Nanay AgainstTheDiscontinuityThesis
Nanay AgainstTheDiscontinuityThesis
Nanay AgainstTheDiscontinuityThesis
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
The American Society for Aesthetics, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
This content downloaded from 134.148.10.13 on Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:08:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
BENCE NANAY
ABSTRACT
According to what I call the 'Discontinuity Thesis,' literature can never count as genuine philosophizing: there
permeable barrier separating it from philosophy. While philosophy presents logically valid arguments in favor of
precisely formulated statements, literature gives neither precisely formulated theses nor arguments in favor of or agains
Hence, philosophers do not lose out on anything if they do not read literature. There are two obvious ways of ques
the Discontinuity Thesis: first, arguing that literature can indeed do what philosophy is generally taken to do, and
arguing that philosophy is not, in fact, the presentation of logically valid arguments in favor of or against precisely
statements- what it does is closer to what literature is generally taken to do. I use a combination of these two stra
argue that philosophy is not as intellectually straightforward as it is advertised to be, and literature is not as intel
impoverished as it is generally taken to be.
This content downloaded from 134.148.10.13 on Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:08:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
350 The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
II. THE DISCONTINUITY THESIS argues, literature by its very nature is not the
dispassionate quest for truth. So those who find
Consider the following picture of the the relation
formulation of the Discontinuity Thesis too
between literature and philosophy. Philosophy biased toward analytic philosophy can substitute
presents unambiguously formulated premises this morethatgeneral formulation when evaluating
would necessitate an unambiguously formulated the Discontinuity Thesis.
conclusion. Literature does not. Hence,Fourth, we have the Discontinuity Thesis is very closely
a barrier between literature and philosophy related to that
another important theme in the philoso-
would prevent any literary text from phy counting as
of literature, namely, the question of whether
genuine philosophy. I call this view the Disconti-
literature can express truths that are beyond phi-
nuity Thesis. losophy's reach. The relation between the two de-
The Discontinuity Thesis, as it stands, requires bates is not always straightforward. While the view
some clarifications and qualifications. First, is it that "there may be some views of the world and
a descriptive or a normative claim? It seems that how one should live in it . . . that cannot be fully
the most charitable interpretation of the Discon- and adequately stated in the language of conven-
tinuity Thesis is a normative one: good philoso- tional philosophical prose" may remind one of the
phy presents unambiguously formulated premises Discontinuity Thesis inasmuch as it allocates dif-
that would necessitate an unambiguously formu- ferent and distinct epistemic roles to literature and
lated conclusion. Good literature does not. Other philosophy, Nussbaum's view is in fact very much
things being equal, making the premises and con- against the spirit of the Discontinuity Thesis-
clusions of a philosophy paper more unambiguous which she is strongly opposed to.5 Nussbaum is
makes the paper itself better. The same is not true one of the most outspoken proponents of the idea
of a novel or a short story. that there is no barrier between literature and phi-
Second, the Discontinuity Thesis goes well be- losophy (in fact, literary writing is philosophy, just
yond the claim that philosophy and literature arenot "conventional philosophical prose"). Those,
like Nussbaum, who hold that certain truths can
different intellectual enterprises. The negation of
the Discontinuity Thesis is the claim that thebe expressed by literature but not by philoso-
barrier between philosophy and literature is per-phy are not forced to endorse the Discontinuity
meable. And this is consistent with a view accord- Thesis.
ing to which there are important differences be- Finally, what is meant by philosophy and litera-
tween philosophy and literature.3 In other words, ture here? The texts? The mental processes of the
rejecting the Discontinuity Thesis does not have person writing these texts? The mental processes
to lead to postmodernist relativism, according to of the person engaging with these texts? While
which every text is philosophy and every text is the Discontinuity Thesis can be formulated in any
literature. of these three ways, much of the argumentative
Third, what is the scope of the Discontinuity support for the Discontinuity Thesis comes from
Thesis? Is this true of all philosophy or philosophy
taking the discontinuity to be the last one of these:
per se or for what is considered to be analytic phi-
when we are properly engaging with a philosoph-
losophy? One not particularly original way of ar-ical text and when we are properly engaging with
guing against the Discontinuity Thesis would be to a piece of literary fiction, we are supposed to have
point out that not all philosophy is analytic philos-
very different mental processes.
ophy and it is only analytic philosophy (or maybe This takes us to the arguments in favor of
the Discontinuity Thesis. Without attempting
even only some versions of analytic philosophy)
that presents unambiguously formulated premises to give a full inventory of pro-Discontinuity
that would necessitate an unambiguously formu- Thesis arguments, I will mention the three most
important strands of arguments. A very general
lated conclusion.4 This way of questioning the Dis-
continuity Thesis misses the target. Proponents way of characterizing them would be that they
of the Discontinuity Thesis could simply describeaim to point out that while philosophy is the
dispassionate quest for truth, literature (a) is not
philosophy, with Plato, as the dispassionate quest
for truth. And as Plato himself, presumably the a quest, (b) does not aim at the truth, and (c) is
earliest proponent of the Discontinuity Thesis, not dispassionate.
This content downloaded from 134.148.10.13 on Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:08:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Nanay Philosophy versus Literature 351
This content downloaded from 134.148.10.13 on Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:08:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
352 The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
This content downloaded from 134.148.10.13 on Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:08:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Nanay Philosophy versus Literature 353
This content downloaded from 134.148.10.13 on Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:08:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
354 The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
Even if we grant that some important Kitcher's strategy then is to point out that there
examples
of philosophy are based on such comparisons, are some philosophers,
this even very good philoso-
would not save Nussbaum's version of the 'Don't phers and even contemporary, highly regarded an-
Overestimate Philosophy' strategy from the Dis- alytic philosophers whose work is important not
continuity of Emotional Engagement argument. because of the arguments they present, but be-
Proponents of the Discontinuity Thesis could ar- cause of the way they "describe, exactly and in
gue that even if we accept that philosophy is of- rich detail, some . . . work of a type overlooked
ten based on the comparison of various alterna- by orthodox philosophical accounts; by consid-
tives with each other and with one's "active sense ering the phenomena she portrays, her readers
of life" (whatever that may mean), a serious dis- are expected to recognize the superiority of the
similarity still remains between philosophy and precise claims . . . she offers as replacements for
literature. In the case of literature, these com- orthodoxy."22
parisons should be dispassionate: they should be One potential worry is how widespread this
made on rational and logical grounds only. We strategy is. Kitcher explicitly mentions Nancy
need to judge one alternative to be preferable to Cartwright's work as an example, and there may
the other on the bases of rational considerations. be others, but this still leaves open the question
as to whether we can take this to be a genuine
And this is very different from what happens in lit-
erature, where these alternatives are presented in trend in philosophy rather than some isolated ex-
an emotionally colored manner, which rules out amples of somewhat idiosyncratic philosophers.
such dispassionate rational judgments. In short,Even if we grant this point, the general problem
Nussbaum's version of the 'Don't Overestimate with Kitcher's proposal (and one he is very much
Philosophy' strategy is vulnerable to the Discon- aware of) is that it fails to engage with the Dis-
tinuity of Emotional Engagement argument. continuity of Emotional Engagement argument.23
When characterizing (moral) philosophy, Nuss- Even if we accept that both philosophy and lit-
baum talks about "a pursuit of truth in all erature its offer "a rich delineation of possibilities-
forms," that is, not only in its dispassionate, butaccompanied by a tacit injunction: Consider this,"
also in its emotionally loaded forms.19 But then this would still be compatible with the Disconti-
this characterization (and with it, her version nuity Thesis: philosophy, but not literature, offers
of the 'Don't Overestimate Philosophy' strategy) the rich delineation of possibilities in a dispas-
will be rejected by everyone who takes philosophysionate, purely rational, manner.24 Thus, Kitcher
(and
to be exclusively the dispassionate pursuit of truth. Nussbaum) would need to supplement this
alternative picture of what philosophy is with an
Philip Kitcher also outlines an alternative con-
ception of philosophy that is more similar toargument
lit- that would disarm the Discontinuity of
Emotional
erature than to logic.20 Kitcher's alternative is in Engagement argument.
some respects similar to Nussbaum's, but it is dif-
v.B. The Psychology of Philosophy
ferent enough to consider it separately. Kitcher
admits that literature very rarely presents argu- We have seen that the main problem with all three
ments: unambiguously formulated premises versions that of the 'Don't Underestimate Literature'
would necessitate an unambiguously formulated strategy as well as the most influential versions
conclusion. As he says: of the 'Don't Overestimate Philosophy' strategy
we have considered in this section was that they
Wagner and Joyce do not argue. They do not even failed to give an appropriate response to the Dis-
present precisely-articulated theses about the worthcontinuity
and of Emotional Engagement argument:
This content downloaded from 134.148.10.13 on Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:08:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Nanay Philosophy versus Literature 355
what has been labeled as the 'philosophy ofor whether we are holding a cup of coffee or a
phi-
losophy': the philosophical discussion of whatteddy
phi- bear.27 Maybe the way we should reason
is by going through a series of cognitive states
losophy is, for example, whether it is an a priori
or an a posteriori enterprise.25 What we wouldconnected by inference, but it is unlikely that this
need in order to substantiate the 'Don't Overes- is what in fact happens when we reason.
timate Philosophy' strategy is a project that could These findings are difficult to explain within the
be labeled as the 'psychology of philosophy': whatframework of the Pure Logical Inference model of
psychological processes are (or can be) involved reasoning- our beliefs and other cognitive states
when we are philosophizing. are not altered by the mess on the table in front
The Discontinuity of Emotional Engagementof us or by the film sketch we have just watched.
argument presupposes a very specific view about A general worry about this conclusion is this:
the psychology of philosophy: that the psychol- maybe these findings show that human reasoning
ogy of philosophy can be described exclusively by does not follow the Pure Logical Inference model,
talking about explicit beliefs and the logical rela-but they say nothing about whether it should do
tion between them.26 According to this picture, theso. These findings may support a descriptive claim
proper way of engaging with philosophical texts is about how (most) humans reason, but they are
the following. We are starting out with beliefs we silent on the normative claim about how we should
have rational reasons to accept, and as a result of reason. So the proponent of the Pure Logical In-
going through logically valid inferences, we add ference model (and a proponent of the Disconti-
some further beliefs to these that we also have ra- nuity of Emotional Engagement argument) could
tional reasons to accept. We can call this picture say that they pose no danger to the claim that good
This content downloaded from 134.148.10.13 on Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:08:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
356 The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
This content downloaded from 134.148.10.13 on Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:08:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Nanay Philosophy versus Literature 357
This content downloaded from 134.148.10.13 on Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:08:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
358 The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
vi. conclusion: the importance of the 1. For simplicity, I talk about the relation between phi-
DISCONTINUITY THESIS losophy and literature in this article, but it should be clear
that all the arguments apply to any nonabstract art forms.
2. The Discontinuity Thesis does not have to be com-
Finally, a word about the relevance of mitted
the claim I asymmetry between literature and philoso-
to a value
argued for in this article. What if the Discontinuity
phy. According to the Discontinuity Thesis, literature cannot
Thesis is false? Why should we care?doThe
whatshort
philosophy can- but literature may, of course, be
as valuable as or even more valuable than philosophy- it is
answer is that we should care a great deal.
just that it is supposed to do something very different from
First, the rejection of the Discontinuity
what Thesis
philosophy is supposed to do.
has direct implications for a number of 3. debates
See, for example, Jorge J. E. Gracia, "Borges's 'Pierre
in the philosophy of literature. The most impor-
Menard': Philosophy or Literature?" The Journal of Aesthet-
tant example is the aesthetic cognitivism ics anddebate.
Art Criticism 59 (2001): 45-57.
4. D. D. Raphael gives a version of this argument in
As we have seen, according to aesthetic cogni-
"Can Literature Be Moral Philosophy?" New Literary His-
tivism artworks can teach us, and this tory
contributes
15 (1983): 1-12.
to their artistic value. This is a conjunctive claim,
5. Martha C. Nussbaum, Love's Knowledge: Essays on
and the second conjunct is notoriously Philosophy
difficult and Literature (Oxford University Press, 1990),
pp. 3, 142-144.
to assess, but if the argument I presented in this
6. Timothy Williamson, "Past the Linguistic T'irn?"
article is correct and we should reject the
in TheDiscon-
Future for Philosophy , ed. Brian Leiter (Oxford:
tinuity Thesis, then we have very good reason
Clarendon to 2004), pp. 106-128, at p. 127.
Press,
accept the first conjunct: not only can 7. wePlato, Republic , trans. G.M.A. Grube, rev. C.D.C.
learn
from literature, or from art in general,Reeve
but (Indianapolis:
we can Hackett, 1992), pp. 264-276 (Book X:
595a-605c).
even learn philosophy from it. In contrast, if we
8. See Iris Murdoch, The Fire and the Sun: Why Plato
do accept the Discontinuity Thesis, then aesthetic
Banished the Artists (Oxford University Press, 1977); Iris
cognitivism seems doomed. Murdoch, Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals (New York:
Second, if the Discontinuity Thesis is Penguin
false,Press,
then 1994); and Nussbaum: Love's Knowledge.
9. Although they rarely do, the most important excep-
philosophy has no excuse for ignoring literature-
tion being the first chapter of Philip Kitcher's Deaths in
while philosophy can and does learn a lot from
Venice: sci-
The Cases of Gustav von Aschenbach ( Leonard Hast-
ence, it can also learn from literature. I started
ings Schoff this
Lectures) (Columbia University Press, 2013).
1U. Gregory
article with a contrast between the way there has Currie, Ine Moral Psychology ot Fic-
been a lively and ongoing discussion tion,"
of in Art and Its Messages: Meaning , Morality, and So-
whether
ciety, ed. Stephen Davies (Pennsylvania State University
and how philosophy can and should learn from
Press, 1997), pp. 49-58; Gregory Currie, "Realism of Char-
the sciences and the relative lack of interest in the acter and the Value of Fiction," in Aesthetics and Ethics:
equivalent question about whether and how phi- Essays at the Intersection , ed. Jerrold Levinson (Cambridge
losophy can and should learn from the arts. My University Press, 1998), pp. 161-181; Berys Gaut, "Art and
Knowledge," in The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics, ed.
aim was to show that philosophy should take the
Jerrold Levinson (Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 436-
arts seriously, and, ironically, the main consider- 450.
ations in favor of this come from the sciences. If 11. See, for example, Tamar Szabó Gendler, Intuition,
we have reason to reject the Discontinuity Thesis,Imagination, and Philosophical Methodology (Oxford Uni-
philosophers may be persuaded to read not onlyversity Press, 2010), and Timothy Williamson, The Philoso-
phy of Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007), for two very
Science and Nature , but also Proust and Joyce.37
different expositions of the importance of imagination in
philosophy in general and in thought experiments in partic-
BENCE NANAY ular.
Centre for Philosophical Psychology 12. Hilary Putnam, "Literature, Science, and Reflec-
tion," in Meaning and the Moral Sciences (London: Rout-
University of Antwerp
ledge, 1978), pp. 83-94, at pp. 86-87; see also Moira Gatens,
Antwerp, Belgium "The Art and Philosophy of George Eliot," Philosophy and
and Literature 33 (2009): 73-90.
This content downloaded from 134.148.10.13 on Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:08:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Nanay Philosophy versus Literature 359
25. See, for example, Williamson, The Philosophy of 32. See, for example, Klayman and Ha, "Confirmation,
Philosophy. Disconfirmation, and Information in Hypothesis Testing,"
26. Strictly speaking, the Pure Logical Inference pic- and Jonas, Schulz-Hardt, Frey, and Thelen, "Confirmation
ture is not the only possible stance in the psychology of phi- Bias in Sequential Information Search."
losophy that the Discontinuity of Emotional Engagement 33. How about those parts of philosophy whose subject
argument can rely on. Any picture where philosophizing in- matter is less personal? How about logic, for example? In a
volves fewer emotions would be sufficient. My arguments recent study it was demonstrated that even with logic- the
against the Pure Logical Inference picture would also ap- branch of philosophy that is supposed to be the closest to the
This content downloaded from 134.148.10.13 on Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:08:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
360 The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
This content downloaded from 134.148.10.13 on Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:08:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms