-
About KU’s Trollope Prize.
1. On the spirit of poetry in a time of plague by Richard Berengarten
2. More trouble with genre. Markku Nivalainen in conversation with Simon Collings
3. Plum Pudding books: Anthony Howell reviews Michael Hampton and Marius Kociejowski
4. Why I am not a philosopher, or The Annoyances of Philosophy, by Alan Wall.
5. ‘oracle’ and ‘Mary Does Laugh’. By Kate Ashton
6. Of Peace and Strife by W.D. Jackson, illustrated by Alan Dixon. A verse-column
7. J’accuse…injustement, Anthony Howell considers Stephen Glascoe’s account of being falsely accused
8. Passion, framed by silence. Michelene Wandor reviews James Runcie.
9. The Hills and the Desert: Claude Vigée and Edmond Jabès, by Anthony Rudolf.
10. ‘A Way to Dismantle’ and four more poems by Ion Corcos.
…and much more, below in this column.
Audio archive: Two poems, with an audio track, from Heart Monologues by Jasmina Bolfek-Radovani | Daragh Breen’s Aural Triptych | Hayden Carruth reads Contra Mortem and Journey to a Known Place | Anthony Howell reads three new poems | James Laughlin reads Easter in Pittsburgh and five more | Peter Robinson reads Manifestos for a lost cause, Dreamt Affections and Blind Summits
Previously: More below. Scroll down.
New to The Fortnightly Review? Our online series, with more than 2,000 items in its archive, is more than ten years old! So, unless you’re reading this in the state pen, you may never catch up, but YOU CAN START HERE: Four short texts by Jeff Friedman | Hacheston Halt by John Matthias | Disinterest and Aesthetics Pt 1/Pt 2 by Tronn Overend | Out of the house and into the business district by Martin Stannard | We need to talk about Vladimir, by Jonathan Gorvett | Two new poems by Fred Johnston | Several dwarves and one pet by Meg Pokrass The wheel in the tree: An appreciation of Penguin Modern Poets 12. By Ian Seed | Wonder Travels: a memoir by Josh Barkan | Five poems from Fire by Jaime Robles | Three instructive texts by Rupert M Loydell | On John Wilkinson’s ‘Wood Circle’, by Rupsa Banerjee | The Ringstead Poems by Peter Robinson. With an afterword by Tom Phillips | From Dialyzing: poetry by Charline Lambert. Translated by John Taylor | The O.E.D Odes by Lea Graham | Demarcation and three more poems, by Pui Ying Wong | What are poets for? Alan Wall on Nathaniel Tarn’s Autoanthropology | Martyrdom. Anthony Howell on the Russian invasion of Ukraine | Bard-think: Anthony O’Hear on teaching with Shakespeare | The Pleasure of Ferocity: A review of Malika Moustadraf’s short stories. By Michelene Wandor | Pastmodern Art. By David Rosenberg | Central Park and three more new poems. By Tim Suermondt | What Is Truth? By Alan Macfarlane | The Beatles: Yeah x 3. Fab books and films reviewed by Alan Wall | The Marriage by Hart’s Crane of Faustus and Helen by John Matthias | Young Wystan by Alan Morrison | Nothing Romantic Here. Desmond Egan reviews Donald Gardner | Parisian Poems, by César Vallejo, translated by César Eduardo Jumpa Sánchez | Two sequences of poems by David Plante, introduced by Anthony Howell | Apichatpong Weerasethakul’s Big Noise in the Night: Film commentary by Simon Collings | Gli Ucelli and two more poems by Michael Anania | Interior and three more prose poems by Linda Black | For Britney (or whoever) by Fran Lock | The wages for reading is rage: Reflections on the Book Revolution in Texas. By Christopher Landrum | Selfies by Rupert M Loydell | The Loves of Marina Tsvetaeva by C.D.C. Reeve | My Mother’s Dress Shop by Jeff Friedman | The Bride’s Story. Grimms’ No. 40. An elaboration by W. D. Jackson | Poetry Notes: Early titles for 2022, by Peter Riley | Short Icelandic Fiction: Fresh Perspective (Nýtt sjónarhorn) by Aðalsteinn Emil Aðalsteinsson and The Face and Kaleidoscope by Gyrðir Elíasson | Exercises of memory: Prose poetry by Adam Kosan | Species of light and seven more poems by Mark Vincenz | Two Micro-fictions by Avital Gad-Cykman | Pictures, with Poems: A two-generation collaboration. Photographs by Laura Matthias Bendoly, with poems by John Matthias | In Famagusta, a revisit by Jonathan Gorvett | Shakespeare’s Merchant by Oscar Mandel | Toughs by Anthony Howell | Holding the desert, a sequence of poems by Richard Berengarten | Two pages by Michael Haslam | Contusion not Rind by Peter Larkin | Four poems by Katie Lehman | Blind summits, a sequence of poems with an audio track, by Peter Robinson | The Censor of Art by Samuel Barlow | Small Magazines, and their discontents (as of 1930) by Ezra Pound | Modern Artiques by Robert McAlmon | Two poems, with an audio track, from Heart Monologues by Jasmina Bolfek-Radovani | Blavatsky in violet: poetry by Alan Morrison | Everything that is the case: A review of John Matthias’s Some of Her Things by Peter Robinson | Khlystovki by Marina Tsvetaeva, newly translated by Inessa B. Fishbeyn and C. D. C. Reeve | A king and not a king, a poem by W. D. Jackson | Violet, an essay by John Wilkinson :: For much more, please consult our partial archive, below on this page.
2011: Golden-beak in eight parts. By George Basset (H. R. Haxton).
2012: The Invention of the Modern World in 18 parts. By Alan Macfarlane.
2013: Helen in three long parts. By Oswald Valentine Sickert.
2016: The Survival Manual by Alan Macfarlane. In eight parts.
2018: After the Snowbird, Comes the Whale, by Tom Lowenstein.
-
LONDON
Readings in The Room: 33 Holcombe Road, Tottenham Hale, London N17 9AS – £5 entry plus donation for refreshments. All enquiries: 0208 801 8577
Poetry London: Current listings here.
Shearsman readings: 7:30pm at Swedenborg Hall, 20/21 Bloomsbury Way, London WC1. Further details here.NEW YORK
Time Out’s New York listings here.
In the New Series
- The Current Principal Articles.
- A note on the Fortnightly’s ‘periodicity’.
- Cookie Policy
- Copyright, print archive & contact information.
- Editorial statement.
- For subscribers: Odd Volumes from The Fortnightly Review.
- Mrs Courtney’s history of The Fortnightly Review.
- Newsletter
- Submission guidelines.
- Support for the World Oral Literature Project.
- The Fortnightly Review’s email list.
- The Function of Criticism at the Present Time.
- The Initial Prospectus of The Fortnightly Review.
- The Trollope Prize.
- The Editors and Contributors.
- An Explanation of the New Series.
- Subscriptions & Commerce.
-
By Roger Berkowitz, Juliet du Boulay, Denis Boyles, Stan Carey, H.R. Haxton, Allen M. Hornblum, Alan Macfarlane, Anthony O’Hear, Andrew Sinclair, Harry Stein, Eugène-Melchior de Vogüé, and many others. Free access.
· James Thomson [B.V.]
Occ. Notes…
A dilemma for educators:
Philosophy and the public impact.
.
Michelene Wandor on Derek Walcott and the T.S. Eliot Prize.
.Nick Lowe: the true-blue Basher shows up for a friend.
-
Anthony Howell: The new libertine in exile.
.
Kate Hoyland: Inventing Asia, with Joseph Conrad and a Bible for tourists.
.
Who is Bruce Springsteen? by Peter Knobler.
.
Martin Sorrell on John Ashbery’s illumination of Arthur Rimbaud.
.
The beauty of Quantitative Easing.
.
Prohibition’s ‘original Progressives’.
.
European populism? Departments
Subscribe
0 Comments
What good are you?
A Fortnightly Review
Christian B. Miller
The Character Gap: How Good Are We?
Oxford University Press, 2018 | pp xvii+276 | $21.95 £16.49
By ANTHONY O’HEAR.
Of course, in a general sense it does deal with philosophical matters and philosophical arguments are touched on, if lightly. But, strangely perhaps, the bulk of the book, and indeed its burden, consists of summaries of psychological experiments, from Milgram onwards, designed to throw light on actual moral behaviour. And Miller is at pains to emphasise that the various proposals he makes for closing the character gap as he calls it — that is, transforming us from what we actually are to what might think we ought to be — should all be supported empirically.
How far, I wondered, are these artificial set-ups, based on experiments in some US departments of psychology, valid indications of what actually goes on in the human heart?
That being said, if what one wants is a digest of recent psychological work on character and virtue, then there is no problem with Miller’s approach. And his overall position seems sensible. We are neither good nor bad, but a mixture of both. We, or most of us, are not as good as we might think we are – we lie and cheat more, for example, than we might like to admit. But we are not wholly bad, in that we do or can acknowledge what is right, and we can feel shame when we are made aware of our failings. So while we are not virtuous (Miller takes a strong line on consistency in behaviour before we can say we are virtuous in any respect), we are not vicious either. There is, then, in most of us a character gap, between what we are and what we should be, and the question Miller poses is how we might close that gap.
Somewhat tentatively he proposes a number of strategies. These include doing nothing, but just letting experience and wisdom grow, apparently not as useless as it might seem; labelling the non-virtuous as virtuous and nudging, both of which Miller is doubtful about in that each may involve deception of a sort; encountering good role models in life or literature; avoiding occasions of sin; and getting to know our own desires, all of which Miller has some time for.
Furthermore, a point surely relevant to Miller’s overall thesis, most Christians would hold that there is original sin, which means that without grace we are bound to fail, whatever good we aspire to and however hard we try. Miller does not spend enough time talking about original sin (indeed, no time; it is not mentioned). Whether we are religious or not, we have to recognize (in a phrase believed of Geoffrey Hill) ‘the imperfection that marks all human effort, especially where it aims to avoid it.’ ‘Especially’ is key, but Miller shows little sign of recognizing the predicament we humans find ourselves in, and which that word highlights.
Shame, particularly of a public sort, can then be powerful in the development of character, as Aristotle realized. But so too, and rightly, can be guilt…
Nor does he say anything like enough about the roles, positive and negative, that should be played by guilt and shame in the development of a virtuous character. Indeed he actually misdescribes guilt on page 59, saying that it is a matter of what we feel when we ‘go against the standards we have set for our behaviour’. That is not guilt, it is shame, and only a part of the shame we should feel at times, when we go against the standards others have, and may correctly have, set for our behaviour, so it is not just a question of standards we have set for ourselves. Shame, particularly of a public sort, can then be powerful in the development of character, as Aristotle realized. But so too, and rightly, can be guilt, when we recognize that we have failed to do what we ought to do, or do what we ought not to have done, in both cases when the ought in question refers to a moral law objectively there, outside us; again a powerful factor in people seeing what is right, and coming to do what is right, but not considered in any depth by Miller.
Nor does he say nearly enough about Aristotle. Aristotle, who wrote as well about virtue as anyone, insists on the way that virtue depends on habits, and very largely on habits acquired in one’s upbringing, before one can begin to reason. If one is brought up rightly, then one’s love of the virtues, along with an appropriate sense of honour and its countervailing shame, will enable one to reason well about morality. Otherwise, if one is not already attracted to virtue, in moral matters one is in danger of reasoning cleverly, but badly, and also of acting badly and without shame. This, of course, leaves a problem with those not brought up well, which perhaps Aristotle does not attend to enough. Can someone not well brought up ever reason well about morality, or, more important come to love the good? The Christian hope would be that in all of us, original sin notwithstanding, there will always be glimmerings of the good, and I imagine that Miller would share this hope. Nevertheless, Aristotle is surely right in seeing upbringing and the acquisition of a sense of shame as critical in any discussion of the character gap, and here Miller leaves far too much unsaid.
♦
Anthony O’Hear OBE is professor of philosophy at the University of Buckingham, director of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, editor of the journal Philosophy, and a philosopher with a special interest in education. Among his most recent books: History of Philosophy: Twentieth-Century Perspectives (as editor), Picturing the Apocalypse: The Book of Revelation in the Arts over Two Millennia (with Natasha O’Hear) and The Great Books: A Journey through 2,500 Years of the West’s Classic Literature. He is also co-editor emeritus of The Fortnightly Review, and a visiting professor in The Chavagnes Studium. An archive of his Fortnightly work is here.
Related
Publication: Friday, 15 February 2019, at 13:55.
Options: Archive for Anthony O'Hear. Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Post a comment or leave a trackback.