Printable View
Philosophy is the father of literature. Without philosophy, there would be no literature. Any literary figure reflects his philosophical views in his literary works, while he is telling in his books what he believes, what he is against, and what he is disgusted at.
The essence of results from human reflections is the philosophy. Once you have grasped the basic philosophy of the author, you have grasped the key-note of his works.
:o
what about more idealism rather than philosophy?
not all books reflect the author's views, and not all books even reflect any views....believe it or not, there are some books that are only trying to tell a good story and make the author some money; fortunately, these books do not usually hit hard or long
Then again, some books seem to have lasted the test of time purely because of their story and not their message. Take Robert Louis Stevenson's novels for example. Not a philosophical or political trace in Treasure Island or Kidnapped, and people still love the yarn today. Same with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and The 39 Steps. True, they aren't influential writers or novels, but they lasted nonetheless.
I would agree that large scale works such as Crime and Punishment, or East of Eden have a great deal of philosophy surrounding them. These are the types of book's which give the reader both a surface and internal story. These books are on the lists which students read in their AP English classes. But I wouldnt go so far as to say every book is about showing the reader the authors philosophy.
i have tried to be a little philosophical in two of my novels, and the first one, 'kat bitha' won the State Literary Award in Sri Lanka.
and i will continue to do so in my future novels
daya
Mythology and epic poetry existed before Philosophy in ancient Greece.
in India the epics were found long before Greece, but they were also philosophical
And America didn't move beyond pre-history until the Europeans colonized it in the 15th century, so your comment is rather specific to Indian culture. The Greeks had no organized system of interrogation in their early days that would lead historians to believe that philosophy played a part in establishing their early society.
america had a very rich history and culture before the europeans invaded and destroyed it, proving that throughout history, all over the world, that invaders have always been less civilized than the natives in any country
That wasn't exactly my point. I was just using America as an example to show how trying to generalize all cultures' societies and beliefs makes it impossible to establish a grand theory of human history (not that such a thing exists). The Indians had established philosophy before, or at the same time as, their poetic Mythology. Great; the Greeks didn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by dayananda
I think history can be viewed as the father of literature, and philosophy as kind of an adoptive mother. :)
The eternal question.
Aristotle stated that literature was superior to history because it was more philosophical. History could only refer to specific facts, while literature could speak on a more general level. Sir Philip Sidney's answer to that same question is very much alike: history is about concrete facts, philosophy about abstract notions. Literature could combine both. That's why he believed literature was more fit "to teach and to delight".
The question is: is literature there to teach and to delight?
Since the early 20th C many critics have argued that literature constructs an autonomous world, separated from the everyday reality we live in. If that is the case then literature cannot be philosophical because philosophy deals with (ways to deal with) the world.
Those views are too extreme. Of course literature is in some way connected to its context, to the world. One work more than the other. Some react on political situations, others on social events, still others on philosophical ideas. Personally I believe every work, every utterance and every act has some ideological side.
But to say that philosophy is the father of literature is taking it too far. I believe the borders are not that strict. Maybe the easiest way to separate one from the other is to say that philosophy is content, and literature is the union of form and content. It's just a first idea. I'll have to come back to this.
3 points:
-Define philosophy.
-Define literature.
-Is it more : language and philosophy / language and literature are inseparable?
Narrating facts can be purely literature, yet, that merely reflects history.Quote:
Without philosophy, there would be no literature. Any literary figure reflects his philosophical views in his literary works, while he is telling in his books what he believes, what he is against, and what he is disgusted at.
-------------------
PS: arghh, after writing the reply, I just realize how old this thread is. I just dig up a zombie. +____+
What about the impartial narator?Quote:
Originally Posted by ;4931