I mentioned this in class on Monday; I am fascinated by the lesson we might learn, or in the least, Dostoevsky might be attempting to portray, from Ivan's archetype. While Ivan is an extremely intelligent person and capable of advanced thought and reasoning, he nonetheless repeatedly accepts amoral to immoral conclusions. So are we to assume the point here is that detached contemplation is, maybe necessary, but insufficient for a moral life? I see two options here.
Obviously, since it was a yes or no question, there are two options.
Yes; that is the intended point. While contemplation and serious thought is required to resolve moral quandaries, there must exist also another factor that aids us in our decision making process. Pihlstrom seems to hint in the concluding remarks, as well we mentioned it in class, that guilt or the conscience might be one such answer. I am slightly uneasy with this though. We correctly identified the conscience as reinforcing the values we learn from our society and culture; if this were the base of our moral considerations, we would end up continuing to perpetuate the values of our culture. However, our culture repeatedly engages in immoral activity.
--
No; while that is one lesson we could infer from this character trait of Ivan's, it is not the only one. Ivan could merely be wrong in his reasoning rather than his reasoning be insufficient. Ivan bases his argument on the premise that the only reason to lead a moral life is to secure a good afterlife. Thus, if one were not to believe in God, there would be no obligation to act morally. His father seems to actualize this theory. But divine punishment and reward is not the only reason to act morally; we may very well have a secular obligation to a moral life. Ivan could merely be wrong.
Question: What do you think? What could we infer from Ivan's primacy on reason?
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Dissemination
Nussbaum contends that literature is the best medium for the conveyance of moral truths. Shelby Giaccarini successfully defended a commonwealth thesis in which she maintained that literature might be an essential tool in disseminating the impulse to help fight anthropogenic climate change. These are all axiologic areas of interest. Is this where the utility of literature stops? My instinct is to deny this.
Literature can be and ought to be the medium of dissemination for more than just moral truths. The ability to engage and retain interest, the ability to stir emotion, these are tools useful to the forays of many different categories of thought. Describing and capturing a dynamic and elusive aspect of human nature may not be within the purview of philosophical discourse, though I suspect it can accomplish this as well. Literature, while not unique in any of its virtues, is an ideal candidate for the dissemination of many non moral claims.
Literature can be and ought to be the medium of dissemination for more than just moral truths. The ability to engage and retain interest, the ability to stir emotion, these are tools useful to the forays of many different categories of thought. Describing and capturing a dynamic and elusive aspect of human nature may not be within the purview of philosophical discourse, though I suspect it can accomplish this as well. Literature, while not unique in any of its virtues, is an ideal candidate for the dissemination of many non moral claims.
Catharsis
I realize that though I have been treating Monday night as the end of the week-end, due to the holiday, that it does not follow that the grading week should also be extended. Luckily, I caught myself in time.
Though not to the purpose of pleasing Aristotle, or Stacey for that matter, while we are discussing the value of literature, I thought I might once again throw in with those who contend a major value, though not the sole, of literature is its potential use as a cathartic medium. There is obviously, I think, a degree to which the strength and magnitude of an emotional release is lessened when it is the product of reading literature, even, I contend, non-fiction. Despite this, emotional releases of any degree of severity are essential to our mental well-being. The number of mechanisms by which we achieve this is quite large but one common medium, and effective, is that of literature.
Though not to the purpose of pleasing Aristotle, or Stacey for that matter, while we are discussing the value of literature, I thought I might once again throw in with those who contend a major value, though not the sole, of literature is its potential use as a cathartic medium. There is obviously, I think, a degree to which the strength and magnitude of an emotional release is lessened when it is the product of reading literature, even, I contend, non-fiction. Despite this, emotional releases of any degree of severity are essential to our mental well-being. The number of mechanisms by which we achieve this is quite large but one common medium, and effective, is that of literature.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Writer or Author?
I understand we will be talking about this in class tomorrow, but I wanted to get some thoughts out there before. In class there was a distinction made between writer and author, a distinction, to be candid, I do not fully understand. As such, my comments are, more so than usual, an invitation for correction. It seemed clear that the writer was the person, the individual who composed the work in question. This includes, naturally, all the boring details of biological and biographical information. The author, I was slightly unclear about. I understand that Nehemas spoke of a postulated author as a hypothetical version of the writer that possessed the answers to all possible questions regarding the text. Is this the sole meaning of author we are using? Corey suggests that the author means: "the intentional agent who at the time of writing the work, has the motive of communicating something specific through the literary work." This seems to be a perfectly reasonable definition of author, but I fail to see how it should be distinct from the writer.
It seems that the distinction between writer and author is rather contrived and unhelpful.
It seems that the distinction between writer and author is rather contrived and unhelpful.
Infinity
There was some doubt as to whether or not there was an infinite number of descriptions of a pencil. This depends on a central question: Does an altered perspective, if there is no aesthetic difference, beget, necessarily, a distinct description? I think not. While the space around the pencil is infinitely divisible, the altered perspective of a fraction of a degree will not translate to a visible change. While we cognitively understand that we are viewing a different section of the pencil, we may not be able to articulate such a fine distinction in our actual description. Our senses are not so acutely honed; therefore, while there is an infinite number of perspectives from which descriptions and interpretations are begotten, there is a finite number of descriptions and interpretations.
Q&A 10 - Question 2: Contradiction
Does the nature of claims about literature differ in a significant enough manner to afford them the luxury of being able to accept contradictions, or are they held, also, to the logical restrictions of all other propositions?
Aristotle on non-contradiction: "It is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect" (Metaphysics IV 3 1005b19-20). This is possibly the single most basic axiom of logic, and yet, it seems, interpretive pluralism denies this. According to the theory there is no one correct interpretation of a text and as such there can exist two contradictory interpretations that are equally correct? Either the nature of literary interpretation is significantly different than regular propositions, or interpretive pluralism is demonstrably false.
Is the nature of interpretation thus different?
Aristotle on non-contradiction: "It is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect" (Metaphysics IV 3 1005b19-20). This is possibly the single most basic axiom of logic, and yet, it seems, interpretive pluralism denies this. According to the theory there is no one correct interpretation of a text and as such there can exist two contradictory interpretations that are equally correct? Either the nature of literary interpretation is significantly different than regular propositions, or interpretive pluralism is demonstrably false.
Is the nature of interpretation thus different?
Q&A 10 - Question 1: Interpretation
Must an interpretation attempt to explain the whole text or can an interpretation subsist merely on a selection from the text?
This question was begotten by a remarkable lack of clarification and specification as to what interpretation really is. More specifically, however, it was class discussion that really rendered necessary this inquiry. In objection to the hypothesis of an infinite number of perspectives from which to describe a pencil, someone said "well that would be describing a part of the pencil, not all of it." I wonder, though, if that is a reasonable distinction to make. If I were to say: "The cover of our textbook is teal." have I not described our textbook? Certainly a comprehensive description would go on to note that there are other colors, a certain number of pages...etc... The point is, though, that I did describe the textbook while describing only a part of it. Comprehensive interpretations may exist, though ambitious, but most interpretations are, I think, interpretations of parts of literary works.
This question was begotten by a remarkable lack of clarification and specification as to what interpretation really is. More specifically, however, it was class discussion that really rendered necessary this inquiry. In objection to the hypothesis of an infinite number of perspectives from which to describe a pencil, someone said "well that would be describing a part of the pencil, not all of it." I wonder, though, if that is a reasonable distinction to make. If I were to say: "The cover of our textbook is teal." have I not described our textbook? Certainly a comprehensive description would go on to note that there are other colors, a certain number of pages...etc... The point is, though, that I did describe the textbook while describing only a part of it. Comprehensive interpretations may exist, though ambitious, but most interpretations are, I think, interpretations of parts of literary works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)