Hannah Jackson: Outside Reading Blog Posts

9/12/19- Donald Davidson and Metaphor

Donald Davidson’s conception of metaphor is simple: they mean exactly what they mean. In his essay “What Metaphors Mean,” Davidson seeks to discredit the common idea that metaphors work by operating on two levels; one literal and one outside of the literal meaning of the words. He centers specifically on the idea of metaphors being impossible to paraphrase but offers a perspective beyond the usual explanation of them conveying ideas that simply don’t lend themselves to condensing. Metaphors cannot be paraphrased because they are already in their most condensed form and say all they have to say. This is where the phenomenology of Davidson begins to appear. He founds his argument on an understanding of a sort of universal human experience of metaphor. What they accomplish is not the issue at the core of his argument, how they accomplish what they do very much is.

As Davidson moves through the conventional theories of metaphor he systematically disproves them on the basis of lived experience failing to match with what they are suggesting. We do not understand metaphor as a list or a conscious application of some widely agreed upon second meaning. We understand them immediately and without any ability to explain them beyond the literal usage of the words. The missing link for metaphor is the connection that language has to the world. Davidson, in the tradition of phenomenology, takes it as fact that we experience the world and are capable of knowing things about it. Rather than working from metaphor to this experience like most theorists have attempted, Davidson works from experience to metaphor. He attempts to work out the connection that ties metaphors to the world through the way in which we live them.

Also in the tradition of several existentialists and phenomenologists, Davidson does not discount our use of language as unimportant or a mere byproduct of some other process. He compares metaphors to similes with the specific idea that we have two different modes of speech for comparison in this way because there are two different things that we are attempting to do. A simile forces a comparison and so if that’s all metaphors were doing then they would really just be a simile and cease to exist altogether.

Davidson’s next major point that aligns with a phenomenological approach is his treatment of falsehood. It is the appearance of falsehood within a given context that first alerts us to a metaphor. When we hear a blatantly false thing such as, to use his example, “Tolstoy was a great moralizing infant,” we do not immediately reject it as false or go looking for ways in which it could be true. Something in our consciousness leads us to a literal, true meaning without altering the statement or its usage. Metaphor emerges as a fundamentally phenomenological concept because they have nothing to do with the words themselves and everything to do with the effect they have on us. A metaphor is not a thing so much as it is an act or an experience. In his discussion, Davidson not only approaches metaphor from a lens of phenomenology but actually argues that no other approach is sufficient. All uses of language are experiences and therefore we must start with the experience in our discussion of them.

Davidson’s argument is ultimately convincing because he gets the experience right. If he had drawn all the same conclusions on the basis that metaphors create a violent sense of rage in anyone who hears them, it wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. This suggestion of a universal experience of language, at least in this narrow instance and in English, speaks to something more than just metaphor. It speaks to the experience of Being as a whole.

10/1/19- Diogenes and Comedy

The value of comedy in philosophy is perfectly summed up in the figure of Diogenes. The accounts of his life are varied but they all contain the central element of a chaotic, singular devotion to the cynic philosophy which he typified and championed. One of the most famous anecdotes about Diogenes of Sinope is him responding to Plato’s definition of man as a “featherless biped” by presenting him with a plucked chicken and shouting “behold, a man!” Given the general modern philosophical position that the author is dead, perhaps these brief fragments shouldn’t be taken as anything more than a historical novelty. But there is something unshakeable about the charm and depth of Diogenes’ philosophy.

A lesser-known, though still just as incredible, story about his life revolves around his time living in either a bathtub or a wine cask in the town square. His only belonging was a cup until he saw a child drink with his hands at which point he tossed his cup to the side and declared that the child knew more than he did. And it is this exact commitment to the bit of ontological understanding that makes studying the legend and life of Diogenes so important. Philosophy often gets cast as a serious and dark discipline where all the important ideas have been shouted in the face of persecution from dusty rooms. But the basis of his ideology was to eliminate any arbitrary barriers between what is done in private or in nature and what is acceptable in the public square. His insanity is attributed to the flouting of conventions which he presented as insane in their own right. His particular method of shining a spotlight on the absurdity of daily things we take for granted has a direct modern equivalence: comedy.

Diogenes has more in common with today’s stand-up comedians than he does with philosophers. The entire act of comedy based on commentary or satire is based on taking universal experiences or principles and reframing them in a way that makes them feel absurd or artificial. The unexpected view of things that we all experience is not only an enjoyable way to spend time but also a critical tool for criticizing and understanding the culture. If someone wanted to understand the Trump presidency, for example, there is no better place to look than John Mulaney’s horse in the hospital bit. In fact, the most important political commentary of the modern-day takes place in the realm of comedy. The ability to make people laugh is far more disarming and beneficial to breaking down barriers of defensiveness than any logical argument could ever be. Even Socrates was constantly making jokes and poking fun at the world in Plato’s depictions of him. Diogenes was able to make the points he did in large part because he was a humorist. To divorce hilarity from his philosophy is to reduce him down into nothing more than an ancient version of an addict rambling on a park bench.

10/2/19- Fred Rogers the Philosopher

With two movies in the span of a year, Fred Rogers appears to finally be getting the respect he deserves. His legacy has often been confined to the sphere of childhood development and comforting wholesomeness but the truth is much more complex. He was not, as some seem to hope, a secretly gruff figure with a dark past or someone wearing a mask for the camera. Mister Rogers was just someone who cared a whole lot about children and the people they grew up to become one day. Rogers was a deeply religious man and often spoke of his work on TV as a ministry, though he was careful never to use and explicitly religious language that could cause anyone to feel excluded. His mission was more general than that. He wanted to make people feel happy and loved because he genuinely believed they deserved it.

But Mister Rogers also had a complex and nuanced philosophy of the world and our interaction with it. His guiding principle was the idea that “anything that's human is mentionable, and anything that is mentionable can be more manageable.” By giving children the power to name and talk about the big things in life, he was giving them the power to understand them. The central role that language played to Roger’s philosophy cannot be overstated or overlooked. He often paused the storyline of the show to explain the definition of ideas like forgiveness or anger. By putting these concepts to music, Rogers made it easy for them to become part of children’s lives as they watched. He believed strongly that life necessarily contained moments of pain and suffering just by virtue of being life and that children were not so much protected from it as they were confused by it.

It is easy to see, then, how parallels can be drawn between Mister Rogers and any number of existential or linguistic philosophers. The key difference is mainly his motivation being a belief in the omnipotence and love of God rather than a motivation stemming from the reality of our imminent death.

11/15/19- Schopenhauer and Environmental Anxieties

Schopenhauer’s idea of self-cannibalization in the field of universal being mirrors the environmental anxiety of many millennials who have grown up with the knowledge that their every action necessarily has an impact on the planet. His main assertion regarding the cannibalistic nature of being is that since all things share a fundamental characteristic of being and restless striving, our restless striving consumes the very same force that wills it to existence. This creates a certain paradox of existence but such a paradox does nothing to dampen the will. We continue to exist and cannibalize ourselves with the knowledge of what we are doing and no alternative way to live that would stop such a dynamic.

This has a similar feeling to the attempts of most young people to make more sustainable and conscious choices when shopping. Brands have capitalized on this environmental anxiety and a plethora of eco-friendly brands have sprung up to offer less guilty alternatives but the basic structural issue of consumption remains the same. Every item has an impact on the planet, usually negative, but it seems like there is no other option. Almond milk may satisfy a desire to limit animal cruelty but at the cost of water conservation and the ethical treatment of laborers. Replacing plastic water bottles with a reusable metal one is undeniably better but that metal still had to be mined from somewhere and produced, packaged, and shipped. The only way to really make an impact is to just come as close as possible to stopping consumption.