On absolutes I think this is a more complex issue that some above have suggested.
I am in some senses a Platonist in that I think there are some absolutes in science. However I think the most important absolute is that the universe is both massive and incredibly small and our existence is at the smaller end of magnitudes.
It is perfectly possible to create an environment of hard-and-fast absolutes at one scale that are utterly meaningless at another. As an example, we grow microbes in a laboratory in petri dish to limit the variables, that does not mean that the limitations are universal.
Returning to the engineering question of what studying literature is for, one possibility is that it's (still) the teaching of value or values.
As an engineer (more-or-less), my journey into critical reading involved examining opaque texts including code and badly-written instructions, in order to determine how some piece of software or hardware worked. (Or at least how it was intended to work.) These days, I would say that hardware itself is also a text.
I'm currently wondering if there's an engineering analogy for the intriguing (to me) relationship of literature studies to the question of existence preceding (or not preceding) essence.
I get the impression that the starry-eyed structuralists I encountered at university were busy deconstructing everything and anything with their magic silver-hammer - but that things have settled down since.
Although if you're attuned to see 'Reds under the beds' then anything with a left of centre perspective is going to be construed as incipient Marxism.
Equally, there is a tendency on the far left to use the 'f-word' - facism - for anything they don't approve of. It rather debates the coinage when there are real fascists about.
I don't 'despise' the Marxist critiques and structuralist/post-structuralist approaches I was exposed to at university. They add to the toolbox as it were.
Lewis's literary criticism was way out of fashion at that time, even in departments which hadn't succumbed to the seductive allure of structuralism.
Yes, he would still be cited for some of his writings about medieval and Renaissance literature and courtly love but always with caveats.
I've got nothing 'against' Lewis but feel his literary criticism is very much of its day. These things date. A lot of the supposedly cutting-edge stuff I encountered at university looks pretty dated now.
I've got nothing 'against' Lewis but feel his literary criticism is very much of its day. These things date. A lot of the supposedly cutting-edge stuff I encountered at university looks pretty dated now.
Some things become dated, certainly, but as we (and Lewis) would agree, not all.
'I've got nothing 'against' Lewis but feel his literary criticism is very much of its day. These things date'.
I remember Lewis himself discussing 'dated' ideas and theories in (I think) 'The poverty of historisism'. He asked questions like, 'when was the idea refuted (and by whom)? Was the refutation sound?' etc. I think he concluded that the term 'dated' was pretty much meaningless as to whether whether the 'dated' ideas were true or (importantly) interesting.
'I've got nothing 'against' Lewis but feel his literary criticism is very much of its day. These things date'.
I remember Lewis himself discussing 'dated' ideas and theories in (I think) 'The poverty of historisism'. He asked questions like, 'when was the idea refuted (and by whom)? Was the refutation sound?' etc. I think he concluded that the term 'dated' was pretty much meaningless as to whether whether the 'dated' ideas were true or (importantly) interesting.
Amen times a million.
I checked and “the poverty of historicism” was by Karl Popper – Lewis did, however, write an essay called “historicism”:
We tend to read history backwards. "Whig history" is this phenomena where one sees the past as being events which lead up to the glorious present, as Wikipedia puts it
At the same time it is unavoidable that one reads the past with the view from the present. The liberal tradition for example arguably considers JS Mill and Bentham's utilitarianism as being steps in the formulation of liberal freedoms. But today one can only judge these idealists by today's standards, nobody is arguing that we can lift wholesale their contributions because in some respects they look patchy at best. One could say similar things about those who developed the ideas behind the American constitution, the French republic and many other things.
It is not snobbery to have thought about ideas from the past from today's perspective and to have decided that in various respects they are wrong.
For one thing this must by definition have been what CS Lewis himself did.
As a proponent of Big T Tradition then I'm going to say that 'developments' are more an elucidation of what's already been 'revealed' - in theological terms that is.
Which immediately begs questions as to why we should make a distinction between that and literary and cultural theories, say.
Was I a complete phoney using some of these models in essays, dissertations and exams whilst holding to 'traditional' views on theology and religious truth?
Or was I compartmentalising these things for pragmatic reasons?
Obviously, all of us have been shaped by post-Enlightenment liberal views and I'm not saying that we should try and adopt a pre-modern quasi-medievalist approach as an antidote to that- although many of my co-religionists seem to trying to do that.
It's a long time since I read Lewis and remember that I found many of his insights helpful but I'd only cite him sparingly.
On the 'progress' thing ... well yes, my whole approach is a tension - creative I hope - between pre-modern, modernist and post-modern influences.
I suppose the 'trick' is to try and maintain an equilibrium and elasticity, a framework rather than a strait-jacket.
I was struck by a comment someone made on a BBC Radio 4 programme about Evensong in the Anglican tradition. They quoted the poet RS Thomas who spoke about 'the scaffolding of the spirit'.
The structure of Evensong was the 'scaffolding' for the spiritual content.
I like that. And I love Evensong too.
What's this got to do with literature and literary criticism?
Well, a fair bit I'd say in that we are dealing with a product of the 'human spirit'.
That doesn't mean I want to get all 'romantic' about these things, as in the high Victorian 'bardolatory' that characterised that era's approach to Shakespeare's plays for instance.
We can get a bit 'Gnostic' about things other than theology.
Anyhow, at the risk of sounding overly pious, I'm thinking a lot about phronema - acquiring the mind of Christ - the collective 'mind' of the Church - shock, horror.
What does that mean in practice? How does it inform our approach to literature, music and art - as well as social issues and everything else besides?
Too much there for a single post ...
Yes, these things can be 'over-applied' in a fundamentalist kind of way and not just by Six-Day Creationists.
I s'pose I'm running in order to stand still. Progressing to stand at the 'still point of the turning world.'
Can someone explain the context of the CS Lewis use of the phrase "chronological snobbery". I was wondering if he could be saying something about academics and intellectuals who reject Christianity as old hat and passe. Wikipedia cites a CS Lewis book but does not explain the context.
I dredged up a quote from my memory which I thought was from CS Lewis but which turns out to be from GK Chesterton "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried."
I have not investigated the context of the Chesterton quote and it may not be related.
... I was struck by a comment someone made on a BBC Radio 4 programme about Evensong in the Anglican tradition. They quoted the poet RS Thomas who spoke about 'the scaffolding of the spirit'.
The structure of Evensong was the 'scaffolding' for the spiritual content.
I like that. And I love Evensong too. ...
Thank you for that @Gamma Gamaliel. If your stream of consciousness bears fruit like that, then whatever @pease may say, bring it on.
I think it's more 'thinking aloud' (thinking allowed) than 'stream of consciousness' although I can understand why @pease objected to it.
I bear him no ill will for doing so.
I sometimes type as I think, particularly on my phone rather than at my laptop, rather than marshaling my ideas beforehand and I know that can be discombobulating.
I'll try to do both. Sketches and scribbles to get things clear in my own mind don't always come across that well to other posters.
... I was struck by a comment someone made on a BBC Radio 4 programme about Evensong in the Anglican tradition. They quoted the poet RS Thomas who spoke about 'the scaffolding of the spirit'.
The structure of Evensong was the 'scaffolding' for the spiritual content.
I like that. And I love Evensong too. ...
Thank you for that @Gamma Gamaliel. If your stream of consciousness bears fruit like that, then whatever @pease may say, bring it on.
I think it's more 'thinking aloud' (thinking allowed) than 'stream of consciousness' although I can understand why @pease objected to it.
I bear him no ill will for doing so.
I sometimes type as I think, particularly on my phone rather than at my laptop, rather than marshaling my ideas beforehand and I know that can be discombobulating.
I'll try to do both. Sketches and scribbles to get things clear in my own mind don't always come across that well to other posters.
for the thinking aloud when i see a line of lines masquearding as thiughts in a line with no concept of paragroaphs or collections of thoughts assembled or crtafted into a cohernet object on which teh eye can gave and take in from different angles or comprhend the assembly of thought why shouold i spend any time or effort in to piecing together the assembly of my thoughts into pharasing that might just possibly convey some idea or concept?
Less is not the same as none. It might even be more.
for the thinking aloud when i see a line of lines masquearding as thiughts in a line with no concept of paragroaphs or collections of thoughts assembled or crtafted into a cohernet object on which teh eye can gave and take in from different angles or comprhend the assembly of thought why shouold i spend any time or effort in to piecing together the assembly of my thoughts into pharasing that might just possibly convey some idea or concept?
Less is not the same as none. It might even be more.
Spelling errors aside, the condensed version of this is that you saw no value in trying to parse the comment and therefore there was no value to anyone in it. Others, as we have seen, disagree.
for the thinking aloud when i see a line of lines masquearding as thiughts in a line with no concept of paragroaphs or collections of thoughts assembled or crtafted into a cohernet object on which teh eye can gave and take in from different angles or comprhend the assembly of thought why shouold i spend any time or effort in to piecing together the assembly of my thoughts into pharasing that might just possibly convey some idea or concept?
Less is not the same as none. It might even be more.
Hostly beret on
@pease This is a personal attack. Desist or take it to hell please.
…
Some things become dated, certainly, but as we (and Lewis) would agree, not all.
pease said
the intriguing (to me) relationship of literature studies to the question of existence preceding (or not preceding) essence.
Indeed—as you may know from some of my other posts and even a thread a while back, I’m an essentialist, not an existentialist, myself.
Indeed. Your thesis being "on notes toward a metaphysically essentialist model for literary criticism" came as even less of a surprise than Dafyd's being "on literature and philosophy".
This short essay on C. S. Lewis and the Historical Imagination references a number of points made on the last couple of pages. (I prefer Chesterton's conception of "seeing history from the inside" and I note that literary studies is taken to include history.)
I like Lewis' basic premise regarding the value of the imagination, in his case in relation to history:
In studying Lewis’s work in history, it is clear that he thought history, when studied in the imaginative mode previously mentioned, is a liberal art in the truest sense of the term.
…
[What becomes clear is the] emphasis Lewis places on the imaginative nature of history. For Lewis, the inheritance of history is not merely a collection of facts or dates but a kaleidoscope of worldviews that can enrich our lives and give us greater wisdom.
In my case, it was the presentation of history as a collection of facts and dates that terminated my relationship with anything historical for a good many years. Nevertheless, I can testify to the value of the imagination in many aspects of my work including, as previously mentioned, examining texts including code and badly-written instructions, written as they were in a wide variety of paradigms.
…
Some things become dated, certainly, but as we (and Lewis) would agree, not all.
pease said
the intriguing (to me) relationship of literature studies to the question of existence preceding (or not preceding) essence.
Indeed—as you may know from some of my other posts and even a thread a while back, I’m an essentialist, not an existentialist, myself.
Indeed. Your thesis being "on notes toward a metaphysically essentialist model for literary criticism" came as even less of a surprise than Dafyd's being "on literature and philosophy".
This short essay on C. S. Lewis and the Historical Imagination references a number of points made on the last couple of pages. (I prefer Chesterton's conception of "seeing history from the inside" and I note that literary studies is taken to include history.)
I like Lewis' basic premise regarding the value of the imagination, in his case in relation to history:
In studying Lewis’s work in history, it is clear that he thought history, when studied in the imaginative mode previously mentioned, is a liberal art in the truest sense of the term.
…
[What becomes clear is the] emphasis Lewis places on the imaginative nature of history. For Lewis, the inheritance of history is not merely a collection of facts or dates but a kaleidoscope of worldviews that can enrich our lives and give us greater wisdom.
In my case, it was the presentation of history as a collection of facts and dates that terminated my relationship with anything historical for a good many years. Nevertheless, I can testify to the value of the imagination in many aspects of my work including, as previously mentioned, examining texts including code and badly-written instructions, written as they were in a wide variety of paradigms.
Have you ever read the “Chronicle” book series? They’re massive tomes which present historical events in order as if they were written in newspaper style for each era or year, without reference to what happened later until it happens (“Stone tools are now being used…” “A new style of pottery has come into vogue…” “Prince So-And-So is now fourteen, and is beloved by the people” and then later “Prince So-And-So, fifteen, has died in a hunting accident, and his brother will now inherit the throne” (I remember reading something like that, which really struck me as you know wondering what would’ve happened if the good and magnanimous prince had lived, and the bad one had not become king…)). I read Chronicle of Britain in the 90s and it was awesome!
It is perfectly possible to create an environment of hard-and-fast absolutes at one scale that are utterly meaningless at another. As an example, we grow microbes in a laboratory in petri dish to limit the variables, that does not mean that the limitations are universal.
If there are constraints, what you're talking about are not absolutes. If your concept of an absolute depends on scale, you need to be able to identify a precise point on the scale at which the absolute ceases to be absolute.
Spelling errors aside, the condensed version of this is that you saw no value in trying to parse the comment and therefore there was no value to anyone in it.
No. As Gamma Gamaliel suggested, I found it decidedly discombobulating.
Have you ever read the “Chronicle” book series? They’re massive tomes…
Never read, but they're familiar enough. "The first coffee table book seriously to threaten the well-being of coffee-tables." I often wondered how many of the people who bought them (or were given them), read them.
Your description suggests to me that the premise is somewhat disingenuous regarding the use of hindsight in deciding what is news. In the context of this thread, I suppose we could see it as another form of literary theory.
It is perfectly possible to create an environment of hard-and-fast absolutes at one scale that are utterly meaningless at another. As an example, we grow microbes in a laboratory in petri dish to limit the variables, that does not mean that the limitations are universal.
If there are constraints, what you're talking about are not absolutes. If your concept of an absolute depends on scale, you need to be able to identify a precise point on the scale at which the absolute ceases to be absolute.
Nonsense. You only know what you know, you can't define the point where the rule no longer applies if you do not know where it no longer applies.
Nonsense. You only know what you know, you can't define the point where the rule no longer applies if you do not know where it no longer applies.
That looks like a truism (from certain angles). But it seems unrelated to the previous point about absolutes - rules are guides, they are not absolutes.
More generally, I see a fundamental problem with the following point, which you've bought up a number of times on different threads:
I am in some senses a Platonist in that I think there are some absolutes in science. However I think the most important absolute is that the universe is both massive and incredibly small and our existence is at the smaller end of magnitudes.
In the context of empirical science, scale matters. In the context of metaphysics, it doesn't. I can't see anything to be gained by trying to import an empirical concept of scale into categories in which it doesn't fit.
Science assumes that there is a Platonic "real answer" when conducting science experiments. Mathematics holds together in beautiful ways that suggest to many that it reflects the underlying structure of the universe rather than just notation.
The "laws of physics" are directly labelled as being absolutes. And as far as we know they are absolutes in the sense of applying at all times and in all places. Except that by definition they only apply to the situation that we are familiar with and therefore may not be absolutes for situations outside of our experience and imagining.
I do not know what you mean by metaphysics. As far as I understand Plato he suggests in his Forms that things (perhaps all things) are versions of some ideal form that exists in the ether somewhere.
As a generality I do not agree. I do not think there is a "form of an apple". But I do think Pi as a constant is a thing that is part of the structure of reality, it is not just some convenient ratio, it actually seems to be something important.
It is perfectly possible to create an environment of hard-and-fast absolutes at one scale that are utterly meaningless at another. As an example, we grow microbes in a laboratory in petri dish to limit the variables, that does not mean that the limitations are universal.
If there are constraints, what you're talking about are not absolutes. If your concept of an absolute depends on scale, you need to be able to identify a precise point on the scale at which the absolute ceases to be absolute.
Spelling errors aside, the condensed version of this is that you saw no value in trying to parse the comment and therefore there was no value to anyone in it.
No. As Gamma Gamaliel suggested, I found it decidedly discombobulating.
Have you ever read the “Chronicle” book series? They’re massive tomes…
Never read, but they're familiar enough. "The first coffee table book seriously to threaten the well-being of coffee-tables." I often wondered how many of the people who bought them (or were given them), read them.
Your description suggests to me that the premise is somewhat disingenuous regarding the use of hindsight in deciding what is news. In the context of this thread, I suppose we could see it as another form of literary theory.
I don’t think it was disingenuous at all. That’s a bit of a serious accusation for anyone. Obviously, when it comes to history or archaeology they had to work with what’s available from the sources, but that doesn’t mean they were doing something deceptively wrong. They could even have unconsciously left things out, but again, that’s not going against the basic moral principles of honesty.
Again, I don’t think this is a matter of literary theory, but of an accusation of very serious moral failing. I know I would be very angry if someone accused me of that.
Science assumes that there is a Platonic "real answer" when conducting science experiments. Mathematics holds together in beautiful ways that suggest to many that it reflects the underlying structure of the universe rather than just notation.
The "laws of physics" are directly labelled as being absolutes. And as far as we know they are absolutes in the sense of applying at all times and in all places. Except that by definition they only apply to the situation that we are familiar with and therefore may not be absolutes for situations outside of our experience and imagining.
I do not know what you mean by metaphysics. As far as I understand Plato he suggests in his Forms that things (perhaps all things) are versions of some ideal form that exists in the ether somewhere.
As a generality I do not agree. I do not think there is a "form of an apple". But I do think Pi as a constant is a thing that is part of the structure of reality, it is not just some convenient ratio, it actually seems to be something important.
Metaphysics does not begin and end with only Plato. It’s not something, by definition, that the physical sciences can measure.
It is perfectly possible to create an environment of hard-and-fast absolutes at one scale that are utterly meaningless at another. As an example, we grow microbes in a laboratory in petri dish to limit the variables, that does not mean that the limitations are universal.
If there are constraints, what you're talking about are not absolutes. If your concept of an absolute depends on scale, you need to be able to identify a precise point on the scale at which the absolute ceases to be absolute.
Spelling errors aside, the condensed version of this is that you saw no value in trying to parse the comment and therefore there was no value to anyone in it.
No. As Gamma Gamaliel suggested, I found it decidedly discombobulating.
Have you ever read the “Chronicle” book series? They’re massive tomes…
Never read, but they're familiar enough. "The first coffee table book seriously to threaten the well-being of coffee-tables." I often wondered how many of the people who bought them (or were given them), read them.
Your description suggests to me that the premise is somewhat disingenuous regarding the use of hindsight in deciding what is news. In the context of this thread, I suppose we could see it as another form of literary theory.
I don’t think it was disingenuous at all. That’s a bit of a serious accusation for anyone. Obviously, when it comes to history or archaeology they had to work with what’s available from the sources, but that doesn’t mean they were doing something deceptively wrong. They could even have unconsciously left things out, but again, that’s not going against the basic moral principles of honesty.
Again, I don’t think this is a matter of literary theory, but of an accusation of very serious moral failing. I know I would be very angry if someone accused me of that.
(Don’t get me wrong – I’m not pretending that I’m incapable of such evil as that.)
I'm curiously reassured to discover that conversations like this still exist.
Science assumes that there is a Platonic "real answer" when conducting science experiments.
I suppose there might be scientists who think like this. But I'm not convinced that science itself does.
Mathematics holds together in beautiful ways that suggest to many that it reflects the underlying structure of the universe rather than just notation.
Mathematics is not a science.
The "laws of physics" are directly labelled as being absolutes.
The "laws of mathematics" can be considered to be absolute in a way that does not apply to the "laws of physics".
And as far as we know they are absolutes in the sense of applying at all times and in all places. Except that by definition they only apply to the situation that we are familiar with and therefore may not be absolutes for situations outside of our experience and imagining.
I don't know what you mean by "Except that by definition", except that it looks a lot like a conjunction used to introduce a contradiction.
The "laws of physics" are not, as a rule, held to apply in the first few instants following the Big Bang.
I do not know what you mean by metaphysics. As far as I understand Plato he suggests in his Forms that things (perhaps all things) are versions of some ideal form that exists in the ether somewhere.
As a generality I do not agree. I do not think there is a "form of an apple". But I do think Pi as a constant is a thing that is part of the structure of reality, it is not just some convenient ratio, it actually seems to be something important.
In Euclidian geometry, at any rate. Other geometries are available.
I'm curiously reassured to discover that conversations like this still exist.
Science assumes that there is a Platonic "real answer" when conducting science experiments.
I suppose there might be scientists who think like this. But I'm not convinced that science itself does.
Mathematics holds together in beautiful ways that suggest to many that it reflects the underlying structure of the universe rather than just notation.
Mathematics is not a science.
The "laws of physics" are directly labelled as being absolutes.
The "laws of mathematics" can be considered to be absolute in a way that does not apply to the "laws of physics".
And as far as we know they are absolutes in the sense of applying at all times and in all places. Except that by definition they only apply to the situation that we are familiar with and therefore may not be absolutes for situations outside of our experience and imagining.
I don't know what you mean by "Except that by definition", except that it looks a lot like a conjunction used to introduce a contradiction.
The "laws of physics" are not, as a rule, held to apply in the first few instants following the Big Bang.
I do not know what you mean by metaphysics. As far as I understand Plato he suggests in his Forms that things (perhaps all things) are versions of some ideal form that exists in the ether somewhere.
As a generality I do not agree. I do not think there is a "form of an apple". But I do think Pi as a constant is a thing that is part of the structure of reality, it is not just some convenient ratio, it actually seems to be something important.
In Euclidian geometry, at any rate. Other geometries are available.
This is nothing about literature. If you want to discuss the philosophy of science then let's start a different thread topic.
pease, I might have misunderstood you, and if so, I do apologize. (There needs to be a better embarrassment emoji than this one 😳 )
That's OK, ChastMastr, I appreciated the directness.
It hadn't occurred to me to see it as a moral failing. To my mind, presenting historical events as though they're news items is more of a failing to teach virtue.
Speaking of literature: Are we thinking here about fine literature or genre literature? Do the various genres have specific required characteristics? For instance, does science fiction necessarily involve futurism? In a work of fantasy, must there be references to magic? Is it true that a romance must end with a wedding and a tragedy with a funeral, or do I have that backwards? Do all fictional detectives (Holmes, Spade, Miss Marple) have some required characteristics in common?
Some of us are actually interested in literature, even if not exalted.
pease, I might have misunderstood you, and if so, I do apologize. (There needs to be a better embarrassment emoji than this one 😳 )
That's OK, ChastMastr, I appreciated the directness.
It hadn't occurred to me to see it as a moral failing. To my mind, presenting historical events as though they're news items is more of a failing to teach virtue.
I don't understand that--In the books, you just turn the page and you see a "news" item showing what happened next. You know, in the beginning, so-and-so is planning a voyage somewhere, and it doesn't give you spoilers about whether the ships will go down, or make it, or the like, and then you see what happened next, and what happened after that, without necessarily knowing how various things are going to turn out unless you already know that particular bit of history. How does this (in itself) go against virtue? *confused*
I'm curiously reassured to discover that conversations like this still exist.
Science assumes that there is a Platonic "real answer" when conducting science experiments.
I suppose there might be scientists who think like this. But I'm not convinced that science itself does.
Mathematics holds together in beautiful ways that suggest to many that it reflects the underlying structure of the universe rather than just notation.
Mathematics is not a science.
The "laws of physics" are directly labelled as being absolutes.
The "laws of mathematics" can be considered to be absolute in a way that does not apply to the "laws of physics".
And as far as we know they are absolutes in the sense of applying at all times and in all places. Except that by definition they only apply to the situation that we are familiar with and therefore may not be absolutes for situations outside of our experience and imagining.
I don't know what you mean by "Except that by definition", except that it looks a lot like a conjunction used to introduce a contradiction.
The "laws of physics" are not, as a rule, held to apply in the first few instants following the Big Bang.
I do not know what you mean by metaphysics. As far as I understand Plato he suggests in his Forms that things (perhaps all things) are versions of some ideal form that exists in the ether somewhere.
As a generality I do not agree. I do not think there is a "form of an apple". But I do think Pi as a constant is a thing that is part of the structure of reality, it is not just some convenient ratio, it actually seems to be something important.
In Euclidian geometry, at any rate. Other geometries are available.
This is nothing about literature. If you want to discuss the philosophy of science then let's start a different thread topic.
It hadn't occurred to me to see it as a moral failing. To my mind, presenting historical events as though they're news items is more of a failing to teach virtue.
I don't understand that--In the books, you just turn the page and you see a "news" item showing what happened next. You know, in the beginning, so-and-so is planning a voyage somewhere, and it doesn't give you spoilers about whether the ships will go down, or make it, or the like, and then you see what happened next, and what happened after that, without necessarily knowing how various things are going to turn out unless you already know that particular bit of history. How does this (in itself) go against virtue? *confused*
I think I can see a problem. Now, I don't see why virtue is in question. (And while someone doing academic philosophical ethics might want to distinguish between virtue and moral failings I think the distinction is largely for exposition and doesn't hold up in informal English.)
However, one problem is that presumably the events are selected with the benefit of hindsight even if the narration avoids hindsight. We know from the past that what struck contemporary chroniclers as worthy of note doesn't always match later historians' judgement.
Speaking of literature: Are we thinking here about fine literature or genre literature? Do the various genres have specific required characteristics? For instance, does science fiction necessarily involve futurism? In a work of fantasy, must there be references to magic?
You can get fantasy/sf fans to argue about that for hours. There are plenty of sf works that aren't futuristic, and some fantasy that don't have magic (eg Gormenghast
The most useful way to think about genre is as a set of templates made up of the key works written in the genre so far. A new work is sf or fantasy or romance or tragedy if it's sufficiently similar to pre-existing works that the pre-existing works help the reader form useful expectations while reading.
Each new work can shift the expectations of the genre, however slightly. Or if it departs far enough creates a new genre or subgenre.
It hadn't occurred to me to see it as a moral failing. To my mind, presenting historical events as though they're news items is more of a failing to teach virtue.
I don't understand that--In the books, you just turn the page and you see a "news" item showing what happened next. You know, in the beginning, so-and-so is planning a voyage somewhere, and it doesn't give you spoilers about whether the ships will go down, or make it, or the like, and then you see what happened next, and what happened after that, without necessarily knowing how various things are going to turn out unless you already know that particular bit of history. How does this (in itself) go against virtue? *confused*
I think I can see a problem. Now, I don't see why virtue is in question. (And while someone doing academic philosophical ethics might want to distinguish between virtue and moral failings I think the distinction is largely for exposition and doesn't hold up in informal English.)
However, one problem is that presumably the events are selected with the benefit of hindsight even if the narration avoids hindsight. We know from the past that what struck contemporary chroniclers as worthy of note doesn't always match later historians' judgement.
Indeed, and I don’t think the books pretend that they’re writing exactly what people would have said at the time. “New religion comes to [region]” would have been instead been “God’s Truth comes to…” or “Foul heresy spreads to…”at some times and places, for instance.
Comments
I am in some senses a Platonist in that I think there are some absolutes in science. However I think the most important absolute is that the universe is both massive and incredibly small and our existence is at the smaller end of magnitudes.
It is perfectly possible to create an environment of hard-and-fast absolutes at one scale that are utterly meaningless at another. As an example, we grow microbes in a laboratory in petri dish to limit the variables, that does not mean that the limitations are universal.
As an engineer (more-or-less), my journey into critical reading involved examining opaque texts including code and badly-written instructions, in order to determine how some piece of software or hardware worked. (Or at least how it was intended to work.) These days, I would say that hardware itself is also a text.
I'm currently wondering if there's an engineering analogy for the intriguing (to me) relationship of literature studies to the question of existence preceding (or not preceding) essence.
I get the impression that the starry-eyed structuralists I encountered at university were busy deconstructing everything and anything with their magic silver-hammer - but that things have settled down since.
Although if you're attuned to see 'Reds under the beds' then anything with a left of centre perspective is going to be construed as incipient Marxism.
Equally, there is a tendency on the far left to use the 'f-word' - facism - for anything they don't approve of. It rather debates the coinage when there are real fascists about.
I don't 'despise' the Marxist critiques and structuralist/post-structuralist approaches I was exposed to at university. They add to the toolbox as it were.
Lewis's literary criticism was way out of fashion at that time, even in departments which hadn't succumbed to the seductive allure of structuralism.
Yes, he would still be cited for some of his writings about medieval and Renaissance literature and courtly love but always with caveats.
I've got nothing 'against' Lewis but feel his literary criticism is very much of its day. These things date. A lot of the supposedly cutting-edge stuff I encountered at university looks pretty dated now.
We all stand within a tradition.
That's for sure.
Some things become dated, certainly, but as we (and Lewis) would agree, not all.
@pease said
Indeed—as you may know from some of my other posts and even a thread a while back, I’m an essentialist, not an existentialist, myself.
I remember Lewis himself discussing 'dated' ideas and theories in (I think) 'The poverty of historisism'. He asked questions like, 'when was the idea refuted (and by whom)? Was the refutation sound?' etc. I think he concluded that the term 'dated' was pretty much meaningless as to whether whether the 'dated' ideas were true or (importantly) interesting.
Amen times a million.
I checked and “the poverty of historicism” was by Karl Popper – Lewis did, however, write an essay called “historicism”:
https://www.lifetogether.group/download/stagner/C.S.Lewis-Historicism.pdf
That makes more sense to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery
He did, and my God have I had people over-apply it to any suggestion that progress might actually occur.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history
At the same time it is unavoidable that one reads the past with the view from the present. The liberal tradition for example arguably considers JS Mill and Bentham's utilitarianism as being steps in the formulation of liberal freedoms. But today one can only judge these idealists by today's standards, nobody is arguing that we can lift wholesale their contributions because in some respects they look patchy at best. One could say similar things about those who developed the ideas behind the American constitution, the French republic and many other things.
It is not snobbery to have thought about ideas from the past from today's perspective and to have decided that in various respects they are wrong.
For one thing this must by definition have been what CS Lewis himself did.
Which immediately begs questions as to why we should make a distinction between that and literary and cultural theories, say.
Was I a complete phoney using some of these models in essays, dissertations and exams whilst holding to 'traditional' views on theology and religious truth?
Or was I compartmentalising these things for pragmatic reasons?
Obviously, all of us have been shaped by post-Enlightenment liberal views and I'm not saying that we should try and adopt a pre-modern quasi-medievalist approach as an antidote to that- although many of my co-religionists seem to trying to do that.
It's a long time since I read Lewis and remember that I found many of his insights helpful but I'd only cite him sparingly.
On the 'progress' thing ... well yes, my whole approach is a tension - creative I hope - between pre-modern, modernist and post-modern influences.
I suppose the 'trick' is to try and maintain an equilibrium and elasticity, a framework rather than a strait-jacket.
I was struck by a comment someone made on a BBC Radio 4 programme about Evensong in the Anglican tradition. They quoted the poet RS Thomas who spoke about 'the scaffolding of the spirit'.
The structure of Evensong was the 'scaffolding' for the spiritual content.
I like that. And I love Evensong too.
What's this got to do with literature and literary criticism?
Well, a fair bit I'd say in that we are dealing with a product of the 'human spirit'.
That doesn't mean I want to get all 'romantic' about these things, as in the high Victorian 'bardolatory' that characterised that era's approach to Shakespeare's plays for instance.
We can get a bit 'Gnostic' about things other than theology.
Anyhow, at the risk of sounding overly pious, I'm thinking a lot about phronema - acquiring the mind of Christ - the collective 'mind' of the Church - shock, horror.
What does that mean in practice? How does it inform our approach to literature, music and art - as well as social issues and everything else besides?
Too much there for a single post ...
Yes, these things can be 'over-applied' in a fundamentalist kind of way and not just by Six-Day Creationists.
I s'pose I'm running in order to stand still. Progressing to stand at the 'still point of the turning world.'
I dredged up a quote from my memory which I thought was from CS Lewis but which turns out to be from GK Chesterton "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried."
I have not investigated the context of the Chesterton quote and it may not be related.
I bear him no ill will for doing so.
I sometimes type as I think, particularly on my phone rather than at my laptop, rather than marshaling my ideas beforehand and I know that can be discombobulating.
I'll try to do both. Sketches and scribbles to get things clear in my own mind don't always come across that well to other posters.
Apologies for any lack of clarity.
I missed this myself—what did you find negatively “stream of consciousness” about the comment right above yours?
Amen.
It seemed clear enough to me in this case. ❤️
Less is not the same as none. It might even be more.
Spelling errors aside, the condensed version of this is that you saw no value in trying to parse the comment and therefore there was no value to anyone in it. Others, as we have seen, disagree.
Hostly beret on
@pease This is a personal attack. Desist or take it to hell please.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
This short essay on C. S. Lewis and the Historical Imagination references a number of points made on the last couple of pages. (I prefer Chesterton's conception of "seeing history from the inside" and I note that literary studies is taken to include history.)
I like Lewis' basic premise regarding the value of the imagination, in his case in relation to history: In my case, it was the presentation of history as a collection of facts and dates that terminated my relationship with anything historical for a good many years. Nevertheless, I can testify to the value of the imagination in many aspects of my work including, as previously mentioned, examining texts including code and badly-written instructions, written as they were in a wide variety of paradigms.
Have you ever read the “Chronicle” book series? They’re massive tomes which present historical events in order as if they were written in newspaper style for each era or year, without reference to what happened later until it happens (“Stone tools are now being used…” “A new style of pottery has come into vogue…” “Prince So-And-So is now fourteen, and is beloved by the people” and then later “Prince So-And-So, fifteen, has died in a hunting accident, and his brother will now inherit the throne” (I remember reading something like that, which really struck me as you know wondering what would’ve happened if the good and magnanimous prince had lived, and the bad one had not become king…)). I read Chronicle of Britain in the 90s and it was awesome!
No. As Gamma Gamaliel suggested, I found it decidedly discombobulating.
Never read, but they're familiar enough. "The first coffee table book seriously to threaten the well-being of coffee-tables." I often wondered how many of the people who bought them (or were given them), read them.
Your description suggests to me that the premise is somewhat disingenuous regarding the use of hindsight in deciding what is news. In the context of this thread, I suppose we could see it as another form of literary theory.
Nonsense. You only know what you know, you can't define the point where the rule no longer applies if you do not know where it no longer applies.
More generally, I see a fundamental problem with the following point, which you've bought up a number of times on different threads: In the context of empirical science, scale matters. In the context of metaphysics, it doesn't. I can't see anything to be gained by trying to import an empirical concept of scale into categories in which it doesn't fit.
Science assumes that there is a Platonic "real answer" when conducting science experiments. Mathematics holds together in beautiful ways that suggest to many that it reflects the underlying structure of the universe rather than just notation.
The "laws of physics" are directly labelled as being absolutes. And as far as we know they are absolutes in the sense of applying at all times and in all places. Except that by definition they only apply to the situation that we are familiar with and therefore may not be absolutes for situations outside of our experience and imagining.
I do not know what you mean by metaphysics. As far as I understand Plato he suggests in his Forms that things (perhaps all things) are versions of some ideal form that exists in the ether somewhere.
As a generality I do not agree. I do not think there is a "form of an apple". But I do think Pi as a constant is a thing that is part of the structure of reality, it is not just some convenient ratio, it actually seems to be something important.
I don’t think it was disingenuous at all. That’s a bit of a serious accusation for anyone. Obviously, when it comes to history or archaeology they had to work with what’s available from the sources, but that doesn’t mean they were doing something deceptively wrong. They could even have unconsciously left things out, but again, that’s not going against the basic moral principles of honesty.
Again, I don’t think this is a matter of literary theory, but of an accusation of very serious moral failing. I know I would be very angry if someone accused me of that.
Metaphysics does not begin and end with only Plato. It’s not something, by definition, that the physical sciences can measure.
(Don’t get me wrong – I’m not pretending that I’m incapable of such evil as that.)
I suppose there might be scientists who think like this. But I'm not convinced that science itself does.
Mathematics is not a science.
The "laws of mathematics" can be considered to be absolute in a way that does not apply to the "laws of physics".
I don't know what you mean by "Except that by definition", except that it looks a lot like a conjunction used to introduce a contradiction.
The "laws of physics" are not, as a rule, held to apply in the first few instants following the Big Bang.
In Euclidian geometry, at any rate. Other geometries are available.
This is nothing about literature. If you want to discuss the philosophy of science then let's start a different thread topic.
It hadn't occurred to me to see it as a moral failing. To my mind, presenting historical events as though they're news items is more of a failing to teach virtue.
Some of us are actually interested in literature, even if not exalted.
I don't understand that--In the books, you just turn the page and you see a "news" item showing what happened next. You know, in the beginning, so-and-so is planning a voyage somewhere, and it doesn't give you spoilers about whether the ships will go down, or make it, or the like, and then you see what happened next, and what happened after that, without necessarily knowing how various things are going to turn out unless you already know that particular bit of history. How does this (in itself) go against virtue? *confused*
You're literally the one who brought this up. ???
I think I can see a problem. Now, I don't see why virtue is in question. (And while someone doing academic philosophical ethics might want to distinguish between virtue and moral failings I think the distinction is largely for exposition and doesn't hold up in informal English.)
However, one problem is that presumably the events are selected with the benefit of hindsight even if the narration avoids hindsight. We know from the past that what struck contemporary chroniclers as worthy of note doesn't always match later historians' judgement.
The most useful way to think about genre is as a set of templates made up of the key works written in the genre so far. A new work is sf or fantasy or romance or tragedy if it's sufficiently similar to pre-existing works that the pre-existing works help the reader form useful expectations while reading.
Each new work can shift the expectations of the genre, however slightly. Or if it departs far enough creates a new genre or subgenre.
Indeed, and I don’t think the books pretend that they’re writing exactly what people would have said at the time. “New religion comes to [region]” would have been instead been “God’s Truth comes to…” or “Foul heresy spreads to…”at some times and places, for instance.