Does Great Literature Make Us Better?

[cacian]

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.

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.

[papageno89]

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)

[PeterL]

"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.

Amen! Without good definitions the question is meaningless, and even with good definitions it remains completely subjective.

[osho]

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.

[astrum]

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?

[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.
.

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.

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?

You are entitled to your opinions, but it is safer to base them in reality

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.

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.

[osho]

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?

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 mind

[PeterL]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Ecurb]

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.

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!

[Drkshadow03]

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.

I would also think fictional works can demonstrate behaviors NOT to imitate as well.

[astrum]

I would also think fictional works can demonstrate behaviors NOT to imitate as well.

I would agree with that. One can learn in many ways.

[Drkshadow03]

I would agree with that. One can learn in many ways.

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.

[Silas Thorne]

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?

[ralfyman]

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.

[cacian]

There are so many fatalistic and pessimistic opinions in this thread.

that is what literature is made I am afraid pessimism and fatalism.
expect opinions and views of the same kind no changes there.