Stanley Cavell’s Philosophical Literary Criticism
An Outline of Method
Abstract
An American philosopher Stanley Cavell (1926–2018) is one of those philosophers who, consciously starting from the assumption of the mutual complementarity of philosophy and literature, develop their theoretical reflection at the meeting point of both these fields and treating their reflection as a form of writing. In Cavell’s opinion, literature is in no way inferior to philosophy in terms of its cognitive values. He goes so far as to question the validity of the rigid, insurmountable division into these two areas, and describes his own writing as epistemic criticism which is a kind of philosophical literary criticism. Although he comes from the analytical school, Cavell remains extremely critical of this tradition of philosophizing, accusing it, as he puts it, of “forgetting the human voice”, losing touch with reality and being alienated from life and in the result calling analytical philosophy “the discipline most opposed to writing, and to life”. At the same time, he turns to the continental tradition and tries to combine these two different intellectual traditions on the basis of his considerations. In this way, Cavell places himself at the intersection of various intellectual currents. His area of interest is also extremely wide and varied, including philosophy, literature, film, theater and music.
In my article I intend to focus on a few chosen aspects of Cavell’s work that is still not recognized enough in academic studies, namely on the Cavell’s use of philosophical concepts and chosen methods used by Cavell to analyze literary texts – the paraphrase method, the problem of the open work, the literalization of language method (in the context of Cavell’s analysis of Beckett’s Endgame), the problem of the ordinary connected with Cavell’s version of the ordinary language philosophy (in the context of the chosen features of Wittgenstein’s philosophy). In concluding part I also make some provisional remarks on Cavell’s hermeneutics and also suggest that it could be fruitfully read in the context of the thought of Emmanuel Levinas and his philosophy of the Other.
References
Austin John Langshaw, “A Plea for Excuses: The Presidential Address”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series 57 (1956-1957): 1-3.
Bakhtin Mikhail Mikhailovich, Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, ed. and trans. Caryl Emerson (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984).
Bearn Gordon, “Staging Authenticity: A Critique of Cavell’s Modernism,” Philosophy and Literature 24/2 (2000): 294-311.
Bell Millicent, Shakespeare’s Tragic Skepticism (Yale and London: Yale University Press, 2002).
Bernstein Charles, “Reading Cavell Reading Wittgenstein,” Boundary 2, 9/2 (1981): 295–306.
Blumenberg Hans, “Speech Situation and Immanent Poetics (1966)” in idem, History, Metaphors, Fables (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2020): 449-468.
Borradori Giovanna, “American Philosopher. An Apology for Skepticism”, in eadem, American Philosopher, Conversations with Quine, Davidson, Putnam, Nozick, Danto, Rorty, Cavell, MacIntyre, and Kuhn (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994).
Bradshaw Graham, Shakespeare’s Scepticism (Brighton: Harvester 1987).
Bruns Gerald L., “Stanley Cavell’s Shakespeare”, Critical Inquiry 16/ 3 (1990): 612-632.
Cavell Stanley, “The Investigations’ Everyday Aesthetics of Itself”, in The Literary Wittgenstein, eds. John Gibson, Wolfgang Huemer (London – New York: Routlege, 2004).
Cavell Stanley, A Pitch of Philosophy. Autobiographical Exercises (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1994);
Cavell Stanley, Conditions Handsome and Unhandsome: The Constitution of Emersonian Perfectionism (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1990);
Cavell Stanley, Disowning Knowledge: In Seven Plays of Shakespeare (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003);
Cavell Stanley, In Quest of the Ordinary: Lines of Skepticism and Romanticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988);
Cavell Stanley, Little Did I Know. Excerpts from Memory (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010).
Cavell Stanley, Must We Mean What We Say? A Book of Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976);
Cavell Stanley, The Claim of Reason (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979);
Cavell Stanley, The Senses of Walden (New York: The Viking Press, 1972);
Critchley Stanley, “Cavell’s «Romanticism» and Cavell’s Romanticism”, in Contending with Stanley Cavell, ed. Russel B. Goodman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005);
Eco Umberto, The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984).
Filipczuk Magdalena, “Epistemological Reading”: Stanley Cavell’s Method of Reading Literature, The Polish Journal of Aesthetics 43/4 (2016): 65-83.
Filipczuk Michał, „Shakespeare and Skepticism. Stanley Cavell’s Interpretation of Skepticism in Othello”, Zagadnienia Rodzajów Literackich 61/1 (2018): 25-36.
Filipczuk Michał, „Szekspir a sceptycyzm. Otello w interpretacji Stanleya Cavella”, IDEA – Studia nad strukturą i rozwojem pojęć filozoficznych 29/1 (2017): 240-263
Fischer Michael, Stanley Cavell and Literary Skepticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989);
Gould Timothy, Hearing things (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1998): 53-84,
Literature and Philosophy. A Guide to Contemporary Debates, ed. David Rudrum (London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2006).
Mulhall Stephen, Stanley Cavell: Philosophy’s Recounting of the Ordinary (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1994);
Noggle James, “The Witgensteinian Sublime”, New Literary History 27/4 (1996): 605-619.
Pierce Robert B., “Shakespeare and the Ten Modes of Scepticism”, Shakespeare Survey 46 (1993): 145-158;
Reading Cavell, eds. Alice Crart, Shieh Sanford (London: Routledge, 2006);
Richard Eldridge and Bernard Rhie, eds. Stanley Cavell and Literary Studies: Consequences of Skepticism (New York: Continuum, 2011)
Rorty Richard, ”Philosophy as a Kind of Writing: an Essay on Derrida” in idem, Consequences of Pragmatism (Essays: 1972-1980) (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1982)
Rudrum David, Stanley Cavell and the Claim of Literature (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974);
“Stanley Cavell’s Wittgenstein,” in Redrawing the Lines: Analytic Philosophy, Deconstruction, and Literary Theory, ed. Reed Way Dasenbrock (Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1989): 49-60.
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, transl. G. Anscombe, Blackwell Publishing 1986.
Zarębianka Zofia, “Filozofia wobec literatury. Literatura wobec filozofii. Warianty wzajemnych odniesień. Rekonesans”, Filo-Sofija 34 (2016): 141-152.
The Yearbook only accepts materials for publication that are free of all conflicts of interest, and that in no way involve conflicts over authorship, copyright, etc. The Editors will take action against any cases of plagiarizing, ghostwriting1, guest/honorary authorship2, etc. Where co-authored work is concerned, the Author listed first is expected to take responsibility for the submission, and is required to make clear the contributions of all of the Co-Authors involved. In the event of the publication owing its existence to funding dedicated to this purpose, this fact should be made clear: e.g. in any note of thanks/acknowledgement, or in a footnote, etc. Explicit notification should be given of any form of reprinting, with the appropriate evidence of permission to publish being furnished as required. Any impropriety on the part of Authors/Reviewers risks exposing them to appropriate responses from the relevant institutions.
______
1 This term refers to instances of a person who has made an essential contribution being omitted from the list of authors, or from notes conveying gratitude and/or acknowledgement.
2 This occurs when a person who has made either an insignificant contribution or no contribution at all nevertheless appears on the list of authors.
