{"id":85,"date":"2015-01-16T23:37:31","date_gmt":"2015-01-16T23:37:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/aristotle2digital.blogwyrm.com\/?p=85"},"modified":"2015-04-06T17:24:24","modified_gmt":"2015-04-06T17:24:24","slug":"philosophy-immanuel-kant-and-murder-mysteries-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aristotle2digital.blogwyrm.com\/?p=85","title":{"rendered":"Philosophy, Immanuel Kant, and Murder Mysteries \u2013 Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the last post<\/a> we discussed the epistimological divisions in philosophy between a priori<\/em> and a posteriori<\/em> knowledge and the divisions due to Kant between the notions of analytic and synthetic statements.\u00a0 As a brief reminder, a priori<\/em> knowledge stems from first principles and can be understood using the human capacity to grasp the essential nature of things.\u00a0 A posteriori<\/em> knowledge is obtained only after examining a thing and coming to a conclusion about its nature \u2013 a conclusion that cannot be grasped by reason alone.\u00a0 An analytic statement is one which is true and in which the subject contains the predicate (that is to loosely say that one defines the other) while a synthetic statement is one that is neither false nor is analytic.<\/p>\n

On the surface there seems to be such a strong tie between a priori<\/em> knowledge and analytic statements, on one hand, and between a posteriori<\/em> knowledge and synthetic statements, on the other, that there is a temptation to equate the two concepts in each case.\u00a0 Thus one might want to say that all statements of a priori<\/em> knowledge are analytic and all statements of a posteriori<\/em> knowledge are synthetic.<\/p>\n

But as is usually the case with logic when examined very carefully, ideas that seem rock-solid based on a casual examination become a lot more uncertain when looked at more thoroughly.\u00a0 However, these kinds of abstract examinations are often dry.\u00a0 So for this post we\u2019ll try to apply these ideas to the popular medium of the murder mystery.<\/p>\n

What should be said about the murder mystery?\u00a0 I think that if Aristotle were alive today one of his favorite past times would be reading and\/or writing murder mysteries.\u00a0 This should come as no surprise since Aristotle is credited with formalizing logic and logic and solving mysteries go hand-in-hand.\u00a0 The murder mystery, or detective story as it also called (not all the crimes are murders \u2013 only the most enjoyable ones), are individual studies in epistemology.\u00a0 At its heart is the idea of pronouncing a statement of truth; of disclosing \u2018whodunnit\u2019.<\/p>\n

Consider the analysis of G. K. Chesterton, one of the twentieth century\u2019s most profound thinkers and prolific authors, who penned dozens of works on analysis, philosophy, and social criticism. \u00a0\u00a0Chesterton, who was home with logic and critical thinking in its many forms, was particularly fond of the detective story and wrote often about it<\/a>.\u00a0 One of his notable observations was:<\/p>\n

The essence of a mystery tale is that we are suddenly confronted with a truth which we have never suspected and yet can see to be true.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

Rex Stout, the author of over 70 detective stories, had the following very nice description of the detecting process.\u00a0 Speaking about his gourmand and rotund detective Nero Wolfe, Archie Goodwin, Wolfe\u2019s assistant, has this to say about his boss\u2019s moments of genius:<\/p>\n

I knew what was going on, something was happening so fast inside of him and so much ground was being covered, the whole world in a flash, that no one else could ever really understand it even if he had tried his best to explain, which he never did. Sometimes, when he felt patient, he explained to me and it seemed to make sense, but I realized afterward that that was only because the proof had come and so I could accept it.\u00a0 I said to Saul Panzer once that it was like being with him in a dark room which neither of you has ever seen before, and he describes all of its contents to you, and then when the light is turned on his explanation of how he did it seems sensible because you see everything there before you just as he described.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

If a detective story is an individual study in epistemology then it should be possible to examine each detective in terms of their where they fall in the division between a priori<\/em> and a posteriori<\/em> knowledge and between analytic and synthetic statements of truth.\u00a0 In this way, maybe we can shed some light on the thornier sides of this debate and also have some fun doing it.<\/p>\n

Before examining some of the great literary detectives, let me state that none of them are purely one way or another.\u00a0 There is no author of detective fiction (at least not one I would want to read) who would believe that crime can be solved purely by thinking about the world from first principles nor who would believe that crime can be solved solely by the dry gathering of facts.\u00a0 It is the interplay between the two extremes that is the engine of discovery and truth detection.\u00a0 Nonetheless, each these detectives leans, as does the author who sits behind their adventures, more towards one extreme or another.<\/p>\n

We can envision a categorization scheme for detectives where each is placed on a two-dimensional grid.\u00a0 To the left is the extreme of the synthetic and to the right the extreme of the analytic.\u00a0 At the bottom is a posteriori<\/em> knowledge whereas at the top is a priori<\/em> knowledge.\u00a0 An empty grid looks like<\/p>\n

\"Blank_Detective_Grid\"<\/a><\/p>\n

and placing a detective in the top right means that he depends more heavily on analytic a priori<\/em> methods to solve crime than by other means.<\/p>\n

Our task is then to debate, and argue, and wrestle with where to place each.\u00a0 I won\u2019t pretend to have a well-conceived and impregnable argument for what I present below.\u00a0 Rather I offer it as food for thought and, perhaps, the basis of some really enjoyable discussions with family and friends.<\/p>\n

The easiest place of start is with Sherlock Holmes.\u00a0 For this discussion, I will be dealing only with Holmes in his original incarnation as conceived of by Since Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle and not some of the more modern adaptations.\u00a0 The sleuth of 221B Baker Street often solved the mysteries confronting him through observations correlated with dry or obscure facts.\u00a0 Red clay from a particular quarry in northern England combined with an encyclopedic knowledge of the British Rail time tables were a more common route to the solution than ponderings about human nature.\u00a0 Thus we can classify him as predominantly as synthetic and a posteriori<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The two famous creations of Agatha Christie, Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple, are cut from a decidedly different cloth.\u00a0 Both of these sleuths depended heavily on their knowledge of human nature and often worked from motive to solution.\u00a0 Clearly they are both analytic, but it seems to me that Poirot starts more from well-articulated first principles and methodical deduction than his female counterpart.\u00a0 Poirot can explain exactly how he arrived at his conclusions (consider his \u2018mentoring\u2019 of Doctor Sheppard in the Murder of Roger Ackroyd<\/em>) even if he often won\u2019t and he needs only the bare facts to proceed (The Disappearance of Mr. Davenheim<\/em>).\u00a0 In contrast, Miss Marple relies on a lifetime spent examining human nature \u2018under a microscope\u2019 in her village of St. Mary Mead.\u00a0 As she explains in Sir Henry Clithering, her knowledge is akin to an Egyptologist who, due to a lifetime handling Egyptian scarabs, can tell when one is genuine while another is a cheap knockoff even if he can\u2019t explain how.\u00a0 She often jumps to the solution and then gathers or reconciles facts only latter (Death by Drowning<\/em>).\u00a0 Thus I would be inclined to place Poirot in the analytic and a priori<\/em> sector and Miss Marple in just below him somewhat in the a posteriori<\/em> square.<\/p>\n

Nero Wolfe, already mentioned above, is more difficult to place.\u00a0 He seems to slide back and forth between the extremes, having the greater fluidity early on in Stout\u2019s writing.\u00a0 In some cases, he is clearly synthetic in his approach.\u00a0 Consider Fer De Lance<\/em>, where he asks a golf club salesman to demo how to swing a club to confirm his suspicions about the delivery method of a poison dart or The Rubber Band<\/em>, where he realizes a connection between two usages of the word \u2018rubber\u2019 to impeach the murderer\u2019s alibi.\u00a0 In other cases, including The Christmas Party<\/em> and Death of a Doxy<\/em>, he relies solely on his understanding of human nature and his ability to play upon a murderer\u2019s irresistible compulsion to force a conviction.\u00a0 I place him nearly equally balanced between analytic and synthetic and tipping more towards a posteriori<\/em> than a priori<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The final two detectives I\u2019ll discuss both happen to be Roman Catholic priests: Father Brown the creation of G. K. Chesteron and Brother William of Baskerville from Umberto Eco\u2019s brilliant novel The Name of the Rose<\/em>.\u00a0 There is some irony here in that Chesterton was a devout catholic and Eco is a self-declared atheist.\u00a0 Nonetheless, both detectives depend on their training in philosophy (with particular emphasis on Thomas Aquinas) and the intellectual and theological traditions of the Catholic Church to find solutions to their mysteries.\u00a0 Father Brown is deeply logical and staunch defender of reason (The Blue \u00a0Cross<\/em>) but is prone to inspired deductions where, as Chesteron puts it (The Queer Feet<\/em>):<\/p>\n

\u2026in that instant he had lost his head. His head was always most valuable when he had lost it. In such moments he put two and two together and made four million. Often the Catholic Church (which is wedded to common sense) did not approve of it. Often he did not approve of it himself. But it was real inspiration — important at rare crises — when whosoever shall lose his head the same shall save it.<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

In contrast, Brother William seems to take a more measured approach.\u00a0 On one hand he is quite proud and comfortable in his use of logic as in the affair of Brunellus the horse as he and Adso, his novice, approached the unnamed abbey where the bulk of the book is set.\u00a0 At other times, he seems to despair of ever knowing anything or, at least, anything with certainty as in his explanation to Adso of how he got the right answer using from the wrong approach.\u00a0 (An aside: the whole discussion associated with penetrating and navigating the labyrinth is delightful reading and worth studying).<\/p>\n

All things considered, I tend to plop Father Brown down into that controversial region where synthetic a priori<\/em> knowledge sits and I place Brother William firmly in the center.<\/p>\n

My final diagram looks like:<\/p>\n

\"Filled_Detective_Grid\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Obviously, I’ve ignored a host of beloved literary detectives, including C. Auguste Dupin, Perry Mason, Ellery Queen, Lord Peter Wimesy, and Sam Spade.\u00a0 Leave a comment telling where on the diagram you placed your favorites and why.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the last post we discussed the epistimological divisions in philosophy between a priori and a posteriori knowledge and the divisions due to Kant between the notions of analytic and… Read more ><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-85","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aristotle2digital.blogwyrm.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aristotle2digital.blogwyrm.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aristotle2digital.blogwyrm.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aristotle2digital.blogwyrm.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aristotle2digital.blogwyrm.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=85"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/aristotle2digital.blogwyrm.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aristotle2digital.blogwyrm.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=85"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aristotle2digital.blogwyrm.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=85"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aristotle2digital.blogwyrm.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=85"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}