How to inquire about the author's 'first principles' when reading?

This is an interesting question, and it's actually not that complicated. Let me share my perspective, hoping it helps you understand.

You can imagine yourself as a relentlessly curious child, armed with only one weapon: constantly asking "why?" When an author presents a viewpoint or a conclusion, you deploy this weapon.

For example, let's say you're reading a book, and the author's core argument is: "In the future society, everyone should learn to code."

At this point, your "inquiry" begins:

First Layer: Ask "Why"

You ask: "Why should everyone learn to code?"
The author might answer (as written in the book): "Because coding is the universal language of the future world, enabling you to communicate better with machines."

Good, you've got the first layer of explanation. But don't stop there; this is just the beginning.

Second Layer: Question the Answer, Ask "Why" Again

You ask: "Why is coding the 'universal language'? And why is communicating with machines so important?"
The author might answer: "Because AI and automation will permeate all industries, understanding the logic of machines will prevent you from being phased out by the times."

See, this goes a step further than the first answer, touching upon the more fundamental motivation of "not being phased out."

Third Layer: Continue to Dig Deeper

You ask: "Why does understanding machine logic prevent me from being phased out? Can't I pursue a more creative job that doesn't directly interact with machines, like an artist or a psychologist?"
The author might answer: "Even creative work requires leveraging data and tools to enhance efficiency and impact. Computational thinking helps you utilize these tools better; it's essentially a problem-solving mindset."

You've Found the "Foundation"!

At this point, you've pretty much reached the author's "first principles." What they truly want to convey might not be "coding" itself, but rather a few fundamental assumptions they deeply believe in:

Fundamental Assumption A: The future of the world will inevitably be highly digitalized and automated.
Fundamental Assumption B: In such a world, the most crucial survival skill is "logical problem-solving ability."
Fundamental Assumption C: Coding is the best way to train this "logical problem-solving ability."

These three assumptions form the "foundation" upon which they build the theoretical edifice of "everyone should learn to code." They consider these points to be self-evident truths.

To summarize, here's how to do it:

Identify the Core Argument: First, summarize in one sentence what the author is trying to say.
Continuously Ask "Why": Ask "why" about their argument, then ask "why" about their explanation, peeling back layers like an onion.
Distinguish Facts from Assumptions: In the author's discourse, differentiate between objective facts (e.g., data, historical events) and their own opinions and assumptions. First principles are usually hidden within what they consider "self-evident" assumptions.
Challenge "Common Sense": Be especially vigilant when the author uses phrases like "it's obvious" or "everyone knows." These are precisely where first principles often hide. Question them: Is this truly "obvious"? Or is it just an unexamined societal consensus?

Doing this isn't about being argumentative, but about truly seeing the starting point of the author's thinking. Once you can see this "foundation," you can make your own independent judgment: Do I agree with your foundation? Is your foundation solid? Is the structure you've built upon this foundation the only option?

In this way, reading is no longer passively receiving information, but transforms into an equal, in-depth dialogue between you and the author.