Laura said:
For me reading Collingwood, I kept track of certain ideas even if they weren't entirely clear to me, by jotting in my notebook with page number. I kept reading in hopes that things would clarify and, usually, they did. But I would have to go back to the original idea and re-read it and think, "oh, so THAT is what he was getting at!" Because, very often, he will be presenting an idea not because he is promoting it, but because he is laying it out completely only to rip it to shreds. Initially, that was confusing to me.
It really is a tough read despite his clear writing!!! But that's what we want, I think, something that really exercises the brain hard!!!
Yes. In Idea of History I had to constantly try to keep in mind what he said many pages back and how it relates to what he is writing now. If one would have just read that new part, without the context he provided before that point, one could easily misinterpret what he writes, even though he writes very clearly. Reading Collingwood is a real brain exercise, indeed! His books are also among those I think you can read again and again and find new things you totally missed the first time. I kept marking parts that I initially thought were his points and the crux of the matter he wants to convey but later on realized that he only tried to explain this or that method or way of thinking and was actually trying to get to another point via clarifying those viewpoints. So I had to constantly go back, reread the context he was presenting (often many pages back) and delete marks that turned out later to be just explanations of certain ideas and modes of thinking. That is one of the reasons I think the discussions here about his work and in relation to other works is so helpful because many eyes can catch far more then one eye alone.
Recently came across what Peterson had to say about reading and taking notes and found it quite interesting, also in the context of Collingwood:
https://youtu.be/Y_d7DdNzkLw
I think one of the things Peterson is trying to convey there, pretty similarly, I think, to what Collingwood and Laura are saying/doing, is, not to try some sort of "rote memorization" kind of thing (a kind of memory that you have at your disposal externally, through external means, like notes and such) but rather to integrate and evaluate what you learn/read. For that to occur, you first have to carefully read/listen to what is being said and then you try to think about what was being said, in the sense of "what does it mean?" (as Collingwood points out "what does it mean?", is the real first question a historian must ask rather then asking what, why and how) and if and how it fits in the "history bank" or "knowledge bank". Here is were rethinking comes into play I guess. By that, you sort of build internal connections in your mind, like a giant web in which everything is connected with something else and thus that knowledge becomes a part of you, rather then remaining an external thing. I guess that is one of the reasons why people like Peterson and Laura can remember and connect so many dots, without necessarily needing an external means of reminding. It is a form of integrated knowledge I guess.
So, through trail and error, I noticed while reading Collingwood, that I really have to first listen closely and try to "rethink" what is being said, until the end of a part. Then I'm trying to think about it again and how it fits in with other things, and only at that point I try to go back and highlight the parts I think are the relevant points that need to be marked.
