The Writer's Philosophical Debate

[cacian]

After acquainting myself with reading and writing I came to ask myself this:
are writers mildly depressive or exuberantly exagerant? either way there is fine line between the two.

The style in which all stories come together is through didactic dilemmas encumbered with tragic circumstances that I cannot decide if in the end life is just another classic tragedy a cliche made to stand the rife of time because we imagine more then we can think.

So What is the philosophy of a true writer?
Contingent sounds vague.
I feel every writer has a theory. What could yours be? :)

[Ceile]

I have actually been thinking about the same exact thing recently. Though I don't believe that all writers write truly with their hearts, those that do are easily identified because of the readers reaction; the ability of the reader to relate. How excruciating it is to be blessed with the artful mind of a writer, the one that picks up on the beauty of everything; the endless potential. Writers don't solely write what they see, they write what they feel, so to say that writers are only "exuberantly exaggerant", to me, would be an incredible disservice. Anyone can exaggerate a scene, but those who can create or replicate a feeling are the true great writers; they create the works of art that we live through. I have often asked myself whether the greats had been plagued with this ability, and came up with a resounding yes. The writings that can evoke incredible feelings to a reader could not merely be fabricated. I think the philosophy of true writers is to write from the heart; the heart that does not just skim the surface of life, but delves deep into it, and often finds the "classic tragedies" that others miss.

[cafolini]

I don't think all writers are philosophical.

[cacian]

I don't think all writers are philosophical.

Philosophy is why writing started. I am surprised at that.

[cafolini]

I think writing started with an aim at controlling populations. There was no philosophy in the scribes that produced the documents, and not even a pinch of it in the despots, nepotists, and cruel men who carved humanity (humillation) into the souls of peoples.

[Shaman_Raman]

Philosophy is why writing started. I am surprised at that.

I agree. Any written piece of work, whether analytical and legal, or creative storytelling, addressed a conflict and how to solve it. But the conflict and solution would be meaningless without the "why" that warrants the two, which would have to be philosophical by nature. I feel to say some writers or writing aren't philosophical is to say some writing lacks purpose. I think it get's confusing because philosophy requires the intellect, thus being assumed as logical, which writings with romantic appeal may not be logical. However, they could have emotional intelligence, which is almost harder to understand because of it's subjectivity, especially in that of poetry. All in all I believe all writings have the potential for leaving some impression, lesson, moral, or message to the reader; sometimes it's just more vague than clear.

[cacian]

[QUOTE=cafolini;1207155]I think writing started with an aim at controlling populations.
agreed.

There was no philosophy in the scribes that produced the documents,
there is no philosophy in crowd control.

and not even a pinch of it in the despots, nepotists,

despotism nepotism heroism sadism sounds more like it.


and cruel men who carved humanity (humillation) into the souls of peoples.
cruelty does not carve it starves whilst humanity blags its way for a chance of making up for those who came and went did not notice they did.
humanity feels down and so writing becomes the ultimate blame. Take a chance on me says the story where else would you show case your glory?

[cacian]

I agree. Any written piece of work, whether analytical and legal, or creative storytelling, addressed a conflict and how to solve it. But the conflict and solution would be meaningless without the "why" that warrants the two, which would have to be philosophical by nature. I feel to say some writers or writing aren't philosophical is to say some writing lacks purpose. I think it get's confusing because philosophy requires the intellect, thus being assumed as logical, which writings with romantic appeal may not be logical. However, they could have emotional intelligence, which is almost harder to understand because of it's subjectivity, especially in that of poetry. All in all I believe all writings have the potential for leaving some impression, lesson, moral, or message to the reader; sometimes it's just more vague than clear.

Philosophy requires innocence to be bold. The purpose of writing is to set an ideal and describe it in his or her own words. Writing develops the intellect in levels where the mind on its own . It is only by seeing that one can understand and since words and thoughts are visible then one is able to think clearly.
What there is to writing none others can. To visualise the word is to visualise the who from the why and so on. Language is bright. It is the light to the heart because it speaks louder then it.