Can literature be philosophy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abraxas

I wouldn't consider Plato's writings as literature at all!! Maybe we should define what we understand as philosophy and literature, no? For me, literature is hmm... maybe simply fiction that doesn't have/that shouldn't have a merely didactic aim? And even if Plato speaks of noble lies and uses myth and metaphor, you can't deny that he had a didactic aim, I think!

As for Kundera's novels, I suppose they could be considered as philosophical - in the same way as poets have illustrated philosophical ideas, it's true - but I wouldn't say they are philosophy. And I never confused them with philosophy: they're too enjoyable to read! :p

---

To me it (Plato) is as much literature as it is philosophy. (not all of it, but Symposium at least). Again, if the writing of Plato is a dialog, or even a narration, I consider it literature. In a Chekhov short story where characters discuss philosophy, there might be more description of events than in Plato, but there is still a portion of it that is qualitatively philosophy. In Plato there might be less description-- all he might say is that we got together, and then someone came, and we all wanted him to get drunk, so he did-- but it is still a mix of the two; and in fact it is an author or a narrator telling all this, so I cannot think of it as anything but literature. If it is philosophy, so is Chekhov. But it cannot be philosophy but not literature. (And I am only speaking of the Symposium here, not arguing for the Republic and other works.)

I think there is also something to be said for illustrating a philosophical principle. Maybe some authors who are also philosophers or who hold strong philosophical principles find that the best method to share their ideas with others is through examples of literature. Kundera, and others such as Camus are using social examples that they have created in the world to illustrate a philosophical ideal. For instance in The Stranger by Camus the story of a young man alone, shows an excerpt of his life and we feel through reading it his loneliness and pointlessness of action. This does not express the full throttle of existential thought, but it might provide a starting point from which to glean further information.

great writers are first great readers, and so obviously they are going to bring with them the ideals of which they were influenced. for one example, kant was a huge influence on many of the romantic poets and shortly thereafter the transcendental lit. some philosophy is fueled by great literature, i.e. freud studied sam coleridge in depth for a look, or perhaps better put, positive of his dream-play ideas....so in my opinion, they are kissing cousins. (o.k., now you know i'm from missouri....begin your freudian interpretations!)

Hullo,
First of all we have to say that literature is not the same as philosophy becuase of many reasons.The first one is that literature refers to humanity ,whereas philosophy trys to answer our questions such as "who are we?" ,"what is man?"and "what is god??".In other words,and in spite of some similarities between L and Ph their systems in written are not the same as most of us think,and each one of them has its own ways and this is the second raeson.In addition,what I meant by the term of "humanity"that literature has been written according to its authors.That means,these authors write what they believe in is good for human.In other words,they cannot avoid their ideologies,in that case I say there are some similarities between L and Ph ,but if you ask me, I would like to say "please let literature alone" because it can stand by itself. finaly,both philosophy and literature writers should exchange their experience to complet each other.

Hullo,
First of all we have to say that literature is not the same as philosophy becuase of many reasons.The first one is that literature refers to humanity ,whereas philosophy trys to answer our questions such as "who are we?" ,"what is man?"and "what is god??".In other words,and in spite of some similarities between L and Ph their systems in written are not the same as most of us think,and each one of them has its own ways and this is the second raeson.In addition,what I meant by the term of "humanity"that literature has been written according to its authors.That means,these authors write what they believe in is good for human.In other words,they cannot avoid their ideologies,in that case I say there are some similarities between L and Ph ,but if you ask me, I would like to say "please let literature alone" because it can stand by itself. finaly,both philosophy and literature writers should exchange their experience to complet each other.

The film maker Jean Luc Godard said, 'If you want to say something, the only solution is to say it.' This is in the context of his general statement that all of his films are effectively essays, but that their proper form was that of narrative fiction films.

Godard is the great alienator among sixties filmmakers. He uses formal filmmaking devices such as jump cuts and direct addresses to camera to distantiate the viewer and comment on the act of viewing itself and, where he wants to include a passage of general theory, he simply puts it into the mouth of one of his characters and has them speak it. In other words, where a writer like Ayn Rand or Camus uses the narrative as a means of carrying the philosophical message, Godard's message is, or is bound up with, a comment on the nature of the medium itself. Another way of putting it might be, Rand and Camus feel that their philosophical points require a (didactic) story to come across; Godard feels that he wants to draw our attention to the process of experiencing a story by breaking it - and perhaps, in doing so, point out that a lot of the stories we experience are more didactic than they're letting on. In a sense it's a move in the opposite direction from that of Rand or Camus: where they convert philosophy into narrative, Godard converts narrative back into philosophy. I prefer Godard's move. Rand and Camus seem to feel that using narrative will make their philosophy more 'immediate' to us, but actually, whatever their merits, we always end up with implausible characters who are simply ciphers for philosophical ideas. Godard's implausible characters are simply ciphers for the philosophical idea that they are something separate from reality, something constructed. This admission makes the philosophy more immediate (im-mediate), directely addressing the fact that what we are watching is a mediated experience, an experience of media.

No one's talked about Sartre, who wrote plays, novels and straight works of philosophy. Compare Nausea to Being and Nothingness and it seems clear he must have had quite different senses of the roles of these two books. The former is a much more emotional attempt to come to terms with the frightening strangeness of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

...Rand and Camus seem to feel that using narrative will make their philosophy more 'immediate' to us, but actually, whatever their merits, we always end up with implausible characters who are simply ciphers for philosophical ideas. Godard's implausible characters are simply ciphers for the philosophical idea that they are something separate from reality, something constructed...

---

I don't think they're necessarily implausible.Okay,Rand's characters definitely are,but that has more to do with the author and her ramblings which don't fit the ideas that may have some potential in someone else's hands than the concept of such characters(I really can't stand her).But Mersault,Roquentin,the Underground Man or Haller(even Jozef K.) are very believable characters in my opinion...

jgajgf

jgajgf

hello every one ...this is a very good article

this is a very good article

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johann cruyff

I don't think they're necessarily implausible.Okay,Rand's characters definitely are,but that has more to do with the author and her ramblings which don't fit the ideas that may have some potential in someone else's hands than the concept of such characters(I really can't stand her).But Mersault,Roquentin,the Underground Man or Haller(even Jozef K.) are very believable characters in my opinion...

---

Yeah, you're right. It's ages since I've read Camus, but I really loved those books and it's totally wrong of me to lump him in with revolting Rand. I just got carried away on my little hobby horse.

Philosophy is the science of life but in order to understand it you need the brain , mind and soul to be in sink with each other and in these times of chaos and competition when no one has time to ruminate and ponder over the ideas or laws of philosophy , a common man finds philosophy , dry and sometimes meaningless.
Literature on other hand is a beautiful tool used by various wise people who seem to understand philosophy in absolute sense and break it down so that a common man could relate to it.

Literature has been used since ages by writers all around the world to amplify and simplify philosophy , idealism , morality and ethics .In India ,all most all the well known writers have just poured out philosophy in their writings.Poets and writers like Kabir ,Surdasa , Kalidasa, Tulsidas, have amalgamated the two in such a way that when you read them , you cannot distinguish between philosophy and literature. In fact , I would not be wrong if I say that Indian Literature is nothing but Philosophy.

Best examples would be "Ramayana" and "Srimad Bhagavad Gita".These are two epics and the purpous of these two stories is just to simplify the philosophy of life and the concept of absolute truth and make it easy for a common man to relate to it lead his life in contentment and reach the ultimate destination-Moksha.

Philosophy is the science of life but in order to understand it you need the brain , mind and soul to be in sink with each other and in these times of chaos and competition when no one has time to ruminate and ponder over the ideas or laws of philosophy , a common man finds philosophy , dry and sometimes meaningless.
Literature on other hand is a beautiful tool used by various wise people who seem to understand philosophy in absolute sense and break it down so that a common man could relate to it.

Literature has been used since ages by writers all around the world to amplify and simplify philosophy , idealism , morality and ethics .In India ,all most all the well known writers have just poured out philosophy in their writings.Poets and writers like Kabir ,Surdasa , Kalidasa, Tulsidas, have amalgamated the two in such a way that when you read them , you cannot distinguish between philosophy and literature. In fact , I would not be wrong if I say that Indian Literature is nothing but Philosophy.

Best examples would be "Ramayana" and "Srimad Bhagavad Gita".These are two epics and the purpous of these two stories is just to simplify the philosophy of life and the concept of absolute truth and make it easy for a common man to relate to it lead his life in contentment and reach the ultimate destination-Moksha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simon

So I read an article by this woman Nussbaum who claims that only literature can portray moral philosophy accurately. She says that literature can incite the reader to want to act morally, that it can expose and bring about feelings that philosophy cannot becuase it is cold and calculated. The novel is a moral acheivement, for example "The Lord of the Flies", this has moral bearing on the world.

On the other hand there is Iris Murdoch, yall know her? She writes fiction and philosophy and claims that literature can have some moral concepts but that it is not philosophy. She says this is becuase literature does not try to seek the answer to a problem like philosophy does, that literature is natural while philosophy isn't becuae it is removed from the world, and that literature looks at what is beautiful and positive, while philosophy doesn't deal with what is beautiful and positive it has no concern for that.

So I'm asking forumers, what side are you on? Can literature be philosophy, or is it just that some literature has philosophical moral concepts in it?

---

Philosophy is the science of life but in order to understand it you need the brain , mind and soul to be in sink with each other and in these times of chaos and competition when no one has time to ruminate and ponder over the ideas or laws of philosophy , a common man finds philosophy , dry and sometimes meaningless.
Literature on other hand is a beautiful tool used by various wise people who seem to understand philosophy in absolute sense and break it down so that a common man could relate to it.

Literature has been used since ages by writers all around the world to amplify and simplify philosophy , idealism , morality and ethics .In India ,all most all the well known writers have just poured out philosophy in their writings.Poets and writers like Kabir ,Surdasa , Kalidasa, Tulsidas, have amalgamated the two in such a way that when you read them , you cannot distinguish between philosophy and literature. In fact , I would not be wrong if I say that Indian Literature is nothing but Philosophy.

Best examples would be "Ramayana" and "Srimad Bhagavad Gita".These are two epics and the purpous of these two stories is just to simplify the philosophy of life and the concept of absolute truth and make it easy for a common man to relate to it lead his life in contentment and reach the ultimate destination-Moksha.

i am sorry ...i am new to this forum and wanted to post a comment on "Can literature be philosophy".Though i am able to post a comment but oi dont see it with the rest of the comments in the row.Please help

why cant i reply to this post ...

Philosophy is the science of life but in order to understand it you need the brain , mind and soul to be in sink with each other and in these times of chaos and competition when no one has time to ruminate and ponder over the ideas or laws of philosophy , a common man finds philosophy , dry and sometimes meaningless.
Literature on other hand is a beautiful tool used by various wise people who seem to understand philosophy in absolute sense and break it down so that a common man could relate to it.

Literature has been used since ages by writers all around the world to amplify and simplify philosophy , idealism , morality and ethics .In India ,all most all the well known writers have just poured out philosophy in their writings.Poets and writers like Kabir ,Surdasa , Kalidasa, Tulsidas, have amalgamated the two in such a way that when you read them , you cannot distinguish between philosophy and literature. In fact , I would not be wrong if I say that Indian Literature is nothing but Philosophy.

Best examples would be "Ramayana" and "Srimad Bhagavad Gita".These are two epics and the purpous of these two stories is just to simplify the philosophy of life and the concept of absolute truth and make it easy for a common man to relate to it lead his life in contentment and reach the ultimate destination-Moksha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hbacharya

Everything is interrelated. Philosophy and literature are in essence two different disciplines or arts, but there is a lot of relations. In this world everything relates and everything is in a cobweb or a
net. It is a question of degree. Literature is more related to philosophy than science to it, or commerce to it, but the fact is a matter of extent. All directly or indirectly has relationship with life, and for life and about life. Literature has many purposes, some are moral and others are only entertaining. Yet literature is a piece of art and it must have a moral responsibility, and just entertaining is not its sole objective, and pornographic literature for example has a lot of entertaining elements but they can not be a good thing. It corrupts the mind. Not that thy do not contain elements of utility, they do, and has a specific domain of its own, in fact things not go out of brims or limits, and use of things must be in proportion. It sounds moralsitic. Yet the idea is something different.

Literature can get people astray, and children for example can be easily corrupted, and in fact theirs is a fertile find and any thing falls to it will find a very good environment to occupy and germinate. Here the writer must compose such pices of art that entertains them and at the same time that gives them a noral boost indirectly and unconsciously. In fact every adult is a child in degrees and evry chilld is a an adult inherent. Therefore, even an adult could be corrupted when their senses of discriminations will be at stake.

Artists have therefore a moral responsibility. A piece of art can give birth to a facist, and the same can come out in the making of a Mahatma, or a saint.

Literature and philosophy are in essence not one and the same and they are totally different, but one has grains of the other.

We do not know any great philosophical writings that are deemed great if there is no literary or stylisitc grandeur or any great litereature that has no philosophical insights or messages. Therefore one witout the other is unthinkable.

The Bible is a beutiful book and from a philosophical perspective it is unquestioanbly impeccible, and from the literary one is matchless.

Yet we can not say both disciplines are one and the same. They are interrealed. There is corelation, reciprocation, and give and take from each other to embelish or to perfect.

This is my opinion I love to share with you.

---

This is a great thought and I am really moved by the depth of your ideas. You must be a good analyst to go so deeply to arrive at ideas that are indeed revolutionary.

There is a great deal of spontaneity in your writing, something so vital and lively. You are a storehouse of ideas and powerhouse of emotions.

You must be a great thinker and I feel it having gone through this piece.