Literature, Meaning and Objectivity

"Once the game is over, the King and the pawn go back in the same box." - Italian Proverb

***

More really old comments on literature and meaning:

MFM: Meaning is not equivalent to the artist's intention. Artists are not aware of the full range of meanings their works convey. They couldn't possibly be, because different readers in different eras will interpret their works in different ways. In the performance arts, the performer necessarily brings in meaning to the work of art that the artist did not intend, but it would be rather, erm, meaningless to slam Glenn Gould for not slavishly conveying the meaning that Bach had intended (whatever that was).

And sure, it's not objective in the empirical sense, but that's why it's not a science. For that matter, common consent does constitute a certain kind of objectivity. What we moderns think of as objectivity is really a hodgepodge of various separate notions. Literary analysis does not constitute objectivity in the sense of being mechanically reproducible. Yet it is objective in that interpretations which are convincing to the most number of people are considered the most "correct" interpretations.

Jol: Don't you ever describe why you like a particular film or a particular play or a particular piece of music? And don't you ever feel that you can do so in a way that is more than just "it's nice", "I like what", but in a way that, while it says "something about the analyst", may yet be something about the analyst that other people can share? What is the point of all your quotes and posts and the like supposedly analysing, for instance, how men and women are different, if they are not meant to be something other people can share? And we all gain from learning more possibilities in and about ourselves and others that we can share, albeit to varying degrees.

The idea that anything which can't be made 'objective' in the sense of commanding universal, uncontrovertible consensus (instead of simply effectively seeking a wide consensus useful to those who share it) would leave you utterly paraylsed. Nobody HAS to accept the 'demonstrations' of natural science, you know -- and there are many people who don't. You think that science verifies things beyond common consent only because YOU are willing to accept its demonstrations regardless of the consent of others -- how does this not "say something about the analyst" as well? Every kind of understanding or knowledge depends on the "analyst" since as a matter of inescapable fact, unless you want to posit some non-empirical plane of existence, there has to be an entity which acquires the understanding or the knowledge, and which applies its standards and proclivities in so doing! The fact that we can more easily agree on the standards for what is demonstrated in science doesn't mean (as I imagine you realise) they are necessarily more useful in every conceivable situation. It does mean that in many ways they are useful for more shared endeavours because they can draw more people in. But there are different shared endeavours (e.g. helping us understand what it is like to be someone else) for which they are of extremely limited use, whereas, even if it can't create as broad a consensus, literature can create enough of a consensus to be of some use.

If you think there are no shared projects that are worthwhile unless they command universal consensus, your continuation in engaging in say, political or social discussion, is baffling. As is, I would think, continuing to listen to music or the like (although I suppose that could easily be a much more solipsistical experience).


I do not dispute that individuals can find their own meanings in texts of one form or another, but it is literature's bar of commonly agreed upon meaning that I object to, for this common (subjective) standard is then used to disqualify individual subjective meanings that people find.

Sollipsism is ridiculous, since verifying objective reality is easy (things like our existence, at least, as opposed to the purpose of our existence). Logical axioms have internal consistency, as opposed to literary principles, which rely on what most people in the field agree to be true.

If you want to take the position that we're all brains in vats or be a universal skeptic then I can't say anything, but just because killing Jews is wrong doesn't mean that they're God's chosen people.