In response to Jacob's blog post from earlier this week, I decided to address the issue of Ivan's detached contemplation, morality, and their apparent incompatibility. I think that Jacob touched upon an important aspect of Ivan's reasoning regarding morality; that Ivan believes that the only reason to live a moral life is to secure a good afterlife. While I disagree with Jacob that there is a "secular obligation" to lead a moral life, I do think that the hope of an afterlife is not the sole reason to lead a moral life. There are many people who behave morally because it is the best way to function in a social environment. Many others believe in a "humanistic" view of morality, which holds that it is both objective and based on compassion and respect for other persons (often including the animal type). Furthermore, while people clearly vary in their morals and their adherence to them, I wonder if it is possible to be amoral. If one claims that he or she wishes to live without morals, is that not a moral in itself? Are they not prescribing a way in which one (themselves) ought to live?
Is it possible to live without morals?
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Amoral until proven Guilty
In class we discussed whether or not feeling guilt was necessary to the formation of ethical beliefs and behavior. Pihlstrom posited that guilt was necessary saying that "without experiencing guilt, or at least being able to do so, we would hardly be capable of employing any ethical concepts or judgments."
I agree with Pihlstrom's claim that guilt is necessary for the formation of ethical concepts and judgments; however, I believe that this is only true if one believes in subjective morality. The nature of subjective morality being that which arises from the individual, lends itself to the notion that guilt is an integral part of the moral forming process. Guilt is the feeling which accompanies our moral analysis, it is fundamental and it allows us to assess those feelings for their cause and react accordingly. Conversely, if morality were truly objective, then it could be demonstrated in such a way that one need only apply certain rational standards to a given situation in order to determine the morality of a particular act. In this scenario, it seems as though guilt becomes unnecessary, although not unhelpful, in forming ethical judgments.
I agree with Pihlstrom's claim that guilt is necessary for the formation of ethical concepts and judgments; however, I believe that this is only true if one believes in subjective morality. The nature of subjective morality being that which arises from the individual, lends itself to the notion that guilt is an integral part of the moral forming process. Guilt is the feeling which accompanies our moral analysis, it is fundamental and it allows us to assess those feelings for their cause and react accordingly. Conversely, if morality were truly objective, then it could be demonstrated in such a way that one need only apply certain rational standards to a given situation in order to determine the morality of a particular act. In this scenario, it seems as though guilt becomes unnecessary, although not unhelpful, in forming ethical judgments.
Subjective Meaning (Q&A 2)
What is wrong with the meaning of life being subjective?
In Pihlstrom's essay, he analyzes two possible methods for determining meaning in life; one is the life of action and the other is the life of contemplation. Both theories have their strengths and weaknesses, but neither theory is satisfactory to Pihlstrom. He goes on to briefly acknowledge the possibility of a subjective meaning for life, and just as briefly dismisses it (although Jacob may have been right by suggesting that Pihlstrom was only acknowledging that it may be flawed.) Either way, Philstrom does not seriously entertain the notion of a subjective meaning for life.
It seems to me that the search for an objective life meaning ultimately ends up becoming a subjective one. This is because we have yet to discover a basis for claiming that life has a meaning beyond that which we give it. Religious groups and philosophers alike have tried and failed to prove such a claim, yet it seems to be rather straightforward. Until some higher power or universal force proclaims the meaning of life to everyone, in a way in which everyone can understand it, then there is no reference for a realistic type of objective meaning. And it seems slightly ridiculous to try and imagine one without any evidence to support that idea.
In Pihlstrom's essay, he analyzes two possible methods for determining meaning in life; one is the life of action and the other is the life of contemplation. Both theories have their strengths and weaknesses, but neither theory is satisfactory to Pihlstrom. He goes on to briefly acknowledge the possibility of a subjective meaning for life, and just as briefly dismisses it (although Jacob may have been right by suggesting that Pihlstrom was only acknowledging that it may be flawed.) Either way, Philstrom does not seriously entertain the notion of a subjective meaning for life.
It seems to me that the search for an objective life meaning ultimately ends up becoming a subjective one. This is because we have yet to discover a basis for claiming that life has a meaning beyond that which we give it. Religious groups and philosophers alike have tried and failed to prove such a claim, yet it seems to be rather straightforward. Until some higher power or universal force proclaims the meaning of life to everyone, in a way in which everyone can understand it, then there is no reference for a realistic type of objective meaning. And it seems slightly ridiculous to try and imagine one without any evidence to support that idea.
Meaning vs. Suffering (Q&A 1)
Does human suffering challenge the idea of a meaningful life?
The phenomenon of human suffering was discussed often in Pihlstrom's essay on the meaning of life. Pihlstrom used human suffering as a phenomenon that challenged the idea of a meaningful life; he argued that given all of the evil and suffering in the world, our attempts to find or create meaning for our lives becomes illusory.
I'm not sure how Pihlstrom reaches this conclusion. Nowhere in his essay does he describe how human suffering renders the concept of a meaningful life illusory, he only implies through it's presence alone that a meaningful life is irreconcilable with what he calls "meaningless suffering." I don't think that the existence of human suffering is antithetical towards meaning. In fact, I would argue that suffering is an important aspect of the human experience and it provides our lives with more meaning than an entirely pleasure-filled existence would. The atrocities that humans have faced help shape our understanding of the world, and how we as people decide to deal with these atrocities to large degree, I think, determines hte meaning or purpose of many of our lives.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Literal vs. Textual
While a work of literature have a literal meaning within its composition, there is often an expectation that there is another textual meaning to the work which is implied by the understanding of a work as being largely representative. When we think of works of literature, we think of the implied meanings or veiled symbolism which makes the work great, but is this necessary?
I think that, to some degree, a work of literature must have a textual meaning beyond the literal understanding of the sentences it contains. I think that this basic understanding of literature acknowledges that any particular work has an intended purpose; that every literary work has a message which the author is trying to communicate through his or her story. We often ask ourselves, or others, what we "took away" from a particular literary work, in essence what did it mean to us. This meaning which we seek within a literary work is essentially our understanding of the author's communicated message, and often that understanding is not explicitly stated within a work. If it were, than why not make the claim you are trying to make and be done with it? Is the formation of literature simply aesthetically oriented? It seems more likely that literature is constructed in such a manner as to communicate some form of understanding to the audience which they could not grasp absent the work.
I think that, to some degree, a work of literature must have a textual meaning beyond the literal understanding of the sentences it contains. I think that this basic understanding of literature acknowledges that any particular work has an intended purpose; that every literary work has a message which the author is trying to communicate through his or her story. We often ask ourselves, or others, what we "took away" from a particular literary work, in essence what did it mean to us. This meaning which we seek within a literary work is essentially our understanding of the author's communicated message, and often that understanding is not explicitly stated within a work. If it were, than why not make the claim you are trying to make and be done with it? Is the formation of literature simply aesthetically oriented? It seems more likely that literature is constructed in such a manner as to communicate some form of understanding to the audience which they could not grasp absent the work.
Author vs. Writer
A good portion of our class discussions about interpretation have centered around the difference between the writer and the author in relation to a work. A writer is the actual individual who created the work, whereas the author is the particular state of mind of that writer when they composed the work. Thus, discerning the author is the much more prevalent endeavor when determining the meaning of a literary work. But this position is also fraught with some difficulty.
First of all, the actual person who wrote the novel should always be considered when one is attempting to interpret a work; while the writer's "state of mind" is important to understand, it is also important to understand the world of the writer and the experiences that he or she had through his or her life. Without any knowledge of the writer or the writer's environment, an understanding of his or her work would be woefully incomplete. Also, understanding the writer's state of mind (author) requires a certain amount of guesswork and postulation as Wollheim proposes. However, it is not unreasonable to assume that a writer might undergo several changes of "mind state" throughout the process of creating his or her work. Would this mean that a correct interpretation of a particular work would require the postulation of multiple authors in order to fully understand it? This is a position which I believe requires more defense, in regards to such an event.
First of all, the actual person who wrote the novel should always be considered when one is attempting to interpret a work; while the writer's "state of mind" is important to understand, it is also important to understand the world of the writer and the experiences that he or she had through his or her life. Without any knowledge of the writer or the writer's environment, an understanding of his or her work would be woefully incomplete. Also, understanding the writer's state of mind (author) requires a certain amount of guesswork and postulation as Wollheim proposes. However, it is not unreasonable to assume that a writer might undergo several changes of "mind state" throughout the process of creating his or her work. Would this mean that a correct interpretation of a particular work would require the postulation of multiple authors in order to fully understand it? This is a position which I believe requires more defense, in regards to such an event.
Interpretive Value (Q&A 2)
What value does an interpretation have if it does not correspond to the author’s intended message?
In the critical pluralism view of literature, there are many different and equally valid interpretations of a literary work. In Stecker's view, critical pluralism may lead to an "acceptable" interpretation of literature if it adheres to the text in some manner. Thus, the acceptability of an interpretation is confined to the work solely, and its strength is determined by the evidence the text provides for it. This would include interpretations of a work which may not correspond reasonably with the author's perceived intentions; an interpretation may still be valid even it uses a philosophical position that occurred after the author's time. The value of such an interpretation is inherent to the interpretation itself; if a particular "untrue" interpretation of a literary work somehow enriches one's perspective, than that is the value one gained from the interpretation.
In the critical pluralism view of literature, there are many different and equally valid interpretations of a literary work. In Stecker's view, critical pluralism may lead to an "acceptable" interpretation of literature if it adheres to the text in some manner. Thus, the acceptability of an interpretation is confined to the work solely, and its strength is determined by the evidence the text provides for it. This would include interpretations of a work which may not correspond reasonably with the author's perceived intentions; an interpretation may still be valid even it uses a philosophical position that occurred after the author's time. The value of such an interpretation is inherent to the interpretation itself; if a particular "untrue" interpretation of a literary work somehow enriches one's perspective, than that is the value one gained from the interpretation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)