Miami University the Graduate School
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Miami University The Graduate School Certificate for Approving the Dissertation We hereby approve the Dissertation of Timothy Lawrence Smith Candidate for the Degree: Doctor of Philosophy _________________________________ Director Dr. LuMing Mao _________________________________ Reader Dr. Kate Ronald _________________________________ Reader Dr. Gwendolyn Etter-Lewis _________________________________ Graduate School Representative Dr. Elaine Miller Abstract The Language of Paradox and Poetics: A Comparative Study of Zhuangzi and Kierkegaard by Timothy L. Smith This dissertation examines the paradoxical and poetic language of Zhuangzi, a Daoist writer from Ancient China, and Søren Kierkegaard, a Western philosopher of 19th century Denmark. Despite writing from differing contexts, traditions, and time, both writers appear to share similar positions and strategies for illuminating their messages of indirect communication. This dissertation is a comparative study of those indirect practices and positions in light of their similarities and differences and attempts to answer what significance can be attached to Zhuangzi and Kierkegaard’s mutual decision to use paradox and poetics. The dissertation is in five chapters. The first chapter examines certain critical terms and practices frequently used in comparative studies. The second chapter provides important contextual background for Zhuangzi and Kierkegaard’s respective traditions, including the dominant rhetorical tendencies of each. Chapter Three is an examination of Zhuangzi’s use of paradox and poetics in his message of indirect communication. Chapter Four is a similar study of Kierkegaard’s own use and understanding of paradox and poetics. Finally, the concluding chapter draws general conclusions regarding Zhuangzi and Kierkegaard’s use and understanding of indirect communication and the language of paradox and poetics and what this might mean to comparative studies and the field of rhetoric in general. The dissertation concludes that both Zhuangzi and Kierkegaard believe that the unique language of paradox and poetics necessary to achieving the full effect of his message of indirect communication. This includes the sensibility of paradoxical subjective experience that arises in the language of paradox and poetics. The Language of Paradox and Poetics: A Comparative Study of Zhuangzi and Kierkegaard A Dissertation Submitted to the faculty of Miami University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of English By Timothy L. Smith Miami University Oxford Ohio 2008 Dissertation Director: Dr. LuMing Mao © Timothy L. Smith 2008 Table of Contents Acknowledgements………………………………………..page iv Introduction……………………………………………….page 1 Chapter One…………………………………………….....page 6 Chapter Two………………………………………………page 34 Chapter Three…………………………………………….page 77 Chapter Four……………………………………………...page 112 Chapter Five………………………………………………page 139 Works Cited……………………………………………….page 168 End notes…………………………………………………..page 171 iii Acknowledgements In grateful acknowledgment to my committee: Dr. Kate Ronald, Dr. Gwen Etter-Lewis, Dr. Elaine Miller, and with special thanks to my director, Dr. LuMing Mao. iv Introduction A century or so before postmodern writers examined the question, Constantin Constantius, a pseudonym of Søren Kierkegaard, lamented: “What kind of miserable invention is this human language, which says one thing and means another?” (Kierkegaard Repetition 200). Nor is the question solely a Western perspective, as Zhuangzi demonstrates writing over two thousand years ago in Ancient China: “Words are not just wind. Words have something to say. But if what they have to say is not fixed, then do they really say something? Or do they say nothing?” (34). This dissertation takes up again the question of language. Specifically, it looks at the unique positions of Søren Kierkegaard and Zhuangzi, and how both writers challenged the conventions of their times and offered compelling new perspectives on language’s relationship to truth explication. As a comparative study, this dissertation will examine both writers in light of what they have to offer not only their own time and contexts, but our own. The latter represents a unique opportunity in comparative studies, where new meaning is created by addressing two differing traditions alongside one another. As such, my efforts in this dissertation will attempt to address the opportunities and new insights that occur in comparative studies, particularly in light of the Western and Sino traditions. Further, as this study is concerned primarily with how each tradition communicated its notions of truth, I will focus primarily on what role language plays in creating and passing along meaning—a provisional definition I offer to the concept of “rhetoric.” I argue from the position that in its most inclusive, broadest sense, “rhetoric” is present in every site, including so- called objective sites and arguments where truth is traditionally thought to be outside the implications of language and perspective (e.g. Western science). In addition, I argue that the creation and passing along of meaning is never restricted to just one tradition, one culture, one time, or one described system of thought, but is found in all facets of human communication. Consequently, I believe ‘rhetoric’ provides the most productive ground from which to approach the questions of language, truth, and meaning across various cultures. Finally, my focus on Kierkegaard and Zhuangzi is an attempt to further situate the dissertation by examining two figures from differing traditions; figures who not only sought to 1 challenge their respective cultural and philosophical contexts, but along the way developed strikingly similar rhetorical strategies and positions on what can—and can’t—be said on truth. While these two writers do not share similar cultures, philosophies, historical time periods, or contexts, their writing does suggest tantalizing similarities in their approach to language, truth, and meaning. These similarities, I argue, are all the more illuminating for their evident differences. For despite their vastly varying contexts, both Kierkegaard and Zhuangzi appear to share a unique understanding of language’s role in regards to truth and meaning. To be specific, I argue that Kierkegaard and Zhuangzi hold similar rhetorical positions in regards to language’s limits and possibilities concerning certain truths. As a consequence of their similar understanding, each writer practiced highly unconventional rhetorical strategies. This includes the similar use of indirect communication and paradox to illuminate a truth that (for them) could not be expressed in conventional form. It is this compelling point of comparison that will form the basis of my dissertation and provide the focus of my study on the language of paradox. Sources In addition to the work of the primary authors, I will build on the works of such comparative scholars as Xing Lu, David Hall, Roger Ames, A. C. Graham, Kuang-Ming Wu, and George Kennedy (among others). These scholars have endeavored to create new discourse and meaning by identifying tendencies and dominant traits of various cultures and studying them alongside other, differing traditions and tendencies. Using their work, I hope to illuminate some of the complex and shifting forces that Kierkegaard and Zhuangzi were operating within. At the same time, I hope to develop a clearer understanding of the issues and possibilities surrounding comparative scholarship and how these relate to the subject of rhetoric. The scholars above represent a variety of informed and diverse positions regarding both comparative scholarship and the Western and Sino traditions. They include George A. Kennedy’s cross-cultural rhetorical analysis, Hall and Ames’ philosophical ars contextualis, Xing Lu’s multicultural hermeneutics; Derk Bodde’s humanism; A. C. Graham’s textual and grammatical exegesis, and Kuang-Ming Wu’s subjectively-embracing “Companion.” Though each writer shares a general sense of what marks the Sino and Western traditions as unique, their 2 individual methodologies and positions often demonstrate striking differences regarding specific points and issues of meaning in both contexts. In short, the scholarship represented above suggests subtle differences of emphasis concerning what is different and similar to each tradition. This complex variety of perspective—far from being disconnected with the more immediate positions of Kierkegaard and Zhuangzi—is a fitting example of the primary writers’ central positions. Said another way, the variety and diversity of positions in comparative studies reflect Kierkegaard and Zhuangzi’s complex and perspectival positions on language and truth’s relationship. As a consequence, an examination of recent comparative scholarship goes a long way to preparing the more focused examination of the primary writers and their traditions. To that end, Chapter One of this work will examine many of the various comparative studies in light of their understanding and approach to the issues of context, truth, and language. In this way I hope not only to address certain critical contextual and academic implications regarding the respective contexts, but also provide an introduction to some of the core issues concerning the primary authors. Chapter Two then takes a closer look at what marks each site of meaning, Sino and Western, as unique and/or different from one another. This includes a discussion of the tendencies