Philosophy of language is considered to fit under the subgroup of analytic philosophy.
Analytic philosophy is opposed to continental philosophy.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Philosophy of interpretation
This is a subject that is better covered by the introducer of literary anthologies. However, it is important to reflect upon such a task before moving forward.
I am preparing to interpret Beckett's trilogy. This is not a single "work", per say; it was against Beckett's wishes that they be regarded as such. They are considered as a trilogy in the public eye, and that is a fact.
Therefore a distinction may be drawn: a de facto reality, and what we shall call a minority perspective: that of the author.
Does it matter what Beckett wanted us to do, if what has happened is that most people regard the three novels written in quick secession as having a central theme? Some unifying principle?
To me, it is more important to think of how the novel is viewed by everyone. The task of the literary critic is to make SENSE of the common view, not to cater to a minority, even if that minority is the author. Just like any marketing scheme... you are trying to sell your product to the most customers.
So what are the objective principles that I can set down, having just recently finished all three of these increasingly crazy works?
A lot of what I can say I found on wikipedia, unfortunately. I haven't learned too much from reading them... yet.
First, these three works, when construed together, represent a movement. From a typical Beckett plot, then stripped down some, then stripped down to pretty much nothing. Ramblings; a conflict between a desire to continue and a desire for closure and conclusion; that is all that is left by the very end.
There is a person behind the text that becomes increasingly apparent as the stripping down occurs. In a sense, Beckett himself becomes more clear. This is a personal observation... not really an objective thing I can rely on.
I read one piece of criticism that related Molloy to CG Jung. I am a bit annoyed at this... segways into the realm of psychoanalysis, which I feel is too... what's the word? specialized, yes. Can't sell my product as well.
I am particularly interested in this idea of existentialism-- not the precise understanding that is developing in the philosophy departments across our nation and the world, but mainstream existentialism. I think Beckett is key to this. Call it a hunch. Call it something I remember someone saying in passing once. The idea is there, and it's stuck.
Fragments of philosophy are all over the place in Beckett's ramblings. I feel that I am the common man, desperately trying to solve an enigma. What will I discover? A personal truth? Beckett's truth? Or something in between?
How has this idea changed from the beginning glimmers of this gold we call existentialism? Is it fools' gold? That's not my question to answer. I think it is real gold to many people. I think it is gold to me. But I haven't found it yet. It's not tangible enough, not yet.
Rumination...
I am preparing to interpret Beckett's trilogy. This is not a single "work", per say; it was against Beckett's wishes that they be regarded as such. They are considered as a trilogy in the public eye, and that is a fact.
Therefore a distinction may be drawn: a de facto reality, and what we shall call a minority perspective: that of the author.
Does it matter what Beckett wanted us to do, if what has happened is that most people regard the three novels written in quick secession as having a central theme? Some unifying principle?
To me, it is more important to think of how the novel is viewed by everyone. The task of the literary critic is to make SENSE of the common view, not to cater to a minority, even if that minority is the author. Just like any marketing scheme... you are trying to sell your product to the most customers.
So what are the objective principles that I can set down, having just recently finished all three of these increasingly crazy works?
A lot of what I can say I found on wikipedia, unfortunately. I haven't learned too much from reading them... yet.
First, these three works, when construed together, represent a movement. From a typical Beckett plot, then stripped down some, then stripped down to pretty much nothing. Ramblings; a conflict between a desire to continue and a desire for closure and conclusion; that is all that is left by the very end.
There is a person behind the text that becomes increasingly apparent as the stripping down occurs. In a sense, Beckett himself becomes more clear. This is a personal observation... not really an objective thing I can rely on.
I read one piece of criticism that related Molloy to CG Jung. I am a bit annoyed at this... segways into the realm of psychoanalysis, which I feel is too... what's the word? specialized, yes. Can't sell my product as well.
I am particularly interested in this idea of existentialism-- not the precise understanding that is developing in the philosophy departments across our nation and the world, but mainstream existentialism. I think Beckett is key to this. Call it a hunch. Call it something I remember someone saying in passing once. The idea is there, and it's stuck.
Fragments of philosophy are all over the place in Beckett's ramblings. I feel that I am the common man, desperately trying to solve an enigma. What will I discover? A personal truth? Beckett's truth? Or something in between?
How has this idea changed from the beginning glimmers of this gold we call existentialism? Is it fools' gold? That's not my question to answer. I think it is real gold to many people. I think it is gold to me. But I haven't found it yet. It's not tangible enough, not yet.
Rumination...
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Trilogies
Trilogies are like trinities, like triangles. There are a work split into three pieces, and they each contribute to the whole. But it is also defined by what it is not, a single work, and so the three pieces individuate themselves through their distance.
A question:
Is each piece of approximately the same length/volume/object?
An answer:
I see no reason to say yes. A triangle can be isosceles. A trinity operates as one entity represented in three different ways; the three sides would thus just be three different ways of viewing the same side. Properties such as size, shape, or length would thus be insignificant.
A question:
What is a trilogy?
An answer:
This is a difficult question. I can only address it if it's broken up a bit more.
A question:
Why would someone split a single work into three parts?
An answer:
That is not a very helpful question to ask, I think. Commonly, I suppose, the answer is for marketing purposes. By hooking people on the first part, you can ensure the success of the next two. But why three? Why not four, or five, or seven? The answer is because it's traditional. It's the way things have been done. Humans are things of habit, that's all; stories have beginnings, middles, and ends.
Q:
What can be said about the connectedness between the parts of a trilogy?
A:
The only thing that can be said is that there is some common thread of thought to all of them. There is an element of unity. The answer lies in the question, unfortunately... there is nothing more that can be said other than that there is some connectedness.
I am thinking about Beckett's trilogy, specifically. It is hard. I feel... there is a lot of similar thread in all of them, but what bothers me is this recycling of names. The second part makes reference to characters in the first part, and the third part makes reference to chars in the second and first parts.
So in a way, they are chronological. But so is time, and... the way memory works, I suppose, is being mimicked, but what's really interesting, actually, is his reference to chars in novels written long before any of these parts of "the trilogy."
A question:
Is each piece of approximately the same length/volume/object?
An answer:
I see no reason to say yes. A triangle can be isosceles. A trinity operates as one entity represented in three different ways; the three sides would thus just be three different ways of viewing the same side. Properties such as size, shape, or length would thus be insignificant.
A question:
What is a trilogy?
An answer:
This is a difficult question. I can only address it if it's broken up a bit more.
A question:
Why would someone split a single work into three parts?
An answer:
That is not a very helpful question to ask, I think. Commonly, I suppose, the answer is for marketing purposes. By hooking people on the first part, you can ensure the success of the next two. But why three? Why not four, or five, or seven? The answer is because it's traditional. It's the way things have been done. Humans are things of habit, that's all; stories have beginnings, middles, and ends.
Q:
What can be said about the connectedness between the parts of a trilogy?
A:
The only thing that can be said is that there is some common thread of thought to all of them. There is an element of unity. The answer lies in the question, unfortunately... there is nothing more that can be said other than that there is some connectedness.
I am thinking about Beckett's trilogy, specifically. It is hard. I feel... there is a lot of similar thread in all of them, but what bothers me is this recycling of names. The second part makes reference to characters in the first part, and the third part makes reference to chars in the second and first parts.
So in a way, they are chronological. But so is time, and... the way memory works, I suppose, is being mimicked, but what's really interesting, actually, is his reference to chars in novels written long before any of these parts of "the trilogy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)