Literature: deserving of its own category?

Feedback
1

Participating in TPF’s June Reading Group: ‘The Death of the Author’ by Barthes, I’ve realised the importance of literature; its history, roles and functions for the individual and society.

Writing, reading and reflecting on prose, poetry, politics and philosophy. Who or what makes meaning?

I note that in TPF, literature can already be discussed, informally and formally. Even craftily created and criticised in special events!

There are several categories where it has a place, as in Phil of Art and Phil of Language.

Just wondering whether it deserves a more prominent space?

Would it be: The Philosophy of Literature ( a branch of aesthetics) or the Literature of Philosophy ( e.g. poems allowing philosophers different ways of expressing ideas) or both Philosophy and Literature.

For nearly fifty years, Philosophy and Literature has explored the dialogue between literary and philosophical studies. Aspiring to make a significant contribution to the world of humane learning, the journal offers fresh and stimulating ideas in the aesthetics of literature, the theory of criticism, philosophical interpretations of literature, and the literary treatment of philosophy. Reaching beyond the boundaries suggested by its title, the journal also on occasion presents discussions of music, film, and the other arts that further cultural and inter-cultural understanding. — Project MUSE - Philosophy and Literature-Volume 49, Number 2, October 2025

Including Philosophers in literature. Working out thoughts, issues of justice, in dialogue and plays (Socrates in/and Plato).

To sum up its importance:

Philosophy of Literature is the systematic philosophical study of literary works, asking what literature is, how it means, what kinds of knowledge or experience it affords, and what values—artistic, moral, cognitive—it may possess.

What makes literary works distinctive among human practices and how they matter to individuals and communities.

It stands at the intersection of aesthetics, philosophy of language, ethics, and cultural theory, engaging with poetry, drama, narrative fiction, and increasingly with non-traditional and digital forms. — Philosophy of Literature | Philopedia

This is only a suggestion to try and incorporate, well…all of the above under one roof. Is it even possible?
Or is it an unnecessary head-ache :upside_down_face:

2

My two cents:

Philosophy of Literature already fits nicely into Philosophy of Art as a sub-branch, so instead of adding a whole new category, maybe we can just use the literature tag for posts within PoA that are specifically PoL.

Literature of Philosophy is not a branch of philosophy, but of literature. Rather, it’s more of a genre of literature, no? Maybe the Books and Papers category can be used here since it’s for “[b]ook reviews, reading groups, and questions and discussions about books and essays.” (Emphasis on “discussions about books”.) As of right now, however, the category seems to be focused on non-fiction philosophy texts. Compare this with literature, which some people take to be more about texts written as an art, like the fictional philosophical novel Sophie’s World. If anything would require (not necessarily deserve) a separate category, it would be this, just like how Science & Technology and Politics & Current Affairs are its own non-philosophical categories. Because of this, if we were to add a new category, I think it would be Literature of Philosophy.

1 Like
3

I don’t know, but my instinct is to keep top-level categories to a minimum.

Literary studies, literary criticism, literary theory, and narratology all belong in Humanities and Social Science. I agree it would be nice if they were somehow more prominent. But if I gave them their own category, e.g., Literature, then why wouldn’t history, linguistics, sociology, and psychology get their own top-level categories too? (Why are humanities lumped in with social science anyway?)

The fact is, we’ve inherited categories that go back 20 years to TPF’s precursor, PF.

As for “philosophy of literature” specifically, I’m sceptical. It looks like what analytic philosophers do when they want to engage with literature but have no time for the French. But continental philosophy contains masses of what is effectively philosophy about literature (Barthes being the obvious example). So, “philosophy of literature” probably has a lot of bias from the start. It carries positivist assumptions: that finding a definition of literature or puzzling over the truth of the claim that Sherlock Holmes lives at 221B Baker Street are interesting problems. Unlike Metaphysics & Epistemology, “philosophy of literature” is not a neutral label.

Then again, maybe you could say the same about Philosophy of Art.

Well, it’s a briar patch, isn’t it? You’ve brought up a genuine problem, but I’m very tempted to do nothing about it.

1 Like
4

Perhaps so. I’m not sure how tags are used when a thread is started.

From what I understand both art and literature come under the heading of aesthetics. That used to be a category in philosophy.

The precise relation between the two fields is disputed, and another characterization holds that the philosophy of art is the broader discipline. This view asserts that aesthetics mainly addresses aesthetic properties, while the philosophy of art also investigates non-aesthetic features of artworks, belonging to fields such as metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of language, and ethics — Aesthetics - Wikipedia)

I note that Phil of Art also includes non-aesthetics e.g. Phil of Language.

Wiki has a section on this.
Philosophy and literature - Wikipedia

Several poets have written poems on philosophical themes, and some important philosophers have expressed their philosophy in verse. The cosmogony of Hesiod and the De Rerum Natura of Lucretius are important philosophical poems. The genre of epic poetry was also used to teach philosophy.

This includes Eastern philosophies who work out their thought in this way.

To promote this perspective, TPF ( me and @Moliere ) hosted a new and controversial event. Creative ways of exploring philosophy.
Phil. Writing Challenge - June 2025 - The Philosophy Forum Archive

I like your combination idea. But keeping it as a philosophical category.
Would it makes sense for any ‘new’ category to be: ‘Philosophy of Literature and Language’?

Thanks for your gift. Every little helps :slight_smile:

5

Yes. It is difficult to keep a balance. Too many is overwhelming.
Would you consider a combination of Literature and Language?

That is no excuse! You’re an intelligent and caring boss, do what you like :slight_smile:

Mostly everything on TPF is Anglocentric. People take English translations of e.g. French literature for granted. Thinking of Camus, then others like the Greeks, the Spanish…etc

Should we prefix ‘Literature’ with the word ‘World’? Actually, that might not be bad idea. Given @Javi’s previous request for a language sub-category.

‘(Philosophy of) World Literature and Language’
In a philosophy forum, do we need the ‘Phil of’ identifier?

Understandable.

1 Like
6

If you mean philosophy of language, then no, because it’s very much separate from literary studies.

If you mean linguistics, I’d also say no. There’s space for that in Humanities and Social Science, and it involves the scientific study of syntax, phonology, and semantics, which doesn’t have much connection to literature.

If I am barking up the wrong tree, set me right.

EDIT: I’ve just realized that the philosophical study of literature is sometimes combined with both linguistics and philosophy of language, in continental philosophy. It’s right there in the essay we’re reading (doh!) However, I still think the category would be too confusing.

The problem with “philosophy of literature” as an academic discipline is not that it focuses on English-language literature, but that it ignores all the philosophical work about literature that has been going on for a hundred years in the “continental” tradition, much of which is known as literary theory. “Philosophy of literature” is the professional analytic philosophers attempting an enclosure of common land where they don’t have to deal with Barthes and Adorno, where they can debate the truth-value of “Sherlock Holmes lives at 221B Baker Street” in private. (EDIT: no doubt this paragraph is at least slightly unfair)

It might seem like I’m being pedantic, interpreting the term “philosophy of literature” too narrowly, but since philosophy that concerns itself with literature is already thriving and is generally known as literary theory, and since there’s a home for that in Humanities and Social Science, I don’t think it fits.

EDIT: On the other hand, if literary theory is indeed philosophy, then it shouldn’t be buried away with non-philosophical disciplines. But the thing is, the philosophy of literature already has another home, in the Philosophy of Art, as @bonathan pointed out.

A category just called Literature is quite a nice idea. It could gather together literary studies, literary theory, literary criticism, narratology, creative writing, book reviews, and philosophy of literature.

But as I say, I’d need justification for favouring literature above other disciplines in Humanities and Social Science such as sociology, history, and psychology.

7

|About the Humanities and Social Science category
History, literature, law, economics, anthropology, sociology, psychology, et|

OK. Remind me, please. What justification was given for the new category: ‘Philosophy of Law’?

Too confusing for who?

Well said! :slight_smile:

A single category is less confusing.

Exploring literature in dialogue with other disciplines, global perspectives, links with other cultural forms…comparative literature?

It includes the opportunity to expand reading, knowledge and understanding in philosophical and social concepts, historical change and political movements.

Creatively, from different perspectives.

8

Fair question. I was hoping you hadn’t noticed :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

Actually the justification was that @Astorre assured me he was going to actually use the category and had some specific topics in mind. So I knew someone was going to post something meaty in it. And as it happens it’s seen a decent amount of action, probably more than the Philosophy of Art has seen lately.

Law is arguably distinct from the other areas covered in Humanities and Social Science. And to be honest, I think I may have forgotten it was even part of that category. So there’s that.

If it was just about my personal preferences I’d do it. As it is (and I’m sorry for repeating myself here), I don’t see any justification for favouring literature over psychology, history, sociology, anthropology, etc. Law was different, maybe a one-off.

EDIT: I don’t get a sense there is any appetite for it here. Nobody is posting topics in literary theory, literary criticism, narratology, creative writing, or philosophy of literature—that I can think of.

9

Build it and they will come!

1 Like
10

Boss, as we agreed, this was an experiment. I started one thread. It’s hard to tell from the reactions whether it generated interest. But judging by just one thread, it’s too early to draw conclusions. I was hoping there were other people on this forum who would be interested…

I suggest we extend the experiment a little longer. Perhaps my thread wasn’t interesting. But if the presence of this thread (in the menu) is an argument for other participants to add their thread, and you don’t want to do that, then so be it! I support it.

I don’t know what the translator translated here, but the idea was that I would accept it if, for the common good, you had to remove this section.

1 Like
11

Quite a good point, I must admit.

12

The discussion reminds me of Flaubert saying “art for art’s sake”, an explanation that insists that no explanation is required.

And that reminds me of Plato talking about regulating Poetry in the Republic while freely writing his own in the making of the dialogue.

“To be or not to be” quoth the Raven. I try to get off the infinite regress but keep appearing in a Strugatsky novel instead.

1 Like
13

Stop me if I’m repeating myself :slight_smile:

I’m having amnesia and deja vu at the same time.
I think I’ve forgotten this before.

But I know that I’ve never heard of a Strugatsky novel before. Tell me where I can find you?! :melting_face:

14

I can be spotted from a distance inside The Doomed City.
:smiling_face_with_sunglasses:

15

And if I’m listening…? :thinking:

16

The uncertainty expressed by the scientist in Roadside Picnic.

I cannot, of course, be completely sure…

1 Like