New rules for "readings"

I've claimed a few times on this blog that I would read a philosophical work, and provide my analysis of that work. Here's an example.

I've decided that I'm not going to do that anymore. Why? Here are the stages of what happened every time. I got excited. I wrote a blog post telling you how excited I was. I would read the first part of the text. I would sit down to write a detailed analysis. I would remember that I don't like writing that much. I don't want to publish a crappy analysis. So, I tortured myself over ever detail of what I was writing. I wanted to keep reading the text, but didn't because I hadn't written the analysis regarding the first part. I would put book down, and walk away.

So, I'll produce no detailed analysis. I can't figure out why I'd assigned myself book reports in the first place.

What I will produce is a short monthly write up of philosophical texts, podcast, journals, and articles that I've imbibed.  That way, my students and friends can get a brief rundown of my philosophical intake.

• New Rules
• Write monthly review of that month's philosophical intake
• include:
• type(s) of source(s)
• name(s) of piece(s)
• a couple of my thoughts on the piece(s)
• that's it
• Return to state of enjoying philosophy
• Rinse
• Repeat