Well, I think you look at the whole thing a bit too simply. The content associated with a word is derived from individual experience. The ability to relate ideas is an individual ability. When you increase content and association, you slow down. Reading is simply getting the word, so, it is not a matter of how fast one gets them, it is what they do with them. And understanding, is greatly effected by mental maturity. You don't learn comprehension, you learn the environment and the associations--this is comprehension. So, you cannot learn comprehension by reading--that is a self-referential fallacy.
The person who gets the most out of the work, is not the one who finishes first. It is like sex.
When you are advanced enough to see the levels of reading comprehension in history, histories of ideas, you come to the sad realization that you are studying a history of premature ejaculation. In many cases, and most important ones, ancient scholars were conceptually far advanced of these idiots today. It is as if man is getting dumber.
There was a time when, while working, I was reading a book a day. Mostly anthologies. However, it was wasted time compared to the study of the Platonic dialogs, which I have read several times and am still learning from. Reading a thing, and studing are vastly different.
|
|
Bookmarks