Is modern literature failing philosophy?

[aiddon]

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.

Good insight, Bernard, that makes sense. Following from that I think the recent proliferation of self help literature, generally borrowed from eastern philosophies and spirituality, has become very popular (worryingly so, in my opinion). I think they offer a digestible, light smattering of philosophy that leads people to think that they have wrestled with profound ideas (The Alchemist, The Shack, Jonathan Livingstone Seagull). This is an uncomfortable direction for literature, one that treats humanity like fountains of spiritual wisdom utterly without reason and at the mercy of a transcendent puppeteer. It is based on nothing more than fatalism and superstition. And the masses lap it up! As a committed existentialist and lover of literature it jars very much with me.

[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.

By the way wleg I did not start a discussion on Greek philosophers, you did. My concern is modern literature. Please read the title of the thread before imposing yourself.

[Bernard]

Well the self help stuff is pretty thin on the ground as well. Most of the titles you mentioned are decades old. And from any modality you get the massive amount of crap that instantly swirls around and obscures the real jewels. The last hundred and so years have produced three main literary interests for me: Gibran, Nietzsche and Castaneda. Given the culture I was raised and exist in, Nietzsche is the only one I can talk about much without generating too many snarls out of others.
It still surprises me how much the culture we are born in nurtures myopia toward the ways of thinking of other cultures. We are much more similar than we think. Your existentialism has a strong counterpart in certain Yogic meditation practices and ideas wherein a state of being approximating the state of being in deep sleep is sought to be achieved. It's a suspended state between being and not being similar to what those vital moments in Camus seem to point to. It's not really loss of meaning or resignation but a sort of delivery of oneself into the honesty of lack of meaning, even of one's own self.

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.

Good insight, Bernard, that makes sense. Following from that I think the recent proliferation of self help literature, generally borrowed from eastern philosophies and spirituality, has become very popular (worryingly so, in my opinion). I think they offer a digestible, light smattering of philosophy that leads people to think that they have wrestled with profound ideas (The Alchemist, The Shack, Jonathan Livingstone Seagull). This is an uncomfortable direction for literature, one that treats humanity like fountains of spiritual wisdom utterly without reason and at the mercy of a transcendent puppeteer. It is based on nothing more than fatalism and superstition. And the masses lap it up! As a committed existentialist and lover of literature it jars very much with me.

[spike]

aiddon,

The earlier philosophical works in literature dealt more with what it is to be human and how to interact with the world. Most of that has been solved, hence why we may not read so much about it in today's contemporary literature.

There is still plenty of philosophy being done in literature but now it's mostly operational, about how systems work, such as government, business and the environment. If you haven't noticed, environmental philosophy is quite big.

[aiddon]

aiddon,

The earlier philosophical works in literature dealt more with what it is to be human and how to interact with the world. Most of that has been solved, hence why we may not read so much about it in today's contemporary literature.

There is still plenty of philosophy being done in literature but now it's mostly operational, about how systems work, such as government, business and the environment. If you haven't noticed, environmental philosophy is quite big.

Spike
Yes, if you read my post above i cite Sylvain Tesson as an example of current philosophical writing. He is an environmental philosopher along the lines of Thoreau and Emerson. My contention is with literary fiction however. I'm not sure I can agree with your assertion that we have figured out how to relate to the world around us. Religious fanatasicm and dogma still have a grip over a large swathe's actions; many cannot find meaning in the death of a loved on or depraved cruelty to children; we still swear allegiance to the destructive idolatry of money. Literature has a powerful role, I believe, in establishing our relationships to these things.

[Immanuel Can]

Excellent question, aiddon.

Have you read "Mercy Among the Children" by David Adams Richards? It might test the theory that nothing of philosophical weight is being written anymore.

But I agree that in general it's getting to be 'thin soup' out there in the literary world.

[aiddon]

Excellent question, aiddon.

Have you read "Mercy Among the Children" by David Adams Richards? It might test the theory that nothing of philosophical weight is being written anymore.

But I agree that in general it's getting to be 'thin soup' out there in the literary world.

Welcome back IC! Hope you had a good Christmas. I was beginning to despair at this whole forum thing...there's been a degree of hostility all round that makes one back away from discussion.

I shall certainly check out your recommendation. Powerful as debate is, if one does not have a foundational knowledge gleaned from books, then the whole enterprise of philosophy is empty.

Do you have any opinions on the current dearth of philosophical literature?

[Immanuel Can]

Welcome back IC! Hope you had a good Christmas.

Thank you, aiddon -- I trust you did as well...and a very Happy New Year to you. I can hardly believe 2013 is gone.

I was beginning to despair at this whole forum thing...there's been a degree of hostility all round that makes one back away from discussion.

I'm sorry to hear that. I realize that there is a tendency for us all -- and I am no better than anyone else on this -- to become thin-skinned when we are challenged, particularly in a public way; but I share your reluctance to participate whenever personal attacks and one-off (half-) witticisms take over. I glanced briefly at the "ontology" thread, since it has a topic I think is really important, but I backed off when I saw it had deteriorated to spite and ad hominem attacks. It's not just that using such things is a morally despicable strategy, but that it's also so darned unhelpful to what we hope to do here.

I'm glad to be talking to you again, though. I trust we'll soon be able to re-locate that good group of thoughtful conversationalists we had two weeks ago.

I shall certainly check out your recommendation. Powerful as debate is, if one does not have a foundational knowledge gleaned from books, then the whole enterprise of philosophy is empty.

Yes. I do believe that literature, at its best, is a kind of grounded, active, lived philosophy. That's not to say it should ever be allowed to deteriorate into mere polemic, but that no matter who we are as writers, a story we tell is always 'our' story, that is, the view of the world told honestly from the only perspective honestly available to us -- our own. Thomas Hardy wrote, "A novel is not an argument but an impression." I think that's the smartest comment I've ever seen on the matter.

Do you have any opinions on the current dearth of philosophical literature?

Perhaps. I find myself often wondering if, especially in North America, the energies of our foremost creative and literary minds has not been deflected into (what I regard as) inferior channels, such as the creation of debased internet content. Certainly film and TV have taken over the public attention formerly given to literature, but even it is being replaced by increasingly commercialized, fragmented and scattered ephemera on the internet. Who reads books anymore?

Rarely does even such a medium as a feature film rise to the level of profundity; it happens, but not often. One of my favourites is "Kafka," by Steven Soderberg. Or a classic film like "Beckett" has enough meat to warrant philosophy. But most of today's ostensibly "philosophical" films I find actually rather superficial in net effect -- sensational, perhaps even provocative in a shallow way, but ultimately unworthy of much further thought once they are over.

If I sound cynical about this turn of events, I am.

[Bernard]

Well, its not as big a deal as it seems, because if philosophy is anything it's the exploration of the gift of thinking and I don't think that is as easy a think to kill off as it may seem. Who cares what fo its in. As i write I'm overlooking a long stretch of golden beach that goes for miles with barely a figure in sight. It's summer here. I could follow that beach all day with my bare feet with only the sweet purpose of thinking, pondering, cogitating and enjoying new insights. Every step is like turning a new page of a thoroughly captivating and engaging work with no beginning or end.

[Immanuel Can]

Um...I think you're completely missing aiddon's point, Bernard. He's not saying "philosophy is in danger of stopping," far less, "life is insufficiently beautiful." He's asking a question about the relationship between literature and philosophy, and it's a reasonable one.

Perhaps you have a thought on that topic?

[Bernard]

I have commented already and this was a bit of a follow on. I guess I'm saying we have to allow philosophy to retain its basic form of 'thinking well about the big questions' without it being held ransom to literature, academia or anything else.

[aiddon]

I have commented already and this was a bit of a follow on. I guess I'm saying we have to allow philosophy to retain its basic form of 'thinking well about the big questions' without it being held ransom to literature, academia or anything else.

Bernard, though your reveries about the long golden beach are indeed beautiful, this must not be mistaken for philosophy. Yes, personal thoughts on beauty and life or even mathematics, profound as they may be, are just that - thoughts. This is not to diminish the power of thought, and some great insights can be had if more people did it. One could argue that thoughts may stray into philosophy from time to time, but to bring the discussion back to my original point, this is what modern literature, and as IC pointed out, film, is guilty of - sugar-coat ideas with some basic philosophy and voila! you have something masquerading as serious philosophy. As IC said, these must be disregarded once they have been consumed. Movies such as The Matrix and Fight Club, with their extraordinary mass appeal, have about as much Existentialist philosophy as a Donald Duck cartoon. This is not to be derisive or facetious - Donald Duck does display some existentialist tendencies. The problem is when the thing is taken for something it's not. There is a whole generation going around proclaiming their philosophies based on Blade Runner.

Taking on your previous point, I agree that philosophy must not be held to ransom by the institutions of academia and literature, but at the moment it is almost exclusively an academic pursuit. Which is one of the reasons for my post - literature needs to claw back some ownership of philosophy - like it last did in the middle of the last century. But there needs to be a balance - academia giving way to literature. Take Existentialism again as an example. Very much conceived in a modern sense by Heidegger and Jaspers (following on from Kierkegaard), Existentialism remained aloof, even viewed with suspicion until the likes of Sartre and Camus took it by the hand. I understand that this was only one "breed" of existentialist philosophy, namely the French movement, but nevertheless, the reading world as suddenly confronted by philosophy like never had been done before is such a popular way. Beckett came along soon after and molded it into theatre. Now, Existentialism is easy to transfer to fiction or theatre or film - and perhaps its has that advantage over all other modes of philosophy (I can't see Hollywood making a blockbuster on Wittgenstein's ideas on Epistemology any time soon), but the point remains that to have a well-considered, advanced understanding of philosophy that can actually be applied in some way (after all, what use is philosophy if it cannot be applied in our daily lives?) then the ground work must be done by academia, and then given over to literature and art and theatre and film to be deconstructed, disseminated and communicated. In my humble, amateur opinion.

[aiddon]

If I sound cynical about this turn of events, I am.

You're talking to the king of cynicism here. I'm afraid I think the tide has come in too far - technology and the internet have changed (and even obliterated) everything that has come before. I'm not sure if it is possible to regain what appeared to be golden ages of philosophical thinking that seem to permeate the previous centuries. But perhaps this is just being sentimental. And as William Barrett says, sentimentality is nothing but false feeling, untrue to its object. Perhaps it's like modern art - we have no choice but to put up with it, because it's not going anywhere. I like to think that tides can go out again, however.

[Bernard]

You bite your own argument unwittingly as modern art is as old a format as the era of high philosophical literature you talk of. Indeed; same fish different ponds. You mean post-modern art I think

The Matrix was mostly inspired by Carlos Castaneda's works. I've studied for many years his works and the wonderful highly esoteric philosophy he came to represent; a philosophy with its roots in ancient Mexico and very dissimilar to modern philosophy. He called it a practical philosophy. I bring this up because I think you are tossing out the baby with the bath water too often with some sort of wholesale rejection of non academic philosophy.


Our times ar deeply concerned with the personal, and that is reflected in very superficial ways, but you really don't have to scratch the surface much to discover some very exciting new pathways of thought that humans are involved in today. Big deal if there are superficial parasites that seem to ruin every inch of progress that is made! That is to be expected.

I don't agree that academia has to provide the basis for current streams of philosophical thinking. Disciplined thinking can be found in many different ways. I will repeat that philosophy is merely the exploration of the gift of thinking. You have misrepresented me by suggesting I regard philosophy as merely thinking when I went out of my way to qualify it ... all be it in a rather tacit way.

[Immanuel Can]

You're talking to the king of cynicism here. I'm afraid I think the tide has come in too far - technology and the internet have changed (and even obliterated) everything that has come before. I'm not sure if it is possible to regain what appeared to be golden ages of philosophical thinking that seem to permeate the previous centuries.

Bernard thinks this is alarmist. I don't think it is.

We live amid distracting technologies the likes of which the world has never seen before -- I think it's just naive to think that it will be "business as usual" from here forward. Something very profound is at work, and it has great negative potential in addition to its obvious attractions. The problem is that the attractions are generally advertised and believed widely, whereas the negatives are never announced and are generally poorly understood in advance.

We are great amusers of ourselves. And "a - musement" means, translated literally, "not - thinking." When we "amuse" ourselves, it's generally because we are trying NOT to think about things, not because we are trying to think.

Neil Postman accused our society of "amusing ourselves to death." That might be hyperbole: but that we might be amusing ourself into thoughtlessness or imbecility is not beyond possibility. And perhaps that also accounts for the poverty of our current philosophical thought...perhaps.

So I'm on your team.