these notions in order to study them—who would take the trouble of cracking a nut if they did not believe it contained a kernel (p. 192)? Faith inspires the “energy, patience, and perseverance” that worthwhile reading requires. For Hare, belief precedes understanding.