Goodman, Nelson, on Merit, Aesthetic

Citation preview

Goodman, Nelson, on Merit, Aesthetic Robert Nozick The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 69, No. 21. (Nov. 23, 1972), pp. 783-785. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-362X%2819721123%2969%3A21%3C783%3AGNOMA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C The Journal of Philosophy is currently published by Journal of Philosophy, Inc..

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/jphil.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.org Tue Jul 31 23:43:15 2007

COMMENTS AND CRITICISM

COMMENTS AND CRITICISM GOODMAN, NELSON, ON MERIT, AESTHETIC

N acquaintance who claims to be a medium has told me of receiving a message from Isaac Newton. This message is of such interest that, despite my disbelief in the claims of mediumship, I transmit it, as I heard it, to the philosophical public

A

This is Isaac Newton. The time has arrived for me to make public a fact heretofore unknown outside the immediate circle of my friends. What has since come to be known as Newtonian theory was first presented, not in the Principia, but in a poem. Those to whom I showed the poem averred that, though it contained natural philosophy of great interest, the poetry encasing it was so abominable as to make me a laughing stock should I publish it. Reluctantly I allowed myself to become convinced. I should not have been overwhelmed by the unanimity of their negative judgment of my poem, I now realize. For word has reached me of the view of Nelson Goodman, who holds that a work has aesthetic merit if it is an aesthetic object and if it significantly changes the way we view the world or conceptually organize the world, performing various cognitive functions.* There is no question that my poem was an aesthetic object; my friends never tired of twitting me about how poor a one it was. Furthermore, it certainly would have changed the way people saw the world, had I published it. The Principia, containing the same natural philosophy, did change the way people viewed the world; as did the poem itself for the few friends who saw it. (Unfortunately TRANSMITTER'S NOTE: Here Newton must have in mind Nelson Goodman's discussion in sec. VI of the last chapter of Languages of Art, especially pp. 258-259: Symbolization, then, is to be judged fundamentally by how well it serves the cognitive purpose: by the delicacy of its discriminations and the aptness of its allusions; by the way it works in grasping, exploring, and informing the world; by how it analyzes, sorts, orders, and organizes, by how it participates in the making, manipulation, retention, and transformation of knowledge. Considerations of simplicity and subtlety, power and precision, scope and selectivity, familiarity and freshness, are all relevant and often contend with one another; their weighting is relative to our interests, our information, and our inquiry. So much for the cognitive efficacy of symbolization in general, but what of aesthetic excellence in particular? Distinguishing between the aesthetic and the meritorious cuts both ways. If excellence is not required of the aesthetic, neither is the excellence appropriate to aesthetic objects confined to them. Rather, the general excellence just sketched becomes aesthetic ,when exhibited by aesthetic objects; that is, aesthetic merit is such excellence in any symbolic functioning that, by its particular constellation of attributes, qualifies as aesthetic (my italics).

784

THE JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY

it also changed the way they viewed my artistic talents.) I t follows that, had I published the poem, it would have been a work of great aesthetic merit. Against the cavilling criticisms of my friends, I have been vindicatedl In appreciation of his service, I dedicate this reading of my poem to Nelson Goodman: I sing of bodies in attraction,

Persistent motion, and retributive action;

Not dramatic plot or moral lecture

But the universe's architecture.

The earth and heavens in a single plan

Here described by a pious man.

Bodies on each other exert a force Directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, of course. Gravitation is unselective,

Acting between all bodies, irrespective.

Before you jump from a tree to fly free as a bird in

uninhibited levitation

Think about universal gravitation.

Changes from rest or straight-line motion

Are always caused, such is my notion.

Curved paths or acceleration

Stand in need of explanation.

Distinguish the constant old from the new

T o have your theory green instead of grue.

Through absolute space and time, I say,

F equals m a.

A reaction opposite and equal

T o every action is a sequel.

All occurs without magic or potion

I n accord with the laws of motion.

Though to the idea some show resistance

Action takes place at a distance.

Some will protest, and rant o'ermuch,

Denying anything they cannot touch.

Phenomenalism is the theory of these,

Unable to know beyond their sees.

Don't think God's world I here describe

Is ugly, prosaic, or merits a jibe,

Don't think it mechanistic, a subject to curse.

Instead give thanks He didn't do verse.

?as

COWENTS AND (ZarlmXSM

Alas, there was then no NeLon Goodman to encourage me to publish this poem1 Had I done so, my place in the h & q of literature would have been secure. Such counterfactuals are of meager comfort to me, and might be viewed by some as oE dubious intelligibility. But perhaps Goodman's wonderful theory also yields an indicative statement which would serve me. If schoolchildren are taught my poem at a very young age, then my poem will actually change the way they see the world. Won't it then actualIy fulfill its destiny as a major work of art? Perhaps not. Perhaps a poem that merely brings some to see the world as many already do, does not suffice. Must the work of art be the first generally avaiE able statement of the view? Because of the accident that my poem did not realize its potential of changing the way in which people view the world, is my l a n c e for aesthetic greatness gone? In the hope that others may profit from knowing of my missed opportunities, I am sending this message also to Gell-man and Feynman. ps: Kepler here would like to transmit to you a painting he once did, but he lacks the means to do so, and he lacks a notation fw painting. He has given me permission to describe the painting to you. It consists of a bright circular spot (the sun) at one hms of purple elliptical dotted lines. He is very pleased to l e m that G& man joins him in considering this painting (which he modestly had entitled "My First Law") one of: the major works of art in the western tradition. So much, he says, for his detractors, who had considered it little more than a crudely executed cartoon. PPS: At my next appearance, I will be joined by Fermat, wha will sing for you a little ditty whose melody he thinks is rather remarkable. He had wanted, he says, to write it in the margin, but lacked enough room to fit in the bass and treble cMs.t

ROBERT NOZICK

Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences t This note originated in my remarking to a friend (not to be confused with the aquaintana mentioned in the opening sentence) that a doggerel poem by Newton presenting the theory of universal gravitation would have been, according to Goodman, a work of aesthetic merit. This friend went and wrote fragments of such a poem, reading them to me several days later1 I then suppfied a frame to go around the poem, but, despite my encounwment, the friend preferred to leave his poem inamplate ratha than indtlde it here. This necessitated my writing yet another poem, to substitute for his. Everything appearing here, therefore, is mine, but I am happy tu acknvwledge that the idea of a c t w f l y wnstructing "Newton's Poem" (though not the poem that appears here) is the friend's, who prefers to remain nameless, which preferenre unfortunately was doomed to frustrarion by his parents thirty-one years ago when they named him Saul.