This is my last semester of school. Please pray that I don't get sick, miss a test, and don't graduate.
Anyway, I went to my English class yesterday morning for the first time. I can tell already that I'm not going to like this class. It turns out that the whole class is about interpreting hopelessly ambiguous literature. We read a really short story by Hemmingway. It was something about white elephant hills, I believe. I find this sort of thing annoying.
Here's why I find it annoying. Usually in this kind of literature, there's a point. There's a message the author wants to get across. Whether fiction, poetry, or philosophy, these people have a point of view they hope to communicate to their readers. It isn't just meaningless entertainment.
But the grand contradiction is that these people intentionally write ambiguously. They conceal their point of view, obscure their message, and leave as much room for speculation and misinterpretation as possible. What sense does that make? I remember complaining to a friend once that Nietzsche was like that, and he defended Nietzsche by saying something like, "Oh, you just have to appreciate aesthetic writing." Well I don't understand aesthetic writing. That's one of the things that annoys me about postmodern philosophers, too. They are intentionally ambiguous. What's the purpose of writing philosophy unless you intend to convey a point of view to your audience?
It seems to me that if you have a point of view you want to get across, you should articulate it as clearly as possible to give it the greatest chance of being understood. I don't understand why people write literature with a message they obscure intentionally. And my English teacher said one of the goals of the class is to teach us to communicate clearly. Isn't that ironic? She's going to teach us to communicate clearly by having us read literature that is intentionally unclear!
13 comments:
From the apple that mysteriously struck Newton's head, the confounding truths of the universe are enveloped inside the seeds of rhetoric, which blossom beautifully into trees of knowledge. But are we not like the Adam and Eves of before, gazing ever gently upon its tempting fruit -- its whispers begging us to free it from its desolate, hungry world -- alas, in a haunting rasper from the days of old King Midas, our world has become ever fragile, orphaned by its creator, lost without the words of tomorrow, left only with the gold-plated convolutions of today...
what was that?
Profitting off the real artists? The Leonardo Da Vinci foundation must be in fits.
I thought philosophy was for thinking. If art is too, then who's covering the aesthetic stuff? Maybe part of the problem is the rejection of the idea of objective beauty, so what's left then: statements.
Maybe another part of the problem is that the ideas being expressed are not really all that deep or palatable, so obfuscating it is a form of cover. You can ohh and ahh, and scratch your head for hours over it, when all it might say is "life is meaningless." One reason why C.S. Lewis is so revered is because he had a way of relaying very deep ideas in very simple terms (while also managing to be eloquent).
I also find that liberal academics and artists strive to impress their peers more than they enjoy profits and public appreciation. For this reason, the meaning is not so much of concern (they are preaching to the choir); it is the uniqueness of the presentation that is point of focus. And if the presentation is meant to be consistent with the underlying philosophy, then it only follows that some of the pomo art we've seen recently incorporates dung and urine.
So, Steve, how many people do you know who think a rainbow or sunset is hideous, or think a steaming pile of dung is lovely? And any who vary from the norm here may need to have their mental health examined.
There is certainly room for subjectivity within categories (Tom prefers blondes, Ed prefers brunettes), but I don't think relativism is warranted by the kind of loaded examples that are usually employed on this issue.
Steve, you've made my case for me. To deny our intuitions about beauty you have to have some environmental override. For example, my wife's grandmother did not like roses because she came to associate the smell with funerals. If she had no such negative association, then she would be free to experience what almost every other soul experiences.
As to categories, I only meant that we could break something like a healthy human being vs. those with deformities (e.g., the elephant man) into categories. You can then find people who have different subjective preferences within a category considered aesthetically appealing. For example, you and I could watch the Miss America pageant and agree that all the contestants were "attractive," but you and I would likely each pick a different one as a "knockout."
And, in fact, we might discover that the reason everyone doesn't think this or that model to be the "best" is because of life experiences that cause us all to have different "tastes." I would propose that our confusion over the matter of objectivity here (and other areas) may simply be a matter of psychological and worldview differences. In any case, we all have a sense of beauty and ugly, and that suggests they are objective categories. What sense does it then make to have such ideas without something to satisfy them?
Sam, I would encourage you to check this fellow out: sandwichesforsale.blogspot.com
He is a very interesting ex-Christian who is well schooled in Christianity (and, apparently apologetics), and has embraced atheism. He's just started blogging and has lain out some of his position and objections. A lot can be dealt with at a purely philosophical level I think.
One reason why C.S. Lewis is so revered is because he had a way of relaying very deep ideas in very simple terms (while also managing to be eloquent).
That's why I love C.S. Lewis. Now there's a guy who knows how to articulate his ideas clearly. I try to be like him when I write.
Thanks for the link, Paul. That is bound to stir the noodle. I've been in a bit of a slump lately. I haven't been that motivated to think, study, debate, or anything like that. Maybe this is just what I need.
Sam
Steve, yes I have a high view of God's sovereignty, so I believe that there was a purpose in the plight of John Merrick. However, this does not mean that he was "beautiful" in the conventional sense of that word, otherwise we would not say, "Poor John" and see him in need of our mercies. If John was "beautiful," then we might expect him to be "deformed" in heaven as well (assuming he will be there), rather than his "corruption putting on incorruption." John's body was not in the form of a well and functional human, which it is intrinsically good and beautiful to be, so we can say that it is ugly in that sense. However, we can certainly say that his person (or soul) is intrinsically good, and the "good" is in a certain sense "beautiful," just as God's plans are good and thus beautiful. But we should not equivocate the concept of "beauty" in its different applications.
God doesn't make a mistake but God also can't control everything. Even if things are a certain way, that doesn't mean God intended it to be that way. If I rob a bank that doesn't mean He wanted me to do it; He just couldn't stop me from doing it.
And if he does intend something 'bad' to happen, that doesn't mean he doesn't intend to also fix that thing at a later time, or that he didn't have a good reason for it. This includes Elephant Man, who has made a noticeable impact on this world (look, we're still talking about him).
an ominipotent, omniscient God is absolutely inconsistent with the statement that "God can't control everything".
And an omnibenevolent God, then?
The purported solution to the Problem of Evil is that God can not control the wills of free creatures because that would entail a logical contradiction. But if God really does have control over everything, then this makes the solution invalid. How, then would you reconcile God's goodness with evil in the world if you say that God truly controls everything that goes on, including that evil?
I've got too many irons in the fire to start down this very long and interesting road (on the problem of evil and free will).
Steve, to begin with the John 7:24 verse is not even dealing with the problem of physical appearance; it is dealing with the problem of the Jewish leadership mistaking the letter of the law (and misapplying it) for the spirit of the law. But even if it were, it seems to demand that there is a dichotomy between the outward appearance and something else. It seems to be suggesting that there could be something wrong with the outward that would cause one to mistakenly devalue some sort of true worth, otherwise there would be no admonition to be wary of the outward.
Again, I would make the case that there is a difference between aesthetic beauty and the worth/goodness/value of something. I think you are equivocating the meaning here. Something can be ugly, like a trash can, but be useful — two different things. Or something could be beautiful, like a supermodel, but be shallow and petty. You might think Paris Hilton is attractive, but you might call her behavior "ugly." This may be a culturally meaningful way to use the word, but it crosses categories in reality.
Something interesting and relevant I just came across:
Pisteuo: Justin Jenkins' Weblog: Once Again It's Time for "What Art is Not"
Post a Comment