Is truth necessarily unmediated? If so, can it be grasped/apprehended in its unmediated form? Or is it something that can only be engaged in this present moment in its present form? The structure of the study will be as follows: 1) a brief discussion of the influence of Enlightenment thinking upon German, French, American and Russian literature and/or culture before and throughout the authors’ lifetime, 2) an exposition of the aspects of the Enlightenment which were embraced or rejected by the authors, including a comparative look at each of their conversion experiences and how their Christian faith, though members of differing branches thereof, shaped their intellect, 3) an analysis of four specific works by the authors, demonstrating how they coincide with modern notions of truth and even precede recent discoveries about the nature of our reality, 4) and finally a discussion of the aftermath of Enlightenment assumptions in the twentieth century and the effects that they have produced in the modern and postmodern understanding of what constitutes the truth of our reality.
Perhaps the key lies in understanding the ambivalence of mimesis itself, an imprecise concept which encompasses both what modern French philosopher Jean-Luc Marion would call the icon and the idol. Speaking of representation as a conduit of truth vs. a conduit of falsehood, or the icon versus the idol Marion writes: The icon…attempts to…allow that the visible not cease to refer to an other than itself, without, however, that other ever being reproduced in the visible…it teaches the gaze, thus does not cease to correct it in order that it go back from visible to visible as far as the end of infinity, to find in infinity something new…the gaze can never rest or settle if it looks at an icon…in this sense, the icon makes visible only by giving rise to an infinite gaze.
To find in infinity something new: let this be the defining theme of our study, as it so felicitously encompasses the quest of post-Enlightenment thinkers, including our authors, Droste, Stowe, Dostoevsky and Bernanos, as well as post-relativity physicists, to grasp that reality which maintains its validity by escaping us.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Chapter I The Influence of Enlightenment Thinking in European Literature: The Power of Anxious Concern?
III. Chapter II Aspects of the Enlightenment Embraced or Rejected by the Four Authors
IV. Chapter III Four Specific Works and the Modern Notion of Truth
V. Chapter IV Modern and Postmodern Truths
VI. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This doctoral dissertation examines the concept of truth within the works of Annette von Droste-Hülshoff, Harriet Beecher Stowe, F.M. Dostoevsky, and Georges Bernanos, specifically investigating how these authors navigate the shift from Enlightenment rationalism to modern and postmodern understandings of reality. The research questions whether human reason alone can fully comprehend the inner workings of reality or if such attempts inevitably lead to a sense of existential incompleteness, suggesting that truth is better understood through relational and dialogic dimensions rather than purely empirical or definitive claims.
- The critique of Cartesian and Enlightenment trust in the solitary, rational mind.
- The role of "anxious concern" and the limits of human knowledge regarding the infinite.
- The significance of relationship, moral transfiguration, and "the other" as central to the experience of truth.
- Parallels between literary artistic cognition and modern scientific paradigms, such as string theory and uncertainty principles.
Book Excerpt
Introduction
“O Menschenherz, kannst du denn alles zwingen? Muß dir der Himmel Tau und Regen bringen? Und öffnet sich die Erde deinem Wort?“—„Ach nein, ich kann nur sehn und mich betrüben, es ist noch leider nach wie vor geblieben und geht die angewies’nen Wege fort.“ I open my study with this quotation from Annette von Droste-Hülshoff's collection Das Geistliche Jahr, not only because she is one of the main characters of this study, but also because it so aptly summarizes the problem I wish to examine, namely that of human knowledge of the truth: whether or not it is possible, by any humanly conceivable means, to understand the inner workings of reality and manipulate them. It is striking how in just these few lines Droste was able to convey the close connection between will and desire, knowledge and power. It is the heart, rather than the mind, which is held accountable for its aggression, and the lure of knowledge is represented as being its promise of granting power over the natural world, the physical order of things as they stand.
I do not presume to provide an ultimate answer to the aforementioned question in and of myself since, by so doing, I would contradict the very premise of our opening quotation, nor do I believe the authors at hand do so categorically. Rather, I wish to demonstrate how each of them in their oeuvre, while displaying both their love of truth and the value of its pursuit, at the same time call into question the possibility of empirically or epistemologically knowing this truth. In this way the authors prefigured, in the case of Droste, Stowe and Dostoevsky, and concurred with, in the case of Bernanos, modern notions of truth, such as that reached by Eugen Fink: „Since the world is not some real existent, it can become illuminated only if it enters the enigmatic equivocality or real non-reality of play...Such completion of the fragment can only take place as a reflection or shining back of the whole, and that humans cannot control.”
Chapter Summaries
I. Introduction: This chapter introduces the central problem of the dissertation, which is the possibility of human knowledge concerning the "inner workings of reality" and the role of will and power in this pursuit.
Chapter I The Influence of Enlightenment Thinking in European Literature: The Power of Anxious Concern?: This chapter explores the foundational influence of Enlightenment thought on literature and culture, highlighting its shift toward the individual intellect and its subsequent failure to address the profound anxieties inherent in human experience.
Chapter II Aspects of the Enlightenment Embraced or Rejected by the Four Authors: This chapter analyzes how Droste, Stowe, Dostoevsky, and Bernanos engaged with Enlightenment principles, ultimately rejecting the assumption that the solitary individual mind can achieve absolute, unmediated knowledge.
Chapter III Four Specific Works and the Modern Notion of Truth: This chapter investigates one major work by each author to demonstrate how their literary approaches align with modern understandings of truth, emphasizing the role of relationship and the rejection of absolute objective mastery.
Chapter IV Modern and Postmodern Truths: This chapter discusses the aftermath of Enlightenment assumptions in the 20th century, exploring the shift toward postmodern perceptions of flux and the continued relevance of the authors' relational view of truth.
Conclusion: The final chapter synthesizes the findings, arguing that the literary and theological insights of the four authors provide a necessary counter-perspective to the limitations of purely rationalist attempts to explain reality.
Keywords
Enlightenment, Cartesian philosophy, Truth, Human Reason, Dialogic relationship, Absolute knowledge, Existentialism, Literary criticism, Annette von Droste-Hülshoff, Harriet Beecher Stowe, F.M. Dostoevsky, Georges Bernanos, Rationalism, Mystery, Infinite.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental objective of this dissertation?
The dissertation aims to explore the limits of human reason in understanding reality and to show how four specific authors—Droste, Stowe, Dostoevsky, and Bernanos—critique the Enlightenment's reliance on the solitary, rational mind in favor of a relational, truth-seeking approach.
What are the central themes addressed in the text?
Key themes include the critique of Enlightenment rationalism, the nature of "anxious concern," the difference between objective "knowledge" and relational "truth," and the parallels between literary methods and scientific principles like string theory.
What is the core research question?
The work questions whether it is possible for human reason, through sheer force of will or scientific study, to understand the inner workings of reality, or if there is an inherent limitation that necessitates a different way of engaging with truth.
What scientific or philosophical methods are utilized?
The study employs a comparative literature approach while integrating philosophical concepts from figures like Gadamer, Marion, and Derrida, as well as scientific analogies from physics, such as string theory and quantum mechanics.
How is the "modern notion of truth" characterized in the book?
It is characterized as a departure from the "I-It" relationship (where the world is an object to be mastered) toward a relational existence that recognizes the impossibility of absolute, unmediated knowledge.
Which authors are central to the analysis?
The study centers on Annette von Droste-Hülshoff, Harriet Beecher Stowe, F.M. Dostoevsky, and Georges Bernanos, comparing their literary output with historical and philosophical contexts.
What is the significance of the "beech tree" in Droste’s novella?
The beech tree serves as a complex symbol of the incarnation of transcendence, confounding reason and bridging the gap between finite human experience and an ungraspable, eternal reality.
Why does the dissertation emphasize the "dialogic relationship"?
Because the authors argue that truth is not something contained within a single consciousness but is revealed through the encounter with the "other," mirroring concepts found in Bakhtin and Buber.
What is the author’s conclusion on the "Enlightenment experiment"?
The author concludes that while the Enlightenment provided significant advancements, it also left a legacy of "anxious concern" that can only be resolved by abandoning the illusion of absolute mastery and embracing a relational understanding of being.
- Quote paper
- Ruth Levai (Author), 2019, The concept of truth. Four Works by Annette von Droste Hülshoff, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Fyodor Dostoevsky and Georges Bernanos, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/992398
