This was originally a reply to Marion's post, but it got so long, and I don't have enough posts, that I honestly decided to make it a post for myself rather than a comment on Marion's last post.
I feel that a connotative mode of teaching a work is the best way to understand it more completely,discussing through example and culturally updated metaphor, however I also feel that an old work of philosophy should be read denotative-ly (if i can use that term), that is, in a way where we are reading the work in pure form, and also being taught about the culture and the rich history surrounding the work. This is where I feel that the Great Books courses fall short. I love learning about classic books and especially works of philosophy, but I feel that without the cultural context and the explanations of philosophical history of ideas, there is no way that a person can talk about philosophy in an intelligent way.
Philosophy especially is just so rich with information, not only in context with itself, but with other philosophers' generic views, taking other philosophers' definitions for words, references to works of literature, and other historical events, there is simply no way to truly understand what a philosopher is saying unless you have that depth of information about he subject matter. As I was saying in our Medieval class the other day, there is no way that someone is going to understand Bacon and his view in the New Organon if they only read the first 3 chapters, and they have no knowledge about how the scholastic system worked, as well as the definitions of various keywords that he takes from other philosophers of his day. To prove this, my friend has done just this, and therefore just got done writing a paper on how much Bacon hates education. This is completely false, but there is no way to address the issue of just how false this is, if they as students are not allowed to look at the depth of the information rather than the breadth.
These students want to be able to say "I read x philosopher, and I know what he thinks about y." But they aren't actually getting that information if they are just reading one work, and only a piece of the work at that, without context, and moving along. Is it good to be well- read? Yes. Do I hate the Great Books program? No. But I do think that in using this John's Hopkins version of Great Books, we are actually sending misinformed students out into the world. Without the outlining of the connotative experience of the works being read, along with the denotative literal translation and direct reading from the text, there is no way to speak intelligently about philosophy. In my opinion, it would almost be more fruitful to just lecture on the movements and ideas that these people were apart of and leave out the text itself entirely, because at least they would have correct information when they go out into the academic world with it.
While I agree with you that the connotation is very important there are some important things that one misses without the denotative text. It is my understanding that part of the reason that people read is in order to improve upon their own writing style. Reading texts in their denotative literal translation makes someone understand a different way of thinking. You get exposed to new words and learn new ways to form sentences. I think I am correct in thinking that one of the goals of both the Great Books Program and the Philosophy Department is to craft better writers, and if not it is a good practice anyway.
ReplyDeleteAlso having a denotational text causes the reader to have to read slower and maybe reread something to understand it, which could help them not skip over something important, as may happen when skimming through an easier to read connotative text.
I think the ideal way to present texts is in the same form as the 'No Fear Shakespeare' texts, where there is the original/denotative text on one side and a modern connotative text on the other side.
I disagree.
ReplyDeleteI tried for a while to think of something more insightful than that, but that's the core of it. I don't think that historical context matters that much when dealing with philosophy. Maybe--MAYBE--you should get enough to understand the varieties of translations, but even then you get bogged down in "did they mean THIS" and "well, my edition says THIS."
I think that too much historical context can lead to this same stunting of understanding. I mean, I see what you're saying about the first three chapters of Bacon, but there are two things you have to remember: one, not everyone cares about it with the same degree of passion. Sure, you might like it and want to read the whole thing, but our (that is to say, Mercer's) educational system is attempting to achieve the maximum possible exposure. If texts you like get left behind, I think that's just going to happen now and again.
Two, I think there's a big difference between philosophy and the history of philosophy. If your friend writes a paper saying that Bacon hates education, that's one thing. But if your friend starts building her own theories as to why education sucks, and happens to use Bacon as a starting point, I think that's fine.
Basically, the short version of this is that I take a much more literary analysis/New Critic look at it. It's not the intention that matters, it's what the reader gets out of it.
I agree that what the reader gets out of it is very important, however the point I was getting at was that people think in these situations that they are reading a philosopher and know what he is saying without the context; they simply don't. I understand some books will be left behind, and that not all students are philosophy majors, but I also think it's wrong for a person to read an excerpt, which is misleading, and getting misinformed about what the author has said. The fact is, Bacon does not hate education. All the people at Mercer in the Great Books program now think that he does. That is not leaving behind a book that I like, or not putting my interests into the class, it is a lie.
ReplyDeleteMy example is Bacon, but my point is that this happens with very many books when we read them and discuss them in this style. People leave the class thinking that they know something about the philosophy or the book, and the fact is that they aren't given the information that they need to be able to even comprehend the book in the first place. I do think that this happens in literature, but I think that the problem is bigger in philosophy. Philosophical texts are very convoluted and, especially in this era, not open about who they are citing and where they are pulling their ideas and definitions from. The reader is simply expected to know. Without this knowledge, the work is completely different. If you mistake a philosopher's definitions in their first premises, then you do not understand their philosophy, and are thinking about something completely other when you talk about it.
It is important that we as an institution of learning are actually teaching the works and the authors as they are supposed to be read, rather than giving students misleading excerpts just so that they can brandish around a name that they think sounds important. They are not educated on Bacon if they think that Bacon hates education. But Mercer has told them that they are. This is what I completely disagree with.