tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5476489235689932135.post771028559498085088..comments2022-03-24T08:44:20.063-07:00Comments on The Autobiography of a Soul: Why Study English Lit? A Partial (In Both Senses) ExaminationElisehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17728046844272159332noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5476489235689932135.post-12949021429358537722015-04-05T06:52:17.706-07:002015-04-05T06:52:17.706-07:00Hmm, I seem to have accidentally deleted the comme...Hmm, I seem to have accidentally deleted the comment to which this is a reply. Blogger is annoying.<br /><br />Onto the rest of your comments: <br />"It's essentially glorified perversion and the author seems to show little understanding as to what makes life worth living" Is this your own opinion? I don't have a concept of "perversion" or believe that art has to be moral, so I don't know what to do with this statement. But if you're giving it as an example of how people think of sociological interest as opposed to intrinsic value, then yes, that would be it. <br /><br />"Well, isn't it impossible to not project your values onto the classics you hold up as masterpieces?" It may be natural to make this projection, but I don't think it's inevitable, once you're made conscious of it. "Would anyone hold up as a masterpiece a book that is contrary to their values?" The point here is that those values were arguably not in the books. As for whether you can admire a book that's contrary to your values - that's what the art for art's sake was all about. Although I think that would be more difficult than not projecting your values onto the book you're reading.<br /><br />"For example, I devalue the type of postmodern poetry that is essentially just a hodge-podge of nonlinear thought." Think we may have wandered into a too-broad definition of "values" here. <br /><br />"Well, I would say that many people are doing philosophy but not realizing it." Good point.<br /><br />"The only way you could even hope to verify this claim is to collect some sort of statistics about what people say they value." I didn't mean this is what people do value, but what they are supposed to value. There are lots of ways to verify it - starting with advertising, obviously, but also trends in the use of language (e.g. as students are reconstituted as "consumers"). I'm only going by common observation, though, and by reading other people's write-ups on these trends. <br /><br />Sorry if it takes me a long time to reply. I don't know what I'd do if I received many comments!Elisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728046844272159332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5476489235689932135.post-68417551481638616782015-04-05T06:30:05.982-07:002015-04-05T06:30:05.982-07:00Since I mentioned God, I guess I was talking about...Since I mentioned God, I guess I was talking about organized religion - not a personal philosophy or moral code. But yeah, probably better to leave that can alone - it's a can of worms!<br /><br />One problem we get into when talking about "the end of books" in the internet era is that "book" refers to both the physical object and its contents: we've confused them. I touched on that in this post http://autobiographyofasoul.blogspot.ca/2012/02/carnal-book.html<br /><br />But yes, once the contents of your mind are made public, as they are in a book (or blog or whatever), it changes their nature. It is a conundrum! Elisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728046844272159332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5476489235689932135.post-11399013003922444432015-03-30T22:56:51.882-07:002015-03-30T22:56:51.882-07:00"before I learned that there were books that ...<br />"before I learned that there were books that people considered great; so great, in fact, that they were still being read after hundreds of years. Those were definitely the books I wanted to read. Why should I resent people who already knew about this stuff pointing me towards the coolest books ever written?"<br />This is so on target. My thoughts exactly. When I was 16 I wanted to find out what the great books were and I wanted to find out why people like them and why they still read them and why others are ignored. There's no shame in wanting to find out what those classics have in common. Of course, there are a lot of posers out there who pretend they understand what is the essence of enduring literature but they don't invalidate my enjoyment of the classics.<br /><br />"The New Critics, with their “close reading” method, were pretty overt about this, but also (as Harold Bloom has complained) tended to project their WASP Christian values onto the texts they studied."<br /><br />Well, isn't it impossible to not project your values onto the classics you hold up as masterpieces? Would anyone hold up as a masterpiece a book that is contrary to their values? For example, I devalue the type of postmodern poetry that is essentially just a hodge-podge of nonlinear thought. I certainly am not going to spend my time championing that poetry.<br /><br />"We have never really known what teaching literature should entail." which is why the humanities is full of so much bs.<br /><br />"Northrop Frye pointed out that this confusion results in people not teaching literature at all " I've never read Frye's essay but I'm sure if I read it his theory on how lit should be taught would be full of all sorts of vagueness.<br /><br />"Why Do English isn't quite the same question as Why Do Philosophy, because while nobody “does philosophy” outside of universities, "<br /><br />I strongly disagree. Any time you make a necessary statement using highly 'abstract' words then you're doing philosophy. Just take a look at the Declaration of Independence. There is loads of philosophy in it. 'All men are created equal', that is a philosophical statement since the author purports it to be necessary and true. How does he know it's true? Most likely because he thinks he knows something about the nature of reality. Well, how does he know this nature? It is at that point that he begins to do philosophy.<br /><br />"Probably fewer people question the value of reading than question the value of doing philosophy. Philosophy is considered something esoteric; reading is not."<br /><br />Well, I would say that many people are doing philosophy but not realizing it. As I already said as soon as you make a necessary statement which is abstract enough to not belong to any particular science such as physics, math or biology.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />"Wilde may be remembered as a “pure aesthete,” but he didn't think it was possible to understand or, therefore, appreciate a work without scholarship."<br /><br />Well, you can certainly get very far on your own with a difficult book, but it's simply not possible to think of everything on your own.<br /><br />"Our late capitalist, scientific culture holds only two values dear, both material: making/having money, and creating technology."<br /><br />This is way off the mark. First, it's a contingent statement so you would have to use the senses in order to verify this claim. The only way you could even hope to verify this claim is to collect some sort of statistics about what people say they value. Inevitably what is going to happen is you're going to have to start trying to lump what people say into categories which is another opportunity for error. Then what will happen is you will have to face up to the fact that people quite often state what they believe is good to value rather than what they actually value. Few people are willing to admit that they value adultery but undoubtedly some do.<br /><br />kyle foleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15561804567048727089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5476489235689932135.post-54022215133752228402015-03-30T22:56:01.069-07:002015-03-30T22:56:01.069-07:00I wrote this up three days ago so it must be the c...<br />I wrote this up three days ago so it must be the case that when I posted it, it did not go through. <br /><br />"Humanities or liberal arts subjects deal with the study of human beings (e.g. anthropology, archaeology, history, psychology, sociology) and the cultural activities of human beings that we deem most important (e.g. philosophy, politics, literature, comparative religion). "<br />Maybe you could refine this definition a little so that you distinguish it from anatomy or observational psychology. For example, anatomy collects data on the body parts of human beings but it certainly does not collect data on what it means to be a human. 'What it means to be a human' is such a vague phrase and such a difficult question to answer that it's best that the question is answered indirectly. So perhaps a definition that would successfully verify a large number of sentences with the word 'humanities' in it which many would consider correct would be 'the study of humans communicated indirectly'. You would then have to elaborate on what 'indirect communication' is but I think it can be done. <br /><br />"The difference between the traditional approach to literary studies and the cultural studies approach to pop culture is, as far as I can make out, that cultural studies takes it for granted that pop culture is culturally important while suspending judgement about whether it is culturally valuable. That is, it is descriptive, not prescriptive."<br /><br />The difference between 'important' and 'valuable' is not all that obvious but I think I know what you mean so let me try to elaborate on this. 50 Shades of Grey is not valuable. It's essentially glorified perversion and the author seems to show little understanding as to what makes life worth living. That being said, we still have to take seriously the fact that this is a runaway bestseller and that it certainly marks a shift in the way people think. We have to understand that shift, what it means and what it might foretell.<br />kyle foleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15561804567048727089noreply@blogger.com