Can literature be philosophy?

[fzeko]

[B]I have no idea what these women are saying but they both sound equally and totally absurd to me.
If they have any idea about philosophy, they should know that there is nothing cold and calculated about the issues that it tries to give meaning to.

Philosophy is metaphysical and broad and it encompasses life which is anything but cold and calculated.

I agree that literature is able to incite the reader to act morally because most stories are drawn from real life and we tend to identify ourselves with the characters but philosophy is capable of offering the same thing by making us ask and answer questions about life, ourselves, the people around, our actions and act morally upon realization.

I think literature can become philosophy many times and I have read plenty of books in which the characters deal with philosophical questions but philosophy stands out on its own and can not be part of anything else.

[starrwriter]

Philosophy is metaphysical and broad and it encompasses life which is anything but cold and calculated.

I agree that philosophy is not cold and calculated nor is it merely observational. Philosophy touches on everything in life and it reaches conclusions. There is no such thing as a philosophy not applied to life (Thoreau.)

I think literature can become philosophy many times and I have read plenty of books in which the characters deal with philosophical questions but philosophy stands out on its own and can not be part of anything else.

Maybe so, but literature can be part of philosophy. Case in point: "The Unbearable Lightness of Being," a novel by Czech author Milan Kundera. Underlying the story is an argument against Nietzsche's metaphysical concept of eternal recurrence. Kundera concludes that human life happens only once and that is what makes it precious.

[fzeko]

Maybe so, but literature can be part of philosophy. Case in point: "The Unbearable Lightness of Being," a novel by Czech author Milan Kundera. Underlying the story is an argument against Nietzsche's metaphysical concept of eternal recurrence. Kundera concludes that human life happens only once and that is what makes it precious.[/QUOTE]

I totally agree and that was exactly my point,that literature is most of the times philosophy and can be without a doubt part of philosophy.
I will try to read Kundera because it sounds interesting especially if he argues Nietzche.

[LinFreakinRules]

I don't think that philosophy and literature are mutually exclusive. Take Kafka's "In The Penal Colony" for instance. It is obvious that he is using a story in order to show his philosophy on how the government is corrupt. It seems that sone people believe that philosophy is limited to morality. I agree with whoever said that it is only a part of philosophy. There are plenty of good fiction books that deal with morality, along with other philosophical issues. I don't necessarily believe that philosophy is detatched and distant while literature is personal, but in a black and white sense, I can see how that could be perceived. However, a wise professor of mine once said that there is nothing more generous than writing down your beliefs for the world to read. It is true regardless of which written medium you choose. Descartes, Hobbes, Plato, they all wrote their philosophies for the world to view and judge. These are their PERSONAL beliefs that they have shaped into a philosophy. Much of Plato's writing even seems like literature in the way it is presented (think The Symposium). So yes, both literature and other writings can both be considered philosophical. Literature is just presented in a different way. It seems as if literature could possibally be the "layman's" philosophy in many cases (not to take away from ANYONE'S intelligence, it is just easier to digest that reading Kant).

[Opheliah]

I think to have a meaningful and clear discussion on this issue, we will need to start, even roughly, with the questions: What are the core/utmost purpose(s) and scope(s) of philosophy and literature. Things you guys talk about are often exceptional cases. Anh when you talk about exceptional cases, you will easily come to biased conclusions.

You should start with the basic and the core.

Sorry I'm not native in English, so I will try to explain more later.

[fzeko]

I think to have a meaningful and clear discussion on this issue, we will need to start, even roughly, with the questions: What are the core/utmost purpose(s) and scope(s) of philosophy and literature. Things you guys talk about are often exceptional cases. Anh when you talk about exceptional cases, you will easily come to biased conclusions.

You should start with the basic and the core.

Sorry I'm not native in English, so I will try to explain more later.

I think that we ( the members here ) are all aware of what philosophy and literature represent and their purpose otherwise we would be unable to elaborate on the original posting. Based on that knowledge we discuss our intake and beliefs on the subject. So, it is kind of naive to say that we are talking about expeptional case but if you explain more later, I will be able to grasp your point.

[Virgil]

Every writer brings in his own sets of moral values and philosophy into his/her books. So all literature does talk about philosophy of life--but as the writer has seen it. Authors create a fictional world based on their own convitions and values. So depending upon the writers understanding of values and issues we may get something very profound and thoughtful and sometimes be motivated to "act morally" as Nussbaum claims in the first post. Sometimes literature does a great job at putting things into perspective as it gives analogies and characters we are able to relate to.

Reading through these interesting threads, I agree with Moonfleet the most. Literature is a work of art, not an essay. A writer brings to his paint stand his background and his passions and his interests. He may choose what he wishes. Some are philosophical, some are not. Some are biographical, some are not. Some choose to delve into morality, some do not. It doesn't make a work any better or any worse. I believe you have to see what the writer is trying to convey, and assess the artistry of how he does it. Henry James says it best: "The only obligation to which in advance we may hold a novel...is that it be interesting."

[McGrain]

I don't feel that philosophy looks for answers to philosophical questions. More, it engages these problems to the absolute maximum. Fiction does not engage these problems to the absolute maximum. It is human, all to human! But as to whether or not you can make more progress with one or the other is surely all about the individual - and very few of us are born (or made!) like hume. Thankfully!

[arabian dream]

I think that philosophy has abstract morality theory and in other hand in literature we have the application for the morality theory for example if you read philosophy books you will find the morality theory in abstract ways like what is the good behave and the bad behave but when you read literature book like novel you will find the morality mixed with other theory but the author doesn't mansion where the good behave or bad behave.

[summer grace]

I think literature can be philosophy. It may not be of the moral variety first mentioned, but it can have stuff to do with philosophy. I think there is lots about philosophy in prose and poetry. The quest for the meaning of life is visible in many poems and stories. Philosophy tends to be more formal than how it is expressed in literature, but the same questions are often there. It doesn't make a difference how it is expressed to my mind.

[Triskele]

i think that literature can certainly display philosophies, and with the character demonstrate how certain philosophies work. in fact, many of the greatest philosophers wrote fiction books in order to put their concepts out in the world so that people might find them interesting as well as entertaining. take for example "thus spoke Zarathstra" or "l'etranger". these books embody the personal philosophies of famous philosophers in both an entertaining and engaging way.

[summer grace]

Certainly, I agree with all you wrote! It seems to me that philosophy IS much more interesting in literature, and can interest more people that way. It is interesting, but it might seem boring sometimes in more formal stuff.

[andave_ya]

What about Rabindranath Tagore's book Home and the World? I found it to be a fascinating read even though it is considerably more philosophical than what I usually read. I've been calling it philosophical literature; it addresses certain things that haven't been resolved but it doesn't actually solve them and it is highly engrossing.

[hbacharya]

literature is generally more emotionally captivating then philosophy, also it can be better at painting a historic (evolutionary) backdrop to something- take the book Les Miserables, for instance, or hunchback of N.D. or Dostoevsky. Shakespeare or anyone

literature IS philosophy. words are like cups. the contain meanings that are unique and idiosyncratic. you might like general semantics. it is really dry. but it is like pure science and philosophy.

right now what I'm doing in my path, my journey, is learning how to take and endure the pain. it is not that dissimilar to what they did in the movie "fight club". you might talk of motion pictures and philosophy- both fight club and matrix are chalk full.

what you say it is, it isn't. you realize we are all talking in abstraction. when you hit that consciousness of abstraction, like in law, or in contracts, or insurance or taxes or government or morals, you jump up to the meta-programming circuit of the brain, and that washes away all fautly or obsolete cultural, family and personal programming

but you have to work and climb to get there. In so many ways. words are abstractions. the thing about the future is that people are going to be learning how to use their own brains, run their own brains. that is the big thing of the future, and I might make a case for the brain being what is the mysterious "philosopher's stone". I could perhaps present a case for that. they carry it with them all the time, and it can turn lead into gold. the brain. timothy leary- your brain is god. but he just wrote the book that way, framed as religion, so that his practitioners could use drugs legally, I think. nature has her means.

not too many people get off on philosophy because it seems so disconnected from humanity. they make philosophy a dull grind. hegel, hard to understand and boring, nietzshche hard teacher. nietzsche the confusa.

and philosophy branches into so many other subjects, like psychology- freud, jung, reich..., and into history and causality, and logic. aleister crowly said that to be part of this group or do this mission, you had to be in peak physical shape, had to understand science methods and logic methods (so as not to falsely attribute). I think that is the reason for logic- for it's use in life

I like literature. I have read a lot of it. I still don't know why. Right now I'm trying to read wealth of nations, and picture of dorian gray. I call wealth of nations a literature/philosophy hybrid, in that it is "attempt to get to the bottom of things" as someone said, and it was basically a book of morality in the marketplace. It was connected to people, not profits. From a great philosopher- what makes someone great?- you get a lot of bad copies. There is lack of individuation, it feels

and the latter- dorian gray- that is a corrupting book, but oscar wilde's philosophy of ascetitism, what an interesting one. pretend to be bad, but secretly be a saint and martyr. that is in the wealthy english society where few vast fortunes made and many impovershed englishmen. that is why sybil was writted by disraeli

ascetitism is an interesting philosophy.

but in answer to your question, it is my opinion that literature makes emotional and interesting the ideas of philosophy. a mind, like a stomach, can only digest so much at one time, and at one time of life. most philosophers are trapped in their ivory towers of the universities and so on. they are in abstraction. if anyone needs a consciousness of abstraction, it is preachers, professors, and philosophers. not physiognomists.

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.

[Adras]

For those of you whom have not rea Utopia need to do so. I'm not even a fourth of the way through and just from reading the excerpts and all the other information that happens before the actual story starts I noticed it is a great piece of literature along with a great piece of philosophy. You may choose to disagree with me but I stand firm in the fact that Utopia is literature and philosphy abiding within one another.