Daniel Howard: Philosophical Novels and Relativism | Who Shaves the Barber? #30

Download this episode / Watch on YouTube / RSS Feed / iTunes

What counts as a philosophical novel? What is it about philosophical novels that makes them philosophical? And what sort of work is involved in writing them? Is the job of the novelist at all like the job of the philosopher?

These are some of the questions I discuss with fiction writer Daniel Howard. He suggests strong parallels between the forces of antagonism that must be set up against the protagonist in a novel and the objections that a great philosopher must subject his thesis to in order to make a case for it. In the process, we discuss Plato’s dialogues, Dostoevsky, Camus, Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, Hegel, Rorty, Shakespeare, Dante, John Fowles, and a number of other philosophers and fiction writers.

We end on relativism. Daniel defends relativism against its usual charges, then makes a case that relativist writers perhaps shouldn’t be writing relativist novels.

Next week: Michael Huemer: Skepticism and Direct Realism

Special thanks to Jackie Blum for the podcast art, and The Tin Box for the theme music.
Click here for the full list of episodes!

Audio

Video

Topics discussed

0:18 – Introducing Daniel Howard
1:35 – What are philosophical novels and who writes them? (Fowles, Rand, Nietzsche)
17:00 – Plato, Parmenides, Symposium, Linklater: artistic form v. philosophical form
26:11 – Philosopher as artist: dialectic process, thought experiments, Descartes
33:36 – Novelists’ philosophical positions: Dostoevsky, Shakespeare, Dante
43:07 – Dialectical process: Hegel, story structure, contradiction, William James’ depression
53:04 – Relativism, skepticism, Rorty, self-defeat, brainwashing, intuition
1:13:34 – Relativists shouldn’t write relativistic novels (Gardner, The Stranger, Robbe-Grillet)

Sources

The Gift” by Daniel Howard (track 14)…

Continue Reading →

Determinist Existentialism

Modern day Sisyphus
“Good thing I have existentialism to help me out with this.”

Compatibilism vs. incompatibilism

If existentialism means anything, it means believing in freedom. Jean-Paul Sartre, probably the most well-known existentialist, argued that, in all situations, we are free to choose between options. In fact, though existentialism is a diverse and complex school of thought, it boils down to the following two claims:

  • Radical freedom: we are always free to choose how to act.
  • Radical responsibility: we are personally responsible for our entire experience of life.

This should sound utterly incompatible with determinism: the view that causality is an exclusively physical phenomenon. If all causality reduces to the interactions of physical matter and forces, what room is left for personal choice? This isn’t even a question about whether physical states of affairs fully determine how everything will turn out (“hard determinism”). Even if some level of probability or even randomness enters the picture, so long as it all happens in the realm of the physical, then, whichever way it happens to work, it’s still not up to us.

Or, to put it more precisely: even though some of it is up to us, how we choose to influence what is up to us is not up to us. We obviously do choose. But how we choose is only the manifestation of physical causation doing its thing. As Schopenhauer put it: “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.”

Most philosophers are “compatibilists”: they think we can square “metaphysical libertarianism” (the view that metaphysical free will exists) with determinism.…

Continue Reading →