When reading philosophy I always end up highlighting almost everything

>making physical marks of any kind on the original pages
>absolutely disgusting

You might also see the "How to read a book" episode of Sesame Street.

How about not destroying the page with your mongrel chicken scratch marks? How about showing some respect to the work instead of mutilating it like an African girls genitalia. What do you think you get by butchering the natural beauty of the typography? What do you get by scribbling near and sometimes over printed words? You are essentially destroying the intelligibility of the printed material and destroying permanently the beauty of the words not only for yourself but for anyone who may ever have the misfortune of ever touching that decimated and defiled volume. Even if you own the book and never plan on selling it, you will die and leave behind a pile of ruined useless books. You are essentially Islamic State forces smashing ruins and texts for all times. You have become Shit-head, destroyer of words.

You had before you a great and beautiful mountain landscape of words and you strung up in front of that grandeur a mess of power lines and piles of your mental trash. If you have to make that many notes and highlights with permanent marks in a book you should stick to movies or video games. Books and words seem beyond your grasp.

this is the only solution

which means you're really not critically engaging with the text if you can't tease out the most important sections

>How about not destroying the page with your mongrel chicken scratch marks?

The presence of my mark on these books is more aesthetically pleasing to me. I've never seen the appeal for pristine books, in fact I genuinely like them less than used ones.

>What do you get by scribbling near and sometimes over printed words?
Do I really have to explain highlighting to you?
I know I'm doing it too much, but criticizing this action in absolute terms seems laughable to be. And why? Because I should want to conserve books in their original conditions? And why should I want that by the way? The art is in the words, and I'm not altering them.

>You are essentially destroying the intelligibility of the printed material and destroying permanently the beauty of the words not only for yourself
I can understand them easily, and as we've already seen, my aesthetic appreciation for the books in themselves is enhanced by my highlighting.
>but for anyone who may ever have the misfortune of ever touching that decimated and defiled volume.
Not my problem.

>You had before you a great and beautiful mountain landscape of words and you strung up in front of that grandeur a mess of power lines and piles of your mental trash. If you have to make that many notes and highlights with permanent marks in a book you should stick to movies or video games. Books and words seem beyond your grasp.
It was a nice bait after all. I'll give you a solid 5.5/10: the comedic comparisons were a bit on the nose (mutilating it like an African girls genitalia; You are essentially Islamic State forces smashing ruins and texts for all times) and there is, after all, very little content (you've basically said only one thing, then repeated it and magnified multiple times over 3 paragraphs). Also, and this is the main flaw, it's not really believable, and even if it was a sincere rant, only spergs with an extreme bad taste would side with you.

Pic related: the idea of you that emerges from that post.

how nietzsche read emerson, from his original copy:
haab-digital.klassik-stiftung.de/viewer/image/118058662X/32/

watch and learn

Not him, but he's reading Nietzsche and Kant after all.
The texts are too compact for you to just start saying "this is what relevant, that is trivial": with Kant you would end up highlighting only the very end of the most poignant sections; with Nietzsche you would simply miss the point entirely.
It would be unexcusable if he was highlighting that much pulp trash, but in this case there is a justification for it.

my2c: stop highlighting when reading complex philosophy, take notes instead

If it's written clearly, then underline with pencil. You're not doing much philosophical thinking if highlight everything.

What is wrong with you? That's not a fucking coloring book.

Write stuff down in a separate notebook.

>You're not doing much philosophical thinking if highlight everything.

If I underline something it means I've thought extensively about it. It doesn't help when every sentence in a book deserves that much attention.

By the way I keep notes in a philosophical journal, but I don't think that this should be the focus of this thread

Get an ebook version and electronically highlight it and mark it up if you must.

are you guys all retarded just reread the fucking book

jot some shit down on a pad if its that important to you

I don't understand people who highlight text in books, what the fuck is the point? What is the point of the highlight?

If you have to highlight only do it for sentences that REALLY stick out for you. Otherwise, I like to take notes in a separate notebook and then synthesize a whole paragraph into a few sentences on a second reading.

itt fucking plebs that haven't done a single deep analysis of a philosophical text

>durrrrr why do highlight the structure of claims
>thinking is hard
>going to get my dick wet by hipster qt3.14s because i quote secondary literature and don't engage with the texts

this is what happens you faggots treat philosophy as history with le start with le greeks memery

I've always wondered this too. It doesn't help you remember or understand anything in any way.

Please explain to me exactly what drawing a line across some words does

Highlighting is just one tool among many, used to aid in recollection of meaning when rereading a text. There's nothing that says highlighting 80% of the page is too much, because there are different reasons for highlighting different passages. Some people may highlight only a single word on a single page because it relates to an underlying theme; some people may highlight an entire paragraph because that paragraph is important.

Point is, you do you, bro; although, I think it goes without saying that highlighting 100% of the text defeats the purpose. Highlighting is like editing for the audience that is yourself. I have many texts from past professors that have their scribbles and underlines on them, and most of it is useless to me, because I don't think like they do.

Again, though, just do what works for you.

I once skimmed through a book about learning and it had Lenin's notebooks as an example. Basically he did a lot of writing on the margins.

lmfao this was the perfect response to that insane posturing.

some real weirdos in this thread, stroking their cocks and edging hard thiknig about how they are philosopher kings

ken m

can you imagine living a life so empty that you have emotional energy and time to spend on writing a post like this

can you imagine

It's the opposite actually. If your life is being used up pointlessly you will not have any energy for your free time. If you use your time wisely you will have energy left over to write impassioned posts on image boards. Not even him btw. I agree with his post though, OP is a retard.

Hahahaha

What's the point in reading philosophy?

Maybe start using colors so not everything you highlight is of the same dark color, and think of the blank/no colors as color on its own that covers everything unimportant and you just highlight the important with color.

I find connecting words with lines better than underlining, sort of like "debugging the sentence structure"

Will highlighting and underlining make me a better reader? I've seen it in used books I've bought, but never done it as the idea seems dirty to me.

Maybe? I like to do split sentences and draw lines that trace the references for words like "it", "that" etc.

It helped me.

A lot of the books come with a prize in them like those cereals for kids

Confirmed for being Redditucated and never having attended uni

È un problema degli italiani, ci piace disegnare.

Scherzi a parte, certe pari sono più essenziali di altre (anche se pure il mio Kant è devastato di sottolineature) e prendere appunti aiuta.

Buona fortuna con Kant!

>treat philosophy as history
Fuck you. Reading history is a real effort.

But how do you read that if you haven't already read it?

Newb here, I'm meditating on this for a few hours and still can't understand what it means
>But the philosopher who asks whether the Taj has “whiteness” as a constituent and the philosopher who supposes that the Taj does have this property-constituent and asks, “What is the nature of this relation ‘constituent of’ that ‘whiteness’ bears to the Taj?” are asking questions about its ontological structure.
>What is the nature of this relation ‘constituent of’
>‘constituent of’
Who and what is this supposed to mean in this exact sentence, is the writing this bad or I'm a complete retard