On guilt

It is an interesting notion that guil somehow plays a part in our moral framework, or a facet in helping us find meaning in our lives. The connotation to guilt is that it is often a feeling inspired by a lack of action taken on the part of the indiviudal or the reaction to do performing an immoral act. While this is true and guilt could be a means of internally regulating our behaviors by means of negative reinforcement, it could also be a sign of an inclination towards empathy in the human condition. As we discussed today a person is capable of feeling guilt in situations which may conflict with an already adopted moral code or societal norm, this could be evidence that human beings can develop the capacity to have an emotive response to a state of affairs and recognize the unjust conditions of a given experience. I am unsure if guilt calls us to action as more often it seems to be a state where we reflexively evaluate our moral character and hope to change our behavior in future experiences as to replace the feeling of guilt with one of pleasure we receive from performing a moral act.

Good and Bad boundaries

I was thinking about the notion of our moral actions transgressing boundaries and it occurred to me that it does so in a number of ways. Not only are certain actions morally contentious based on context, but we have overlapping degrees of desired good and bad. We typically do what is good for ourselves, we also try to keep in mind what may be good for someone else. Ideally we do what is good for our families or loved ones, which may conflict our abilities to do what is best for ourselves. It is clear that in a given circumstance depending on our setting that we desire a particular good in that moment, making the distinction of one objective good even more difficult to defend. The binary between good and bad becomes blurred as we realize that our actions may at the same time produce both an evil and benevolent consequence.

Whats appropriate

I am unsure of why I am so hung up on the term appropriate as it is used in the reading for this week, but for some reason I find it bothersome. Perhaps it is because I am erroneoulsy equating the word appropriate for correct, meaning an appropriate response to a concept in a literary work would be the correct or right response. The example I used in class I think still works here, besides the graphic detail of how children suffer, if I do not feel a particular empathy or sorrow at the notion of children dying, did I respond appropriately? It goes without saying that we would prefer people to react with horror and disgust at such a notion, but unfortunately that may not be the response of all readers. I am not trying to justify the act, but if we believe that a teacher is only guiding a student to be able to draw conclusions on their own, then we may have students who come to the conclusion that it is not as immoral as dictated in the text. But again we find that the correct/appropriate response would be the moral obversation that children suffering is wrong, so again it seems that there is one objective response in which we are supposed to have to particular concepts we encounter in literary texts.

The moral vehicle of literature

One insight we have not discussed in terms of literature and its relationship to morality is that the very medium of litertaure is a vehicle for moral agency. Persons who have largely been left out of the conversaion about ethics throughout history, have overcome their social marginalization by expressing their persepctives and experiences through narratives. This list includes but is ceratinly not limited to: African Americans, women, gays/lesbians/transgender persons, the disables, indigenous and other colonized peoples globally, immigrants, laborers etc. The medium itself provides a moral good, it becomes a means of expression in which particular groups of people or advocates of specific ideals can use, where they are specifially prohibited from other forms of cultural participation. Perhaps we may have discussed this in brief at some point this semester but it was an insight I wanted to explore further, but what do you guys think?

The postulated author

Our conversation reminded me today of the previous discussion we had about whether a writer is always a great writer or simply when they produced the work. If I understood the distinction we made today between author and writer, was that the writer is all the features of the person including their biographical information. The author is the intentional agent who at the time of writing the work, has the motive of communicating something specific through the literary work. In that sense it seems like the postulated author is a state of mind in which the writer enters when producing the text. The difficulty then in trying to use the retrieval process would be that we would have to guess what the writer was intending in that one specific state, facts about the previous and remaining events and experiences of their lives would only serve to supplement our understanding of the writer and not the author. These are some points I believed were raised in our converstaion today but if there is anything I am unclear of comments, opinions, and clarifications are always welcome.

Textual meaning

The link provided is a short essay on interpreting literature which I found interesting. One claim made by the author which drew my attention specifically was

"An important feature of literary texts which distinguishes them from other kinds of persuasive discourse is the fact that they operate not through direct statement and explicit revelation of their contents but instead through indirect allusion, understatement, implication, and even concealment. Literary texts in effect often veil the 'truth' which they seek to convey in an attempt at enhancing its attractiveness and endowing it with a sense of mystery and transcendental value. "


http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/english/fajardo/teaching/Miscellan/understand.htm

Who owns art?

The link provided is an article in the New York Times about the contentious issue of who owns pieces and artifacts displayed in museums, as many pieces were illegally excavated or pillaged from their nation of origin. Reminded me of our discussion about who if anyone owns a work of literature, is it the author, the reader, etc?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/arts/artsspecial/29treasures.html?pagewanted=all

Where are you from?

A question I considered in why someone would adopt either optimistic or pessimistic outlooks on life may have something to do with the concrete social situation a person find themselves in. For an indiviudal who has been divorced, suffered many losses within their family, and were economically destitute, we would not be surprised to find this person is not the most charitable in believing the world is not entirely ill conceived. Interstingly enough those who are in situations of extreme poverty often try and perhaps at times succeed in authentically believeing that things could get better and that at its core humanity is not cruel, aggressive, and violent. Perhaps they do so only in the hopes to one day escape the misfortunes they are plagued with, but again it seems that from what social situation you approach interpeting humanity may offer insight into why you draw specific conclusions about the world.

On two types of knowledge

It seems to me that as we have discussed so far, there appear to be two extereme forms of knowledge which we can come to know as part of the human experience. The first seems to be that with a better understanding of humanity and its behaviors, one could succumb to the pessimistic appraoch offered by Melville and Hawthorne and concede that human existence and human life is defined by suffering, death, pain, and a futile constant striving. The second type of knowledge a person can aquire taking Schopenhauer's appraoch is a type of mystical wisdom which once posessed, allows an indiviudal to transcend the suffering of their existence and know authentic truth. While it seems that sorrow may accompany the aquistion of knowledge, in the positive extreme knowledge is the only way to escape the horror to which Schopenauer considers to be the human life.

On pessimists

I was looking up some more information about Melville's pessimism and authors like him and I found a quote that I thought was relevant. It talks about why Nathaniel Hawthorne, another pessimist author, sought to create the characters and narratives they did: "In part these three writers (Poe, Hawthorne, and Melville) felt that American life lacked materials for great fiction. Hawthorne bemoaned the difficulty of writing in a country where there is 'no shadow, no antiquity, no mystery, no picturesque and gloomy wrong'. Psychology not society fascinated these writers. Each probed the depth of the human mind rather than the intricacies of social relationships.Their work displayed an underlying pessimism and about the human condition and the fundamental irrationality of human nature"

While I agree that the human experience would be incomplete without pondering the evils and ills of the world, with such an outlook on life specifically as an artist, life seems more like a curse than a blessing, and for me it would lose all meaning if I solely defined life as suffering, pain, and death.

On interpretations

 This came from an article I found when looking for symbolism in Moby Dick and I found it entertaining:

 Humor columnist Dave Barry once gave potential English majors some advice using Moby-Dick as an example: -Never say anything about a book that anybody with any common sense would say. For example, suppose you are studying Moby-Dick. Anybody with any common sense would say Moby-Dick is a big white whale, since the characters in the book refer to it as a big white whale roughly eleven thousand times. So in your paper you say Moby-Dick is actually the Republic of Ireland. Your professor...will think you are enormously creative.

 There must be at least some textual evidence. So we don’t advise you to argue that Moby Dick represents Ireland. Still, there’s a good reason that Dave Barry chose Moby-Dick when he wanted to give an example of a Big Important Symbol that has many possible interpretations – and which is obviously demanding to be interpreted, possibly in a ludicrous way.

On Perspective

One of the author's I am using for my paper is Elisabeth Camp, a philosopher at the University of Pennsylvania who has written about metaphor, fiction, and some other concepts we have discussed in class. The essay I am reading is call "Perspectives in Imaginative Engagement in Fiction" in which she looks into the paradox of fiction, emotional responses to literary works, and the role of the imagination. She believes that readers of literature adopt a certain perspective, something which structures the way they think and how they relate certain concepts. She believes it includes what a reader may already know about a gene, author, or work and what information we have about the real world. In my paper I argue that we have certain expectations when reading a text in which we desire using our imagination and hoping the authors work is vivid and descriptive as to encourage that  imaginative experience. I was interested to see what elements might belong to your perspective when reading a work or what this idea of the perspective is missing? Thoughts?

Thats not what I meant

An interesting comment that Brett made today in class was about whether or not a metaphor has to be intentional or whether accidental ones could be created. Brett believes for the sake of his paper that metaphor is intentional and is used to communicate something specific from author to reader. While I do agree with him that is is a communicative device, I am unsure whether they are always intentional. The two essays we have read on Melville thus far, to some degree interpret his works far beyond what he might have at all intended them to represent. This projection of certain themes or ideas onto a work may not be congruent with the author's intentions..but doesnt it make for a good read? Lets say Melville didnt anticipate existensialism, but the fact that his works point in that direction is still an intersting way to approach the text. It seems we keep mentioning interpretation as if various interpretations are wrong, while the text may have specific content and metaphoric elements, but to what harm does it cause fans of literature to have several different ways to analyze the work? While some things people will look for in the text are not there, viewers of art often find something pleasing about the work aside from its literal meaning or the intention of the creator.

Q&A #5: Question 2

The second question I am interested in is whether the similarity used in a metaphor is created by the metaphor. My first inclination is to say no, given the following example "Richard is a lion". The comparison here is to say that Richard has some quality usually attributed to a lion, lets say for the sake of the example it is bravery. Clearly something Richard has done or will do will explain why such a comparison, i.e Richard is already brave. Rather than simply use the adjective brave, the metaphor is used to extend what type of bravery that is. It is not simply courage, it is an animal like impulse driven to action with disregard for phsyical harm in the face of dangerous situations. It seems that the fact Richard was brave was already established, but that in order to intensify the trait of bravery, the comparison is made to the lion. My example is obviously crafted with my conclusion in mind, but what do you guys think? Does the metaphor establish a similarity or simply provide new perspective on the attributes of the principal subject?

Q&A #5

The first question I wished to contemplate this week is whether there was a difference in verbal sentences being metaphors, and more symbolic ones like the example I mentioned in class. For those who may have forgotten I mentioned in a famous American Gothic short story, an old house is meant to literally represent the decaying former Antebellum South. This metaphor it seems would only work if the reader had a specific background understanding of when the story was written, and recent American history around that time. In many novels settings, objects, and characters are used to symbolize something not explicitly told to the reader. It seems that in both cases, the verbal and the symbolic, there is still that interaction between thoughts, however it seems the latter requires some sort of pretense to the piece itself. What do you guys think? Would a metaphor fail if the reader is not informed of its origins, or would many of use be able to recognize the symbolism used by context alone?

Q&A #4: Question 2

The second question I considered this week was wheteher the emotion we feel in reponse to literature is similar to those we have in other artistic mediums. I am basing my understanding of emotion of one used by Malcolm Budd in invetsigating the realtionship between music and the emotion. He states that an emotion is a "positve or negative response to the content of a thought". In litertature the thought we are reacting too seems more obvious than in other forms of art, we are explicitly told what the characters do and feel and thus react to the state of affairs stipulated by the text. However in music, the case seems to be not so clear as to what exactly a partciular song references in terms of a concept or thought is often difficult to discern. Most would say that our recognition of an emotion within the song itslef causes an emotional reaction within the listener, however as some of you may already know I am skeptical of such a claim. Thoughts, opinions, and criticisms are always welcome so please comment away.

Q&A #4: Question One

The first question I had in regards to the relationship between emotion and literature is that if we take the thought theory that emotions are reactions to thoughts, and we consider thoughts to be real, what does that say about the nature of a fictional character? It would seem that a fictional character under this concept would be considered real, and thus the paradox of why we respond to an unreal entity is resolved. However does this mean that our conception of fiction which we discussed predominantly as seperating the real from the fictitious need amednding? The role that truth played in fiction was a highlighted aspect, and perhaps while the idea of a character may be real, the truth is not in their existence but rather in the qualities attributed to them (height, weight, hair color, styles of speech etc). being real. I am interested to see what some of you think about our understanding of fiction, if we do consider that thoughts are real and thus the ideas of fictional characters actually exist.

On emotion in literature

I think Feagin may be on to an accurate understanding of the role our emotions play in literature. The theory is that we recognize morals and facts about humanity within the work and can appreciate them knowing they are making claims of concepts relative to human society. As we discussed early this semester, a more full understanding of morality comes with an understanding of emotions, it forces abstract notions of freedom, justice, love, equality, etc. to face the material world and be planted into concrete situations, these situations often show us more about these concepts than simply positing them hypothetically.
One of the reasons I believe we may enjoy tragedy in literature is that is shows the other side of the emotional spectrum, it reveals how much more there is to a persons emotional capacity than simply happy and sad. There are moments of ecstasy and also ones of deep grief and isolation, but these are part of the human experience and the combination of a number of emotions is what makes human life so vivid. It is not enough to constantly be happy, being afraid and being sad, they provide a release and experience for us other feeling cannot, they are essential to our existence, and thus must be essential to some of our arts.

QA #3: Question 2

The second question I was debating came from a quote in the Thomasson reading, it was a theorists claim that fictional characters exist within the very language which creates them and are thus independent of conciousness. This seemed perplexing at first as how can a character exist if no one is thinking about them? I then later thought about how I cannot say Sherlock Holmes is not real just because I am not familiar with those texts, I have just yet to perceive such texts and thus also the character of Holmes. In the same way speculations about elements and other components of space etc. are claiming that these substances may exists but have simply yet to be accessible to human sensory perception and measurement. The idea that fictional characters is independent of conciousness still seems problematic, but perhaps it is because the text preserves the character so that it could be potentially discovered is a better way to understand such a claim.

QA #3: Question One

The first question I speculated about this week was to what degree truth takes a role in non fiction? Someone had entertained the thought in a conversatuion about media, he asked me whether I was certain that newspapers were telling me the truth. While I understand his positon that in some cirumstances the media is censored and regulated to prevent the exposure of certain facts or perspectives, but for the most part the events reported by news outlets can be verified in that they actually occurred. Whether we can understand the full motives of the persons involved or in what order the events transpired may be blurred or altered by some news outlets, however there are other that will not. Again I can entertain the thought that media is biased, but it does not create the stories, it distorts the story. The events may be presented in a partcular way, but they are not conceived by the news outlets, they are only adopted by the news outlets and then transmitted in the form to which the organization believes is best.

Pretense

We have discussed throughout much of this week has been about a pretense to approaching fiction, in which we either are aware of the author's intention or the text's function (i.e as a prop). But what exactly does this pretense entail? Is it an explicit statement made by a parent or educator that says "This story is not real and thus you should not take is to be so"? Or is a connotative assumption we make when first being introduced to a text in which we can determine it to be fiction? If so what are those assumptions based on? Style and form or on the chracters and settings? I am unsure of when I was taught such a pretense, but yet I am conciously aware that when I select something from the fiction section of the library, I should not anticipate finding a text which reflects an actual state of affairs in the material world. I wanted hear your thoughts on what this pretense would look like and it affects our conception of fiction.

Q&A #2: Question 2

My second question for this week was similar to one Jacob posted on his blog, whether an attempt to define literature was for its previous uses or its contemporary understanding? I would think that it must be for the pieces already labeled and taught as literature, as creating a list to embody works not yet seen would probably exclude some material worth consideration.

Just a point unrelated to the Q&A was our discussion of whether there was a concept of something "new". I will assume I can safely define new as something unrecognizable to the observer. We need to remember that the purpose of catergorization is to generalize. The term dog only covers the shared properties of all dogs, but it does not specify every possible instance a dog may take shape. This is something I think is necessary to remind ourselves, for if nothing is new than this blog post has been posted by me before and I am wasting my time imitating a post I have already typed.

Q&A #2: Question One

My first question in response to whether literature was denfinable, was to try and create a few conditions that seem to fit into most conceptions of the term. I will borrow Nicole's definition of the term aritfact in that litertaure is something made by human intentionality. I believe that all literature regardless of genre, uses words and word phrases as its basic material (obviously there is no universal language which all texts are written in, i.e the words do not have to be in English). The skill of using such material is the final condition I arrived at, meaning that speeches, sermons, and other oratory instances could be considered literature. The reason being is that they have the capacity to meet the two previously stated conditions, and often does. I am certain there are more conditions I could come up with, but I concede that I agree with several of Stecker's conditions for litrature and will not retype them here as they are available for reference in our textbook. Questions, critiques, and comments always welcome.

Language and Medium

I believe that Jacob brought up a very poignant observation of the fact that language is independent of the medium to which it expresses, as I later added language in itself exists in our minds and then uses visual or auditory vehicles with which to reveal itself. I think that literature could be considered (or at least as one condition to what it is) that it involves a skill, more specifically a skill with words. This is why I do not agree that speeches are not literature, if an orator givves a speech or writes an essay, the content is judged the same, that is whether the words and word choice, stylistic elements, and content, are expressed with skill and superior quality. This leaves our concept of literature open to the concept of blogs, tweets, and yes even Facebook posts being considered literature or possibly literary, but I do not disagree that electronic media can be just as capable an outlet for revealing a talent with prose and verbal communication as books or written language.

On defining literature

It seems that when attempting to define literature, we should be observant of the purpose of such a definition. If we are trying to define literature so that we can properly apply it, then it may be more effective to work in reverse order. By that I mean we should adopt Stecker's method of vieiwng where the term was applied and then analyzing the criteria that made the term applicable. We can then compare the various criterias used to apply the term, and see what the criteria have in common. This may lead us to a definition which is pluralistic and multifaceted, but I believe that will bring us to the most full understanding possible of what literature may look like in its entirety. With terms like literature, science, music amongst many others, the difficulty in defining the term is that there is never one coherent circumstance in which the term is used. Instead we see that certain situations the term is used to explain degrees of a quality (something being musical or literary) or that it is an embodiment of the concept as a whole (it is lterature).

Q&A #1: Question 2

My second question concerning the Nussbaum reading was whether or not the reader or audience play's a significant role in deciding what style to adopt when trying to convey an ethical truth? We discussed several times the notion that style and quality of writing is typically associated with a particular understanding of literature, one that is informed and educated. We also talked about how this understanding may not be available to the public at large, and thus certain styles or qualities in writing are reserved for those who can understand it. For Nussbaum she believes that there should be no specialization when trying to learn about "how one should live", as David stated she believes ethical studies is one that is "multi-criterial".  In ideal circumstances people would have access to both literature and academic treatises, meaning any person would have the faculty to appreciate and understand both forms of writing and probably other mediums in which an ethical truth can be conveyed.

Q&A #1: Question 1

The first question I was interested in the Nussbaum reading was whether Nussbaum believed that the same aesthetic quality contained in literature, could be found in theoretical philosophical treatises. Specifically would the use of metaphor, emotive language, and other stylistic elements be enough to warrant a treatise as aesthetic? My speculation is that Nussbaum would claim that a specific aesthetic quality is found in literature, as that aesthetic quality is specific to that form. If the form of literature provides not only specific content but a specific aesthetic pleasure, than there would a specific pleasure that could be found in a treatise of philosophical concepts. Understanding the relationship between content and form as Nussbaum explains it, I think that she would agree that since certain forms can convey certain truths, than so too can a specific form convey or reveal a specific aesthetic quality.

On Love and Knowledge

I find it interesting that the ancient quarrel between philosophers and poets is defined by the quarrel between Plato and poets. Plato's dialogues are in no way a standard philosophical treatise, while they may have the form of logical argument made of propositions, I am not inclined to believe that this narrative form is the most effective for conveying his thoughts. Would not a simple treatise beginning with axioms and then working to defend the thesis have been a better method to teach about ethics rather than a fictitious conversation between Socrates and other characters? Another area of interest brought up in the essay is the value of emotions as helping to complete an understanding of certain human experiences. While over emotional reactions are irrational an appropriate balance between emotion and reason is not an unreasonable state of mind or method of approaching ethical concepts. Thoughts anyone?

From the Toolkit

What I would like to point out about the toolkit's understanding of a "justified belief" is related to the conversation we had this past Friday. Justification for a belief will vary from subject matter to subject matter, especially when we transgress the speculative/empirical knowledge boundaries. Within each discipline there seems to be a specific method or procedure for justfying a claim, and while these may overlap on occasion (such as the use of logical argument within many disciplines) there is seemingly no objective standard of justification. What it means to be justififed in a belief will vary depending on the concept being investigated, this is just something I found to be slightly interesting when thinking about how we arrive at the conclusion that a claim is true via being justifed by evidence.

A little about myself

Hello all and welcome to my blog. The title of my blog is a quote by Robert Louis Stevenson on literature as an artistic medium and its purpose. I am a Philosophy major here at MCLA with a minor in Cross Cultural and Social Justice. My specific interest in philosophy is well, anything aestehtic. By that I mean my preferred  interest in philosophy usually relates to theories about art, beauty, and the significance of the two as part of the human experience. As of last semester I have taken a specific interest in the Philosophy of Music and hope to pursue the subject for a possible thesis project. Well that enough about me, hope you all find the class stiumlating and informative and I look forward to our seminar this semester.