Does Great Literature Make Us Better?

[Phocion]

Experiencing great art of any kind makes us better people in some way, of course. At the same time, I feel the education system, especially the Anglo-Saxon education system, tends to fetishize and place on a pedestal the act of reading in and of itself as if it were some morally superior activity. It's the 'reading for reading's sake' attitude that gets on my nerves. Reading Kafka will broaden the mind just as will listening to Schubert or even watching Ozu. At the end of the day, it should be accepted that writing is simply a form of expression as is painting canvases or composing music, and they're all valid. The Anglo-Saxon intelligentsia hasn't caught on to this concept. The French, for instance, have grasped this. Read Gore Vidal and you'll see what I mean.

Someone in his or her mid-twenties can't pick up a copy of Pride and Prejudice or Great Expectations without being told they 'should have read that in ninth or tenth grade'. Why is this? It's a huge paradox. American society is deeply anti-intellectual, yet people are expected to have read X, Y, and Z by the time they turn twenty because that's the trajectory 'edcuated' people are supposed to follow. It's an obsession with superficial signs. Having been taught Great Expectations in tenth grade is a sign. Getting a 750 on the SAT verbal is a sign. It has nothing to do with profound, genuine intellectual curiosity. It's about creating the image/illusion of 'well-readness', since 'smart' people have read the 'great books'. How inane would it sound if I patronizingly told people they should have been familiar with Morisot's canvases by the end of eleventh grade or that they should have listened to Bartok's quartets by the time they turned 19? Was someone who was 28 when Pride and Prejudice was first published too old to be reading it?

Completely disagree. It has not been long since i exited the education system in the UK, and i find that there is a deemphasis placed on anything that does not have some kind of practical or vocational application. It is always about what a certain thing will contribute to the student's career path, what will get him ahead in the production line. Reading for the sake of reading and reading for any reason other than the completing of pre-set tasks is almost non-existant in schools, and among pupils. Education has become completely task based, and so very few take up and pursue reading on their initiative - they are not even told why they should, or taught the joys of literature. It is all: read this so you can answer that etc.

The consequence of all this is that young people simply don't read anymore. It is not so much what people should have read by the 9th or 10th grade, but that most of that age have not read anything at all. And the literature they are given in school will always appear a chore because it often gives things like Shakespeare to people that have never read anything serious - that is nonsensical.

This modern aversion to literature is a clear sign of the stupefying effects of academics and bureaucracy on culture; the degradation of art, man and intelligence, simply stated.

[PeterL]

This is such a nothing answer. No one was asking whether the world was predetermined. Nor does it have any relevance to the question, whatsoever. I didn't know something being predetermined meant it never changed, because that is what you seem to be implying.

Apparently you did not consider the implications of my comments. In a predetermined world one is what one is, regardless of what or if one reads.

[mande2013]

I agree with you Phocion. As for reading something so you can answer a question on the test, that's partially what I was getting at I think with the whole notion of fostering the illusion of learnedness, in order to become a respectable upper middle-class member of society. Then again, perhaps I'm channeling an attitude that dates from the sixties rather than from the noughties.

[Ecurb]

Apparently you did not consider the implications of my comments. In a predetermined world one is what one is, regardless of what or if one reads.

That is not correct, Peter. Assuming a predetermined world, each individual's reading habits are predetermined along with everything else about him. You cannot correctly say that that "one is what one is, regardless of what one reads". Instead, one is what one is, and what one reads is part of what one is. The high school scholar who flunks his pop quizzes because he failed to read his assignments may have been destined to flunk, and destined to fail to read the book -- but it's still reasonable to say he flunked his quiz "because" he didn't read his assignment. Whether he was destined to leave the assignment unread is irrelevant to the truth value of "he flunked because he didn't read the book".

[PeterL]

That is not correct, Peter. Assuming a predetermined world, each individual's reading habits are predetermined along with everything else about him. You cannot correctly say that that "one is what one is, regardless of what one reads". Instead, one is what one is, and what one reads is part of what one is. The high school scholar who flunks his pop quizzes because he failed to read his assignments may have been destined to flunk, and destined to fail to read the book -- but it's still reasonable to say he flunked his quiz "because" he didn't read his assignment. Whether he was destined to leave the assignment unread is irrelevant to the truth value of "he flunked because he didn't read the book".

Apparently oyu don't know what predetermined means.

[Ecurb]

Apparently oyu don't know what predetermined means.

Actually, I do. Apparently you don't know what "causes" means or what "truth value" means.

[Phocion]

Apparently you did not consider the implications of my comments. In a predetermined world one is what one is, regardless of what or if one reads.

No, in a predetermined world one is shaped by one's interactions and experiences; they may be predetermined also, but that does not mean that if they did not exist then the person would be exactly the same as if they did. To say everything is predetermined through cause and effect due to everything originating from a single point is little more than a platitude, and really has no relevance to this discussion. But to say what someone reads has no bearing on them as a person is foolish.

I agree with you Phocion. As for reading something so you can answer a question on the test, that's partially what I was getting at I think with the whole notion of fostering the illusion of learnedness, in order to become a respectable upper middle-class member of society. Then again, perhaps I'm channeling an attitude that dates from the sixties rather than from the noughties.

Yeah i actually think we were saying the same kind of thing, except you were attacking it from one side (that academics portray reading as a pursuit of the intellectual elite), and i from the other (that people don't read because they hold misconceptions about it being 'high-brow' or difficult or like work etc.).

They are mutually reenforcing also, so it is unlikely to ever change.

[PeterL]

Actually, I do. Apparently you don't know what "causes" means or what "truth value" means.

You are mistaken.

pre·de·ter·mine
[pree-di-tur-min] Show IPA
verb (used with object), pre·de·ter·mined, pre·de·ter·min·ing.
1. to settle or decide in advance: He had predetermined his answer to the offer.
2. to ordain in advance; predestine: She believed that God had predetermined her sorrow.
3. to direct or impel; influence strongly: His sympathy for the poor predetermined his choice of a career.
http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...determined?s=t
Especially note definition 2. That I would write this was predetermined from the time of the Big Bang by the law of cause and effect.


If you want it to mean something else, then Humpty Dumpty may back you up.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

[Ecurb]

I'd ask you to enlighten me, but you don't seem inclined to do so, and I doubt you are able to.

Here's how one philosopher defined "cause":

What do we mean by “cause” when we say “actions are caused by X or Y forces.” If something happens, must it be “caused” to happen? It seems to me we use “cause” in several distinct ways:


1) A “cause” is the free and intentional act of a conscious and responsible agent. (i.e. if you shoot some one, you cause his death).

2) A “cause” is the handle we manipulate to create an effect. (i.e. if x+existing conditions = y, and x can be manipulated, we say x causes y) By this definition, if a car skids going around a curve, the "cause" may be the speed of the car (to the driver), the lack of banking on the turn (to the road engineer), or the lack of traction in the tires (to the tire maker). This definition can also be used by experimental scientists.

3) In theoretical science, a cause is something which is necessary in both existence and operation to the thing it is causing, For the rationalist, x causes y if x is an "insight" into y, so you could say the first two sides of a triangle "cause" the dimensions of the third side. For the empiricist, a cause is an observed conjunction -- all x are followed by y.


Now definition #1 presupposes free will, and #2 presupposes “manipulation”, which suggests some sort of human will. That leaves definition #3. It is surely possible that some day we will have a theory that allows us to see when one circumstance is “necessary in both existence and operation” to another. However, since we lack that knowledge now, we might as well act as if we have free will. An action caused by something of which we are ignorant and a “free act” are distinguished only by a distinction without a difference.

[PeterL]

I'd ask you to enlighten me, but you don't seem inclined to do so, and I doubt you are able to.

Here's how one philosopher defined "cause":

What do we mean by “cause” when we say “actions are caused by X or Y forces.” If something happens, must it be “caused” to happen? It seems to me we use “cause” in several distinct ways:


1) A “cause” is the free and intentional act of a conscious and responsible agent. (i.e. if you shoot some one, you cause his death).

2) A “cause” is the handle we manipulate to create an effect. (i.e. if x+existing conditions = y, and x can be manipulated, we say x causes y) By this definition, if a car skids going around a curve, the "cause" may be the speed of the car (to the driver), the lack of banking on the turn (to the road engineer), or the lack of traction in the tires (to the tire maker). This definition can also be used by experimental scientists.

3) In theoretical science, a cause is something which is necessary in both existence and operation to the thing it is causing, For the rationalist, x causes y if x is an "insight" into y, so you could say the first two sides of a triangle "cause" the dimensions of the third side. For the empiricist, a cause is an observed conjunction -- all x are followed by y.


Now definition #1 presupposes free will, and #2 presupposes “manipulation”, which suggests some sort of human will. That leaves definition #3. It is surely possible that some day we will have a theory that allows us to see when one circumstance is “necessary in both existence and operation” to another. However, since we lack that knowledge now, we might as well act as if we have free will. An action caused by something of which we are ignorant and a “free act” are distinguished only by a distinction without a difference.

Predetermine
2. to ordain in advance; predestine.
This definition does note imply or even suggest manipulation. That example that cited "God" was not necessary.

We seem to use the same definition for cause, but you seem not to understand the concept of "cause and effect". You might want to study logic.

[hypatia_]

An action caused by something of which we are ignorant and a “free act” are distinguished only by a distinction without a difference.

Could you clarify this?

[Ecurb]

Predetermine
2. to ordain in advance; predestine.
This definition does note imply or even suggest manipulation. That example that cited "God" was not necessary.

We seem to use the same definition for cause, but you seem not to understand the concept of "cause and effect". You might want to study logic.

There can be multiple causes for any effect, as is clearly seen in example 2 above. You might try to read one of "Miss Manners" excellent books on etiquette, as well as one on logic.

Could you clarify this?

Sure. Suppose you are playing poker. You are drawing one card to an inside straight. Of the 47 unseen cards, 4 will fill the inside straight, so using rudimentary arithmetic, you think, "I have 4/47 chance of filling my straght, or, about 1/12." Of course you will be dealt (given an honest dealer) the card that happens to be on the top of the deck. To the omniscient observer (or any observer who can see the other side of the card) you have either a 100% or a 0% chance of filling your straight. The card you will be dealt is predetermined, by the original shuffle. Nonetheless, for the poker player trying to decide whether to draw a card or not, it is useful to ACT AS IF the odds are 4/47 of filling the straight. That's because he doesn't know what the card on the top of the deck is. The fact that the next card to be dealt is "predetermined" is irrelevant to him -- for all he cares the dealer could reshuffle the deck before dealing him his card.

By the way, why does Peter's definition offer "predestine" as a synonym. Since "destiny" is "the predetermined ordering of events", isn't "predestined" redundant?

[PeterL]

Sure. Suppose you are playing poker. You are drawing one card to an inside straight. Of the 47 unseen cards, 4 will fill the inside straight, so using rudimentary arithmetic, you think, "I have 4/47 chance of filling my straght, or, about 1/12." Of course you will be dealt (given an honest dealer) the card that happens to be on the top of the deck. To the omniscient observer (or any observer who can see the other side of the card) you have either a 100% or a 0% chance of filling your straight. The card you will be dealt is predetermined, by the original shuffle. Nonetheless, for the poker player trying to decide whether to draw a card or not, it is useful to ACT AS IF the odds are 4/47 of filling the straight. That's because he doesn't know what the card on the top of the deck is. The fact that the next card to be dealt is "predetermined" is irrelevant to him -- for all he cares the dealer could reshuffle the deck before dealing him his card.

By the way, why does Peter's definition offer "predestine" as a synonym. Since "destiny" is "the predetermined ordering of events", isn't "predestined" redundant?

I use common word to make things comprehensible to more people.

It appears that you atree edging toward noticing that everything was caused by something, and th=at those causes were not conscious acts of humans. In a while you will realize that whether the Gods or the Laws of the Universe were the initial movers, humans, and everything else has a chain of cause and effect that determines what they (it) will do, or what will happen to it, depending on how you look at it.

I'd ask you to enlighten me, but you don't seem inclined to do so, and I doubt you are able to.

Here's how one philosopher defined "cause":

What do we mean by “cause” when we say “actions are caused by X or Y forces.” If something happens, must it be “caused” to happen? It seems to me we use “cause” in several distinct ways:


1) A “cause” is the free and intentional act of a conscious and responsible agent. (i.e. if you shoot some one, you cause his death).

This begs the question, assuming that there are "free and intentional act(s)".

2) A “cause” is the handle we manipulate to create an effect. (i.e. if x+existing conditions = y, and x can be manipulated, we say x causes y) By this definition, if a car skids going around a curve, the "cause" may be the speed of the car (to the driver), the lack of banking on the turn (to the road engineer), or the lack of traction in the tires (to the tire maker). This definition can also be used by experimental scientists.

This also begs the question in the same way.

3) In theoretical science, a cause is something which is necessary in both existence and operation to the thing it is causing, For the rationalist, x causes y if x is an "insight" into y, so you could say the first two sides of a triangle "cause" the dimensions of the third side. For the empiricist, a cause is an observed conjunction -- all x are followed by y.

This is valid in most situations.

Now definition #1 presupposes free will, and #2 presupposes “manipulation”, which suggests some sort of human will. That leaves definition #3. It is surely possible that some day we will have a theory that allows us to see when one circumstance is “necessary in both existence and operation” to another. However, since we lack that knowledge now, we might as well act as if we have free will. An action caused by something of which we are ignorant and a “free act” are distinguished only by a distinction without a difference.

If you don't see any difference, then you might want to think about it. I will admit that there is no difference in the final result whether humans are aware of the chain of cause and effect, but the ethics and fundamental understanding are different.

[Drkshadow03]

What is your evidence that we live in a pre-determined world?

[astrum]

Well, it would seem if there is any answer in this thread to the question it's that literature can make you better by making you less ignorant of the world and yourself.

And with that knowledge, does one not become better-equipped to improve himself or his society in some way?


At the very least, he would understand his world better. Is that not the first step?