There are lots of non-fiction books by religious and spiritual people. They often contain views and explanations about life. They often disagree. How do you sort through the masses of material for something worth some of your time?
If you trust the writings of a person, you must trust the authority of that person. I have found that when I look for books to add to my One-day-I-will-read-this list, I am more likely to decide that I trust an author if the following 2 reasons are true.
Reason 1: They are dead
If an author has been dead for some time, but you still hear good reviews- perhaps by word of mouth- of their works, then their merits must have outlived their own generation. If a reputation has outlived it's owner, then that is already a good reason to say that dead authors (which you have heard of) must have written words of good quality. But reputation is only the first reason.
A living author has abilities and motives that a deceased one does not, none of which make the living author more reliable for a good read. A living author will promote their work. One of their motives might be their own income- book sales could be their bread and butter. A part of them might also want to see books flying out of shops to gain an ego boost, and maybe rise to a height of fame. While the author is alive, they have a desire to be heard, and perhaps to change you. Dead authors are more modest.
Lastly, all men are products of their own culture, and their essays and stories will usually reflect this. But what if words written by another generation are recognised as being relevant to today's generation? We would usually conclude that the written words have revealed a truth greater than the trendy topics of a small moment in history. I would consider the truths that are applicable to all men, at all times, to be the most edifying for my mind.
Reason 2: They are wrong
After first sounding like I am searching for writers of the greatest truths, am I about to contradict myself? No. This second reason relates more to my own perception of the author. It relates to how I analyse the writers opinions.
I will feel more at ease trusting an author if I know of at least one item or topic in which I disagree with what they have said. No matter how beautifully they weave images of the world, my hope is that I am alert enough to spot inconsistencies with my own view when they appear.
I do not have a hunger for writers of bad philosophy- I do not want every author to be at odds with myself. Instead, this is a sign I watch for so that I know I have not blindly idolised the author as the single revealor of all truth. If I know in myself that I have, on at least one occasion, been conscious enough while reading to evaluate and then reject an idea proposed by a writer, then I can allow myself to relax. This measure is perhaps more about myself than the author.
I read non-fiction to consider ideas and gain inspiration, but for the same reasons as when I watch TV or films, I do not want my mental filters to be turned off. To some content, sooner or later, I must be able to stand up against the story and say "I do not believe that is true." It is my own responsibility to care for my beliefs, as much as it is my own physical body.
Just as I post this to the blog, I am suddenly aware that by my own standards, I should only be half trusted. Myself and my motives are alive, but at least I can say that I am probably wrong about many things!
Read another post about Choice...
Image source: http://www.writeelements.com/
