Skip to main content

Santayana quote




 From Soliloquies in England (1922):

Santayana was part of a world that was rubbing its eyes after the end of what they called the Great War, wondering what it all meant and where civilization can go from here. The moment produced some fine (one might even say 'stellar') intellectual work. Hold that metaphor.

Santayana, in Soliloquies, gave us this aphorism.

"It would seem that when a heavenly body ceases to shine by its own light, it becomes capable of breeding eyes with which to profit by the light other bodies are shedding: whereas, so long as it was itself on fire, no part of it could see."

What does that mean? I think I know, at least vaguely. And it is a better piece of work than some other famous Santayana quotes, including the condemned-to-repeat-it thing.

On one level, Santayana means here what he says. When earth (and possibly other analogous planets) cooled a bit it became a host for life, and some of the lives made possible by this contain eyes capable of looking at hot non-life-supporting heavenly bodies in admiration.

But of course we often use metaphors from astronomy when discussing humans, even when doing something as mundane as singling out certain Hollywood actors as especially prominent -- the "stars". On that line, Santayana is offering an observation about human passion and the intellect. Their mutual opposition is not complete, but it is real, and many is the time when we may have to 'cool down' in other to think well -- in other words, to see things clearly.

I am open to suggestions about other levels of meaning here. It is a great image.


Comments

  1. Christopher, I like your passion versus reason interpretation but not your literal interpretation, because the quotation says nothing about lives made possible by the earth's cooling down. Literally, it refers to the earth's breeding its own eyes, with which it -- not other lives -- profits. With the passion versus reason interpretation, the passionate person breeds his or her own eyes to see things clearly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems to me that you stretched Santayana's literal meaning to fit your passion versus reason interpretation. My literal reading of it does not fit that interpretation. Therefore, I think that Santayana would have been better off making his point about cooling down to see things clearly non-metaphorically -- just stating it as you did.

      Delete
    2. Henry, Santayana's phrase "breeding eyes," suggests to me that he does have in mind the literal meaning I stipulated. The earth does not grow (its own) eyes. It breeds eyes. As a pet store supplier might be said to breed rabbits or even (by a simple synecdoche) to breed long ears.

      Delete
    3. Christopher, I agree that the earth does not grow its own eyes, so your literal meaning seems valid to that extent. But how do you explain that by breeding eyes IT profits and, whereas before "no part of it could see," now (I infer) IT can see? Sometimes, it's better to say what you mean and not use a metaphor. (At least it's better for me, because, having an overly literal mind, I have difficulty understanding poetry.)

      Delete
  2. Much of our view of life and living is assisted by metaphor and the wisdom(?) of parables. When we talk about *not seeing the forest for the trees*, we are advocating a big picture view of things, which goes to planning and strategies for living fully, not merely surviving, day to day which is the province of most of our primary conscious brethren. In this sense, we abhor stochasticism. I think this was at least part of what Santayana was getting at.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you saying that Santayana had in mind here the distinction between human (mindful) life and pre-human (more passionate?) life?

      Delete
  3. Short answer: No, that was not my intention.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak