Does Great Literature Make Us Better?

[stlukesguild]

Do you not think that literature improves the following:

1. Intelligence
2. Articulation
3. Empathy/Interpersonal understanding
4. Creativity
5. Cultural competence
6. Perception
7. Compassion

CAN literature have an impact upon some or all of these things? Certainly. Does it always? No. How many physicists, surgeons, computer scientists, etc... are unquestionably intelligent... yet lack any interest in literature? Does literature result in a greater ability to articulate ideas? Again, it can... but it is no assurance of such... and what does ones ability to communicate persuasively have to do with being a "better" person? Hitler had this ability in spades. Empathy? Again perhaps. Some will gain such from their readings... and some won't. And here shouldn't we bring up the fact that not all literature is concerned with establishing moral ideas. Indeed, I would say this is true of the majority of literature.

It isn't as simple as suggesting that I am the product of my reading. I have read the Bible, Plato, Satyricon, Rousseau's Confessions, Montaigne, Bataille, DeSade, and Machiavelli. Am I to expect that my morals shall be but an average of these quite different world views?

Creativity and Cultural Competence? How do these make me a "better" person?

Perception. I will acknowledge that literature can teach us to recognize the power of words... how they can be used to communicate... or manipulate. (I immediately think of a comparison of the speeches of Brutus and Mark Antony... and how words can mislead... seduce... entice). Understanding how word communicate is of great value... but again... does it make one "better?"

Compassion? This is a real stretch. You would be hard pressed to prove how literature... great art in general... inherently results in more compassionate individuals. Some of the most compassionate people I have known in my life have been among the least educated... the least "well-read". At the same time, I have known more than my share of brilliant self-serving a** holes.

[PeterL]

If we are best-selling novelists, our novels make us better (off).

I agree. Alas, I am not a best-selling author. Help me on that when I next write a novel.

If you seriously believe that the works Darcy introduced have had absolutely no impact on people's (not necessarily as a whole since we can't quantify that) betterment, I think we all better quit while we're ahead lol...

That's what I was trying to indicate from my first repsonse on this thread.

This thread is one of the sillier wastes of time that has been posted on Lit-net. How could anyone think for a second that reading literature improves people? That idea is analogous to thinking that starin at a wall will improve one's eyesight.

[Darcy88]

That's what I was trying to indicate from my first repsonse on this thread.

This thread is one of the sillier wastes of time that has been posted on Lit-net. How could anyone think for a second that reading literature improves people? That idea is analogous to thinking that starin at a wall will improve one's eyesight.

I don't even know how to reply to this. The moral effect of most wisdom literature is really almost self-evident to me. I remember when I was heavily into Buddhism and reading sutras and the Dhamapada and other texts for hours a day I got to the point where my sense of compassion and my self-control were developed to incredible extents. I'd say a person who comes to care deeply for all of humanity and who doesn't react emotionally to any manner of annoyance has bettered themselves.

[Drkshadow03]

Part of the problem I think is no one is really qualifying what it means to be improved or made better by literature. Are we smarter after reading lit? Are we more empathetic?

Darcy seems to be suggesting that the ideas he holds and the way he lives his life have fundamentally changed by reading certain literature. And that he believes these ideas have improved him for the better had he not been exposed to them. I don't think it is particularly controversial that you can pick up new ideas about the world from literature or non-fiction too. Does picking up new ideas make us better? That is trickier. After all, if I read Marx and his ideas, some would say adopting his ideas is an improvement in my thinking, while others who are critical of Marxism would say it is for the worse and bad.

[PeterL]

I don't even know how to reply to this. The moral effect of most wisdom literature is really almost self-evident to me. I remember when I was heavily into Buddhism and reading sutras and the Dhamapada and other texts for hours a day I got to the point where my sense of compassion and my self-control were developed to incredible extents. I'd say a person who comes to care deeply for all of humanity and who doesn't react emotionally to any manner of annoyance has bettered themselves.

Did you gain that from reading or from something else? Do you have any objective evidence that readin was the the cause of what you perceived as postivie results? Do you have any objective evidence that what you perceived as improved ment was actually improvement?

It is all maya.

Part of the problem I think is no one is really qualifying what it means to be improved or made better by literature. Are we smarter after reading lit? Are we more empathetic?

Darcy seems to be suggesting that the ideas he holds and the way he lives his life have fundamentally changed by reading certain literature. And that he believes these ideas have improved him for the better had he not been exposed to them. I don't think it is particularly controversial that you can pick up new ideas about the world from literature or non-fiction too. Does picking up new ideas make us better? That is trickier. After all, if I read Marx and his ideas, some would say adopting his ideas is an improvement in my thinking, while others who are critical of Marxism would say it is for the worse and bad.

Yes, self-delusion is not improvement.

[lichtrausch]

Part of the problem I think is no one is really qualifying what it means to be improved or made better by literature. Are we smarter after reading lit? Are we more empathetic?

I did.

[astrum]

Yes, self-delusion is not improvement.

Who's to say whether it is self-delusion or not?

If one feels that she's a better person (in any way), then isn't that enough? Must society also consent before it's true?

[The Comedian]

Do you not think that literature improves the following:

1. Intelligence -- Yes
2. Articulation -- Yes
3. Empathy/Interpersonal understanding -- Yes
4. Creativity -- Yes
5. Cultural competence -- Yes
6. Perception -- Yes
7. Compassion -- Yes


Do you not think that reading fine literature has a gentrifying and ennobling effect on the human psyche? Yes

Those are my answers. Of course, great literature/philosophy doesn't improve an individual passively; the individual must act in accordance with what he or she has learned, must experiment language or ideas, etc. . . but literature is a fantastic oil to the gears of the human mind and soul. I honestly don't see the logic of those answering "no" to these questions. Sure, there are undoubtedly other ways to improve these things -- but that just because something else could improve one's mind and soul doen't mean that, as a result, literature cannot. Or that because there are many ways to improve one's self means that, because many means exist, then that all things improve one's self. Such stuff seems nonsensical to me.

I mean, if one were to answer "No" to all of these qualities -- that literature does not improve our "articulation" for instance, then what does? Surely all of these qualities can be improved, right? Or perhaps the "no" respondents believe in general relativism -- (that no one is more or less creative, articulate, perceptive, compassionate. . .). I suppose if that is so, then literature would be no better to an individual than eating a box of Little Debbie snack cakes, taking a massive dump on the toilet, sleeping through one's responsibilities . . .

[PeterL]

Who's to say whether it is self-delusion or not?

If one feels that she's a better person (in any way), then isn't that enough? Must society also consent before it's true?

When one believes something without having any objective evidence, and all of the evidence is personal impression, then there is no evidence, and it is safest to believe that that belief is purely dulusitonal, and since this is a belief about oneself it is delusion of the self.

I find it shocking that anyone would believe that reading "great literature" increases intelligence (to pick on just one of the matters listed)is well known that intelligence is innate and rarely, if ever, changes over the course of one's life. Then there's the matter of cause and effect resulting in what we are, regardless of of what we may think we would rather be or do.

If one believes in a purely subjective universe, then one can easily define the situation wherein one might change one's intelligence by reading, but that requires that the consensual universe not exist and that the only universe be one's own subjective universe. That makes interesting premises for works of fantasy, consider The Compleat ENchanter by Fletcher Pratt and L. Sprague de Camp, but we aren't discussing fiction, or are we?

[Darcy88]

When one believes something without having any objective evidence, and all of the evidence is personal impression, then there is no evidence, and it is safest to believe that that belief is purely dulusitonal, and since this is a belief about oneself it is delusion of the self.

I find it shocking that anyone would believe that reading "great literature" increases intelligence (to pick on just one of the matters listed)is well known that intelligence is innate and rarely, if ever, changes over the course of one's life. Then there's the matter of cause and effect resulting in what we are, regardless of of what we may think we would rather be or do.

If one believes in a purely subjective universe, then one can easily define the situation wherein one might change one's intelligence by reading, but that requires that the consensual universe not exist and that the only universe be one's own subjective universe. That makes interesting premises for works of fantasy, consider The Compleat ENchanter by Fletcher Pratt and L. Sprague de Camp, but we aren't discussing fiction, or are we?

Nonsense. Literature expands the mind, plain and simple. Grappling with abstruse philosophical texts pushes your brain. Studying literature bestows higher levels of nuance and sophistication to the intellect. A person who spends all their time watching television is not going to be as quick witted or adept at reasoning as someone who spends all their time with their nose stuck in difficult texts. Some people have incredible genes for musculature and cardiovascular fitness. But if their days are spent lethargically they won't be great physical specimens. Same thing with the mind. Debate me when I'm in the midst of a depression and idling my days away on the couch in front of the boob tube and you'll mop the floor with me. Debate me later when I'm on one of my voracious literary bents and we'll be much more evenly matched.

Part of it is definitely correlative. Already smart people often have an affinity for reading. But there is also something to be said for the intellectual enrichment that is often the result of dedicated literary study.

[cacian]

the only thing that can make you better is yourself. literature should or could follow and be better for it. it is cliché to think that what we write makes us better what it can do however is make us think and the rest is up to you.

[tinybore]

I don't know about intelligence, I think that is something one is born with. But about wisdom, yes I believe you can improve that by reading. Some books, texts, can make you think and question in new ways. I mean, you become inspirated. And that changes the way you've thought before.
But then again, to fully understand some stuff, it isn't enough that you read about it, you also need to experience it.

[PeterL]

Nonsense. Literature expands the mind, plain and simple. Grappling with abstruse philosophical texts pushes your brain. Studying literature bestows higher levels of nuance and sophistication to the intellect. A person who spends all their time watching television is not going to be as quick witted or adept at reasoning as someone who spends all their time with their nose stuck in difficult texts. Some people have incredible genes for musculature and cardiovascular fitness. But if their days are spent lethargically they won't be great physical specimens. Same thing with the mind. Debate me when I'm in the midst of a depression and idling my days away on the couch in front of the boob tube and you'll mop the floor with me. Debate me later when I'm on one of my voracious literary bents and we'll be much more evenly matched.

Part of it is definitely correlative. Already smart people often have an affinity for reading. But there is also something to be said for the intellectual enrichment that is often the result of dedicated literary study.

Do you have any evidence to support your opinion?

[Ecurb]

Oh, come on, Peter. Obviously, reading can “improve” a person’s knowledge, as well I know, from flunking all of those pop quizzes in English class when I spent my time reading novels other than those assigned by my English Lit. teachers. Had I actually read the novels I was supposed to read, I would have passed the quizzes, because I would have known the answers to the quiz questions. Which Jane Austen character, “agreed with everything he said, because she didn’t think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition…”? If you had read (and remembered) Sense and Sensibility, you would know the answer.

So reading makes us more knowledgeable (if not necessarily more “intelligent”). That’s not even arguable. Is a newborn baby as “intelligent” as he will be 30 years later? If intelligence is “innate”, he would be. However, the way most people use the word “intelligent”, he is not. He has learned from his experiences, experiences which, for most of us, include reading. I’ll grant that it is problematic to say, “The 30 year old is ‘better’ than the baby.” He is, however “better at” walking, talking, reading, writing (and many other things).

By the way, intelligence is not “innate”, as has clearly been demonstrated in the case of identical twins, whose intelligence varies as measured by I.Q. (or any other method).

Also, none of this contradicts a deterministic world view. Even the most stringent determinist can reasonably say that reading a book “causes” someone to learn what is written there.

Nietzsche said, “I have destroyed the distinction between good and evil, but not that between good and bad.” Some contributors to this thread seem to mean “better”, implying more the opposite of evil. It’s reasonable to doubt that (as Nietzsche did). But literature (scientific, historical, and artistic) clearly makes people “better at” knowing certain things.


Pp.s. answer to quiz question: Elinor Dashwood (referring to Robert Ferrars).

[PeterL]

Oh, come on, Peter. Obviously, reading can “improve” a person’s knowledge, as well I know, from flunking all of those pop quizzes in English class when I spent my time reading novels other than those assigned by my English Lit. teachers. Had I actually read the novels I was supposed to read, I would have passed the quizzes, because I would have known the answers to the quiz questions. Which Jane Austen character, “agreed with everything he said, because she didn’t think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition…”? If you had read (and remembered) Sense and Sensibility, you would know the answer.

So reading makes us more knowledgeable (if not necessarily more “intelligent”). That’s not even arguable. Is a newborn baby as “intelligent” as he will be 30 years later? If intelligence is “innate”, he would be. However, the way most people use the word “intelligent”, he is not. He has learned from his experiences, experiences which, for most of us, include reading. I’ll grant that it is problematic to say, “The 30 year old is ‘better’ than the baby.” He is, however “better at” walking, talking, reading, writing (and many other things).

By the way, intelligence is not “innate”, as has clearly been demonstrated in the case of identical twins, whose intelligence varies as measured by I.Q. (or any other method).

Also, none of this contradicts a deterministic world view. Even the most stringent determinist can reasonably say that reading a book “causes” someone to learn what is written there.

Nietzsche said, “I have destroyed the distinction between good and evil, but not that between good and bad.” Some contributors to this thread seem to mean “better”, implying more the opposite of evil. It’s reasonable to doubt that (as Nietzsche did). But literature (scientific, historical, and artistic) clearly makes people “better at” knowing certain things.


Pp.s. answer to quiz question: Elinor Dashwood (referring to Robert Ferrars).

Oh come on yourself. I do agree that reading can decrease ignorance, but intelligence is innate; it can vary slightly between identical twins brought up separately, but only by a small percent. The characters, personalities, etc. of humans are innate, and the more that I look into that matter the more I find that to be true. People don't change to any significant amount as a result of any external stimuli. Oh, there can be a little added over there and a little something lopped off over here, but those are tiny compared with the whole.

If you want to believe that you were changed greatly by reading Dicjkens or Tolstoy or whoever, then go ahead and believe; you will anyway.