/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20010534]

Do you think literary writers tend to be lousy philosophers? Over the years, I've come under the impression that philosophers tend to roll their eyes when a writer tries to philosophize in their book or claim that they are only going skin deep.

[Anonymous No.20010554]

>>20010534
you can only pack so much philosophy in a narrative without it getting unreadable...
so every succesful philosopher who writes fiction only aludes to in it and has the bulk of his philosophy explained in non-fiction
for example bataille and camus

[Anonymous No.20010657]

>>20010534
The point of literature is to present the reader with ideas, and illustrate them in a meaningful and thought-provoking manner so that the reader can set about his own thinking and analysis, and also edify the reader through the artistry of its craft and composition. Lengthy, detailed philosophical explanations are a different species of writing altogether, and one is not trying to be the other. A philosopher complaining that a piece of literature doesn't map out a philosophical concept in extensive detail would be akin to a scientist complaining that a painting of the night's sky doesn't adequately model the stellar nucleosynthesis occurring within the stars.

[Anonymous No.20010672]

>>20010534
Because most writers are already bad writers which means they are even worse philosophers.

[Anonymous No.20010686]

>>20010657
>The point of literature is to present the reader with ideas, and illustrate them in a meaningful and thought-provoking manner so that the reader can set about his own thinking and analysis
i think people who lack a single cell of artistic perception should shut up when it comes to the point of things, let alone literature

[Anonymous No.20010688]

>>20010657
>The point of literature is to present the reader with ideas
hahahahahhahahaahahhahahahahahahhaha

[Anonymous No.20010691]

>>20010534
In general philosophers are beta-males, fags, and women who have finally found a little molehill to take a stand on and they get so needlessly territorial over it.
Just watch your metaphysics instructor's face change if you bring up Lacan to him.

[Anonymous No.20010695]

>>20010686
Elaborate if you're capable, or stop throwing around empty insults

[Anonymous No.20010706]

>>20010534
>you can only write about philosophical themes if it's in a dry academic 700 page doorstopper

[Anonymous No.20010726]

>>20010688
>t. exclusively reads genre ficiton

[Anonymous No.20010730]

>>20010726
Literature is nothing more than an aesthetic experience, akin to looking at a painting or listening to a piece of music. Literature that espouses on moral themes or allegories is charlatanism.

[Anonymous No.20010751]

>>20010686
>>20010688
>>20010730
Why are you all so retarded? Does noone here read shakespeare?

[Anonymous No.20010752]

>>20010751
>he reads Shakespeare for the 'themes' and 'messages' and not the verbal poetic texture

I remember high school

[Anonymous No.20010758]

>>20010534
Some authors make fantastic philosophers

[Anonymous No.20010765]

>>20010730
What a moronic statement. It just sounds like you were unable to understand the concepts being illustrated in some books and have declared the whole thing invalid as a way of coping.

[Anonymous No.20010782]

>>20010765
One day you’ll understand

[Anonymous No.20010787]

>>20010782
Ultimate pseud cop-out response

[Anonymous No.20010865]

>Do you think literary writers tend to be lousy philosophers?
Yes, but there is nothing I disdain more than a philosophical sort anyways.

[Anonymous No.20011018]

>>20010752
>it has to be one or the other