Deus ex machina

At the end of class on Friday, DKJ mentioned the fact that we failed to cover numerous important contentions in the class reading. Of course, this occurs often because of the lack of time that we have and the endless number of topics that we can bring up in class. There was, however, one specific topic that Dave mentioned that I was especially disappointed that we did not discuss. That is, the contentious claim that Nussbaum makes in regards to the importance of emotions in understanding philosophical truths.

This, of course, is an immediately contentious claim because, when treated prima facie, the claim seems automatically contradictory. The affective component of humans seems to run contrary to good reason. Consequently, it seems that emotions would only make understanding worse. However, as Dave mentioned in class, Nussbaum makes an extremely strong argument in defense of her claim. I would have to agree with Nussbaum, in that, specifically in the case of ethical truths (i.e. how shall we live), understanding is improved when the affective component of humans is utilized.

The inclusion of emotions in better understanding is something that I think should be primarily associated with ethical truths. It is my view that, ethical truths are associated with emotions more than other types of philosophical truths; accordingly, understanding can be increased when emotions become involved. For example, the significance of an event that occurs in a story will be exponentially increased if the reader is engaged emotionally. Consequently, if that event teaches an ethical truth then this process of teaching will become much more effective when the affective component of humans is involved.

“2. Are novels truly objective in the way in which they should be interpreted?”

Similarly to my previous question, I now view this as a question that could be worded in better way. However, I do think that that this is still a subject that should be focused on.

During class on Wednesday, we spent some time discussing Nussbaum’s claim that the individual reader should not play a role in the process in of interpreting a literary text. In her own words, “seeing something in a literary text is unlike seeing shapes in the clouds, or in the fire” (9).

And so, from that quote, I find that I have a better question. What role (if any) should personal interpretation play? Clearly, in Nussbaum’s view, the answer would be none, but I am not ready to completely accept that answer just yet. It seems that, although there is only one correct way to interpret each piece of literary work, personal interpretation could still play a minor role.

In order to explain, I will provide an example. Even though a reader may reach the correct conclusion in regards to the significance of a story, they could end up understanding the work in different way once they relate the work to their life. For example, if a person had an experience that was similar to what they read about in the novel, then they may place more emphasis on that particular aspect of the story. Accordingly, they may still have interpreted the story in the correct way, but still understand the story in a subjective manner.

However, this is not to imply that a piece of literature is completely up for personal interpretation. I would agree with Nussbaum in that there is only one correct personal interpretation for each piece of literary work. However, although that aspect of interpretations is completely objective, it seems that there is still a role for personal interpretation in regards to the way in which a person views each piece of literary work

“1. Is the claim that novels allow us to distinguish our own identity a veracious claim?”

Subsequent to our class discussion on Friday, and also due to the simple fact that I spent more time thinking about this question, I really started to detest it. Before I continue, I should mention that this question came from a quote that I posted in my previous blogpost.

“[Reading Novel’s] is the best way to figure out what it feels like to be in someone else's head—and that's what helps us to distinguish our own identity."

After reading this quote the first time, I immediately questioned the veracity of the claim that reading novels helps the reader distinguish their own identity. However, after analyzing this claim, it did not take much time for me to decide that I agree with it. In addition, as I brought up in my previous blogpost, I think that it should be noted that this claim is important in regards to the impact that novels have on the individual reader.

I found the quote in the pop-psychology magazine Psychology Today; the specific article was labeled “8 Acts of Authenticity-How to know what you really want.” There were 8 bullet points, each displaying a different “act of authenticity”. The very first bullet point said read novels, and was followed by the quote I listed above.
As I mentioned earlier, this quote makes a lot of sense at this point. While the reader is in the process of reading a novel, they will tend to take a stance on which characters they support. At least, I would say this is true from my own personal experiences. Accordingly, this process can help the reader understand themselves better because they become more aware of the different views in which they support. If a reader supports a character that represents a specific philosophical view, they are likely to represent the identical view in their own life. Consequently, it assists the reader in deciphering their personality.

Before blindly accepting this, I think the above reasoning should be questioned further. Specifically, I am wondering whether the reader decides for themselves which views they support according to their previously held views, or whether the author influences the reader based on the way in which they frame the story.

I suspect the answer would be some combination of the two views. I think that the process of reading novels does teach the reader more about themselves. The characters that I often remember from stories, or the ones that have had the most influence on me, are the ones in which I wish to be like. However, I also believe that the stories we read also teach us something that the author intended for us to learn. Accordingly, I do not think that the way in which we percieve novels is completely up to the individual, but rather all individuals tend to follow the story in a similar way. It is only that certain characters or situations may have more of an impact on certain individuals and less on others.

Keeping my earlier conclusions in mind, I would certainly say that the claim I questions is truthful, however I think that we must always keep in mind that the overall reading experience is more consistent between each readers than the claim implies. Although, each “individual filter” plays a role in the reading experience, as a whole, every reader follows the same path designed by the author.

There was one line from Nussbaum's writing that really impacted me. Before I discuss my thoughts regarding the significance of this line, I should first point out the fact that this line brings up a topic that I find to be one of the essential topics of this seminar; accordingly, I expect to address the gamut of questions related to this topic throughout the semester.

Drawing the analogy between antediluvian dramas and fiction, Nussbaum says,
“To attend a tragic drama was not to go to a distraction or a fantasy, in the course of which one suspended one’s anxious practical questions. It was instead, to engage in a communal process of inquiry, reflection, and feeling with respect to important civic and personal questions.” (15)

This quote immediately answered a question that had been bothering me while I was reading the introduction to Nussbaum’s book; the question of why literature can be a more effective medium for communicating philosophical truths. Although, Nussbaum certainly states the literatures affective influence is a major reason for the effectiveness of this medium (my awkward play on words should provide a good example of the importance of style, or lack thereof). Although I do agree that the impact of emotions is certainly an important impact of literatures effectiveness, I think this is one piece of a larger puzzle.

It seems that literature is often times more effective in communicating truths than so-called dry philosophical writing because of the human component. In other words, literature is powerful because it is superior at engaging the reader compared to other forms of expression. The processes of “inquiry, reflection”, etc., are what I believe to be reason for literatures effectiveness in expressing truths.

"[Reading novels] is the best way to figure out what it feels like to be in someone else's head—and that's what helps us to distinguish our own identity." —John Portmann, professor of religious ethics, University of Virginia

Just from personal experience, I can say that philosophical ideas presented in novels tend to make a larger impact on my views of the world solely based on the fact that I tend to relate the story to my own experiences. Furthermore, this process of relating the story to my own life is what allows me to reflect on the philosophical ideas even further. Suddenly, basic ideas become significantly more powerful because I apply the ideas to my own life. Of course, this process of self-reflection tends to bring in the emotional component as well, but I think that this is only one piece of the entire puzzle. The reader themselves is what I view as the essential reason for the fact that novels are often more effective in conveying philosophical ideas then other forms of writing (at least, I think so).