[lit-ideas] The Idea of Literature
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 05:48:20 EST
-- good idea, bad idea, regular idea?
See where it got us!
To think that 'literature' for the Romans was the mere transliteration of
'grammar'!
In a message dated 3/3/2009 12:07:02 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Ursula@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
As for the students, a few are grateful for your effort. Some gripe
because you don't put your entire lecture notes on line.
---
Well, let's be reminded that it was Andreas Ramos's idea (a good one, too)
to label this 'lit-ideas' and define what the scope was: a requirement when you
set a list. It's under category, "Arts and Media", I think.
Ramos has made a career in technology. I've been studying his websites these
last couple of days. What he does is marketing online, I believe it is.
The connection with academia comes of course from his postgraduate degree
from the oldest university in Germany, Heidelberg -- where he studied Heidegger
and Husserl. In his list of favourite words he has "ideengeschichte", which
he finds a typical German idiom, as he should. I did refer to Isaiah Berlin in
"Lit-Ideas: A Survey". Berlin did teach "History of the Ideas" at Oxford. I
forget the title of the chair. I do not think it is supervised by the
Sub-Faculty of Philosophy, but it may (what else could supervise it?). Oddly,
even
in Buenos Aires, I had to attend _one_ 'history of ideas' course. It was
given by the eminence in "history of ideas" in Argentina, Oscar Teran. The
actual
course was titled, "History of Philosophical Ideas in Argentina". The
lecturer did not connect very well with students -- or at least with me. I did
my
end-of-term paper (which I still keep) on "Mariano Moreno and Contractualism".
Moreno being the introducer in Argentina of Rousseau's idea of the social
contract -- and then he died. (Was poisoned).
But back to technology as discussed by university professors:
>As for the students, a few are grateful for your effort. Some gripe
>because you don't put your entire lecture notes on line.
I think what Andreas Ramos is or was looking for in more along the lines of
German philosophy of technology. I did recall when I attended all those
philosophy courses that most of my lecturers were 'Continental' and well read
(or
so I thought) in continental philosophy. Of course, to discuss the impact of
technology in Buenos Aires is a joke (and a good one -- 'la dolce vita'). But
still, I recall "Kritisch der Technologische Vernunft" and other titles. Even
Heidegger has a few things to say about technology. As I recall, it's _bad_.
The other day I was reading the Mind review of Quine of Strawson's
Introduction to logical theory. Grice came to be sceptical of what he called
'philosophical technologies'. And Quine makes a passing note. When discussing
Strawson's attempt to recover the 'natural logic' of things like the 'if'
particle in
English, Quine chides him. The good thing, Quine says of having the
'horseshoe' is that we don't have to do the thinking. "It does it for us". A
lot of
technology, as negatively seen by these German neo-Diltheians, is that it
reduces human creativity. Of course it need not!
>As for the students, a few are grateful for your effort. Some gripe
>because you don't put your entire lecture notes on line.
No, it doesn't show your age -- And I loved to learn you are from nr.
Salzburg. Intensively studying Mozart's tenor arias right now. I wouldn't think
Plato was a university professor of the humanities, but he did found Academia.
Online lecture notes? The point of 'online' is very good, when it means
'real-time', 'on-the-line'. A lot of students seem to rely on "reports" of what
you
are doing in class -- in philosophy it _has_ to be 'on-the-line': you do
need the on-the-line interaction. And in this case, the technology can be a
barrier. When Geary noted that one of his students was not looking at him but
had
her face fixed on her laptop he found it difficult to interact with her.
Powerpoints can be great -- but a good lecturer doesn't need them. I find
them boring. I find a lot of power-point presenters hide behind the technology.
Lights out, ready-made screens --. Also power-point seems to be
'idiot-proof'. The print seems to be too big, the ideas too simplified. I
rather have a
subtle lecturer approaching the audience directly, meaning through
intonational
changes, etc.
Word-processing, simpliciter, is said to have had a bad impact on the
humanities. What Geary calls, following Alison Parker's slogan, "Too much
editing".
As every creative writer knows, it's best to leave what you've written as it
came out of your mind. Note the difference between a typed letter and a
handwritten one, and why it is still bad form even today to type a letter (to a
friend).
Research banks, etc. -- that technology provides has a double edge. On the
one hand, I find it obscene that so many publications are not publicly accessed
or accessible. This is not an academic constraint. It is a commercial
constraint. But then there is the University of Oxford, the Oxford University
Press, and the _universitas_ itself (etymologically, the 'universality' or
totality of dons, donhas, and tutees).
In philosophy, research banks are great, but honestly, the professor expects
the student to do the thinking. And recall that no professor want to be
outdone by her student. So a lot of quoting updated journals may be immaterial
to
get an A+ in most courses. I'm talking of the Humanities, of course. It's
different in the Technologies.
Perhaps what Andreas Ramos is thinking of has to do with the rather outdated
(he'd say) view of C. P. Snow, of the two cultures. Still, I do think the
two cultures are still operative. Back to 'philosophical technologies', if you
consider just _logic_: there's the Wykeham professorship of Logic and the
chair of mathematical logic. They officially belong to different programs. The
latter is given by the Department of Mathematics, although there _is_ a
connection with the Sub-Faculty of Philosophy via Merton College.
In this review by Quine he goes on to say, "philosophy of science is
philosophy enough", and that may be the case in America when he wrote the thing
(back in the early '5os), but Oxonians expect something different or more from
the Humanities. Philosophy of science is notably not philosophy enough. This
may
have to do with different value systems. As Andreas Ramos notes, in the old
days it was the people who owned the land who were wealthy (think of all
those English lords whose descendants disbanded those beautiful libraries! --
what a shame, only now being redressed (if that's the Gearyism). But, as
Andreas
Ramos notes, it's now (he thinks) the 'expert knowledge' that makes you
wealthy. It's the technology.
Back to the Greeks, I often wondered about 'techne'. This became 'ars' in
Latin, and ars is a very good thing. (Although Ritchie does not teach it).
Techne seems to have a slight derogative ring in Greek. Philosophers, Plato
would
say (but then, he couldn't be king) are not technocrats, or 'craft-people'.
Why? Could it be that some things do _not_ require a craft? This could well
be, but Ovid proved that wrong: he did write, after all, an "Ars Amatoria",
the art or craft of love-making. So where have we come to? However, one reads
Ovid, and you see the irony or pettiness of it all: by 'ars' he means just the
little game of seduction in sexual gaze and such. Not, as Geary notes, the
industry of inflatable women.
Within the Humanities, I think some divisions would be in order. The recent
Harvard UP catalogue has on its cover, "The new Humanities", whatever they
mean. They are _always_ advertising the new Humanities. The new "Yale" for
example, has just accepted "Henry Potter" star as student. I would distinguish
between different departments.
A Spanish philosopher that was popular in Argentina used to believe that the
Philosophy Departments in universities should be made illegal. Instead, he
claimed, each other department should have a 'philosophy' section. So there
would be a philosophy section in the Physics Department, the Arts Faculty, the
sociology department, etc. Not too bad an idea. So I shouldn't be speaking of
the Philosophy Department as such. Note that in American high-schools,
Philosophy is taught within the Social Sciences department, I think.
So, besides philosophy -- who cares about the _other_ departments. I mean,
it would be impertinent, obscene, ridiculous, and irrisory to think that what
people like Philip Sidney, William Shakespeare, Joe Orton, Philip Larkin, Ted
Hughes, Evelyn Waugh, E. M. Forster, Virginia Woolf, et al et al did, is
neatly compartimentized (another Gearyism) into "Department of English
Literature".
This list is "literature and ideas" and the home page reads: to discuss
books, ideas, or related topics. So it's _books_ the protoype of literature.
Andreas Ramos edits a newsletter which I've seen does inform us as to
publications he is reading. It would be good if he distributes the newsletter
with the
list, so that listers can share their thoughts on this book that is attracting
Ramos's attention. Discussion of who's reading what, on a list, tend to be
too volatile. As if nobody really cares what the others are reading. But some
focus could be attempted by going back to the 'idea' behind the book -- or
related topic.
I cannot say I read much. I get my books second-hand. Right now I've ordered
two which I'll get in a week or so. One is a study of Fascist opera: "Pietro
Mascagni and his operas" -- only four of his operas are available on DVD. He
has associations with Argentina (his Isabeau opened down there). He was the
darling of Covent Garden for a little while -- and also other opera houses in
England. The other book, by the same author (a NJ author) is "The autumn of
Italian opera". I had my doubts in spending money on such a derogatory title,
but there you are. It's supposed to be some consideration of the 1890-1915
period. I know most of the stuff, but I do have a responsibility in "The
Swimming-Pool Library" and find that the book can only motivate good readers
into
the good stuff.
What other listers are reading, getting interested, and why, a _charm_.
Cheers,
J. L. Speranza (Mr.)
Buenos Aires, Argentina
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219957551x1201325337/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] The Idea of Literature - Jlsperanza
