The New York Sun
Sign In  |  Subscribe Now  
July 12, 2006 edition of
The New York Sun
 
Search our Archives




NEWS
 Home
 National
 Foreign
 Editorial Pages
 New York
 Business
 Sports
 Obituaries
 Weather
 Past Editorials
 It Shines for All
 RSS 
FEATURES
 Arts & Letters
 Entertainment
 On The Town
 Out & About
 Food & Drink
 Photo Gallery
 Style
 Knickerbocker
 Calendar
 Real Estate
 Careers
 Crosswords
 Recent Profiles
 Travel
CLASSIFIEDS
 Careers
 Real Estate
 Automotive
 Notices
 Merchandise
 Services
 Pets
 Financial
 NY Sun Job  Opportunities
 Yellow Pages
 View  Display Ads
 Place A  Classified
 How To  Advertise
May 31, 2006 Edition > Section:  Arts and Letters

Printer-friendly version Email this article
Have your say in the NY Sun's interactive Arts Forum.

The Philosopher Novelist
A Chat With the Artist

By KATE TAYLOR
May 31, 2006

A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T

[Continued from page 2 of 3]

I was approached by Jonathan Rosen [the general editor of the Jewish Encounters series]. The conversations we had were superb. We don't really agree on things, but it was fun. He's a wonderful antagonist to have. He's somewhat horrified by Spinoza, and I love him.

Why is he horrified by Spinoza?

Spinoza, in asking us to be consistently, rigorously, ruthlessly rational, asks us to give up a lot of what it means to be human - our passionate ties to other people. He doesn't ask us to give up passion, but it should be passion for the truth and for objectivity. And he also asks us to give up a passionate attachment to one's own personal history, the history of one's people. He's the first really secular Jew, and I would argue that he really prefigures the Enlightenment.

You've written that philosophy attempts to take an objective view of the world, while fiction lets us into subjective views. Do you take the side of fiction?

Yes. I believe that the imagination - and the kind of infiltrating into another worldview that we do in fiction - has a truth of its own. It can't be gotten at through the purely objective point of view. Of course, you could say that whatever can't be captured in the purely objective point of view is illusion and doesn't exist. That is Spinoza's way. At the end of the book, I try to inhabit him as a fiction writer - warning that this is the trick of a fiction writer. I know that it will make some philosophers very,very angry. But, yes, I believe that there is great value in the imaginative grasp of others' subjectivity.

Martha Nussbaum has made some similar arguments about the moral value of literature.

I like her discussion of Plato. I've heard her work denigrated by philosophers, because it's very imaginative. She's trying to imagine what Plato might have been like when he was writing the Phaedrus, and why he would depart so dramatically from his views on love in the middle dialogues. He was in love, she said, and she tried speculating about whom it might be and trying to find a story behind it. She's showing something that I respect and that I tried to do with Spinoza: Philosophy isn't just this academic game.You do it with your whole soul.

Continued
« Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 |

It Shines For All  
Democrats Abuse Images of Dead Soldiers
July 12, 2006 05:01 PM
51st State  
Haggerty Loses to Maltese
July 12, 2006 03:35 PM
Out and About Blog  
Status Raingear
July 12, 2006 06:41 PM
Have something to say? Join The New York Sun Forum. Click Here
WXPort





A D V E R T I S E M E N T


The New York Sun
105 Chambers Street, New York, NY 10007
© 2006 The New York Sun, One SL, LLC. All rights reserved.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service