Anthony J. Cascardi

I suppose that in any survey canvassing the breadth of philosophical thought in some area one will inevitably find some works virtually unreadable, and some that one might wish had been unwritable. Fortunately, the process of winnowing gathers some wheat. In this collection of papers, edited and introduced by Anthony J. Cascardi, I would identify the papers by Arthur C. Danto, Peter McCormick, Martha Nussbaum, Dennis Dutton, and Alexander Nehamas as a fine harvest.

Nussbaum’s paper in particular, “’Finely Aware and Richly Responsible’: Literature and the Moral Imagination”, is undoubtedly a significant contribution to her thinking and writing on the relation of literature to our moral lives. Here she once again explores the fine perceptions that Henry James’ characters depend upon in order to arrive at small actions which themselves are remarkable, though perhaps unnoticed, moral achievements. This is the kind of “seeing” that Nussbaum believes we should aim at: “Obtuseness is a moral failing; its opposite can be cultivated.” Moreover, she would argue, James’ later novels are certainly one of a number of routes to its cultivation. Towards the end of this carefully argued paper, Nussbaum considers what possible role philosophy may have in relation to novels such as the ones she explores: “The philosophical explanation acts, here, as the ally of the literary text, sketching out its relation to other texts, exposing the deficiencies of other forms of moral writing.” Philosophy, then, serves literature as an ally in the quest for moral understanding. Not an inconsiderable partnership, if you accept Nussbaum’s argument.

Of the other substantial papers here, I will limit myself to Arthur C. Danto’s, “Philosophy as/and/of Literature”. It was certainly daring of Anthony J. Cascardi to place this essay at the front of the collection since, with typical brio, Danto presents a withering treatment of the dubious merit granted philosophy by those in the literary brigade declaring that “philosophy is literature”. He demurs. If it were only their failure to comprehend the nature of reference, that would be enough, though it would, regrettably, condemn literature to the realm of intertextuality and remove it from having anything remaining to do with life, our lives. But the error goes further, Danto insists, for the very nature of a philosophical question is misapprehended. Danto, whose introductory philosophy texts thrive on this very question, is more than up to the task of providing correctives. The result is a drubbing spectacle that is suspiciously fun.

Finally, full marks go to Anthony J. Cascardi who valiantly introduces each paper with an effort to draw out salient points and, importantly, to connect it, however tenuously, with the papers in closest proximity, philosophically speaking, in the collection. Perhaps he does not always succeed, but he presents an adequate model of open intellectual inquiry, which will not be bound by artificial limitations such as the so-called analytic/continental divide.… (meer)