Greatness as a Predetermined Before Perceptions

Question: Where does the greatness of a text fall into this? Is it always great (greatness in the actual text) or does it lie in the minds of those who read it?

I am of the opinion that the greatness is something of a measure of potential that a work has to instill positive emotions in us. The text is, as we mentioned in class, unchanging (apart from translations and fancy jazz like that). So anything that is in the work, will continue to be so, though our perceptions of it may change. I was thinking that greatness, as a measure of potential, exists before a person reads a text. As soon the person reads the text, they realize that it is 'great' or 'not great." Our perceptions of the high quality and worth of a text is solidified by the structure, form/style, and content that already exist and will continue to exist in the work.

Cloudy Text - Messages

Question: Is getting a philosophical message from text really incredibly different from seeing shapes in the clouds?


I would argue that there isn't really a large difference between these two things. Nussbaum says that, basically, because we are human there is no way that we can possibly get the different meanings from the text because we share the same truths and such. I would have to disagree with her. I think humans tend to gather very different meanings from various texts, especially given that people have various views of what is true, driven to their core beliefs (Theism v. Atheism). I once heard an interpretation of The Metamorphosis wherein Gregor Samsa was depicted as Jesus and his death was necessary to have the family (representing all of human kind) become happy because their sins have been liberated. I don't quite think this is the message that Franz Kafka intended and I'm fairly certain that not everybody would get that same meaning. Franz Kafka. I think that Franz Kafka may have also intentionally tried to blur 'the cloud, as it is - creating inconsistent statements likes "An innocent child, yes, that you were, truly, but still more truly you have been a devilish human being. with this kind of confusion, how can we be expected to unite on one meaning?

In The Absence Of Meaning, Meaning Is All There Is

I don't think I agree with your assertion that novels can be written without attempting to insert any philosophical meaning. With the 'crime novel' that you suggest, murder could provide years and years of philosophical conversation. To this day we still philosophize about whether or not murder is justified, such crime novels could provide us with more examples. Also, how people ought to deal with loss and pain is definitely still a relevant object of philosophical debate. Romance, and the relationships that people have with others is also a relevant philosophical object of discussion. In fact, relationships between humans are the very structure of our society, how we define romance and so on, is very important to us.


Further, I would say that philosophical content can happen by accident. In class we discussed the author's intent. We determined that we can take a philosophical meaning that was not the author's intent. Not incorporating a meaning is like incorporating a meaning that nobody notices - there is little difference, practically speaking. Additionally, I think it would almost impossible to not incorporate any philosophical message. Even if you don't intend any philosophical message in your novel, some message can be found, and that is equally as valid as a message as one that is intended

Using Scientific Reason and Dialogue to Promote Religious Reasoning

To start out, the work that the rest of the post is referencing can be found here. - http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/e/einstein-god.htm

I received an e-mail from a Christian friend of mine. It basically depicts a short dialogue between student, claimed to be Albert Einstein, and an atheist professor. It used this particular style/form which lead me to, upon reading it for the first, almost accept it as a legitimate argument. It was interesting to me when I thought about how they may have chosen that particular style of writing in order to best communicate their message, however deluded it was. After looking over it again I realized that did several things which I didn't catch the first time. It did things like posit 'heat' as the opposite of 'cold,' 'light' as the opposite as 'darkness,' and 'god' as the opposite of 'evil.' Basically, it involves comparing adjectives with nouns (and proper nouns) in a way that it seems natural to do. When you look at it though, we determine that there are no opposites here. Apart from all of that, good would be the opposite of evil, not God.