Is modern literature failing philosophy?

[aiddon]

Many literary works of the 19th and up to the middle of the 20th century, though fictional, dealt with philosophical problems. I am thinking of Camus' The Outsider, Sartre's Nausea, John Steinbeck's fascination with non-teleological thinking, the existentialism of Dostoevsky and Kafka, the nihilism of Cormac McCarthy. This was literature rooted in intellectual enquiry first and foremost; entertainment and commercial sales were at most, afterthoughts. Literature as it exists today is utterly preoccupied with making as much money as possible. I struggle to think of any living author who deals with philosophy and ideas, politics, even in a marginal way. There are tales of social commentary, yes, but these are generally light in style, often clichéd, and superficial in their intellectual rigour. Philosophy in literature has unfortunately been relegated to the non-fiction part of the bookshop - Sylvain Tesson's wanders in Siberia, Alain de Botton's pop philosophy, Richard Dawkins' religious agitations.

Does anyone have an opinion on why this is so? Is there no longer an appetite for the American migration epic or visceral insights into men on the verge of insanity or those who wake in the morning to find themselves to be a cockroach? Or are we more enamoured by kinky sex or the biographies of utterly bland sportspeople? Or literature purely as entertainment? Is it possible to write fiction that will move us, change the way we think about the world, compel us to act against injustice? Are there serious philosophical writers still out there, in the underground where modern, insipid society prefers them?

[Skip]

You can find good literature today, just as you could have found plenty of crap in the 19th century. Don't be misled by the works that have lasted a century or more: they are not representative of the popular standard of their time.

Though i'm not current on all types of literature, I know that many speculative (Doctorow, Atwood, LeGuin) and serious general fiction (LeCarre, Helprin, Kingsolver) do deal with all those major issues, and the crises facing humanity. There is less heaven-watching among articulate, educated people now than in the more pious 19th century, so the approach of literary thought to those questions is more psycho-social and scientific than wise white man moralizing at the great unwashed, but it still works - that is, it still forces the reader to see a larger picture, or from a different angle, than he did before he opened the book.

[uwot]

You can find good literature today, just as you could have found plenty of crap in the 19th century. Don't be misled by the works that have lasted a century or more: they are not representative of the popular standard of their time.

It was ever thus. People still read Homer and Hesiod, Cicero and Ovid (No really, they do.) But for some reason we have stopped throwing christians to the lions. So much for culture.

[thedoc]

You can find good literature today, just as you could have found plenty of crap in the 19th century. Don't be misled by the works that have lasted a century or more: they are not representative of the popular standard of their time.

It was ever thus. People still read Homer and Hesiod, Cicero and Ovid (No really, they do.) But for some reason we have stopped throwing Christians to the lions. So much for culture.

And the demise of good family entertainment.

[HexHammer]

aiddon

What you think philosophy is, is beautiful rethorics and exorbiant metaphors, which it's not.

In a recent thread you scolded me for not contributing to this weird nonsens thread, which would have been a fool's errand to stoop down and endulge complete nonsen, which clearly suggests that you don't understand the meaning of rationallity and the concept of relevance.

So the answer to your main question is that science has taken over, and the classical philosophy has been outdated.

You are chasing pink dinosaurs.

[Bernard]

I think humans are outgrowing literature like we once had to outgrow pyramids. Things come to an end. There are more written words than ever but less substance proportionally. Philosophy is now well developed tool at our disposal that can't be reinvented by us in new ways. It's one in a whole kit of tools we have that may help us to buy a bit more time as a species. Philosophy is for the using, and it is being used in many ways. You can hardly read any book or magazine which in some way is not inspired by great philosophical insights, or has philosophical allusions that are traceable to a philosopher or philosophy epoch. Take Nietzsche's "Whatever doesn't destroy me will make me stronger". Where doesn't that appear now?

[aiddon]

I think humans are outgrowing literature like we once had to outgrow pyramids. Things come to an end. There are more written words than ever but less substance proportionally. Philosophy is now well developed tool at our disposal that can't be reinvented by us in new ways. It's one in a whole kit of tools we have that may help us to buy a bit more time as a species. Philosophy is for the using, and it is being used in many ways. You can hardly read any book or magazine which in some way is not inspired by great philosophical insights, or has philosophical allusions that are traceable to a philosopher or philosophy epoch. Take Nietzsche's "Whatever doesn't destroy me will make me stronger". Where doesn't that appear now?

Interesting point Bernard and perhaps you're right, though I feel literature can be a powerful tool...in the right hands. It just hasn't been in the right hands.

[aiddon]

aiddon

What you think philosophy is, is beautiful rethorics and exorbiant metaphors, which it's not.

In a recent thread you scolded me for not contributing to this weird nonsens thread, which would have been a fool's errand to stoop down and endulge complete nonsen, which clearly suggests that you don't understand the meaning of rationallity and the concept of relevance.

So the answer to your main question is that science has taken over, and the classical philosophy has been outdated.

You are chasing pink dinosaurs.

I will not respond to this. Please delete it.

[aiddon]

You can find good literature today, just as you could have found plenty of crap in the 19th century. Don't be misled by the works that have lasted a century or more: they are not representative of the popular standard of their time.

Though i'm not current on all types of literature, I know that many speculative (Doctorow, Atwood, LeGuin) and serious general fiction (LeCarre, Helprin, Kingsolver) do deal with all those major issues, and the crises facing humanity. There is less heaven-watching among articulate, educated people now than in the more pious 19th century, so the approach of literary thought to those questions is more psycho-social and scientific than wise white man moralizing at the great unwashed, but it still works - that is, it still forces the reader to see a larger picture, or from a different angle, than he did before he opened the book.

I agree, Skip, that piety coloured alot of earlier literature. And yes there are some serious writers dealing with serious issues today. Yet I can't help but sense that the consideration of ideas is secondary to commercialism. You may ask so what? It is easy to underestimate how important literature has been in communicating philosophy : think of existentialism for example. Philosophy continues to be the preserve of academia and pseudo-intellectuals. Writers are moving further and further away from serious philosophy, resulting in generally watered down popcorn for the brain. And I wonder is this just piggybacking society?

[HexHammer]

aiddon

What you think philosophy is, is beautiful rethorics and exorbiant metaphors, which it's not.

In a recent thread you scolded me for not contributing to this weird nonsens thread, which would have been a fool's errand to stoop down and endulge complete nonsen, which clearly suggests that you don't understand the meaning of rationallity and the concept of relevance.

So the answer to your main question is that science has taken over, and the classical philosophy has been outdated.

You are chasing pink dinosaurs.

I will not respond to this. Please delete it.

Because the truth hurts too much? You can't handle that I'm factually right, you want to live on in your fairytale world and denies my truth!

[Bernard]

I think you need to factor in the exposure of Western Philosophy (as that is what seems to be regarded to here mostly as philosophy) to philosophies of other cultures in the last two hundred years: Asian philosophy, indigenous American, Indian and many others. The Buddha was not, for instance, a religious figure during his own time but more of a philosophical sage. The Western acceptance of his type of thought has incremented in steady degrees. The bulk of other global philosophies are not characteristically in literature form, so there may be a sort of 'correcting' in the way Western philosophy is presented, which would also be a return to its own antecedant formats, eg: the peripatetic or forum style.

[wleg]

aiddon,

It was the writings of early philosophers, particularly Aristotle and Plato, that largely set the stage for all philosophical writing that followed. Aristotle and Plato failed to understand how knowledge is constructed and their writing confused the thinking of the following philosophers. This is the damage that can be caused by awarding undeserved credence. Crediting the early philosophers as the smartest people who ever lived has shackled the thinking of philosophers for centuries. Common sense says they might have been the smartest people, up until their death, but to say they are the smartest who ever lived is not credible. AS best I know, no propositional statements (philosophical statements) they made, or any philosopher after them, has been supported by logical argument.

An easy refute; post five or ten philosophical statements made by philosophers in last twenty-five centuries supported by logical arguments. It's time this philosophical nonsense stops and philosophers get on with constructing useful knowledge.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[Arising_uk]

... AS best I know, no propositional statements (philosophical statements) they made, or any philosopher after them, has been supported by logical argument.

Apart from the ones that laid the foundation for the subject of Logic that is.

An easy refute; post five or ten philosophical statements made by philosophers in last twenty-five centuries supported by logical arguments. It's time this philosophical nonsense stops and philosophers get on with constructing useful knowledge.

Why would you think a statement enough to be a philosophy?

Still, give me an example of what you talk about?

[wleg]

UK,
Philosophers have always thought that all logic is contained in language; Formal Logic is proof of this. The fact that language only illustrates the logical nature of the existence of things did not occur to them. Actually, it does in the philosophical area but they did not understand that either. In the philosophical area, language in the form of comprehensive definitions is the logic of Philosophy. But, philosophers, not understanding how knowledge is constructed, never constructed the comprehensive definitions needed to make Philosophy logical because they have never understood the “nature of existence”. You have to understand this to understand how to construct comprehensive definitions of philosophical abstract concepts. So there is the problem in a nut shell.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

[aiddon]

aiddon,

It was the writings of early philosophers, particularly Aristotle and Plato, that largely set the stage for all philosophical writing that followed. Aristotle and Plato failed to understand how knowledge is constructed and their writing confused the thinking of the following philosophers. This is the damage that can be caused by awarding undeserved credence. Crediting the early philosophers as the smartest people who ever lived has shackled the thinking of philosophers for centuries. Common sense says they might have been the smartest people, up until their death, but to say they are the smartest who ever lived is not credible. AS best I know, no propositional statements (philosophical statements) they made, or any philosopher after them, has been supported by logical argument.

An easy refute; post five or ten philosophical statements made by philosophers in last twenty-five centuries supported by logical arguments. It's time this philosophical nonsense stops and philosophers get on with constructing useful knowledge.

Wayne Kelly Leggette Sr.

The first part of your post was interesting, but I'm not sure what damage to philosophy you are referring to. Can you not give the Ancient Greeks credence for their enquiries into political philosophy, science, mathematics, philosophy of education? Socratic dialogue, Aristotle's syllogisms or his remarkable ideas on physics? No they weren't perfect, but they surely laid the foundations for all of western philosophy, which does not seem to impress you much. This is more of a dangerous trend on this forum which maintains the present company knows e everything about everything and philosophers of old were simply fools. I've heard Heidegger called a simpleton here. Why are you so hung up about the nature of existence in every thread? Which has me confused about the second part of your post. That is completely unrelated to my original post. In the past you have been quite vocal about people going off topic. Besides you are currently discussing this in a number of other threads. I suggest you continue it there.