MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4394834232 · doi:10.1353/chy.2024.a925062

Uttering the Unutterable: Aristotle, Religion, and Literature by Louis Groarke (review)

2024· article· en· W4394834232 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Suzanne Stewart

Notice bibliographique

RevueChristianity & Literature · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPhilosophySt louisEpistemologySociologyHistoryArt history

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Uttering the Unutterable: Aristotle, Religion, and Literature by Louis Groarke Suzanne Stewart Uttering the Unutterable: Aristotle, Religion, and Literature. By Louis Groarke. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2023. ISBN: 978-0-2280-1423-2. Pp. 336. $110.00 CAD. In Uttering the Unutterable: Aristotle, Religion, and Literature, Louis Groarke invites us to pause at the gate: to keep the cover of a book closed, to consider, first, the essence of what we are reading: not its subject matter, but its general principles and purpose as literature. Groarke encourages readers to think broadly, deeply, and upliftingly with contemplative wonder about literature—which can be defined, he makes clear. Groarke finds within the Aristotelian framework a method for arguing that literature, a superlative form of language, not only offers readers an experience of transcendence, but also ennobles the human mind in moral terms. In effect, Groarke redefines literature by returning to the past, to collect earlier, forgotten examples of literary theory. With clarity, he defends the distinctiveness and excellence of literary works, while questioning the supposition that literature cannot be systematically understood, or meaningfully set apart from other humbler, more ordinary, day-to-day forms of verbal and written expression. As Groarke proceeds through the book by looking backward in time, he revisits, first, the Chicago School of Poetics which flourished during the first half of the twentieth century. Here, a group of intellectuals argued that a literary work must be understood "as an ordered whole." The Chicago School was reacting against overly narrow, technical approaches to literature that focus minutely on language alone, including methods of "close reading," to the exclusion of other, broader concerns, such as an author's biography and intent, as well as the genre of a work. In this milieu, Groarke finds a "revived Aristotelianism," in which literature is acknowledged more generously—and philosophically—as the sum of multiple parts: not only language, but also form, as well as the author, and, above all, the purpose of the work as literature. Only this combination of "coequal properties," Groarke insists, provides a "well-rounded account of literature." From there, Groarke returns to classical Greece to make the more daring claim, by building on the work of the Chicago School, that Aristotle's four causes when applied to literature enable readers and theorists to better understand how literature is neatly constructed, and how it functions at an elevated moral and spiritual level. Appealing to Aristotle's scientific side, Groarke argues that, like a living organism, whose features hold together and function as a whole, to achieve the purpose for which it is intended, literature, too, can be appreciated from this biological perspective. The core of Groarke's book, then, comes in chapter 5, "Definition by Four Causes," where he examines Aristotle's understanding of reality according to four distinct, but converging, conditions. All things have physical components (a material cause); a characteristic design or structure (a formal cause); someone or something that moves or causes that entity to exist (an efficient cause); and a purpose, or goal, which it strives to achieve [End Page 146] (a final cause). Throughout the book, Groarke includes, for nonphilosophers, ordinary, day-to-day examples to illustrate his ideas; indeed, he intends the book to speak most directly to literary readers and critics. Think, for instance, he proposes, of the four causes that constitute living beings: each has a body, including tissues and bones (a material cause); each possesses the structural traits of its species (a formal cause); each comes into being through a method of reproduction (an efficient cause); and each has, as its ultimate purpose, the intent to survive (a final cause). A nonliving entity, like a table, can be similarly understood: the stuff of which it is made—wood, perhaps—is its material cause; its size and shape and design satisfy the formal cause; the builders or craftspeople serve as the efficient cause; and its purpose—of adornment or practicality—designates a final cause. Then, with originality, Groarke reveals how these four causes, when taken together, reflect an ideal of the best literature, a method in turn that offers an evaluative criterion for distinguishing literary works from...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCommunication savante
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,766
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,006
Tête enseignante GPT0,267
Écart entre enseignants0,261 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueChristianity & LiteratureMême sujetAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsTravaux en français237 207