Rethinking the philosophy – literature distinction

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Rivista di Estetica Pub Date : 2019-04-01 DOI:10.4000/estetica.5237
I. Vidmar
{"title":"Rethinking the philosophy – literature distinction","authors":"I. Vidmar","doi":"10.4000/estetica.5237","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Contemporary debates within analytic philosophy regarding the relation between literature and philosophy focus on the capacity of some literary works to engage with philosophical problems. While some philosophers see literature as a welcome contribution to philosophy, or as an alternative to pursuing philosophical questions, some are more sceptical with respect to its capacity to tackle philosophical concerns. As a contribution to this debate, in this paper I look at similarities and dissimilarities between the two practices, with the aim of mitigating some views which see them as too diverse to allow for literary treatment of philosophical issues. As points of contact, I focus on the shared thematic concerns of the two practices, i.e. on the fact that literature and philosophy both deal with issues that humans generally care for. I argue that both practices, despite the stylistic, linguistic and methodological differences in their approach, manage to fulfil ‘the recognition requirement’, namely, recognize and engage with those issues, situations and context of human predicament in the world which are in need of intellectual refinement. I then move on to dismiss arguments which purport to discredit literary treatments of philosophy on the basis of literature’s alleged subjectivity and emotional dimension, which are contrasted with philosophical objectivity and rationality. I end by emphasizing the impact of academic constraints on professional philosophy, in order to suggest that pursuing philosophical concerns is not an invention of the practice, but a natural inclination of reflective, inquisitive human mind.","PeriodicalId":53954,"journal":{"name":"Rivista di Estetica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rivista di Estetica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/estetica.5237","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Contemporary debates within analytic philosophy regarding the relation between literature and philosophy focus on the capacity of some literary works to engage with philosophical problems. While some philosophers see literature as a welcome contribution to philosophy, or as an alternative to pursuing philosophical questions, some are more sceptical with respect to its capacity to tackle philosophical concerns. As a contribution to this debate, in this paper I look at similarities and dissimilarities between the two practices, with the aim of mitigating some views which see them as too diverse to allow for literary treatment of philosophical issues. As points of contact, I focus on the shared thematic concerns of the two practices, i.e. on the fact that literature and philosophy both deal with issues that humans generally care for. I argue that both practices, despite the stylistic, linguistic and methodological differences in their approach, manage to fulfil ‘the recognition requirement’, namely, recognize and engage with those issues, situations and context of human predicament in the world which are in need of intellectual refinement. I then move on to dismiss arguments which purport to discredit literary treatments of philosophy on the basis of literature’s alleged subjectivity and emotional dimension, which are contrasted with philosophical objectivity and rationality. I end by emphasizing the impact of academic constraints on professional philosophy, in order to suggest that pursuing philosophical concerns is not an invention of the practice, but a natural inclination of reflective, inquisitive human mind.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新思考哲学与文学的区别
当代分析哲学内部关于文学与哲学关系的争论集中在一些文学作品参与哲学问题的能力上。虽然一些哲学家认为文学是对哲学的一种受欢迎的贡献,或者是追求哲学问题的另一种选择,但有些人对文学解决哲学问题的能力持怀疑态度。作为对这场辩论的贡献,在本文中,我研究了这两种实践之间的异同,目的是减轻一些观点,这些观点认为它们过于多样化,无法允许对哲学问题进行文学处理。作为接触点,我关注这两种实践的共同主题关注点,即文学和哲学都处理人类普遍关心的问题。我认为,尽管这两种实践在方法上存在文体、语言和方法上的差异,但它们都设法满足了“认识要求”,即认识并参与那些需要智力改进的世界上人类困境的问题、情况和背景。然后,我继续驳斥那些以文学所谓的主观性和情感维度为基础,诋毁文学对哲学的处理的论点,这与哲学的客观性和合理性形成了对比。最后,我强调了学术约束对专业哲学的影响,以表明追求哲学关注不是实践的发明,而是人类思维反思和好奇的自然倾向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Rivista di Estetica
Rivista di Estetica PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Origins Of Umberto Eco’s Semio-Philosophical Project Alive as You and Me Indexes: Cultural Nature and Natural Culture The Dog Schema The Notion of System in the Work of Umberto Eco: Summa, Structure, Code, Encyclopaedia and Rhizome
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1