The Unanswerable

This novel continues to frustrate me in its constant questioning of what is unknown and our ability to ever know it, however this weeks reading has, in a way helped me come to terms with it. This came from learning of Phaedrus struggles with the same concepts that have been bothering me since I started this novel. He decides to give up on find an answer for the questions of philosophy, however in his intelligence he is unable to truly give up. This is where the “Church of Reason” comes into play. Phaedrus’ Church of Reason is simply a denial of the ineffectiveness of Reason. Phaedrus does not fully grasp the reason because it possible to grasp. Yet he believes in it and its ability to explain anything because it is simply to painful to believe that it cannot. He becomes fanatic for the concept of reason because he holds out hope that it may still end up showing him the answers that have eluded him. His fanaticism is something he hopes to share with his students, however he resonates with the ones who fail and do not share his love of reason, because they, like him have been by it. This comforts me because in the reading of this book reason has failed me as well so I, like Phaedrus, must simply give up on the parts of reason that I cannot grasp and focus on what I can.

I have, reluctantly, come to terms with the possibility that this author may never give its readers a clear answer for the questions he instincts on bring up, however I am still put out by the mystery around the relationship between Phaedrus and the narrator. The way in which the narrator discusses Phaedrus memories as if they are his own suggests that the narrator is Phaedrus in another life and the similarities between their mannerisms and opinions also support that theory. However when he talks of those memories he discusses them as if they’re blurry and unsure, which confuses me because I get the feeling that they are not his own, even though he access to them. Then comes the German spy movie that the narrator discusses. He implies that the artist, Phaedrus’ friend and opposite should for some reason believe that the narrator is Phaedrus, though he is not. This has lead me to a state of complete confusion in which I cannot begin to guess exactly what the relationship is between Phaedrus and the narrator, and, given the author’s apparent like for unanswerable questions, I fear I never will.