"Well, perhaps no systems are attainable, but the search for a system is very interesting."
This is the heart of so many things that do not have easy answers, especially philosophy. I see the field dismissed frequently as an exercise in the generation of hot air, but there is so much value to be had in the act of the search, even if the destination is unclear, or even unreachable. The process of description is simultaneously a process of understanding, and while the ongoing philosophical dialectic may not find an answer, it has presented so many ways to possibly represent things such that the answer becomes apparent. Or at the very least, such that it is apparent that some given system cannot contain the answer. These systems of logic, of discovery, then become models useful for all kinds of pragmatic thinking, or if nothing else stand as monuments to the limits of our understanding, and possibly to our ability to understand.
Borges says he's not a thinker in the interview. But I dunno, even if his influences are clear, his ability to understand, and then convey these ideas in such a way as to make them self-evident is in some ways the greater act of philosophy than the raw conception of the ideas.
I really enjoyed the interview as well. Borges' manner of speaking is wonderful.
> Borges says he's not a thinker in the interview. But I dunno, even if his influences are clear, his ability to understand, and then convey these ideas in such a way as to make them self-evident is in some ways the greater act of philosophy than the raw conception of the ideas.
I disagree here. Borges is a storyteller: he's interested in provoking a response from his readers. He's not arguing for or against a philosophy, but rather he finds inspiration in the philosophical writings of people who are arguing one way or another (ie philosophers).
What he's doing is no more or less impressive than what they're doing, but the two things very different. I think he's absolutely right to point that out to the interviewers.
I agree. I've done the same thing in works of art - used art as a vehicle for communicating philosophical concepts. Which is fine, but there's no rigor there, no defense of the concept, no detailing the implications. There's no need, because I'm not creating or defending philosophical concepts, only sharing them.
I recently wrote a song called "Everything Is Made of Love", which lifted pretty heavily from Spinoza. The song works well, but it no way makes me Spinoza's peer. More recently, I've been reading some of the Frankfurt School thinkers, and their idea of art as a means of expressing revolutionary (in a political sense) ideas. I looked back on a play I wrote/produced last year in that context, and was very pleased to see how well I expressed the ideas of Marcuse et al, manipulating pop culture in order to criticize society on other levels, even though I wasn't really cognizant of the Frankfurt School at the time.
There is a fantastic series of talks he gave in the late '60s at Harvard. It can be almost meditative to hear him addressing literature, poetry and philosophy in his own thoughtful voice.
For Borges fans: Jonathan Basile put together a Library of Babel web app [1] based on the short story of the same name [2]. You can search for up to any string of 3200 characters. While most of it is (predictably) meaningless gibberish, it's kind of mesmerizing to see what results appear near results - such as your own name.
I've really wanted to start something similar but with a natural language dictionary randomly assembling plausible, grammatically correct sentences as a way to pre-emptively copyright creative work.
Actually that reminds me of a question I had, is there any legal precedence for copyrighting the output of a computer program? One could argue either the program is a creative work, or, the program is a tool that allowed me to create many creative works, but is the output of my program considered 'creative' ?
In this case I think it's moot, because by Borges' original description there are 25^(1 312 000) books in the Library, much more than the number of atoms in the observable Universe. So I think (and hope) the site isn't actually storing anything.
There are few reasons to learn Spanish today, but reading Borges is an extremely strong one. Stories such as "Pierre Ménard", "The garden of forking paths" or "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" blow your mind in several different ways and leave a perennial impression on your intellect.
Fortunately, both of his English translators are excellent.
Of course, if you live in a Spanish-speaking community you learn it as a first language when you are a baby; but I was referring to learning Spanish as a foreign language when you are an adult. Being able to read the original Borges is a treat for your mind.
As English speaker you will benefit from learning a foreign language, something few (fewer than in other demographics) English speakers do.
Take your pick, but Spanish is a good alternative. There is lots of excellent literature in Spanish, not only Borges. And being in the US (I assume) you will benefit by improving contact with your fellow mexicans.
... “I view him,” he said with a certain unaccountable excitement, “in his inner sanctum, as though in his castle tower, supplied with telephones, telegraphs, phonographs, wireless sets, motion-picture screens, slide projectors, glossaries, timetables, handbooks, bulletins...”
He remarked that for a man so equipped, actual travel was superfluous. Our twentieth century had inverted the story of Mohammed and the mountain; nowadays, the mountain came to the modern Mohammed ...
This is the heart of so many things that do not have easy answers, especially philosophy. I see the field dismissed frequently as an exercise in the generation of hot air, but there is so much value to be had in the act of the search, even if the destination is unclear, or even unreachable. The process of description is simultaneously a process of understanding, and while the ongoing philosophical dialectic may not find an answer, it has presented so many ways to possibly represent things such that the answer becomes apparent. Or at the very least, such that it is apparent that some given system cannot contain the answer. These systems of logic, of discovery, then become models useful for all kinds of pragmatic thinking, or if nothing else stand as monuments to the limits of our understanding, and possibly to our ability to understand.
Borges says he's not a thinker in the interview. But I dunno, even if his influences are clear, his ability to understand, and then convey these ideas in such a way as to make them self-evident is in some ways the greater act of philosophy than the raw conception of the ideas.
What a phenomenal interview.