Deus ex machina

In Response to Kelsey (“Philosophy and Literature”)

“How do you personally view the relationship of philosophy and literature?”

            Kelsey’s recent blogpost acts a sort of precursor to the final essay topic to which we are writing about. She centered her post around the fact that she was interested in what everyone else thought about the relationship between philosophy and literature. As I will explain in my essay, I view literature as a medium for expressing philosophical truths, that, because of its aesthetic properties, is sometimes the most effective medium for expressing certain philosophical ideas. Of course, this shadows Nussbaum’s general views, which is a stance that I have supported all semester.  During the semester, no theorist has influenced me to the same level that Nussbaum has done; this is one part of this seminar that I will never forget. Learning about this subject has caused me to want to read all of Nussbaum’s work. This is off topic from the original question, but I find it to be important when discussing my general take-away’s from this semester. Nevertheless, when I think about the relationship between philosophy and literature, I cannot help but elucidate Nussbaum’s argument on the subject; in my view, her views accurately represent the relationship between philosophy and literature.

In Response to Nicole  “Guilt and Living a Normal Life”

I thought Nicole made some great points in her post regarding guilt and as our potential basis for decision-making. As Nicole seemed to implicitly refer to in her post, guilt certainly does play a substantial role in the decisions that we make; however, as Nicole rightly states, this does not mean that every decision needs to be base on feelings (or lack of) of guilt.

             In fact, if guilt did play a substantial role in every decision we made, we would probably go insane (as cliché as that sounds). There comes a point where we need to accept that we cannot always make the perfect decision; the actions we take will hurt others. Nicole provides some example of this in her own life. Although she seems to do whatever she can to make ethical and generally correct decision, in some cases, it is simply not possible. I thought that this was a great idea for a post, as it reinstates an idea that should not be discounted. 

In Response to Brandon (“Guilt”)

            I read Brandon’s pose after we had already discussed this idea in class; as such, it is easy for me to give a response to his post on guilt. Nevertheless, I still find it to be an important topic to acknowledge once again. First, Brendan obviously supports a determinist view; accordingly, as DKJ, we cannot even hold a discussion on guilt, and how it effects decisions if we choose to hold this view.

            While off topic, I still would want to point out the fact that never realized that determinism was completely incompatible with ethics before Dave pointed it out. This may be a simple notion, but I still find it fascinating. Considering the fact that it is difficult for me to argue against a determinist view, I was surprised to hear the word incompatible being used in conjunction with ethics. This discussion becomes interesting because, normatively speaking, it almost seems preferable to not support determinism because of the difficulties it holds when it comes to ethics. If determinism throws ethical discussions right out the window, it seems problematic to hold such a view because ethical considerations are so important.

            Other than this interesting side note, I found that Brandon stated some important ideas. For example, the fact that that feelings of guilt are something that we generally have no control over, but instead, can only look back on. I use the word generally because I think that it could be argued that we have the ability to control many of our thoughts, which in turn cause many of our emotions. Obviously, if you hold a determinist viewpoint, this is simply untrue. However, I am not ready to completely abolish this idea. Either way, I find it important that Brandon states that we should separate the simple feeling of guilt, with the act of feeling guilty. This distinction is one that must be made on the topic of guilt and decision-making. 

In Response to Avery (“Q&A 8—Second Answer”)

“The basic form of my question is: How should a teacher react if a student comes up with a theory more rational than the teacher's?”

            Of course, I agree with Avery in that the teacher should be willing to accept the students more rational theory. However, I think that this simple question also brings up an important fact; one that should be acknowledged more often. I think that the teacher, in addition to accepting the improved theory, should also challenge it in a way that makes the student think further about it. Since one of the central aims in education should be improving the critical thinking abilities of students, the instructor should never just accept an opposing theory without challenging it to a certain extent. 

Problem with a Subjective Reality

            As most are aware of, during class on Friday, we had an interesting discussion on the process of meaning creation in life. More specifically, we discussed the dynamics of subjective/objective realities. Clearly, it was not difficult for us to promulgate the problems with having an objective meaning of life. As Brett rightly stated, it is absurd to hold an objective view of the meaning of life, without any evidential support. Furthermore, competing objective realities will be in repeated conflict with one another. Accordingly, marinating and objective reality of the meaning of life is extremely problematic, at best.

            With that said, as I stated in class, it seems that a subjective reality, in regards to the meaning of life, is free from any major flaws. Of course, when I use the term subjective, I am also referring to the fact that the individual fully understands that their personal meaning in life is subjective. When I questioned this way of thinking in class, there were multiple problems raised. However, none of these supposed issues seemed to actually present a problem. For example, Avery stated that subjective realities would become problematic when competing realities came in contact. However, I do not see this to be a major problem if each individual understands his or her reality to be subjective. Consequently, I do not find much difficulty with holding a subjective reality. The only problem I see arises when ethical considerations are made. For example, if someone understands their reality to be subjective, they may decide that they are free to form their own ethics. However, since this is not a new problem, I do not see this to be a extreme issue. 

In Response to Stacey (What is the most important value in literature?)

                I enjoyed reading Stacey’s post on the important values of literature because she offered a perspective that is not usually taken. More specifically, she represented the catharsis view of literature, which is an important aspect of all forms of expression; at least in my view it is. Stacey points out that catharsis is a crucial aspect of what makes literature such an effective medium for expression. I agree, but I also agree with Krystal’s later response, where she pointed out that, in order for this to occur, the work must have an emotional impact on the reader. It does seem that the affective component of the reader must be altered in order for catharsis to occur, but this process also seems more complicated than this. It seems that the events in the book must be something that the reader is interested in; although, this probably goes hand-in-hand with the emotional impact. 

In Response to Nicole (“Educational Use of Books”)

I felt that Nicole’s post was great because it raised a question about Siegel’s writing that I would not have thought about before. Although, before I go on, I should point out that Siegel probably answered the question raised in the other chapters of the book we took last week’s reading out of.  

“Either he never stipulates that he thinks that all books are educational and teach people who to think critically, or he is only referring to a group of books which fulfill his own standards of teaching.”

From looking at these two options, I would go with the latter claim. I do not think Siegel was referring to all books. However, if he were referring to a group of books, I have a feeling that he would follow the Nussbaum approach and not identify exactly what type of book that he is referring to…