Brief Introduction to 17th century metaphysical dialogues The dialogue style form: a 17th century revival of the classical

philosophical form. Examples of famous dialogues: Platos Dialogues: Phaedrus, The republic, Ion Nicholas Malebranche, Dialogues on Metaphysics and Religion (1688). See copy attached David Humes posthumous Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779) What relation between dialogue form and philosophical inquiry? What reasons behind their suitability? Pamphilus, the narrator of Humes Dialogues, makes a distinction between different types of subjects and the form they are best formulated in. On the one hand, accurate and regular arguments in philosophical inquiry require: a. Formal systematic composition ( i.e. natural philosophy) b. Methodic, didactic style in which the philosopher can explain the point he aims at and proceed, uninterrupted, to deduce the proofs on which this point is based, hence delivering a system of philosophical thinking; On the other, subjects that are both popular and important ( i.e. morals , behaviours, education, religion..etc) may take more flexible, creative forms, and the truth therein may gain from being presented in different ways, in a variety of lights. Reason may be allowed to differ; readers may derive both entertainment and instruction from the clash of views and opinions. 7th century metaphysical dialogues may be classified under this latter category. And they may be obscured, made uncertain or otherwise eased of all complexity according to the vision and the pedagogical concern of the poet. Reasons for writing philosophy in dialogue literary form: stylistic and philosophical Stylistic reasons: - A more vivid, more dramatic form than systematic philosophical treatise. More enjoyable to read. - Offers occasion for the exercise of wit and satire, so optimises the instructive potential of philosophical discourse ( one known for its rational , masculine rigour) - Allows the author or poet to introduce a variety of views and positions, along with different styles of arguments; in a related way, it allows for philosophical individuation, that is the creation of types of personality with certain philosophical positions . The character types may range from II. I.

the Platonic, the Stoic, the Machiavellic, to the Epicurian (look up the extended definitions of all four. You will need them.). This range of individuated philosophical personae allows the author or poet to reflect subtly on the limits of human reason (this is important!) Philosophical reasons - Expressing uncertainty (i.e. the Roman orator and philosopher Cicero in On the Nature of Gods. This work provides the model which Hume uses for his Dialogues - Distances the author/ poet from his work, as they stand concealed behind their character types. - A pedagogical motivation acquired through the confrontation bet. two characters , leading to on finally yielding to the others persuasion. - Making a moral point/ creating models about how philosophical debate should be conducted. - A pedagogically open-ended form which underlines the limits of human reason, and encourages the reader to create their own theory of meaning: readers identifying with X argument of character 1 and Y argument of character 2 finally can create their own sense of aesthetic and moral judgement. The above notes are summed up from the texts below ( some of which you find attached) Andrew Pyle, Humes Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion: A Readers Guide ( London: Continuum, 2006) Martin Bell, the relation between literary form and philosophical argument in Humes Dialogues... Hume studies Vol XX V II, N 2 ( November 2001) See also , in relation to Cavendish and Bradestreet Jonathan F.S. Post ed. Green Thoughts, Green Shades: Essays on Contemporary Poets on the Early modern Lyric (University of California Press, 2002). Find attached chap 9 of this edition, on Cavendish, by critic Alice Fulton. Theres a chapter on Bradstreet in the same edition.