Eric asks,
Robert, a silly question, is that a philosopher's take on the book? In other words, does your evaluation of the book rise or fall on the presence or absence of convincing arguments, or can you be swayed by her unprovable assertions (such as beauty leading toward justice) and find that the eloquence of her survey redeems the book?
I don't know how to divide myself into the philosopher and the [other sort of person]. That is, if I find certain arguments unconvincing or simply bad, I do this as (I would hope) anyone would; it isn't as if I thought that arguments that philosophers would dismiss were OK for ordinary folks, who might not know the difference anyway. From time to time I do get asked, 'What do you, as a philosopher, think of...?' and I always give the answer I gave above: there's just me; I happen to do philosophy. Questions related to subject-matter, 'Do you think that this is an adequate account of Montague Grammar?' are different.
Where was I? Right--I can of course be swayed by unprovable assertions, in fact, those are the only kind that do sway me, insofar as they might touch the heart without going through the Cuisinart of logic; but as I don't think anything reedeems it I don't think the eloquence of her survey does.
Who says more about beauty -- Santayana or Rilke? Who is the expert, the aesthetician or the artist?
Santayana. This follows from the general principle that artists hardly, hardly ever know how to talk about art, their own or other people's. (Here I appeal to Professor Ritchie.)
Robert Paul Reed College ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
