How does Bradbury reveal another view of books and society through Faber, and how does this compare to Captain Beatty's view?

Upon their first meeting, Faber subtly reveals himself as a reader of books, and he tells Montag, “’I don’t talk things, sir . . . I talk the meaning of things. I sit here and I know I’m alive’” (75). He is introducing to Montag the idea that without books to present ideas for people to consider independently, society simply accepts at surface value the things pushed at them by the powers that be (aka the mass media). There is no depth of thought about anything, and people are forgetting what it means to be truly human. At their second meeting Faber explains to Montag the things we need as humans: “’Telling detail . . . Quality texture of information,’” “’leisure to digest [the information],’” and “’the right to carry out actions based on what we learn from the interaction of the first two’” (83-85). He makes it clear that books are necessary to fulfill these needs: “’The things you’re looking for, Montag, are in the world, but the only way the average chap will ever see ninety-nine percent of them is in a book’” (98).
Captain Beatty, on the other hand, has convinced himself that reading books turns one into an intellectual snob. He actually tried balking the system once, as Montag is doing, but he failed, and so he feels threatened by Montag’s fresh insight about all that books can mean to humanity. Beatty believes that by preventing anyone from becoming smarter than others through books, everyone is made equal: “’A book is a loaded gun in the house next door. Burn it. Who knows who might be the target of the well-read man?’” (60) He feels that no one has the right to make another feel inferior. Besides, the books aren’t trustworthy. He argues, “’What traitors books can be! You think they’re backing you up, and they turn on you’” (p. 107). He means that two people can often argue from opposite platforms using the same text for support. Perhaps this is what happened to Beatty when he attempted, so long ago, to free the books. But he isn’t considering what Faber already knows; when we are free to interpret the information in books independently, it should have unique meanings and insights for each reader. Our human experiences ensure it.
Oddly, you could say that Faber and Beatty agree on the basics: books can be used to gain knowledge (so the lack of them is dumbing society down), they allow us to think independently, and they are interpreted uniquely by each reader. But ultimately the differences in their views stem from the opinion of whether these things are beneficial or damaging to society.