Can literature be philosophy?

[simon]

So I read an article by this woman Nussbaum who claims that only literature can portray moral philosophy accurately. She says that literature can incite the reader to want to act morally, that it can expose and bring about feelings that philosophy cannot becuase it is cold and calculated. The novel is a moral acheivement, for example "The Lord of the Flies", this has moral bearing on the world.

On the other hand there is Iris Murdoch, yall know her? She writes fiction and philosophy and claims that literature can have some moral concepts but that it is not philosophy. She says this is becuase literature does not try to seek the answer to a problem like philosophy does, that literature is natural while philosophy isn't becuae it is removed from the world, and that literature looks at what is beautiful and positive, while philosophy doesn't deal with what is beautiful and positive it has no concern for that.

So I'm asking forumers, what side are you on? Can literature be philosophy, or is it just that some literature has philosophical moral concepts in it?

[A Hard Rain]

Literature may confront philosophy, and may contain philosophy.

Philosophy does confront the world though, and my contain morality.

You have to be careful the more specific you get that you don't trap yourself or your views of what these things are.

I disagree with both of them if you take their account word for word the way you've written it.

In my eyes at least this is how i see it.

[simona]

Perhaps everyting is philosophy and perhaps literature has its own philosophy but I don't think that literature has "moral concepts"(I mean it's not necessary).
I belive that literature is made by feelings and words. And what if those feelings are not moral but they are deep and profound?

[starrwriter]

Murdoch is right. Morality (ethics) is only one part of philosophy. It also includes epistemology, ontology, aesthetics, metaphysics, etc.

On the other hand, I prefer fiction that has a philosophical bent, like Dostoevsky's "Notes From Underground" or Camus' "The Stranger."

[simon]

A Hard Rain: I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. In disagreeing with both interpretations are you implying that neither philosophy nor literature deal with morality? What then is morality? Is it applicable to the world at all?

Simona: Can you provide an example of these "feelings" that can be found in literature? Does not morality deal with the feelings that are brought about from "right" or "wrong" actions?

[simona]

When I wrote the message I was thinking about "Wutherings Heigts".Heathcliff did not had an exemplary behaviour but he had a grat love for Catherine.
To find out about the feelings of one main-character we have to know hes "right or wrong actions" or to know hes thoughts(if the writer allows us).I think it's impossible to write a novel or a novella without presenting some action, but the base and the cause of these action is the feeling.

[A Hard Rain]

Both literature and philosphy may deal with morality. That does not necessarily mean that they do.

Although i would say 90% more does. Probably more. The reason why i denied that all deal with this or that was just to cover my bases. As a writer you do not want to be caught behind the hedge. Take for example Mark Twain's preface to his most famous and acclaimed book, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. His notice before his MOST famous novel... the novel that made Mark Twain a canon of American Literature...

NOTICE
Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.

By Order of the Author,
Per G.G., Chief of Ordnance.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...... an author denounces his own work as moral, or motivated, or even a plot... all literature may or may not be moral.. even if it is moral it may be pointing to something else. Along the same lines with philosophy. MANY Philosophers are facetious. Many great writers lead their audiance the wrong way just to either **** with them, or to show them that they must look at it themselves. TO SAY: PHILOSOPHY IS THIS AND LITERATURE IS THAT... is a little bit bull****. They are somewhat entwined. They are different of course... philosophy tends to be more direct, but storys do not exclude the indirect which are pieces of our lives. They weave together if you will allow them. (And you should allow them.)

[Avalive]

I think they were once twins.

[simona]

Perhaps they are still twins, but some of us try to see them different.

[simon]

I think this dilemma goes way back. I can think of examples such as Horace, the Roman satirist who advocated for epicurianism over stoicism and often discussed the "right" or "wrong" way to live. I don't think that in that instance though that philosophy and literature are the same thing. I am inclined to agree with everyone so far in that literature and philosophy seem to be seperated. Yet I wonder if literature can do a better job at explaining some moral dilemmas than philosophy can. I think there is a great short story called the Plague Dogs which does this well. The story deals with the moral implications of experimentation on animals that has no applicable purpose to the world. So is it right to experiment on these dogs, doing such things as putting them in tanks of water and seeing how long they can swim until they drown. Now this is literature as it shows the emotions of the caretaker throught his actions rahter than simply stating "the caretaker is kind to the dogs". Because we can visualize the actions of the caretaker talking and petting these dogs we realize that this is the "right" thing to do. Not to beat the dogs but to treat them with kindness. Maybe that is made clearer to us in a story than it is in philosophy. But it still does remain that literature only suggests a solution to the problem of animal treatment and does not try to "prove" anything in a proof format.

[moonfleet]

Every writer brings in his own sets of moral values and philosophy into his/her books. So all literature does talk about philosophy of life--but as the writer has seen it. Authors create a fictional world based on their own convitions and values. So depending upon the writers understanding of values and issues we may get something very profound and thoughtful and sometimes be motivated to "act morally" as Nussbaum claims in the first post. Sometimes literature does a great job at putting things into perspective as it gives analogies and characters we are able to relate to.

[moonfleet]

Ofcourse life is much more complex than any fiction.

[geetanjali]

Coming back to Philosophy-literature, life-fiction I wish to say that all fiction has its own biographical roots that come from real life. Similarly all literature sprouts from some philosophy. That reminds me of Socrates who said " Man must marry. If he gets a good wife he is happy otherwise he becomes a philosopher." So that is the connection between literature-philosophy & life.

[odysseus]

literature is generally more emotionally captivating then philosophy, also it can be better at painting a historic (evolutionary) backdrop to something- take the book Les Miserables, for instance, or hunchback of N.D. or Dostoevsky. Shakespeare or anyone

literature IS philosophy. words are like cups. the contain meanings that are unique and idiosyncratic. you might like general semantics. it is really dry. but it is like pure science and philosophy.

right now what I'm doing in my path, my journey, is learning how to take and endure the pain. it is not that dissimilar to what they did in the movie "fight club". you might talk of motion pictures and philosophy- both fight club and matrix are chalk full.

what you say it is, it isn't. you realize we are all talking in abstraction. when you hit that consciousness of abstraction, like in law, or in contracts, or insurance or taxes or government or morals, you jump up to the meta-programming circuit of the brain, and that washes away all fautly or obsolete cultural, family and personal programming

but you have to work and climb to get there. In so many ways. words are abstractions. the thing about the future is that people are going to be learning how to use their own brains, run their own brains. that is the big thing of the future, and I might make a case for the brain being what is the mysterious "philosopher's stone". I could perhaps present a case for that. they carry it with them all the time, and it can turn lead into gold. the brain. timothy leary- your brain is god. but he just wrote the book that way, framed as religion, so that his practitioners could use drugs legally, I think. nature has her means.

not too many people get off on philosophy because it seems so disconnected from humanity. they make philosophy a dull grind. hegel, hard to understand and boring, nietzshche hard teacher. nietzsche the confusa.

and philosophy branches into so many other subjects, like psychology- freud, jung, reich..., and into history and causality, and logic. aleister crowly said that to be part of this group or do this mission, you had to be in peak physical shape, had to understand science methods and logic methods (so as not to falsely attribute). I think that is the reason for logic- for it's use in life

I like literature. I have read a lot of it. I still don't know why. Right now I'm trying to read wealth of nations, and picture of dorian gray. I call wealth of nations a literature/philosophy hybrid, in that it is "attempt to get to the bottom of things" as someone said, and it was basically a book of morality in the marketplace. It was connected to people, not profits. From a great philosopher- what makes someone great?- you get a lot of bad copies. There is lack of individuation, it feels

and the latter- dorian gray- that is a corrupting book, but oscar wilde's philosophy of ascetitism, what an interesting one. pretend to be bad, but secretly be a saint and martyr. that is in the wealthy english society where few vast fortunes made and many impovershed englishmen. that is why sybil was writted by disraeli

ascetitism is an interesting philosophy.

but in answer to your question, it is my opinion that literature makes emotional and interesting the ideas of philosophy. a mind, like a stomach, can only digest so much at one time, and at one time of life. most philosophers are trapped in their ivory towers of the universities and so on. they are in abstraction. if anyone needs a consciousness of abstraction, it is preachers, professors, and philosophers. not physiognomists.

[simon]

So literature is the relation of philosophical ideas to the world in a way which can connect with the person. Literature is applicable while philosophy keeps it's distance and remains only observational?

[fzeko]

[B]I have no idea what these women are saying but they both sound equally and totally absurd to me.
If they have any idea about philosophy, they should know that there is nothing cold and calculated about the issues that it tries to give meaning to.

Philosophy is metaphysical and broad and it encompasses life which is anything but cold and calculated.

I agree that literature is able to incite the reader to act morally because most stories are drawn from real life and we tend to identify ourselves with the characters but philosophy is capable of offering the same thing by making us ask and answer questions about life, ourselves, the people around, our actions and act morally upon realization.

I think literature can become philosophy many times and I have read plenty of books in which the characters deal with philosophical questions but philosophy stands out on its own and can not be part of anything else.

[starrwriter]

Philosophy is metaphysical and broad and it encompasses life which is anything but cold and calculated.
I agree that philosophy is not cold and calculated nor is it merely observational. Philosophy touches on everything in life and it reaches conclusions. There is no such thing as a philosophy not applied to life (Thoreau.)


I think literature can become philosophy many times and I have read plenty of books in which the characters deal with philosophical questions but philosophy stands out on its own and can not be part of anything else.
Maybe so, but literature can be part of philosophy. Case in point: "The Unbearable Lightness of Being," a novel by Czech author Milan Kundera. Underlying the story is an argument against Nietzsche's metaphysical concept of eternal recurrence. Kundera concludes that human life happens only once and that is what makes it precious.

[fzeko]

Maybe so, but literature can be part of philosophy. Case in point: "The Unbearable Lightness of Being," a novel by Czech author Milan Kundera. Underlying the story is an argument against Nietzsche's metaphysical concept of eternal recurrence. Kundera concludes that human life happens only once and that is what makes it precious.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree and that was exactly my point,that literature is most of the times philosophy and can be without a doubt part of philosophy.
I will try to read Kundera because it sounds interesting especially if he argues Nietzche.

[LinFreakinRules]

I don't think that philosophy and literature are mutually exclusive. Take Kafka's "In The Penal Colony" for instance. It is obvious that he is using a story in order to show his philosophy on how the government is corrupt. It seems that sone people believe that philosophy is limited to morality. I agree with whoever said that it is only a part of philosophy. There are plenty of good fiction books that deal with morality, along with other philosophical issues. I don't necessarily believe that philosophy is detatched and distant while literature is personal, but in a black and white sense, I can see how that could be perceived. However, a wise professor of mine once said that there is nothing more generous than writing down your beliefs for the world to read. It is true regardless of which written medium you choose. Descartes, Hobbes, Plato, they all wrote their philosophies for the world to view and judge. These are their PERSONAL beliefs that they have shaped into a philosophy. Much of Plato's writing even seems like literature in the way it is presented (think The Symposium). So yes, both literature and other writings can both be considered philosophical. Literature is just presented in a different way. It seems as if literature could possibally be the "layman's" philosophy in many cases (not to take away from ANYONE'S intelligence, it is just easier to digest that reading Kant).

[Opheliah]

I think to have a meaningful and clear discussion on this issue, we will need to start, even roughly, with the questions: What are the core/utmost purpose(s) and scope(s) of philosophy and literature. Things you guys talk about are often exceptional cases. Anh when you talk about exceptional cases, you will easily come to biased conclusions.

You should start with the basic and the core.

Sorry I'm not native in English, so I will try to explain more later.

[fzeko]

I think to have a meaningful and clear discussion on this issue, we will need to start, even roughly, with the questions: What are the core/utmost purpose(s) and scope(s) of philosophy and literature. Things you guys talk about are often exceptional cases. Anh when you talk about exceptional cases, you will easily come to biased conclusions.

You should start with the basic and the core.

Sorry I'm not native in English, so I will try to explain more later.


I think that we ( the members here ) are all aware of what philosophy and literature represent and their purpose otherwise we would be unable to elaborate on the original posting. Based on that knowledge we discuss our intake and beliefs on the subject. So, it is kind of naive to say that we are talking about expeptional case but if you explain more later, I will be able to grasp your point.

[Virgil]

Every writer brings in his own sets of moral values and philosophy into his/her books. So all literature does talk about philosophy of life--but as the writer has seen it. Authors create a fictional world based on their own convitions and values. So depending upon the writers understanding of values and issues we may get something very profound and thoughtful and sometimes be motivated to "act morally" as Nussbaum claims in the first post. Sometimes literature does a great job at putting things into perspective as it gives analogies and characters we are able to relate to.


Reading through these interesting threads, I agree with Moonfleet the most. Literature is a work of art, not an essay. A writer brings to his paint stand his background and his passions and his interests. He may choose what he wishes. Some are philosophical, some are not. Some are biographical, some are not. Some choose to delve into morality, some do not. It doesn't make a work any better or any worse. I believe you have to see what the writer is trying to convey, and assess the artistry of how he does it. Henry James says it best: "The only obligation to which in advance we may hold a novel...is that it be interesting."

[McGrain]

I don't feel that philosophy looks for answers to philosophical questions. More, it engages these problems to the absolute maximum. Fiction does not engage these problems to the absolute maximum. It is human, all to human! But as to whether or not you can make more progress with one or the other is surely all about the individual - and very few of us are born (or made!) like hume. Thankfully!

[arabian dream]

I think that philosophy has abstract morality theory and in other hand in literature we have the application for the morality theory for example if you read philosophy books you will find the morality theory in abstract ways like what is the good behave and the bad behave but when you read literature book like novel you will find the morality mixed with other theory but the author doesn't mansion where the good behave or bad behave.

[summer grace]

I think literature can be philosophy. It may not be of the moral variety first mentioned, but it can have stuff to do with philosophy. I think there is lots about philosophy in prose and poetry. The quest for the meaning of life is visible in many poems and stories. Philosophy tends to be more formal than how it is expressed in literature, but the same questions are often there. It doesn't make a difference how it is expressed to my mind.

[Triskele]

i think that literature can certainly display philosophies, and with the character demonstrate how certain philosophies work. in fact, many of the greatest philosophers wrote fiction books in order to put their concepts out in the world so that people might find them interesting as well as entertaining. take for example "thus spoke Zarathstra" or "l'etranger". these books embody the personal philosophies of famous philosophers in both an entertaining and engaging way.

[summer grace]

Certainly, I agree with all you wrote! It seems to me that philosophy IS much more interesting in literature, and can interest more people that way. It is interesting, but it might seem boring sometimes in more formal stuff.

[andave_ya]

What about Rabindranath Tagore's book Home and the World? I found it to be a fascinating read even though it is considerably more philosophical than what I usually read. I've been calling it philosophical literature; it addresses certain things that haven't been resolved but it doesn't actually solve them and it is highly engrossing.

[hbacharya]

literature is generally more emotionally captivating then philosophy, also it can be better at painting a historic (evolutionary) backdrop to something- take the book Les Miserables, for instance, or hunchback of N.D. or Dostoevsky. Shakespeare or anyone

literature IS philosophy. words are like cups. the contain meanings that are unique and idiosyncratic. you might like general semantics. it is really dry. but it is like pure science and philosophy.

right now what I'm doing in my path, my journey, is learning how to take and endure the pain. it is not that dissimilar to what they did in the movie "fight club". you might talk of motion pictures and philosophy- both fight club and matrix are chalk full.

what you say it is, it isn't. you realize we are all talking in abstraction. when you hit that consciousness of abstraction, like in law, or in contracts, or insurance or taxes or government or morals, you jump up to the meta-programming circuit of the brain, and that washes away all fautly or obsolete cultural, family and personal programming

but you have to work and climb to get there. In so many ways. words are abstractions. the thing about the future is that people are going to be learning how to use their own brains, run their own brains. that is the big thing of the future, and I might make a case for the brain being what is the mysterious "philosopher's stone". I could perhaps present a case for that. they carry it with them all the time, and it can turn lead into gold. the brain. timothy leary- your brain is god. but he just wrote the book that way, framed as religion, so that his practitioners could use drugs legally, I think. nature has her means.

not too many people get off on philosophy because it seems so disconnected from humanity. they make philosophy a dull grind. hegel, hard to understand and boring, nietzshche hard teacher. nietzsche the confusa.

and philosophy branches into so many other subjects, like psychology- freud, jung, reich..., and into history and causality, and logic. aleister crowly said that to be part of this group or do this mission, you had to be in peak physical shape, had to understand science methods and logic methods (so as not to falsely attribute). I think that is the reason for logic- for it's use in life

I like literature. I have read a lot of it. I still don't know why. Right now I'm trying to read wealth of nations, and picture of dorian gray. I call wealth of nations a literature/philosophy hybrid, in that it is "attempt to get to the bottom of things" as someone said, and it was basically a book of morality in the marketplace. It was connected to people, not profits. From a great philosopher- what makes someone great?- you get a lot of bad copies. There is lack of individuation, it feels

and the latter- dorian gray- that is a corrupting book, but oscar wilde's philosophy of ascetitism, what an interesting one. pretend to be bad, but secretly be a saint and martyr. that is in the wealthy english society where few vast fortunes made and many impovershed englishmen. that is why sybil was writted by disraeli

ascetitism is an interesting philosophy.

but in answer to your question, it is my opinion that literature makes emotional and interesting the ideas of philosophy. a mind, like a stomach, can only digest so much at one time, and at one time of life. most philosophers are trapped in their ivory towers of the universities and so on. they are in abstraction. if anyone needs a consciousness of abstraction, it is preachers, professors, and philosophers. not physiognomists.

Everything is interrelated. Philosophy and literature are in essence two different disciplines or arts, but there is a lot of relations. In this world everything relates and everything is in a cobweb or a
net. It is a question of degree. Literature is more related to philosophy than science to it, or commerce to it, but the fact is a matter of extent. All directly or indirectly has relationship with life, and for life and about life. Literature has many purposes, some are moral and others are only entertaining. Yet literature is a piece of art and it must have a moral responsibility, and just entertaining is not its sole objective, and pornographic literature for example has a lot of entertaining elements but they can not be a good thing. It corrupts the mind. Not that thy do not contain elements of utility, they do, and has a specific domain of its own, in fact things not go out of brims or limits, and use of things must be in proportion. It sounds moralsitic. Yet the idea is something different.

Literature can get people astray, and children for example can be easily corrupted, and in fact theirs is a fertile find and any thing falls to it will find a very good environment to occupy and germinate. Here the writer must compose such pices of art that entertains them and at the same time that gives them a noral boost indirectly and unconsciously. In fact every adult is a child in degrees and evry chilld is a an adult inherent. Therefore, even an adult could be corrupted when their senses of discriminations will be at stake.

Artists have therefore a moral responsibility. A piece of art can give birth to a facist, and the same can come out in the making of a Mahatma, or a saint.

Literature and philosophy are in essence not one and the same and they are totally different, but one has grains of the other.

We do not know any great philosophical writings that are deemed great if there is no literary or stylisitc grandeur or any great litereature that has no philosophical insights or messages. Therefore one witout the other is unthinkable.

The Bible is a beutiful book and from a philosophical perspective it is unquestioanbly impeccible, and from the literary one is matchless.

Yet we can not say both disciplines are one and the same. They are interrealed. There is corelation, reciprocation, and give and take from each other to embelish or to perfect.

This is my opinion I love to share with you.

[Adras]

For those of you whom have not rea Utopia need to do so. I'm not even a fourth of the way through and just from reading the excerpts and all the other information that happens before the actual story starts I noticed it is a great piece of literature along with a great piece of philosophy. You may choose to disagree with me but I stand firm in the fact that Utopia is literature and philosphy abiding within one another.

[Omniglot]

Murdoch is right. Morality (ethics) is only one part of philosophy. It also includes epistemology, ontology, aesthetics, metaphysics, etc.

On the other hand, I prefer fiction that has a philosophical bent, like Dostoevsky's "Notes From Underground" or Camus' "The Stranger."

or Ayn Rand..."Atlas Shrugged" etc etc

[kandaurov]

Can literature be philosophy, or is it just that some literature has philosophical moral concepts in it?

I think that some literature has philosophical reasoning behind it, and expresses philosophical viewpoints, which sometimes are created by the author himself. I would say that that is enough for it to be philosophy.

How about the other way around? I think philosophy can be literature. Take Nietzsche's Thus spoke Zarathustra, for instance.

[dramasnot6]

The terms literature and philosophy are in themselves very hard to define. All pieces of writing can be interpreted philosophically, literature does not have to have a didactic nature in order to present a view as to how life should be lived. Literature is simply a device of an author to express views, some of which are bound to be philosophical on some level. When writing one can not completely avoid presenting their philosophical views, as aspects of literature like characters or setting may themselves be representational of a societal aspect the author wants to comment on.

[Abraxas]

Philosophy is also monolithic in a way that good literature can't be; that's why literature can show dilemmas and contradictions but not impose a final answer. I think that a "good" novel is plurivocal, allowing the reader to hear different points of view, whereas a philosophical work has to be monovocal, no? And a philosopher leads the reader towards his conclusions, whereas a novel, in principle, should allow the reader more freedom.

The most literary philosophers seem to be less monolithic than the others - I'm thinking of Nietzsche here, who apparently contradicts himself quite a lot.

[NikolaiI]

Yes, literature can be philosophy...after all look at Plato and Socrates. When characters in Chekhov discuss philosophy, why wouldn't this be philosophy if Plato's considered philosophy, doing the same thing? Also, there are idea-novels, but Milankundera, such as "The Unbearable Lightness of Being", which starts out talking from the narrator (Tomas)'s point of view, as he considers with the reader the meaning of Nietzsche's eternal return. When I first began reading this, I actually thought it was philosophy, and only slowly realized it was literature after I'd read the names Tomas and Tereza a few times. (!) :)

[Drkshadow03]

So I'm asking forumers, what side are you on? Can literature be philosophy, or is it just that some literature has philosophical moral concepts in it?

Literature should not be mistaken for philosophy. The very earliest philosophy by Plato -- I know there are the Pre-Socratics -- warns against the dangers of literature.

This is because literature is very good at manipulating emotions. That is something it can do that philosophy always can't. It might be worth noting that Plato himself uses dramatic techniques.

Contrast might illustrate the differences:

Folk wisdom offers community/cultural answers to difficult problems. Philosophy engages in a conversation to get at answers to problems. Literature illustrates life to reveal tough problems, but not necessarily answer them.

This is meant as an "in general" understanding there may be exceptions to these rules and overlap.

[Abraxas]

Yes, literature can be philosophy...after all look at Plato and Socrates. When characters in Chekhov discuss philosophy, why wouldn't this be philosophy if Plato's considered philosophy, doing the same thing? Also, there are idea-novels, but Milankundera, such as "The Unbearable Lightness of Being", which starts out talking from the narrator (Tomas)'s point of view, as he considers with the reader the meaning of Nietzsche's eternal return. When I first began reading this, I actually thought it was philosophy, and only slowly realized it was literature after I'd read the names Tomas and Tereza a few times. (!) :)

I wouldn't consider Plato's writings as literature at all!! Maybe we should define what we understand as philosophy and literature, no? For me, literature is hmm... maybe simply fiction that doesn't have/that shouldn't have a merely didactic aim? And even if Plato speaks of noble lies and uses myth and metaphor, you can't deny that he had a didactic aim, I think!

As for Kundera's novels, I suppose they could be considered as philosophical - in the same way as poets have illustrated philosophical ideas, it's true - but I wouldn't say they are philosophy. And I never confused them with philosophy: they're too enjoyable to read! :p

[Eric Cioe]

Literature should not be mistaken for philosophy. The very earliest philosophy by Plato -- I know there are the Pre-Socratics -- warns against the dangers of literature.

This is because literature is very good at manipulating emotions.

What? That isn't the reason for his objection to fiction. His objection is that it is not fact, and he doesn't want people to learn the wrong thing.

As far as the original question goes:

Sure, philosophy can be literary, and literature can be philosophical. I think that the distinctions most people here are trying to draw aren't correct. Philosophy is "monolithic"? Tell that to Frege. Philosophy answers questions? Tell that to Heidegger.

To me, the difference is closer to - do the words make an argument, or just tell a story? Some books do both. Why make philosophy and literature mutually exclusive?

[Abraxas]

Without wishing to nitpick, there's a difference between saying that literature can be philosophy (and vice-versa) - what the title of the topic is asking - and accepting that literature can be philosophical (and vice-versa), something I for one have no problem doing. They're not mutually exclusive, but there do exist boundaries between the two (even though these seem slightly permeable when it comes to the pre-Socratics! :p ).

That said, I've never read Frege, and will try him.

[Drkshadow03]

What? That isn't the reason for his objection to fiction. His objection is that it is not fact, and he doesn't want people to learn the wrong thing.


Unfortunately I don't have my copy of The Republic sitting here with me, but I think I remember the work well enough to respond to your point.

I think we are talking around each other because I don't disagree with anything you just said. Plato spends a great deal of time arguing that literature can lead to unjust behavior, that the gods are often depicted engaging in immoral actions. As you write, "he doesn't want people to learn the wrong thing" captures what I was saying pretty much.

Also, this explains why I write "dangers of literature" rather than "literature is dangerous." Plato has no problem utilizing literature, and in fact seems to think it can be very effective, when it suits his own purpose.

Hence we get to what else I said: "This is because literature is very good at manipulating emotions."

Quite obviously from the structure of his own works in a kind of dramatic dialogue, his beliefs in mythological propaganda for the "just" society, plus I believe listening to lectures from a Plato scholar where I might have taken that quote practically verbatim I think, Plato understood the manipulative power of literature.

It's really a matter of reading between the lines of what Plato is saying.

[NikolaiI]

I wouldn't consider Plato's writings as literature at all!! Maybe we should define what we understand as philosophy and literature, no? For me, literature is hmm... maybe simply fiction that doesn't have/that shouldn't have a merely didactic aim? And even if Plato speaks of noble lies and uses myth and metaphor, you can't deny that he had a didactic aim, I think!

As for Kundera's novels, I suppose they could be considered as philosophical - in the same way as poets have illustrated philosophical ideas, it's true - but I wouldn't say they are philosophy. And I never confused them with philosophy: they're too enjoyable to read! :p

To me it (Plato) is as much literature as it is philosophy. (not all of it, but Symposium at least). Again, if the writing of Plato is a dialog, or even a narration, I consider it literature. In a Chekhov short story where characters discuss philosophy, there might be more description of events than in Plato, but there is still a portion of it that is qualitatively philosophy. In Plato there might be less description-- all he might say is that we got together, and then someone came, and we all wanted him to get drunk, so he did-- but it is still a mix of the two; and in fact it is an author or a narrator telling all this, so I cannot think of it as anything but literature. If it is philosophy, so is Chekhov. But it cannot be philosophy but not literature. (And I am only speaking of the Symposium here, not arguing for the Republic and other works.)

[simon]

I think there is also something to be said for illustrating a philosophical principle. Maybe some authors who are also philosophers or who hold strong philosophical principles find that the best method to share their ideas with others is through examples of literature. Kundera, and others such as Camus are using social examples that they have created in the world to illustrate a philosophical ideal. For instance in The Stranger by Camus the story of a young man alone, shows an excerpt of his life and we feel through reading it his loneliness and pointlessness of action. This does not express the full throttle of existential thought, but it might provide a starting point from which to glean further information.

[lakeside_girl]

great writers are first great readers, and so obviously they are going to bring with them the ideals of which they were influenced. for one example, kant was a huge influence on many of the romantic poets and shortly thereafter the transcendental lit. some philosophy is fueled by great literature, i.e. freud studied sam coleridge in depth for a look, or perhaps better put, positive of his dream-play ideas....so in my opinion, they are kissing cousins. (o.k., now you know i'm from missouri....begin your freudian interpretations!)

[yassir elamrani]

Hullo,
First of all we have to say that literature is not the same as philosophy becuase of many reasons.The first one is that literature refers to humanity ,whereas philosophy trys to answer our questions such as "who are we?" ,"what is man?"and "what is god??".In other words,and in spite of some similarities between L and Ph their systems in written are not the same as most of us think,and each one of them has its own ways and this is the second raeson.In addition,what I meant by the term of "humanity"that literature has been written according to its authors.That means,these authors write what they believe in is good for human.In other words,they cannot avoid their ideologies,in that case I say there are some similarities between L and Ph ,but if you ask me, I would like to say "please let literature alone" because it can stand by itself. finaly,both philosophy and literature writers should exchange their experience to complet each other.

[yassir elamrani]

Hullo,
First of all we have to say that literature is not the same as philosophy becuase of many reasons.The first one is that literature refers to humanity ,whereas philosophy trys to answer our questions such as "who are we?" ,"what is man?"and "what is god??".In other words,and in spite of some similarities between L and Ph their systems in written are not the same as most of us think,and each one of them has its own ways and this is the second raeson.In addition,what I meant by the term of "humanity"that literature has been written according to its authors.That means,these authors write what they believe in is good for human.In other words,they cannot avoid their ideologies,in that case I say there are some similarities between L and Ph ,but if you ask me, I would like to say "please let literature alone" because it can stand by itself. finaly,both philosophy and literature writers should exchange their experience to complet each other.

[blp]

The film maker Jean Luc Godard said, 'If you want to say something, the only solution is to say it.' This is in the context of his general statement that all of his films are effectively essays, but that their proper form was that of narrative fiction films.

Godard is the great alienator among sixties filmmakers. He uses formal filmmaking devices such as jump cuts and direct addresses to camera to distantiate the viewer and comment on the act of viewing itself and, where he wants to include a passage of general theory, he simply puts it into the mouth of one of his characters and has them speak it. In other words, where a writer like Ayn Rand or Camus uses the narrative as a means of carrying the philosophical message, Godard's message is, or is bound up with, a comment on the nature of the medium itself. Another way of putting it might be, Rand and Camus feel that their philosophical points require a (didactic) story to come across; Godard feels that he wants to draw our attention to the process of experiencing a story by breaking it - and perhaps, in doing so, point out that a lot of the stories we experience are more didactic than they're letting on. In a sense it's a move in the opposite direction from that of Rand or Camus: where they convert philosophy into narrative, Godard converts narrative back into philosophy. I prefer Godard's move. Rand and Camus seem to feel that using narrative will make their philosophy more 'immediate' to us, but actually, whatever their merits, we always end up with implausible characters who are simply ciphers for philosophical ideas. Godard's implausible characters are simply ciphers for the philosophical idea that they are something separate from reality, something constructed. This admission makes the philosophy more immediate (im-mediate), directely addressing the fact that what we are watching is a mediated experience, an experience of media.

No one's talked about Sartre, who wrote plays, novels and straight works of philosophy. Compare Nausea to Being and Nothingness and it seems clear he must have had quite different senses of the roles of these two books. The former is a much more emotional attempt to come to terms with the frightening strangeness of life.

[johann cruyff]

...Rand and Camus seem to feel that using narrative will make their philosophy more 'immediate' to us, but actually, whatever their merits, we always end up with implausible characters who are simply ciphers for philosophical ideas. Godard's implausible characters are simply ciphers for the philosophical idea that they are something separate from reality, something constructed...


I don't think they're necessarily implausible.Okay,Rand's characters definitely are,but that has more to do with the author and her ramblings which don't fit the ideas that may have some potential in someone else's hands than the concept of such characters(I really can't stand her).But Mersault,Roquentin,the Underground Man or Haller(even Jozef K.) are very believable characters in my opinion...

[numerouno711]

jgajgf

[numerouno711]

jgajgf

[numerouno711]

hello every one ...this is a very good article

[numerouno711]

this is a very good article

[blp]

I don't think they're necessarily implausible.Okay,Rand's characters definitely are,but that has more to do with the author and her ramblings which don't fit the ideas that may have some potential in someone else's hands than the concept of such characters(I really can't stand her).But Mersault,Roquentin,the Underground Man or Haller(even Jozef K.) are very believable characters in my opinion...

Yeah, you're right. It's ages since I've read Camus, but I really loved those books and it's totally wrong of me to lump him in with revolting Rand. I just got carried away on my little hobby horse.

[numerouno711]

Philosophy is the science of life but in order to understand it you need the brain , mind and soul to be in sink with each other and in these times of chaos and competition when no one has time to ruminate and ponder over the ideas or laws of philosophy , a common man finds philosophy , dry and sometimes meaningless.
Literature on other hand is a beautiful tool used by various wise people who seem to understand philosophy in absolute sense and break it down so that a common man could relate to it.

Literature has been used since ages by writers all around the world to amplify and simplify philosophy , idealism , morality and ethics .In India ,all most all the well known writers have just poured out philosophy in their writings.Poets and writers like Kabir ,Surdasa , Kalidasa, Tulsidas, have amalgamated the two in such a way that when you read them , you cannot distinguish between philosophy and literature. In fact , I would not be wrong if I say that Indian Literature is nothing but Philosophy.

Best examples would be "Ramayana" and "Srimad Bhagavad Gita".These are two epics and the purpous of these two stories is just to simplify the philosophy of life and the concept of absolute truth and make it easy for a common man to relate to it lead his life in contentment and reach the ultimate destination-Moksha.

[numerouno711]

Philosophy is the science of life but in order to understand it you need the brain , mind and soul to be in sink with each other and in these times of chaos and competition when no one has time to ruminate and ponder over the ideas or laws of philosophy , a common man finds philosophy , dry and sometimes meaningless.
Literature on other hand is a beautiful tool used by various wise people who seem to understand philosophy in absolute sense and break it down so that a common man could relate to it.

Literature has been used since ages by writers all around the world to amplify and simplify philosophy , idealism , morality and ethics .In India ,all most all the well known writers have just poured out philosophy in their writings.Poets and writers like Kabir ,Surdasa , Kalidasa, Tulsidas, have amalgamated the two in such a way that when you read them , you cannot distinguish between philosophy and literature. In fact , I would not be wrong if I say that Indian Literature is nothing but Philosophy.

Best examples would be "Ramayana" and "Srimad Bhagavad Gita".These are two epics and the purpous of these two stories is just to simplify the philosophy of life and the concept of absolute truth and make it easy for a common man to relate to it lead his life in contentment and reach the ultimate destination-Moksha.

[numerouno711]

So I read an article by this woman Nussbaum who claims that only literature can portray moral philosophy accurately. She says that literature can incite the reader to want to act morally, that it can expose and bring about feelings that philosophy cannot becuase it is cold and calculated. The novel is a moral acheivement, for example "The Lord of the Flies", this has moral bearing on the world.

On the other hand there is Iris Murdoch, yall know her? She writes fiction and philosophy and claims that literature can have some moral concepts but that it is not philosophy. She says this is becuase literature does not try to seek the answer to a problem like philosophy does, that literature is natural while philosophy isn't becuae it is removed from the world, and that literature looks at what is beautiful and positive, while philosophy doesn't deal with what is beautiful and positive it has no concern for that.

So I'm asking forumers, what side are you on? Can literature be philosophy, or is it just that some literature has philosophical moral concepts in it?

Philosophy is the science of life but in order to understand it you need the brain , mind and soul to be in sink with each other and in these times of chaos and competition when no one has time to ruminate and ponder over the ideas or laws of philosophy , a common man finds philosophy , dry and sometimes meaningless.
Literature on other hand is a beautiful tool used by various wise people who seem to understand philosophy in absolute sense and break it down so that a common man could relate to it.

Literature has been used since ages by writers all around the world to amplify and simplify philosophy , idealism , morality and ethics .In India ,all most all the well known writers have just poured out philosophy in their writings.Poets and writers like Kabir ,Surdasa , Kalidasa, Tulsidas, have amalgamated the two in such a way that when you read them , you cannot distinguish between philosophy and literature. In fact , I would not be wrong if I say that Indian Literature is nothing but Philosophy.

Best examples would be "Ramayana" and "Srimad Bhagavad Gita".These are two epics and the purpous of these two stories is just to simplify the philosophy of life and the concept of absolute truth and make it easy for a common man to relate to it lead his life in contentment and reach the ultimate destination-Moksha.

[numerouno711]

i am sorry ...i am new to this forum and wanted to post a comment on "Can literature be philosophy".Though i am able to post a comment but oi dont see it with the rest of the comments in the row.Please help

[numerouno711]

why cant i reply to this post ...

[numerouno711]

Philosophy is the science of life but in order to understand it you need the brain , mind and soul to be in sink with each other and in these times of chaos and competition when no one has time to ruminate and ponder over the ideas or laws of philosophy , a common man finds philosophy , dry and sometimes meaningless.
Literature on other hand is a beautiful tool used by various wise people who seem to understand philosophy in absolute sense and break it down so that a common man could relate to it.

Literature has been used since ages by writers all around the world to amplify and simplify philosophy , idealism , morality and ethics .In India ,all most all the well known writers have just poured out philosophy in their writings.Poets and writers like Kabir ,Surdasa , Kalidasa, Tulsidas, have amalgamated the two in such a way that when you read them , you cannot distinguish between philosophy and literature. In fact , I would not be wrong if I say that Indian Literature is nothing but Philosophy.

Best examples would be "Ramayana" and "Srimad Bhagavad Gita".These are two epics and the purpous of these two stories is just to simplify the philosophy of life and the concept of absolute truth and make it easy for a common man to relate to it lead his life in contentment and reach the ultimate destination-Moksha.

[blazeofglory]

Everything is interrelated. Philosophy and literature are in essence two different disciplines or arts, but there is a lot of relations. In this world everything relates and everything is in a cobweb or a
net. It is a question of degree. Literature is more related to philosophy than science to it, or commerce to it, but the fact is a matter of extent. All directly or indirectly has relationship with life, and for life and about life. Literature has many purposes, some are moral and others are only entertaining. Yet literature is a piece of art and it must have a moral responsibility, and just entertaining is not its sole objective, and pornographic literature for example has a lot of entertaining elements but they can not be a good thing. It corrupts the mind. Not that thy do not contain elements of utility, they do, and has a specific domain of its own, in fact things not go out of brims or limits, and use of things must be in proportion. It sounds moralsitic. Yet the idea is something different.

Literature can get people astray, and children for example can be easily corrupted, and in fact theirs is a fertile find and any thing falls to it will find a very good environment to occupy and germinate. Here the writer must compose such pices of art that entertains them and at the same time that gives them a noral boost indirectly and unconsciously. In fact every adult is a child in degrees and evry chilld is a an adult inherent. Therefore, even an adult could be corrupted when their senses of discriminations will be at stake.

Artists have therefore a moral responsibility. A piece of art can give birth to a facist, and the same can come out in the making of a Mahatma, or a saint.

Literature and philosophy are in essence not one and the same and they are totally different, but one has grains of the other.

We do not know any great philosophical writings that are deemed great if there is no literary or stylisitc grandeur or any great litereature that has no philosophical insights or messages. Therefore one witout the other is unthinkable.

The Bible is a beutiful book and from a philosophical perspective it is unquestioanbly impeccible, and from the literary one is matchless.

Yet we can not say both disciplines are one and the same. They are interrealed. There is corelation, reciprocation, and give and take from each other to embelish or to perfect.

This is my opinion I love to share with you.

This is a great thought and I am really moved by the depth of your ideas. You must be a good analyst to go so deeply to arrive at ideas that are indeed revolutionary.

There is a great deal of spontaneity in your writing, something so vital and lively. You are a storehouse of ideas and powerhouse of emotions.

You must be a great thinker and I feel it having gone through this piece.