[AskPhilosophers] What is the sense of literature at all?

[AngelDesire]

What is the sense of literature at all? Sometimes I wonder if the
sense of literature is merely a capitalistic one. I am a writer
myself, I like to write, a creativity in me that walks its own roads.
But why do we read fictional texts from others? If I read one of my
own, I know "what is is about", I know the grounds,dreams, feelings,
hopes, etc I had while writing. But then someone else reads that- how
could he read anything in that text, that I tried to put there rather
in between the lines. Does reading literature tells us something about
"the other"? Does literature work as a translator between two people
with singular minds? Is literature a connection between "myself" and
"the other"? Is then, therefore, the sense of literature to (very
general) live in a human society?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhil...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophe...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.

[Prem Das]

Literature is , to all intents and purposes , just a hard copy of the spoken word , a conversation. I do not know about the creativity that walks its own road but both are attempts at engineering a favourable validation by our peers.
Man does not live by bread alone. The ego has to have its regular massage. Meglomania and egotism , to the desire to teach and protect and everything in between, has its roots in our desire to be noticed.
In the end , its all vanity, vanity, vanity. 
 
> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:33:52 -0700
> Subject: [AskPhilosophers] What is the sense of literature at all?
> From: arnold...@googlemail.com
> To: askphil...@googlegroups.com

---

Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.

[David J Bailey]

I have to say I don't think it is all vanity, and neither is it merely
a "hard copy of the spoken word", if you're interested in stuff like
this check out Orality and Literacy by Walter Ong - he argues
convincingly that literacy fundamentally changed the way we thought
and communicated: we were more likely to deconstruct and take apart an
utterance or an idea.

I think of literature as performance art, with the performance part of
it one step removed: the author is trying to communicate something to
you, the reader, it may be an emotion, a state of mind, an idea. It
may be a scientific theory or it may be merely a stroking of the
author's ego, but, what you are reading is, nonetheless, a performance
of the author for your consumption.

All of that is to say that it's a form of art, and therefore open to
the same confusions that come up anytime anyone asks "What is art?"

On Apr 26, 11:11 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Literature is , to all intents and purposes , just a hard copy of the spoken word , a conversation. I do not know about the creativity that walks its own road but both are attempts at engineering a favourable validation by our peers.
>
> Man does not live by bread alone. The ego has to have its regular massage. Meglomania and egotism , to the desire to teach and protect and everything in between, has its roots in our desire to be noticed.
>
> In the end , its all vanity, vanity, vanity.
>
>
>
> > Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:33:52 -0700
> > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] What is the sense of literature at all?

> > From: arnold.des...@googlemail.com

> > To: askphil...@googlegroups.com
>
> > What is the sense of literature at all? Sometimes I wonder if the
> > sense of literature is merely a capitalistic one. I am a writer
> > myself, I like to write, a creativity in me that walks its own roads.
> > But why do we read fictional texts from others? If I read one of my
> > own, I know "what is is about", I know the grounds,dreams, feelings,
> > hopes, etc I had while writing. But then someone else reads that- how
> > could he read anything in that text, that I tried to put there rather
> > in between the lines. Does reading literature tells us something about
> > "the other"? Does literature work as a translator between two people
> > with singular minds? Is literature a connection between "myself" and
> > "the other"? Is then, therefore, the sense of literature to (very
> > general) live in a human society?
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhil...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophe...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.
>

> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969

[Prem Das]

Orality and Literacy by Walter Ong, is all well and good sir. But is literacy and literature one and the same?
Literature is the product of one's thought processes, while literacy is the tool by which one comprehends the said product.
Is there a comparison?    
 
> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:59:02 -0700
> Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: What is the sense of literature at all?
> From: davidj...@gmail.com
> To: askphil...@googlegroups.com

>
> I have to say I don't think it is all vanity, and neither is it merely
> a "hard copy of the spoken word", if you're interested in stuff like

> this check out Orality and Literacy by Walter Ong- he argues

---

Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.

[David J Bailey]

I'm afraid that the reference to Ong's book is only in response to
your statement that "Literature is , to all intents and purposes ,
just a hard copy of the spoken word". Ong makes the point that this
is, in general and in a literate society, not so. He makes the point
that literature - produced by and for a literate public - is entirely
different from the spoken word. In analogy, consider photography vs
painting: you would not say that one is merely a representation of the
other; they are different art forms with different skills - both in
the artist to create and in the audience to appreciate. (Note, I'm not
saying that photography and painting don't have a lot in common, both
in what it takes to make them or what it takes to appreciate, simply
that they're not the SAME.)

On May 1, 8:50 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Orality and Literacy by Walter Ong, is all well and good sir. But is literacy and literature one and the same?
>
> Literature is the product of one's thought processes, while literacy is the tool by which one comprehends the said product.
>
> Is there a comparison?    
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:59:02 -0700
> > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: What is the sense of literature at all?

> > From: davidjbai...@gmail.com

> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969

[David J Bailey]

OH - and I'd say you captured the relationship pretty well. I don't
think it's off-topic to bring up the question of literacy when talking
about literature. They are, to a certain extent, co-dependant.

On May 1, 8:50 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Orality and Literacy by Walter Ong, is all well and good sir. But is literacy and literature one and the same?
>
> Literature is the product of one's thought processes, while literacy is the tool by which one comprehends the said product.
>
> Is there a comparison?    
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:59:02 -0700
> > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: What is the sense of literature at all?

> > From: davidjbai...@gmail.com

> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969

[Prem Das]

I agree wholeheartedly but the original poser from arnold.des is literature specific. 
> Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 19:58:24 -0700

> Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: What is the sense of literature at all?

> From: davidj...@gmail.com
> To: askphil...@googlegroups.com

---

Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.

[Prem Das]

I agree yet again. In form they are different but in intent, they satisfy the same need. The spoken word and literature is communication with the intend being, to interact, to explain, to instruct, to divert even. Just as in the paintings and photography the purpose of creating both may be same reasons.
I reiterate, you are NOT wrong but we are viewing the same thing from different perpective that all. 
 
> Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 19:56:29 -0700

> Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: What is the sense of literature at all?

> From: davidj...@gmail.com
> To: askphil...@googlegroups.com

---

Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

[Désiré Arnold]

I don't think the sense of literature is a capitalistic one, or it least this should not be the purpose of literature. But my reference here was just that there is one novel after the other, there are writers that just write for the purpose of getting paid. So what do they write? Is this kind of literature indoctrinated/ indoctrinating, is it corrupted/ corrupting? What could this kind of literature tell me? Does it show me the world through other eyes, or does it just show me what might be possible if you write just for monetarian reasons?
For me the sense of reading is that I see the world through a different perspective, that I see myself maybe through a different perspective.
When I read Macbeth- what does it do to me, why do I read it, why was it written, etc, etc: Briefly, I shows me different characteres, different solutions to problems, as a reader of a drama I also have the chance to see everything from the outside, I am able to see what forces make soneone do something, but the character might not, e.g. in Macbeth the three witches, what do they do with Macbeth and Banquo, they tell them "their future"- they could have told them anything and said this is going to be your future, none of the characters could have said, and neither the readers I think, this happened because it had to happen. Did it have to happen? Or did the characters act on the premise that it would happen, etc.

Literature, reading literature tells me something about myself, about the world, and about the other, about my perception/ understanding of all of that. I think it does tell me little about history, this only in the background. Literature speaks to me and tells me about the basics of our humanity. About values for example.
And in that case I believe, literature is a "translator", it carries across all that from one person to another. Literature is a way of sharing what is inside of a person, i.e. the author.

I am sorry if I am not that coherent in my writing.

[Prem Das]

First off, the ability to write, to produce literature is by no means universal. It is a gift bestowed on a lucky few.
Having said that, I believe humans find life on this earth of ours, to be onerous and life-numbingly boring.
We crave diversions. Books, sports, drugs, danger, lifts us out of this utterly dehumanizing, mundane, unending days of routine, something to escape from at all costs. We are addicted to pleasure.
 
We pay the heroes, who toil in the unearthly early hours of the morning collecting garbage, so we are protected from pests and pestilence, peanuts and look on them with scorn. But let some one have the ability to knock a ball about on a tennis court, a football field or are experts in tossing balls into hoops, and we pay them millions and shower them with hero worship. Lets not go into the movie scene. Its even more obscene. It's the mecca of escapism.
 
Then there is the gaining of different perspectives from books. In an endeavor which depends on popularity to gain readership and hence success, truth very often is a stumbling block. It's give the public what they want.
 
We are all creatures of our enviroment. We are the sum total of our experiences. It shapes our reality, our values, our beliefs and prejudices. We see as we have been taught. When we look at ourselves in the mirror, what we see is an image of an image. We see what we think of ourselves to be. We see only the opinion we have of ourselves. 
 
This is the human condition. To face our own stark reality is the Spiritual Path. It is not about abstemiouseness, religiosity or being good. All these things will come when you realise the truth.   Good Luck.
 
 
  

 

---

Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 19:29:00 +0200
Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: What is the sense of literature at all?
From: arnold...@googlemail.com
To: askphil...@googlegroups.com

---

Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.

[Nate Yarinsky]

The point of literature in itself is minimal. However, good
literature can leave an impression on a good reader. If you do not
understand the purpose something was written then you do not
comprehend the work. All literature has purpose but finding it is
often challenging. An example, Stephen King novels are written to
leave the reader in suspense. However, it usually narrows to the
work
itself. Often, poetry, novels and plays have much purpose. The more
relevant the ideas expressed though the literature; the more purpose
the work has. The amount of purpose and the effectiveness of the
message is totally controlled by the writer. Many writers cannot
decide what is most meaningful. I think the writer's skill outlines
the meaningfulness of the literature. Some think symbolism and
imagery
are most important while some historical references. Most, however,
think that if the writer's thoughts are expressed well the work has
meaning.

A fantastic example:

"FERN HILL" Dylan Thomas (1914-1953)
Now as I was young and easy under the apple boughs
About the lilting house and happy as the grass was green,
The night above the dingle starry,
Time let me hail and climb
Golden in the heydays of his eyes,
And honoured among wagons I was prince of the apple towns
And once below a time I lordly had the trees and leaves
Trail with daisies and barley
Down the rivers of the windfall light.
And as I was green and carefree, famous among the barns
About the happy yard and singing as the farm was home,
In the sun that is young once only,
Time let me play and be
Golden in the mercy of his means,
And green and golden I was huntsman and herdsman, the calves
Sang to my horn, the foxes on the hills barked clear and cold,
And the sabbath rang slowly
In the pebbles of the holy streams.
All the sun long it was running, it was lovely, the hay
Fields high as the house, the tunes from the chimneys, it was
air
And playing, lovely and watery
And fire green as grass.
And nightly under the simple stars
As I rode to sleep the owls were bearing the farm away,
All the moon long I heard, blessed among stables, the nightjars
Flying with the ricks, and the horses
Flashing into the dark.
And then to awake, and the farm, like a wanderer white
With the dew, come back, the cock on his shoulder: it was all
Shining, it was Adam and maiden,
The sky gathered again
And the sun grew round that very day.
So it must have been after the birth of the simple light
In the first, spinning place, the spellbound horses walking warm
Out of the whinnying green stable
On to the fields of praise.
And honoured among foxes and pheasants by the gay house
Under the new made clouds and happy as the heart was long,
In the sun born over and over,
I ran my heedless ways,
My wishes raced through the house high hay
And nothing I cared, at my sky blue trades, that time allows
In all his tuneful turning so few and such morning songs
Before the children green and golden
Follow him out of grace.
Nothing I cared, in the lamb white days, that time would take me
Up to the swallow thronged loft by the shadow of my hand,
In the moon that is always rising,
Nor that riding to sleep
I should hear him fly with the high fields
And wake to the farm forever fled from the childless land.
Oh as I was young and easy in the mercy of his means,
Time held me green and dying
Though I sang in my chains like the sea.

Thomas' message is contained in the last stanza and in the last two
lines. He expressed the color green earlier in the poem as a
delightful experience . He may be dying but he is happy; happy
because
of the great experiences he had. It is a powerful and meaningful
message because of the skill of the writer. Again you can see, the
meaning of the work is relative to the writers skill. Often you
cannot capture the thought's of a human being, often complex, without
practice, skill and artistic vision.

On May 5, 9:25 pm, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> First off, the ability to write, to produce literature is by no means universal. It is a gift bestowed on a lucky few.
>
> Having said that, I believe humans find life on this earth of ours, to be onerous and life-numbingly boring.
>
> We crave diversions. Books, sports, drugs, danger, lifts us out of this utterly dehumanizing, mundane, unending days of routine, something to escape from at all costs. We are addicted to pleasure.
>
> We pay the heroes, who toil in the unearthly early hours of the morning collecting garbage, so we are protected from pests and pestilence, peanuts and look on them with scorn. But let some one have the ability to knock a ball about on a tennis court, a football field or are experts in tossing balls into hoops, and we pay them millions and shower them with hero worship. Lets not go into the movie scene. Its even more obscene. It's the mecca of escapism.
>
> Then there is the gaining of different perspectives from books. In an endeavor which depends on popularity to gain readership and hence success, truth very often is a stumbling block. It's give the public what they want.
>
> We are all creatures of our enviroment. We are the sum total of our experiences. It shapes our reality, our values, our beliefs and prejudices. We see as we have been taught. When we look at ourselves in the mirror, what we see is an image of an image. We see what we think of ourselves to be. We see only the opinion we have of ourselves.
>
> This is the human condition. To face our own stark reality is the Spiritual Path. It is not about abstemiouseness, religiosity or being good. All these things will come when you realise the truth.   Good Luck.
>

> Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 19:29:00 +0200
> Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: What is the sense of literature at all?

> From: arnold.des...@googlemail.com

> To: askphil...@googlegroups.com
>
> I don't think the sense of literature is a capitalistic one, or it least this should not be the purpose of literature. But my reference here was just that there is one novel after the other, there are writers that just write for the purpose of getting paid. So what do they write? Is this kind of literature indoctrinated/ indoctrinating, is it corrupted/ corrupting? What could this kind of literature tell me? Does it show me the world through other eyes, or does it just show me what might be possible if you write just for monetarian reasons?
> For me the sense of reading is that I see the world through a different perspective, that I see myself maybe through a different perspective.
> When I read Macbeth- what does it do to me, why do I read it, why was it written, etc, etc: Briefly, I shows me different characteres, different solutions to problems, as a reader of a drama I also have the chance to see everything from the outside, I am able to see what forces make soneone do something, but the character might not, e.g. in Macbeth the three witches, what do they do with Macbeth and Banquo, they tell them "their future"- they could have told them anything and said this is going to be your future, none of the characters could have said, and neither the readers I think, this happened because it had to happen. Did it have to happen? Or did the characters act on the premise that it would happen, etc.
>
> Literature, reading literature tells me something about myself, about the world, and about the other, about my perception/ understanding of all of that. I think it does tell me little about history, this only in the background. Literature speaks to me and tells me about the basics of our humanity. About values for example.
> And in that case I believe, literature is a "translator", it carries across all that from one person to another. Literature is a way of sharing what is inside of a person, i.e. the author.
>
> I am sorry if I am not that coherent in my writing.
>

> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:33 PM, AngelDesire <arnold.des...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> What is the sense of literature at all? Sometimes I wonder if the
> sense of literature is merely a capitalistic one. I am a writer
> myself, I like to write, a creativity in me that walks its own roads.
> But why do we read fictional texts from others? If I read one of my
> own, I know "what is is about", I know the grounds,dreams, feelings,
> hopes, etc I had while writing. But then someone else reads that- how
> could he read anything in that text, that I tried to put there rather
> in between the lines. Does reading literature tells us something about
> "the other"? Does literature work as a translator between two people
> with singular minds? Is literature a connection between "myself" and
> "the other"? Is then, therefore, the sense of literature to (very
> general) live in a human society?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AskPhilosophers". To post to this group, send e-mail to AskPhil...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send e-mail to AskPhilosophe...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/AskPhilosophers.                                      

> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969

[Prem Das]

Why do we need the thoughts, the leavings of another's mind?  Why do we not think original thoughts?  What is there in another that is not in us?
 
Answer, nothing. We are just otherwise occupied.
 
To be able to think requires all of our concentration. Most people do not realize that the mundane everyday life we lead requires hardly any thinking at all. Its routine and unambiguous and we do it on auto-pilot. Our minds are on holiday.
This is the human condition. We live happily enough, overcoming our boredom with diversions.  Books and poems, alcohol ,drugs and other mind altering substances, make this routine and predictability of our lives, tolerable. We are not unhappy but are we happy.
If we are not neurotic, sick, or mad, we adjust to our circumstances and live out our lives best we can.
But there are thinkers among us. They eke out a living and and then they die, uncelebrated and unrecognised. They see all and understand all, and accept all,  living unseen and silent lives.
 
The mind is like a two-way radio. To receive, you have to stop sending. The mind wakes up only when the body is quiet. The quiet body is not of the economic world. In this realm, the output of a thinking mind has no value in the market place. Somehow a sanctuary is provided and a life is lived out quietly and without fanfare. So it begs the question as to the point of it all.
 
The point is the realization of self. You have heard of the saying 'in understanding the self, you understand the universe' ? That is the point of it all. The gift of reasoning, is the burden, humans have been bestowed, to fiqure things out.  If life is just about living and dying thats when to ask about the point of it all.  
 
 
 
 
 
> Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 21:28:17 -0700

> Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: What is the sense of literature at all?

> From: mornin...@gmail.com
> To: askphil...@googlegroups.com

---

Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.

[Chris Diederich]

Literature has no sense in philosophy. Nietzsche says the poets
precede the philosophers in formulating the world, but are less
precise (Morgenröte) and I want to add my take: Do not read as much as
you can; the structure of language can infect your thinking (my
contamination theory) and thus a stupid book might make you stupid,
and... most books are stupid.

On 15 Mai, 12:52, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Why do we need the thoughts, the leavings of another's mind?  Why do we not think original thoughts?  What is there in another that is not in us?
>
> Answer, nothing. We are just otherwise occupied.
>
> To be able to think requires all of our concentration. Most people do not realize that the mundane everyday life we lead requires hardly any thinking at all. Its routine and unambiguous and we do it on auto-pilot. Our minds are on holiday.
>
> This is the human condition. We live happily enough, overcoming our boredom with diversions.  Books and poems, alcohol ,drugs and other mind altering substances, make this routine and predictability of our lives, tolerable. We are not unhappy but are we happy.
>
> If we are not neurotic, sick, or mad, we adjust to our circumstances and live out our lives best we can.
>
> But there are thinkers among us. They eke out a living and and then they die, uncelebrated and unrecognised. They see all and understand all, and accept all,  living unseen and silent lives.
>
> The mind is like a two-way radio. To receive, you have to stop sending. The mind wakes up only when the body is quiet. The quiet body is not of the economic world. In this realm, the output of a thinking mind has no value in the market place. Somehow a sanctuary is provided and a life is lived out quietly and without fanfare. So it begs the question as to the point of it all.
>
> The point is the realization of self. You have heard of the saying 'in understanding the self, you understand the universe' ? That is the point of it all. The gift of reasoning, is the burden, humans have been bestowed, to fiqure things out.  If life is just about living and dying thats when to ask about the point of it all.  
>
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 21:28:17 -0700
> > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: What is the sense of literature at all?

> > From: morningbr...@gmail.com

> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »

[Prem Das]

Salutations chris.diederich,
 
I am not intrepid enough to couch it in quite the same way. Yours is the 'Contamination Theory', mine is the 'pre-conception and conditioning' premise.
 
If you do not want mud on your shoes, do not walk on a muddy road. Our every belief, what we think we know to be true, our prejudices and enviroment, the influences of our forebears and parents, shape our character, determine our pre-conceptions and establish our conditioning. We are slaves to conditioning. This is the past interfering and modifying our present. We are not free agents to act and think as we like but hapless marionettes controlled by the strings of conditioning. 
 
The secret is to be free of all pre-conditions. Start from a clean sheet and observe in real time and fresh eyes. Seeing without pre-conditions is seeing a particular truth at a precise particular time and place. It may not be the absolute, for absolutes do not exist in the secular, but at that particular time it is the truest of true. 
 
> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 02:48:54 -0700

> Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: What is the sense of literature at all?

> From: chris.d...@gmail.com
> To: askphil...@googlegroups.com