We're closing in on the end. After this discussion, Augustine will race ahead to a conclusion in his long Book 3. But for now...
This dialogue takes place under a tree. I am always fascinated with this concept. In various medieval Breton Lais being under a tree is a recipe for disaster. In Sir Orfeo, for example, Heurodotus loses her mind when the Fairy King appears as she is relaxing with her ladies under a tree. Is another world revealed to us under trees? Can trees drive us mad? Do they contain too much truth? If yes, then what a perfect place to be faced with a transcendent truth.
The discussion returns to the problem of "what can incite us to act without assent" is called "truthlike" or "plausible." What this means is do we do somethings even though they may not be true or even think that we really know it even though we are not sure. For example, if someone asks "will the sun rise tomorrow?" even though we do not know it for sure, based on past practice of the sun, we may still say yes. So this is truthlike, because it is based on uncertainty--we claim a level of knowledge even though we may not know for sure.
Now, Licentius troubles this definition on the grounds of correlation. He knows, for example, that the trees next to them are not going to change to silver in the next moment (which may be true, but if Licentius would take in larger and larger amounts of time, this could happen--he needs to read his Quentin_Meillassoux or some quantum mechanics). Anyway, this kind of thinking is something we might still call "truthlike." So, for Licentius truthlike contains a certain amount of certainty.
The rest of this debate is between Alypius and Augustine who discuss whether the whole issue of a search for plausibility is even important enough to argue over! Something to note about Alypius is that when he is backed into a corner, he wants to argue that Augustine is just resorting to semantics. He does this repeatedly. It is also of note that Alypius was Augustine oldest and longest friend. I like the strain of friendship that runs through this dialogue: these matters are important, but it is also important to maintain friendship. These disagreements are not so important to sacrifice friendship over. This reminds me of the pleasant afternoons I would spend with my undergraduate friends, a full pot of coffee at the ready, discussing all matter of things. Maybe even cutting class. It is amazing how graduate school then turns people against each other. I see too often how friendships are destroyed because of disagreements over things we, with Alypius, might call semantics....even as we rise higher and higher in the ranks. Alypius and Augustine serves as a more ideal model.
But, actually what they are worried about is arguing with those who may not understand. In other words, how does one argue with an interlocutor without including them in the terms of the debate. Alypius has a created a situation where Licentius and Trygetius are in the background as he and Augustine are the primary debaters. And, this even changes further when Augustine starts to monologue. This is a great pedagogical sidebar. How do we inform students enough to even have the debate? They often appear in the middle of these ages old discussions, and if we are good and caring teachers, we include them in these debates, educate them about "semantics," but all too often so many of us are guilty (me included) of wanting to forge ahead. Haven't we done this already? But, it is important to slow down, to be patient. I feel this has become a theme of my semester: slow down, slow down, slow down. There is a certain level of marination, if you will, so that you can let ideas seep into your pores.
Structurally, this final debate of Book 2 leads us into Book 3 with a sense of better parameters. If we side with the Academicians we can search for truth, but it will always be provisional, truth-like. A final truth can never be found. Augustine is arguing then, that truth can be found and assent can be given. The question remains: how?
No comments:
Post a Comment