help by everybody

[ermete22]

Carroll expressed his personal philosophy in many different places, sometimes by talking about logic, sometimes by puzzles, or embedding it in his novels or in his letters. My personal opinion is that a coherent view of his philosophy does not exist yet. A forum is the right place where some result can be obtained, as reports by people interested in different aspects of L.C. life and works can contribute by passing information. I hope this will happen.

[ermete22]

Actually, if one was allowed to invent new philosophical schools' name, Carroll could be associated with a new kind of nominalism, called total nominalism, as he somehow extends the concept from the universals to proper names in general and verbs, asking just for the respect of the grammatical form of the sentence. This is someway the right road to pure logicism. But at the end this kind of referential freedom has inevitably taken him to what one could call the axions catastrophe well represented in Sylvie and Bruno "Sylligism...." Making use of his approach Tarski's definition of truth becomes a syllogism from many point sof view ("" becomes inessential).
Did I understand correctly?

[johntufail]

I doubt I agree with that, unless the term 'total nominalism; is meant ironically.

I think we should remember that Carroll was the most significant contributor to what I suugest becam a philosophical as well as literary project - that of Nonsense. Now as we know, nonsense prose and verse well preceeded Carroll and existed alongside it - but it existed as a form of escapist humour (as in Lear). However, what I think Carroll did that no one else prior to him quite achieved, was to develop a form of 'Nonsense' that immediately challenges both the way we think and the way we perceive the world. 'Nonsense in this sense' forces us to examine the parameters and limitations of language - as well as the nature of language.

e can see that what Carroll is constantly challenging is fomal logic's (and mathematics) weakest point - the premise. Scientific history is full of beautiful mathematical projects that accurately describe a universe that is coherent in every respect but one - it is not an accurate, or even useful portayal of the universe within which we actually exist.

Interestingly, I think it was Ande Breton in his Surrealist Manifesto, who first identified this aspect of Carroll's work. This directly led, of course to Dadaism and Surrealism (and much else). There has been speculation on whether Einstein read Carroll (especially Sylvie and Bruno) as many of Einstein's thought experiments lead one inexorably to Carroll's probings about relativity.

I think it is clear that Carroll recognised at an early stage that such concepts as tuth and meaning in language are always both relative and contingent. This is why language (in the boadest possible sense - including mathematics) is fluid and dynamic and can never absolute.

This was both important and, for Carroll, quite dangerous at the time as Carroll was writing at a time when such issues were of firece theological import (as they still are today).

JT

[mahendra]

Yes, LC's philosophical relationship with Surrealism is worth further investigation and amplification. The underlying shared "premise" between LC's Nonsense and Breton's Surrealism is, as noted above, the questioning of premises and the construction of alternative systems, systems which operate on their own internal logic. Breton hoped that Surrealism would somehow rejuvenate our quotidian world by releasing the universal human power to create a personal, internally-logical system of happiness … utopian, perhaps, but the times called for radical changes in thinking.

I am unsure about LC's motives but his various projects do seem to fit into this classical Surrealist pattern. In today's pop culture, surrealism means "cool", dream-like imagery, but it really started out as a political and metaphysical crusade. Alternative, coherently built languages (in the fullest sense) that spring from and simultaneously point to the very deepest human drive to enjoy meaning, that is both Nonsense and Surrealism in its clearest form.

I do suspect that LC's theological thoughts might have a role to play in all this. In many ways, Surrealism was the inevitable reaction of the late-Victorian/Edwardian intellectual culture towards the horrific shock of WWI and the concomitant "death of god" in European culture.

[johntufail]

Mahendra!

You've hit a sore point here! Even back in my early postgraduate days I was pursuing this link. However, i was faced with two divergent oppositions. Those who wanted to publish, wanted to do so in support of the argument that Carroll was the 19th century version of Carlos Castenada. Those who declined to publish, quite did so because it was opposed to the image of Carroll that their publications had promoted.

Nevertheless, as you will know from reading at least some of my published works, I have always been as much interested in Caroll's influence on motivated texts (pictures, illustrations eyc) as in arbitrary texts. I rather think, that internationally, i am far from the only one. I know that in Japan and the former Soviet Union, there has been great interest in this aspect of Carroll's motivation and practice.

The question is, how can this be brought together!

Regards

JT

[ermete22]

I would like to contribute to the discussion about the role of surrealism in Carroll's works, but susspect that my knowledge about surrealism is quite poor,so don't take it too seriously.
There are few doubts about some strong analogies between some surrealist writings and Carroll's stories, puzzles and many examples he gives in his textbooks of logics.
On the other hand, by looking on a vocabulary, I found the following definition: "Surrealism. Philosophy. Surrealism is based on the belief in the superior reality of certain forms of previously neglected associations, in the omnipotence of dream, in the disinterested play of thought. It tends to ruin once and for all other psychic mechanisms and to substitute itself for them in solving all the principal problems of life." It is evident that in Carroll's book you find tons of paragraph which seems to fit the above definition; maybe he was a perfect surrealist meaning by that he was not even aware of following the principles of surrealism. To me it seems that Mahendra is correct. On the other hand he lived in a country were Laurence Sterne has been succesfully writing his novels. An interesting question could be, alway referring to Mahendra's interesting mail, how much surrealism in ambedded in mathematics and logics? If the answer is "some" it would help to find some traces of coherence in Carroll's thought. An alternative question, mybe more interesting, could be "how much surrealism in embedded in a mathematical or ligical model of reality?" In this case I deeply suspect the answer IS "A LOT".

Carlo

[mahendra]

Yes, your questions are getting to the heart of the matter.

The above definition of surrealism is excellent, pointing as it does to classical Surrealism's sole raison d'etre: to supplant all other modes of thought & living with a universal, dream-like logic. Surrealism never started out as an artistic movement, it was always grounded in a philosophy of life & experience. Art, literature, etc. were merely means to this end.

Maths, logic, even metaphysics spring from a shared structure which is thoroughly coherent. LC's work is certainly Surrealist in the way he made Nonsense out of this Sense without truly breaking the underlying rules of the entire game. In other words, he activated something dream-like slumbering within Logic.

The important Surrealist question would be: are these mathematical-logical structures genuinely internal to all humans? In other words, is logic a function of our own thought or is it external to us? This is the acid test because it also relates to language, another Carrollian field of interest. Is language a description or is it the actual thing-itself?

A classical Surrealist would reject logic if he felt it was somehow external to the deepest sense of a being a human being, Surrealism was a very humanistic enterprise overall, all that reinforces the essence of being human, beautiful and ugly, is to be enlisted in the struggle against dehumanization and meaninglessless.

This might also relate to LC's religious views (of which I know little) since in essence, all the above is simply another way of asking if there is sense to the universe. The approved Snarkian answer is 42, of course, but it does leave a certain hunger for more …

The Laurence Sterne mention is right on! The English have such a knack for this sort of philosophical speculation and logic-play. Sterne, Carroll, Flann O'Brien (OK, that's cheating, I know), even the Goon Show, the English are always having a genuine giggle at the expense of the fusty-minded Big Questions!

[ermete22]

In Sylvie and Bruno, Carroll writes:
"Well," said Arthur, "do you accept it as self-evident? Is it as obvious, for instance, as that 'things that are greater than the same are greater than one another'?"
"To my mind," she modestly replied, "it seems quite as obvious. I grasp both truths by intuition. But other minds may need some logical--I forget the technical terms."
"For a complete logical argument," Arthur began with admirable solemnity, "we need two prim Misses--"
"Of course!" she interrupted. "I remember that word now. And they produce--?"
"A Delusion," said Arthur.
Which make me suspect that Carroll’s opinion about the capability of logic to answer the basic human existential questions was rather negative.
Carlo

[johntufail]

Hi Mahendra and Carlo,

This a fun debate - and very, very interesting.

I interupt at this stage to ask Mahendra a question. You mention Sterne as a possible antecedent to Carroll - yet you fail to mention Swift, yet for some, no doubt deeply flawed and psychologically suspect reason, your Snark Illustrations draw me inexorably into Swift's dystopian universe. Oh, and I could, of course, include Grandville in your memory lapses!

I mention this because I feel both are important to understanding Carroll and I suspect you do too Mahenda??!!

regards

JT

[johntufail]

Carlo,

Your speculations regading Carroll's views of science very much mirror my own. I have always found it at least interesting that the only time that Carroll descended into ridicule and polemics, was when he addressed issues surrounding the ethics of 19th century science. We knowe his views, for example, in vivisection. These views were certainly about the ethics of vivisection, but also addressed the scientific basis of the practice. Perhaps the most stident example of Carroll's views of contemporary scientific practice is his poem 'Fame's Penny Trumpet'.

There has been a lot of discussion about Carroll's love poems and nonsense poems, but I have never come across any discussion of this, most impassioned, of all Carroll's poems.

Regards

JT

[mahendra]

Hello, John & Carlo! Yes, this is really good stuff and frankly, very useful & stimulating!

John, I'm intrigued that you find Swiftian influences in my version of the Snark. Perhaps the Snark is a dystopia after all! I do think that this Snark is more about references than the images themselves, that is, a multiplicity of overlapping & simultaneous imagery … a visual Boojum of sorts for more orderly intellects?

Actually, I think Carlo first brought up Sterne. But this entire vein of European satire-cum-fantasy runs deep in the entire culture. Perhaps one should place classical Surrealism firmly in that lineage (despite certain technical objections) because when one does, it does all sort fall into place. The literary & visual strands are tightly interwoven: Swift, Sterne, Raspe (author of the Munchausen stories), certain Gothic authors, Carroll … and certain illustrators: Grandville, Doré, Tenniel, Peake, etc. Surrealism can be seen as a modern codification of a long and unruly tradition, perhaps?

And as Carlo has also noted, for Carroll as for so many others, intellectual dissatisfaction with classical solutions driving them on. But to Carroll's credit, he always maintained a certain lightness of touch, perhaps the mathematical training is behind this?

[ermete22]

Can I add some considerations about what seems to be the real “magic” of Carroll?
Carroll never denied nor accepted Darwinism, and nobody seems the notice that it was the most sensible and rational position at those time, certainly more sensible of Huxley’s attitude. But he preferred not to enter the subject (apart the small satiric words about Spencer’s social Darwinism in Sylvie and Bruno). This for me is the real magic of Carroll: silence about what cannot yet be said. My preferred philosopher has always been Wittgenstein; it’s this sort of clever minimalists who help you surviving everyday. And when he wants to pass you some information, he does it with lightness, a magic word used by Mahendra, with metaphors, puzzles, so you do not know, as wrote John, is the knave of Hearts exists just to steal the tarts, or the tarts exist just to be stolen by the knave of Hearts, while you feel certain that of course both never really existed of course.
Carroll was a mathematician and a logician, not a physicist or a biologist; nowadays we tend to believe that they are the same: scientists one call them, but it is a terrible modern mistake; nobody has completely logically justified induction and I suspect Carroll had many doubts about this method, so he felt free to refuse or doubt on many scientific theories. I think he was terribly serious about this point and the point is still there, unsolved. A logician is still allowed to suspect that there is still something we miss.
Carlo