Thursday, February 28, 2013

FOOTNOTE

This, might be a little on the late side, for a film I saw last thursday, but if I remember correctly there's a little extra credit for people writing up a few paragraphs on that film. If I am late, I guess this will just be an exercise in remembering.

For those of you who didn't see the movie, or don't know the premise. It essentially follows Eliezer & Uriel Shkolnik. Eliezar is the father and Uriel is the son, both of whom are Professors of Talmudic Studies: Philologists.  The father, is harsh, uncompromising, and tedious. His work is important but he remains unrecognized. The son is loose, agreeable, and studies things of interest more than importance. Unlike is father he is well recognized and respected by his peers.  The tension bases itself around the Israel award. After having been nominated for the last twenty years, and not having won, Eliezer is awarded the prize.  However, the award was given to the wrong Dr. Shkolnik. It was meant for the son.  From here the film continues to devolve, problems become increasingly apparent, the characters lose control of their lives and fall into self-perpetuated familial conflict which culminates, presumably, just after the movie ends.

So what does all this have to do with literary criticism. There is the obvious connection to Maimonides, who as a Talmudic scholar relates heavily to the profession of the Shkolniks. Like the father, Maimonides emphasizes careful, tedious study of scripture so as to accurately interpret and understand the double-truths of parables. He would problemitize the popularization that Uriel receives. The way he writes books to elucidate small matters of historical marriage to the masses. Such works are unduly accessible and allow for the undeserving to learn knowledge which they should not know. It also trivializes the greatness of the knowledge.  He would like agree with Eliezar's critique of the son, that instead of carefully analyzing the various shards of broken pottery to assess their origins and purposings, Uriel's scholarship is simply taking some shards and putting them back together only to call them an empty pot.  Similarly, Aristotle's emphasis on detail, would also side with Eliazer, who's scholarship remains undauntedly focused. All this being said, it's hard to deny the greater value or ease or happiness in Uriel's life, who has a happy wife, many friends, and relatively equivalent relationship with his son.
The question seems to remain: which is more valuable? Quality of study? Life? Fame?

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Extra Credit: C.S. Lewis Lecture and the Theorists

In his lecture "C.S. Lewis, Narnia and the Classics," Jonathan Kirkpatrick explained the great appeal classical Greek and Roman myths had for C.S. Lewis. In fact, it was because he had been told that he should never believe these myths that he began to reason that if these stories are false, than Christianity, which is also based on old stories, must also be false. After C.S. Lewis renounces his faith, he eventually returns to Christianity by way of the Greek and Roman classics. He reasons that all myths (Greek, Roman, Christian) have value for the individual, but Christianity is the only "myth" that actually happened. Lewis also believed that Christianity was the only religion that had a perfect mix of mystery (the "thick") and  and rational  ethics("the clear").
C.S. Lewis's  view of the Greek and Roman classics rejects Plato's view that art does not lead to truth. Plato would dismiss works that Lewis believed very influential, saying that it harms reason by causing us "to express our grief...which is insatiably greedy for tears" (74). Plato would see no use in the thick mystery of the myths since they distract from truth. However, Sir Philip Sidney would agree with CS Lewis, finding value in the myths since they go beyond just representing nature to creating "heroes, demigods, cylcopes...." (257). The creator of these myths has certainly shown something genius because he is "not enclosed within the narrow warrant of [nature's] gifts but freely ranging only within the zodiac of his own wit" (257). Both Sidney and Lewis would agree that the mystery in myths is part of their significance and value, whereas Plato would maintain that these myths were contradictory to the truth and reason.

Saturday, February 23, 2013

Wollstonecraft

This video does a decent job of explaining Mary Wollstonecraft's ideas from the section of her writing that we read. What do you think of the contemporary examples? Do they work and do you think that they are relevant to what Wollstonecraft meant?



Rachel Means

Sunday, February 17, 2013

XKCD Plato's Cave...

Just thought I'd share.

Why is Plato still being referenced in such things as online comic strips?

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Allegory of the Cave Cartoon - Welcome back to 250!

I know most of you have already gone through Core 250. Maybe they showed this video at the time. I'm in 250 now, and we watched it this morning. 

Please re-watch the video, and then think about it. 

What does animation add to the allegory? What does it take away? Are there any misinterpretations of the text in this animation?

Do you like that this version of the allegory is something distributed to students in order to better understand Plato? 


Monday, February 11, 2013

Feb. 12th Medieval Theory: Christine de Pizan

Christine de Pizan's critique of works pays careful attention to the author's treatmen of women and their virtues. De Pizan objects to having women written about as if "the female nature is wholly given up to vice" (210). She believes that the poor conduct of a few women has led many men to overgeneralize about the entire female gender, creating an image that all women are part of a morally inferior sex.
       In Christine de Pizan's criticism, the idea of poor potrayal of the female gender is mainly cenered around the matters of morality and spiritual worth. While de Pizan is able to come to the point where she can argue that God did not make a mistake by creating the "inferior" woman, she does not question most traditional roles of women. For example, a depiction in which the woman defers to the man in decison making is an acceptable portrayal of women. After all, a woman is created with "its own nature which is to be timid, meek, and pure" (214).
     However, de Pizan also rejects the traditional notions that a woman should be kept from an education. Again, this is linked to the belief that women are not morally inferior to men. She claims the main reason that men will keep women from an education is "for fear that their morals will be corrupted"(214). As one of the earliest women writers, Christine de Pizan shows that for her, the treatment of women has thological implications about the worth and nature of the female gender.

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Welcome to the LitCrit blog!

Come here often to post ideas, reactions, pictures, videos, music, whatever pertains to the theory that we're reading this term. When it strikes you, post things that are applications for what we're reading and talking about in class. When you post, write at least a substantial paragraph or two. When you comment on others' posts, write at least a few sentences.