Strange how different are thinkers on morality and literature from post-modern thinkers

Here'a real dialogue with a smart guy who holds to a post-modern life stance

He has earlier declared that all books and morals are subjective and relative.

In a long detailed response, I explain that on the contrary, the study of literature is to find out what the author intended in his work.
Myself, American literature and world literature teacher:

We teachers studied literary criticism for years including the various schools. Our goal is similar to the biological sciences—to find out what is real and accurate.

However in the humanities and social sciences, it's more difficult to get at the accurate meaning than in the hard sciences.

Even in the latter, consider that the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould came to very different conclusions than some other famous biologists based upon the evidence.
For instance, his conclusion based on the facts is that deep time in biology is based in Chance!

He stated that IF reality could come again, the human species probably wouldn't even show up. We humans are here by cosmic “luck.”

In contrast evolutionary biologists Jerry Coyne and neuroscientist Sam Harris hold that existence, particularly for all humans and our actions would be exactly the same because everything is determined.
Allegedly, according to Harris, even IF the cosmos came again, all of us humans would do exactly the same because we are “puppets” of the cosmos.

Though, as I already said, it is more difficult to find what is true in literature and criminal justice, etc., the reason to study these fields is to find out what is objectively meant.

Subjectivity is to be avoided.

Most people find there is an objective qualitative difference between Shakespeare's plays and popular literature and the media.

For example, some of Ernest Hemingway's short stories are amazingly powerful and complex, far better than most stories, TV shows, and movies. Hemingway scholars are agreed that he hated Christianity, that his famous short story "A Clean Well-Lighted Place" is objectively brilliant and is a scathing attack against religion.

Post-Modernist:
Although I didn't agree with you on a fair number of things, I had held you in higher esteem than to think you would brazenly try to pass yourself off as knowledgeable about something which you can't fail to know that you know nothing about.
You didn't even want to educate yourself before responding, so you could have plausibly pretended to have known something about it. Instead, you insulted my intelligence by trying to pass off horseshit.

Daniel Wilcox
Hmm...3 universities, 5 school districts, post-graduate work, many years of teaching literature, attending post-grad conferences, etc. all taught us "horseshit."

I'll keep the horseshit;-)

Post-Modernist
Keep digging. My estimation of you just keeps going down. Either you have a problem with honesty, or senile dementia is setting it.

Either way, I'll avoid you in the future, as you're not worthy to debate.

Daniel Wilcox
Understanding the meanings of literature and basic reading comprehension tests don't register "like" or "dislike" but the ability to comprehend the texts.

Students study Shakespeare's plays because they are far better than studying inferior popular writing.

Finding what an author means when he writes is to discover the accurate view. Subjectivity needs to be avoided.

Post-Modernist
Just do me one favor, and answer the question...

Daniel Wilcox
I did answer your question and gave you two specific examples--the plays of Shakespeare and Hemingway's famous short story, "A Clean-Well-Lighted Place."

We teachers taught those for many years.

Please give me the name of a scholar who disagrees and I will read his point of view.

I also pointed out that reading comprehension tests aren't subjective.

We are seeking the accurate meanings.

Post-Modernist
The accurate meaning? According to who?
Are you trying to say that you think the point of literary criticism is to try to figure out what meaning the author was intending the reader to understand?<br>
Have I got that right? I want to give you more than ample rope with which to hang yourself.

Daniel Wilcox
In a short story, one has the author's conscious intent--the themes.

One also has the author's unconscious intent. One can see this very much in Hemingway's writing as I pointed out.

One can also check with the actual statements by the authors themselves of what they meant.

Then we need to remember the perspectives of us readers, our varying cultures versus the society and culture in which the story was created.

This is where most schools of literary interpretation come in.

Then there is also the factor, that sometimes a story (by conscious intent or not) is intentionally ambiguous. Or the story has, intriguingly, contradictory themes.

This is the basis for the outstanding work of Great Books Program which came out of the University of Chicago.

Like in any field whether philosophy or evolutionary biology or literature, there will often be disagreements about what the actual meaning is.

But, except for post-modernists, most scholars do think there is real meaning in the facts, essays, songs,and stories of humans.

Otherwise, why bother?!

Likes and dislikes don't need to be taught.

Remember my original example from the hard sciences--of how Gould's conclusions are very different from Harris and Coyne’s.

Yet all 3 do think that evolution has actual identifiable characteristics; they just haven't reached the point of figuring out which of them is correct, or if there are other possible explanations.


Ditto for literature, justice, and social sciences.
Subjectivity needs to be avoided.


In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

Short Review of the Scholarly Biography of George Fox by H. Larry Ingle

First Among Friends by H. Larry Ingle

This is a very important historical study for all Friends and other readers! Probably, First Among Friends is the best book on George Fox and early Friends. (See below for other detailed histories and biographies.)

Unlike so many studies of the religious past, his book isn’t hagiographical but emphasizes verified facts. At some points it even errs to the side of trying to be so objective, that I wondered whether or not Ingle is even a Quaker.

While pointing out many of the outstanding good actions and perspectives of George Fox, Ingle goes into detail showing Fox’s (and other early Quakers) bad characteristics and acts, their major failings, warts and all. Keeping a scholarly tone, Ingle seldom deals with Fox from a spiritual point-of-view.

The volume focuses mostly on outward actions and is more of a cultural biography. And at times, the text comes across almost too academic and skeptical. For instance, the last paragraph of the biography is disconcerting from a transcendental/spiritual perspective.

Still, it seems that this is a must read for all modern Quakers. First Among Friends has given me new awareness of how all moral and spiritual truth is conditioned by culture, time, and other events. Tragically, even the best moral leaders are still weighed down by pettiness and squabbling.

A good companion history to read is Cavaliers and Roundheads. That outstanding history of the England in the 1600's helps readers to understand that though the secular governments of the period persecuted, oppressed, even killed the early Friends, the authorities weren't necessarily evil but often mistook Fox and Quakers for dangerous violent revolutionaries.

It is also strange seeing in Ingle’s account how at times Parliament vs. King varied in their behavior toward the Friends, not always badly.

How very strange it was that James II, a Roman Catholic (who the early Friends opposed) should be the first to really grant Friends and others religions tolerance, while in stark contrast, Parliament in 1683 was so against Friends and other nonconformists that hundreds were sent to prison.

Such intriguing facts show how complicated real history is versus the myths and over simplifications that most people hear about and think is the truth of their movement.

Other powerful histories on Friends:

Primitivism, Radicalism, and the Lamb's War

Quakers in California

Quakers in Conflict


In the LIGHT,
Daniel Wilcox