Social Literature

In class on Wednesday, DKJ said, "ethics begins by taking seriously the harm that may befall someone besides yourself. It is a social undertaking." I think, then, that it might be fruitful for learning about ethics also to be a social undertaking. Though we've decided that greatness and popularity are not the same thing, I think having certain works of literature that a large number of people know well is useful for learning about ethics. If one person can reference a scenario or character from a work of literature to exemplify an ethical idea, it will resonate well with anyone else who has read that particular work of literature. That's one of the ways studying together in a class is so beneficial; every student in the room has read (or at least, should have read) the same text. Though the initial act of reading literature is quite solitary, I think it's important for readers to then make literature a social experience by discussing it with others.

Passionate Philosophy

I'm currently reading "The Consolation of Philosophy" by Boethius. The book begins with Boethius, imprisoned and awaiting his execution, writing poetry in bed. His old friend, Lady Philosophy, then descends from on high to visit and comfort him. Because Boethius had been writing poetry, the Muses of Poetry were surrounding his bedside. Upon seeing these muses, Lady Philosophy screams, "Who...has allowed these hysterical sluts (scenicas meretriculas) to approach this sick man's bedside? ...These are the very creatures who slay the rich and fruitful harvest of Reason with the barren thorns of Passion."

This idea that poetry fuels the passions and dampens reason is an echo of that "old quarrel" we've been reading about in Nussbaum's essay. Interestingly enough, the entirety of "The Consolation of Philosophy" alternates between sections of verse and sections of prose. It seems that perhaps Boethius disagrees with Lady Philosophy about the value of literary form.

In his introduction to the book, Victor Watts writes that the Boethius' poems are "integral and their purpose varied. They act as a relief from the concentration of the argument while the patient is still weak...sometimes they are used to summarize or even advance the discussion." It seems to me that the very philosophical ideas Boethius writes in verse would not have been as potent in prose.

Precision in Language

Q&A Question 2: "Does literary form lose the precision that "dogmatic abstract treatises" allow?"

In "Love's Knowledge", Nussbaum recounts James' take on metaphors. Rather than being "abstract essences and general forms" which "cannot perceive particulars," James believes they are "perceptional and expressional" and are the only things which "can adequately tell the reader what James believes to be true." (5)

However, I think that by presenting a reader with a metaphor (or, by extension, with more overtly literary form), one leaves the text open to a broader range of interpretation. For example, when James writes that language is "like alert winged creatures, perched on those diminished summits and aspired to a clearer air" (4), the reader is unsure of which winged creatures James references. Angels? Birds? Griffins? Dragons? The reader is left to decide.

This leads me to a further question: Is being precise in conveying an idea valuable, or is it laudable to leave a proposed idea open for subjective interpretation? Perhaps these are not mutually exclusive...

Form & Content

Q&A Question 1: Jacob mentioned that in Philosophy & Music, the class decided that form and content were one and the same. Nussbaum contends that in regards to literature, form and content are organically linked, but distinguishable. Why is the relationship between form and content different in regards to music and to literature?

Since I didn't go through the Philosophy & Music seminar myself, I'm not exceptionally well prepared to answer this question, but I've talked it over with Jacob and I'll give it a shot. When you change the form of a certain literary content, the content may get altered slightly, but the same general content remains. However, since music is not representational, it has no content aside from its form. Therefore, if you change music's form, the content also completely changes; its form is its content.

I like Nussbaum's assertion that form and content are organically linked, but I am unsure as to how strong the link is. Certainly, different forms can alter how content is expressed and perceived, but I suspect that the general content remains the same.