It's an interesting debate. To date, the best work analysing this still is Coleridge's Biographia Literaria - I highly reccommend it for thinking about this sort of discussion.
Printable View
It's an interesting debate. To date, the best work analysing this still is Coleridge's Biographia Literaria - I highly reccommend it for thinking about this sort of discussion.
This is fascinating. I can see how you mean that every literary text contains some level of the author's philosophy because that is only natural. Many texts, and many authors, have a more thorough philosophical focus than others. There is a spectrum of it.
But, would you be able to find some minor level of Stephen King's life philosophy in Carrie? Sure: high school is a terrible institution and young kids are horrible to each other. Does it count as his philosophy? Merriam-Webster says one definition of philosophy is "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group", so yeah. Why not?
I cannot think of a written text that has no representation of the author's philosophy in some way. The question Lote brought up is of the narrator, not the author. Unless nothing happens between anyone in a story, it's impossible to keep philosophy out.
Philosophy in the sense of an endeavor with the purpose of gaining wisdom is another thing. Many authors use their writing to represent different philosophical movements. Literature as a teaching tool for philosophical concepts is far less common than personal philosophies or beliefs coming through in writing.
Like I said, there is a spectrum. Also, I haven't read up too much on this, so don't go assuming I think I know what I'm talking about.:)
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.
Hmmm... I have always thought of literature as ART. I would no more think to suggest that music or painting could not exist without philosophy thanI would to apply the same to literature. Certainly every artist has a series of beliefs or values which may or may not be mirrored in his or her work. I don't think that
the "meaning" (the key-note) of any work of good art is something that can be easily grasped... something that can be synthesized down to a single philosophy. What exactly was Shakespeare's philosophy? Does knowing this or not knowing this in any way impact upon our reading of his plays? Which characters best expressed his philosophy? Whitman had it right when he proclaimed "I contain multitudes". As an artist myself (albeit visual) I am fully aware (and resigned to the fact) that my individual works of art reveal but slivers of who I am... but pieces of my philosophy. Art can never be reduced to a mere meaning. It is rather like assuming that a wonderful meal might be fully appreciated when reduced to a mere menu.
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
Actually it doesn't prove anything except that he who has the biggest guns wins.
I wholly accede.Good point to have philosophy to be inextricably linked to literature.
Language is the father of literature, philosophy is the brother to literature, though they sometimes cross. Language can be defined as a set of symbols, visual, physical and auditory, which can be used to communicate.
They can be separated, though they are not, because they are both from the same source. The ingredients written on a medicine bottle have no real "literary" quality, whereas Shakespeare has philosophical depth, and quality.
It really depends on how you define philosophy. All books, if they are good, contain some element of truth/wisdom/knowledge. But that isn't all philosophy is in the West, it is a little more than that, a methodology with its own set of constructs and forms.
And P.S., Native American oral and literary stories and traditions contain philosophical depths.
Take for instance, the Inuit goddess Sedna, whose story exists in countless forms, most agreeing that she was clinging on to her father's canoe as he tried to escape, and he cut her fingers off with his paddle, casting her down to the depths of the ocean, where her fingers grew into various sea creatures. She represents the underworld, and yet the same time that which the Inuit hunt, the seal, the walrus and other animals which are dependent to life. The story fuses the dark aspects - dependency on what has been cast away, a submission to that which has the power to destroy, yet is dependent for to ensure the fate of the Inuit. There is philosophical depth in stories like this, because they illustrate to the reader/listener, the nature of nature itself, and the necessity of making peace, and being in the goodwill of those who you require in order to survive.
All stories of some sort contain various elements of philosophical depth, some are just completely miss, while some are completely hit.
I tend to use the analogy of the linking magician's rings. Philosophy is one ring, literary works a second, science a third, and so on. Each is an independent field, but each is a subset within the other. So Stephen King's work may be farther away from linking to philosophy than would be a modernist like Musil, for instance.
Literature and philosophy cannot be separated? Of course they can, many literature works are completely devoid of philosophical thoughts and philosophical thought only has a literary aspect when it is put on paper, and even then, a work on logic, for example, might be more akin to a mathematical work or a guide on how to assemble a prefabricated desk than a work of literature. The point is that philosophy is often unknown and misunderstood by the profane, and this leads to such statements.
I do indeed believe that a creator - be it writer, painter, composer, sculptor or even modern artist - cannot be seperated from his ideas. Without his thinking there wouldn't be a creation. However, whether that thinking should be called 'philosophy' is the question.
If it should be called 'philosophy', then we should remark that it is not the philosophy of a philosopher like Aristotle, but rather the deep thinking of the creator. Thus Aritsotle's and other philosophers' works should be read in a different manner to normal literature and the manner then probably depends on the philosopher you are reading, as each one of them has their own way of expressing his ideas in the limited enclosure of language.
More specific concerning literature, I would say that a writer always creates with a certain idea in his head - be it a total image of the world, or a more specific idea. Even ruled by certain fashions in literature, it is clear that writers express their own ideas about society, economy, art, feelings, etc.
From the time writers put their own names on their works, and not the names of their mentors, they express their own ideas. Before that they used to write anonymously, but even then the works are an expression of the general image of the world in society or the image the mentor wanted to give himself.
Shakespeare expresses the changes in Medieval society by Renaissance. Individuality versus general well-being, love as determined by families.
In the 18th century, well after the Middleages it was common sense that prevaled. Rousseau writes things about children, how common sense teaches them anyway what is good and evil.
The 19th century was a century of great changes: different views on the world, politics, society, life in general. People were taken hostage by industry. All that was expressed in romanticism: emotions that ruled life itself. The old way of arranging marriages was now over, liaisons could be written about, passion literally splashes off the page. This maybe in an attempt to free people from the corset of real society that was still engulfed in the old quiet way of at least approval for the ones that were your friends. Impressionism was more about life in nature, the small human in the big universe, the circle of life. Hugo wrote about society and the frustrations he had towards the French revolution (maybe Romanticism mixed with realism in a way...). Realism dealt with the raw reality of life for the working people ruled by poverty, industry and disease. It asks publicly for mercy, as it were. Out of that came Naturalism that evoked fait in a fatalistic way: all stories end with death, characters no matter what they do are doomed to die, children born out of wedlock, rich make fun of the poor, people too weak to make their dreams come true, etc. Hardy asks himself the question whether there is a god who makes those people and him suffer.
The first Wolrd War didn't make it better. The second WW with its atomic bomb made life not worth it, the question of the holocaust repeatedly got written about. The Cold War made it worse.
Now we are in a time where you can write about anything you think worth it.
In painting and sculpture it is also this way, I believe. If you look at Rodin's Kiss, you can see love as it is: passionate and true, without anything, as the people without clothing and embracing each other. If you look at Michelangelo's David you can see an ideal male body as it is, not as it looks in clothing, you can see it with all its muscles and anatomy.
Monet's paintings evoke how light can change impression, can change nature, can change the atmosphere in a picture, even if it is the same thing. When Constable paints his clouds, he is impressed by the hugeness of the universe, and fascinated by the thing 'cloud' itself.
When Marcel Duchamp puts an object in a room and calls it what it is, he expresses his own view that the criterium for art shouldn't be that it is beautiful.
Where Bach made works that were very regular and to the glory of God, Beethoven made his own feelings into music.
In every work of every artist there is a certain idea, without it nothing can be created. One needs an impression, fascination, thought to create something and to get inspiration.
Even in thrillers there is a thought about crime, people, perpetrators etc. that makes the writer write a book about it. If the creation were pointless, it wouldn't be created.
Any thought is philosophy is the same perspective has any writing is literature. Let's agree that this is semantically wrong, because those aren't synonyms.
There must be philosophy (in the broad sense) for there to be literature. Authors expresss their philosophies in their writing. The two are not synonyms, but there is a relationship. If you ever read a novel that is devoid of philosophy, you'll know it, because it will feel meaningless, even if the plot and characters seem fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Etienne
There is a relationship in many cases, yes, but that was not the postulate of the thread. Literature is an useful tool to carry philosophical thought, but in itself philosophical thought is independent, and can be expressed orally, for example, or even not expressed at all.
what makes philosophy, philosophy then? is it only an organised system of interrogation that makes it philosophy?
God, not bad. My post on this ancient, twice revived thread was made before I was twenty and reads like something I would post today, though my uses of sources are completely different. I must have just started university then, back before I had any grasp of anything.
Then again, I got lucky. Some of my first posts on this forum were anything but good, with some dreadful judgments and prejudices. I usually get the feeling of dread when somebody bumps up those threads.
Surprisingly enough though, I had forgotten about that obscure myth I quoted above in almost entirety. It's amazing what sorts of things you respond to when you read literature. Either way, please be weary of reviving old threads. It scares us old-timers by having to readdress past nonsense we put on the internet.
Saying there is not a "trace" of philosophy in "Treasure Island" or "Kidnapped" is a bit of an extreme position. If you take Philosophy as some high-falutin pole vault of the mind to work out why we are all here and why life and all that IS then I guess only some books have a coherent philosophy but if you take Philosophy to be the simple examination of some ideas about life and existence then very few books do not have a philosophy. I have just finished a dreadful thriller by Elliston Trevor which reeked of Macho Brit imperialism chauvinism and racialism and I guess Trevor would not have deliberately allowed his novel to reveal these philosophic/political traits: they just were there in his inner world-view. Going back to Stevenson isn't it revealing that the main character in "Treasure Island" is a charismatic cold-blooded murderer who appeals to the reader. He should have hanged yet very few readers are unaware of his charm and his affection for the young narrator and very few readers are sorry he escaped. Is that not a "trace" at least of a philosophy about humans or young boys anyway. "Kidnapped" also is strongly marked by the dichotomy that Stevenson saw in human nature. Yoking two very different types together on a journey through Scotland is one examination of contrasting attitudes towards life. Even the crew of the Covenant are presented in this good side/ bad side way. That philosophic examination is more explicit in later work. Very few books are without a philosophy revealed by accident or design. However I think writing a novel to illustrate a philosophy is a sure rout to dullness.