![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Basil and Bipolarity
Feb. 1st, 2005 01:00 amHad my first classics class today (or yesterday, technically).
It was profitable, and interesting...if fairly exhausting (and I have the pages of notes to prove it.) Problem was that it completely defined my academic bipolarity.
The two professors for this class are of the old school...meaning that they very firmly believe that there are right and wrong answers to every question, and that such answers can always be determined, that some theories are just plain wrong, and the phrase 'it's all relative' is anathema to them. Ambiguity and uncertainty are modern inventions - that did not exist in the ancient world, or even the early modern one. Scholastic rigor is their watchword. With it, with their fund of knowledge, they believe they possess the right keys to unlock the texts, that if operated correctly, everything will fall into a magnetic pattern, and the whole view of the text will suddenly become clear. Their job then, is to impart these keys to us, after which we will be rigorous enough to see them for ourselves. Their tool box for key-construction is a deep understanding of the history, philosophy, languages and science of a time - not for them, the mushy paths of touchy-feely all encompassing deconstructionism.
Fair enough. Mostly I even agree. I just have a serious problem with believing that any masterpiece of literature can be explained in such a simple way. There are so many variables involved in an epic, or a novel, so many strains. And people are complicated; they are so rarely saying just one thing. And there are moments of serendipity throughout history - people are rooted in their own time, but that doesn't mean that's where they always stay. I don't think complexity, or polyphony is a completely modern invention.
I worry about this. How can you be a relativist and an absolutist at the same time? It's somewhat akin to the way in which I feel that I should believe in democracy, and yet am an intellectual elitist all at the exact same time - it's not that I'm in the middle ground, it's that I believe both things at the same time.
Oh well. At least I discovered that apparently in the whole course of the 19th century novel, there is no occurrence of the name Basil not being an artist. Surely, I thought there must have been some Basil somewhere that was a cook or something. But no. Just artists.*
I love the Regency.
*[This is apparently because Basil = king (as in Basilica = kingdom of Heaven); for the Romantics, the kingdom of Heaven had been deposed by the Kingdom of Art.]
It was profitable, and interesting...if fairly exhausting (and I have the pages of notes to prove it.) Problem was that it completely defined my academic bipolarity.
The two professors for this class are of the old school...meaning that they very firmly believe that there are right and wrong answers to every question, and that such answers can always be determined, that some theories are just plain wrong, and the phrase 'it's all relative' is anathema to them. Ambiguity and uncertainty are modern inventions - that did not exist in the ancient world, or even the early modern one. Scholastic rigor is their watchword. With it, with their fund of knowledge, they believe they possess the right keys to unlock the texts, that if operated correctly, everything will fall into a magnetic pattern, and the whole view of the text will suddenly become clear. Their job then, is to impart these keys to us, after which we will be rigorous enough to see them for ourselves. Their tool box for key-construction is a deep understanding of the history, philosophy, languages and science of a time - not for them, the mushy paths of touchy-feely all encompassing deconstructionism.
Fair enough. Mostly I even agree. I just have a serious problem with believing that any masterpiece of literature can be explained in such a simple way. There are so many variables involved in an epic, or a novel, so many strains. And people are complicated; they are so rarely saying just one thing. And there are moments of serendipity throughout history - people are rooted in their own time, but that doesn't mean that's where they always stay. I don't think complexity, or polyphony is a completely modern invention.
I worry about this. How can you be a relativist and an absolutist at the same time? It's somewhat akin to the way in which I feel that I should believe in democracy, and yet am an intellectual elitist all at the exact same time - it's not that I'm in the middle ground, it's that I believe both things at the same time.
Oh well. At least I discovered that apparently in the whole course of the 19th century novel, there is no occurrence of the name Basil not being an artist. Surely, I thought there must have been some Basil somewhere that was a cook or something. But no. Just artists.*
I love the Regency.
*[This is apparently because Basil = king (as in Basilica = kingdom of Heaven); for the Romantics, the kingdom of Heaven had been deposed by the Kingdom of Art.]