Closed Case

In class on Monday, we discussed the difference between open and closed definitions, and which category literature may fall under. In the first essay of our assigned reading, Hirsch argues that literature must have an open definition because any closed definition of the term would not include all of the works that should be included and exclude the opposite. He claims that there is too much gray area to determine definitely which works are literature; he gives examples of hypothetical literary experts who disagree on different works to prove his point.

In class, I asked whether or not an object, which was classically defined using the necessary and sufficient criteria, could also have qualities beyond that criteria and still fit inside the definition or category. If we agree that this is true, than I think that a closed definition of literature becomes a much more viable possibility. The difficulty is reduced to establishing the basic criteria for literature, from which we can include works that may vary from each other in many different ways. While this definition may be difficult to formulate, and nigh impossible to achieve universal popularity, I believe that such an endeavor is necessary for a complete understanding of, and discourse involving, literature.

Is defining literature necessary for our class to examine the category?

Emotional Entreaty?

In response to Jacob's post "The Moral Medium," I intend to consider his claim that dialogue is the best medium for moral philosophy. I agree that a dialogue synthesizes the ease of reading with the clarity of a treatise. There is one potentially important aspect which we must consider however; whether emotional evocation is necessary for full consideration of a moral issue. Nussbaum argues that the emotional consideration is necessary, and if so, an argument could be made on behalf of narrative form, in the sense that narrative form may allow a reader to emotionally connect to an issue more than a dialogue could.

I do not think that emotional consideration is necessary, but I think that we must determine that definitively before we can claim that a dialogue is the best medium for moral philosophy.

Emotional Response

Nussbaum argues that because emotions are necessary for a full rational judgement. She asserts this point on the basis that emotions contain a certain cognitive dimension in their structure. I do not think that Nussbaum presents enough evidence to assert this claim. Just because emotions are in part thought-based, does not mean that thjey are essential to a decision making process. The consideration of emotion in certain situations (such as feeling grief at the depth of a family member) does not necessarily deserve consideration for ethical decisions. The question of how one should behave in response to the death of a family member can be considered rationally regardless of the emotions one may encounter.