I grant you that there are many different ways to write a thesis...
Because this is an English class, we must look at the form of the text and ask why he chose to write it in the way he did. We know that Diderot only took a few hours to write D’Alembert’s Dream. This means that he must have been thinking about the subjects in the book for a long time. Rather than writing a traditional manifesto, Diderot promulgated his theories through a series of fictional scenarios. Compared to the form of the Letter from a Cambridge Gentlemen and the Extract of a Letter from J.F. Gronovius, Diderot’s prose seems out of place. Yet, the function is the same. All three rebuff the normative theories to the question: What is a Being?
One could argue that D’Alembert’s Dream is Diderot’s commentary on contemporary theoretical treatises. He is essentially poking fun at the seriousness of prior declarations. Mademoiselle De L’Espinasse explicitly says: “What does that matter? We are not composing a major work, we are just talking,” (p. 207). What makes it all the more interesting is that there is evidence that Diderot did not know Mademoiselle De L’Espinasse very well at all (see footnote 23 and the fact that she made Diderot burn the original manuscript). It begs the question: What is Diderot trying to accomplish? Was he trying to revolutionize science and philosophy or was he trying to entertain the masses?
This is an important aspect of the text for us to discuss, thanks for bringing it up! I think it is probable that Diderot was trying to both "revolutionize science and philosophy" and "entertain the masses." The natural dialogue, multiple view points, and frequent use of analogies in D'Alembert's Dream allow Diderot to navigate complex theories in his text and make these theories accessible to a broader audience.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kirsten that Diderot's use of form serves as a way to make his ideas accessible to the public, but the dialogue format of the text simultaneously trivializes the matters that the text discusses. Is it possible that Diderot chose this format as a means to avoid censorship? Many writers throughout history have used various genres in an attempt to veil their controversial ideas so that they could be passed through censors. However, this idea also forces us to question how Diderot's ideas would have been received if he had written them in a more traditional format. If Diderot had written his thoughts on sexuality in a treatise, would the public have been more willing to accept them?
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting question and I'd have to agree that Diderot was trying to both revolutionize and entertain. But what I believe is even more important is that he was able to engage the masses, the distinction being that instead of just amusing the audience for the time it takes to leaf through the text, he intrigued readers and caused them to contemplate and build on his ideas. In math and the sciences it frequently happens that some of the biggest and most important breakthroughs are accomplished by people whose background lies in other fields than their lasting accomplishments. Their expertise in other areas allows them to have unique outlooks compared to researches working exclusively in a given subject. This then lets them theorize outside of the normal conventions and biases and make connections that others might not have the ability to make. Whether it was intentional or not, I wager that many people who read this work, particularly intellectuals outside the field of natural philosophy, found there imaginations awakened.
ReplyDeleteThere is definitely much to learn from the form of Diderot's writing. The format of the dream and its consistent use of metaphor that helps explain the complex ideas set forth certainly suggests that Diderot wished to appeal to the masses and entertain to a certain extent. However, I feel the greater force behind the conversational structure lies in the cooperative nature of science and philosophy. Peers are important in these fields and so acknowledging the process of cooperation and entertaining a discussion between three differing opinions of men and women of separate occupations pays tribute to the scientific process. There is also the question of content. Diderot's ideas set forth in this work extend from the definition of being to scandalous sexuality. Such material may not have been received well in a purely intellectual setting.
ReplyDelete