Pathetic Fallacy in Philosophy

  • Normal, college-level expectations for essay-writing apply: You need to have a thesis (stake a claim)--the more interesting, the better. You need to argue in favor of that claim. You need to provide evidential support for that argument (primarily from the texts that we have read and discussed) And you need to present your ideas with the reader in mind, in a clear and compelling way.
    Your paper should be no more than 1250 words long. This is not a lot of room in which to present a complex analysis, so be judicious. Cut out all but what is essential.
    PROMPT: Literary criticism gives us the term "pathetic fallacy', which applies to a text that is overly sentimental in its description of nature. The pathetic fallacy is a version of personification or anthropomorphism, attributing human feelings or attributes to non-human entities: it may be poetic, but it is not necessarily literally true. For example, dark clouds may seem threatening; and sunshine may appear happy, but these are only metaphors. We perhaps are tempted to think of a disease as cruel. but we should not get carried away enough to think that cancer maliciously wants to kill us. The pathetic fallacy is about our misleading tendency to attribute intentionality or purposiveness to natural objects and events. How can the concept of the pathetic fallacy help us understand the philosophies of Sartre, Lucretius; or Plato? Are these philosophers arguing in favor of, or against, the idea that natural objects possess inherent meaning?