1
20
1
-
https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/sjcdigitalarchives/original/e73a38ada0423ab5822d6172719ebbdf.pdf
d5d1f41eb7329cf75488cdc7f889122b
PDF Text
Text
, -._
.
Vol.I No.1
November 18, 1974
The St. John's Review
CONTENTS
A Laboratory Fantasy
by Mary Rogers•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••!
Personality and Class
by Chris Hoving •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• )
What is an Opening Question?
by Gene Heller ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ?
The Potential of Mana Aristotle in De Anima
by Leslie Graves •••••••••••••••• : : •••••••• 12
A Sonnet
by Richard Davenport••••••••••••••••••••••29
Une Petite Chanson pour Monsieur Charlie
by Gerry Ekman •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• )O
Lecture Review
by Charles Hoffacker •••••••••••••••••••••.• 41
Letter
by Eva Brann••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••48
THE REVIEW1 an Apology
by Derek Cross •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 51
Meditation before a New Publication
by Bill Kelley ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ,60
An Editor's Plea
by Joan Silver •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 62
Future REVIEWS
by Gene Heller •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6)
An Appeal to the Community
by Joan Silver •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 64
Annapolis Md.
�November 18, 1974
[
The St. John's Review
:]
.
Derek Cross.
Ed1tors .•.•.••••.... • "Bill Kelley
Managing Editor ••••••• Gene Heller
Administration and
College Offices·······Mary Rogers
Affairs Concerning
.
The Deans···········Lesl1e Graves
Program Discussions •.. Joan Silver
Program Papers ....... Chris Hoving
Student Polity ...•... Helen Aikman
Richard Davenport
L
iterary .•..•• Stephanie Slowinski
Reviews •••.••........... Kate Owen
Alumni ....••....•.. susan Tischler
Production• Gretchen Berg, Laura
Bridgeman, Matthew DeBacker, Susan
DeBacker, Matthew Ellis, Charles
Hoffacker,
Tom Horvath,
Peter
Kniaz, Joyce Mendlin, Arlene Roemer, Cheryl Rubino, Annette Tullier
Special Thanks to Rick Pla u t ,
Scott Arcand, and Bob Goifrey
�'l'he St. johns Kev1ew
I am skeptical of scholarly
criticism· of the Lab program, Tht
primary difficulty with the Laboratory is self-evident and its
solution is non-academic.
For
nearly two years, tri -and bi-weekQ,
I have sat spellbound by fantasies
of this solution.
I envision an electronic "buzzel"
system
inobtrusively installed
under every Laboratory tableo By
each seating position I imagine a
button, similar in size to a doorbell, skillfully concealed. When
a student wishes to ask a humiliating cpestion, .in my fantasy he orshe may inconspicuously sound the
buzzer by pressing this button.
This subtle interruption signifies
to the class the need for immediate
clarification of the discussion
matter. I imagine myself with a
placid, self satisfied expression
venting vehement frustration thru
that concealed doorbell. My neighbors have no reason to think me any•
thing but knowledgeable, well prepared and even slightly bored. And,
indeed, when I know of a question which adeguatel:v expresses my
unspoken super~ori ty, I imagine myself asking it aloud, signifying
contempt for users of the "buzzer. •
I am convinced that in this way Lab
would not only pass very pleasantly
but that my enhanced understanding
of the Laboratory manual would sooJ'\
enable me to become one of its many
criticso
1
�Nove1nbe r 18, 1974
2
I realize that there are man~
sible obj.e ctfons to the proposal ot
J!ly :f'antaey. I have oaretully exam~
1ned these, however, and conclu~
t~t none need be takenseriouel
Pirat, it shall be stipulate
that students keep one hand beneat
the table at all times. This wil~
guarantee the anonymity ·of the
questioner and preserve the pre~
Jtanaa that we all have diagraeeful
-ueetions toae-.-or that at least
our neighbors do. Secondly, it
•ay be indignantly objected that
thie system will impede the proper
pace of the claesa that, indeed,
the buzzers will constantly intel'rupt and refuse to be silenced
until answered. I cannot deny
this possibility, but urge those
objectors to consider the benefits
of this rather chaotic situation.
Great distinction sball be won by
those who most rapidly, with precision and ingenuity, phrase the
torrent of buzzers' questions and
provide adequate, silencing answer's.
The class will soon realize wit~
;awe that these students keep one
hand under the table only for
courtesy•s
sake,
Furthermore,
as I might point out to those ob~
jectors, this system offers excellent preparation for participation on "Jeopardy."
Finally,
the objection may arise that a
buzzer inadequately expresses a
questioner's specific difficulty-tha.t no one shall have the slightest
idea as to why the buzzer is sounded.
I hardly think this a justifiable
objection. I need only point out
that the articulation of my spoken
questions is undoubtedly surpassed
�rfhe St. John's Review
by a buzzer • s and that the latter • J;
ambiguity
precisely represents
the confusion of my own position.
I suffer no delusion as to the
persuasiveness of these replies.
There
are always those who argue
against reason. I hope only that
unlike the proposal for a swimming
pool on back campus, I may enjoy
the fulfilment of my fantasy befcre
graduationo
Mary Rogers
Personality and
Class
If you went to your loe•l community college, yocr courses tli,gbt
all be lectures. Most probably,
you and the professor wnuld never
communicate. Indeed, wi.t hout any
convereation between the two of
you, his grade would inform you
of your progress. At St. John's,
talking ts the medium for learn_in~J tutor and students talk with
one another, and it ie natural
that the student's work should be
discussed in the Don Rag.
What is said in a Don Rag?
Well, what can be said in a Don
Rag? The harn work of a quiet
student, or the clear thinking of
an argumentative one, is unknown
to the tutor, who must judge the
student by what he says in the
classroom, and how he responds to
others. Because a student's manner is all the tutor sees, he must
consider it as revealing hie thinking.
However, manner is determined by personality. Therefore,
personality is what is discussed
e:::
3
�l
I
4
November 18, 1974
most often in the Don Rag,
Mr.
Argumentative is told to tone it
downJ Miss Quiet is tol~ to speak
up. This attention results in
some Don Rags looking like test
cases of the lowgrade psychology
question, "What makes Jack a dull
boy?"
About Jack's dullness, there
can be no doubt. Listen to excerpts from his last Don Raga
Junior ~eminar leadera
"He
seems to lose interest and drift
off into a world of his own. One
time he fell asleep in seminar and
no one noticed until a
language
class came in the next morning.
The language tutor asked everyone
who had not finished his paper to
raise his hand. All hands went
up except Mr. Jack's. Of course,
after waking Mr. Jack up, the tu~
tor realized that he was not a
member of the class. That was the
only time Mr. Jack stood out all
year."
Senior seminar leadera "Well,
I can't add anything to that. Mr.
Jack seems to h~ve too little motivation and too much common sense •
Always ~laesy-eyed."
Laboratory tutora "One time a
look of real passion crossed his
face, and I hoped he would say
something interesting. He just
made his usual commonplace remark,
however. Later I learned that he
was leaning back in his chair and
momentarily had felt himself ~o
ing over. If he had fallen over
well--that would have been :something!"
Math tutor (of 8a30 a.m. class)a
"Mr. Jack is an adequate student.
L
�r
t
The ·st. John's Review
~
[.
~·
Now that 1 think of it, he has
seemed bored most of the timet I
always thought he was sleepy. He
has brought little playthings to
class, too. On one occasion,
I
noticed hie lips moving, anrl, trying to encoura~e him, I asked him
to repeat it in full voice for
everyone's benefit. He proceeded
to read off the ingredients of the
cereal box he had in his lap.•
How did Jack come to be this
way? That is the question. The
last tutor's comments may help.
Language tutor• "I don't want
to think that Mr. Jack has to be
entirely to blame. In my class
there are several students who
just want to severely critieize
'the grammar of everyone that talks·.
Jntis hindered Mr. Jack from making
very involved statements.
His
· ~favorite
contribut i ons
be came'•
• 0'.Ie 8t ion ! Wh ~- t • s
·'Not true 1 ',
that mean?', 'Muyb .::; .~ i f ~ . :"e " ·
and 'Fine .. • A6 a tutor, I h.!~" ·
trouble getting much out of them."
Perhaps Jack' !'J c 1B s , F.>t'· .,rl ·v.. ~
looked at now. Besides Mi, .~ Qui et
and Mr. Ar~umentative,
t h ere dre
Miss Serious, Mr. F l ippant t Hr.
Dogmatic, and Miss Lost in ~·; pa t. et
I am confident you can think . of
pthers.
There are al s o a few
people Jack feels comfortable with~
probably--though not neces~arily
-friends of his. The tutor fits
in somewhere, also. His personality will determine the extent
of Jack's dullness more than anyone else's, but everyone present
has his effect. When Mr. Dogmatfc. has quoted the same passage
four times, Miss Serious has ac.
- -- - --
-
-· -
- ··- ----
--- -····--- -- - ...
s
�1
cused Hr. Flippant of wasting
time, and Mr. Argumentative has
lost his temper because he cannot
refute Miss Lost in Space without
knowing what (subject) she's on,
then, even if the tutor gets along with him, Jack will feel his
mind dissolving. Now, I do not
mean to deny that a peculiar person may best communicate with others equally peculiar or unique
in some other way, but different
personalities often clash. When
Jack has had classes where there
was some rapport, communication
followed, and the results were often wonderful, but it is inevitable that personality clashes will
come about. Different students
are hurt in different ways (those
in the Quiet family are not likely to begin talking with Argumentative a around), but the worst result occurs when a student feels
forced to conform to the tutor's
personality--as, in effect, he was
told to do in the Don Ra~--and
gives up all hope of really communicating his thoughts.
Adapting to various personalities may
be a useful art in the business
world, but the student comes to
the College to learn something
else.
Can Jack find happiness? He
cannot have classes where everyone has the same personality as
he. Anyway, that might be really
dull. Though antagonistic people
are not helpful, the r~sultant exjc~tement sometimes
is, for those
~o do
communicate. Jack always
will have some tutors with whom
he does not have rapport. Perhaps
�The St. John's Review
the human spirit is not strong eto take on simultaneously.
:strange ideas an~ strange person~lities teaching them.
A few tu'tors overcome this problem, but
~11
are affectec by it. It may
h~ tnat
the problem is inherent
~n the St. John's
teachin~ method. An alternative which I have
heard sug~este~ is to withdraw into yourself, treating alike those
who clash and those who ~o not
clash, and to care only for your
private understan~in~. However,
dialectic
depends on emotion.
Without the passionate excitement
of mutual understanding, students
learn very little in our classes.
So, I see no easy solution, but,
suspecting that most people tG
some extent are aware of the effect personality has in classes,
I have attempted merely to raise
the issue for community concern
by indicating its scope.
Chris Hoving
nough
What is an
Opening Question?
It has been my experience, and
the experience of every other St.
John's student
as well, that
there are good seminar discussions, and there are not so good
--nay, mediocre--seminar discussions.
The quality ( if..so damning a word may be used) of a given discussion is governed by such
diverse influences as the length
of the
assigned reading, the
7
�l
November 18, 1974
8
thoroughness with which an assignment may have been read, the
number of participants (that is,
both
the number
of occupied
chairs and the number of speak~
ers), the proximity of this particular seminar night to a vacation, and so on, with such absurd
factors as the amount of cigarette smoke in the air during the
meeting even contributing a little. But, for whatever reason we
do so, students often relegate to
the tutors the responsibility of
making a seminar good.
The ways
a tutor might do this
a~e,
for
the most part, far too sophisticated and arcane for me to dissect under the harsh (blinding?)
light of reason, with the scalpel
of taste as my tool.
All tutors
do have, however, at least one
thing in commons they begin sem1
ina.r with The Opening Questicn. A
seminar discussion, in time if
not in logic, follows the opening
question.
The opening question
initially states what aspect of
the reading is to be discussed,
and by making this selection, ignores,
at least
temporarily,
other aspects.
It therefore has
a.s much or more influence on the
discussion than all of the other
factors listed above.
A good opening question is one
which causes, as much as it can,
a good discussion.
That's very
nicer all that remains to be explained is what a good discussion
is, how it is the result of a
good question, and why that particular question is good, taat
is, causes this good discussion.
'
I
1
'
I
�'l'he St. johns Keview
A good discussion is a coabin~
ation of two species of discussion. The first is that kind -ot
discussion which
is concerned
with only the implications of the
thought presented in the reading.
~n this discussion,
which proba~
j ly takes place in the College of
)
~reams,
all participants have
read and understood the reading.
,There is no need for the opening
question to be directed at teabh~
1
ing the student about the read~
ing, and so the tutor asks a
question whose
father is the
reading, and whose mother is his
own mind. ::The question might be
very general• "Does the truth of
tonight's
reading
imply anything?" It might be specific•
"What does the truth of tonight's
reading imply?"
In eithar .case,
it is not an attempt to point out
anything about the reading itself--any
fallacies,
truths,
ironies, poetry are all known to
he students already. They unerstand the reading. Again, the
opening
question is concerned
with
the implications of the
reading, as seen by the tutor.
The question might have a mother
other than the mind of the tutor
(the students,
we know, have
minds• that they have understaod
the reading demonstrates this).
Is there then a need for tutors
at this
college?
Absolutely,
precisely because the class depends upon the tutor's mind being
better able to suggest implications than the student's.
Whether he has read this particular
reading before or not, the tutor
--- --· -
-- -
---
-
--
9
�10
November 18, 1974
simply knows more than the student, but not about this reading,
only about the rest of the world,
and what this reading might have
to do with it.
The other species of discussion is concerned with teaching
the students about the reading.
This occurs among students who
have read but not understood the
reading. They look to the seminar, and the tutor, to help them
achieve a complete understanding
of the reading (I do not know in
what college this kind of discussion takes place}. The aim of
the opening question then is to
teach. How can a question teach?
It is more direct, if the students are not aware of a fallacy
or a truth in the reading, for
the tutor to simply state all
those he knows of. The seminar
could then truly succeed in its
goal of teaching the student, and
could either be ended, or continued much in the manner of seminars at that other college. One
unhappy situation at this "teaching• college is that, by my account, the existence of the students's minds ie not demonstrated
--they do not come to seainaa
in a state of
understanding.
This is nothing but a deception,
however. The students do in fact
have minds, and the tutor can reassure himself of this in the
following way. Let us assume a
minimal degree of comprehension
on the part of the student--that
he does understand some, but not
~11, of what he has read.
(~ell
.t hen, you might say, he already
�l
I
'
The St. John's Review
11
must have a mind to do even that.
True, but wait a bit.) If the
opening question is such that it
both directs the answer to the
more difficult part of the reading, yet indicates that the part
of the reading already comprehended will yield the answer, then
the student has a task that can
only be thoughtful. A good discussion in pne of this college's
seminars, · then, is one which
brings about the student's ~ oom
prehension of the assigned re•ding, by treating the more difficult part of each reading as an
implication of the
understood
part. A good opening question in
a seminar of this type can again,
as in the first college, be asked
only by someone who knows more
than the students, albeit this
time about the reading itself.
Since at Real
College the
degree to which students
und•ratand a reading is something lese
than -fixed, eo must the type of
!opening question be- variable, ·as
~he
reading is more or less accessible, by the tutor's estimate. A good discussion willlbe
concerned with both the reading
'i tself and its implications, ita
'relationship to the rest of the
world. A good opening queetio~
will seek to exaaine the coneiet~
ency of thought presented by ~h• .
reading--both as a system itself!
and · as ~· -part - of' ·aU · nu"
thought.
I
Gene Kellez1
�November 18, 1974
12
The Potential of Man:
Aristotle in De Anim ,a
BEST SOPHOMORE ESSAY, 1974
'!be tiM I han apent atuciy1._
Ariatotle la precioua, becauae 1 t •Aft
UM a pent v1 th a aan oonvinced ~
1
~n~~;"!l ·''d~
waa acoeaa1 ble to l'\1a aDd
~"' ;k : 1.
!ill
.~'. ~.tMpt
"ul
· ..., t)
.-. · :;
"·-~"'
,, ~ i. ..
.!!.
An1aa, he aakea a von4e
to Jal1 t the wdYerae te
+.h,tt •C'ul
of au baa there ..
bet·ol..a:a (if potenc1 1a he~
l.o),.
The bl1 tUD« ot t.be aoul to U.
\!n.i ntrM ~-·~ d•ona tn.te hotr UD Jdlowa 1111
'P l. t~;.ole tuk that for CfllpleUoh
- -~1! De '!; 0'-"11 the
prea1M of knowl·,· ' ·
,~
'
.:u "
t
~~~ I'
.tr.<>
li
lr"e~/"! edge.
a.r~
Aria tot~
luoYable Jlonr_
aatter, attrtbutee,
all the catesor1••,.
in cmler to build a d.etlni tiob
ln tact,
et a eoul tbat 1a able io . . . .
aDd kftOtf
t.be.. thiap,
h
aoul 1a treated u a
au-ba taaoe tAa t apprebenda all aat.taa~
la a 41t.1Mt1oal iftqulr, - the
..a•pt1- an b t the aoul la tbt
Mu.e et Ute, the att.rililut.a f4 lit..
Ud tbe faftl UN of ao.-.at · aa4 ~
Mat,
17 tint pal in thia N8&7 baa
OOIUI•
ot
;J
- . . t. d.laoua ArlatoU. • • aoooute
..rt&la faG\ll.U.• et tM aeul,
a-ts..
to aa ..tera••Miac et wt-.t
•• te ·~ the - • • of tl.Mb.
~ 1Jlvolwea an ~ntaD41nc of~
(U. ..u.)
t . . MMat.iOil.
\llbt.
The
'.-1 1• aa att.pt
to \lllden tud Ari.atotla '• n.. .t hoW
UM ..w appre~llllla u. .u..ue, J&l'Ucularb ~· ~Lt the . .u~ alai
· II!'
(~ ~
'-"
:et Ill, ) · la. ..aau..
i. ftnt, ~ ..1 t·JIIo...r, ,aa4 ••••• ,,_
... 1• 110Uoa,
ArletoU. Mill tM'\ -.uor ..... tP
be aore o~ to 11a1... --~, a.r.J!
c111•
He*
�-
The St. John's Review
tbe aoul apeD8 aore U.. 1a 1\.• 11»
ea4entan4 tbe nature and oau.e of eiTQlr
l• in a larp part to UDiaft t..u4 tHt
proceaa of thinldns, a1... 8ftOa' fal]Ja
betw..n tM ' " errorl- •~• dt
the direct percepu. . ot a pnper ••_.
object bJ ita ..... b'pll ud. tba funq.
Uon of tbe act1 ve aiM, th1nk1ft1 a lao~
an und1 Yic!ed •••noe -- a Mta*-1
axioa, 'ftw actiY1 u.. of tn. ai.. wh1
are casable
ot error
depelad Oft the ebaaki.. 1 t la,.rt&*t
rorl..• tacul u .. ,
to decide how error is 11d..4 Pf88l~
Look1n« at what Ariatotle aa,ya &bout e%1J"Or, both percept! ve and 1ntellectua]4,
lacee the blaae for error on the j~
rl« faculty or the aoul.
How••er, 1h
order to undera tand error or judplae~
~\llne u \IDUntaDdiAC ~ vbat ~ iato~
aeana by the proceae of an aotualisat1on
of a potential 1n aenaat1on and 1n
thoU«ht. faulty judgeMent aay be a reeult
of a potential not being correctly aet\1aliHd.
'nle faculty ot a aenae organ to be co•
the rona or a eenee object doee not irtvol ve the aaae kind of potential to aatual rel&tionahip that Arietotle uaea Ul
deecribins the aoul u the &ctu&l1satiell
of a body. Conceming tn. latter he ...,_
"'Ill• soul 1a a kind or actu&li t7 OlE'
notion ot that which bu the capacity cf
having a •oul" ( 414&26), ,~ which ia ttui
different froa the deacr1pt1oa of
aena1t1ve and cosn1tint racult1... "
••na1t1Ye and oognit1¥e tacult1.. of
•oul are potent1all.t thea• objeota, rls ,
the aenalble and the lmowable. •(4)tb2.5
tn the cue of the aoul &DCl 'bod7,
actualisa tion ia tb&t of a tom t.o 1•terial, 1 ta aaterial be1ft«&n neent1tJ.
part of u;e-roraulat.lon.
The 1fa7 In
which tn. aena1 t1 •• &nd cop! U" taoult1e~ are &etu&l1Hd 1a t.hnush tbe11' ~-
r
13
---....
�14
1 '- u
V G
Ul U
e I'
l 0,
.1 d
I "'i
ception of a fora, and they are alwayJ
ln a state either of potentiality or ac•
tuality (whereas, aan ia always actual).
the actuality of the sense organa cou~
atitutes what Aristotle calls aecona
•ctuality, exeaplified by the aan wno
poaaeaaes and is exercising knowledge.
More specifically, that these faculties
aay be spoken of aa becoaing is reaaon
enough to aay that their potential! ty is
different froa that of the body, sinctt
the body is not body or potential w1 thout the soul, whereas the faculties are
faculties and potential without
the
presence of the actuali~ing agent,
"One need no aore ask whether body
and soul are one than whether the
wax and the iJipresaion 1 t rece1 ves
are one, or in general whether the
aatter of each thing is the saae
u that of whicb it is the aattera
for adaitting that the teras unity
and being are used in many senses,
the paraaount sense is that of actuality." (412bS)
But in the cue o.f the aensi tive and
cognitive faculties it is aost 1aportant
to a&intain the distinction between the
fora, supplied by the actualizing and
actual exterior objects, and the matter.,
the faculties,
The fora of the sense
object properly belongs to the sense ob,jecta aatter and the matter of the faculties is properly 'formed' by their es~
•ence, which is their ability to receiv~
fhe whole which is a cognition or a pe~
ception is not the aaae aa a whole which
ls a functioning body or an eye which
can see,
(Nevertheless, other parts or
~ Aniaa aeea to indicate that for Aria ..
totle knowledge depends on the potentia~
to actual relationship being the same in
both cues.
Thia will be cliscuase(l
later, At any rate, the above stataaenie
"'!:'.
�The St. John's Review
are true and to regard the potential 1o
•ctual relat1oDah1p u the aaae • ._. io
require a different penpect1Ye.)
Since both the copiUYe u4 ,.roe
tlve tacult1• are undentood in te
of aoaethins potential 'beoolliftC actua ,
it 1a pod to exaaine tba relaUOM
d1at1nct1ona between the two. SO.e d1 .rerencea aay neoeaa1 tate or oauae
judg1ft8 faculti" of each to be ditte
ent, u a1a1l&r1 ties aay 1apl.y analoci
or 1dent1t1ea 1n j~nt.
'ftle a1Dd. doe• not haft a part of Ute
body to which 1 t corm ponda. Hence, i ~
actualit7 ia deacribed u that which ce
think bJ that which 1• thiDitable.
"Both Jmowled«e aDd aenaatioaa are
41 Yided to co:rrea pond to t.M1r o bjecta, the potential to the potential, and the actual to the actual.
'!be aenai t1" and cogai Uv. taoultiH of the aoul an potent1all7
tbeae objeota, rt11., the Hnaible
and the knowable." ( 4 )1 b24)
That which 1a thinkable &N tbe ....n
of thinp - 1 t 1a appropziate that
wbleb hu not utter, the aind, rela
to Haeaoea that qua ... . - a . . ·
llil e
bo aa tter.
'lbere doea not .... to be
•fticient cauae tor the oocurence t
thoucbt, u in the cue of the aena1 U
faoul ty the aenae o bjecte are the efie
tift c•u•ea of aenaation. S.nae objeo
t.re that whi oh aakea ••ne• organa
lii• theuelYH, which 1 t can do a1
tbe7 &l"a capable of be1n, all th1
••na1 ble. But u for tJw etnc1ent oa
w•-
~t
tho\lcht, Ariatotle hotl7 rehtea
sta~ta ot h1a predeceaaon, wtlb 1cl
that tboll&ht wu equatabl.e vi
percept1oa. leM*Wa., tt ta ,...1
~~met to np:rcl .,_ ao~ye a1a4
the efficient eoa- of th1Dk1ac. •~
kl~w'U• ..,., actift a18d 1a .._.• ..,
olaftct
15
�16
November 18, 1974
thing else which is their cause or agen~
1n that it aakes thea all" (111,5). Sb
even though the aind properly does not
have a part of the body to which it co~
responds, it still has an efficient
cause, whose aatter is in the passive
aind. Sense objects and active •ind a~
analagous in being efficient causes for
sensat ion and thought, and since sen~
objects are actual and always thus, so
is the active aind.
This provides an
explan£ ·. ~ o n of what Aristotle says about
it -- "When isolated it is its true self
an~ ~o th ing more,
and this alone is i•ao:t .a.1 s.. ~J everl uting and w1 thout this
nothing thinks" (I1I,5). Since active
a1nd ia pure actuality, it cannot have
· ·::··, "'':.'l ri al , in the sense of matter.
• .. ... .Jea, though, have uterial by holding t ~'l.a f ora o f thought in 1 t.
The d.iB f.i nct i on between thinking aqd
sensing which holds because the one ~
aoaething bodily and the other doesn ~ t
is irrelevant• since their potential! tiels
becoae actualities through the
s ..e
process, the only difference correapon41ng to the difference in their objec~,
aens1 bles and thinka bles.
It should ~
reaeabered that 1 t is only when a thiqg
aay only be called actual that 1 t 1a ~-
ways true.
W th this 1 n a1 nd, and the
1
d1st1nct1ona
between
sensation
and
thought, what Aristotle saya conoeriling
the judging facul tiea of the soul &lld
the erring oapaci ty begins to aake un1 ted sense.
"But, since we also distinguish
whl t. and sweet and coapare all
o bjeota perceived with each other, .
by what sense do we perceive that
they differ? It auat evidently be
by aoae aenae that we peroe1 ve the
differenoe a for tbeJ are objeota
ot aenae • • • nor 1a 1 t acain poe-
.i
�'fhe St. John)s H.e·view
17
s 1 ble to judg~> tha t s Heet and
white are differ~nt by separate
senses, but both mu.'5 t oo i tleat)..y
presented to a. 81 ncle st::rnse •••
That which asse rts the difference
must be one J for S\oT'3et differs
from white. It. is t he sr.wne faculty
then, that assert.a th!.BJ hence as
it asserts, so i t thinks and perceives.h (426b1 2-2J) ,
Thla.t is speaking of the judging faowlty in perception and thts o f the Judging
faculty in thought. and t he relation i !
t
has to the judging facul t~; i n porcept1oo.
"Now it is by
'.h•:; CE':'· i~i-d. v e faculty that we ju.-.,:)·o r;.;. t and cold,
pn>b'..tt 1 t
t ~;:l&iii' ~ ei tblr
nl .:.n tea to 1 t
in tbe au• 'i-4.1.~,, ~ 1.~ b'\!i:ot 11M to
i taelf' whltn. pt:. 1.1.s:~,;~ ~~.~-~.;. e?. :\.ra!&ht,
that WG judp ~~}~ ~ .,:, i$~J:'h,.4} Of fl..a
Again,
aac; ~
ztb~ ; .ra,~,·~
ttbjecta,
'atbight 40 ~- ~ ~.:'~..i~ ,,~ ' <!·h .l b.,.noMd, ~
tor 1 t 1a ~lw~ "..c:~ 1.t:n0d w1 t..~
oxtenaion, but J.. - . (;llt~sc:noe, it
u
'•trai«ht ~ &nd •,,t:a:'.ghtz..•tt• r~ are
not the aue, is ~~•'ti'!i..a« dltt'orontt lot ua 0&11 i ~ ~~;;.~ll ty. '!'hentore, we j'l.ld~; :i. t by &c~o t.her tae•
ul ty, or by ti1e &.J.tr,•3 ff~ <H.tl t7 1D a
d1 ftenn t r>!i lati ou
l~10. e peakiq
and Clll
<' i :r:··fl!~ ~.\10
q t;.al i t) e ;'j
portion cona t;;.;:., tt: ·vt~
ia by a dl!'fo£!N1.: 1 t
qui ill die ti nct, ~r
f}~!~ ;;, i
$
genera.ll,y 11 u
fl'Oil
" uJ- •~tii u "' •~pa.rabLt
a~" ~e. are t.be
their aa t w r
correaponding
faa~l~\~~
aind. • (429b1.5-22)
!he laat reference
•11'\e aoul
l.a
to
li ~-!.~
ot the
j~~unt.
a~.. t~
1••
la
d1at1Jl81liabt•d . tJ:r -·~t,a!c
the judging catacl ty
ia a
function of the iu·u)·1J. ~~tJt u4 ot
aeneat1on coabinod ,. .. e . . (4')2.&15-17)
'1be 1a pl1 e& t1 an, c·-r t.iH! Uui t tMo t~U.
�-·"
18
1~uvernoer
ltl,
J~/':i
juqiq ta.cul tJ ooaoemed
ta.oup~ aq be tbe .... ... tbl
la tM.t tbe
fr1 tb
Judci.. faoul ~7 oonceme4 w1 ~ penepU.oa - "we j\ldp 1 t. • • by the .... faatal ~1 ( aa tbe aeaa1 tiw facul t7) 1n a dit.terent relation" or "41ffenntl.7 di_..
poaed".
Aa perception 1• prior ' . .
tbov.pt, pnauaab]J" the act of peroepti"
judpaent 1a prior~ oopitive ~
MDt.
Tbia aakea our ald.l1tr to Juqe
1atelleotu&l.l7 depeD4ent upon our ald.l-o
l t7 to aate diatiaoUona bet..en objeo.
of aeaae not ooacemed vi tb tM • •
aeue orpn, aucb u aveet aDd bot. Tb11
tepeDd.eoe 1a &D&lopua ~ the depeDcl~
•aoe that the tb1ak1q pari of tn. aoul
baa oa 1Jaacea pz"Ovid.ed by the aena1 ti
part - which 1a tbe a&Diler 1a wlllch
peroepUon 1a prior.
Tbe inte~leotu+
~DC facult7 (tbe aena1tive racul.tJ
in a different relation•) 1• ooajJnbeJ».
aible, therefore, in te~a of the aenai~
U•e facnaltr, beiq the .... thlq, bu~
ooaoemect vi tb 41f:terent u peota of ~
Ill Uon, ODe vi th aeui blea and on. vi tb
WllkalU.... 'lbat wbich uaert. tbe di:t...
terence between 41f:terent object. ot
tboqht 1a oae :t&CN1t7, thn, aDd taW
aaae 1n all
_or · tb1a_
l'hla 1a vba t • judpa the •••aoe ot
n...h". HoveYer, a aat1afac~17 41aouaa1oa of exactlr wbat that aeaaa entaila
a 41a~1on of S••pnation ud error.
Ariatotle •&18 of error la perceptiot~
Y•
c-••
-•rU-..
that
"'!be peroepUoa o:t
proper o bjecta
ia true, or 1a oal7 oapa'ble of erzor to the leut poaaible d.esree.
hxt ooa.. peroeptioa that the7
an attn butea, aa4 here a poaai•
bll1 t7 of orzor at once arlaeaa
for peroepUoa doea not err 1a
pezoe1rtnc tbat u objec~ 1a vh1 te
but ODl7 u to vbetber the wb1 te
objeot 1a ne tblnc or another
-
----
----
- -- -
,
'
�(e.g. th• sou of
Cl~~~)~
ThirdlJ
coaee parc•Ji th~n of tb~ OOIUIOD
a ttri butea wtU c.h
&!U:o.apany the
ooncoa1 tan t. to ~hi.,h'- t iW.tl JQ:OpQ'
aenalblos ~lon~ {I ~*an , • ~ g.,
aotion and u.gn:~tud~ )~ i t 1s about.
theae t.h& t error ios zt· ~ t likely to
occur.• (428b18 )
and, of error 111 thinking ~
•1ba thinking c f indi ~1 s1bl., (liD•
d1 Yided) ob,} eeta
•t
thought oceun
aaonc
thl~~p
oon~n.inc which
there can be no f&U.Mhl.>o4a wben
truth and fra.:t.ealvo~od ~<.n poaa1ble
there ie 1npl1ed ·'- ooJepoundlq of
thought 1.nto a. t'r..tash un1 ty 9 • • • tor
falsehood aJ.Wi ..;n& JJ.fhJ i n 'tbs proo•
eaa of ooab1nA.tlon 9 !o1• if a calla whl t • !!!c t-l'rbi ~~. be hu coabined the ·1c ttol~ n:,·~ t: ...,~:.(.:\1 t." •
In the CUfJ of ~rr.on of pereapU~
the blue 1• aidd to H.9 1411 th Judci ·,
since aak1ng the s tate.•nt 1n one•a
tbat a wM te thin« 1a a oertaiD • •
thins 1e a jud(iaeet~
It 1a aot, ~ ner, the percepti•• ~"Dt J.rlatotle
apeata of • which 1ft ~ d.i E~ ~Uea.
Tbia judpaent, at tri bu·'tMl of q.U u-.
1a akin to 1U€l.nation.
•xt iaag1nat1on (.,p .rt t r . &117
aetaphortca.l aena4i O th~ wod.) 1a
·f
t.be proceail b7 wbJ oh we 88¥ tbat
&D i.aa«e 1a J'l1:'eNDt.d '4c .... , 1 t 18
one of th.oaft ta.cul.Ue• oa- atatee
ot ai!Kl by which n jvd~ &DCl an
e1 tber right or ~•« .
Ap1 D all
Mna&Uon. an t..%·u•,
but aoa t ia-
..
qiaaUooe are f &l• •· •
After U.O•tn.UDC t hat t.uciu.U•
(4/CII'VI'~w) 1a Mi't.Mr , pinOD or .....,..
i.loa, or &n7 ~e1lll• . .~u- ct
•pillion ua4 Mau.tioa, .&.rlatoU. • • •
11bat 1a
1aaginat.ic.m ~
•x..paaUoa 1a w 'bl.nd of tbl
··
�= -- - - = - " - - - =- --=-· --- - .__
20
November 18, 1974
peneption ef wb1 te vi th the opin1• that it ia whit.e ••• to 1aac1ne,
thea, 1a to tom aa op11lioa exaot-
17 oonuponding to a direct peroept1on.•
Aristotle ie using opinion -It' I....., ttquiTOe&lly.
At any rate, that eeeaa
to be the case, since aaediately after
denying that
1aag1nat1on is opinion
alone, or opinion in conjunction with
anytbing else, he sa.ye that bagination
ia to f'onr. an opinion. The explanation of
the ~ouivocation lies in exaain1ng what
1a aflq,nt by opinion in the first sense.
•:sut oplmon a plies belief (tor one
eannot hold opiulone in which one doea
not believe) J and no animal hu belief,
'bl t
aany haTe
iaagination.
Again,
en ~
~p t r· !. · rs ~ -~ ~.ce:- "",'ipan1ed by
tlellef,
bellef by cr· :w1 ,. ,t.i .o:n • ~:. nd conviction byrationa.l
discourse. •
'Ibis .t:kia
inTolYed with
the aind, a fo:na
of
thought. It is the aesertion that a
tbought one baa 1s true, correaponda
to real1 ty. The J'o~ ~ tbat 1a illagiaaUon 1• an
uaert1on
of a aiailar
nature,
but 1nTolTed vi th
perception and not thinking. It 1a uaert1on of the exia tenee of vhat 1a
percei Ted. '!be equi Yo cal usage of tbe
word. is another inatance of the anal.oQ
between perception and thought, one uae
applJiag to aenai blea, the other to
tbizatabl... Tbe aaaertion of ena-.oe
1• tbe a.aon gnuad.
Therefore, imagination is the judgeaent that something exists, on the sensory level. Imagina t1on is particularly
aeaningful and particularly prone to error
when 1 t opines that a perceived attribute
belongs to soaething.
Iaag1n&t1on, the
faculty of attribution, 1s the agent of
error in perception. It is possible that
one of the --.etaphorical senaea ot t.q. .
�\.
The St. johns Keview
21
~~~· 1a idewolYed w1 tb thinking.
Dlacr1a1n&t1Ye jud.geasnt, aa HqUoned earlier, diffen t"'''Ol aa..
judgeaent.
To reach the end ot ·_..~
• tanding what 1 t aeana to "juq. tM ....
aence of neah" requires a coaaexiOD
tween the two. rua will be towwt 1• ~
:ogni tive analop of d1acr1Jliaat1on &Qd
uaertion, eaained w1 th reprd to e:n:o~.
Jforct" 1• the aenae in which
rU.
'*
In the cue ot intellectual enor, •
opposed to percept! ve, error ia pc.aible
prior to the judpaenta aade. "Iaacination alwa;ya 1apl1es perception, aDd S..
lteelf iaplied b,y judgeaent." (427bt6)
Since iaagination ic capable ot el'TQ~,
judgeaent (Jne).~l''!), bued on 111q1Jiat1on, ia &lao ca.pablca of ernr. Dlescriainative judpaent (~e,rv•) and any
ot the Jud.6-enta deptlnding on ueerUon
(.)ne~'Y•-" are int1aatel.Y connect.d in
thoupt. Incidentally, error ia poaai})l:o
1n the aind not only becauae ~qt
1apl1ea 1aaginat1on butalao becau.e opinion iaplpnc Judgn.•nt 11 there &rid
capable of error.
D1acr1ainat1ve j~nt, Kf'i la'u, ia ;a
single, undivided facul t1 with the ,Pdaary reaponaibill t1 of d1fferent1at1-'«
between the objecta of different Hnaea
and the different objects of tboupt.
The type of judpaent, .;~Col'l'f'r• ~
which error ia . d1rectl7 aacrl bed ia tije
proceae in which exiatenoe, in the ca..
ot peroeptlbl.-. Mill. u.th 1a the ..,..
of thinkable• ia aaeerted. tor exaap~,
that whi t.ia, that vhi te which I perce1w
is John •a ahirt, or a aquare bu to;
··
equal a idee. 'lbeae an aaaertiou abo t
th1fl88 be1ond their aiapl"t aeaaild.ll
which doea not require conTictioa ot e~
iatenee and beyond (or below) contaplation of the •••nee of a thin&, u
1ded thought which 4oea not 1nYolw tru'\h
or falsi t1.
I
UD41v-
�November
22
18l 1974
n.
relatitUl of t.De .tuJsr ent.a ln t.bp
.,_plUw taftlt¥ 1a exlatantial aDfl
a,..s..p rr.
.pu..
"'*1Z'
.n.euou
in tiM ,.
fa-.lt.,. ~ ...u..
*ob la oapable •f en"Or •1aoe, witbo
de~Dda on
&1ftenat.lat1nc
~t.
«tttennt1at1nc t.twea 41tterent .....
.• ejecta an4 •1 tbeut 'beinc able to cSo
•1aul taa•o•l7 • t.b1nk1DS about the •
nnce •t a thiDtt or ho141nc tM tom or
• thine 1n tna a1Dd woul4 be virtuallJ
lapoulble. Thiakiac ot a th1ft8 DeOea11 tatea tbe ooanetion that 1 t exiata1
t-oldiq 1 t, tbat 1 t . 18 true. Thinkiq
lepelllla on the pnaence of an iaap 01'
"uaUoa aDd DO aeu1ble object exiet,
J-rlnc only one aenalble. In ad41 tion•
WD1t1n,c about the essence of a thine
bol41n« 1 t u r. aepara te fora 1e la~
11ble unleaa it is d1ffero11t1ated ~
,J.l other exiat.nta in reall t;y. In .P
aak1nc that differentiation--and the
I
oosnitive d1ecr1a1nat1on depends upon tbt
percept1 ve-1nforaatlon ie gathered
d8tem1n1ng tri'!t things • eaaence. B:rror
1• aanif•et when th• •nencee of two •»1a·tente rt.re coab1ned. To be more specitn.c, 1 t ia not poee1ble (as ArietotlJ.
•&7•) to have error about a staple oor»cept, but d1fferen·t1ation a.utomatica.l.l¥
1aplS..e a ooaparieon between the eaaenoe
pr the aenaa t1on ot one thing with U.
Naence or attri butea of another, aDd 1a
'*
:r-
therefore ~pax. Neverthelese, when •
concept ia reco8111Md and held in the
pua1Ye aind, 1 t ia then poats1ble for the
active aind ·to think of 1 t e1aply.
'!be judctnc tacul t14a ot uaertion and
.Ufferent1at1on do not involve the actual!1u.Uon o1' & potential in the aaae eenae
aa th&t of ••nea tlon and thought, where •
•en•1 bl.e or i.binka.ble a.etua.l1see the aen•1 U ve or cognt ·ti Ye faeul ty. 'l'be7 are
actualiaed 1o. act1cn u a soul actuall&ea
·----- ---
·-
-
-
-
�The St. John's Review
23
Judging ia ina t1ga t.d. by tile
aan. Judgeaent uaea, however, the ei:ro~
less in:foraation gathered b7 two errorlee
aoti vi tiea--ktlowing and 411'eot non-at.trt.buted perception. Error ia aade when t11e
soul aaaerta attributes and differentiates, and this ia why 1 t ia in error II08't
of the tiae. It would be a H&niqleeli,
if errorless, existence for the soul to
only recognize sweet, hot, white, b1 tter,
and veta it would be iapoeaible for~
soul to be in the very aeani11«ful errorleas state of knowing without ucewUnc
throll6h the errl.ng faculties of aenaaUoa, iaagination, opinion, and tho-.h't:.
Aristotle says that error aDd:~
ledge are the aue vi th regard to op~
1 tea.
Knowledge ia o bt&ined the . . .
way that error is, and the "jl.ldp the • •
aence of neah" is to hold an idea ot ~
eaaence which aa1 be right or W1'0JII bit
ia held in the aaae way, and iD tbe ~
ai ve aind, To draw art anal.OQ bet."'
thia and aenae perception, ao aa to \111deratand the role of aou.Y. aind 1a -~.
la ••M. "lor do . . aq 'I 1•-cl¥
that 1 t 1a a aan' vben our aenae 1• fuaeft1on1ng accuratel.y w1 tb regard to 1 ta o..
ject, but only wben " do not peroei•
dis Unctly." ( 428&1.5).
Sinoe uU~
aind 1a the apnt ot kDowleqe ud . _
only be right and wbea tunctioatac ~
1dent1e&l. w1 th 1 ta object, hol.d1DC ~a
thinkable through ita apnc:r 1e 111te
our aenae ia tlmct.t.onizac aooun.telJ w1
the body.
l
regard to 1 ta object. • Iaaci•U•la
quote 1a oppoeecl to the aoouate
:twlotiOD, aDdu opiaiea 1a t.be ..-.~~
t1on ot the tbo\llbt taeul t7, w _ , •
poee op1D1oa to tba '· hllotloa •t t111e
t1.- a1D4. Tbua, aoU.,. aiM 1a ne
a1ble tor tbe oearteUoa that '\bfi. ._._
.OlM tboupt 1a . tna &Dtl tam., ...14. ~ ·
U.iaa111 1 t.-
.. • -r at•••.
~·-a-ettlllll
U.. ..........
�...
N
=talrt !liit!~;i~t:lllli~
1
;;i,Ji:!liTf!lfJ'l
1
r· flf!· r(:~rr!ll~l 1 • f • 111~~14' i
!iS '~~~~~~
t a!-1 ~~~i ·,~,1. 1•1 ~~~::,
~~~~i
1~~~,I fa .I~a• :: ... :a ~ •f ! f f -l ~! f! ~ .. a· • f r .. f • f r.! . .
:J ::;
t
... -
~
.... ._.. ~ ...,:,ar i w~ ••
~- • 1- - ·~~·~ ~...
• ~[~ ~r i~i f ~~
a
. .
...~
·t
~cl;' r;~ ... •
i~
~
.· .
-" ~
~~~-Mc~~f~ll~~~:~ .. ~~~!~ ~-~~~~ ~~~~~~~! ~)r~ -- .
..... . •. f;ia,,~ ~I e:!i~~~~ at.. f!. I i .. a~~ ~-
...
·•
•am·g
··- • I
f'
• . ... • c. ~
.... ~
•
.il&lit-r-~~~li'i
f~
fl~~c ...
..
..
~
tlli-i-i-f.-ww-r~ -- ·
�tor MUoa, u
w .... 1a
1a,.,...,
aa u-
Unt, ot till
11M ...
UYl\71atM a-.laWIPP.. tMt
1a uUY1\7 et ~
la
tittenat.• ('31&11).
n. aot1o11 in aenaat1on 1• of peZ'feoted
objecta, or an object and a facnal.t7. It
1a th1a that.. Ariatotle choollea aa the d4tacr1pt1on of how the soul CUl pther e:rI'Orleu 1nfo:raatio.n. '!be .....- facult7
nMda, for knowledp, to not be altez-.d
in any wa7 bJ the p~eeaaea of aenaat1on,
and 1 ta aore or leaa pure potenUall t7 ~·
the bu1 c condition neeeaa&rJ tor lmo"led.ge, or tor the aenaatioa neceaa&rJ tor
knowledge.
'I'M aubat.ance that ia a aoul apprehends the aubatancea and all other oai•
e«oriee ot tbe un1 yerae by ini t1all7 -..
coaing identical with their ae.nee to~
i t they haft o.ne, and then ~ th tbe~r
eaeence. The proceaa of thousbt baa ai~ been· cleacrtbed. However, t.be ta4ulty vhich enablea tboucht, U. aotlw
aind, 1a a till Yei'J UDolea.r. To dete~
aiDe vhat it ie 1a tae111tate4 ._ •1. .
oae of Ariatotle'a ·~•ted ..-tbeda ctt
1nqu1r.y, to exu1.ne the object that oo~
napoDda to the part ot tM aoul.
Acu. . aind ia like tba nx-t Mo••:;
rela tine to tt. nat of the
'boc11 aa the Firat JloTer rel&tee to
univeree. It aaba all the
in tt. aoul, &ad ' the nrat IoYer 1•
cauae of all aubetance and aotio.n, tbo
it of courae 1a unao•ed.
•But if tben 1a Q7thin& vhicb
hu no contrar1, 1 t 1c nlt-oocntaant, actual and aep&ratelJ exiatant. • (an &l temate tnnal&UoW
,_.,..tM,
••111
tboupta:
•:aut
if then 1a &DTtbi.D« HIM oae
of tbe cauaea, which hu ao OPJIIN•
1 te, then thla v1lllmow 1 taelf _ .
1a acUYitJ aD4 dlaUnot.~)OU')
�November 18, 1974 ,.
26
Becauae the Plnt Mover baa no contrary,
l ta correapoDdiq facul t7 &lao hu no
contrary. Thia aeana that active aind
trill not err. Yet, deapi te the aiail.ar1 tiea, 1 t 18 ditficul t to iaacine in what
la&llller act1Ye aind. rel.&tea to the nnt
MoYer. I think that the anaver 11ea 1n
nprcUnc active a1nd aa the ftret Mo..r
of tbe aoul. It will thua be that which
cauaea aot1on. 'nll• preaeDta ob¥1oua di1-u, u Aria totle aaJII that
te
ia the cauae of aotion.
la olear, then, that aoftuat
la cauae4 bJ auch a faoul tJ of the
aoul u
we have deacr1 becl, Yis.,
that which 1a called appetite.•
But appetl w needa, or 1apl1ea, 1aag1oat1on and here ia the aolutloll of the
pzoblAa.
To the extent that knowledp
la the final eDd of all the proceaaea Orr
the aoul, 1 t la the final cauae ot 1aag1nat1on.
C&uainc laacin&t1on, 1 t wil,l.
alao be the oauM ot appet1 te. which 1ft
t\lftl la the cauae ot aoUon.
It act1Ye a1Dd 1• the ao-calle4 n.rat
tlowr of the aoul, to 1 t a&J be 1aputed
all the quall Uea of the n.nt MoYer but
wl th rep.rd to the parta of the aoul
rather than the parte of the un1Yera•·
Vbat doea 1 t . .an to aa1 that a au ta
•uall'l' h1a actlft latelleot? In tex*
ot neulta, lt aay M&D that he 1• doinc
anyWnc at all alnoe the acti .a alnd 1a
n.,oaa1 ble for everyth1 ng done by U.
aoul. Howeftr, 1a another aenae, a aan
a&1 be ulnc or havln« actl.,. aind whe
he la th1Dkiq &D4 thlntinc tnth1Ul1.
He approachaa active aind aa tba a tam
approach the nrat Mover.
IDowleqe 1a
1deaUcal with lta object u the ••MDOH of thine- are ln a aeue 14eat1•
oal with the ftnt MoYer, 'but tblnki~
ud •'boclle4 eaHnoea &lw~ 1aplJ .q..
tlOD. Aou. . a1D4 la &lao the aouroe dt
,.,,.u
"'t
�T'he St. John's Review
27
aetaJ)h1111oal &XiOM wblcb aan
to tb1nll - lqio.
x.,to 1a tbl oM
ln tbo\llht aDd apriap tna &OU" a1
u
order 1a tM •1YeW. oJ"1ciaa-.
tbe rlnt llo'Yel". Thill 1a hew. the MU
a1n4 I'Miciea 1a II&D.
SuppcNied.lr, np.Z'd.iac actlft a1D4 •
u. nnt lloYel" of tbe Hu ... to
1n 41aoerrdna the aaDMr 1a tlblob ..u•
a1ftd relatN to the nnt lloftl'.
~
apin, a ntun to the exteul'" ,...~
lel1• betwen HDM &ad thoup\,
u4 -•nee, 1• DeOMMZ'J.
tt.t.
what Aristotle ..,. ooaoen1.. the
laUon ot aenae objeota to tDI
taoultr aho\lld. baw a be&ri.ac ea the r+lat1on ot acUYe alDd to tM rlnt. . .._.
,s.... tbl puallel1•.
• •• ,taw act1nt.r ot tbe MM1ble
ucl 01 tbe . . .1UY«~ la tM - ·
tboush their ....... 1• 41ttenat..
HMrill« 1D the UUYe - ceu• or OODUa• alaalt.DM•ll
vl th tbe aoa4. aa4 ao 111tb ft&yev .aad..tMta: .. . . ,._~, ,but
W.. cloea DOt. aptl,f te tblir ,._
t.be
••P
•'*
1••
r+-
••+
-t,
tent.1&11
u... ,_
euller •taal
pblloeopben wen at. tult 1a tiWI,
tllat. wid. ... ~·
. . . ao exlata• w1 ta.Mt. ..Ul••
au tlaw.v witbftt tute. Ia .... tM7 ._. ~ t.t la uotber wruce fol" tM tema
••,..1..
•••a-
a...tllle "lat _ . u
U.. - • • • • tla&t . i.e ,.tleU•)lJ
&D4 a.o-.llJ,
t.Mlr dM8 t ?tl
appl.J to tM l&t* el••• '-" ..t
Uoa &IIIII
-
tM , ...... , ....1~,0).
lo, . ., •lb't -ltalet .. _ , .
wlthMt • • •u..
!Mt - u
~ lJI . . . . .
-1• ·... . .···tw. lea't. _,,.. _
* - • w ..
lt.
...
al~ llltllnt-at.a.-. U. •
---•
.. •t. ean tlltt ., . . - .._..
,.teaual~.
_
�28
November 18, 1974
It ..ullalea ud. tbe aeuitiw
fa~
t7 doD 1 t exiat w1tho•t eaoh other, clio
ut.i'N a1D4 aDCl tba ftnt Mover? Ill tbe
- • aeue, no.
'lbe eaiaeat17 Jmowab.JA.
rlnt llo"r la bowD oel.7 in eo tar •
HMW.nc exlata to bow it. Tb&t ia •tv
aotiw a1Dd 1a etenal. At &D7 rate, tbl
poaal 'blll t7 of tM DOa. .xla tenoe of •lt.ber oae 1a lapoea1ble tor MD a1noe tM
act of oonoeptien require• tba t wbleh
aoYM 1 t, U.. uti w Iliad.
Thla • tlie
taterd.epen4nee et the two, la actually
DOt 4ependent on tM pan.ll•ll• betw-.a
tM prooe•••• of aeuatlOD aDd thoucbt
tor u4entabd.lzac. , Ill4M4, it 1e DOt
pnper to clraw the ~017• aince t.be
actlw a1n4 ucl the n.rat Mover an, tor
tbe ~·· of II&D &D4 the un1Yerae,
oa•"•
Leslie Graves
.
�29
Because of lovea aad trensied tiaea sone
1:cr,
I ai t all cloiatend, cold, u 1D a cella
I a1 t and watch,
&
a tam aedieftl lie,
Denpng eipa of wara that breatbe u4 ••ll.
Soon lite, created llte a aoft conch tleah,
Presents itaelft
&
abell ao blnt and t\tll
ot d1 thyraa bic twi tob and Baochio tbreeh,
That et&ra are aown, besot of aoon-ticle'a pull.
A tonsured aont not I, not nov vt.n all
I aee ia green aDd tull of double grace1
Conetellar tacea shine &Del apart to aaall
Way far in night
to break tbe bleak of apace.
So aov to act, do which I know aoae-wiae
Will open doon, ay eyea, to Para41ae.
�UNE PETITE CHANSON
by Gerry Ekman
very slowly
i\
tv4- - - -
~
--- - - -
- -
,I
/ / r...
l
~~
;
[7
i
"~ -
---
PP
-
.p.
_j .
.
/
'
M'T
~
-,
~
I .
,}
L
"
T
I
I
/
I/
.M-....,.-
/
,,. ......,
-
I
I
,
I
T
f7
f/
1i
I
~-
v
T
,H ,
,..I
I
I
/
r
l.j
,J
I
.l
,.
/
•
7
.M"
I • ..,..
J
I"J•
I
4
,/
I
7
I/
,...,
I
I
'*
·"
I
~
~
I
rL' /
7
'-'1
.
r
,-
off"
I
-
..
1/
l
J,
---.
J
lfl'
(/
I)
I
.i
I
3
•I
--
--- -- - -
---
1-
T.
v
I
- - - ·- - .;_ -
-
.A
,
v
I
-- -
-
I
~
/
1~
/J
I
"
.I
r
I
I
v
1.4-
I
l
.!
·v
b
-·
v
.I
LY
T
I
l
I
I
/
...
�The St. John's Review
31
pour MONSIEUR CHARLIE
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ e.tc .
-·
- --
.-
- --
- ~1- ~-- ~-~-=~=-=-~
r- - - -- - - - - - - - - r - - - - - ----
~
I
)
t___ ,__ ~ - --- ~ ---· - ~----~-- ~= ~----==-=======
-- - - -_etc
wP
. ~;,;J~~~t_:-_=::- -·~ ,; :
.
_
------ - --- _/2·
,.........._
-.
- -
__,_
,(
I
I
I
..
~
1--- -
~
.
~L
..
,
"1
I
I
•
....I-.......
,
.
I
I
•
..
~
l
I
'"
_,
b
I
I
•"'
I
"
I
,...
• I
~
I
I
I'
f)
&J.
I
l".
~T
/I
I
~
_. I
··
I
.
I
I
_.I
-"'·
I
, ,
I
,;
·-
/
I
~ I
.. I'
(/
~-
..
I
I
./.
I
, ..
1~
"".
,
I
l
.
�November 18, 1974
-
[)
/
f
1~.
_.....,
I
++ ,
17
I
I
I
~·
1..._____,
I
..
I
I
/"""&
..
.
,...~
•
I
I
I
\
r
rit.
-----1 gv4
...,.
1
J
-
0
,
L
l
J
II
~
/
""'\
\--....._
/
v
l
,
~
1'\.
I
,
.,
~
,
I
...
.....
I
\
,
I
.
~
,
I
\
,..
,
~·
--.,.
~
-.,
'
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
,
/
..v
l
.,...
/
l
-
,
I
,
r
/
,--.._
/'
~·
. ..,.
..
I
,
..........
-
I
I
~
I
,
I
-~
l
71
I
...
v
I
...J
I/
I
I •
I
ff__
~
l . AJ
"
.,
I
I
I
~
II
I
/
r-...
.......
.... 1
I
v
.. , ,..
I/
,
.
....
I
,.. -f'
I
-f
I
I ""
r 'I
f
,.....
/I
I
j/
,;-
'
-
l
f
I
...,.
....
I
....
-.I
II
n
I
..\
.. •
ofT
,,
,
.. I
.. l
I
I
1
~
·~
..
-·
I
.
J
.
I
;
...
A
I
•-
.-.....
J
I·'
I
I
r
~·
r
,
~
t'
I
I
1/
I,
~
I
I
"'
'
.....l
..
�The St. John's Review
tr)d
. ---,
~""
l
,.,
,
_l
,
I
1"'- ,_
I
~-·
]
I
I
,
r
I
,I
•
I
........
i
,
r
I
_.
I
~
-
,
I
··-··
1/
J/
I,
I
..
,
/I
_.
,
,
1
.,
. ......
I
t
.,........-,
.J_
_,__
I
,_..]_
r
,
I
../7
1
I
I
I
I
l_L
I
_l
I,
I,
,I
,
1....
..
I
2
I
I
~·
..
I
........
.........
J
,
I
A
_I
,J
f'-
/'
,
........
I
, ~·
_l_
,
L
.,
~
~
I
I
I
n
f
II
!
I
I
I
I/
I
'
/
J
_.,...;
~
•
[_'
l_
, ~·
..
I
~
·- I
..,.
_.}_
'
I
J
..
I
I,.-
1
r
,
I
I
11
·"
I
I_
I
l/
.,
A
I_
I
-R_
I
1 L
~·
I
6
..,__l
I
'" """'
J
~
__ ..f-
,
'"
•
I
_.I
I
•
I
..
-·
,
I
... P
,
33
I
~
~~
�November 18, 1974
34
u _:
:
:t- ~g
__
:
~-~-+-------'---~--t_( ~- --- - ~-~:
·:~~-~---=
~--+--~-+---+--t--+-_E:~:a· ~--~t
-+-- - - - -·· ___, --- · ·--· ·- -_ _ _ _,________
~:q_--~-J--::___
~ \)
-
I
It
.... ,J
~
/
I~
'
,
I
,I
,J
"
\_..
-n .
I
7
"\}
~
""'
,
I
"
r7
\ J 1"'-J
\., ,...
7
..
~
..
-:I
'~
"
,I
II
I
1
,
'
.t
,.
I
~'
•
�«lv~---------- de
I
""
fu +
1
_l
,..
_l
'
-
,I
t otMd
(r
_{_.........
~J
_l
1
I
~
L1
,
r
J
, .,
,
rit.
!v~---------- ct~
...t 'to
,,
~
I
_L
,
I/
I
..1
_j
I
~
l
'
/
I
n
v
,
I
..........
I
'
I
,
..
..,
·"
I
11
I'
II
j_
I
I
~
r-:
- ,
.L
_,
1
.I
~
·~
_t•
l
~.
1
..--,
I
I
..
..._
.,
I
'-
I
r
,....
'
I
.,
/
,
II
j_
..
II
__!
f
.,
""'
r
I
1
..,
...
-
.L_
~
..
,.
l
l
I
l
I
'
1L
l
I
·I
.I
J
I
,
r ~·
r.#
,..
'
.I
l
,...._
I
~
./
~
I
'I
.I
I
..
l
,.
\..
....
-:..
�r'J
/ V'
// L
I
M-
I
./
__,
(
r
........
~
. .,
..:
~
I
I
I
~
,
~
,I
'«'
1111
J
'
'
~
1-=f=
,
T
I
-
l
J
I
-+-.L-/-4,.......--.,_~___
/-" L
.......
+
..
--
- ·-·----- -------1----f- ---- - .. -1-----
---- --- - -·--- -
· ---------- ----
I~ ~~--------~------.~--~~---------------~ -~
~
6..,.
.;.~- ---~
------E
4--,~--;----------,------ -----,j~,__-+----- ------ ----- ---1 . .H
,
·~
---~
+•-:--J~L·-~-(~---t-lf"----.!__r_r~l--: ~-- -~-£=--=~-~----:---~ __-:·
_
-----__
~----·--- - -- --- -
----- --- -- -
-- --- - - ·
-4---,~---r-----t----- -----f --~--l _-=-=----~-r~-~=-=t~-
,
'l
-,-:.--- - ---F-rit
I
I
I
_j _ _
___
�The St. John's Review
37
.fl_-J--1--r--t-----'-r-t----~-.J..- -- --- -=--------11~~~~-----...l---~
. ·- ---·····-- ------+----------~
" r=:=-- - ~- =.--- IJ
!:
t · -·----··--- ·t.t·--·-·~-------- ----ft
..
-,
l
-··· · - - - -
......
.--J--~--~~~-~~=-----1,-~ ~L- --1'- ---:?-__ --------~
-
.
- .., . - .
---r. .
. .. L
r;t
f
---~-~----· -~~-~--~_e-_____ -
_·
--~z±------------
···~·~·-~-
-··
-~ --- ........ 2 ... ------r.-----4;.._~
t-r
1/
-- · ··~·· -,L ---1'r--·- , - - - i r - - - - - - - - - -
--L=t-..~ I
----------
r ----- - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - -
.. -=t
~ ~-~
. ---
~ ·-3C
I
J
I
6
I
I
>
,
I
>
f--
I
1
T
r
I
•
I
-r
I
,'
l({t/.
---
·----,---r
I
I
"
I
_L
1
'
I
I
I
I
I
,
�November 18, 1974
38
t
--·- T
7
··- - - -- - ···- ~ ·
-t:-:
,, -
-
1\
-
1- ·-- - -
I
- - -·-- -
l/-·-__!!_~L- --- .
/. "7
-- -+
---.,-
=r . :. ~ .
·v'):.
If
......
-
7
rd:
,I
~
I
..:J
·-·
l
-
I
(
,
--------
__ _
·--- - ·- ··-- . .. ..
(
-
- --
..:. . - . - -· -__ -·.
_ ,_
___ _____ --- --.,-
~
----~--- = ..:...=~ ..:... ~
.
-~~~~--~-
...
.
.
.
~
-
-
- - ···
~-···
I
FP
-~=~-::-~~:
~--:r---+-----'-~-r-+~=J) .M I
-+--/-74:,..., _-tt
'----....,_
_~--'- __
I
I
_ --
~~l!.___ _ _.. ·- -+-_;,,..
:
~
..
~__
//V
,
...._
-· ·-- · . .
.....,.,
--- - -,
- --- --~--~-~
·: = = ~
"r"
,..
..
~
... ,
~
,/
r-~
~
•
'1
fr
II
..
"' ,
II_
I""
I
I J
v
,
(
I
,,
..
1-:
..
,..
j
(
�The St. John's Review
- - - - l - - -----
39
I
,
.==-. ·_ _I -- . .,~-- -- --. -- ---+-. --~---~---~- _::-c
-·-z.
., .
..
·--· ·r ---J .,, -------=------·
I, -- - -. ---- -- ----· ··-- - · - - - -
···-·-
·-
-·- -··-
- --- -
- ~
I
. ·t.·-.~: ·--__.------__ --·__:;-_ .
~
.
------=c;;;;;;;
. -
-
- -- -
~
�_____ _____
T
- -·
�·· - -
The St. John's Review
--
41
Lecture Review
"Grace
and
Redeaptlon
lh
Michaelangelo's Last Judgment"
-Prof. Philipp Fehl, Professor ~
~he History of Art, University of
Illinois at Urbana. Lecture and
Question Period, October 25, 1974,
In his lecture and queat!on
period, Pro!. Fehl provided ua
with some good inaighte into "Tha
Last Judgment• and into the fuftc~
tion of art and the relation o,
art and religion. However, muc~
of what he said did not have it•
full impact, since those slidel
of "The Last Judgment• t~at wer:
·
shown were shown too late in th
course of the lecture and conveyed very little of the detai~
and power of the painting. ~
brief explanation of "The Last
Judgment• as a whole and in it•
several parts would have vaatlJ
aided the appreciation of those
peoile who were not especially
fam liar with it. Also, some of
'the lecture was inaudible, even
to people in the front rows.
· ~fter many introductory ·re•
aarks about St. John's, past an~
preeent aeabere of the college
t:oJDuni ty,
and the nar11s ot
tourists that now infest the Sia•
tine Chapel, Prof. Pehl diao ..aeO
several works of •ichaelan«el•
other than "The Last Jud«aent.r
"• then exa•ine4 early crltiel••
of the paintinc. the nudity i i i U l
tlow the nat~t+.,. viol•-t•A ..._,.toui"
•
�November 18, 1974
42
artistic conventions of the time,
and the themes of mercy and vengeance in·. the painting. The discussion in the questi on period
centered around the resemblance~
the Christ in •The Last Judgment~
to Apollo, the maesive figures~
a nd t a l im! ts of art, particularl y religious art.
Among the many topic s discussed
\ n t is ecture and question per~o , a
ast three call for fur'ther consideration•
( 1 ) nudity,
·
&n stylet (2 ) adher. •
u traui ion and conventioft
ln arta and (J) the resemblance of
Ghri st in the painting - to
p
1 •
(1
E n among tre atments of
the e
oj eet, Michaelangelo's
•Last Jud~ent• ia an engrossing.
nd pec uliar work. It is a great,:
swirling sea of human figures, a :
aaea et writhing, heroic bodies. ·
fhe naked figures , their heroic
pr•portiona, a nd the "operatic~
atyle ef the painting are all
co. .oa targets ot criticism, but,
in the end, the painting triumphs.
fo u e naked figures as Michaelangelo doea is appropriate since
the Last Jud~ent follows the
R••urrectien of the Dead.
Show~
ng jaan •• he was before the Fall
s a ~ood •&7 of hinting at the
11o~iou• nature of the bediea oi
the resurrected dead, waich ae
ret 1 reaaiu largely unknown t~
••• · As St. Paul aays, the dea
~ill
~ rai•e4
aa4 oha~ed 1
~tb411 twiftkliag of an eye • and will
-, .... s• glorified bodies,
lik•
_bat et 't~e reaurreeted Chrie:~
,
ot whioll ov ""•• MW are OJU7..
t
�. The.St. John's Review
43
~ern-1•.1
To ••• baa•. .•• 1
-io~aelangelo'• · ~·•-'•~1•• 1
te M bliu to hli ftall iate!R
lt is alaon to
tile Chria
ftian tnth tllat ,
bnat••
••BT
•1•• 1" 1
the 1tod7 ie goed
'by Ge4 1
!he proport1e.. et the tigwre•
~··
of cour••• inoreti'bq Jleroio•
B.t thia 1•
appare t whea~
figure is oouiderecl .ltf 1t••lt
l
1
without regard tor the paiatins' ·
It is neoes•ar.r to r•••
ber that men are beiftl J
4 aaf
!tllat aankind ie 'bel..
wt«H+
Each figure oontri~ute• to th•
OYerwhelaing power of tile pr•.••n+
tation. 'l'he figure • are· none to•
~~a!Ye for a s cene re,reeeatini
•• awes. .• a reality.
•uch thf
same re ply can be aade to eritl•
cieas of the paintin«' • "operatic•
s tyle. Such a ,.tyle aay, perhapa •
be ~onsldered abaurd w n
ed 1
~•picting mundane Y t . T
1
another· q•estion. B t the
power:t'ul and vi Yid • •ana ar
to depict eschatological eYen
Scripture usea euoh aeana a
particular, the 'boo •
D
and ReYelatlon are full
~1~ 1
ey. lfa••• •~.~
as theatrics oaly when we ar bli
~o their role as indieati ve of r e•
alitiea that deny co pl te representation.
{2) '"!'he Last Jud«ment" Yiolat••
•••t
th•••·
a number of' Christian iconographic
conventions t hat were pr ainea' '
during the time e:t' MichaelaDCel••
How one regard• Christian leone•.
graphic eon~ntiona depeftde
illle • s a ttl tude toward Christiud
~
If one denie s Christianity,
~
~hus _denies the roots it~~ i ~
•*
�44
November 18, 1974 ·
~ertain- cosmic realities, such ae
•in and redeapt!on, and in related
·h !atorioal eTenta, such as the IncarJtati•n, Crucifixion, and Resurrection, then nothing but innate
hua&n conserTatisa keeps one froa
ueing Chri•tian •yabols rathe~
freely and drawing from them ideae
that are notably different troa,
and perhaps at variance with, cer.
tain Christian ideas. If
one
accepts Christian! ty, and thus the
roots it has in cosmic realiti••
and historical eTents, then the
very nature of Christianity ali a
histerieal religion imposes boundaries on 1ts artistic expression.
Such boundaries are,
however,
broad and allow a considerable
degree of artistic freedom.
It
something admits of variable representation in Christian art, it
should be beeause that thing is a
matter of indifference or because
variability in its representation
allows us to see some truth that
lies beyond the representation.
Similarly, if something admits or
invariable
representation
in
Christian art, it should be because invariability in its representation allows us to see some
truth that lies beyond the repreJ
eentatien. Aa Pro!. Fehl pointed
out, we should not expect too much
trom artJ
art is not the real
thing, but leads us to the real
thing. 'rhia is especially true ot
Christian art.
I think_that a
careful study of the ieonographie
tradition of
Eastern Orthodox
¢hristianity
could shed
much
iight on thi• aatter or Christian
_ ieono~~.Phic co~vention~.
t
}
t
�The St. John's Review
45
( J) The po rtra i t
o f Ch rist in
"Th e Las t J udgment" i s startl ing . Here He does not a ppear as
the humb le Man o f Sor rows f ore s had owe d in the Servant S ongs in
I sa i ah, nor as t he serene A ll - Ru ~
ler depi cted i n By zant ine mosa ic s , nor e v en as t he sug ary p seudo - Chri st f ound in much American
church schoo l a rt of a c oupl e of
d ecades a g o. He r esembles Apol ~
l o, the a veng ing god of l i g h t.
Thi s r es embla nce i s n ot original
with Michaelang elo .
Christian
art b e fore Cons t antine often a ~
dapted paga n sub j ec ts to C hris~
tian us e s . Thus Chris t is s ome~
time s repre sented a s r e s emb l ing
Apollo . It is qui t e n atural that
early Chris t ians did s uch t hing s
since, being surrounded by _ cl as ~
sical art, they had no o ther artistic trad i t i on . Michae l a nge l O'$
use of an Apollo-like Chr ist i~
somewhat similar since h i s cu l ~
ture had be en s trongly influenced
by classical c ulture, bu t . i t is
not as easy t o defen d as the sim~
ilar early Chris tian use, s ine~
Michaelang elo was heir t o a long
Chri s tian iconog raphic tradi tion ~
In using Apol l o as he d oes,
~e
is borrowi n g a s u bje ct from
hot only p agan a rt , but als o from
~agan religion .
This use c a n b e
~een as
exemp l ifying a truth of
~hich Mic haelange l o
was probably
unaware' tha t . Chris t ianity ·..: i '
hot only the f u l fi llment o:f J"Ju +tlaism, · but of al l
reli gions ~
~ince . Judaism is
the divinely
'tevealed reli gion of t he Old Cov~
~nant,
it has a unique plact
~he
economy of s a l vati on . ~~
in
�November 18, 1974
ever, Christianity also fulfills
all the God-dire cted
yearni~gs
which are 1n pagan
relirions
mingled with much that is false
and obscurant. Thus in imag 1n 1ng
the mythical Apollo, the av eng ing
god of li g ht,
the
par:ans were
actually anticipating the S on of
God, who is li ~ ht, and who at the
end will judge th e world.2
The resemblance betwe en the
Christ of "The Last JudE:ment" and
Apol : o i s evid e nt, but the diffc· ,' ' .. :cv : Le t wecn the two are much
more ev ide nt.
Apollo is a god
who resembles a man; Chri s t
is
Go d. incarn ate. Apo llo i s a mythical p od; Chris t is God who has
ente r 8d hi st ory for the salvation
of man.
Apollo does not love
selflessly
or show
humility;
Chri st does.
In "The Last Judgement," hosts of angels bear the
cross, the column on which Christ
was scrourged, and other instruments of His passion. The wounds
on His hand s and fee t and sides
are s mall but c l e arly vi sible.
Christ is the God who became man
for the salvation of the world
and who, as both God and man, is
the only ri g htful judg e of mankind.
In the course of his lecture,
Prof. Fehl referred to the Dies
!rae and Dante's Divine Comedy.
These works, one a hymn, the
other an epic, are, like "The Last
Judgment," superb expressions or
eschatological themes. Hymn 468
in The Hymnal or the Protestant
Episcopal Church in the United
States or America, 1940 is an
English translation or the Dies
!rae.
�'l'he St. johns Kev1ew
Charles Hoffacker
wanted:
typists,
assistants,
contributors
meeting-- friday at 7 :30
mcdowell2l
or contact us by mail
47
�November 18, 1974
48
A
~o
the
Letter
e~itor
of the
ST. J0HN'S
REVIEWs
that your theme
tor the first i8sue iR, "learnin~,
~nnversation
an~ rhetoric."
It
I
un~er~tand
-
.
would be strange if one of us did
not have something to say on such
an-inviting group of topicso What
I have on my m.i nd particularly is,
I think, a rhetorical issue, occasjoned by my Greek classo
For the first time in nearly a
decade I again have the great
pleaRure of tPaching a freshman
language tutor1al. I am myself no
believer in the "spirit" of a
tutorial, because I am convinced
that wha t happens in class for
~All or ill is nothing beyond the
accumulAted effect of the p:oodness
or deficiency of each person in
the roomo And yet I cannot escape a feP-ling that a happy genius
is presiding over this class, and
this glow has inspired me with an
j mrnense ambition c I want to cause
my students to say what they think,
in writineo
That they think is
already very clear from the papers
I ha ve so far received.
It is
cJe a r even if I discount my natur a l interest in expressions that
I have elicited
from people
for
whose ·learnins I am, in part, reapon•ible. In almeat all the pa-pera questions are .initiated, for~-illations
are attempted • solutions
at·e thrust forward which I know
wil J be echoed in th e books of the
next four years. And yet there is
�The St. John's Review
a difficulty with these so ineipiflntly interestin~ papers--an altnost universal difficulty.
Almost all of them show the ef;fects of stage fright, The neces~
sity of writing down thou@ht has
petrified sn~ ~iminished it.
In
eonference, when confronted with
a stilted, drainfl<' sentence · out of
their papers, students will gladly
supply what they really meant but
discardedo Why?
Because it wae
too lively, too immediate. Somewhere someone has persuaded m1
freshxran that a proper intellectual.
product, signed, sealed and certified, ought to be formulaic and
that one should be a little beside
oneself with nervous apprehension
in order to write acceptably.
Unfortunately our present lan~
guage, as it is spoken by mildly
clever people abounds with terma
(I cannot bring myself to call
them words) which assist this stat~
of affairs. They are safely cur•
rent, and their function is, I ~
convinced, not to raise thought
but to lay it neatly t• reat•
They can be used to produce 'moon-scape of the mind where one
may hover an4 glide over enormou~
fixed shapea•trewn randomly a boat a
art
reality
symbol
creative
concept
values
general
abstract
culture
verbal communication
motivation
meaningful
Western Civili1ati8n
!he Greeks
individual
gut-level = intuitive
world-view
49
�November 18, 1974
so
This is an honest li at, well
and trul7 collected froa real tu~
torial life, or it would con~iD
aany additional ter.s. I know t
do not have to uk the forgi venesal
of their ori«i. .l apona~s. who,
I have discovered to ~ co•fort~
are quite willin« to give t hea u'
tor exposure
There is a ho•ri ble activity
c 1 1 d cons eioueneas raising~ iQ
8
1
these days.
Much as I
d~a·
1 t as a ••thod, I kave an un~ ·f
ling that I am ~t~
•ething slightly elmTo beg th• c o~unlty,
y not to proscri be these
, but to think of them aa
11 k rat tlesnakes wbo can kill
.,
. a a !lick of tong\le
• Po
yeara seem t o ••
jus' the right tim to srow ·~·
to 41ecever what these terms w~r•
meut to aean, who used t hem first,
who pic keel th.. up, who ie now pro.,.
~gatil'lC th. . alld with what purpoa•
in • tnd. And, of course, t he an+
••~
~o
to Cheee qu.•tiona i a lar~elt .
~ found in the seminar book•~
Eva Brann
I
looking for eo•e ex~
1tplaril.y terri\le pasaagee of jarlOft pro•• to analyse in _, tu•
ter ial and wo•ld a uch appreciate
an, such saall n~:!J ot tools~
«old ~one aight
...
J» .S.
�1
ne
~l.
JUIHl ~ f\.t::!VleW
51
THE REVIEW: An Apology
THE ST. JOHN'S REVIEW seeks to
provide a forum for r@flection on
the College an~ its
concerns
which is appropriate to the written mode, of establishe~ perio~i
cal issuance,
publicly reco~
nized, and a topical stimulant to
further discussion. We suppose
that this venture will be a failure i.f it does not provoke discussion--both the lively ar~uments
of incidental time and place, and
notes anc essays respon~in~ ! tQ
previous numbers of the magazine.
By "discussion," we commonly
un~erstand something oral--living
argument. At St. John's we have
heard that this notion may not be
without critical foundation, tha~
truly to ar~ue something one must
demonstrate understan~in~ by response to a
living objector,
clarifying the subject for a person who does not see.
Put most
ra~lcally,
we
sometimes
say,
"Speech is better than writing."
Only analogically,
then, will we
be entitled to speak of the "rliscussions" in a magazine.
We may not be satisfied with
this equi• ocation, however, an<1,
led by the hope o f discoverin~
more nearly what discussion is,
we may look a ~it closer at the
content and mode of ~iscussion -what is discussed and the nature
of discussion itself.
Concerning the latter, we observe part of discussion's "nature" manifest in the activity of
�November 18, 1974
52
'waitins for
the end of seminar/
~ab/tutorial.•
At times a dis~uaaion
here can aeem painfully
;ndlesa. But the same of atal•
••rtly reaolvins to outlive a
diacuaaion becauae of ita sheer
unpleaaantneaa--a game that asaumes an offensive character if
the wish to insure one's poasibilitie• ot winning takes shape
ln the positive action of killin@
the discussion personally --this
~ame ariaes from frustration, and
ls a sign that one is not en~ag~
in the discussion. Any protestations about lif·e bein~ too short
and precious to speculate away in
laboratory sprin~ from a merely
ea~ernal
observa ·~ion which lacks
•
•
the essential sympathy required
by knowled~eable criticism. ~ore
.intimately, the character of c1iscuasion I'm considerintt appears
ln long talks which run late at
bight. Here clocks are for~ot
ten, the niceties of "public per~
tormance" are ignore~. and the
participants strain
after the
bein~s
of thou~t embodied in
their speech, carefully siftin~
each other's worrls for signifieance. Such a discussion is limited only by exhaustion--of the
speaker's not of the subject, for
lgain it becomes evident that
discussion is endless, capable ot
indefinite extension were some
~od to stay
the course of ni~ht.
The "weakne~~ of the flesh" inevitably prevails1 stifled yawns
call a halt to ~urther talk, and
an end must be made, as artificial 6.1 any three hour limit, it
lees desired. How can this be
·-
�The St. John's Review
It lies, of course, under
the directive province of prudence, which discerns with wisdom
t:he proper disposition of circumstances surroundin@ in<!ividuals.
r have had discussions in which
the other person ended with a
~summary
of the points we had
~de,
collecting
the argument
luxuriantly sprawled
over the
course of several hours into a
chain of chaste propositions. It
is
a great
satisfaction
to
formulate what one has learned if
the course of inquiry must be aban.:.
doned. The whole which is shaped
from the characteriatically end~
leas argument serves as an aid te
the memory, a sprin~board for th•
continuation of the ar~ument if
we should meet again,
refreshed
by sleep.
Now
we must consider what
:gives rise to such discussions.
If it is true that men are moved
to action by desire, and deair•
is always desire of something, our
discussions
must
always
be
brought forth by
attempts to
apeak about some thing, i.e.~
something which appears as
•
Whole. How does such a discus•
•ion begin? We can ta~ a cl~
from the end of the "satiefyin~•
discussion
above.
The
whole
which was constructed in aumma•
tion waa attractive partly be•
cau.e it prcmiaed to give riae to
further diseuaaions. But do no~
~11 discuaaiona begin in thia war
with
the
propoaition
of
•
;.ttolef To apprellend a thin! r~
buirea a preliainary approach, an
lnltial •tandpoint1
I auppos•
~one?
53
�54
November 18, 1974
that a discussion will flow more
easily if aided by a seminar text
we have in common or initiated by
a
(mentally
composed) speech
given by one of the participants.
Now we can say that the analogical character of the discussion
in a written article stems from
its being a ••composition," a selection from the realm of possible
speech, and its disposition in the
fo~ of a whole.
Just as writing
is an equivocal discussion which
mu ? .. e~rer
be
re- immersed in
the living speech which
gave
birth to it, so
living dieeu•sions seem naturally to arise
from and return to composition.
(At least this is the case with
human discussions, for I suppose
we have no empirical evidence of
the dialectic of the angels.)
Havin8 uncovered a difference between speaking and writing, between essentially endless discu••
•ion and
the
composition of
Wholes, and notin~ the mutuai
,dependence of discussion and composition, we can say that though
it may be second-best, writinp
need not be despised.
We must
remember,
however;
that the •satisfying• wholes , we
~ke are precisely made and
· nGe
to be confu•ed with The Whole,
ilhieh 1• not made, by any of our
flCcount•.
To think.. othert;se
vould be to risk •uceumbin~ to
the
•tultifyin8
eon•equences of
illusion. As David aan~. •The
ldola of the heathen are silve~
lnd ~o lti ,the work of men' • hands •
t:he7 have moutha, but they speak
�The St. John's Review
not1 eyes have they, but they sea
'not 1 they have ears, but they
hear not1 neither is there any
breath in their mouth•.
'ntey
that make them are
like unto
thema
so is every one
Chat
trusteth in them.•
There is a familiar caae which
we can examine.
Most students
come to St. John's worshipping a
ready-made image of the school,
their idea of St. John's College,
but living here awhile gives .t hem
the uncomfortable suspicion that
the image and the thing do not
fit. They have been en~aged in
idolatry. There are several waya
from here.
The idol may be
smashed. That is certainly spectacular, even a fitting sub~ect
for a large-screen movie, bbt not
nearly as effective in th's case
as Moses• way with his brother's
calf. Idols of the mind are more
subtle and consequently more per-.
nicious than any golden calf or
miraculous Madonna,
for mental
acta are indistinguishable
on
their own grounds, and,
aince a
confusion of ideas initially led
one int~ idolatry, it is unlikely
that it will even yet be a simple
thing to distin_ uish the good
g
from the bad.
The act of the
iconoclast results in flight-•
•ither corporal or, for these who
remain, the mental act of placini
one's self in resentment.
Fear
of pollution, too hasty separation, causes one unwittingly to
carry the pollution with him, a•
does the Levite who refused to
touch the wounded man for fear of
contracting
r _ tual
i
impurity.
55
�56
"~uvemoer
1o,
lt~/4
Wbolea which harden into idola
tequlre the outlaw assistance of
.amarltan dlacuaalon, an lnfualon
pf the boundleaa--"whataoever thou
apendeat •ore. • • I will repay
thee"--that health may oome asaln
to a aubject. In the ca•e we
have been conalderlng, it is appropriate that assistance come
froa the community. It is the
queation, and it provides fellowqueationers to help us aee what
we are about. It is possible to
diacoW.r ourselves, for there are
others who will help.
The joys and
strengths of
learning in community should make
ua jealous to guard against ita
hazar••·
The betrayal of the
common sood ia effected by sa~•
misaion to cynicism, mediocrity,
and hyperbolical skepticism, manifeated in an attitude devoted to
nothing, willin! tollet all simply pasa.
The College
never
ceaaes in ita prescribed course
of study, to show that our world
ia a world that supports learnin!
and love (variously interpreted),
at least for a time. In auch a
~orld our act~ona
render us wor~
thy of praise or blame, contribute to nobility of soul or strip
us to basen@es. The student who
has come to St. John's--he cannot
know whether providentially
or
accidentally--learns that to stop
the course of inquiry, for almost
anp convenient cause that presents itself, is to succumb to
fJnal darkness. Our attempts a~
_ }lestions and the answers these_
q
~ply
lead along new ann perhaps
rrightening ways.
We wish to
�The St. John's Review
speak to others besi~e us,
to
request
gui~ance
or point to
beauty, or in perplexity, the
dialogue of self with self, curiously hlended of understanding,
~alculation,
an~
will, to eeek
support of another's encouragement. Strength, the mastery of
the arts of freedom, exhibits its
self in action in conformity with
man's nature--only thus not overwhPlMe~ by
passions, the often
violent movements from wiehout,
ri~htly calle~ irrational,
whose
~arkness
per~its
no li~ht
to
pierce or shape it.
The common questions, articulatef ir. rational speech, then,
rightly ~eserve our consideration. As a forum of St. John's
College, THE ST. JOHN'S REVIEW
inten~s
to foster
our
public
learning.
New members of the
community, still unsure of what
the College expects, will enjoy
the fruits of the finest accomplishments of the students and
!..~~;.f_'rs.
The printing of prize
essays whi~h are now shrouded in
semi-private
obscurity, alumni
work in areas of interest to the
communitya reviews of lectures,
translations, books, and art exhibits; as well as in~ependent
pa~rs
and analysis of events
touehing our life as a community~
will sp~ing from and contribute
to the vitality of our eommon
enterprise.
Just as discussions
are more likely when something ie
provided to ~isc~s,
so people
will be more likely to write with
che establishment of a regular
periodical which is • ~oal and an
57
�sa
November 18, 1974
~ssured
place foi finisherl work,
as well as a proponent of models
for the undertakin~ of such work.
THE ST. JOHN'S REVIEW is fnr
asking and answering questions
and exhibiting pro~ucts crafte~ in
speech. It is not a seminar in
which anything may be said in
view of the opportunity for swift
disagreement, the immediate call
for necessary clarification, the
possibility for silencing those
~o
would
damage
themselves,
lactfully practised not only by
~nna Scherer.
If the composition
of wholes allows them to
be
stored in the memory for
th@
contemplation of understanding,
written composition--crystallized
speech--needs such a repository
as well. Our hope is that from
~his necessarily selective publi~ation
outlaw discussions
may
grow.
When
one
has
read
Mr. Kelley's article, he may deny
that learning is musicala he may
say the analogy is ill-considered
and unhelpful, but then it is incumbent upon him to ground
that
denial in reason.
One may say
that this article is the product
of a blind man, but then it will
be necessary to make the proper
distinctions and sharpen what 1
have blurred. One may even deny
the claims of reason itself, but
thia must be done in articulate
speech to constitute an< adequate
'
denial.
Each issue of THE ST. JOHN'S
REVIEW, insofar as it is possible, will center around a topic
of concern, exhibiting a variety
�in approach and opinions.
As
Miss Brann's letter indicates,
the theme of the present issue is
"Discussion, Learnin~. and Rhetoric." It is somethin~ we have
all tried to touch--Miss Brann,
by citing a practical rhetorical
difficulty encountered in
her
Greek tutorial, the solution of
which requires and justifies the
entire course set for our learn'ingJ
the editorials, by setting
forth the role of THE ST. JOHN'S
REVIEW in the community, indicat.ing the stake we must all have in
such a magazine as this, despite
our conflicting opinionsJ
Mr.
Heller, by reflection on the rhetorical instrument of classroom
learnin~s
Mr. Hovin~ and Miss
Rogers, by indicating in different ways a common consirleration
which sometimes impedes discussions--our humanityr Miss Graves,
whose prize-winnin~ essay eluci~ates Aristotle's
thou~hts
on
our
essentially
psycholn~ical
theme of learnin~.
The editorial staff sees its
responsibility as
encoura~ing
writin~ from
all sides of the
community and selectin~ and arrangin~ appropriately
this work
for the community's best consideration.
None of these editors
will expound week upon week, all
will solicit your effort.
'
I
Derek Cross
�November 18, 1974
60
Meditation before a
New Publication
There is no reason why students at St. John's cannot discuss the problems of the school
as a community, generally
(we
must eat and we must sleep) and
specifically (we wish to grow in
the arts of thinking and speaking
well),
in a way that is not inconsistent with the aims of the
Coilege.
fhe demands of the
College on a student are great,
but it is not reasonable to say
that they prohibit good talk.
Indeed, it ls to learn th e arts
of thinking and speaking well
that students come to the College; and anyone's presence at
the College is at le a st in pa rt a
tacit acceptance of thi~ aim.
Now anyone wh o would acquire
the arts of thinking a nd sneaking
well must for a time undergo some
confusion, which is nois y, bu t
also periods o f
silence an d re flection.
To be silent in a nroductlve way does n o t me a n
to
forego spee ch and to p lu g up
one's ears.
Rather,
inte rnal
silence depends
u pon care ful Rnd
thoughtful consideration o~ wh8 t
is
lieard · - .na a caut-iOuff ~-··· proceede
ing in speaking--speaking in a
way that what is said by the
speaker is h ea rd by him, understood by him, a nd accounted fo r
by him.
Learning see ms to be
combined of the noise of c ~ nfu~
slon and the silence of delibera ti on; learning is a dialogue
in
�rfhe St. John's Review
j o in toge ther in a
Th i s union seems
musica l be c a us e music is made o f
certain s o unds limited by sil e nc e .
~ his
dial ogue, whether
the internal wo rk o f one pers on
~or the conversation - or··rna.· y ~-- 1 tk'~
n
mu.s r-c-· ... s"eems -co -be-.... e8'8e·n-t 1a ll y a
,
"
mo ti o n, but in such a way that it
reflects on all it· has accomplished, a nd al so i n a way that
the end o f each motion is limited by the preceding motion.
Now it is not sound to argue
that good reflection on the workings of the College and its program must be perfect.
For
we
~ant to approach
perfection, and
if we so argue, we will not be
able to think of a way to go,
because no one will maintain that
his ideas are perfect.
But this
is not to say that bad talk
should ever be tolerated, for
this impedes us and even causes a
degeneration in the quality of
both our regular, daily work and
weakens the force of our commitments. That is why .we must proceed slowly in our endeavor to
speak or to think about
ourselves, so that we may account
for both the strengths and the
weaknesses of what we say and
what we believe.
THE ST. JOHN's REVIEW seeks td
publish material showing careful
consideration of issues, and certainly of the books and ideas
studied here, and is devoted to
presenting any well-articulated
argument fairly.
We can as a community think of
ourselves in a public way.
But
wr1'
ch th e tw o
m Jsl c ~l
~~y .
61
�November 18, 1974
62
not if we place no limits upon
ourselves. For then our talk exceeds our thoughts, which are
limited of necessity,
it becomes
loud, and it tears down what we
have attempted to build up.
Bill Kelley
An Editor's Plea
As ed i t or f or th P. " f ormal. " as pect of . the ny-o a-r a m, l ':IC~ uld !. i k f~
to t a l k a lit tle a b oqt th e p a~ e r
a s a f orum f 0 r c r i t i c i s m 0 f t h f :
pron-ram.
I
ho De
tc nl i ci t
thou ~ h t s on s om o f t h t-) q u ~-' ~ t i or s
e
that we s hare a f' m ~', .:.,.. ·' , n r:: o f t Lis
learnin ~
commun i t y , hut s e l rlom
discuss · · public 1:/ or f'P nu i ne l v .
We talk as often a r<1 onp- ou rse lves
about what is "wronfY" with our
classes, the pro ~r a~ , an0 the
Colle ge a s we sha re t he ex cite ment of common
lear n inf .
It
would make sens e to dis~ ov er th e
roots of our fru s t r a t i on s as we ll
as out j oys . W mi ght di scover
e
their r oots in ourselv e s a s the
program s tre tches us t o our l i mits, or in the progr a m it s elf
as it orde rs our lives and our
learning . As a commun i ty we ne ed
to talk openly and l e arn t o talk
well about how the progr a m ~ o
verns our lives.
I suspect that
this opening of conversation may
sometimes be led by wrong s tarts,
and lead to strong disagreements.
Bu~
discovering T.he orig in of
these wrong starts and seeking
�The St. John's Review
resolution, or at least under- 63
standing, of the disagreements
are necessary to the strength and
growth of the college.
Please send submissions to the
general editors who will forward
them to me.
Joan Silver
Future REVIEWS
The next issue of the St.
John's Review will expose to public scrutiny, for the first time,
some of the books which are not
assigned reading, yet are read by
the community at large. The content and merit of these non-program books will be brought to
light. Contributions from readers who have some experien c e w; th
this kind of writing will b e
gratefully accepted, in the form
of review, criticism, or sheer
revelling , Publication will J e
in three weeks.
The next few issues followi ng
will be concerned with both program
and non-program matters.
There will be an issue devoted to
the lab program, with both com~
mentary on some of the current
lab readings, and criticism of
the program, together with suggestions for improvement.
Another of the issues now being
planned centers on politics, and
as of this writing will contain
an article questioning the relationship between the state and
�64
November 18, 1974
the arts, together with one about
the desirability of "gentle politics."
Also "in the works~ is
an issue about revolution--a student's guide to Descartes.
We would truly welcome writing
--"Articles"? "Essays"? "Compositions"?--about any of these topics. Writing about other things
is equally welcome--the abovementioned themes are only those
for which some, and by no means
all, material has been received.
�The St. John's Review
AN
TO
THE
APPEAL
COMMUNITY
The staff of the newspa.p er had
a long and somewhat harried discussion about how to raise money
for production.
We have estimated costs at about $100 for
each issue if it is to be distributed to all members of the community. Aside from searching out
benefactors, our only alternative
seemed to be to ask for subscriptions, and send the paper only to
those who would subscribe.
We
did not like this alternative; we
want the paper to be a community
newspaper, not the interest of a
few.
In light of this we are
asking for contributions.
Clip out this coupon and mail it
to the ST. JOHN'S REVIEWa
----.6 -----•-- . . .
RESPONSE BOX
I
I
I
I wish
to continue
THE REVIEW .
0
c=J
Please do not send me
anymore.
to
'
receive1
I
I
THE
REVIEW
I
1
I am enclosing _______to help keepl
THE REVIEW alive.
I
•
L__ ~ ___ . _. _s_i!!_l~ t u:: • _______ ~ _ 1.
'
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
<em>The St. John's Review</em>
Description
An account of the resource
<em>The St. John's Review</em><span> is published by the Office of the Dean, St. John's College. All manuscripts are subject to blind review. Address correspondence to </span><em>The St. John's Review</em><span>, St. John's College, 60 College Avenue, Annapolis, MD 21401 or via e-mail at </span><a class="obfuscated_link" href="mailto:review@sjc.edu"><span class="obfuscated_link_text">review@sjc.edu</span></a><span>.</span><br /><br /><em>The St. John's Review</em> exemplifies, encourages, and enhances the disciplined reflection that is nurtured by the St. John's Program. It does so both through the character most in common among its contributors — their familiarity with the Program and their respect for it — and through the style and content of their contributions. As it represents the St. John's Program, The St. John's Review espouses no philosophical, religious, or political doctrine beyond a dedication to liberal learning, and its readers may expect to find diversity of thought represented in its pages.<br /><br /><em>The St. John's Review</em> was first published in 1974. It merged with <em>The College </em>beginning with the July 1980 issue. From that date forward, the numbering of <em>The St. John's Review</em> continues that of <em>The College</em>. <br /><br />Click on <a title="The St. John's Review" href="http://digitalarchives.sjc.edu/items/browse?collection=13"><strong>Items in the The St. John's Review Collection</strong></a> to view and sort all items in the collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of the Dean
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
St. John's College
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
ISSN 0277-4720
thestjohnsreview
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
St. John's College Greenfield Library
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
paper
Page numeration
Number of pages in the original item.
64 pages
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The St. John's Review, November 1974
Description
An account of the resource
Volume I, Number 1 of The St. John's Review. Published November 18, 1974.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
St. John's College
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
St. John's College
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
Annapolis, MD
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1974-11-18
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
St. John's College owns the rights to this publication.
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
pdf
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Cross, Derek
Kelley, Bill
Rogers, Mary
Hoving, Chris
Heller, Gene
Graves, Leslie
Davenport, Richard
Ekman, Gerry
Hoffacker, Charles
Brann, Eva T. H.
Silver, Joan
Language
A language of the resource
English
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
sjc_review_vol1_no1_19741
St. John's Review
Deprecated: Directive 'allow_url_include' is deprecated in Unknown on line 0