Is Philosophy Literature?

[mgc1961]

Is philosophy literature? Do people read philosophy for pleasure? Of course it is, and of course they do.

People savor the aphorisms of Nietzsche, the essays of Schopenhauer, the philosophical novels of Sartre. They read the dialogues of Plato (and they would doubtless read the dialogues of Aristotle too, had Western civilization not been so careless as to mislay them). Some even claim to enjoy the more daunting treatises in the philosophical canon. “When I have a leisure moment, you will generally find me curled up with Spinoza’s latest,” Bertie Wooster swankily announces in one of P.G. Wodehouse’s “Jeeves” novels.

Now let me narrow my query: Does anybody read analytic philosophy for pleasure? Is this kind of philosophy literature? Here you might say, “Certainly not!” Or you might say, “What the heck is analytic philosophy?”

Allow me to address the latter reply first. “Analytic” philosophy is the kind that is practiced these days by the vast majority of professors in philosophy departments throughout the English-speaking world. It’s reputed to be rather dry and technical — long on logical rigor, short on lyrical profundity. Analytic philosophy got its start in Cambridge in the first decade of the 20th century, when Bertrand Russell and G.E. Moore revolted against the rather foggy continental idealism prevailing among English philosophers at the time. Under their influence, and that of Ludwig Wittgenstein (who arrived in Cambridge in 1912 to study with Russell), philosophers came to see their task as consisting not in grand metaphysical system-building, but in the painstaking analysis of language. This, they thought, would enable them to lay bare the logical structure of reality and to put all the old philosophical perplexities to rest.

Read on at http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/is-philosophy-literature/

[bemildred]

1. Interesting thanks.

Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.

Generally, in my view, a certain informality is better from a literary POV. When a philosopher hauls out the heavy guns, it tends to get boring fast unless you have some externally applied motivation.

[ladjf]

2. One definition of literature is:

"writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays."

A dictionary definition of Philosophy: "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct."

I agree with those two definitions. In my opinion, philosophy is the science of investigating the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

I consider literature to be an art for human expression usually dealing with the condition of life.

[Igel]

3. A lot of lit has philosophy as a leitmotif.

It can summarize and embody the writer's philosophical ramblings. Tolstoy's been cited for non-violence, and Dostoevsky has a precursor to existentialism.

(You don't have to agree with those making the assertions, just acknowledge that there are such assertions and they can reasonably be made.)

Then, I guess, there's always Ayn Rand.

[ladjf]

5. A person's World view or philosophy is based upon that individual's best efforts to practice the

science of philosophy to the best of the abilities. In that sense, the individuals comments about
life whether spoken or written are always a reflection of the World view.

I view philosophy as the science of determining values. "A philosophy" is not the science but rather the result of practicing the science of philosophy.

Further, I view the science of philosophy to be perhaps the most important science and yet is it rarely taught in schools and when it is, it seems to deal largely with surveys of the History of Philosophy" rather than practicing the art/science of determining truths.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

4. I've read Augustine of Hippo for pleasure

He has, to my mind, an exceptionally good Latin style of writing, especially in his sermons. The introduction of his De Trinitate shows a remarkable level of honesty and humility:

Whenever you are as sure about something as I am go on with me; whenever you are stuck seek with me; whenever you have gone astray come back to me; or if I have gone astray, call me back to you. In this way let us walk along the path of love together, seeking for him of whom it is said, "Look for the Lord in his strength, seek to serve him constantly."

If a reader says, "This is badly written, I cannot understand it," he is criticizing what I have said, not the faith; and it may be that the meaning should be clearer. But what writer succeeds in being understood all the time? If you feel this way and find others more expert in such things, put my work down or even throw it away and study books that you find more intelligible. If someone says, "I understand your meaning well enough, but it's not true," I would ask him to state his position and refute mine. If he does this sincerely and without malice, and informs me of his views (if I am still alive), then I count my efforts well rewarded. If he cannot let me know, I would be delighted if others profit from his views.

I meditate on the law of the Lord, if not all day and night, at least whenever I have a moment to spare. I write my thoughts down, in case I should forget them. I hope that God in his mercy will help me never to turn my back on teachings which I believe to be true. But if any of my beliefs are wrong, I pray that he himself will make it clear to me, either by secret warning and inspiration or by his own words or by the conversation of my brethren.

(My translation)