Home > Books, Thoughts > Thought of the Day

Thought of the Day

October 6th, 2006

It has been several months since I’ve read C.S. Lewis, but his advice regarding the reading of old books is timely. Rather than state what has already been presented succintly by Lewis himself I’ll just provide the quote.

Now this seems to me topsy-turvy. Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at eleven o’clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why—the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity (”mere Christianity” as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones.

–C.S. Lewis

Thanks to Between Two Worlds for jogging my memory. While Lewis presents this in a “Christian” context, I think the principle is easily applicable to all forms of knowledge, theories and ideas found in contemporary books. It is for this reason and a few others that I’ve begun the incredible journey of western thought starting from the pre-socratics. Understanding this continuum of tension and transformation is, in my view, a necessary component to fully understanding and responding to new and interesting ideas of our own day. The more familiar we are with the ideas of ages gone by the more we realize that many new ideas are not as new as they purport to be.

Books, Thoughts

  1. October 7th, 2006 at 08:07 | #1

    Of course that assumes that contemporary authors haven’t also just joined the conversation. Today Lewis might question the value of reading any contemporary authors!

  2. October 7th, 2006 at 17:36 | #2

    Have you read Mortimer Adler’s How To Read A Book? It has the same principle and lays out maxims for reading. Sylvia’s right about the contemporary authors, it’s hard to know who knows what they are talking about and who is just a talking head trying to be heard.

    Do you know of a source that would indicate the top scholars in different fields (philosophy, theology, archaeology)? It seems wherever I look it’s not the same and I’m not sure how to go about this. My biggest fear is wasting my time reading something that will only hinder my explorations.

    Great thought of the day entry
    Jessica

  3. October 8th, 2006 at 14:40 | #3

    Yes, I have read Adler’s book. I also highly recommend his “Ten Philosophical Mistakes” as a good, somewhat accessible, introduction to some of the most common, yet fundamental errors in reasoning.

    “Top scholars” is an interesting label. Unfortunately, I think that label is more akin to asking what my favorite ice cream is. Scholars are no different from you or I in that they have ideological, philosophical and experiences that shape the direction and results of their endeavors. I can also tell you that scholars differ from us because of their requirement to read all sorts of sources from those they agree to those with which they strongly disagree. They have to have a understanding of what ideas are circulating within the community. Some scholars have kindly produced works that attempt to summarize this kind of activity.

    The answer your question depends on a lot of factors about whether you consider the views you hold to be unalterable and not subject to change or revision. If this is the case you are best served (almost an oxymoron) by reading from scholars that share your views even if they are less than certain. The other option is to cast a wider net. Which sources do you choose? Through my experiences with reading I’ve managed to compile a list of “trustworthy” scholars. I measure this not by their ability or inclination to “buck the system”, but by their methods, reasoning and conclusions. Believe it or not there are a lot out there that, in writing anyways, presume far too much. When I’ve found these core authors I use their references (depending on how they were used in the text) as a method of extending some transitive trust . Another method that I use that could only happen via the blogospher is that there are many scholars that produce lists of all sorts. They might discuss historical Jesus studies and produce top-ten lists. I find the ones both liberal and conservative scholars agree on and start from there. This is turning into a blog post all its on so I’ll let leave it at that for now.

  4. October 8th, 2006 at 19:45 | #4

    Thanks for the laugh! I’m nowhere near ready to translate Cicero! Wheelock’s is sitting on my shelf, we haven’t started Prima Latina in homeschool yet and I would be of no help other than to take a look at the finished product. I am very honored you asked but I’m not the person you want, especially by next year. Not unless you’d tutor me in Latin. LOL

    Blessings
    Jessica

  5. October 8th, 2006 at 22:34 | #5

    We’ll talk more, but even an english translation with judicious use of supplements and some nominal Latin would get the job done.

  1. No trackbacks yet.