(no subject)
Jul. 26th, 2008 08:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hawkwing_lbAnother addendum, a slightly more thinky one:
Does the difference in the degree of ambiguity in fiction reflect the degree to which the author(s) and/or the expected audience ascribe to a subjective rather than an objective view of existence and/or morality?
The idea of universal reason and universal morality (hello, Mr Kant) are part of the dialogue (or, um, viciously polite and sometimes impolite argument) in which modern 'western' philosophy's been engaged for a while now. But then there's the other side of the argument, the subjective/experiential approach to the groundwork of understanding and rational vs. pre-rational consciousness. (Of course, there are some issues arising from the fact that most philosophers don't exactly have a strong background in neuroscience).
(I also find it interesting to note that the idea of a universal morality, or rather the argument from morality [in particular Kant's moral order summum bonum thing] is used as one of the arguments for the existence of god. But hey, I did my classes in theology. I am so out of that argument, now.)
So, does ambiguity or lack thereof - and I'm specifically talking about moral/ethical ambiguity - in fiction reflect this objective vs. subjective paradigm thing?
(I can't help myself thinking in these terms. The class in theology comes back to bite me in the arse at the most unexpected and inconvenient moments.)
Does the difference in the degree of ambiguity in fiction reflect the degree to which the author(s) and/or the expected audience ascribe to a subjective rather than an objective view of existence and/or morality?
The idea of universal reason and universal morality (hello, Mr Kant) are part of the dialogue (or, um, viciously polite and sometimes impolite argument) in which modern 'western' philosophy's been engaged for a while now. But then there's the other side of the argument, the subjective/experiential approach to the groundwork of understanding and rational vs. pre-rational consciousness. (Of course, there are some issues arising from the fact that most philosophers don't exactly have a strong background in neuroscience).
(I also find it interesting to note that the idea of a universal morality, or rather the argument from morality [in particular Kant's moral order summum bonum thing] is used as one of the arguments for the existence of god. But hey, I did my classes in theology. I am so out of that argument, now.)
So, does ambiguity or lack thereof - and I'm specifically talking about moral/ethical ambiguity - in fiction reflect this objective vs. subjective paradigm thing?
(I can't help myself thinking in these terms. The class in theology comes back to bite me in the arse at the most unexpected and inconvenient moments.)
