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?