What's /lit/'s idea of the connection between philosophy and literature?
Should the author be aware of the philosophical implications of his works?
Can a writer be of importance if he isn't aware of the philosophical interpretations of his works?
Is it true that the literary works we see as important, are considered thus because they have their place in the discourse of philosophy?
Or can literature just be a story, serving as mere entertainment or something aesthetically pleasant?
>>8033482
The connection is obvious, "literature" and "philosophy" are just terms we use to demarcate categories of expression, there is no intrinsic divide between them outside of what can be called projects of intellectual work, but the result of either projects can fulfill what the other nominally aims towards.
In the view of most philosophers, it is either the duty of literature, or a key quality, to include philosophical thought. In many ways, an author can communicate philsophy more fluidly than the philosopher. This is because, while philosophy can be rather dense and hard to understand, philsosophy communicated through narrative is perhaps easier to grasp.
Samuel Beckett is a very good example of this.
Although to answer your question, literature can be both. Arguably, what we consider to be literary greats or classics are those works which have philosophical resonations. Other times, literature can simply be entertainment, such as fantasy.
>>8035145
What a load of tripe
>>8035187
Why is that?
>>8035199
Your explanation is a list of common sense descriptions and non-commital half assertions. Get some balls man
>>8035214
lol
>>8033482
>Can a writer be of importance if he isn't aware of the philosophical interpretations of his works?
What kind of a retarded question is that? The more aware they are, the shittier their art is.
As Kafka said: "The key part of writing is self-forgetfulness."
>>8035145
>In the view of most philosophers, it is either the duty of literature, or a key quality, to include philosophical thought.
Utter horseshit.
>>8035145
>In the view of most philosophers,
Incoming grand generalization of most people that are all smarter then me.
>Samuel Beckett is very good
Kek
>Although to answer your question
as if I wasn't already trying to, i just happened to find a less stupid way to say an already stupid thing that I did say.
>>8033482
Novelists engage with philosophy, all serious folk do, and they receive inspiration, ideas, raw material, etc. that they then transfigure, synthesize, and dramatize into literature, just as they do with other novels, poetry, art, nature, and life experience.
The combination of it all creates within the writer an idea he embodies and expresses through creating a cosmos and style particular to it. This is the "philosophical" significance usually, the human vision that is set forth.
A very calculated "philosophical novel" is a different story and usually second-rate. think Camus and Sartre.
