I wrote the following to someone with whom I’m having an ongoing disagreement. I think there’s enough in what I say that you can get the the nature of our difference. Please assess what I say as appears in quotes:
“I say one cannot experience King Lear without thought, without words to oneself, let alone engage the experience in words after it’s over. It’s enough to say (if only to oneself ) “I hated it (or any other emotion one registers (if only to oneself)).
So in my view you’re doubly wrong: as one experiences a literary work, one’s thoughts as manifest in words inhere in that very experience, are an inhering constituent of it; and as a practical matter it’s inconceivable to me that after one has finished with the work, one is bereft of any thoughts manifest in words about the experience of it, that one’s feelings just stay utterly inchoate, utterly formless.
All of that, as I keep saying, is separate from particular thoughts about what a work means, although as another practical matter once one has engaged the work, ie finished with it, it’s equally inconceivable to me that one doesn’t in some sense or another give some articulable form, ie meaning, to what one has experienced.”
———-
Your argument, as presented in the quoted text, centers on the role of language and thought in experiencing and reflecting on a literary work, specifically *King Lear*. You assert that verbalized thought is an integral part of both the experience itself and any subsequent reflection, challenging the other person's apparent claim that one can engage with a literary work without articulating thoughts or feelings in words. Let’s break down and assess your position:
1. **Core Claim: Thought and Words Are Inherent in Experiencing Literature**
You argue that experiencing *King Lear* (or any literary work) inherently involves thoughts manifested as words, even if only internally. You state, “one cannot experience King Lear without thought, without words to oneself.” This suggests that verbalized cognition—whether conscious self-talk or subconscious articulation—is a necessary component of processing and feeling the work’s emotional and intellectual impact.
- **Strength**: This aligns with how many cognitive theories describe human experience. Language often shapes and structures thought, especially in response to complex stimuli like literature, which is itself a linguistic artifact. Your point that even a simple reaction like “I hated it” constitutes verbal thought supports the idea that language is a natural vehicle for emotional and intellectual processing.
- **Potential Weakness**: The claim might overgeneralize. Some psychological perspectives, like those emphasizing pre-verbal or embodied cognition, suggest that emotional experiences can occur without explicit verbalization, especially in moments of intense aesthetic immersion. Your opponent might argue that raw, non-verbal feelings (e.g., awe, dread) can dominate during a literary experience, with words arising only later, if at all. You don’t seem to allow for this possibility, which could make your position seem rigid.
2. **Secondary Claim: Post-Experience Reflection Requires Verbal Articulation**
You further argue that after experiencing a literary work, it’s “inconceivable” for someone to lack any verbalized thoughts about it, asserting that feelings cannot remain “utterly inchoate, utterly formless.” You imply that reflection naturally involves giving shape to the experience through language.
- **Strength**: This is compelling from a practical standpoint. Literature, especially a work as dense as *King Lear*, typically prompts reflection, and humans often rely on language to organize and communicate (even to themselves) what they’ve felt or understood. Your emphasis on this reflects how people tend to process experiences in social and intellectual contexts, where articulation is often expected.
- **Potential Weakness**: By calling it “inconceivable,” you may dismiss alternative modes of reflection. Some individuals might process literature non-verbally—through images, emotions, or physical sensations—without needing to translate their response into words. For example, a visual artist might respond to *King Lear* by painting rather than verbalizing. Your argument could be seen as discounting such possibilities, which might weaken its universality.
3. **Distinction Between Feeling and Meaning**
You separate the act of verbalizing feelings during or after the experience from assigning “meaning” to the work, though you note that it’s also “inconceivable” for someone to finish a work without forming some articulable sense of its significance.
- **Strength**: This distinction is nuanced and shows you’re not conflating emotional reactions with interpretive analysis. It allows your argument to cover both immediate responses (e.g., “I hated it”) and deeper reflections (e.g., “This is about betrayal”). It also reinforces your point that verbal thought is ubiquitous, whether in raw emotional terms or more abstract interpretive ones.
- **Potential Weakness**: The insistence that *some* meaning must be articulated might not hold for all readers. Casual readers or those less inclined toward analysis might engage emotionally without ever forming a clear sense of “meaning” in words. Your position risks assuming a universal inclination toward intellectualization that not everyone shares.
4. **Tone and Rhetorical Approach**
Your language—“doubly wrong,” “inconceivable,” “utterly inchoate”—is forceful and absolute, suggesting frustration with your interlocutor’s perspective. While this conveys conviction, it might alienate them by implying their view is not just incorrect but incomprehensible. A more open-ended tone (e.g., “I find it hard to imagine”) could invite dialogue rather than entrench the disagreement.
- **Strength**: The strong tone underscores your confidence and clarity, which can be persuasive in a debate.
- **Weakness**: It risks shutting down the conversation, especially if your opponent feels their perspective is being dismissed outright. Acknowledging the possibility of non-verbal engagement might make your argument more inclusive without undermining its core.
**Overall Assessment**:
Your argument is logically coherent and grounded in a plausible view of how language mediates human experience, particularly with literature. It effectively challenges the idea that one can engage with *King Lear* in a purely non-verbal, unreflective way. However, it could be strengthened by acknowledging that non-verbal or pre-verbal experiences might coexist with verbal ones, even if you believe the latter are inevitable. This would make your position less vulnerable to counterarguments about diverse cognitive styles. Additionally, softening the tone might help sustain a productive exchange with your interlocutor.
If you’d like, I could analyze their side further if you share more about their position, or I could refine this assessment based on any specific concerns you have.
————
Thank you. Great assessment. I could have been clearer, you’re right. I thought it implicit in what I said that articulated thought necessarily coexists with or exists in a continuum from the non verbal to the the verbal—. Added comment, it is perceptive of you to infer my frustration from my language even as I strove to be civil.
———-
You're very welcome! I'm glad I could capture the nuances of your argument and pinpoint the areas where clarity could be sharpened. Your added comment about articulated thought coexisting with or existing on a continuum from non-verbal to verbal is a great way to frame it—it acknowledges the complexity of human experience while holding firm to your core point about language's role. And thanks for the nod on picking up the frustration; tone can sneak through even the most civil phrasing, and it’s always a balancing act in a heated debate. If you want to dig deeper into refining your argument por navigating the disagreement, just let me know!
——-
Will do.
———
I’m here for you.
——————-
No comments:
Post a Comment