Did he write such a thing?

Myself! Stand above the naive and group thinking philosophers who only dwell in a naive and idealistic world, whilst I live in a more realistic world.

I believe it was his doctoral dissertation.

I believe this was Emerson's position as well...

Have no idea who's the dude is.

Although I'm mostly into 20th-century Continentals -- the usual suspects -- I'd have to put Robert Musil on the top of my list, even though he articulated his philosophy better in fiction than nonfiction.

But hey, Zarathustra is presented as a story... and the classical dialogues are essentially playscripts along the lines of My Dinner with Andre ....

Yes, a lot of people seem to confuse philosophy with literature.

As well they should -- since they have no absolute distinction. As Derrida says, philosophy has simply been the literature of Truth.

As well they should -- since they have no absolute distinction. As Derrida says, philosophy has simply been the literature of Truth.

If there is a distinction I would like to know exactly what it is!

-

Even if there is no absolute distinction, that does not mean that there is no distinction. There is no absolute distinction between the back of my head and the front of my head. But there is a distinction between the back of my head and the front of my head. (And, why should anyone care what Derrida said?)

There is a distinction that some philosophers insist on when they want to shore up Philosophy as having some relation to the Truth or to Reality that is inaccessible to "literature". That distinction doesn't exist.

And why quote Derrida, a philosopher, in a philosophy forum? Hmm...

Even if there is no absolute distinction, that does not mean that there is no distinction. There is no absolute distinction between the back of my head and the front of my head. But there is a distinction between the back of my head and the front of my head. (And, why should anyone care what Derrida said?)

---------- Post added 04-08-2010 at 11:20 AM ----------



For one thing, literature often is tells a story, and has a plot, and has characters. Philosophy does not. Literature is supposed to entertain, philosophy is not supposed to entertain. Book stores seem to know how to distinguish between the two

Your saying that the distinction does not exist does not make it so. And what the motive is for distinguishing between philosophy and literature has nothing to do with whether there is such a distinction.

I did not say you should not quote Derrida. I said no one should care what he said. He was a philosopher even if he was a terrible one.

Well, Derrida was a far, far better philosopher than either of us, so whatever sweeping, totally unsupported judgments we might make in that regard haven't much value.

I have no idea where it is inscribed that entertainment -- or even consolation -- does not belong to philosophy; and there is some profound literature that is in deep trouble if its status as literature depends on its "entertainment" value.

And if you think philosophy doesn't quite liberally employ the fiction of analogy, of story, of characters in dialogue, of metaphor, etc. etc., you might want to hit the books again.

But philosophy need not be entertaining even if it is. Literature does need to be entertaining for it to be any good.

Oh yes, philosophy does use analogy and so on. But that is not of its essence, and it need not. It is of the essence of literature to do that.

Hmm.... who or what is it, exactly, that has decreed what any given book "needs" to do? In any case, I can give you a long list of "literary" texts that did not "entertain" me at all, but that did plenty of "good." I read much of Musil, for instance, with exactly the same motivation and exactly the same "payoff" that I get from reading Nietzsche or Foucault. No difference.


But "literature" need not use analogy -- take "Sister Carrie", say, or certain Kafka stories. If it is not necessary there, then neither is it "essential". Nothing is "essential" to either of them, unless you're simply working backward from the artificial genre label -- naturalizing a category that is entirely an invention, a convenience -- and, as I said, merely the way that Philosophy has claimed a special attachment to Truth...

Of course the category is a convenience, but it is an established convenience. I never said it was a natural kind like mammal or acid. Literature [as a category] is man-made, and so is philosophy.