tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post8895854806148731279..comments2023-09-25T08:34:35.073-06:00Comments on Texas Tech Philosophers: Philosophy of Literature - Spring 2007Anna Christina Ribeirohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06836932004146803773noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-14619381869630891282007-05-05T10:40:00.000-06:002007-05-05T10:40:00.000-06:00In regards to Stolnitz, I think that's right to sa...In regards to Stolnitz, I think that's right to say that he is denying cognitivism because it doesn't offer anything new, but I also think there is a little more to it than that. It seems like his first complaint is simply that there is no way to confirm any truth within literature like you could confirm something you found in a biology book (or some similar type of natural science). After that, he seems to be denying cognitivism based on all of its propositions being either established outside of literature (not offering any new, "literature specific" knowledge) or the propositions are so general that they are useless. He gives, "Stubborn pride and ignorant prejudice keeps attractive people apart" as an example of a proposition from Pride and Prejudice that is worthless because it is useless on a general basis.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08393538083116578890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-91734305367268839902007-05-05T00:50:00.000-06:002007-05-05T00:50:00.000-06:00I think that the author's meaning is critical to a...I think that the author's meaning is critical to a literary work; obviously the work was created with some sort of purpose and to ignore that seems strange. If the author's intent serves no purpose then what is the point of even writing something? People write because they have something to say and want that messege to be understood. You can attach whatever meaning you want to a work just as long as you don't try and pass it off as the true meaning if it's clearly not. Author intentions are important and should be respected by the reader.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06212188474883655819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-77809196204683976442007-05-05T00:40:00.000-06:002007-05-05T00:40:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06212188474883655819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-48165259415895003432007-05-04T22:01:00.000-06:002007-05-04T22:01:00.000-06:00Yea, i think that is what stolnitz is saying too. ...Yea, i think that is what stolnitz is saying too. He believes that art does not provide any substantial truth because it does not require a distinct form of methodology in which to discover those truths. Like his title, art is simply trivial; it exists only to entertain, not to enlighten.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-55709503917772171662007-05-04T20:46:00.000-06:002007-05-04T20:46:00.000-06:00I was re-reading On the Cognitive Triviality of Ar...I was re-reading On the Cognitive Triviality of Art by Jerome Stolnitz because I wasn't quite sure I really got what he was saying. I think in essence he is saying that art does not offer any new knowledge therefore we don't learn anything from art. Does anyone know if this is right or am I way off base?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-8907787120150462162007-05-03T11:18:00.000-06:002007-05-03T11:18:00.000-06:00It seems as though Borges - using the fictional Pi...It seems as though Borges - using the fictional Pierre Menard's project as a vehicle - contrasts two differents types of interpretation of literary texts. The first is intertwined with the idea of authorial intention and the second involves reader participation. According to the first interpretive style, Menard set out to write Don Quixote by identifying with Cervantes. according to the latter style, Menard maintains his identity as Pierre Menard and tries to come up with Don Quixote via his own experiences. It is clear that Borges was convinced that there was no singular, fixed meaning to be uncovered in a text, but rather that each reading ensconces the text with several different discourses which vary according to place, time, and reader.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-43005090823529525902007-05-01T17:23:00.000-06:002007-05-01T17:23:00.000-06:00Stecker argues that there are acceptable and unacc...Stecker argues that there are acceptable and unacceptable interpretations. Yet, the definition of Monism is that there is one true interpretation, but what is truth? While both Stecker and Kieran agree that there are many different acceptable interpretations, neither define what a true interpretation is, yet this is clearly the issue between the two. <BR/>So if truth is defined as the most right relative other interpretations, while at the same time allowing other interpretations, it seems that Kieran would be wrong, because truth would be degrees rather than clear distinctions of right and wrong – this seems to favor Stecker, but then so do I. <BR/>I would also argue that truth need not be known for there to be the best truth, although I suppose it would be nice. Is there a better definition of truth that I’m unaware of? <BR/>Also, why does Kieran say the Russian interpretation/production of Hamlet is an interpretation when it is clearly another work? That seems a bit odd.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-8452385022505566022007-05-01T10:41:00.000-06:002007-05-01T10:41:00.000-06:00Although I think Menard is incorrect with his view...Although I think Menard is incorrect with his view that texts are the same work if they share the same properties, it is difficult to accept Elgin's argument that interpretation is a determining factor of the identity of a work. This opens the door to the exact same book, say "The Great Gatsby", to be a different work as read by each person. This seems to be a very counterintuitive notion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13526687526096720948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-24466023006266959022007-04-11T14:31:00.000-06:002007-04-11T14:31:00.000-06:00Hi Adrienne, I cannot answer your first question b...Hi Adrienne, I cannot answer your first question because I thought that types and tokens did correlate to works and texts respectively. Perhaps someone else knows the answer.<BR/><BR/>I do think, however, that in the example of the Menard story, that since it's a fictional account, no plagiarism was done. If this Pierre person had actually existed, and he had tried to pass off _Don Quijote_ as his own work,then it would be plagiarism. Pretending that he does exist, if he states what he is doing, and cites Miguel de Cervantes, then I don't think it's plagiarism. It would be a bit different than simply erasing the author's name and placing yours there.<BR/><BR/>I would relate the situation to something akin to what Dr. Ribeiro mentioned in class and in her essay, which was the man who puts line breaks into animal abuse reports to create poems. <BR/><BR/>Maybe someone else has a different take.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-90573475648298729712007-04-10T14:30:00.000-06:002007-04-10T14:30:00.000-06:00Is the idea of types and tokens not identical to w...Is the idea of types and tokens not identical to works and texts, respectively? And why are second inscriptions of a work (e.g., Menard's Quixote) not considered plagiarized works?Adrienne Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18262157820217185168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-77631168233791263502007-03-31T18:39:00.000-06:002007-03-31T18:39:00.000-06:00As with Wollheim's piece, which was actually much ...As with Wollheim's piece, which was actually much more comprehendible than at first I realized, the Borges essay has imposed upon my brain a bit of ambiguity. Would someone like to strike up a discussion that would perhaps ornate the argument, which, by the way, I am having a hard time locating? Thank you.Adrienne Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18262157820217185168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-83938068982355709802007-03-06T18:45:00.000-06:002007-03-06T18:45:00.000-06:00I decided to research type and token, and came up ...I decided to research type and token, and came up with this: Greg Koukl, who is a critic of moral and philosophical relativism explains types and tokens in relation to Christianity and word meaning within the Bible. He says this: "The meaning of the word is the type. It's the thing itself. The token is the t-a-b-l-e that signifies the meaning. The type doesn't change. The meaning or the type is a universal. It can be in more than one place at one time. The same meaning of table can be in mesa or tdoe and table at the same time. The different tokens have the same meaning but it takes different forms."<BR/><BR/>Therefore, I conclude that yes, an author's original manuscript is the 'type,' while each edition is the 'token' (since they are subject to change in form; e.g., the deletion of a word or even a paragraph as Will and I discussed today).<BR/><BR/>Will? Or anyone else in the class? What are your views?Adrienne Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18262157820217185168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-59108910274977483922007-03-05T23:31:00.000-06:002007-03-05T23:31:00.000-06:00Will:First, thank you for summing up the definitio...Will:<BR/><BR/>First, thank you for summing up the definitions of 'type' and 'token.' If I am correct, when Wollheim speaks of a work of literature, the author's original manuscript is the type and each and every printed edition of that particular manuscript is the token. However, he does not classify (and this is where I may have misunderstood him) tokens as literature. Therein lies my confusion.<BR/><BR/>Now, to touch on your questions: I think the importance of the work of art depends on the artist's intentions. An artist may paint something for different reasons such as self-therapy (where the importance matters only to him/her), or for a broader audience (where now the importance relies on the appreciator of the work of art); just as an author writes in a journal, but also writes a novel for the same reasons respectively. I am not sure I can answer your second question that you followed with the analogy, but I will try. I think sometimes works of art are purely spontaneous; that there was never an intent which was pre-meditated. Take for instance this particular event with Jackson Pollock: Peggy Guggenheim asked Pollock to paint a mural in her studio and for weeks Pollock stared at the canvas without so much as touching his brush to it; then voila, he began flicking paint across the canvas, and behold, something as abstract as splotches of paint began selling for thousands of dollars. I do not think Pollock's intentions were to create something as such with prior intentions of cashing in on his artwork. From reading his biography, he was simply tired at that moment. He got lucky. No intention necessary. But! after this--what I will call an artistic fluke--it became necessary to his intention that his artwork was the way it was. I am speculating here; does this make sense?Adrienne Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18262157820217185168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-83237368022930233982007-03-05T18:00:00.000-06:002007-03-05T18:00:00.000-06:00Adrienne:A type is a larger class of objects; a to...Adrienne:<BR/><BR/>A type is a larger class of objects; a token is an individual instance of a type. For example (I do not have my text in front of me) the Opera is a type, whereas Don Giovanni, Carmen, Rigoletto and Salome are all tokens (because they are individual operas). So in short, consider a type a universal and a token a particular. I have not read the Wolheim yet, so I do not know what the above does for his theories.<BR/><BR/>I do have a question for you, or rather, a question inspired by our conversation. As I sat in traffic today, I noticed that all the people in front of me had their left turn signals on. So obviously, their intention was to turn left (provided they meant to turn it on and did not do so accidentally). It was not the car's intention to turn left; the car does not possess intentions. So how important is the work of art to delivering the author's intention? I know it is the 'vehicle' by which the author accomplishes that task, but is it necessary to the intention that the work be the way it is? (Analogy: I would have known the drivers' intentions of turning left other ways; for example, they were all in the turning lane, they could have been using hand signals, or they could have been screaming 'LEFT' out of their windows [which admittedly is bizarre]. Thoughts?will caudillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16615636935054861044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-15784324089686517552007-03-04T18:48:00.000-06:002007-03-04T18:48:00.000-06:00Will someone please elaborate on the "literary wor...Will someone please elaborate on the "literary works as types and tokens" theory? I am having a hard time interpreting Wollheim's piece, and I certainly do not want to misconstrue his intent.Adrienne Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18262157820217185168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-30285970301532722192007-02-28T20:17:00.000-06:002007-02-28T20:17:00.000-06:00Yes, Will, I meant to say the works about national...Yes, Will, I meant to say the works about national parks. A collection, whatever. In any event, I am not sure I understand what you are saying about my inability to distinguish between art and what is beautiful. I simply asked Dr. Ribeiro if an artist paints nature, then does nature become the artist's intent. I was certainly not condemning her explanation, but rather asking for an elaboration. Perhaps I am too inquisitive?Adrienne Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18262157820217185168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-49291696914890694762007-02-28T19:30:00.000-06:002007-02-28T19:30:00.000-06:00How can a collection consist of national parks? D...How can a collection consist of national parks? Did you mean to say works about national parks? If it was the first, then I do not understand how this is possible. If it is the second (let's say an artists work consist in paintings or photographs of objects in national parks, like Yosemite), then what Dr. Ribeiro said about judging the work would still hold because you could ask those questions (what did she mean to convey with this work? What kind of technique was used? etc.) of the painting and photos, but not the subject of the paintings and photos. How can you ask technique questions about Half Dome or El Cap? I still think you are not making the distinction between art and things that are beautiful.will caudillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16615636935054861044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-69416090715240956842007-02-28T15:19:00.000-06:002007-02-28T15:19:00.000-06:00If an artist's collection consists only of, let's ...If an artist's collection consists only of, let's say, national parks (something not borne of the imagination), then his/her work has intent; perhaps to share the beauty of nature with those who have only been exposed to city life. Therefore, instead of nature being art, nature is the intent of the artist?Adrienne Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18262157820217185168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-38950648213763902742007-02-28T15:18:00.000-06:002007-02-28T15:18:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Adrienne Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18262157820217185168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-74226701905372736642007-02-28T09:40:00.000-06:002007-02-28T09:40:00.000-06:00I'm glad you enjoyed sitting outside. It was wonde...I'm glad you enjoyed sitting outside. It was wonderful indeed.<BR/><BR/>A brief note on this discussion: we must distinguish artworks from things that have aesthetic properties (beautiful, sublime, moving, dramatic, etc.). Some things may have aesthetic properties without being works of art. Perhaps nature is one of those things. We can appreciate its aesthetic properties even though it was not made by anyone. When something is made by someone, we may ask further questions about it: usually those that involve intention and context in general. For instance, what did she mean to convey with this work? What kind of technique was used? How does this work relate to others in its category? So on and so forth.Anna Christina Ribeirohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06836932004146803773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-45521831239146965092007-02-27T20:34:00.000-06:002007-02-27T20:34:00.000-06:00Today Will and I debated my last post. Will, you d...Today Will and I debated my last post. Will, you disagree with my opinion of what art is and what art is not. You said that nature cannot be art because there is simply no intent. I asked you how an artist can paint nature (I again used Delicate Arch as an example) and then have the right to call his/her work 'art.' We were unable to finish our conversation; therefore, I am still pondering this notion. Because a particular scene is depicted via paint and canvas, does this automatically give it a claim to art? If so, then how can you say that nature itself is not art, since without a particular scene, the author who paints nature would not have the intent to share it with a broader audience? <BR/><BR/>On a side note, class today was rather fulfilling. Sitting outside amidst nature (Mother Nature's artwork?) allowed for a much better discussion.Adrienne Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18262157820217185168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-7239620370611815862007-02-27T20:31:00.000-06:002007-02-27T20:31:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Adrienne Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18262157820217185168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-63290420463026397432007-02-25T18:05:00.000-06:002007-02-25T18:05:00.000-06:00I want to begin with a quote in the essay written ...I want to begin with a quote in the essay written by Hirsch; Edward Dowden, the Victorian scholar Hirsch mentions warns "against a limitation of the word literature to stand only for belletristic writing," while excluding "philosophical and other valuable texts" (50). How very imperative this warning is to those lover's of literature. Even as Lyas states in Beardsley's piece: that merely the capability of a work causing one to evaluate the aesthetics within it, is what allows it to be placed in the realm of literature. This evaluation, however, can vary from reader to reader. For example, although I absolutely adore the works of James Joyce, I can honestly say that, in reading "Finnegan's Wake," I did not feel as if I had been reading a piece of literature, but instead, after a few pages, that I had been on a ten day drunk. That particular piece of literature was compiled of obscure allusions and puns in so many different languages that it confused and annoyed me. But that does not mean that because of my opinion (or others who may have had the same experience) that book is no longer a literary work. I agree with Rebecca West's definition of literature: " Literature must be an analysis of experience and a synthesis of the findings into a unity." Those experiences should not have limitations.<BR/><BR/>I also want to argue Beardsley's definition of art. He says that if a particular object has acquired its form independent of "any human act or purpose, it is not a work if art" (52). When I read this I immediately remembered an epiphany of Edward Abbey's the moment he saw Delicate Arch: The beauty of Delicate Arch explains nothing, for each thing, in its way, when true to its own character, is equally beautiful ("Desert Solitaire"). Nature is art. It is that simple. I think this can coincide with the aforementioned definition of literature. I believe that whatever it is that compels a certain reaction in the mind of its appreciator (and that varies from person to person), is what permits a particular piece of work to carry the title of "art" or "literature." To place certain stipulations or rules on such titles is rather Stalin(esque), no?Adrienne Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18262157820217185168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-62012059046763450452007-02-17T18:10:00.000-06:002007-02-17T18:10:00.000-06:00Would anyone like to get together and form a study...Would anyone like to get together and form a study group? Not necessarily to study (since I study better alone), but rather to exchange ideas and acquire a bit of knowledge via other people's opinions and/or facts to which he or she may have access. Reply through the blogger or Dr. Ribeiro. Thanks and good luck to you all!Adrienne Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18262157820217185168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33505278.post-47076266191892691582007-02-12T05:31:00.000-06:002007-02-12T05:31:00.000-06:00In regardIn regardAdrienne Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18262157820217185168noreply@blogger.com