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.
Printable View
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.
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.
Do you have any evidence to support your opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
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.
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".
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
You are entitled to your opinions, but it is safer to base them in reality.Quote:
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.
"IQ score results from identical twins are nearly the same, whereas fraternal twins' results are much less similar."
https://www.boundless.com/psychology...s-vs-adoption/
http://web.missouri.edu/~segerti/1000H/Bouchard.pdf
You can do the rest of your research.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
You are mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
No, no I am not mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
http://www.livescience.com/21778-ear...ds-brains.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...6-7903edf61fdd
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
"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?
I know a few psychologists and psychiatrists who would love to have a word with you over that one :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild
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?
There are so many fatalistic and pessimistic opinions in this thread. :(
^^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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypatia_
Here is what the OP said:
"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."Quote:
Originally Posted by astrum
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by tinybore
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)
Amen! Without good definitions the question is meaningless, and even with good definitions it remains completely subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by hypatia_
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.
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
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.Quote:
You are entitled to your opinions, but it is safer to base them in reality
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.
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 mindQuote:
Originally Posted by astrum
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
I would also think fictional works can demonstrate behaviors NOT to imitate as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by WyattGwyon
I would agree with that. One can learn in many ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by astrum
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?
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.
that is what literature is made I am afraid pessimism and fatalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by astrum
expect opinions and views of the same kind no changes there.
What's wrong with fatalism? It fits the universe better than other theories of behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterL
Potential isn`t enought. Without educations we cannot develop our skills, ideas. That is why education is so important.