Stolnitz maintains that there is no
cognitive value in art, primarily because of the fact, in his view, that art
does not produce any truths not already found in other disciplines. He
maintains that these truths about the so-called “great world” are discovered
through science, and that art can only provide support to these scientific
truths. After my first read through, I wanted to completely throw-out this
argument. It seemed absolutely ludicrous to maintain that art is not able to
discover novel ideas, or novel truths. However, once I dug deeper into
Stolintz’s argument, it seems certainly possible that art is unable to discover
completely novel ideas. That is because almost any idea discovered through art
is, when broken down to its basic concepts, at least in some way previously
conveyed by scientific inquiry. While I could be mistaken in this point,
Stolnitz’s argument does appear to hold some weight.
My problem with Stolnitz’s position
goes further than the premise just considered. Instead, his argument seems to
become particularly problematic when he uses this premise to arrive at his
final conclusion. I do not agree with the idea that, just because literature is
incapable of adding any completely novel insights, that is therefore empty of
cognitive value. Stolnitz seems to be discounting the fact that art is
considerably important because it allows us to augment our previously held
insights. Literature may not create completely new ideas, but it certainly
leads to us viewing current ideas in a different light. Accordingly, I think
that Stolnitz has a set of solid premises, but he ultimately misses the point
with his final conclusion.
0 comments:
Post a Comment