Thesis
XII
A Philosophical Review
Volume 20 • Number 1
Special Issue: Philosophy and
Literature
February, 2013
___________
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
Commensalism:
Philosophy and
Literature
Jacob Wheeler
Metaphysics
and Metaphors
Avery S. Finnivan
Real-World
Application with Directed Motivation
Brandon Gaudet
Blood
and Oxygen
Nicole Kristin Braden
The
Aims of Higher Education
Seth Kershner
____________________
Commensalism:
Philosophy and Literature
Jacob Wheeler
The primary
relationship between philosophy and literature is that the former exists as a
necessary but insufficient condition for the quality of the latter. For a work of literature to be a work of
quality, it must possess and exhibit philosophical themes. This relationship, however, does not function
in the reverse; the few benefits that philosophy can garner from literature
come at too high of a philosophical price.
I shall address these two claims in the order by which I have introduced
them.
All words have
meaning. While they may not possess
inherent meaning (a debate for a different location) they certainly all have
meaning by the event of their consumption.
As such, literature, while necessarily an aesthetic venture, cannot
divorce itself from the meaning of its own medium: words. Therefore, the quality of the literature is
inexorably tied to the quality of the meaning of the words. The epitome of quality meaning is manifested
by the thorough analysis and explication of philosophical themes.
While
literature benefits greatly from philosophy, philosophy does not enjoy equal
benefit from literature. While
literature may, by virtue of greater aesthetics and emotional involvement,
improve the dissemination of ethical philosophy, it lacks the proper tools to
frame correctly and support its philosophy.
Philosophical pronouncements of its conclusions, but ought to spend the
majority of its efforts explaining the line of reasoning, the premises, and the
inferences. Literature can embed the
conclusion by support of an anecdote, but not much else.
One of the very
facets that does make literature engaging is the emotional involvement it has
the tendency to evoke. This very facet
can make literature a dangerous medium for the dissemination of
philosophy. While philosophy does not
and ought not to deny the emotional side of life, emotions can and do obscure
clear, rational thought, the basis of even moral claims. There is a possibility, then, that the
emotional component of literature could militate against the contemplation of a
work’s philosophical content.
Note to Readers
Thesis XII: A
Philosophical Review is published biannually as an open forum promoting
respectful philosophical exchanges among students, faculty, and the
public. Submissions reflect a diversity
of disciplinary perspectives, philosophical approaches, and topics. Those new to the discipline are especially
encouraged to participate.
Address all
correspondence to:
Dr. David K.
Johnson, Editor
Thesis XII: A
Philosophical Review
Department of
Philosophy, IDS, and Modern Languages
Massachusetts
College of Liberal Arts
North Adams,
Massachusetts 01247
Telephone: (413)
662-5448.
Email:
d.johnson@mcla.mass.edu.
Associate
Editor: Dr. Matthew R. Silliman
Email: m.silliman@mcla.edu
Special Guest
Editor: Nicole K. Braden
Email:
nbraden@acad.umass.edu
It could be
noted, though, that my argument may better be addressed against literature
replacing philosophy, that I have not truly argued against a supplementary
relationship. Perhaps the benefit of
literature is the ability to process and analyze case studies of ethical theory
which may provide important context for the abstractions of philosophical
writings. Literature may not be virtuous
enough to replace philosophy, but just enough to augment it advantageously.
There is merit
in this position and through this lens, literature may on occasion be able to
provide such support. The articulation
of certain scenarios in which certain ethical principles are actualized
provides very little support for those principles; an enumeration of a few
anecdotes does little to provide justification for thought or behavior. Literature needs philosophy, but the converse
does not follow.
Jacob Wheeler
is an alumnus of MCLA
_____________________
_____________________
Metaphysics
and Metaphors
Avery S.
Finnivan
Literary and
artistic style can enhance the efficacy of philosophical writing. This is a somewhat controversial claim, as
for many years the style of writing academics deemed best for philosophical
works has been straightforward, regimented, unornamented, and often
technical. While this approach to
philosophical writing clearly has merits, I think that adding literary or
artistic ornamentation provides no obstacle to the clarity of such works, and
can actually increase their effectiveness in a number of ways.
First and
foremost, the addition of aesthetic value to philosophical works can help
capture and keep readers’ attention.
Whereas an unornamented, purely factual presentation of an argument can
seem dry or boring to many readers. Colorful descriptive terms, multitudes of
metaphors, or amusing literary techniques like alliteration adds interest to
any written work. As such, these
features will help keep readers interested in a text, and thus more able to
understand and agree with, or object to, the text’s central argument.
Certain
literary techniques (such as simile and metaphor) can also convey ideas more
concisely than unornamented, non-literary writing. For example, rather than taking several
paragraphs to approach and explain a complex ethical concept (such as the
morality or immorality of voluntary euthanasia) from many angles, using a
simile (voluntary euthanasia is like drowning a child in a bathtub, whereas
waiting for a patient to die is like standing by while a child drowns in a
bathtub) can convey the vital points of the concept with far more efficiently.
These
techniques can also increase the vibrancy or clarity of a concept. Colorfully describing the death of a pig in a
slaughterhouse can prevent people from romanticizing it or dismissing it as a
necessary, or relatively insignificant evil.
Using simile or metaphor to compare the death of a clam to the death of
a carrot can stop readers from attributing anthropomorphic feelings (or, in
fact, any feelings) to an animal which does not possess them. Plato’s ‘Allegory of the Cave’ provides a
shining example of metaphor and imagery aiding in the explanation of a complex
philosophical concept [http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html].
As a last point
in favor of this argument, I think that aesthetic value is a worthwhile
achievement in its own right. As such,
so long as it has no negative effects on the functionality or content of a
piece, writers should attempt to incorporate it. Even if it does have some negative effects,
its positive effects may outweigh these, shifting the overall scale in favor of
including the aesthetic elements in question.
Art, in and of itself, need not have any point other than to be
aesthetically pleasing; as such, artistic or literary style does not need to
add anything other than aesthetic value to a work in order for one to be
justified in including it.
One common
objection to the incorporation of literary or artistic style is that it can
make messages more difficult to understand.
Supporters of this argument claim that metaphor and simile introduce
unnecessary vagueness into philosophical works, that alliteration and vivid
language can distract a reader from the core substance of a philosophical
argument [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphor/]. This argument is difficult to deny, as many
readers have surely encountered cryptic metaphors which evaded their
understanding, or alliterations that they found annoying rather than
attractive.
However, while
the above objection does sometimes hold true, it is not always the case. So long as one is careful when using literary
and artistic style, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Badly executed literary techniques often
cause the problems I mention above; the techniques in themselves are no more
inherently problematic than power drills are inherently evil because they
sometimes cause harm to their users.
Certainly, authors of philosophical works should not write in artistic
style exclusively – that would undoubtedly engender confusion and frustration
in readers – but they should not entirely bar such style from entering their
writing.
Others might
argue that incorporating literary or artistic techniques can bring emotion into
a previously reason-based argument, eating away at the argument’s value until
it is no more than a piece of propaganda.
Most people accept that art, or even non-artistic aesthetic
appreciation, is closely tied to emotion; it could be that introducing artistic
or literary style to a work of moral philosophy obscures the reasons at the
base of the work's ethical argument, replacing it with an 'ethics of care'
format. While some philosophers support
the idea of care-based ethics, the consensus appears to be that reason is overall
far superior as a basis for argumentation [http://www.iep.utm.edu/care-eth/].
I respond to
this final objection by admitting that it is partially true; yet it does not
have to be so, and incorporating emotion does not invalidate reason – it simply
should not substitute or obscure reason.
Good philosophers, when reading a philosophical argument, will identify
and set aside any emotion present; if the resulting argument cannot hold water
based on reason alone, it will not convince them. If, however, the argument is logical and
rational with or without the emotion, then the addition of emotion need not
negatively affect the argument at all.
Avery S.
Finnivan is a student at MCLA
_________________________
_________________________
Real-World
Application with Directed Motivation
Brandon Gaudet
The primary relationship between philosophy and literature
is one of frequent overlap generally resulting in mutual benefit. Literature
usually benefits from containing strong philosophical ideas, and philosophy
usually benefits from being incorporated in literature and from containing
literary devices. It seems easy to find philosophy’s place in literature, but
it is more difficult to find literature’s place in philosophy.
It appears strikingly obvious that literature often contains
philosophical concepts. Most works of literature hint at various moral ideas,
or have plots wherein characters attempt to right wrongs. The best works of
literature contain strong and agreeable, or controversial, philosophical
notions. The New Testament is a good example of literature that contains strong
and (mostly) agreeable moral concepts, whereas the Old Testament exemplifies a
work containing controversial philosophical ideas.
While discussing the value of literature for philosophy,
some argue that incorporating philosophy into literature, while beneficial to
literature, is harmful to philosophy. Proponents of this view claim that literature
serves to make philosophical ideas cloudy and unclear, or only to hint at
truths while never stating them outright.
While it is true that literature sometimes clouds
philosophical ideas, it also generally appeals to more people. As such, any
philosophical concepts contained in literature are likely to reach a larger
audience. Additionally, literature, unlike philosophical treatises, has a
strong emotional appeal. Emotion sometimes serves much better than pure reason appropriately
to move someone to act in agreement with any philosophical idea. The benefits
of increased audience size and greater emotional charge outweigh the
potentially negative value of slightly clouded ideas.
While discussing the value of literary devices in
philosophy, some argue that adding these devices is detrimental to philosophy
because it adds emotion to a previously reason-based argument.
This objection supposes that the emotional aspect of
literature is not beneficial, but negative. However, emotion is frequently a
sufficient motivator to call people to action. Generally, logical, reason-based
understanding is not sufficient to motivate people to act a certain way. Logic
and reason-based argumentation are necessary conditions for acting morally, but
are not often sufficient alone to motivate people to act.
In short, literature benefits from philosophy because works
that include philosophical ideas are more likely to be successful, as people
will be more drawn to the real-world content and meaning of such books.
Philosophy benefits from being included in literature or having literary
devices because its ideas will likely receive a larger audience, and because
the emotional appeal of literature helps people to realize the value of
philosophical ideas and motivates them to act in accordance with those ideas.
Brandon Gaudet is a student at MCLA
_______________________
_______________________
Blood
and Oxygen
Nicole Kristin Braden
The primary
relationship between philosophy and literature is their symbiotic role in
understanding as well as appreciating human nature and the world around us. It
is similar to the relationship between the heart and the lungs. Our blood
carries the oxygen we need to the rest of our bodies, including our lungs and
heart. They both are necessary to the survival of the entire entity, and
neither of them could keep functioning in the absence of the other[1].
Literature
needs philosophy in order to impact our understanding of ourselves and the
universe. If we picture the heart as literature, and philosophy as lungs, we
see that blood without oxygen is empty and cannot keep the organism
functioning. Though it may have other purposes, such as providing entertainment
(just like blood can also close wounds), it is not sufficient for understanding
human nature.
Philosophy
needs literature in order to impact our understanding of ourselves and the
universe. If there is no blood to carry the oxygen from the lungs, the oxygen
is never transported to where it is most needed. Similarly, philosophy cannot
reach very many people without the literary form.
Literature and
philosophy are two of the many cornerstones to understanding ourselves and the
universe. We need the lungs and the heart to be functioning at their best to
live with the highest quality. We cannot fully understand ourselves and the
universe without reading -- and without reading philosophy. We could live with
only one lung, or a heart that works at only a certain percentage of its
capacity, but our lives would be much worse for it. With the same result we
could live without parts of literature and philosophy, like poetry and
epistemology.
One may object
to this that if both are inherent in each other, one only needs to focus on one
to gain a full understanding. However, they both give us different perspectives
and approaches to similar topics, some of which work better with certain ideas
than others. The heart cannot procure oxygen and lungs cannot pump blood. If
there is not enough blood to carry the oxygen, or if we have too little oxygen
in our blood, we become anemic.
A more cynical
objection may be that there is no point to trying to understand ourselves and
the universe, so we do not need literature or philosophy. This is perhaps the
hardest objection to answer. One could always reductively ask what the point of
it all is. However, I believe that I can confidently reply that human beings
will always encounter situations which rip them out of their blissfully
ignorant state. The loss of a loved one or even the encounter with love itself
will force individuals to think about themselves, their role in the world, and
the world around them. We invented literature and philosophy precisely because
we cannot help but contemplate these things.
Nicole Braden
is an alumna of MCLA.
____________________
The Aims of Higher Education
The Aims of Higher Education
Seth Kershner
What is higher education for,
in the end? What is its ultimate
aim?
These are questions of enormous relevance today, as state
governments struggle to support public higher education in the midst of an
historic recession. This bleak situation
has motivated some to reevaluate the role of the University. More and more we hear politicians and others
talk about how colleges and universities need to produce fewer Liberal Arts
graduates and more from job-specific disciplines. According to this line of reasoning, we need
to stop offering majors in such fields as Modern Languages (all but eliminated
at SUNY Albany) or Philosophy (on the chopping block at a number of schools),
so that administrators can put more money into developing professional training
programs in “growth areas” like Gaming and Homeland Security. To sum up: the proper response of colleges
and universities to an unprecedented economic crisis is to jettison the
Humanities, and become more and more aligned with corporate interests. Well, that’s one possible response to a
recession and record rates of poverty.
But there is another, one that starts with the question, What if we were to conceive of colleges and
universities as active participants
in the struggle against poverty? One
philosopher who contributed a great deal to answering this question was Ignacio
Ellacuría (1930-1989).
Ellacuría – a Jesuit philosopher, theologian and university
president – was a Basque born in Spain.
However, for most of his adult life he lived and worked in El
Salvador. During his decade-long tenure
as president of the Universidad Centro Americana (UCA), he molded the region’s
most prestigious university into a tool for criticizing ruling elites and
uncovering the causes of El Salvador’s widespread poverty. Ellacuría himself wrote numerous articles
promoting the idea of a negotiated, non-military solution to the Salvadoran
civil war (1980-1992). His advocacy
eventually cost him his life and the lives of five other Jesuit intellectuals
(along with a housekeeper and her daughter) when a U.S.-trained Salvadoran army
battalion carried out a massacre at the UCA in November 1989.
Ellacuría’s champions in the Anglo-American philosophy world
are few and far between, which is likely due to the fact that the bulk of his
philosophical work has never been translated into English. However, it is worth mentioning Steven Gamboa
(Cal State, Bakersfield) and David Gandolfo (Furman University). Gamboa has written several articles on the
thought of Ellacuría and sees in the Jesuit’s political philosophy a
much-needed antidote – one more rooted in the “real world” of power politics
and oppression – to the work of Nozick and Rawls[i]. Gandolfo has written – among other articles –
a useful comparison of Ellacuría with Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire.[ii]
In the remainder of this article I would like to just
outline one key aspect of Ellacuría’s thinking on the question of the
university: the poor and oppressed as “the horizon of university activity.” This aspect touches both on the ultimate aims
of the university as well as its inherently political function. Ellacuría rejected the supposed neutrality of
universities when he spoke at an UCA seminar in 1976: “There is no a-political
university because the university is an historical reality and consequently
conditions (and is in turn conditioned by) its historical context.”[iii] Thus, if the university 1) can never be
a-political, 2) is situated in a deeply divided society, as the UCA undoubtedly
was and as our own arguably are at the moment, and 3) if – as David Gandolfo
argues – “not to take sides is automatically to side with the dominant side”[iv]
– then those leading a university will either make a conscious decision to make
the poor and oppressed the horizon of their activity or allow the university to
be the plaything of the most powerful in society.
Making the poor and oppressed the focus of university
activity means that students – often seen as consumers who want a good return
on their investment – must relinquish any say over the direction of the
university. “If this [university]
community reproduces the interests of the reigning social system and of the
dominant elites … if students are coming to the university campus in order to
secure a dominant and profitable place in an unjustly structured society, we
find ourselves with a serious constraint on the ideal of the university’s
mission.”[v] A university that responds to the needs of
the poor would not be content simply to train students to take up positions in
an unjustly structured society. The
objective would be to maintain the university as a “place of freedom,” by which
Ellacuría meant freedom to critique the unjust distribution of wealth and
power, and to formulate viable solutions to the problems of the poor.[vi]
Students who object to academic institutions seeing them as
mere consumers- or workers-in-training, and who believe that colleges and
universities should be more creatively engaged with the problems of the world
we live in, would do well to turn to Ignacio Ellacuría for inspiration. And among the many good reasons to learn
Spanish, one that should stand out for philosophy students is the opportunity
to read his works in their original language.
Seth Kershner is an alumnus of MCLA and adjunct professor of
Spanish.
[1] We
do have other vital organs. Similarly, there are other disciplines (i.e.
science, music, anthropology, and others) which are vital to our understanding.
[i]
Steven Gamboa, “Realism and Utopia in the Political Philosophy of Ignacio
Ellacuría,” presentation online at http://tinyurl.com/bflyce9
[ii] David Ignatius Gandolfo, “A Role
for the Privileged? Solidarity and the University in the Work of Ignacio
Ellacuría and Paulo Freire,” Peace &
Justice Studies 17, no. 1 (2008): 9-33.
[iii] Ignacio Ellacuría, Escritos
universitarios, UCA Editores, San Salvador, pp. 94-95.
[iv]
Gandolfo, op. cit., pg. 16
[v]
Quoted in Hector Samour, “Universidad para la liberación: la proyección social
de la UCA,” online at http://www.uca.edu.sv/facultad/chn/c1170/Universidad_para_la_liberacion.pdf
[vi] Gandolfo, op cit., pg. 15
No comments:
Post a Comment