I had the privilege of giving a talk for the William Blake Society recently, where I discussed Blake and science. My argument was that much of Blake’s work is compatible with scientific thinking, as defined and developed by scientists like Carl Sagan. During the discussion period that followed my talk, one of the attendees asked an important question pertaining to literature and knowledge: “Did Blake ever change your mind about anything?”

Always wanting to give direct answers to direct questions, I first gave a simple “No.” And then I elaborated that I don’t go to artists like Blake for facts about the world but I *do* go to them for aesthetic experiences. And then, as I yammered about that for a bit, I wandered my way into the idea that aesthetic experiences are personally rewarding and uplifting and can give me not necessarily knowledge about the world, but frameworks for engaging with that world, frameworks that make my everyday life more enriching (like Blake’s idea of a utopia called “Jerusalem”). I wish I had put all of this more succinctly and clearly in my somewhat rambling answer, but I think the gist of what I eventually got at is correct: evidence-based inquiry into the world tells us what is the case, while art and its aesthetic experiences deepen our life and can inform our values, actions, day-to-day experience and the frameworks that guide those values, actions, and experience.

With the benefit of reflection, I think this question is a profound one: what is the relationship between art and knowledge? It’s also a significant question at a time when the Humanities, as fields of study, are under attack. What is it that the Humanities teach us? What does art teach us?

I’d like to write about these question for a bit, using Joyce and this blog to provide examples. Did Joyce ever “change my mind” about anything? Read on to find out.