Does Great Literature Make Us Better?

[astrum]

From NY Times:



..[E]xposure to challenging works of literary fiction is good for us. That’s one reason we deplore the dumbing-down of the school curriculum and the rise of the Internet and its hyperlink culture. Perhaps we don’t all read very much that we would count as great literature, but we’re apt to feel guilty about not doing so, seeing it as one of the ways we fall short of excellence. Wouldn’t reading about Anna Karenina, the good folk of Middlemarch and Marcel and his friends expand our imaginations and refine our moral and social sensibilities?


See more here: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/does-great-literature-make-us-better/?src=rechp


What do you think? Do you think that reading great literature has made you a better person, in any way?

[Charles Darnay]

Great or difficult literature is not designed to make you a better person. Those who read Joyce, Proust, Milton, &c. for the sole reason of cultural capital - to say "well I have expanded my mind: WORSHIP ME!" tend to be terrible people. It's what we take away from literature that can make us better people - that comes from us alone, not the work. Literacy is important: that there is no getting around. Being able to form coherent sentences and read paragraphs for comprehension - but you hardly need Shakespeare for that. It is how much we can analyze a work that "develops our minds" - whatever that is. The truth is, you can draw on your critical analytic skills whether you read Tolstoy or certain posts on Reddit. There is a dumbing down of the curriculum (in N. America at least) - but it is not because we are removing challenging books from the curriculum: it is because we are rooting out the parts that force students to use their analytic skills, to question the world around them.

As far as expanding your imagination or refining your social and moral sensibilities: again, there are a lot of great books that give insight into the sensibilities of people at a certain time. There are great books that open up a new world. But just picking them up and reading them won't make you a moral person, or socially better, or more imaginative. You have to work on these skills (and teach these skills to children) - and again, "great literature" is just one vehicle.

[stlukesguild]

Nobody has ever denied that Sigismondo de Malatesta, the Lord of Rimini, had excellent taste. He hired the most refined of quattrocento architects, Leno Battista Alberti, to design a memorial temple to his wife, and then got the sculptor Agostino de Duccio to decorate it, and retained Piero della Francesca to paint it. Yet Sigismondo was a man of such callousness and rapcity that he was known in life as Il Lupo, The Wolf, and so execrated after his death that the Catholic Church made him (for a time) the only man apart from Judas Iscariot officially listed as being in Hell—a distinction he earned by trussing up a Papal emissary, the fifteen-year-old Bishop of Fano, in his own rochet and publicly sodomizing him before his applauding army in the main square of Rimini.

Robert Hughes- The Culture of Complaint

The example of the Nazis, a great many of whom had the most impeccable taste in art, music, and literature... should be enough to lay waste to the naive notion of the moral value of art... or rather the notion that reading great literature, looking at great paintings, and listening to great music will make one a "better" person.

[ennison]

Better? At what? Reading? Playing chess a lot makes you better at chess. Playing football (soccer to yous ewes) a lot makes you better at playing football. You don't become a better person by being a brilliant chess player. Fischer is an example. Lots of great soccer players are dysfunctional ar&:£@/es. Lots of widely read folk are loopy. Lots of great writers are effin nutters.

[cafolini]

Pop, goes the weasel.

[Ecurb]

Better? At what? Reading? Playing chess a lot makes you better at chess. Playing football (soccer to yous ewes) a lot makes you better at playing football. You don't become a better person by being a brilliant chess player. Fischer is an example. Lots of great soccer players are dysfunctional ar&:£@/es. Lots of widely read folk are loopy. Lots of great writers are effin nutters.

I agree with you that the key question is, "Better at what?" Nonetheless, chess makes you not only better at chess, but better at concentrating for extended periods of time, planning tactics, etc. Playing football makes you not only better at football, but better at kicking other balls, better at running long distances, and (perhaps) better at visualizing cooperative tactics quickly and accurately in other endeavors.

Reading great literature probably makes us better at reading. I'll bet it makes us better writers, too. It probably makes us better at some other things as well.

[PeterL]

Great literature does not make us better. The world is predetermined; we are what we were born to be, and that includes reading the literature that we read. There are people who have engaged in self-delusion to the point that they believe that they decide that courses of their lives, but they are mistaken.

[Darcy88]

Yes, I believe my study of philosophy and sacred texts has made me a "better," more moral person. Epicurus, Epictetus, Emerson, Thoreau, the Dhamapada, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao te Ching, the New Testament...... writers and works like these have played essential roles in my intellectual and spiritual development. Novels much less so, but wisdom literature for sure.

[PeterL]

Yes, I believe my study of philosophy and sacred texts has made me a "better," more moral person. Epicurus, Epictetus, Emerson, Thoreau, the Dhamapada, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao te Ching, the New Testament...... writers and works like these have played essential roles in my intellectual and spiritual development. Novels much less so, but wisdom literature for sure.

Was it the literature or pre-existing causes that made you what you think is better, and then there is the matter of what "better" means in this use.

[Darcy88]

Was it the literature or pre-existing causes that made you what you think is better, and then there is the matter of what "better" means in this use.

It is a little absurd to believe that the kind of literature I mentioned has no effect on one's morals. If I had read Mein Kampf as many times as I've read Emerson's Essays and at the impressionable age at which I read them I would probably be much different, much less of a good person. Some books can unalterably change you. The Brahmins who studied the Upanishads day in and day out eventually became living breathing reflections of the content of that text. Same with Buddhists who endlessly recite the sutras. When I was 16-20 years old Plato and Emerson and other such estimable figures were like Gods to me, their words to be read repeatedly and actively incorporated into my everyday life. They undoubtably changed me. I was a much different person before I started intensively studying the world's philosophical traditions.

[Shevek]

The conflation of literature with moral/spiritual/intellectual betterment is a Victorian invention. This is of course not to claim that people in the West before the nineteenth century did not recognize the value of literature, but the notion that any person could pick up a book and improve themselves is more of a cultural value than something inherent to literature. It was one way of getting working class people to aspire to middle class recreational life, and for the middle class to affirm their own dominance. It didn't really work, since taverns and other vices obviously continued to exist (sometimes workers visited mechanics' institutes and taverns during the same evening), but it long remained a marker of class identity.

So I reject the question. It is absurd to think you are better because of what you have read, just like it is absurd to think you are better for the clothes you wear or the car you drive. These things might improve your life but you can't ask them to improve it for you. And if I really wanted to improve my social sensibilities there are easier and more effective ways of doing so these days than reading. Being literate and relatively economically privileged, it is probably pretty easy for me to say this, but like Charles Darnay said, literacy is separate from self-improvement.

[Delta40]

One can hardly move in the 'right' circles if they haven't read the 'right' books can they? In this respect, of course literature can make you a better person!

[Shevek]

It is a little absurd to believe that the kind of literature I mentioned has no effect on one's morals. If I had read Mein Kampf as many times as I've read Emerson's Essays and at the impressionable age at which I read them I would probably be much different, much less of a good person. Some books can unalterably change you. The Brahmins who studied the Upanishads day in and day out eventually became living breathing reflections of the content of that text. Same with Buddhists who endlessly recite the sutras. When I was 16-20 years old Plato and Emerson and other such estimable figures were like Gods to me, their words to be read repeatedly and actively incorporated into my everyday life. They undoubtably changed me. I was a much different person before I started intensively studying the world's philosophical traditions.

So are people who live in North Korea worse people because they are constantly exposed to hate-mongering propaganda? They would surely be different people if exposed to different artistic influences. But can we judge their individual characters based on what they are exposed to?

[Darcy88]

So are people who live in North Korea worse people because they are constantly exposed to hate-mongering propaganda? They would surely be different people if exposed to different artistic influences. But can we judge their individual characters based on what they are exposed to?

I know nothing about North Korean propaganda nor the North Korean people themselves. But I don't see the difference between a parent telling their child not to lie or steal and the kind of moral edification a person can get from a deep study of the Dhammapada.

“I cannot remember the books I've read any more than the meals I have eaten; even so, they have made me.” - Emerson

“It is what you read when you don't have to that determines what you will be when you can't help it.” - Wilde

[Shevek]

I know nothing about North Korean propaganda nor the North Korean people themselves. But I don't see the difference between a parent telling their child not to lie or steal and the kind of moral edification a person can get from a deep study of the Dhammapada.

“I cannot remember the books I've read any more than the meals I have eaten; even so, they have made me.” - Emerson

“It is what you read when you don't have to that determines what you will be when you can't help it.” - Wilde

But those quotations don't suggest that reading books makes a person better, just that reading fundamentally changes a person. Whether you decide to act on your parents' instructions, or the claims of any book, is separate from the source of your morality. Somebody can have a warped view of the world after reading Mein Kampf, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are a bad person.

[Raven Falcon.]

So a person who listens to Justin Bieber is by no means a lesser person than someone who listens to Beethoven?

[Shevek]

So a person who listens to Justin Bieber is by no means a lesser person than someone who listens to Beethoven?

Yes. Why would they be? You can be a responsible, compassionate, empathetic person and just have awful taste in music. Similarly you can have good taste and be a sociopath. Art has no moral destiny and people who are exposed to certain kinds of art aren't destined to become certain kinds of people.

[Nick Capozzoli]

The example of the Nazis, a great many of whom had the most impeccable taste in art, music, and literature... should be enough to lay waste to the naive notion of the moral value of art... or rather the notion that reading great literature, looking at great paintings, and listening to great music will make one a "better" person.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." "Many are called, but few are chosen." Just because evil folks admire or patronize the arts, including literature, doesn't mean that art has no moral value. Lots of people read and claim to admire the Bible as both great literature and a moral guide. Some are undoubtedly made "better" from their exposure to the Bible (or other "great" art and literature. Others, like Malatesta, are not.

A more interesting question might be whether or not "great" literature needs to have some sort of moral import, or more specifically needs to engage on some level the moral sensibilities of the reader.

A

[hawthorns]

I'm a little shocked that so many (especially lit students) dismiss literature's potential for having moral value. Does it all? Of course not. Depends a lot on what we're talking about. There's a big difference between the works Darcy mentioned and some whodunit detective story. But in my comparatively limited experience, nearly all great literature has some moral element or message--more often layers. And can that influence our beliefs, behavior, ethos, etc? You bet. I wouldn't say that it has made drastic ethical alterations on me personally, but it certainly has had a cumulative impact. And I tend to think the Bible and Quran have had at least some influence on a few people LOL (3 billion?).

[Volya]

I'm a little shocked that so many (especially lit students) dismiss literature's potential for having moral value. Does it all? Of course not. Depends a lot on what we're talking about. There's a big difference between the works Darcy mentioned and some whodunit detective story. But in my comparatively limited experience, nearly all great literature has some moral element or message--more often layers. And can that influence our beliefs, behavior, ethos, etc? You bet. I wouldn't say that it has made drastic ethical alterations on me personally, but it certainly has had a cumulative impact. And I tend to think the Bible and Quran have had at least some influence on a few people LOL (3 billion?).

Ah yes, the Bible and the Quran, they have truly made the human race a much better species.

[PeterL]

It is a little absurd to believe that the kind of literature I mentioned has no effect on one's morals. If I had read Mein Kampf as many times as I've read Emerson's Essays and at the impressionable age at which I read them I would probably be much different, much less of a good person. Some books can unalterably change you. The Brahmins who studied the Upanishads day in and day out eventually became living breathing reflections of the content of that text. Same with Buddhists who endlessly recite the sutras. When I was 16-20 years old Plato and Emerson and other such estimable figures were like Gods to me, their words to be read repeatedly and actively incorporated into my everyday life. They undoubtably changed me. I was a much different person before I started intensively studying the world's philosophical traditions.

Absurd! No, it is perfectly reasonable. You have used extremely poor logic. Correlation does not equal causation. How do you know that you would not have changed in the exact same ways, if you had not read those things.


One can hardly move in the 'right' circles if they haven't read the 'right' books can they? In this respect, of course literature can make you a better person!

And what circles might be "right".


So a person who listens to Justin Bieber is by no means a lesser person than someone who listens to Beethoven?

Yes, that is true.


I'm a little shocked that so many (especially lit students) dismiss literature's potential for having moral value. Does it all? Of course not. Depends a lot on what we're talking about. There's a big difference between the works Darcy mentioned and some whodunit detective story. But in my comparatively limited experience, nearly all great literature has some moral element or message--more often layers. And can that influence our beliefs, behavior, ethos, etc? You bet. I wouldn't say that it has made drastic ethical alterations on me personally, but it certainly has had a cumulative impact. And I tend to think the Bible and Quran have had at least some influence on a few people LOL (3 billion?).

Yes, the Bible and the Koran have changed many people. They have inspired the murders of probably a billion people over the centuries. On the other hand, how many people have been inspired to murder by readin Conan the Barbarian?

[astrum]

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


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

[cafolini]

Anything that promotes thinking makes us better, my dear fellows. What's fine literature is a different question. That's a prejudice. But constructing based on the mind, which is neither here nor there is also a prejudice. Use your senses to construct mirrors. But realize that there is no such thing as common sense. Cooperate with each other to learn new perspectives openly and contribute your bits openly for true progress and under-standing as much as possible.

[lichtrausch]

I think the answer to the OP is clearly "sometimes". As others have said, history is full of examples of terrible people who consumed great art and literature. But on the other hand some people who read a book which includes poignant descriptions of the hardships of a disabled person or a discriminated minority will come away from that reading with greater empathy for these groups. That makes them a better person, no?

[Darcy88]

I don't see how my logic has been poor. It is strange to me that you and others fail to see the morally edifying potential of certain philosophical and sacred texts. There is a thousands of years old global tradition of wisdom literature in which men try to ascertain the nature and then give advice on how to live the good life. Compassion and strength of will are two things this tradition is especially effective at engendering. Also, the spurning of materialism, that is something I know that I for sure picked up from these readings, and that is an effect I've noted that literature in general has had on a number of people I know. You are saying the sutras and upanishads and gospels and all the rest of such texts have not ever bettered a person morally, today or in history. That's the absurdity I brought up before.

And bash the bible and koran all you want, point to 11th and 12th century crusaders and a relatively small number of suicide bombers today, but don't close your eyes to the great flock of average religious folk who have discovered in those books the impetus to change themselves.

[hawthorns]

Ah yes, the Bible and the Quran, they have truly made the human race a much better species.

Possibly, yes. Just depends on how you define "better". Is a work without moral value if it spawns a Ted Bundy, but inspires a billion others to lead a life of piety and non-violence? I suppose, if that's your definition. Then there's the analytical problem. It's easy to quantify atrocity, but not its antithesis. But I'd bet the farm that the inspired savagery pales in comparison to the positive moral impact of those works, especially when considering their cumulative influence over time.

So yeah if we're keeping score I'd guess we are a better species because of them. But who knows?

[PeterL]

Do you not think that literature improves the following:

1. Intelligence No
2. Articulation No
3. Empathy/Interpersonal understanding No
4. Creativity No
5. Cultural competence: Reading may improve this, but you would have to define that term first.
6. Perception No
7. Compassion: No

I think that inteligence might lead to one reading more, and what do you mean by "articulation"? Empathy and interpersonal understanding are innate traits, at least from my observations, as is also true of creativity, compassion, perception and most other human traits.


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

If the human psyche can be ennobled, then the ennobling is done by the grace of the Gods and not by reading.


I don't see how my logic has been poor. It is strange to me that you and others fail to see the morally edifying potential of certain philosophical and sacred texts. There is a thousands of years old global tradition of wisdom literature in which men try to ascertain the nature and then give advice on how to live the good life. Compassion and strength of will are two things this tradition is especially effective at engendering. Also, the spurning of materialism, that is something I know that I for sure picked up from these readings, and that is an effect I've noted that literature in general has had on a number of people I know. You are saying the sutras and upanishads and gospels and all the rest of such texts have not ever bettered a person morally, today or in history. That's the absurdity I brought up before.

And bash the bible and koran all you want, point to 11th and 12th century crusaders and a relatively small number of suicide bombers today, but don't close your eyes to the great flock of average religious folk who have discovered in those books the impetus to change themselves.

Why do you think that reading great literature "make people better"? We already know about the religious scriptures, and we have long known that people of high moral character tend to reead more than the people who slit throats for sport, but do you have any evidence that reading great literature makes people better? If you do, then please present it. For a variety of reasons I doubt that you can find such evidence; not least among those reasons is that I regard the universe as predetermined, so people will be good, bad, or indifferent regardless of what they want.

[hawthorns]

Why do you think that reading great literature "make people better"? We already know about the religious scriptures, and we have long known that people of high moral character tend to reead more than the people who slit throats for sport, but do you have any evidence that reading great literature makes people better? If you do, then please present it. For a variety of reasons I doubt that you can find such evidence; not least among those reasons is that I regard the universe as predetermined, so people will be good, bad, or indifferent regardless of what they want.

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...

[Volya]

Possibly, yes. Just depends on how you define "better". Is a work without moral value if it spawns a Ted Bundy, but inspires a billion others to lead a life of piety and non-violence? I suppose, if that's your definition. Then there's the analytical problem. It's easy to quantify atrocity, but not its antithesis. But I'd bet the farm that the inspired savagery pales in comparison to the positive moral impact of those works, especially when considering their cumulative influence over time.

So yeah if we're keeping score I'd guess we are a better species because of them. But who knows?

I was being sarcastic. In my opinion we'd be better off if none of them had been written - not tremendously better, but better nonetheless.

I do believe that books can help make humanity better, just not those specific ones.

[Ecurb]

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

[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 :crazy:. . .

[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.

[stlukesguild]

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.

I don't question this... what I question is whether your increased knowledge and sophistication makes you a "better person".

[Ecurb]

That depends how you define "intelligence". For most people, "intelligence" involves the faculty of perceiving and comprehending meaning, the ability to understand things. If so, it is ridiculous to think it is “innate”. Newly born babies cannot perceive, comprehend or understand things as well as adults can. Studies done on identical twins involve those raised in separate families. However, both twins go to school, learn language, read books, and participate in society. Nonetheless, their measured I.Q.s can vary considerably. Imagine if one of the twins was locked in a darkened room for his entire life. Do you think his “intelligence” would still show only minor variation from that of his twin? If not, how can you say intelligence is “innate” (i.e inborn, inherent in one’s nature)?

We humans have invented ourselves, because we are products of our own cultures. Children change significantly not only as a result of external stimuli, but also as a result of culture. Chimpanzee infants are as intelligent as human infants – until the humans learn language, at which point they very rapidly outstrip their primate cousins not only in terms of knowledge (language allows us a new way of learning about the world) but in terms of basic intelligence (problem solving). This is not “tiny compared to the whole”. It is the majority of the whole.

[PeterL]

That depends how you define "intelligence". For most people, "intelligence" involves the faculty of perceiving and comprehending meaning, the ability to understand things. If so, it is ridiculous to think it is “innate”. Newly born babies cannot perceive, comprehend or understand things as well as adults can. Studies done on identical twins involve those raised in separate families. However, both twins go to school, learn language, read books, and participate in society. Nonetheless, their measured I.Q.s can vary considerably. Imagine if one of the twins was locked in a darkened room for his entire life. Do you think his “intelligence” would still show only minor variation from that of his twin? If not, how can you say intelligence is “innate” (i.e inborn, inherent in one’s nature)?


From dictionary.com
in·tel·li·gence
[in-tel-i-juhns] Show IPA
noun
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3. the faculty of understanding.
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
5. the gathering or distribution of information, especially secret information

Definition 1 is the relevant one. It is a mental capacity; it is not a matter of learning; it is the capacity to learn. Twin studies in intelligence may show a difference of a few percent, but that is when the twins were separated and one received better nutrition.



We humans have invented ourselves, because we are products of our own cultures. Children change significantly not only as a result of external stimuli, but also as a result of culture. Chimpanzee infants are as intelligent as human infants – until the humans learn language, at which point they very rapidly outstrip their primate cousins not only in terms of knowledge (language allows us a new way of learning about the world) but in terms of basic intelligence (problem solving). This is not “tiny compared to the whole”. It is the majority of the whole.

You are entitled to your opinions, but it is safer to base them in reality.

"IQ score results from identical twins are nearly the same, whereas fraternal twins' results are much less similar."
https://www.boundless.com/psychology/intelligence/nature-versus-nurture-in-intelligence/twins-vs-adoption/
http://web.missouri.edu/~segerti/1000H/Bouchard.pdf
You can do the rest of your research.

[Darcy88]

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.

That bolded statement flies in the face of much of what we know in the field of developmental psychology. Especially personality. I went to school for 10 years with one of those neglected Romanian children who as a result of abject neglect in their early years suffered life-long psychological and learning deficits. Abused children often grow up to become abusers. Reading to one's children will improve their chances of success in school. You are eliminating nurture and attributing developmental outcome entirely to nature. That isn't how it is I'm afraid.

[PeterL]

That bolded statement flies in the face of much of what we know in the field of developmental psychology. Especially personality. I went to school for 10 years with one of those neglected Romanian children who as a result of abject neglect in their early years suffered life-long psychological and learning deficits. Abused children often grow up to become abusers. Reading to one's children will improve their chances of success in school. You are eliminating nurture and attributing developmental outcome entirely to nature. That isn't how it is I'm afraid.

You are mistaken.

[Darcy88]

You are mistaken.

No, no I am not mistaken.

http://www.livescience.com/21778-early-neglect-alters-kids-brains.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/17/1200041109.full.pdf+html?sid=dbeea634-db89-4bbc-9336-7903edf61fdd

The brain develops in response to external stimuli. A kitten with a covering over it's eyes from birth won't even have the neurological capacity for sight.

[The Comedian]

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.

I don't question this... what I question is whether your increased knowledge and sophistication makes you a "better person".

Well, I guess you'd have to address whether an expanded mind improves your person or not. Does a reduced mind improve your person? Does a tempered mind improve someone?

"Intelligence is innate." Really? And then later "a little can be added" or "lopped off" -- if somethin' is "innate" then it's innate. Or, PeterL, is your claim that intelligence is kinda innate, sorta if it doesn't change too much 'cause of readin' and other sorts of intellectual exercise?

[hawthorns]

People don't change to any significant amount as a result of any external stimuli.

I know a few psychologists and psychiatrists who would love to have a word with you over that one :rolleyes:

[WyattGwyon]

Learning from and imitating exemplars of noble behavior, thought and action can make us better people. Many fictional works provide such exemplars. Learning not to emulate exemplars of ignoble behavior, thought and action can make us better people. Fictional works provide exemplars of this kind as well. Thus the wise and those so inclined can be ennobled by great art and literature. It's not complicated.

[Darcy88]

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.

I don't question this... what I question is whether your increased knowledge and sophistication makes you a "better person".

If there were a copy of me identical in every regard except for lower levels of knowledge and sophistication I'd say I was better than him. On the internet I've encountered persons whose intellects put my own to shame and, provided there is moral equivalency, in my opinion those people are better than me. Jorge Luis Borges was better than me. James Joyce was better than me. If I'm competing with another young man for a girl's affections, the fact that I write her lovely poems (yeah I actually do that) and discourse eloquently on poetry, history and philosophy is probably going to lead her to consider me "better" than my rival. If I'm applying for a job and come across intelligent and articulate my interviewer may deem me "better" than the other applicants. These qualities are highly and justifiably prized. All other things - morality, disposition, ect - being equal, put a genius next to a simpleton. Which would you prefer for a companion?

Of course there are evil geniuses. They ought not factor into this discussion. The real question is, between the virtuous genius and the virtuous simpleton, which is better?

[astrum]

There are so many fatalistic and pessimistic opinions in this thread. :(

[hawthorns]

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.

^^Good points, Drkshadow. "Better" covers a lot of territory and we were never given a fence line. Many of the professionals/yuppies I know are 'better' than me in the way Darcy described, unfortunately most of them are also supercilious a$$%##3s. So are they better? Maybe I should should take a poll on the number of litnet top 100 novels they've read to see what roll literature has played :lol:

[Nick Capozzoli]

The brain develops in response to external stimuli. A kitten with a covering over it's eyes from birth won't even have the neurological capacity for sight.

I think you need to qualify the highlighted statement. They are capable of sight, but their vision is defective, apparently because the visual association circuits in the brain need to be developed by exposure to visual stimuli, which occurs when the newborn kittens open their eyes and begin seeing the world... the neurons are still growing and making new connections (and losing old connections) but this neural plasticity stops after a period of time (varies among animals and between different brain areas in the same animal). In the case of vision, what is lost if there isn't the normal stimulation is the ability to recognize visual features (e.g. shapes, patterns, depth, movement, etc. The visual image of the outside world that is projected onto the kitten's retinae is translated into neural signals that get to the parts of its brain that normally make sense of these stimuli. The kitten experiences something, but can't tell us what it is. We can get some idea, however, because we can observe its behavior in response to different visual stimuli. They don't respond normally, but they aren't blind. There have been similar "experiments" done on humans ("natural" experiments...e.g. done by nature as in patients with congenital cataracts who have their sight restored as adults when they finally get to see an ophthalmologist...). They have very defective vision, but are not totally blind. Some even "learn" to see better over time. This is all very fascinating. The more I learn about how the brain works, the less I am inclined to make sweeping generalizations about it.

[hypatia_]

"better" is so subjective that it literally sickens me to think someone can decisively answer the question.

define better in terms of something, then start a discussion. until then, it's just a breeding ground for conceited posting.

[Darcy88]

"better" is so subjective that it literally sickens me to think someone can decisively answer the question.

define better in terms of something, then start a discussion. until then, it's just a breeding ground for conceited posting.


Here is what the OP said:



What do you think? Do you think that reading great literature has made you a better person, in any way?

"In any way." It really therefore is not subjective. Has literature made you more intelligent, more articulate, more virtuous? Has it improved you at all in any regard? That is what what asked, not for you to try and tackle a term as nebulous as "better."

[cacian]

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.

I agree but thinking is part of the experience. just writing about it is not enough. having an open because of it is part of the process of understanding and moving forward.

[papageno89]

First I would like to add that this is a fascinating question, and perhaps answering with a simple yes or no would be a mistake. Every person has a particular way to analyze a work of art, therefore I consider that some books really give us an option to decide between "good" and "bad". For instance, why Mozart's Opera is not called "Don Ottavio" instead of "Don Giovanni" if the prior was a "good" character and the second one was a terrible seducer?

Why many people reading the Brothers Karamazov feel attracted to Ivan instead of Alyosha? I think that as a reflection (and completion) of life "evil" is an important element of certain works of art. Besides by exposing that negative force, the author could be preventing us from following the same path, but if the writer portrays that character with hypnotizing allure the opposite effect may be accomplished.

So I think that if we question or if we denigrate "evil" we would be questioning the basis of the same works we admire so much. If literature would have a say, definitely she would ask for more Don Giovanni's, more Claudius and more Fyodor Karamazov's that continue to inspire great and immortal texts.

"Let's all embrace evil" (ironic remark)

[PeterL]

"better" is so subjective that it literally sickens me to think someone can decisively answer the question.

define better in terms of something, then start a discussion. until then, it's just a breeding ground for conceited posting.

Amen! Without good definitions the question is meaningless, and even with good definitions it remains completely subjective.

[osho]

In fact I never think along these lines. In fact literature has more to do with entertainment than instilling moral or ethical principles in humans. I read not out of my desire to read literature to learn a skill or something that has a utility. Of course literature helps me in my communications a lot but I do not read literature to enhance my communication skills. It happens automatically.

There are other selfhelp books we can turn to if we want to better our lives. Literature has a different objective. Literature is more about life and it indeed mirrors life.

[astrum]

osho,

From what I understand, the self-help genre is relatively new. Therefore, I wonder what books our forefathers turned to for guidance and inspiration?

[Ecurb]

From dictionary.com
in•tel•li•gence
[in-tel-i-juhns] Show IPA
noun
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
.

My dictionary defines “capacity” as “the ability or aptitude to do something”. Let’s return to our identical twins. One (we’ll call him Ecurb) has trained his entire life as a runner. He is now a world class marathoner, capable of running sub 2:10 marathons. The other (we’ll call him Peter) has spent his life playing video games and eating donuts. He is a 300 pound blob. Both are 30 years old. Who has a greater “capacity” to run marathons in less than 2:20? If you say they have the same capacity, that can only be because you define “capacity” as “innate capacity”. Nobody will disagree that if “capacity” means nothing more than “innate capacity”, then it is innate. However, nobody other than you defines it that way.

Suppose one identical twin studies mathematics his entire life, and earns a PhD. In mathematics. The other (Peter, again) eats donuts and plays video games. Who has a greater “capacity for… understanding” (your definition) complicated mathematical proofs.? Again, if you say they have the same “capacity” that can only mean that you are defining the word in an idiosyncratic manner.

In addition, who has a greater “capacity” to get from where he is now to a spot 100 miles away within the next 3 hours, the licensed driver who is sitting in his own fully fueled car, or the Yanamamo warrior in the amazon, who has no access to cars or other forms of mechanized means of transportation?


You are entitled to your opinions, but it is safer to base them in reality

The “reality” is that culture MAKES humans more intelligent. Our “capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding… aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc” is enhanced by our tools, the most important of which is language, just as our capacity for travelling long distances quickly is enhanced by our cars. If you can’t speak Japanese, your “aptitude at grasping.. facts” publicly announced in Japanese is significantly reduced. If you have never studied math, your "capacity for... understanding" mathematical proofs is less than that of the Math PhD.

Does literature make us “better”? Just as studying math, or training for marathons makes us better at solving math problems or running marathons, literature probably makes us better AT some things (like reading and writing). If ‘better’ is meant to imply “morally superior”, that opens another can of worms.

[osho]

osho,

From what I understand, the self-help genre is relatively new. Therefore, I wonder what books our forefathers turned to for guidance and inspiration?

True. Of course they did not have the kind we have today but today we have so many disciplines or domains of learning to improve our knowledge or life but literature is studied with a different objective in mind

[PeterL]

My dictionary defines “capacity” as “the ability or aptitude to do something”. Let’s return to our identical twins. One (we’ll call him Ecurb) has trained his entire life as a runner. He is now a world class marathoner, capable of running sub 2:10 marathons. The other (we’ll call him Peter) has spent his life playing video games and eating donuts. He is a 300 pound blob. Both are 30 years old. Who has a greater “capacity” to run marathons in less than 2:20? If you say they have the same capacity, that can only be because you define “capacity” as “innate capacity”. Nobody will disagree that if “capacity” means nothing more than “innate capacity”, then it is innate. However, nobody other than you defines it that way.

Suppose one identical twin studies mathematics his entire life, and earns a PhD. In mathematics. The other (Peter, again) eats donuts and plays video games. Who has a greater “capacity for… understanding” (your definition) complicated mathematical proofs.? Again, if you say they have the same “capacity” that can only mean that you are defining the word in an idiosyncratic manner.

In addition, who has a greater “capacity” to get from where he is now to a spot 100 miles away within the next 3 hours, the licensed driver who is sitting in his own fully fueled car, or the Yanamamo warrior in the amazon, who has no access to cars or other forms of mechanized means of transportation?



The “reality” is that culture MAKES humans more intelligent. Our “capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding… aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc” is enhanced by our tools, the most important of which is language, just as our capacity for travelling long distances quickly is enhanced by our cars. If you can’t speak Japanese, your “aptitude at grasping.. facts” publicly announced in Japanese is significantly reduced. If you have never studied math, your "capacity for... understanding" mathematical proofs is less than that of the Math PhD.

Does literature make us “better”? Just as studying math, or training for marathons makes us better at solving math problems or running marathons, literature probably makes us better AT some things (like reading and writing). If ‘better’ is meant to imply “morally superior”, that opens another can of worms.

I think that you are using a differenst set of definitions of English words. If you are right, then you should be able to gain the intelligence to learn the relevan concepts. If I am right, then, if you were not born with that capacity, then you will never have it. We will have to wait and see.

[Ecurb]

I think that you are using a differenst set of definitions of English words. If you are right, then you should be able to gain the intelligence to learn the relevan concepts. If I am right, then, if you were not born with that capacity, then you will never have it. We will have to wait and see.

Yes, Peter, definitions of words are yet another thing that are culturally constituted rather than "innate". Untill you figure that out, communicating with other English speakers will be difficult for you. Keep trying, though! Perhaps you can improve with practice!

[Drkshadow03]

Learning from and imitating exemplars of noble behavior, thought and action can make us better people. Many fictional works provide such exemplars. Learning not to emulate exemplars of ignoble behavior, thought and action can make us better people. Fictional works provide exemplars of this kind as well. Thus the wise and those so inclined can be ennobled by great art and literature. It's not complicated.

I would also think fictional works can demonstrate behaviors NOT to imitate as well.

[astrum]

I would also think fictional works can demonstrate behaviors NOT to imitate as well.

I would agree with that. One can learn in many ways.

[Drkshadow03]

I would agree with that. One can learn in many ways.

Well, it would seem if there is any answer in this thread to the question it's that literature can make you better by making you less ignorant of the world and yourself.

[Silas Thorne]

Chairman Mao was well exposed to classic Chinese literature. He was excellent at strategy and could write traditional poems, but was quite ignorant about things that were common sense to many people including some of the other people around him, and so caused great problems for his population.
I don't think that being well versed in literature alone is going to make you understand the world. You have to have practical experience with the world too. It's all very well if you know the Latin and Greek names for the plants and animals, but if you don't go outside and walk through the forest, what's the point?

[ralfyman]

The topic reminds me of Matthew Arnold. Also, it's difficult to discuss this issue because the definitions of "great" and "better" are open to debate.

[cacian]

There are so many fatalistic and pessimistic opinions in this thread. :(

that is what literature is made I am afraid pessimism and fatalism.
expect opinions and views of the same kind no changes there.

[PeterL]

that is what literature is made I am afraid pessimism and fatalism.
expect opinions and views of the same kind nothing changes there.

What's wrong with fatalism? It fits the universe better than other theories of behavior.

[cacian]

What's wrong with fatalism? It fits the universe better than other theories of behavior.

Hi PeterL. well I was just thinking that we are what read. if we enjoy fatalism with all its glitz and downs then we should expect the same back in feelings conversations and behaviour. we are not amenable to what surrounds us and since we are the product of everything we do, then literature, which takes a fairly large amount of our time/life because we enjoy a book as much as we enjoys the company of friends and family, evidently replicates itself in us and for us. we learn to respond accordingly mood way and otherwise. something has got to give and we up and down with words and meanings.

[PeterL]

Hi PeterL. well I was just thinking that we are what read. if we enjoy fatalism with all its glitz and downs then we should expect the same back in feelings conversations and behaviour. we are not amenable to what surrounds us and since we are the product of everything we do, then literature, which takes a fairly large amount of our time/life because we enjoy a book as much as we enjoys the company of friends and family, evidently replicates itself in us and for us. we learn to respond accordingly mood way and otherwise. something has got to give and we up and down with words and meanings.

No, it is more like we read what we already are. We are the product of what came before, not what we do. We read literature, whether great or small, due to causes that largely pre-existed us. The chain of cause and effect goes back to the Big Bang or even earlier.

[Darcy88]

No, it is more like we read what we already are. We are the product of what came before, not what we do. We read literature, whether great or small, due to causes that largely pre-existed us. The chain of cause and effect goes back to the Big Bang or even earlier.

I see your point and am beginning to understand your perspective on this. My only criticism of your position is the fact that a genetically gifted person might never go on to cultivate their intellect, will without education, without books, fail to reach their full potential. Like me my brother was in gifted classes as a kid, like me he got the best grades, but unlike me he did not pursue education into adulthood, and the discrepancy between our levels of intellectual sophistication is apparent to anyone who listens in on our discussions. I utterly own him in every debate, even in those which presuppose no specifically scholarly knowledge.

[hannah_arendt]

Potential isn`t enought. Without educations we cannot develop our skills, ideas. That is why education is so important.

[Ecurb]

Even if "The chain of cause and effect goes back to the Big Bang or even earlier" that does not preclude "proximate causes". It's reasonable to say that a murder "caused" someone's death, even if the murder was the inevitable result of the big bang.

[PeterL]

I see your point and am beginning to understand your perspective on this. My only criticism of your position is the fact that a genetically gifted person might never go on to cultivate their intellect, will without education, without books, fail to reach their full potential. Like me my brother was in gifted classes as a kid, like me he got the best grades, but unlike me he did not pursue education into adulthood, and the discrepancy between our levels of intellectual sophistication is apparent to anyone who listens in on our discussions. I utterly own him in every debate, even in those which presuppose no specifically scholarly knowledge.

Genetics is only part of it, but were you and your brother very similar in personality from the youngest ages? I would guess that there were significant differences from your earliest activities. Did he not cultivate his intellect because he didn't read great literature, or was his personality such that he was not interested in intellectual matters? I would contend that he was destined to be not especially intellectual from before birth.


Potential isn`t enought. Without educations we cannot develop our skills, ideas. That is why education is so important.

But without potential and relevant interests people do not follow a program of education.

[hypatia_]

Even if "The chain of cause and effect goes back to the Big Bang or even earlier" that does not preclude "proximate causes". It's reasonable to say that a murder "caused" someone's death, even if the murder was the inevitable result of the big bang.

I wonder if this has ever been used as a defense! :P

[Ecurb]

"The Big Bang made me do it!"

[hannah_arendt]

But without potential and relevant interests people do not follow a program of education.

Yes, without any doubt.

[hypatia_]

"The Big Bang made me do it!"

Charges dropped!!

[cacian]

No, it is more like we read what we already are. We are the product of what came before, not what we do. We read literature, whether great or small, due to causes that largely pre-existed us. The chain of cause and effect goes back to the Big Bang or even earlier.

I don't know I think everything we do up to now has an effect on us. If a book is depressive then the emotions learned picked up from it are going to be the same. It may be not be evident but long term what we read will shape the way we think and behave long term.

[PeterL]

I don't know I think everything we do up to now has an effect on us. If a book is depressive then the emotions learned picked up from it are going to be the same. It may be not be evident but long term what we read will shape the way we think and behave long term.

That is a matter of logic. Any philosopher of physicist would argue that everything that we do will inevitably be the cause of some later actions. The chain of cause and effect is not evident, except on rare occasions, but we read what we are programmed by DNA to find interesting. Everything makes perfect sense, and it all fits nicely together, but we need to find the evidence that is not clearly bvious.

[Phocion]

Nobody has ever denied that Sigismondo de Malatesta, the Lord of Rimini, had excellent taste. He hired the most refined of quattrocento architects, Leno Battista Alberti, to design a memorial temple to his wife, and then got the sculptor Agostino de Duccio to decorate it, and retained Piero della Francesca to paint it. Yet Sigismondo was a man of such callousness and rapcity that he was known in life as Il Lupo, The Wolf, and so execrated after his death that the Catholic Church made him (for a time) the only man apart from Judas Iscariot officially listed as being in Hell—a distinction he earned by trussing up a Papal emissary, the fifteen-year-old Bishop of Fano, in his own rochet and publicly sodomizing him before his applauding army in the main square of Rimini.

Robert Hughes- The Culture of Complaint

The example of the Nazis, a great many of whom had the most impeccable taste in art, music, and literature... should be enough to lay waste to the naive notion of the moral value of art... or rather the notion that reading great literature, looking at great paintings, and listening to great music will make one a "better" person.
I don't think the question here is at all whether someone can be a wicked person while also having a good taste or love for literature/art/culture. The answer to that question is obvious as you have pointed out. A psychopathic person is likely to draw psychopathic conclusions from what he reads. The solipsistic mould everything they read around themselves and so gain little perspective. But literature in general makes people more open minded and more understanding of others. In a free society literature is always available: this is not a coincidence. The Nazi's were also book-burners, as are nearly all of the most reactionary ideologies around. This is not a coincidence either.

It doesn't necessarily make you better per se, but it provides one with the tools to make oneself a better person. I just don't think that can be denied, at all. I cannot think that the world would not be a far better place if everyone in it had read say Middlemarch. But of course: literature can also poison the mind, that cannot be denied either.


Great literature does not make us better. The world is predetermined; we are what we were born to be, and that includes reading the literature that we read. There are people who have engaged in self-delusion to the point that they believe that they decide that courses of their lives, but they are mistaken.
This is such a nothing answer. No one was asking whether the world was predetermined. Nor does it have any relevance to the question, whatsoever. I didn't know something being predetermined meant it never changed, because that is what you seem to be implying.

[mande2013]

Experiencing great art of any kind makes us better people in some way, of course. At the same time, I feel the education system, especially the Anglo-Saxon education system, tends to fetishize and place on a pedestal the act of reading in and of itself as if it were some morally superior activity. It's the 'reading for reading's sake' attitude that gets on my nerves. Reading Kafka will broaden the mind just as will listening to Schubert or even watching Ozu. At the end of the day, it should be accepted that writing is simply a form of expression as is painting canvases or composing music, and they're all valid. The Anglo-Saxon intelligentsia hasn't caught on to this concept. The French, for instance, have grasped this. Read Gore Vidal and you'll see what I mean.

Someone in his or her mid-twenties can't pick up a copy of Pride and Prejudice or Great Expectations without being told they 'should have read that in ninth or tenth grade'. Why is this? It's a huge paradox. American society is deeply anti-intellectual, yet people are expected to have read X, Y, and Z by the time they turn twenty because that's the trajectory 'edcuated' people are supposed to follow. It's an obsession with superficial signs. Having been taught Great Expectations in tenth grade is a sign. Getting a 750 on the SAT verbal is a sign. It has nothing to do with profound, genuine intellectual curiosity. It's about creating the image/illusion of 'well-readness', since 'smart' people have read the 'great books'. How inane would it sound if I patronizingly told people they should have been familiar with Morisot's canvases by the end of eleventh grade or that they should have listened to Bartok's quartets by the time they turned 19? Was someone who was 28 when Pride and Prejudice was first published too old to be reading it?

When people say they 'hate reading', many are simply caving under the pressure to foster an image of learnedness. Not all, but many. There's this pressure to have read all that 'great books', in order to develop into an enlightened, superior being. It's not enough to say 'I'm reading Dostoyevsky and Faulkner at the moment but will eventually get to Charlotte Bronte or Chekhov' the way one says they're a fan of Mingus and Neil Young but will listen to Monk and Nick Drake eventually. If people were permitted to take such an attitude towards their exploration of the literary canon there would be a lot less bitterness towards reading in and of itself I think. But no, you already need to have read Cervantes, Dostoyevsky, Austen, Dickens, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Yeats, Joyce, Faulkner, Balzac and everyone else by the time you're 25 or 30 or else you're ignorant. People are pressured to know the literary canon inside and out before they've even begun their journey.

[Phocion]

Experiencing great art of any kind makes us better people in some way, of course. At the same time, I feel the education system, especially the Anglo-Saxon education system, tends to fetishize and place on a pedestal the act of reading in and of itself as if it were some morally superior activity. It's the 'reading for reading's sake' attitude that gets on my nerves. Reading Kafka will broaden the mind just as will listening to Schubert or even watching Ozu. At the end of the day, it should be accepted that writing is simply a form of expression as is painting canvases or composing music, and they're all valid. The Anglo-Saxon intelligentsia hasn't caught on to this concept. The French, for instance, have grasped this. Read Gore Vidal and you'll see what I mean.

Someone in his or her mid-twenties can't pick up a copy of Pride and Prejudice or Great Expectations without being told they 'should have read that in ninth or tenth grade'. Why is this? It's a huge paradox. American society is deeply anti-intellectual, yet people are expected to have read X, Y, and Z by the time they turn twenty because that's the trajectory 'edcuated' people are supposed to follow. It's an obsession with superficial signs. Having been taught Great Expectations in tenth grade is a sign. Getting a 750 on the SAT verbal is a sign. It has nothing to do with profound, genuine intellectual curiosity. It's about creating the image/illusion of 'well-readness', since 'smart' people have read the 'great books'. How inane would it sound if I patronizingly told people they should have been familiar with Morisot's canvases by the end of eleventh grade or that they should have listened to Bartok's quartets by the time they turned 19? Was someone who was 28 when Pride and Prejudice was first published too old to be reading it?Completely disagree. It has not been long since i exited the education system in the UK, and i find that there is a deemphasis placed on anything that does not have some kind of practical or vocational application. It is always about what a certain thing will contribute to the student's career path, what will get him ahead in the production line. Reading for the sake of reading and reading for any reason other than the completing of pre-set tasks is almost non-existant in schools, and among pupils. Education has become completely task based, and so very few take up and pursue reading on their initiative - they are not even told why they should, or taught the joys of literature. It is all: read this so you can answer that etc.

The consequence of all this is that young people simply don't read anymore. It is not so much what people should have read by the 9th or 10th grade, but that most of that age have not read anything at all. And the literature they are given in school will always appear a chore because it often gives things like Shakespeare to people that have never read anything serious - that is nonsensical.

This modern aversion to literature is a clear sign of the stupefying effects of academics and bureaucracy on culture; the degradation of art, man and intelligence, simply stated.

[PeterL]

This is such a nothing answer. No one was asking whether the world was predetermined. Nor does it have any relevance to the question, whatsoever. I didn't know something being predetermined meant it never changed, because that is what you seem to be implying.

Apparently you did not consider the implications of my comments. In a predetermined world one is what one is, regardless of what or if one reads.

[mande2013]

I agree with you Phocion. As for reading something so you can answer a question on the test, that's partially what I was getting at I think with the whole notion of fostering the illusion of learnedness, in order to become a respectable upper middle-class member of society. Then again, perhaps I'm channeling an attitude that dates from the sixties rather than from the noughties.

[Ecurb]

Apparently you did not consider the implications of my comments. In a predetermined world one is what one is, regardless of what or if one reads.

That is not correct, Peter. Assuming a predetermined world, each individual's reading habits are predetermined along with everything else about him. You cannot correctly say that that "one is what one is, regardless of what one reads". Instead, one is what one is, and what one reads is part of what one is. The high school scholar who flunks his pop quizzes because he failed to read his assignments may have been destined to flunk, and destined to fail to read the book -- but it's still reasonable to say he flunked his quiz "because" he didn't read his assignment. Whether he was destined to leave the assignment unread is irrelevant to the truth value of "he flunked because he didn't read the book".

[PeterL]

That is not correct, Peter. Assuming a predetermined world, each individual's reading habits are predetermined along with everything else about him. You cannot correctly say that that "one is what one is, regardless of what one reads". Instead, one is what one is, and what one reads is part of what one is. The high school scholar who flunks his pop quizzes because he failed to read his assignments may have been destined to flunk, and destined to fail to read the book -- but it's still reasonable to say he flunked his quiz "because" he didn't read his assignment. Whether he was destined to leave the assignment unread is irrelevant to the truth value of "he flunked because he didn't read the book".

Apparently oyu don't know what predetermined means.

[Ecurb]

Apparently oyu don't know what predetermined means.


Actually, I do. Apparently you don't know what "causes" means or what "truth value" means.

[Phocion]

Apparently you did not consider the implications of my comments. In a predetermined world one is what one is, regardless of what or if one reads.
No, in a predetermined world one is shaped by one's interactions and experiences; they may be predetermined also, but that does not mean that if they did not exist then the person would be exactly the same as if they did. To say everything is predetermined through cause and effect due to everything originating from a single point is little more than a platitude, and really has no relevance to this discussion. But to say what someone reads has no bearing on them as a person is foolish.

I agree with you Phocion. As for reading something so you can answer a question on the test, that's partially what I was getting at I think with the whole notion of fostering the illusion of learnedness, in order to become a respectable upper middle-class member of society. Then again, perhaps I'm channeling an attitude that dates from the sixties rather than from the noughties.Yeah i actually think we were saying the same kind of thing, except you were attacking it from one side (that academics portray reading as a pursuit of the intellectual elite), and i from the other (that people don't read because they hold misconceptions about it being 'high-brow' or difficult or like work etc.).

They are mutually reenforcing also, so it is unlikely to ever change.

[PeterL]

Actually, I do. Apparently you don't know what "causes" means or what "truth value" means.

You are mistaken.

pre·de·ter·mine
[pree-di-tur-min] Show IPA
verb (used with object), pre·de·ter·mined, pre·de·ter·min·ing.
1. to settle or decide in advance: He had predetermined his answer to the offer.
2. to ordain in advance; predestine: She believed that God had predetermined her sorrow.
3. to direct or impel; influence strongly: His sympathy for the poor predetermined his choice of a career.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/predetermined?s=t
Especially note definition 2. That I would write this was predetermined from the time of the Big Bang by the law of cause and effect.


If you want it to mean something else, then Humpty Dumpty may back you up.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

[Ecurb]

I'd ask you to enlighten me, but you don't seem inclined to do so, and I doubt you are able to.

Here's how one philosopher defined "cause":

What do we mean by “cause” when we say “actions are caused by X or Y forces.” If something happens, must it be “caused” to happen? It seems to me we use “cause” in several distinct ways:


1) A “cause” is the free and intentional act of a conscious and responsible agent. (i.e. if you shoot some one, you cause his death).

2) A “cause” is the handle we manipulate to create an effect. (i.e. if x+existing conditions = y, and x can be manipulated, we say x causes y) By this definition, if a car skids going around a curve, the "cause" may be the speed of the car (to the driver), the lack of banking on the turn (to the road engineer), or the lack of traction in the tires (to the tire maker). This definition can also be used by experimental scientists.

3) In theoretical science, a cause is something which is necessary in both existence and operation to the thing it is causing, For the rationalist, x causes y if x is an "insight" into y, so you could say the first two sides of a triangle "cause" the dimensions of the third side. For the empiricist, a cause is an observed conjunction -- all x are followed by y.


Now definition #1 presupposes free will, and #2 presupposes “manipulation”, which suggests some sort of human will. That leaves definition #3. It is surely possible that some day we will have a theory that allows us to see when one circumstance is “necessary in both existence and operation” to another. However, since we lack that knowledge now, we might as well act as if we have free will. An action caused by something of which we are ignorant and a “free act” are distinguished only by a distinction without a difference.

[PeterL]

I'd ask you to enlighten me, but you don't seem inclined to do so, and I doubt you are able to.

Here's how one philosopher defined "cause":

What do we mean by “cause” when we say “actions are caused by X or Y forces.” If something happens, must it be “caused” to happen? It seems to me we use “cause” in several distinct ways:


1) A “cause” is the free and intentional act of a conscious and responsible agent. (i.e. if you shoot some one, you cause his death).

2) A “cause” is the handle we manipulate to create an effect. (i.e. if x+existing conditions = y, and x can be manipulated, we say x causes y) By this definition, if a car skids going around a curve, the "cause" may be the speed of the car (to the driver), the lack of banking on the turn (to the road engineer), or the lack of traction in the tires (to the tire maker). This definition can also be used by experimental scientists.

3) In theoretical science, a cause is something which is necessary in both existence and operation to the thing it is causing, For the rationalist, x causes y if x is an "insight" into y, so you could say the first two sides of a triangle "cause" the dimensions of the third side. For the empiricist, a cause is an observed conjunction -- all x are followed by y.


Now definition #1 presupposes free will, and #2 presupposes “manipulation”, which suggests some sort of human will. That leaves definition #3. It is surely possible that some day we will have a theory that allows us to see when one circumstance is “necessary in both existence and operation” to another. However, since we lack that knowledge now, we might as well act as if we have free will. An action caused by something of which we are ignorant and a “free act” are distinguished only by a distinction without a difference.

Predetermine
2. to ordain in advance; predestine.
This definition does note imply or even suggest manipulation. That example that cited "God" was not necessary.

We seem to use the same definition for cause, but you seem not to understand the concept of "cause and effect". You might want to study logic.

[hypatia_]

An action caused by something of which we are ignorant and a “free act” are distinguished only by a distinction without a difference.

Could you clarify this?

[Ecurb]

Predetermine
2. to ordain in advance; predestine.
This definition does note imply or even suggest manipulation. That example that cited "God" was not necessary.

We seem to use the same definition for cause, but you seem not to understand the concept of "cause and effect". You might want to study logic.

There can be multiple causes for any effect, as is clearly seen in example 2 above. You might try to read one of "Miss Manners" excellent books on etiquette, as well as one on logic.


Could you clarify this?

Sure. Suppose you are playing poker. You are drawing one card to an inside straight. Of the 47 unseen cards, 4 will fill the inside straight, so using rudimentary arithmetic, you think, "I have 4/47 chance of filling my straght, or, about 1/12." Of course you will be dealt (given an honest dealer) the card that happens to be on the top of the deck. To the omniscient observer (or any observer who can see the other side of the card) you have either a 100% or a 0% chance of filling your straight. The card you will be dealt is predetermined, by the original shuffle. Nonetheless, for the poker player trying to decide whether to draw a card or not, it is useful to ACT AS IF the odds are 4/47 of filling the straight. That's because he doesn't know what the card on the top of the deck is. The fact that the next card to be dealt is "predetermined" is irrelevant to him -- for all he cares the dealer could reshuffle the deck before dealing him his card.

By the way, why does Peter's definition offer "predestine" as a synonym. Since "destiny" is "the predetermined ordering of events", isn't "predestined" redundant?

[PeterL]

Sure. Suppose you are playing poker. You are drawing one card to an inside straight. Of the 47 unseen cards, 4 will fill the inside straight, so using rudimentary arithmetic, you think, "I have 4/47 chance of filling my straght, or, about 1/12." Of course you will be dealt (given an honest dealer) the card that happens to be on the top of the deck. To the omniscient observer (or any observer who can see the other side of the card) you have either a 100% or a 0% chance of filling your straight. The card you will be dealt is predetermined, by the original shuffle. Nonetheless, for the poker player trying to decide whether to draw a card or not, it is useful to ACT AS IF the odds are 4/47 of filling the straight. That's because he doesn't know what the card on the top of the deck is. The fact that the next card to be dealt is "predetermined" is irrelevant to him -- for all he cares the dealer could reshuffle the deck before dealing him his card.

By the way, why does Peter's definition offer "predestine" as a synonym. Since "destiny" is "the predetermined ordering of events", isn't "predestined" redundant?

I use common word to make things comprehensible to more people.

It appears that you atree edging toward noticing that everything was caused by something, and th=at those causes were not conscious acts of humans. In a while you will realize that whether the Gods or the Laws of the Universe were the initial movers, humans, and everything else has a chain of cause and effect that determines what they (it) will do, or what will happen to it, depending on how you look at it.


I'd ask you to enlighten me, but you don't seem inclined to do so, and I doubt you are able to.

Here's how one philosopher defined "cause":

What do we mean by “cause” when we say “actions are caused by X or Y forces.” If something happens, must it be “caused” to happen? It seems to me we use “cause” in several distinct ways:


1) A “cause” is the free and intentional act of a conscious and responsible agent. (i.e. if you shoot some one, you cause his death).

This begs the question, assuming that there are "free and intentional act(s)".


2) A “cause” is the handle we manipulate to create an effect. (i.e. if x+existing conditions = y, and x can be manipulated, we say x causes y) By this definition, if a car skids going around a curve, the "cause" may be the speed of the car (to the driver), the lack of banking on the turn (to the road engineer), or the lack of traction in the tires (to the tire maker). This definition can also be used by experimental scientists.

This also begs the question in the same way.


3) In theoretical science, a cause is something which is necessary in both existence and operation to the thing it is causing, For the rationalist, x causes y if x is an "insight" into y, so you could say the first two sides of a triangle "cause" the dimensions of the third side. For the empiricist, a cause is an observed conjunction -- all x are followed by y.

This is valid in most situations.


Now definition #1 presupposes free will, and #2 presupposes “manipulation”, which suggests some sort of human will. That leaves definition #3. It is surely possible that some day we will have a theory that allows us to see when one circumstance is “necessary in both existence and operation” to another. However, since we lack that knowledge now, we might as well act as if we have free will. An action caused by something of which we are ignorant and a “free act” are distinguished only by a distinction without a difference.

If you don't see any difference, then you might want to think about it. I will admit that there is no difference in the final result whether humans are aware of the chain of cause and effect, but the ethics and fundamental understanding are different.

[Drkshadow03]

What is your evidence that we live in a pre-determined world?

[astrum]

Well, it would seem if there is any answer in this thread to the question it's that literature can make you better by making you less ignorant of the world and yourself.


And with that knowledge, does one not become better-equipped to improve himself or his society in some way?


At the very least, he would understand his world better. Is that not the first step?

[PeterL]

What is your evidence that we live in a pre-determined world?

I won't be so rude as to answer that, but it sums up the problem that I have been facing on this thread, which I will no longer visit.

[astrum]

I won't be so rude as to answer that, but it sums up the problem that I have been facing on this thread, which I will no longer visit.


PeterL, you are a veritable pessimist. Just reading your posts depresses me.


Here's a movie that I'd like you to watch someday; perhaps it will brighten your worldview and put a smile on your face:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIBaKrRnbLM

[Ecurb]

Yes, Peter, a philosopher writing a general definition of "causation" might very well beg your particular questions, since he was not intending to address them. However, if you (rudely) suggest that others participating in this thread don't understand "cause and effect", and then dismiss the normal meanings of "cause" as "begging the question", we can hardly take you seriously. It is you (evidently) who don't understand what "cause" means. We say germs "cause" disease, because we can use that theory to create sterile hospitals, antibiotics and vaccines that save lives. I'll grant that this is irrelevant to the question of whether our ability to deal with germs was "predetermined". Nonetheless, what we mean when we say germs "cause" disease (using definition 2 in my post above) is that they are a handle that can be manipulated to ameliorate diseases. Of course, germs alone are insufficient to create diseases. A conjunction of circumstances is necessary for diseases to occur.

Saying that the Big Bang caused disease isn’t particularly helpful. The poker player who says the odds of filling the inside straight are either 0% or 100% is correct (from one perspective) but will probably lose his money.

[Drkshadow03]

Your choice. Well, actually according to your worldview I suppose it was always inevitable that you would no longer visit this thread!

Anyway, it seems to me the problem in the thread is you're dismissing others' statements for containing supposedly poor logic and lack of evidence for ideas that contradict your worldview ("everything is predetermined"), but you're not really offering much in return besides equally poor logic and lack of evidence to support your counter-argument.

[stlukesguild]

Ah... but I believe it was Peter who informed us all that he was a member of Mensa, thus is is only logical he looks down upon the rest of us mere mortals. Maybe he should read Voltaire?

[Phocion]

Ah... but I believe it was Peter who informed us all that he was a member of Mensa, thus is is only logical he looks down upon the rest of us mere mortals. Maybe he should read Voltaire?

Dear god...

Then why is he in here propounding non sequiturs such as:

'Great literature does not make us better... The world is predetermined; we are what we were born to be'


Such wisdom. Though i cannot personally see the relevance, maybe it is beyond my the reaches of my IQ-level?

[cacian]

Ah... but I believe it was Peter who informed us all that he was a member of Mensa, thus is is only logical he looks down upon the rest of us mere mortals. Maybe he should read Voltaire?

He is what he is if you believe in Mensa. I don't. I think intelligence cannot be measured myself but that is a personal view on it. ;)

I personally do not believe in giving titles to distinguish one literature from another. Literature should just be literature none of the great or poor or whatever else one wish to describe it.

[Scheherazade]

~

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

If you think a discussion is "waste of time",

feel free to ignore it and leave the ground to those who do NOT find it a "waste of time".

~

PS: I was not pre-destined to word this message like that; on the spur of the moment, I decided to stray from my usual drone.

PPS: I am pretty sure no animals have been harmed in the posting of this message either.

[mande2013]

Perhaps not related directly to the thread topic, but is the notion of Shakespeare as the greatest of them all a somewhat Anglo-centric phenomenon? I wonder if perhaps in say Germany and France he's merely seen as a great amongst many the way Cervantes, Tolstoy and Goethe, for instance, are seen as greats amongst many within the Anglosphere.

[stlukesguild]

Cacian... there are few people who impress me in terms of intelligence, achievement, or knowledge on the internet... here or elsewhere. JBI, Petrarch's Love, Virgil, Jcamilo, mortal terror and a handful of others all have earned my deepest respect... whatever that is worth.

[mortalterror]

Thanks dude, likewise.

[Ecurb]

In this study, students who read short stories were more comfortable with ambiguity:

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/15/book_nerds_make_better_decisions_partner/

Whether these students could impress stlukesguild with their intelligence, achievement or knowledge is not, of course, for me to say. Many are called but few are chosen for that exalted privilege.

[ennison]

I believe in predestination but I hope I ain't too dull. I also believe in resurrection - of old threads

[Jack of Hearts]

Lots of junk in here.

Literature does something nobody here has mentioned yet. Literature teaches complex verbal expression. And people use this complexity to mask ignorance.

There's a ton of highly literate people in the world. They write oodles of words that are designed to seem insightful, or clever, or challenging. Whatever intelligence is, being able to assume the authorial voice of a textbook is not that.







J

[stacy55]

Only holy books can make you a better person, not just literature.


I know a few stupids who have read almost every novel out there, but still they don't know how to give respect!

[EmptySeraph]

What is a holy book? Of what does its holiness comprise? Can't any book, as long as it's appropriately viewed, be holy?

[ennison]

You seem to have answered your own question. I myself am writing what will become a holy book once I have a few acolytes to promote it. It will be very metaphoric and full of panaceas for our modern age. But only if swallowed in its entirety. That's why it needs to be short.

[biblophile]

I think it makes us confront our selves. helps us understand our motivations, and the motivations of others.

[New Secret]

Great literature helps you grow as a person, I would think. Much like classical music is proven to help one think clearly and intelligently, I would hypothesize that great literature would do the same.

[Roithamer]

Probably someone else has mentioned this, but I think it likely depends on how we define 'great literature'! And also 'better'. Probably the relationship between the written piece itself and the reader is too complex to distill into a 'good book = good person' sort of thing -- but I would venture to say that it can be a significant factor in helping rid us of fixed, black-and-white interpretations of the world, which I always see as a good thing. (Then again, I suppose really anything in life, given an open mind, can push us in that sort of direction.) But, yes, I think literature (and art in general) can do that in all sorts of ways -- showing us how people think and live differently, explaining phenomena we might not know about, or helping us to understand our experience in the world on perhaps not a totally rational level (symbols, for instance) etc. -- just perhaps not exclusively!

[Ecurb]

I recently read "Pamela" by Samuel Richardson, touted as the first "modern" (i.e. psychological) novel. Richardson thought the novel could "improve" the morals of young ladies, when they saw how Pamela's virtue was rewarded.

Instead, the novel spawned "Shamela" (a creation of Henry Fielding) who entrapped men with phony virtue.

Indeed, why Richardson thought Pamela's virtue was "rewarded" by marrying her kidnapping, abusive master is a bizarre, although perhaps Jane Eyre could have understood it. It reminds me of the "happy" ending of A Thousand and One Arabian Nights, where Scheherazade is allowed to remain married to her monstrous (if royal) husband (a fate which, I'll admit, may have been better than the alternative suffered by his former wives).

[Pompey Bum]

I recently read "Pamela" by Samuel Richardson

Poor you. Now try Joseph Andrews, Fielding's (other) Pamela send up. There's nothing like good humor to pr*ck a smug bubble.

[Ecurb]

I read (or, more likely, mostly failed to read) Joseph Andrews in high school. I brought Pamela and a volume containing Joseph Andrews and Shamela on my trip to the Canadian Rockies, but didn't get to Joseph Andrews.

I liked Pamela for about 100 pages or so, until Richardson (and Pamela Andrews) started repeating themselves and the nauseating plot of the novel became apparent. I can't say I read all of "Shamela" -- I sort of skimmed through it and got the gist.

[Pompey Bum]

I found Joseph Andrews so funny that it went fast. But if you have had enough of the Andrewses for the time, and seek a truly great read, try Fielding's Tom Jones. If you've suffered through Richardson's self righteousness you really owe yourself a bit of roast beef with Tom.