or Ayn Rand..."Atlas Shrugged" etc etcOriginally Posted by starrwriter
or Ayn Rand..."Atlas Shrugged" etc etc
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.
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.
I declare after all there is no enjoyment like reading! How much sooner one tires of anything than of a book! When I have a house of my own, I shall be miserable if I have not an excellent library.
Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice
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.
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. (!)
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.
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!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. (!)
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!
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?
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!
That said, I've never read Frege, and will try him.
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.
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.)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!
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.
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!)
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote