Some Thoughts on Reading (Nonfiction)

I have often heard the saying that “those who do not read have no advantage over those who cannot read.” But there seems to be no reason whatsoever to assume that this statement, as written at least, is true. Those people who don't read, that is, those who do not read anything beyond the essentials demanded by life, still can. They can read signs, bank statements, contracts, and communicate via the written word. So they obviously do have an advantage over those who cannot, and arguing otherwise seems patently absurd.

Defenders of this statement could retort that the statement is not intended to be interpreted literally, but rather metaphorically, and its meaning, though open to interpretation, falls more in the realm of “those who don't read, but are able to, limit their potential,” or perhaps “those who don't read are doomed to ignorance.” Fair enough I suppose. But if the progenitors of the preceding statement, whoever they are, did not intend the statement to be interpreted literally, perhaps they should have written it differently. Two possible alternatives have already been stated.

Notwithstanding my philosophical quibbles, however, the essence of the preceding statement does have some truth to it. Most of us are able to read, but not all of us use this capacity to our advantage, and few of us to the extent that we could. And in that sense, insofar as we do not read anything more than the basics demanded by modern life, we are no better off than the illiterate. In my view, the independent reading of nonfiction (in multiple subjects), in most cases, is one of the best ways to become educated. Unfortunately the majority of people do not engage in the systematic reading of nonfiction and are thus at a disadvantage when it comes to grappling with difficult issues, or even thinking clearly. Rather, it seems they prefer to adopt the views espoused by various media or academic sources (or a multitude of others), assume such sources are correct, and that's that—they've got their viewpoint. Or perhaps they ignore such things altogether, preferring idle pursuits and fashionable pleasures.

Without independent research and study (which is best accomplished by reading), a person cannot develop a mature understanding of the world around them, and will often be guided by misrepresentations, shallow caricatures, and fallacious arguments. Such persons will, according to their paradigm of the world, tend to favor the positions they naturally agree with, without any thought as to what other sources may have said on the matter. They generally have an opinion on almost everything, but if questioned, struggle to adequately defend it. This, it seems, is largely due to the fact that they develop such views “second hand,” that is, from a source they assume to be correct, as opposed to basing their views on careful study and analysis. In absence of the latter, it is exceedingly difficult to develop a firm grasp of important issues, and as a result, the interaction between antagonistic viewpoints is often fruitless. To hearken back to the opening statement of this post: Those who say much, but defend little, seem to have no advantage over those who know little. And why do they defend little or know little? One reason could be they don't read.