Does Great Literature Make Us Better?

[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).