Socratic/Platonic Quote!

"SOCRATES: 'Well, the name 'Hermes' seems to have something to do with speech: he is the interpreter (hermêneus), a messenger, a thief and a deceiver in words, a wheeler-dealer--and all these activities involve the power of speech.'"

Well, I guess that that is where we get 'Hermeneutics.' Pretty awesome stuff, Socrates.

More Definition, More Frustration

I know it's been awhile, but not as long as some of my other absences! I'll break things down for you (me) regarding classes and thesis (including two reading notes). It's been pretty interesting. I'll also include some personal thoughts about life and stuff. I know, I know. I'm going outside the prescribed bounds. Sorry.

Close(r)

Things are progressing here. And I am not just talking about the thesis, but I am talking about that too! I mean in each area of concern to me, things are moving forward! We got couches, my fellowship stipend should be coming in soon, my books are on their way, wedding details are coming together, reading is going well, and I think I may have found my argument for the thesis.

Aristotle and I might have to fight...

In general, flesh and the tongue are related to the organs of touch and taste, as air and water are to those of sight, hearing, and smell. Hence in neither the one case nor the other can there be any perception of an object if it is placed immediately upon the organ, e.g. if a white object is placed on the surface of the eye. This again shows that what has the power of perceiving the tangible is seated inside. Only so would there be a complete analogy with all the other senses. In their case if your lace the object on the organ it is not perceived, here if you place it on the flesh it is perceived; therefore the flesh is the medium of touch. (423b 18-26)

 So, in the passage above Aristotle concedes his first claim that flesh is the sense-organ of touch (423a 15-17: if we take 'body' to represent the whole organism, making the faculty of touch commensurate with the body, melding sense-organ and medium). Instead of taking the flesh to be the organ, he claims that it is seated inside; in fact, in other writings, he claims it is next to the heart. But this argument seems a little ad hoc to me -- touch must be analogous to the other senses, therefore the sense-organ and medium must be distinct entities. Perhaps, I am being a little unfair to Aristotle here, but I want to argue in my thesis for what seems to be his original claim: touch is a unique sense in which the sense-organ and the medium are one and the same. With that being said, I will have to develop why this structure works in other senses and why it doesn't have to apply to the sense of touch. In other words, why is touch unique?

Why this project? Well, I have been fascinated by a phenomenology of exposure for a while now, and it would be an interesting project to be able to develop a view of touch that does explicitly regard expose as its primary essence -- flesh, the organ, is out there. It is exposed. Even in having a medium, the sense of exposure is present for Aristotle, and he makes all animal life dependent on the sense of touch. But I think that in mediating the sense-organ and the object, a double distance is created that acts that a wedge in later philosophies. Meaning the immediacy that is interrupted by posing an internal organ could be further interrupted by posing that the body doesn't sense at all -- it is even further inward: the mind only perceives! Perhaps a slippery slope argument, but one that has played out. It may be my own reaction to the digital age of disembodiment, but I strongly react against dualistic notions or potential dualistic notions. This is something that may have to be reigned in to a degree, but for now it is motivating.

Anyways, I will keep whoever is reading this informed or just continue to work out these crazy and ridiculous thoughts of mine in a digital space (I do appreciate the irony). Peace!

The First Aristotle Articles

Bust of Aristotle. Isn't he great? That beard...

Bibliography

Well, this will be my first post regarding my project explicitly. I read and will be responding to two different articles. The first will be Myles Burnyeat's "De anima II 5." This article was first published in Phronesis, 47, 2002, p. 28-90. The second article is Rebecca Steiner Goldner's "Touch and Flesh in Aristotle's de Anima," published in Epoche: A Journal for the History of Philosophy, Spring, 2011, Vol.15(2), p.435-446. Lastly, Thomas K. Johansen's essay, "What's New in the De Sensu? The Place of the De Sensu in Aristotle's Psychology," found in Common to Body and Soul," edited by RAH King, published by Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2006, p. 140-164. Under each article heading, in text references will be given by page number, unless another author is indicated. Again, with those pleasantries out of the way, I begin.

Average Days

I will be honest: graduate school is a job. Yesterday I studied/read for eight hours. Maybe more. I should really keep track of these things. And Thursday was a very similar experience. And today probably will be too. Eight hours, but I feel it should be more. I am neck deep into some of my classes -- and the thesis. But as they say, no pain, no gain. As my Latin teacher once said, frustration is the stupid leaving the brain. Well, there's to hoping he was right, which he probably was, let's be honest -- the guy knew Latin.

So, about yesterday. I read. And then I kept reading. And all the while I wrote marginalia. And then I studied German and a little bit of Dutch. Ich das blog lesen. Seriously. And you should too! Anyways...

I do want to reflect on my project here for a second, because I've read two hefty articles recently that are beginning to illuminate more aspects of what this year will look like. One of the articles claimed and defended the notion that the de Anima is the psychological outworking of Aristotle's physics. He links the two explicitly through the fields of perception (anachronistic applied to Aristotle; Aristotle would just say perception or sense-organs). So, what that means is for is that I have to become familiar with Aristotle's Physics, his Metaphysics, and some of his smaller works like On Generation and Corruption, and On the Movement of Animals. All of this to look at a chapter or two in the de Anima, since it is a movement from his older philosophy into a new unexplored realm. So, Aristotle, my friend, try your best, but I will be reading your corpus this year. In fact, it is sitting on my desk right now...

Off to read, or something. Peace.

Marathon Classes

Okay. Okay. This post isn't about Aristotle either, but it is about classes. They are extraordinary long here. Two two hour classes, back to back. And lectures. Straight up. I am recording them, because, well, sometimes the points are so intricate that my written notes don't elucidate much, so I have to return to what the professor said, and then (maybe) there's hope of understanding. But they are good lectures -- engaging, provocative, stimulating. Just long. Long, and I grow tired. I'm tired already. I need snacks. Good snacks. Energizing snacks.

It is an interesting phenomenon that because of the length of the lectures, each professor's personality comes through even in one session. Their quirks/oddities, mannerisms, and other such notions are on their sleeves, as it were. Three examples of three professors that I have. One of them, at the end of his sentences, will say, "Ça va?" That's French -- he's French. And it means, something along the lines (in this context), are you tracking? I think it means, most often, how is it going? But whatever. Another professor, uses 'yes, yes' as a verbal filler. Sometimes just a single 'yes,' but more often than not, it is double. Lastly, and most professorially, I have a professor that will sometimes stop -- maybe he's caught someone's eye contact, or feels a breeze, or whatever -- and pause. Wait for it. "Where was I?" Or similar expressions to that effect. Anyways, it's quite fun.

But I am seriously considering bringing snacks.

Opening a Question

I believe it was Gadamer (or maybe it was Socrates, performatively) who said that the question is more fundamental to knowledge than the answer. The question is what opens up the horizon, enables an answer or answers, as the case may be.

So, I am trying to open up my question, establish one. And I am finding that in order to open up a question, I already have to know a lot. Well, sort of. The specificity of the thesis requires that the question be a specific question or project. This enables developed argumentation and a sustained reading of all sources; a dialogue, if you will.

As such, I have begun reading all sorts of things. Not only Aristotle, but articles on Aristotle, books on Aristotle, very specific articles that use terminology that I have no idea what it means in the course of the literature and tradition. It is similar to what I believe is the process of uncovering a new world. So, what are my questions?

How is touch described, both by Aristotle, Plato, and the Presocratics? What is touch's relation to the soul? How does touch function as a sense? What is the sense-organ of touch? Does touch have a medium analogous to the other senses? How has touch been treated in philosophers since Aristotle? What is the difference between touching something and grasping something? Does touch condition the other senses? Is touch in some sense more original or primary?

These are some of the questions I am exploring and the ones that I am learning what it means to ask.