(Over 60 diverse thinkers on how to get more from books)
Locke was an English philosopher and physician.
Reading is a necessary, yet not principal, part of study; the other parts being reflection and conversation (King 1929, 107). The role of reading in study is for amassing the raw material for knowledge, much of which will be found to be useless (p. 108).
The proper end of study is practical, so studying for the sake of studying is mere recreation (p. 90). It follows, then, that to study history for only the reputation it brings, or the works of a classic author to become a master of them, is idle and empty (p. 94). It may be useful to study “languages and criticisms, history and antiquity, strange opinions and odd speculations”, but not as our primary aim, for they are liable to waste our time (p. 95). We should study to make use of what we learn.
A related mistake is to collect borrowed mass of arguments from books in order to recite them upon occasion (pp. 103–4). This may make us appear learned initially, but in dialogue—when tested—we will be found otherwise: it makes one a superficially impressive talker but not an able person (p. 103). Instead, we should endeavour to fully understand the topic in itself (ibid.). This requires the ideas to be fixed in the mind, rather than committed to our fallible memory (ibid.). When we grasp concepts in the abstract—as opposed to quotations and other people’s phrasing—arguments are naturally suggested to us (p. 104). In this way we are able to debate ably even under pressure.
Our duty is to impartially seek truth. This is commonly agreed, but less commonly achieved because of how “opinions come to be settled and fixed in men’s minds…seldom questioned or examined by those who entertain them” (p. 101). This causes a student to flatter themselves that they aim to understand the truth in their reading, when they actually just succeed in confirming their prior opinions and convictions (ibid.). We must examine and meditate upon such prejudices, these ancient, near sacred opinions, so that we can free our minds for truth (p. 102).
That our mind is prepossessed by “received and beloved opinions” is why Locke suggests that reading should be combined with conversations with “a serious and sober friend”, who may help us calmly examine them (ibid.). Such conversation “may perhaps let into the mind as much improvement of knowledge, though with less prejudice to the health, as settled solemn poring over books” (p. 97).
When we do read, we should read only the best authors in our chosen subject because reading bad books not only wastes our time but can cause us to regress in our study: our heads may be filled with such false notions that we are further from truth than a person who is perfectly ignorant (p. 107).
In studying a subject we should consider what constitutes proof in its domain and what type of evidence we will consider sufficient (p. 106). Otherwise, we may be led into scepticism despite having all the proof we can rationally demand. We also need to have an appropriate grasp of the trustworthiness of our judgement: neither believing that we can understand everything, nor believing ourselves unable to comprehend anything (pp. 104–5). We are “finite creatures, furnished with powers and faculties very well fitted to some purposes, but very disproportionate to the vast and unlimited extent of things” (p. 105).
Likewise, we should study with the duration and intensity proportionate to our temper and strength, considering our general dispositions and health, as well as the circumstances in which we work (p. 97). Risking one’s health for this labour, aiming to become more useful through intense, excessive study, risks depriving us of “the abilities and opportunities of doing that good we might have done with a meaner talent” (pp. 96–7). Our studies must also accord with our mental disposition, so rather than trying to force our mind to comply with our study plans, we are generally better off following its bent and tendency—working with our nature (p. 98). This is not only a more efficient long-term strategy but also improves the chance of the material making a clearer, deeper impression on one’s mind (pp. 98–9).
Locke employed common-place books: carefully indexed collections of excerpts quotations from his reading, which he then re-assembled in his writing. He also suggested drawing out and keeping before us a scheme of the subjects we study, an intellectual map which serves “like a regular chest of drawers, to lodge these things orderly, and in the proper places, which came to hand confusedly, and without any method at all” (p. 107). Ideally this ontology should closely resemble the nature and order of our topic. This aids memory and clarity of thought, as Locke explains (pp. 106–7):
though I have changed often the subject I have been studying, read books by patches and accidentally, as they have come in my way, and observed no method nor order in my studies, yet making now and then some little reflection upon the order of things as they are, or at least I have fancied them to have in themselves, I have avoided confusion in my thoughts