So I'm all for questioning. I encourage critical thinking, farther asking about topics that some may take for granted. I use the Socratic method when people want to smack me over the head with a frying pan. But recently, after reading Socrates bash poetry in Republic 10, I'm not so keen on continuously congratulating this guy anymore.
First off, Socrates relies on the assumption that truth is only found in one form; he completely disregards manifestations of truth, the ever changing perceptions that make up human kind. His analogy of the bed and the chair and all those manufacturers are clever and all that jazz, but he assumes that the tangible object is the only valid truth in the world. He's all "oh, art and poetry only imitate truth," but that would imply that painting and writing are only humdrum activities we do when we're bored, or doomed to not being good at math and science. The whole "imitating is inferior to calculations" claim is absolute phooey, because let's ask ourselves: Who makes more money: Brad and Angelina, or Scientist Bob in his little lab corner over there?
Okay, okay, money doesn't buy happiness, and I in no way belittle the importance of science. But does that make humanities inane because they don't make you qualified to stick a bunch of needles into people and diagnosis them with long, scary sounding words?
No. No it does not. Oh look, Socrates, I answered a question with a clear cut answer. Hah.
What Socrates fails to acknowledge here is that imitations and perceptions change the course of history. The truth isn't some object we can pick up and throw at Sarah Palin. The only thing we can be sure of is that we exist. And through our existence, there are perceptions. There are beliefs. All of these can be transcribed through writing, through art--through expression of what makes us real.
Let's examine the bed analogy. Sure, there are people who make the tangible object that we sleep on. There's the consumer--the person who uses the object. Right, okay, we see the bed, we know it exists. But what's so fantastic about literature--an interpretation of these truths--is that it presents the truths of humanity in a complex way. Maybe Socrates didn't enjoy reading between the lines, or he just had some obsession with buying furniture. So we have this bed, we know it exists. Cool story, bro. But in literature, we can look into the lives of two best friends who bunk together in some crappy freshman dorm and laugh about drunken nights and odd professors. Or we see a loving husband and wife sleep together (literally) in some queen sized bed, then as the years progress, we see the sign of love and closeness turn to animosity and distance through two twin sized beds. We see the complexities that make up human nature in literature that no simple bed could offer, unless someone decides to invent magic talking beds.
Literature does not sway from truth, it merely examines truth. Life isn't made up of true/false statements (unless you're taking a really dull college class)--it is made up of what wraps around truth, what enhances it. We care to look at the signified in life, rather than the signifiers. To illustrate, I give you our fictional friends Dick and Jane, all grown up, and completely unrelated ('cause otherwise the story would be weird):
Dick [Raises eyebrows]: I like your dress, Jane.
Jane: [Blushes]: Thanks. So. You playing some football tomorrow night?
Dick: Yeah. We're playing [insert good football team here that I'd research if I cared enough about football]. You should come.
Jane: Totally. I've got some girlfriends who would be interested...
Dick: Awesome. That's totally cool if you just end up coming. We could grab some coffee after.
Jane: [giggles] Sure.
Dick: Good. I like a girl who likes a buzz.
Stiff dialogue aside (I wrote this at midnight, cut me some slack), this scene presents us with TONS of signifiers. But through the obstacles that is adolescent discourse, we are able to wade through the mess until we can more clearly see the truths that make up human nature. Literature isn't cut out for the lazy, but that doesn't mean it merely imitates. It explains, it hypotheses, but hey, guess what? So does Science. And Socrates sees no inferiority in that practice. Why should the theories in literature be any different? With practice, we can dissect the dialogue between these friends, concluding they mean:
Dick: I can totally see your tits through that dress.
Jane: You've paid attention to my more desirable assets and for that I am grateful. Can I see you exude total masculinity tomorrow night?
Dick: Yeah. We're playing a really tough team which shows both our skill and superiority. You should watch 'cause I'm totally sexy when I play football.
Jane: I'm bringing up my girlfriends because I want to see if this is a casual thing or if you just want to see me.
Dick: I just want to see you. And then I want to talk to you and convince you to have sex with me.
Jane: I'm nervous and excited at the same time.
Dick: [same. The kid likes a girl who likes a buzz]
Now, just because there are multiple hypotheses about what make up the truth of this conversation, doesn't make them any less valid. Scientists are doubtful and wrong ALL the time. Calculations, data, formulas, and authority in the field are all involved. Yet there are still multiple hypotheses. Why do you think experimental treatments exist? For kicks? Yeah Socrates, let's just play dodgeball with some human lives. Sounds like one giant party.
The study of characters/phenomena may contain a multitude of signifiers, which may not take us to one truth. Instead, it takes us to many theories that through examination, may lead us to the truth. But it in no way is less valid than the chair I'm sitting on, the computer on which I type, the pillow pet of which I adore.
Also, Socrates, emotion is real. Stop saying it's only a woman's or poet's job to cry your eyes out. You sexist little nit-wit.
And on that note, to all the appreciators of literature and truth,
Namaste.
No comments:
Post a Comment