Serendipities: Language and Lunacy

I have to confess that I haven't read this book as of yet. In fact I pretty much know exactly what his essays are going to conclude with, given the fact that I've read and am well acquainted with both his academic works, as well as his novels, satire etc. and also those elements he uses in his works which require a polymathic worldview in order to even appreciate some of their subtlety (e.g. Why was William of Baskerville in "The Name of the Rose" a "nominalist" or why is the title of "Foucault Pendulum" a reference to the French Deconstuctionist Michel Foucault and not the physicist, or why is the monk at the end of "The Island of the Day Before" not an illusion at all or ..."I'm purchasing the book "sight unseen" and given that it's Eco he's getting five stars immediately.As for my reasons in writing this review it's pretty much revealed by my title. As for answers to to my examples; I've listed them below:"The Name of the Rose":William of Baskerville is a nominalist because he's a member of that philosophical school best represented by William of Oakham(Occam's Razor). That school of thought, arose as a result of conflicts between certain excesses of the Scholastics. Nominalism is considered to be one of the germinal thoughts which led to the development of the "Scientific Method""Foucault's Pendulum": The complete subtext of this book includes the underlying theme of "conspiracy theory." The reason that's important is that Eco believes one of those things which give rise to "conspiracy theories" is "unlimited-semiosis". Eco faults Michel Foucault and his excesses such as is embodied in "deconstructionalism" as an example of one of the dangers of "unlimited semiosis.""The Island of the Day Before." The mad monk isn't an illusion. It's actually the protaganist whose not just a buffoon, but has actually gone mad(of course he's not an illusion either). The mad monk embraces Tycho Brahe's cosmology of the solar system. Unless one understands the "history of science" in this particular historic milieu, or the reasons why Tycho Brahe came up with his cosmology(which seems truly bizarre to the modern mind) you can't discern whether the monk is real or not. Hint: The monk embraced Aristotelian Physics. Tycho Brahe's cosmology resolved the contradiction which existed between that and Galileo's observations. One must remember this was prior to Isaac Newton's "Principia" and before these issues had been resolved!

Please note: This book is approximately 75% paraphrased from Eco's "The Search for the Perfect Language," which contains a more thorough treatment of the material that the two books share. The material that is new in this book is interesting, making the read worthwhile for the dedicated reader who has already enjoyed "The Search..". For the casual reader, "Serendipities" is much shorter and more accessible than "The Search for the Perfect Language", making it a suitable alternative or possibly an introduction to the longer text. However, if you take offense at paying to read the same information twice, simply do not purchase both books. Enjoy!

Do you know what Christopher Columbus was trying to prove with his historic ocean voyage, and why the church elders insisted it couldn't be done? Eco asks this question in the first essay of this book, "The Force of Falsity", and you may be surprised by the answer. Throughout, Eco gives you that delightful taste of history that he's known for, while asking provocative questions about the philosophy of language and even the nature and value of truth itself.Language is definitely the focus of this book, but each essay is more of an examination than a thesis, and the material is not as heavy as Eco's essays about language often are. On the other hand it is not as light and playful as, for example, "Misreadings" (also a worthy read). It's a casual, engaging read with some substance to it, and well worth reading if you like to think.

Serendipites is a collection of five essays where Eco is debating questions that arose from his preceding text - The search for the Perfect Language. His style here is to debate several intrinsic problems in history that are tied to language and how human reaction to them has shaped our thinking. The essays neither seek to advise or educate, only to debate without answer, other than to nudge the reader towards areas that are yet open to answers and you leave the five with a multitude of thoughts, conjectures. The first essay - The Force of Falsity - gives rise to that scholarly need to provide polarity. Eco states that if there be a force of Truth, then surely, there must be an opposite force. He acknowledges the danger for understanding of falsity requires a kernel of truth to exist and that the real discourse is, rather, to prove that which claims authenticity, is in reality, that. The essay provides many canonical examples of where a belief which is incorrect - such as Ptolemy, Columbus, the Donation of Constantine and others - has led to a truth. Simply put, experience and thus knowledge, is often only obtained by theorizing and then practical trial and error. The driving force is merely proof of curiosity. Eco proves that serendipity is perhaps a separate force in itself but it is no great surprise because, without absolute knowledge, enlightenment must follow a path of conjecture and proof.The second essay - Languages in Paradise - of the five has the greatest capacity for disagreement. Eco opens by stating that Adam was the Nomothete yet claims that his use of the name Eve "is evident that we are dealing with names that are not arbitrary". This effectively contradicts the concept that Adam was nomothete, as a name-giver ascribes name first and meaning is a resultant. Either Adam was nomothete or, if he was not, then the names he gave were intrinsically correct. They cannot be both. A further question arose in that perhaps we are newly attempting to reach a primal language rather than return to one - to create, if you wish, a nomothete when we have a single universal language. There is a further problem with Eco's usage of Dante's statement that: "only a man is able to speak". You only have to point to modern studies of Dolphins to realise that speech in whatever form communication may take, is not unique to man. Indeed, communication is not limited to the oral sense, but also encompasses the other four senses, at the very least. The bulk of the essay is given over to Dante's attempt to take the vernacular and compose the perfect language but there is some intense debate over his use of four words and variants thereof which fundamentally alter the meaning of his philosophy. You could argue that if Dante's meaning is so obscure then he can hardly be using a perfect language. Eco proceeds to analyse Dante's search to create the perfect language, to become a linguistic Adam. He comments on Dante's apparent reversal of theory of the perfection

This book is a collection of essay/lectures Eco has presented. They range over a variety of interesting philosophical issues -- which are well presented and thought out. The theme throughout is that incorrect ideas can result in useful results. Like all of Eco's writing (with which I am familiar) his ideas require some attention and thought on the part of the reader. But this was for me a very accessible book, perhaps reflecting its origin as lectures, and well worth reading.