It seems that a lot of great modern literature deals in philosophical themes. From Doestoievsky to James Joyce to Joseph Conrad there are philosophical issues deeply imbedded in many novels and short stories of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

A question that I would raise has nothing to do with philosophical themes in literature, but with the literary or artistic representation of philosophical themes. What I mean is I love to read their finely inter-woven descriptions of action and thought within the characters who are permeated with a philosophical sense. So it's not the philosophical issues per se but the bringing to life of the issues and 'painting' them on the page in the form of words.

So a question to ask is: does it require an organic presentation of vital philosophical questions to render those questions as aesthetically valuable? What does this extra aesthetic dimension of philosophy mean to the philosophic enterprise? Does philosophizing in an organic and artistic sense mean that the questions and the discussiion will be more understandable? Does philosophizing in this artsy, organic method mean that philosophy could have more direct power in life? Is this aesthetic posing of philosophical questions superior to the academic doxa?

And this is probably also why I love Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, because they offer to the reader a sense of living urgency, a philosophy of life. Nietzsche and Shopenhauer are more subjectively oriented and there's nothing more powerful than having something that you've nurtured and developed within your self for a long time come to life and bear natural fruits. I think this is what great literature does to the reader, it fills the inner and subjective world full with excitement, drama, imagery and romance. And of course, Nietzsche and Shopenhauer were great writers as well as important philosophers.

So the finally fully formed question that I can now ask is: What is the connection or inter-play between a philosophical theme and the writing or crafting of a philosophical theme into literature? Is there some subterranean communing involved between the crafting of actual words on the page and the posing of actual questions from the thinking mind? Where does the philosophizing end and the word on the page begin? Am I fingering and twiddling, moving in the thinking of Aristotle when those are the actual words that he wrote that I can now read for myself from that page? Surely I venture with him in his intracacies and ideas, in his foot-paths when I am reading his books. And then I come back to the surface of the text to find that we meet again in this un-canny manner! Surely, there is more going on here, surely the thought does not stop with the word.

My basic position is that pure aesthetic ideas exist in the world and that we find them in a way that is similar to a sculptor who finds his beautiful erotic body within the stone. The subtlety of the thought is reconstructed upon the page as is the persona of the philosopher, the thinker behind the machinations.

You're right, Schopenhauer doesn't mix the two as does Nietzsche. Schopenhauer has a deep respect for science. But still, philosophy has to be written down in non-mathematical language. My question was, what is the relationship between non-mathematical language and reality? Or between the aesthetic meanings of things and the outward appearance of things?

I also wonder what you would say about Plato's writing? Would you consider Plato an artist?-

My basic point was that ideas are seperable from things, which is the opposite of that poet who wrote that there are no ideas but in things. And this means that divinity is possible.



--Pyth

To say that there are no ideas but in things means that there is no God[s] i.e. material monism.

.

I want to thank you for posting that poem. This is the first time I've heard of Edna St. Vincent Millay or read the poem, I'm sorry to say.

It's got to be one of the best poems I've ever read, certainly the best poem I've read recently. The simplicity of it is devastating. Needless to say I'm not going to forget

Thanks again, Kenneth.


--Pyth

You are right. A lot of literature concern issues of philosophy. Dostoievsky on the problem of evil; Henry James on subjectivity and objectivity; and Thomas Hardy on human freedom and fatalism. But, nevertheless, literature and philosophy are very different enterprises. And that is why I despise Nietzche, because he mixes them up. Schopenhauer is different. He doesn't mix them up.

I find it intriguing to pursue, rather than a philosophy of art, an art of philosophy. Philosophical themes in literature provide wonderful capabilities for not merely presentation of thought- but thought itself. Art is not limited to moving emotions, but the intellectual side of the mind as well. This is why studying literature can provide both emotional and intellectual development.

One of the many of these capabilities that we use often in more contemporary literature is character. It is not through philosophy, but art that countless characters have been created. With these characters as our lens, we may explore ideas thoroughly as if we subscribe to them without actually doing so. It provides us with an incredible perspective.

Art, of course, is not limited to thought experimentation. Art can articulate ideas that can not be expressed otherwise. Philosophy has critiqued the power of words for some time now. It is, at this point, not an uncommon conception that words limit thought. What I find fascinating is that art can express things words can not. One can not express the works of a great painter, for example, and meet the same end as actually viewing the painting. What I find even more fascinating, is that literature, being a form of art, has this capability as well. In that sense, literature is art that is made of words that has the capability of moving beyond them. For example, there is no way of achieving the artistic intellectual effects of the works of Dostoevsky, Kafka, Camus, Ken Kesey, Kawabata, Palahniuk, Crane, and Henry James to name very (very) few without actually writing their works. This is because literature does not merely tell us things, it shows us things and reveals them.

Also, it is my experience that if we combine beauty with wisdom, we find that we have even more beauty. Let's face it- philosophy is incredibly powerful, as is art. If we combine the two well (which is something that is far from easy to do), the end is so moving and so powerful that an individual exposed to it can not help but be affected and effected deeply.

Finally, I would like to brush off the idea that there is a line between philosophy and art. Most certainly, they are different things, but drawing a line where they intertwine is hindering to understanding. It is nothing more than an attempt to classify something into one word or another. Its importance is minimal, so it is nothing more than distraction. (Example: ) It does not matter whether or not Nietzsche was an artist or philosopher, nor is it relevant whether or not he had the right answers (we are philosophers here, not mathematicians or scientists). What is important is what we may understand by reading his works. As understanding increases, the answers often seem more cloudy and perplexing. This is one of the hardships philosophers must face.

Pan; If I may, there is no line between artist and philosopher. And there is no difference between philosophy and math or science, liturature, or history. Philosophy is a rather gteneric term covering all approaches to knowledge. Just as the artist must concieve to create, the philosopher must know to concieve. So the difference is only whether one does or knows with what one concieves, or perhaps, the philosopher knows truth in the form of a rational argument, and the artist reproduces truth with a tactile experiment. To each, some measure of truth is essential. What do you think

I don't know if it would be beautiful or not to see a philosophizing mathematician. Sounds like a recipe for insanity to me (just a joke).

Seriously; I think art and literature are important because they cause different reactions in different people. A painting ceases to be owned, in a sense, by the artist, as soon as it has been displayed. It belongs then to the viewer, who infers what he/she wants. The same can be said for a poem, a book, or a short story. Whatever message that the creator intends is not always the message that is received, nor does it have to be. I think of a philosopher as someone who takes a more deliberate approach to ensure that his/her message is received intact.

You write very passionately about art. I like you already.

Hope to talk again.

-JL

We may be what we think, but who we are is what we feel.

So a question to ask is: does it require an organic presentation of vital philosophical questions to render those questions as aesthetically valuable? What does this extra aesthetic dimension of philosophy mean to the philosophic enterprise? Does philosophizing in an organic and artistic sense mean that the questions and the discussiion will be more understandable? Does philosophizing in this artsy, organic method mean that philosophy could have more direct power in life? Is this aesthetic posing of philosophical questions superior to the academic doxa?

I agree with some of the assertions from what you said, but especially the quote above. If we were all what we thought, we would definately be in trouble, as horrible thoughts most assuradly incumber everyone's mind from time to time. The way we feel, however, shows a more accurate picture of who we are. I like your statement very much.

On another point you made, however, I would be less inclined to agree. I believe knowledge is a precursor to self-control. Those who exhibit self-control without knowledge are actually being controlled by an imaginary line that has been established for them (laws, rules, etc...). Those with knowledge establish self-control from their own reason and don't neccesarily need those imaginary lines.

I feel as though I definately learned something by reading your post. Thank You.

-JL