Why Is the Nanny Magical?

By -
Did you ever wonder why, in, for instance, Mary Poppins or Nanny McPhee, the magical character is the nanny? Well, reading R.G. Collingwood's The Philosophy of Enchantment (edited, by the way, by my PhD advisor, David Boucher), I found out why. Collingwood notes, with regret, that under the influence of Enlightenment rationalism, the educated classes began to look down upon fairy tales and such "nonsense." (Collingwood feels that such tales convey important concepts to young children that they are not yet ready to grasp in another form.) So when their parents would no longer read or tell fairy tales to their young children, who would? Why, of course, it was the nanny, who being less "educated," had not yet decided these stories were worthless rubbish. And so naturally, when these children grew up and wrote stories of enchantment, the conduit of magic into the children's world was the nanny. (That last bit is not in Collingwood, but is a Callahanian extrapolation.)

Comments

  1. Bob Murphy1:02 PM

    Oh my gosh I just had a vision from the future seared into my mind's eye. In the year 2080, philosophers of science and history waste years and many dissertations on cul de sacs that they label, in bittersweet retrospect, as "Callahanian extrapolations."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob Murphy1:04 PM

    On a more serious note, Gene, I think you are on to something. My parents forbade me to play with wands as a boy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. gcallah3:21 PM

    My parents would make me wear boxing gloves whenever they caught me playing with my wand.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more