Literature: a form of Philosophy?

[MiSaNtHrOpE]

Is literature a form of philosophy? Instead of engaging in a debate about certain topics, authors of literature write naratives to illustrate their points. I, personally, believe that a lot of what I read about is, in fact, true about society. Do you believe that this qualifies as Philosophy?

[IrishCanadian]

No. However, literature often harbours philosophy thus making the author a philosopher. Aldous Huxley, Ayn Rand . . . the list is endless. But look at Charles Dickens, Edger Allan Poe, . . . the list of writers for writing's sake is endless too. Philosophy may be a form of literature but definitely not the other way around.

[Wendigo_49]

I think philosophy can be literature. I also think for authors it can be intentional and unintentional. Whenever you write, a part of yourself goes into the characters no matter how hard you try not to because all you have is your experience to go on. That is why I like to ask questions to other people about certain circumstances(makes for some weird looks) and what they would do.

[Nightshade]

wait I thought dickens wrote to illistrate a point like Horatio Alger jr??
And L.M alcott wrote simply for the money.
I think The writers personal beliefs and philosphies alwasy end up coming across sooner or later but wheter literature is dilbertae philosphy I dont know maybe.. sometimes..
perhaps that statement is too general?
:D

[PeterL]

Is literature a form of philosophy? Instead of engaging in a debate about certain topics, authors of literature write naratives to illustrate their points. I, personally, believe that a lot of what I read about is, in fact, true about society. Do you believe that this qualifies as Philosophy?

I think that I basically agree with the point that you tried to make, but I think that you said it backwards. Serious literature reflects the way of thinking, the philosophy, of the writer; I agree with you strongly there. Many philosophers, so-called, established their philosophy through fiction, someone already mentioned Ayn Rand, but Satre, Kafka, Eco, etc. But that doesn't make fiction philosophy; it makes fiction a vehicle for illustrating philosophy.

[subterranean]

Well said Peter. Literature is one of the tools, not only to philosophy, but also to politics, religions, science, economics, etc.

[PeterL]

Yes, Sub, It's almost funny that you mention science on that list. "The Golden Helix" by Theodore Sturgeon is about the molecule that runs cells, and it was published before the form of DNA was discovered. When geosynchros satelites were designed, they couldn't be patented, because A. C. Clarke had already described them in detail in fiction. And so on.

[el01ks]

It all depends, doesn't it? I don't think you can say an author writes 'simply' for any one reason, as nightshade goes on to say other things seep through. It is almost impossible now to say why someone wrote someth, unless they have left notes/a diary behind. For example, lots of eighteenth century novellists who wrote "gothic literature" are now thought to have been misogynist in their views, or to have planned their work as some sort of moral guide/tale, with warnings about inappropriate behaviour (usually female!). Some of them probably just wrote because they liked the genre and had an idea.
Most fantasy novels seem to be an adaptation of the traditional angels vs devils, and the amount of them with a character who can be described as a christ-figure, who has to sacrifice himself, or a part of himself, in order to save the world is vast (lord of the rings - frodo, wheel of time - rand etc). Did the authors all know that it was a sort of christian allegory, or is it just the way the genre works? Could there be a new fantasy novel now where there is not some sort of good vs evil plot, with a main hero and a main villain?

I think that a lot of novels take on a sort of life of their own regardless of the writer, or, rather, that the story of the writer, rather than his views, become part of the work as a whole. Would Middlemarch still be studied as much if it was written by a man, or by a woman with a less interesting history?

Everything depends on the perspective of the reader. There probably are philisophical authors, who meant to ponder larger issues, we can never really know if they meant to imply all the things that are read into their work. Perhaps it is more the readers that are philosophers rather than the literature.

[Cafe Rob]

No, I don't agree that literature can be classified as philosophy or not Western Philosophy at least. Philosophy is a body of knowledge that stretches back to Plato in ancient Greece. It is an academic subject, devoted to truth and wisdom. Whereas literature would better be defined as art although philosophical theories are to be found in some novels. Schopenhauer's ideas influenced writers like Thomas Mann, Thomas Hardy, Leo Tolstoy and many others.

[Albion]

Philosophy is the art of enlightenment: how to discover, examine and impart a point of view. How to communicate opinions and discoveries to others and thereby to invite responses and criticisms which, by development of thought, leads to a true understanding of a subject, even the purpose of life (but there may be no purpose beyond procreation).

Man is gifted with a large brain. Big enough to ask the questions but often not big enough to know the answers. Too often, however, he is unaware of the questions. Much study, for instance, has been concentrated on religious studies which tended to crowd out consideration of the humanities which received little comment for a millennium or more. Only by striving for truth (what is truth? Clarity untrammelled by prejudice), can one find and achieve knowledge. It includes starting hares and splitting hairs; blind alleys and superhighways.

Philosophy is not mere thought alone but any human communication (a conversation over lunch as well as a cerebral discussion at university). It includes literature, politics and science; any means by which humanity can be exposed to knowledge and discovery. It is also the distillation of individual thought gleaned from contact with the environment but this, without the opportunity to triangulate it with the views of others, can be imperfect. Communication is the essential ingredient; but the whole discussion must be directed towards the light rather than self delusion and self justification.

The real problem of philosophy is how to know that the arguments have been misdirected or not. It is not sufficient to judge their compliance with the narrow field of current thinking, which itself may be erroneous, but necessary to apply wisdom to the conclusion in order to gauge its veracity. Unfortunately, wisdom is itself the product of the age and even the broadest of educations may be inadequate to create it.

But, keep thinking! One day we may reach the goal of total knowledge even if we are meanime tossed about on the mountainous waves of ignorance. On the other hand, some may prefer the simplicity of innocence.

[mal4mac]

I think you can have philosophy that isn't literature - Kant, Heidegger, and other bad writers who might have something to say, or not (Rand). But I can't see how you can have literature without philosophy. Dickens' heroes are moral philosophers in action. Is there a better moral philosopher? I doubt there's a more interesting one (apart from Shakespeare...)

Aldous Huxley tended to force philosophy into his novels, making them lesser novels. For great writers the philosophy is there, but is blended into an artistic whole. Montaigne is an interesting example, his essays are great literature, and philosophy is their main driving force throughout. Fortunately, it's interesting philosophy...

[mayneverhave]

The ends of philosophy and literature are essentially different. Literature is art, it is mute, so to speak, and is an end unto itself. Literature doesn't say anything; it simply is, the way a sculpture, painting, or symphony simply is.

Now philosophy may very well be literature, but that's a different issue.

[blazeofglory]

I find both literature and philosophy are integrally one. I feel it more explicit when I read the Brothers Karamazov. Atlas Shrugged is another wonderful book wherein I find a blend of both.

In great books of literature philosophy cannot be excluded

[mal4mac]

The ends of philosophy and literature are essentially different. Literature is art, it is mute, so to speak, and is an end unto itself. Literature doesn't say anything; it simply is, the way a sculpture, painting, or symphony simply is.

Now philosophy may very well be literature, but that's a different issue.

Some philosophers say that the purpose of philosophy is to help one live a happy life. Some people say that literature make one happier, and I have certainly found that to be the case. So if the ends of philosophy and literature are happiness, then how are they "essentially different"?

How can literature, being based on the spoken word be mute?

Is the end of literature to stimulate the writing of more books? maybe it's one end, but surely not one of the main ones. Dr Johnson suggested the main end was to make money, but he also aimed to amuse. Money and amusement are not sub-categories of literature, so how is literature an end in itself?

Little great art *simply* is. It's all rather complicated...

[Quark]

Some philosophers say that the purpose of philosophy is to help one live a happy life. Some people say that literature make one happier

Maybe we need another thread that distinguishes philosophy from self-help.


Dr Johnson suggested the main end was to make money, but he also aimed to amuse. Money and amusement are not sub-categories of literature, so how is literature an end in itself?

Well, Johnson's personal life certainly suggests that the point of literature was making money--after all, he wrote Rasselas just to raise the funds to visit family. But, at least officially, his stance was that literature is about amusement and instruction.

[JBI]

Philosophy is a genre of literature, if it is written, as almost all is now. The same way poetry is a genre if poetry is written down, or theatre is a genre if the plays are written down. Philosophy is just a genre with a long history, like drama, so it gets studied separately in institutions. This idea seems common throughout many large cultures, Japan, Korea, India, much of the Middle East, Iran, Turkey and China included, though in China and Japan the line between philosophy and other subjects is vaguer, as is the case in other countries. Simply put, philosophy is just a form of articulation with a differing purpose depending on which branch or conception of it you look at.

[JBI]

Maybe we need another thread that distinguishes philosophy from self-help.



Well, Johnson's personal life certainly suggests that the point of literature was making money--after all, he wrote Rasselas just to raise the funds to visit family. But, at least officially, his stance was that literature is about amusement and instruction.

The problem with that though is it seems people take a joke as a little proclamation of money as the only idea behind literature.

Simply put, that is hardly the case, and Johnson himself doubtfully believed so, since profitable publication is a late-Elizabethan concept, and doesn't really take over until the 17th century.

I think the general idea of why artists create art though now is equally about "ego" as it is about money. Simply put, the tradition seems to suggest the desire to see one's name on the cover of the book is at least some consolation.

Then again, Foucault did order the burning of his manuscripts, so perhaps he figured he wouldn't be around to collect, so what was the point?

[Quark]

Simply put, that is hardly the case, and Johnson himself doubtfully believed so, since profitable publication is a late-Elizabethan concept, and doesn't really take over until the 17th century.

Yeah, I doubt a sixteenth-century coterie poet like Sir Phillip Sidney was really raking in the dough. Lucrative publication is, as you're saying, something that's only come about in the last four centuries. A little context helps. But, at the same time, I think it's possible to take too wide of a focus. When you say:


Philosophy is a genre of literature, if it is written, as almost all is now.

Simply put, philosophy is just a form of articulation

It seems like you're taking too wide of a perspective. I don't think the OP was referring to literature in the way that everything that is written down is literature. In that sense, a medical textbook would be literature. Instead, it appears that they were talking about literary art--specifically narrative:


authors of literature write naratives to illustrate their points

The question seems to be about whether something like Dickens' Bleak House or Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises qualifies as philosophy.


I think the general idea of why artists create art though now is equally about "ego" as it is about money.

While ego has a lot to do with why you and I write, I don't know if we can say the same thing about authors. Since so much of how a publisher sells a book is by selling the author, writers have to market themselves as unique, attractive people--or egos. It's difficult to know whether the big ego that we eventually attach to an author really belongs to them, or whether it's an invention to sell books.

[mortalterror]

Well, Johnson's personal life certainly suggests that the point of literature was making money--after all, he wrote Rasselas just to raise the funds to visit family.
Well, I'm sure that he no doubt did meet with his relatives at his mother's funeral, but that's not how I would have put it.

The question seems to be about whether something like Dickens' Bleak House or Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises qualifies as philosophy.
I like Hemingway, but I don't confuse him with Aristotle.

[JCamilo]

That because Aristotle didnt had a rifle.

[Jozanny]

I think it would be a mistake to say every discipline is tied to creative writing and the vision writers create. Philosophy looks at problems and depends on rational arguments, and it has a language all to itself, logic, which I almost flunked and would still find difficult today. Sure, philosophical thought intersects with literary writing, but that is a far cry from F^= (x x y) > (A-B) < CY

We do not equate our grammars with mathematics outside of logic as a branch of philosophy, and scientists like Dennett and Chomsky are not running off writing novels to point to innate universals. That existentialists used traditional literary mediums only points to their need to spin the polemic of their idea. Foucault took a different path, culling historic episodes to brace his points on power knowledge and the social manipulation of the body.

Interdisciplinary engagement is sexy, but disciplines are disciplines because they do certain things, and some of my online philosophy contacts are unhappy that I espouse this view (not that it is mine) but philosophy is about the argument, and not even necessarily winning or losing the argument, but the importance of the argument itself.

Literature may incorporate the argument to teach us something about ourselves, but it is character dependent, a way of using human experiences for both entertainment and instruction.

[stlukesguild]

Is literature a form of philosophy? Instead of engaging in a debate about certain topics, authors of literature write naratives to illustrate their points. I, personally, believe that a lot of what I read about is, in fact, true about society. Do you believe that this qualifies as Philosophy?

I don't understand the urge to define one discipline as being an example of another. We already have the thread about whether song lyrics are poetry... whether rap is poetry... etc... Why do we need to imagine that literature is philosophy? Is calculus music? Is biology history?:willy_nilly:

[Modest Proposal]

Is literature a form of philosophy? Instead of engaging in a debate about certain topics, authors of literature write naratives to illustrate their points. I, personally, believe that a lot of what I read about is, in fact, true about society. Do you believe that this qualifies as Philosophy?

I don't understand the urge to define one discipline as being an example of another. We already have the thread about whether song lyrics are poetry... whether rap is poetry... etc... Why do we need to imagine that literature is philosophy? Is calculus music? Is biology history?:willy_nilly:

I agree with this completely. And though I don't wish to place blame, I think Philosophy's stated purpose of 'knowing' sort of makes them the most guilty of cataloguing. Philosophy students are the one's I have met most concerned with categorization and defining what constitutes 'the philosophic'.

[JCamilo]

One of those threads here, alike When Philosophy becames drivel or something.
I ask, Is skydiving a form of literature?

[Jozanny]

I don't understand the urge to define one discipline as being an example of another. We already have the thread about whether song lyrics are poetry... whether rap is poetry... etc... Why do we need to imagine that literature is philosophy? Is calculus music? Is biology history?:willy_nilly:

I had no idea you could dance so well!:wave:

[stlukesguild]

Hey... you you see me after a few beers.:banana:

[Quark]

Well, I'm sure that he no doubt did meet with his relatives at his mother's funeral, but that's not how I would have put it.

Well, I know he did something with the money. Maybe he spent it all on booze and whores when Boswell wasn't looking.


I don't understand the urge to define one discipline as being an example of another.

Literature isn't a discipline, though. It's a collection of texts. That's what makes it difficult to pin down. Clearly, there are some philosophical-literary works: Sarte's Nausea, Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, Voltaire's Candide and Zadig, Carlyle's Sartor Resartus, Pater's Marius the Epicurean, etc. So there's some overlap. I don't believe there's anything necessarily philosophical about literature (which is what I think the OP was driving at), but, at the same time, I don't buy that they're separate disciplines that can't mix without the academy collapsing.

[Jozanny]

Literature isn't a discipline, though. It's a collection of texts. That's what makes it difficult to pin down. Clearly, there are some philosophical-literary works: Sarte's Nausea, Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, Voltaire's Candide and Zadig, Carlyle's Sartor Resartus, Pater's Marius the Epicurean, etc. So there's some overlap. I don't believe there's anything necessarily philosophical about literature (which is what I think the OP was driving at), but, at the same time, I don't buy that they're separate disciplines that can't mix without the academy collapsing.

I have to respond to this even though it was directed at luke. Literature may be a body of work, and one can as easily refer the student to the literature of and on Hegel as one can to Shakespeare's plays, but creative writing IS a discipline with quite distinct and separate goals from other departments in the college of arts and sciences, and while interdisciplinary engagement is exciting and dynamic, the OP is asking if the art of story telling can be conflated and collapsed into a philosophical treatise or branch.

No, it cannot. Mills and Marx had very different goals in mind than those of Camus in his writing a novel like The Stranger, or my favorite, The Plague.

[Quark]

I understand where you're coming from. The OP is suggesting something pretty radical--something I don't think anyone on the thread is actually defending. No one is really going to argue that we should subsume Literature under Philosophy. That's just crazy. The reason I posted, though, is because everyone seems to be going to the opposite extreme and saying that there's absolutely no overlap between Literature and Philosophy. This is almost equally absurd. When the OP says that:


Instead of engaging in a debate about certain topics, authors of literature write naratives to illustrate their points

The answer to this is, of course, no, narratives do not always have to serve philosophical points. But, at the same time, we have to acknowledge that, yes, sometimes narratives can be used to illustrate a philosophical point. Take Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra (a work more frequently used in Philosophy classes than Creative Writing seminars). Here, there's a narrative, characters, and many of the usual trappings of Literature. Yet, the book also advances a philosophical thesis. This is the overlap that I was talking about in my previous post.


but creative writing IS a discipline with quite distinct and separate goals from other departments in the college of arts and sciences

I think you're putting words in MiSaNtHrOpE's mouth. The OP didn't say anything about the craft Creative Writing teaches. It mentioned Literature.


the OP is asking if the art of story telling can be conflated and collapsed into a philosophical treatise or branch.

Again, this isn't what the OP said. The OP asked about "narrative," not the "art of story telling." That latter phrase does sound like something distinctly in the territory of Creative Writing departments. Narrative, though, is something that no discipline has a lock on. Try to tell Journalism and History departments that. Literary scholars study narrative, as well, but they're separate from the Creative Writing department. Just because you're writing a narrative doesn't mean you're automatically in a Creative Writing department. I just gave an example above where a philosopher uses narrative to make his philosophical argument. You might argue that he's doing both Philosophy and Creative Writing--and I probably would agree with you. That just shows that there can be--but need not be--overlap between these things.

[Jozanny]

Well, I pushed the point because the producers of classical literature were writers, though they may have been and done other things, and though no one is contesting *overlap* to use your word, it is a little lazy to conclude that literary works are in and of themselves a philosophy.

I do not like the undercurrent of hostility toward academics which runs as an undercurrent in this forum, if not this thread. Phenomenology is important to literary theory and criticism, but that does not make Henry James a disciple of Hegel, even though his work is explored in the context of Hegel's theory.

[Heteronym]

I currently believe that philosophy and literature are at cross purposes. The philosopher uses reason and logic to build a system to find answers, eliminate contradictions in human existence, and explain the world.

Writers do the opposite. They ask questions, relish in the confusion, strangeness and contradictions of the world, celebrate ambiguity, and seldom give answers. A novel by Dostoyevsky, for instance, contains characters that espouse his beliefs, but also characters that espouse contrary beliefs. And if Raskolnikov is supposed to represent everything that Dostoyevsky is against, why does the author feel so much compassion for him?

The world is strange, confusing and complicated, and literature reflects the world.

[IceM]

Writing presents ideas. The ideas are either a reflection or contradiction of what the author believes. A system of ideas presented with its accuracy and flaws forms a philosophy. One's writing is then philosophy, whether emphasized or implicit.

Another way of looking at this: literature has ideas: ideas are philosophies: literature is philosophy. Makes sense to me.

[Heteronym]

A philosophical system does not accept its own flaws. It hides, ignores, downplays them. Once a philosopher sets down a system of thought, he spends more time defending it against detractors, regurgitating it in new forms, than formulating new ideas. It's the nature of philosophers: they can't accept they're wrong.

Another aspect of philosophy is that it must be clear - let's leave aside the fact that most philosophers aren't particularly good writers. But they want people to agree with their ideas.

Now a writer, by the use of characters, conflict, literary devices, plots, etc., rejects clarity. Let's think of Madame Bovary: is adultery wrong? Is Emma wrong for having affairs? Or is her dull, loving husband to blame for her seeking adventures in other men? Is it wrong to seek happiness outside marriage or must one be loyal to it? Flaubert raises many questions but doesn't bother to answer them. The novel ends and the questions float in the air, mocking us because there aren't sure answers for them. Because that's the tragedy of the human condition.

In the hands of a philosopher, however, there wouldn't be a shortage of answers: of course adultery is immoral! Of course it's not! It infringes on sacred vows! Wrong, adultery is reasonable without certain circumstances! Man is free to do what he wants! No, man must abide by social rules! And so go the philosophers, arguing, arguing, arguing, thinking they know great truths, while the writer sits above them enjoying the silly spectacle they make.

[stlukesguild]

Writers... ask questions, relish in the confusion, strangeness and contradictions of the world, celebrate ambiguity, and seldom give answers. A novel by Dostoyevsky, for instance, contains characters that espouse his beliefs, but also characters that espouse contrary beliefs...

Exactly! This is one of the reasons I have trouble with Freudian criticism which often attempts to discern the author from the text... completely ignoring the fact that we rarely know who the author most resembles or empathizes with. Which character is Shakespeare? All? None?

[Heteronym]

My views are founded on two books: Mikhail Bakhtin's The Problems of Dostoyevsky; and Milan Kundera's The Art of the Novel. Bakhtin especially gives some insight about the question of writers hiding their voices in favor of letting the characters' voices emerge with autonomy of thought. His thoughts on the concept of the polyphonic novel rearranged my conception of the novel.