Asclepius Philosophy Courses starting next week. September 13 and 14 at 10 am
Asclepius Therapy Centre will be launching tow new courses next week. On Tuesday we will be having a course on Postmodernism and Wednesday a course on Literature and Morality. Each course costs £50. for more details ring 01792480245 or 07592330467.
Introduction to Post Modernism Asclepius Therapy Centre September 15 10 am
This course lasts for ten weeks. Each session lasts for two hours and costs £50. for the whole course For more dtails ring 01792 480245 or 07592330467 or by emailing squabs@hotmail.co.uk
Postmodernism is a reaction to modernism. It corrects problems from the past, but also over-reacts to those problems, leading to an exaggeration. So, the chief strengths of postmodernism are in what it corrects, and it’s chief weaknesses are in what it over-corrects.
Let's look at an example. Under modernism, the prevailing theory of truth was known as the correspondence theory of truth. That is, something was felt to be true in so much as it corresponds to objective reality found in the world. The correspondence theory of truth caused people to believe that scientific truth equals absolute truth.
Postmodernism corrects this by denying the equivalency between scientific truth and absolute truth. All scientific conclusions are now understood to be tentative simply because no one has ever made the infinite number of observations required to learn if there are any exceptions.
So, postmodernism corrects modernism by helping us to understand the limits of our reasoning ability and knowledge. But postmodernism then presses things too far.
It adheres to a coherence theory of truth. That is, something is true for us only in so much as it coheres with our other perceptions about the world. But this new theory of truth makes science to be just a collection of independent research traditions, each having its own perspectives and language games. Taken to the extreme, this can lead to the absurd.
A classroom dominated by a radical postmodernism might, for instance, abandon a curriculum in favor of just letting everyone 'discover their own truth.' Inevitably, radical postmodernism leads to a social breakdown because it undermines all language, information and achievement.
Postmodernism was correct in critiquing modernism and concluding that the correspondence theory of truth is limited. We now know that the scientific method is not able to discover absolute truth.
But postmodernists who insist on the coherence theory of truth are clearly over-reacting. The scientific method is still able to come up with a reasonable understanding of how the world works. And, despite the existence of research traditions, valid scientific experiments are reproducible, descriptive and predictive – making them understood objectively by all scientists. We hardly want to live in a world in which all language, information and achievement is undermined.
Critical Realism
This is precisely the conclusion of the philosophical school known as critical realism. Founded by Karl Popper (1902-1994) and Roy Bhaskar (1944- ), critical realism builds upon the best features of modernism without falling into the excesses of postmodernism.
Basically, critical realism says that we live our lives as if there is objective reality, but we acknowledge that can never understand reality perfectly. Nevertheless, we might understand it to a reasonable degree.
Walter Truett Anderson created an illustration about three umpires (referees) that aptly describes the difference between modernism, postmodernism and critical realism. The modernism umpire says, “I call ‘em as they are.” The postmodern umpire says, “They ain’t nothing till I call ‘em.” The critical realist umpire says, “I call ‘em as I see ‘em.”
The Weakness of Critical Realism
The weakness of critical realism is that it is a pragmatic theory of knowledge that takes the best from two other theories (the modernist and the postmodernist) to create a working synthesis. As a theory of knowledge, however, it does not describe how we know what we know.
A physical answer to that question may be coming from the field of neurobiology. Once, the only people who developed theories of knowledge were philosophers; now, the neurobiologist is also becoming involved. Neurobiology is seeking to explain how we know what we know by developing a physical theory of knowledge based on the workings of the human mind.
This research will have direct philosophical implications. Results indicate that there is a structuralism to both the human mind and to DNA. As Kant previously indicated, we all possess common structures within our minds that enable us to perceive reality. But it is unlikely that neurobiology will return us to a Kantian philosophy. It is more likely that on-going results will weaken postmodern skepticism and result in a strengthened case for critical realism.
Postmodernism is a reaction to modernism. It corrects problems from the past, but also over-reacts to those problems, leading to an exaggeration. So, the chief strengths of postmodernism are in what it corrects, and it’s chief weaknesses are in what it over-corrects.
Let's look at an example. Under modernism, the prevailing theory of truth was known as the correspondence theory of truth. That is, something was felt to be true in so much as it corresponds to objective reality found in the world. The correspondence theory of truth caused people to believe that scientific truth equals absolute truth.
Postmodernism corrects this by denying the equivalency between scientific truth and absolute truth. All scientific conclusions are now understood to be tentative simply because no one has ever made the infinite number of observations required to learn if there are any exceptions.
So, postmodernism corrects modernism by helping us to understand the limits of our reasoning ability and knowledge. But postmodernism then presses things too far.
It adheres to a coherence theory of truth. That is, something is true for us only in so much as it coheres with our other perceptions about the world. But this new theory of truth makes science to be just a collection of independent research traditions, each having its own perspectives and language games. Taken to the extreme, this can lead to the absurd.
A classroom dominated by a radical postmodernism might, for instance, abandon a curriculum in favor of just letting everyone 'discover their own truth.' Inevitably, radical postmodernism leads to a social breakdown because it undermines all language, information and achievement.
Postmodernism was correct in critiquing modernism and concluding that the correspondence theory of truth is limited. We now know that the scientific method is not able to discover absolute truth.
But postmodernists who insist on the coherence theory of truth are clearly over-reacting. The scientific method is still able to come up with a reasonable understanding of how the world works. And, despite the existence of research traditions, valid scientific experiments are reproducible, descriptive and predictive – making them understood objectively by all scientists. We hardly want to live in a world in which all language, information and achievement is undermined.
Critical Realism
This is precisely the conclusion of the philosophical school known as critical realism. Founded by Karl Popper (1902-1994) and Roy Bhaskar (1944- ), critical realism builds upon the best features of modernism without falling into the excesses of postmodernism.
Basically, critical realism says that we live our lives as if there is objective reality, but we acknowledge that can never understand reality perfectly. Nevertheless, we might understand it to a reasonable degree.
Walter Truett Anderson created an illustration about three umpires (referees) that aptly describes the difference between modernism, postmodernism and critical realism. The modernism umpire says, “I call ‘em as they are.” The postmodern umpire says, “They ain’t nothing till I call ‘em.” The critical realist umpire says, “I call ‘em as I see ‘em.”
The Weakness of Critical Realism
The weakness of critical realism is that it is a pragmatic theory of knowledge that takes the best from two other theories (the modernist and the postmodernist) to create a working synthesis. As a theory of knowledge, however, it does not describe how we know what we know.
A physical answer to that question may be coming from the field of neurobiology. Once, the only people who developed theories of knowledge were philosophers; now, the neurobiologist is also becoming involved. Neurobiology is seeking to explain how we know what we know by developing a physical theory of knowledge based on the workings of the human mind.
This research will have direct philosophical implications. Results indicate that there is a structuralism to both the human mind and to DNA. As Kant previously indicated, we all possess common structures within our minds that enable us to perceive reality. But it is unlikely that neurobiology will return us to a Kantian philosophy. It is more likely that on-going results will weaken postmodern skepticism and result in a strengthened case for critical realism.
Literature and Morality...the Good the Bad and the Ugly
ETHICS AND LITERATURE FOR ASCLEPIUS. SEPTEMBER 16 10 am
These are some of the ideas we will be discussing and please don’t worry about not having read the books as examples of the philosophical ideas can be found in a variety of books. Where we will be discussing ideas in class we’ll make sure you have the hand outs a week or so before.
There are 2 ways we can look at literature in ethics.
1) Literature viewed through the lens of ethics This will focus on literature/fiction generally and the philosophical questions arising from it/them. Questions such as can fiction teach us anything at all given that it is ‘just’ fiction? Should a work of art have a moral Should censorship be allowed in some circumstances? Does the view of the author count? Should a work of fiction have a moral content and if so how does this affect the reader.
2) Ethics illuminated by examples from literature We would look closely at philosophical ethics to see how problems raised there are reflected and dealt with in the literary texts studied. Philosophical texts will be on my reading list, not just novels. Extracts of each provided.
Books … extracts to illustrate the ethical and philosophical topics. Full bibliography at the bottom of page.
Primary texts.
Turn of the screw. Henry James
Brothers Karamazov Dostoyevsky
Candide Voltaire
Secondary texts.
Anna Karenina Tolstoy
Mother’s milk Edward St Aubin or similar for example of irony and/or humour
Extracts from various philosophical papers, commentaries and books on literature, fiction and ethics.
Week 1 Jenni General introduction: Inside and outside of a text. Authors, narrators and readers. Authorial intent and ambiguity in Turn of the screw by Henry James.
Week 2. Martyn. Post modernism and the text. Ambiguity, post modernism relativism in relation to James’ Turn of the screw. Possibly William James ---- you can use other texts too if you want to.
Week 3 Jenni Moral panic in James’ Turn of the screw. How this bears relation to the last two weeks discussions.
Week 4. Jenni Can we be moved by emotions in novels if they are fictitious?
Examples from Anna Karenina. Example of comedy from Mother’s Milk
Example of sadness from Anna Karenina and psychical distancing Terry Diffy and other theories on why/how we are moved by fiction. Colin Radcliffe How can we be moved by the fate of Anna Karenina
.
Week 5. Martyn Psychology as evidence. Why does fiction affect us so deeply? The psychological effects of fiction on the reader. Aristotle on tragedy ----appeals to us all ----- cathartic. 2. Ethical issues addressed in tragedy. Examples of tragedy that illustrate this point. We can use any texts we like for these two weeks as the topic concerns all fiction.
Week 6 Jenni can we learn morality from fiction? ‘Is it only make believe’ Kendall Walton. Can it make us a better person. Can we learn how to treat others with consideration? If so then what affect does fiction about evil or evil deeds have on us.
Week 7 Martyn. Moral attitudes of the writer, a look at what shapes their outlook.: Henry James, Dostoyevsky and Voltaire. And does it matter? Evil authors and evil deeds. Some examples I thought of; VS Naipaul –misogynist, Salman Rushdie – apparently a blasphemer, Ayn Rand right wing racist, anti gay etc
William James consciousness, no grand narrator, fragmented, morality versus perhaps Dostoyevsky.
Week 8. Martyn Brothers Karamazov. An example of fiction that ‘speaks volumes to or emotions and makes us think about morality. The question in Bros K is Can there be morality without religion Ivanov’s pamphlet/prose----The Grand Inquisitor.
Week 9 Jenni Philosophical ideas and philosophical ethics in fiction. Can we learn about ethical theories/values from a work of literature? Brothers Karamazov. Utilitarian ideas in the speech where Alyosha says he would not torture one child to save the world. Also Voltaire’s Candide and the philosophical idea of The best of all possible worlds and Leibniz’s theory of optimism.
Week 10 Martyn. How morality informs the texts either the point the author is trying to get across to the reader or the author’s own morality. Can we see evidence in literature of different forms of morality in different eras and times? What was Voltaire trying to say in ‘Candide’?
A wide range of (mainly) novels and (maybe) other literature will be examined in this course and any previous reading you have done will be helpful. There is no need to read all of the books mentioned as handouts will be given out in advance.
If you would like to familiarise yourself with the subject of ethics and literature here are some interesting books. (only suggestions)
Dick Beardsmore Learning from a Novel. Royal Institute of Philosophical Lectures U1 1971-2.
Beardsmore, RW. "Literary Examples and Philosophical Confusion" (1984).Philosophy and Literature. Ed. Griffiths, A. P. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 59-73
Booth, W. (1988). The company we keep: An ethics of fiction / Wayne C. Booth. Berkeley,[Calif.] ; London: University of California Press.
Carroll Noël. Ethics, , pp. 350-387. Art and Ethical Criticism: An Overview of Recent Directions of Research. Vol. 110, No. 2 (January 2000). The University of Chicago Press. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/233273
George, S. (2005). Ethics, literature, and theory : An introductory reader / edited by Stephen K. George. (2nd ed.). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Halliwell, S. (1986). Aristotle's Poetics / Stephen Halliwell. London: Duckworth.
Nussbaum, M. (1992). Love's knowledge : Essays on philosophy and literature / Martha C. Nussbaum. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pojman, L. (1999). The moral life : An introductory reader in ethics and literature. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Radford, Colin. (1975) Why are we moved by the Fate of Anna Karenina? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society for the systematic study of philosophy. Supplementary Volume XL1X, p's 67-80. London: Williams and Norgate.
Tolstoy, Leo. (1994). What Is Art? London: Duckworth.
Walton, Kendall. (1990). Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundation of the Representational Arts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilkinson, Robert. (Ed). (1991). Theories of Art and Beauty. I Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
There are 2 ways we can look at literature in ethics.
1) Literature viewed through the lens of ethics This will focus on literature/fiction generally and the philosophical questions arising from it/them. Questions such as can fiction teach us anything at all given that it is ‘just’ fiction? Should a work of art have a moral Should censorship be allowed in some circumstances? Does the view of the author count? Should a work of fiction have a moral content and if so how does this affect the reader.
2) Ethics illuminated by examples from literature We would look closely at philosophical ethics to see how problems raised there are reflected and dealt with in the literary texts studied. Philosophical texts will be on my reading list, not just novels. Extracts of each provided.
Books … extracts to illustrate the ethical and philosophical topics. Full bibliography at the bottom of page.
Primary texts.
Turn of the screw. Henry James
Brothers Karamazov Dostoyevsky
Candide Voltaire
Secondary texts.
Anna Karenina Tolstoy
Mother’s milk Edward St Aubin or similar for example of irony and/or humour
Extracts from various philosophical papers, commentaries and books on literature, fiction and ethics.
Week 1 Jenni General introduction: Inside and outside of a text. Authors, narrators and readers. Authorial intent and ambiguity in Turn of the screw by Henry James.
Week 2. Martyn. Post modernism and the text. Ambiguity, post modernism relativism in relation to James’ Turn of the screw. Possibly William James ---- you can use other texts too if you want to.
Week 3 Jenni Moral panic in James’ Turn of the screw. How this bears relation to the last two weeks discussions.
Week 4. Jenni Can we be moved by emotions in novels if they are fictitious?
Examples from Anna Karenina. Example of comedy from Mother’s Milk
Example of sadness from Anna Karenina and psychical distancing Terry Diffy and other theories on why/how we are moved by fiction. Colin Radcliffe How can we be moved by the fate of Anna Karenina
.
Week 5. Martyn Psychology as evidence. Why does fiction affect us so deeply? The psychological effects of fiction on the reader. Aristotle on tragedy ----appeals to us all ----- cathartic. 2. Ethical issues addressed in tragedy. Examples of tragedy that illustrate this point. We can use any texts we like for these two weeks as the topic concerns all fiction.
Week 6 Jenni can we learn morality from fiction? ‘Is it only make believe’ Kendall Walton. Can it make us a better person. Can we learn how to treat others with consideration? If so then what affect does fiction about evil or evil deeds have on us.
Week 7 Martyn. Moral attitudes of the writer, a look at what shapes their outlook.: Henry James, Dostoyevsky and Voltaire. And does it matter? Evil authors and evil deeds. Some examples I thought of; VS Naipaul –misogynist, Salman Rushdie – apparently a blasphemer, Ayn Rand right wing racist, anti gay etc
William James consciousness, no grand narrator, fragmented, morality versus perhaps Dostoyevsky.
Week 8. Martyn Brothers Karamazov. An example of fiction that ‘speaks volumes to or emotions and makes us think about morality. The question in Bros K is Can there be morality without religion Ivanov’s pamphlet/prose----The Grand Inquisitor.
Week 9 Jenni Philosophical ideas and philosophical ethics in fiction. Can we learn about ethical theories/values from a work of literature? Brothers Karamazov. Utilitarian ideas in the speech where Alyosha says he would not torture one child to save the world. Also Voltaire’s Candide and the philosophical idea of The best of all possible worlds and Leibniz’s theory of optimism.
Week 10 Martyn. How morality informs the texts either the point the author is trying to get across to the reader or the author’s own morality. Can we see evidence in literature of different forms of morality in different eras and times? What was Voltaire trying to say in ‘Candide’?
A wide range of (mainly) novels and (maybe) other literature will be examined in this course and any previous reading you have done will be helpful. There is no need to read all of the books mentioned as handouts will be given out in advance.
If you would like to familiarise yourself with the subject of ethics and literature here are some interesting books. (only suggestions)
Dick Beardsmore Learning from a Novel. Royal Institute of Philosophical Lectures U1 1971-2.
Beardsmore, RW. "Literary Examples and Philosophical Confusion" (1984).Philosophy and Literature. Ed. Griffiths, A. P. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 59-73
Booth, W. (1988). The company we keep: An ethics of fiction / Wayne C. Booth. Berkeley,[Calif.] ; London: University of California Press.
Carroll Noël. Ethics, , pp. 350-387. Art and Ethical Criticism: An Overview of Recent Directions of Research. Vol. 110, No. 2 (January 2000). The University of Chicago Press. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/233273
George, S. (2005). Ethics, literature, and theory : An introductory reader / edited by Stephen K. George. (2nd ed.). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Halliwell, S. (1986). Aristotle's Poetics / Stephen Halliwell. London: Duckworth.
Nussbaum, M. (1992). Love's knowledge : Essays on philosophy and literature / Martha C. Nussbaum. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pojman, L. (1999). The moral life : An introductory reader in ethics and literature. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Radford, Colin. (1975) Why are we moved by the Fate of Anna Karenina? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society for the systematic study of philosophy. Supplementary Volume XL1X, p's 67-80. London: Williams and Norgate.
Tolstoy, Leo. (1994). What Is Art? London: Duckworth.
Walton, Kendall. (1990). Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundation of the Representational Arts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilkinson, Robert. (Ed). (1991). Theories of Art and Beauty. I Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment