Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Don Quixote - Revisited
>
Chapters XIX - XXVII
date
newest »
newest »
Susanna wrote: " but I am also seeing a critique of uncompromising idealism, or has been mentioned here, fundamentalism."I may be taking it too far, but I am thinking this is a theme here as well but I am trying to hold out a little bit longer to see what, if anything Cervantes suggests to us to conclude. He he seems to be pitting one perspective, or subjective metaphysics/worldview against another.
So far he seems to be zeroing in on reality vs. the ideal and leveling out other factors, like sex, level of education, and intelligence. For example, with his strong women, he has given us women, like Marcella, who moves in the ideal, and Maritornes who moves in the real and practical. We are told Sancho is brainless and DQ seems well-read and educated, but both are delusional in their goals even if Sancho's vision is not overcrowded by tales of chivalry. As for their differences in intelligence, Sancho seems to posses a certain amount of common/practical sense in comparison to DQ's "book learning".
Appreciate your comments David @ 54. Sancho is still my favorite character but I agree he must be a little crazy himself to continue on with DQ despite realizing that DQ is delusional about many things, beatings and disappointments. And perhaps greedy? He hopes all this is true because there is something big in it for him! Yet he acknowledges this all may for naught & often comes up with practical ideas.
The theme of Don Quixote is one that has tremendous import for those of us today. DQ realizes that the people all around him were reading books of a nature different from those he reads. The books they read had the effect of making them believe that they were not in fact gallant knights and beautiful ladies, and that the world was not in fact full of giants and other terrible monsters that needed to be conquered and brought to heel.The same is true of an overwhelming number of people today. These people believe that the world is a limited and humdrum place where nothing out of the ordinary can ever occur, so they take unimportant jobs that are boring, repetitive and easily learned; they live in homes that contain nothing but furniture and large televisions, and for interest and entertainment they do things like watch baseball games and go to the movies. They think the jobs they work at give them a purpose in life, and that they are contributing to the production of an incredibly wealthy country, and that they are enjoying all the benefits of freedom and making the world safe for others, and that the money they are earning enables them to live in comfort and to save for the future, just like the people in the books they read. In short, we haven't advanced one inch since the time of Cervantes
The story of Ginés de Pasamonte is an interesting interlude and perhaps Cervantes tells the story of the galley slaves only to introduce him. He is, after all, quite colorful, but the most interesting part of him is that he apparently steals Sancho's donkey and then the donkey mysteriously reappears with Sancho riding him. I have read that this was added in the second edition of DQ but the inconsistency of the donkey story is almost maddening. It has been suggested in scholarly circles that Cervantes did this intentionally. That seems unlikely to me but perhaps others agree with the scholars.Perhaps the most important mention in this section has been Lazarillo de Tormes, who is the star of the anonymous picaresque novel, The Life of Lazarillo de Tormes and of His Fortunes and Adversities. It is said to be the founding picaresque novel and I will suggest that it criticized the aristocracy and the church in much the same way that Cervantes does in Don Quixote. The greater difference between the two is that Don Quixote can get away with a great deal of indirect criticism by employing chivalry as DQ's faith.
Donnally wrote: "DQ realizes that the people all around him were reading books of a nature different from those he reads..."What are the books of a nature different from the ones DQ reads, what nature are they, and who is reading them? I am not sure, yet, but I suspect Sancho cannot read.
I can see how the rest could follow, like an addict who lacks coping skills. But for now at least, it seems that DQ sees his books more as written examples of an inspirational time in a world worth living in and striving to regain than as existential escapism.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "I consider an uncompromising ideology (call it fundamentalism) to be a pathology. As we are talking about chivalry here, I am not sure I understand your reasoning of referring to it as a pathology. Certainly Don Quixote has a rigid code of conduct, which he has gathered from his books, but certainly he has enough leeway to be able to question which path is going to bring about the best result. Don Q is quite capable of living well in the world except for those issues relating to chivalry. I admire anyone who believes in basic principles in his/her life because I believe that there are, for example, absolute values of right and wrong. I am quite aware that others are nominalist in their beliefs. These are arguable positions, but not pathologies.
Any fundamentalism has a basic set of fundamental principles of belief. I maintain that none of these gets anyone who believes into trouble. The only time this can occur is if someone insists that there is a more important rule outside these principles.
In contrast, and I mean no disrespect, to refer to another's belief system as pathological, is inflammatory. Indeed it would require reasons why a given set of principles results in particular negative impact. Fundamentalism in Christianity, for example, may be something where you disagree with any of the five fundamental beliefs, but I do not see that this can result in a negative outcome, much less a pathology, unless you add further principles which you regard as more important.
Kathy wrote: "I was also interested in a footnote that claims Shakespeare wrote a play, now lost, based on Cardenio's story...."I spent a few hours perusing scholarly articles relating to this and there seems to be some decent documentation in its favor. First,
In the spring of 1613, the office of the Treasurer of the King's Chamber recorded two separate payments to the King's Men – William Shakespeare's company – for performances of a play called Cardenna or Cardenno.
While this seems promising, the greater question is what happened to it. Further:
In 1653 the leading English publisher of plays and poetry, Humphrey Moseley, registered his copyright in a list of 42 plays. Somewhere mid-list is "The History of Cardenio, by Mr Fletcher & Shakespeare".
It lasted a bit longer in history:
In December 1727 the Drury Lane theatre performed a play based on the Cardenio episodes in Don Quixote, and based in particular on the 1612 translation. It was called Double Falshood, or The Distrest Lovers, and the edition printed that month declared it was "written originally by W Shakespeare; and now revised and adapted to the stage by Mr Theobald". Lewis Theobald was a minor playwright, minor poet and the world's first Shakespeare scholar.
The topic truly does remind one of the subject of a Shakespeare play, at very least.
Rhonda wrote: "Xan Shadowflutter wrote: "I consider an uncompromising ideology (call it fundamentalism) to be a pathology. As we are talking about chivalry here, I am not sure I understand your reasoning of ref..."
It's not about what you believe in but the total unquestioning commitment to what you believe in that is the pathology. If you can no longer be reasoned with, if you can no longer question your beliefs, even as they apply to a particular situation, then you suffer a pathology. That's my opinion.
DQ can no longer be reasoned with, and he refuses to question what he is doing. This leads him to injure himself and others. It isn't chivalry (or ideology) that is the problem; it's his rigid, uncompromising embrace of it that is -- the lengths to which he is willing to take it.
Rhonda wrote: "I admire anyone who believes in basic principles in his/her life. . .Any fundamentalism has a basic set of fundamental principles of belief. I maintain that none of these gets anyone who believes into trouble. The only time this can occur is if someone insists that there is a more important rule outside these principles."Many beliefs, fundamental or not, get people in trouble all the time. There is nothing admirable in the strict adherence to certain beliefs that demand the refusal of medical aid. That particular belief alone results in the unnecessary loss of life; furthermore, far too many of the victims are innocent children. In short, there are some "fundamental" beliefs out there in the wild that are harmful and therefore not worthy of our admiration.
A belief in chivalry and giants almost gets DQ and his horse killed. Sancho's fears that DQ's illegal actions will "get them into trouble" with the Holy Brotherhood seem reasonable. DQ is also a danger to others, the people and sheep he misidentifies and attacks.
Tagging DQ's belief driven behaviors with pathologic simply means there may be medical reasons for them and there clearly are. Some of his diseases include, dementia, hallucinations, possible sleep disorders, i.e, he does not seem to get enough sleep, traumatic head injuries, monomania, and paranoia, i.e., those pesky enchanters.
Having said all of that, moving forward and perhaps to avoid the confusion and controversy provided by terms like fundamental and pathological, we should use the more appropriate term Cervantes himself gives us.
Quixotism; adj. quixotic - impracticality in pursuit of ideals, especially those ideals manifested by rash, lofty and romantic ideas or extravagantly chivalrous action. It also serves to describe an idealism without regard to practicality. An impulsive person or act might be regarded as quixotic.
Quixotism is usually related to "over-idealism", meaning an idealism that doesn't take consequence or absurdity into account.
Rhonda wrote: "I admire anyone who believes in basic principles in his/her life. . .Any fundamentalism has a basic set of fundamental principles of belief. I maintain that none of these gets anyone..."I don’t think the problem is in the belief system. DQ believes in righting wrongs, defending the defenseless, doing good, etc. All of this is perfectly admirable.
I think the problem (his pathology?) lies in his inability to recognize that while the values may be constant, the times have changed. He demands a literal application, confusing the spirit of chivalry with the trappings of chivalry. His belief system consists of a rigid adherence to all aspects of chivalry—including wearing the right outfit. But times have changed. What he needs to do is apply those same values to current circumstances. DQ is out of joint with his time not because of his values but because the way he chooses to apply those values is anachronistic. That's what gets him into so much trouble.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the belief system is wrong. I think where DQ goes wrong lies in his dogmatic insistence of adherence to a belief system without taking into consideration the context of his current time and place.
You can believe in absolute values of right and a wrong, in doing good, in defending the defenseless. But you don’t have to wear shining armour and a helmet to do it.
Re-reading Xan's and David's posts (61 & 62), I think we're saying the same thing in different ways. If I understood them correctly, I think we're agreeing that it is DQ's rigidity, his unwillingness to question his assumptions, his inability to contextualize that is the problem.
Tamara wrote: "I think the problem ... lies in his inability to recognize that while the values may be constant, the times have changed. He demands a literal application, confusing the spirit of chivalry with the trappings of chivalry. His belief system consists of a rigid adherence to all aspects of chivalry.."With respect, I believe that you are partially correct.Recall, for instance, that Don Quixote seeks to bring back the Golden Age, the one upon which he lectured the goat-herders, even though they didn't understand him. The problem with this is that the Golden Age is a fiction. It never existed in time, nor did any of the rest.
None of the tales of the finest actual heroes can match the chivalry and glory of Don Quixote's heroes from his books. It is no accident that Rodrigo de Vivar, El Cid, Spain's national hero, comes in a distant second to the heroes from his chivalric literature. The problem here is that chivalric fiction is imagined also.
Further, the chivalric code, much embellished in literature far beyond what might have ever actually existed, (I earlier mentioned The Art of Courtly Love and the French troubadours that made such activity into great epic works of fiction,) is based on the behavior of these mythic warriors.
Don Quixote piles fictions on top of fictions in his head. Probably each of us as children tried to live out the lives of our heroes in our back yards and playgrounds. The limitations become all too apparent, even for children, but Don Quixote has taken all these fantasies into his head as a reality.
His problem isn't his rigid adherence to ideals, per se, but rigid adherence to ideals which were imagined to begin with. One ought not have any difficulties with what he believes, his desire to right the wrongs and protect the unprotected in this world, (and surely no one does, I hope,) but the greater issue is that he has based his behavior on fantasies. Lastly, because he has based his behavior on these fantastic stories, we suspect that he is bound to fall short of the mark. Still, he accepts what ills befall him because they are bound up in his fantastic models of righteousness. We cannot judge him outside his accepted code, though we can laugh and shake our heads.
Rhonda wrote: "Kathy wrote: "I was also interested in a footnote that claims Shakespeare wrote a play, now lost, based on Cardenio's story...."I spent a few hours perusing scholarly articles relating to this an..."
Rhonda, Thanks for that additional research! The fact that the play apparently survived for over a century makes one wonder what ultimately caused it to go missing. I was imagining an obscure manuscript that was never produced!
Thomas wrote: "Is there such a thing as "tragic relief"? I wonder if the purpose of the diversionary tales is to give the reader a break from the satire. ..."Ha--great term! I'll admit, I do need a break at times from the violence and idiocy, even if it's funny at times. If tragedy does the trick, so be it!
David wrote: "Quixotism is usually related to "over-idealism", meaning an idealism that doesn't take consequence or absurdity into account."I think DQ is an extremist in his delusion; he has gone beyond idealism. That he has a belief system (chivalry) is one thing, that he insists everyone believe in it is quite another. He confronts fellow travelers on the King's highway and tests them.
One test is the Dulcinea test. Stop what you are doing and go see Lady Dulcinea to pay homage and fealty. The fealty is really to his belief system. If they refuse they are nonbelievers. And since nonbelievers are enemies of his belief system, he tries to eliminate the nonbeliever.
The book is humorous, and that's why no one has died. It's also fun to enjoy on that level alone. And sometimes I wonder if I should just enjoy the story and leave the psychoanalyzing be. But there is a message here, I think. Integrity, bravery, civility, decency, and gallantry can be admirable values, but they can also be misused to cause harm like anything else can be misused to cause harm by an extremist. DQ cannot live and let live.
Xan Shadowflutter wrote: " Integrity, bravery, civility, decency, and gallantry can be admirable values, but they can also be misused to cause harm like anything else can be misused to cause harm by an extremist. DQ cannot live and let live..."Xan, I agree with your analysis of DQ. He is an uncompromising extremist. But I'm wondering if integrity, bravery, civility, decency and gallantry are misused and cause harm to people who don't conform, can they still be considered integrity, bravery, civility, decency, and gallantry?
Doesn't the fact that they are being misused mean they can no longer be considered as such? Can an abuse of civility, for example, still qualify the person as civil?
I re-read my post and I suspect I'm not being clear. What I'm trying to get at is this:DQ thinks he is behaving with decency and civility. But because of his intransigence, dogmatic adherence to the rules of chivalry, and insistence that all should abide by the same code, he can no longer be considered decent and civil. Perhaps he is more of an incorrigible bully.
I bite my tongue as I say this because I hate to think ill of DQ :)
Tamara wrote: "Doesn't the fact that they are being misused mean they can no longer be considered as such? Can an abuse of civility, for example, still qualify the person as civil?"I agree. Those values are fine in the abstract, and perhaps values people should aspire to, but when talking about DQ (or anyone) we can't separate him (or them) from his (or their) actions. How a person exercises his beliefs is as important, and probably more important, than the beliefs themselves.
One of the most interesting and key episode we have had is the penance which Don Quixote performs in the Sierra Morena. Don Quixote performs this penance in the imitation of his favorite models of chivalry, Orlando the Furious and Amadís of Gaul as the penitent Beltenebros who withdrew to Peña Pobre to gain the favor of his lady Oriana. Because this penance is mimetic, I think it is overlooked as spurious or immaterial. I tend to think that this episode elucidates and displays DQ’s own foundations of chivalry and allows our greater understanding of it.One of the first minor episodes in this greater story is that Don Quixote fights with Cardenio, a man who has become a madman and wanders through the wilderness half naked, often attacking others. He has his moments of sanity, of course, but his character practically begs for a comparison with Don Quixote. After they fight about an issue that is chivalric, but part of one of these fictions in a well known book, Don Quixote defends himself for the fight.
“By my faith, Sancho,” responded don Quixote, “if you knew, as I do, what an honorable and prominent lady Queen Madásima was, I know that you would say that I showed enormous restraint …..But to think that she was his (Elisabad’s) girl friend is nonsense, worthy of severe punishment. And so that you can see that Cardenio didn’t know what he was saying, you have to realize that he said it when he was out of his wits.”
“That’s what I’m saying—” said Sancho, “that your grace shouldn’t pay attention to the words of a crazy man….”
Don Quixote is fighting with a crazy man! This reminds me of a movie I watched some time in the past wherein two sailors fought over which character was the real Silver Surfer. To many of us, the fight is pointless because it is about something in a fantasy which doesn’t involve us, but to others, the fight involves an investment in their lives. It is thus interesting to ponder why we should ever become upset about things we can do nothing about but which violate our sensibilities, much like a modern politician dismissing ancient Greek philosophy as “a bunch of homosexuals.” We may feel obliged to make a comment, but this is an argument which has no real winning side if one is arguing against a fantastic belief.
Is Don Quixote a madman?In response to Sancho’s argument concerning arguments with crazy people, Don Quixote replies, “Against crazy men and sane ones, every knight errant is obliged to stand up for the honor of women, no matter who they are. He insists that this queen was noble as was the doctor, Elisabad, and that she would not sleep with him because it would besmirch her character.
On one hand we wish to consider Don Quixote deluded, but on the other, he is standing up for something which most of us would consider noble and just. It is Sancho who represents the reasonably sane man when he says, “I don’t say it or think it.” responded Sancho. “It’s their affair…. If they were living together or not, they’ll have to give God an accounting.
I find it intriguing that I respect this madman’s ethic more than the supposed sane one.
After this, Don Quixote reveals his plan:
(I) also because I plan to do a deed that will make me eternally famous throughout the known world, and because of it, I’ll put the seal on everything that can make a knight errant famous and perfect.…if you come back quickly from where I plan to send you, my grief will come to an end immediately, and my glory will begin. .”
Don Quixote begins to talk of Amadis de Gaul as the most perfect of knights and his intention to emulate him.
I also say that when some painter wants to become famous in his art, he tries to imitate the works of the greatest known painters…Thus he who would become famous for being prudent and long-suffering imitates Ulysses, in whose person Homer paints us a living portrait of those qualities; just as Virgil, in the person of Æneas, showed the goodness of a pious son and the sagacity of a brave and masterly captain. Those poets didn’t paint or reveal them as they were, but rather as they should have been, so that those who came after them could emulate their virtues.
If Don Quixote realizes that these stories are embellished, does he also understand that these stories of chivalry are fiction? If this is true, if it is true that DQ has another reason for assuming the armor of chivalry, then we must ask if he is really mad himself.
Rhonda wrote: "We may feel obliged to make a comment, but this is an argument which has no real winning side if one is arguing against a fantastic belief."Well played. I enjoyed that. 5 stars.
I'm only half-way through this section, so I may not have made it to the part that's being referred to, but some mention was made of Sancho's donkey mysteriously going missing. In the translation I have, in chapter XXIII, after DQ and Sancho decamp to the hills of the Sierra Morena, Gines de Pasamonte--one of the chain gang members DQ set free, comes upon their encampment and steals Sancho's donkey. Is this a different from what others were talking about? Is this something my translation added?
Bryan "Blackadder" wrote: "I'm only half-way through this section, so I may not have made it to the part that's being referred to, but some mention was made of Sancho's donkey mysteriously going missing. In the translation I..."There was a continuity issue with the donkey being stolen by Pasamonte and then reappearing later without explanation. A footnote in the Grossman translation at pg 174 (kindle) that says:
1. Martín de Riquer faithfully follows the first edition of Don Quixote, published in 1605; the second edition, printed a few months later by Juan de la Cuesta, the same printer, introduces a brief passage here, indicating that Ginés de Pasamonte, who is also in the mountains, steals Sancho’s donkey. The thorny and ambiguous question of why Cervantes does not mention the theft of the donkey in the first edition (usually attributed to an author’s oversight or a printer’s error) is alluded to in the second part of Don Quixote, published in 1615.and another footnote on pg. 178:
2. By the third edition of Don Quixote, printed by Juan de la Cuesta, the references to Sancho’s donkey in the Sierra Morena had been deleted; here, for example, the revised text says that Sancho was on foot and carrying the donkey’s load, “thanks to Ginesillo de Pasamonte.”
Rafael wrote: Small place or government of little importance, as given to Sancho at Don Quixote.I don't know what infer of that...."
Although I missed it the first time through, the question of what Sancho thinks "Insula" means is clarified in chapter 20 (page 151 in the Grossman translation, according to my Kindle copy): "...unless knights errant give insulas after a beating, or kingdoms on dry land."
So he clearly knows that the primary meaning is "island."
I also noticed in the same chapter (page 152), that Don Quixote says "I do not believe ... that those squires ever received wages, but only favors."
I was strongly reminded of a problem for European governments in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (and later), that what we would consider civil servants and ministers of state received paltry salaries, and even these were usually in arrears: ready cash was a perpetual problem.
The period also experienced runaway inflation, doubling prices in a century or so, while wages stayed much the same, so the problem got progressively worse.
In Spain, officials of any sort were fairly explicitly expected to therefore be extremely zealous in doing their work, in the hope of rich favors ("mercedes") from the King for good service (see, e.g., J.H. Elliott, Imperial Spain, 1469-1716), including patents of nobility, which exempted the holders from almost all taxes. (This was also a major issue in France, where it played a part in the French Revolution, so Spain wasn't being exceptional.)
This constant penury in conjunction with power inevitably produced corruption at all levels of government, as everyone from low-level clerks to top-ranked advisors of the King expected payment for services rendered, just to make ends meet. And for fulfilling their duties, not just for obviously corrupt special favors.
Near the top, it became even worse, because important people were expected to display their wealth, and to be extremely generous to subordinates, so they were constantly in need of funds to support their position, not just live on.
The distribution of land as a royal reward was going out of fashion, for the simple reason that there was little land left in royal hands to give away, but that tradition was probably still in the popular consciousness.
This was history in Cervantes' lifetime, but after their conquest of the last Moorish kingdom in Spain, Granada, Ferdinand and Isabella handed out estates to successful military leaders and government officials involved in the war, and some of them may have parceled out portions to their own followers, in the general European pattern of sub-infeudation.*
The idea was certainly kept alive in the romances of chivalry, in which this seems to have been a common procedure, used to tidy up loose ends for comparatively minor characters, without having to mention anything so degrading as money.
*This created a class of "Old Christian" landowners who looked with favor on the unconverted, or superficially converted, Granadan peasants, the Moriscos, whose skill and labor produced their wealth, but who retained their own language and customs. Much to the distress of some Church officials, even though this was promised in the final treaty with Granada. This conflict of interests created a problem in Philip II's reign, which he tried to solve by dispersing the Granadan Moriscos throughout Spain: the immediate secular issue being the possibility that they would favor the Turks in the event of another Ottoman expansion into the western Mediterranean.
This did serious harm to the Granadan economy, as the northerner brought in to farm the land lacked experience with the most important crops, and it may have added to the host of the unemployed (and unemployable) in the rest of Spain, except possibly in the more prosperous seaports, where even unskilled labor of religiously dubious background was welcome. It also provides the background for the "coincidence" of Cervantes finding a Morisco close at hand to translate an Arabic manuscript.
Rhonda wrote: "His problem isn't his rigid adherence to ideals, per se, but rigid adherence to ideals which were imagined to begin with."Very well put!
Isn't there something ironic in a writer writing a book making fun of someone who takes what he reads seriously?
Donnally wrote: "Isn't there something ironic in a writer writing a book making fun of someone who takes what he reads seriously?"I do not believe that there is anything particularly ironic, if and only if the writer's reader of fantasy is acting as a kind of parallel for something much more important and dominant in the writer's world, but which the writer cannot criticize directly and still be published. I may, of course, be wrong in this.
Most of us believe all sorts of things on faith and refer to them as science, which they are, of course, not. If, in fact, one wishes to suppose that the sun will rise tomorrow, we have every reason to expect that it will. but we believe this according to induction and not deductive reasoning. Our understanding of science really means that we have a reasonable way of rationalizing the occurrence and behavior of certain things according to past patterns.
On the other hand, if I were asked to believe something else, perhaps an entire body of interconnected lives, deeds and beliefs, would I be able to believe all, some, or perhaps not any? Much of that answer has to do with how these thoughts are able to fit within our world OR how much we were willing to change our world in order to believe them.
The brilliance of Don Quixote, at least in my mind, is that Cervantes has distanced himself from being the actual writer and given that job to another, a Moor, the most hated enemy of Christendom. On top of that, he has a severely deluded man who is acting as if he were out of his mind as his protagonist and then he believes in the religion of chivalry, clearly spiritual but fictitious at its base.
Donnally wrote: "Isn't there something ironic in a writer writing a book making fun of someone who takes what he reads seriously?"Great question. A corollary to this might ask if it is possible to write comedy without being serious about it.
Rhonda wrote: "Most of us believe all sorts of things on faith and refer to them as science, which they are, of course, not."I am not sure I would put it that way.
These days, and this is a fairly recent development, we use the word "science" almost exclusively in a reductionist form comprising only the material, natural sciences, only what can be seen and measured. The word itself means "knowledge." Anything I have knowledge of or comprises a body of knowledge, is a science both physical and meta-physical, i.e., astronomy, biology, philosophy, theology, etc, etc. And this is how the word has been used through most of history.
When a person applies knowledge it implies reasoning ability, the use of the intellect, intelligibility. To take your example, when I have faith the sun rises tomorrow, I have a true statement, because it is based on knowledge.
Kerstin wrote: "When a person applies knowledge it implies reasoning ability, the use of the intellect, intelligibility. To take your example, when I have faith the sun rises tomorrow, I have a true statement, because it is based on knowledge. "I will have to disagree with you on this point. We may have understanding of things which have happened before, such as the rotation of the earth and the position of the sun and the planets, but we have no knowledge that these things will, in fact occur.
Scire as you rightly say, refers to what we know.While I have some reasonable and educated views of both philosophy and science, I am suggesting that while we have previous observations to support us and no evidence to support the contrary, we do, in fact, inductively believe in all sorts of things. We could not get along in a world without our inductive processes
Relating this back to the Quixote, when we have intuitively reasoned that something may be true and found it to be supportive of other things we believe to be true, we may plausibly continue to construct greater and different things. We believe these new things to be true also, but then we are sometimes struck with perturbations in our belief system and this is the point at which science decides whether to remain in support of a theory or change the theory. I don't have to explain to you, certainly, how this has occurred over the years even resulting in such as the EPR paradox.
While the same understanding process to occur to Don Quixote, his faith in things comes from fictional chivalric books. While his stories may not have occurred in fact, the principles by which he reasons the things that he should do are impeccably reasoned.
The issue becomes whether by seeing that people who cannot defend themselves should be defended we must believe some of the rest of what he believes, e.g., that Orlando Furioso is very real because he defends the honor of those worth defending.
While the goodness of one's actions may be impressive, perhaps the basis for these things being fictions makes the association questionable. I think Don Quixote has taken up chivalry in order to resurrect righteousness in a society which is otherwise a Spanish social quagmire, something explained in another post.
Lastly, the sun rising tomorrow does not become a fact until it has done so.
Rhonda wrote: "Lastly, the sun rising tomorrow does not become a fact until it has done so."While technically correct, Bertrand Russel suggests that we can treat the statement that the sun will rise tomorrow as knowledge.
When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others. . . .there are degrees of certainty, and one should be very careful to emphasize that fact, because otherwise one is landed in an utter skepticism, and complete skepticism would, of course, be totally barren and completely useless.Furthermore
Bertrand Russell, Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?, 1947
What we firmly believe, if it is true, is called knowledge, provided it is either intuitive or inferred (logically or psychologically) from intuitive knowledge from which it follows logically. What we firmly believe, if it is not true, is called error. What we firmly believe, if it is neither knowledge nor error, and also what we believe hesitatingly, because it is, or is derived from, something which has not the highest degree of self-evidence, may be called probable opinion. Thus the greater part of what would commonly pass as knowledge is more or less probable opinion.And finally
Russell, Bertrand. The Problems of Philosophy (p. 89). Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition.
A body of individually probable opinions, if they are mutually coherent, become more probable than any one of them would be individually.Thus, the great mass of empirical observations and preponderance of other lines of evidence we have for it, I suggest we are justified in treating the idea that sun will rise tomorrow as knowledge with a very high and actionable degree of certainty.
Ibid.
Rhonda wrote: "While his stories may not have occurred in fact, the principles by which he reasons the things that he should do are impeccably reasoned.
We have a mixed bag here. Protecting others is a pretty solid principle from Socrates, to Cicero, et. al. But assuming fantastic adversaries out of everything from people, to sheep, and windmills and attacking them does not seem to be impeccably reasoned. Sound but not valid perhaps? Either way it seems a problem of taking action on probable opinions with low degrees of certainty, which in this case are mostly a source of comedy.
Thomas wrote: "Is there such a thing as "tragic relief"? I wonder if the purpose of the diversionary tales is to give the reader a break from the satire."Definitely feeling this. I don't find the satire very funny and it's hard to read what seems like the same exact thing over and over, which makes the whole book seem tedious. I noticed myself perking up and enjoying reading more when Cardenio was on the scene, same with Grisostomo and Marcela..
Rhonda wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "When a person applies knowledge it implies reasoning ability, the use of the intellect, intelligibility. To take your example, when I have faith the sun rises tomorrow, I have a tru..."I wonder though -- does inductive reasoning, or scientific skepticism for that matter, make life more worth living? Is the argument for one or the other more invigorating than the rising of the sun itself? (Especially if one really has any doubt about it?)
I also wonder if the person who believes that the sun is a god is happier to see the sunrise than the solar astronomer is. Perhaps not, or not always, but DQ seems to have the attitude of the sun worshipper. His belief system will certainly fail any truth analysis, but that kind of truth has no bearing on the life he has chosen.
David wrote: "We have a mixed bag here. Protecting others is a pretty solid principle from Socrates, to Cicero, et. al. But assuming fantastic adversaries out of everything from people, to sheep, and windmills and attacking them does not seem to be impeccably reasoned.."I never said that his exploits were very well reasoned. I said that the principles of his chivalry were very well reasoned. Please do not suggest something I have not said.
In regard to what is constituted as a fact, we do not need to describe this as technically correct: it is correct. I am well aware of how induction works and Russell would not be the best choice for support, especially from his early Logical Atomist days. Even his Logical Positivism didn't quite work out nor his logicism defenses. In fact, after Principia Mathematica, he had his hat handed to him by Godel.
Rhonda wrote: "we have no knowledge that these things will, in fact occur.."Sorry to suggest something you did not say, but we are much closer in agreement than it seems. We do agree that however well reasoned DQ's principles may seem to be, he takes them too far and they become unreasonable suggesting a principle alone is not enough, perhaps an appropriate Aristotelian mean between the extremes needs to be added? I also agree that the misapplication of a well reasoned principle makes that principle no more or less well reasoned.
I do wonder how well reasoned DQ's principles are when they are too idealistic; unrealistic and impractical, earning them their quixotic label. One could even argue DQ's principles were not reasoned at all, at least by him, but were simply adopted from works of fiction that were the most appealing to him on a purely emotional level. I see nowhere in the text where DQ reasons or derives any principles, or explain how they are good or why they should be adopted, he simply and dogmatically references his chivalric scripture.
As for our epistemological side discussion; irrelevant ad hominem attacks against Russell aside, my point here is simply that as DQ takes his principles too far, it would be taking the principle of induction and the uncertainty it entails too far, no matter how well reasoned, to assert that we have no knowledge that these things will, in fact occur. I would argue, as I have, that we do have knowledge that certain things will occur; with a very high degree of certainty. I agree it will never be 100% certainty, but it is high enough that we may feel quite confident in claiming to have knowledge of certain things like the sun rising tomorrow and how to land spacecraft on an asteroid, etc.
I wish you had been here two years ago to contribute to our discussion and understanding of Hume's An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
Thomas wrote: "I wonder though -- does inductive reasoning, or scientific skepticism for that matter, make life more worth living? Is the argument for one or the other more invigorating than the rising of the sun itself?"The short answer is, absolutely yes. The alternatives could result in mixtues of fear, and blissful ignorance to painful disappointment. Maybe we will see how this turns out for DQ in the end?
David wrote: "The short answer is, absolutely yes. The alternatives could result in mixtues of fear, and blissful ignorance to painful disappointment. Maybe we will see how this turns out for DQ in the end?"The short answer is a bit too short, perhaps. :) There is also an argument for faith as central to personal identity (and I think this is where DQ fits in.) My suspicion is that in reality most people live somewhere in the region between absolute faith and radical skepticism. Some more to one side, others more to the other. Strict adherence to either becomes problematic in the everyday ho-hum world.
(The slightly longer answer is also too short. :)
David wrote: "As for our epistemological side discussion; irrelevant ad hominem attacks against Russell aside, my point here is simply that as DQ takes his principles too far,.."Excuse me for not responding promptly. First, my attacks on Russell are not ad hominems but accurate attacks on his logical positions at three different times during the twentieth century. It is not that I dislike Russell; I do not and read him very early in my life. ( In fact, I used the Russell Paradox in high school functions class for an oral report.)
The point I was making is that Russell's logical positions were admitted failures, points he, for the most part, abandoned. While most of what this entails is far beyond Don Quixote, one of the great questions which is applicable here is whether we are arguing for a finitist or infinitist position. While Russell defended the former, Don Quixote would be of the latter belief. Gödel provided the foundations of the inability to prove any finite set without resorting to at least one theorem which did not exist within the set.
If I might apply this to our use of logic, neither Don Quixote, nor anyone else who wishes to extricate himself from a finite number of beliefs, can ever make his aims too exalted or intentions too preposterous. It is not our aims in life which are incorrect nor our belief in them, but our failure to implement a suitable path to accomplishment which results in our failure. Too many things which people have accomplished have been said to be impossible by skeptics.
Don Quixote might say that truth lies in the search for an object, not in the object sought. The foundations of his faith are reflected in how they serve him, not as they appear to the outsider.
As to Hume, I also appreciate him a great deal but I am grateful mostly that his thought pushed Kant into writing the FIrst Critique.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (other topics)Imperial Spain, 1469 - 1716 (other topics)
The comic gods heard me and agree, but maybe that is just my own warped perspective?