Resonance, Response, Renewal: Literary Education in Rorty and Cavell

Abstract

For Richard Rorty as well as Stanley Cavell, the realm of the literary carries particular educational force. Literature holds the potential to lead the insensitive and the superficial towards the responsive and the detailed. Literature prompts an interrogation of everyday expressions and the felt meanings we decide to invest or not to invest within them. In this paper, we draw on the work of Rorty and Cavell to highlight the significance of literature for moral education. We argue that both philosophers are committed to the transformative power of literature even if this transformation is conceived in very different ways. Broadening our scope from the Anglo‐American to the European tradition, we propose in the paper's final section that Rorty and Cavell's readings of Derrida can usefully illuminate the fundamental philosophical differences between them.

‘I lost the faith in humanity.’ Using William Golding’sLord of the Fliesto explore ethical and moral issues through transnational, online literary exchange

“…Despite such seemingly positive outcomes, however, our findings do not provide a ringing endorsement for those who suggest, as Mahon and O'Brien (2018), citing Richard Rorty, put it: 'moral judgements would be made with the help of proper names rather than general principles' (p. 699) -that '[l]iterature holds the potential to lead the insensitive and the superficial towards the responsive and the detailed' (p. 695). As we explored our findings, we were confronted by an increasingly awkward question: would the quality or content of our students' engagement with moral issues in Lord of the Flies have been any different if they had not been required to read the novel at all, but had simply been given a brief plot summary to work from?…”

An Exploration of the Precision Path of Integrating Artificial Intelligence Technology into Japanese Literature Education

“…3 literary education towards diversification, the English literary tradition should still be adhered to as the dominant narrative to a certain extent [16]. MAHON, ÁINE et al reiterated the important role of literature in moral education from the perspective of the educational power of literature, based on the advocates of the philosophers Rorty and Cavell and the transformation of the tradition of literary education [17]. BELL, M on F. R. Leavis' views on literature and education are critical lines of thought, arguing that his tradition of literary education is more derived from modernism, constructing a space for integrating thought and teaching in literature [18].…”

Fragments of Truth and Post-Truth: An Associative Collage

“…Rorty’s own narrative has irritated many other philosophers because he came to believe that novels and poetry were more effective than philosophy or political theory in shaping the citizens of a liberal democracy: we need “fewer theorists and more novelists” (see Rorty, 1991a, p. 80). 3 He wished that philosophers and scientists, especially, would accept “that there is no final truth or end point of argument, only a plurality of possible truths re-describable more or less attractively.” We should be “concerned not with facts but with interpretations” (see Mahon & O’Brien, 2018, p. 697). Perhaps novelty is or should be more important than truth because the strong poet is “the maker of new words, the shaper of new languages, the vanguard of the species” (Rorty, 1989, p. 20, as quoted in Mahon & O’Brien, 2018, p. 697).…”

“…3 He wished that philosophers and scientists, especially, would accept “that there is no final truth or end point of argument, only a plurality of possible truths re-describable more or less attractively.” We should be “concerned not with facts but with interpretations” (see Mahon & O’Brien, 2018, p. 697). Perhaps novelty is or should be more important than truth because the strong poet is “the maker of new words, the shaper of new languages, the vanguard of the species” (Rorty, 1989, p. 20, as quoted in Mahon & O’Brien, 2018, p. 697). Our narratives should be properly seen not so much as accurate representations of truth but as new interpretations of it.…”