/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6068450]

My friend has told me he wants to improve his skills in analysis and criticism in (I assume) the broadest sense. I offered to recommend him some literature. I'm considering lending him the Plato's Republic as a start to basic Socratic method, but I think it would bore him a little.

I'd also considered some of Camus' short books, the Fall specifically as a means to open him up to philosophy gently.

What would /lit/ recommend? My friend's not a big reader so any light suggestions, even short essays would be appreciated.

[Anonymous No.6068465]

>improve his skills in analysis and criticism
Any textbook on informal reasoning will do the trick. Perhaps even better than the Socratic method.

[Anonymous No.6068470]

>>6068465
But not much fun to read, and will be quickly discarded by someone who's "not a big reader" -

Get him Orwell's Selected Essays, well-written, greatly argued, short.

[Anonymous No.6068482]

>>6068450
A book I can't recommend enough is Peter Singer's "practical ethics". Its clear, strait forward, and an excellent example of informal reasoning used brilliantly. Plus, its on controversial enough topics to be really consistently interesting.

Perhaps the best thing to teach your mate is to just see really good examples of analysis in practice?

[Anonymous No.6068507]

>>6068470
It's not about fun, it's about satisfying an explicit goal.

Without having the slightest idea about how to argue well, he won't be able to tell whether or not Orwell, in fact, argues well. A textbook on informal reasoning will be far more valuable to him than anything Orwell has to tell us. Instead of reading how greatly Orwell argues, he can get to know a set of useful heuristics that define good reasoning and become a good arguer himself.

[Anonymous No.6068518]

>>6068507
Hi, OP here. I'm almost certain my friend won't appreciate being given a text-book on critical thinking. Also, I'm not so sure reading Orwell would be fruitless. I've certainly never learnt from a critical-thinking textbook; I've learnt from example after example, as most people do.
Claiming that he won't know whether or not Orwell is arguing well is a little patronising, don't you think? We're all capable of recognising good rhetoric, you needn't learn THAT from a text-book.

[Anonymous No.6068524]

>>6068518

[Anonymous No.6068538]

>>6068518
I would suggest Aristotle's Organon, but trying to understand that is like hitting your head against a wall, even if it is useful it is a difficult read.

You could try a shorter Platonic dialogue, like Eutyphro, that is more focused on reasoning and justification.

[Anonymous No.6068547]

>>6068450
Plato's Republic is perhaps the best start possible and I think it should be fun. I mean, it's a dialogue and often a funny one.

I think Plato's main purpose with dialogues was actually to get people to think critically - about Socrates himself too. The reader is supposed to stand above all characters, not necessarily agree with some of them.

[Anonymous No.6068568]

>>6068518
But IF he wants to "improve his skills in analysis and criticism", how can you possibly be certain that your friend won't appreciate a textbook that will remedy his wish?

I was not claiming that reading Orwell would be fruitless; rather, that a textbook expounding on informal reasoning would be a better option.

>I've certainly never learnt from a critical-thinking textbook; I've learnt from example after example, as most people do.
Such books are typically crammed with examples. I wonder—what textbook were you learning from?

>good rhetoric
Good rhetoric in and of itself doesn't guarantee good, underlying reasoning.

[Anonymous No.6068604]

>>6068568
How about we just stop this dialogue here, since I know my own friend better than you do.

[Anonymous No.6068617]

>>6068604
No one knows anyone for certain, pal.