Why Study Creative Literature?: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » Why Study Creative Literature? » Why Study Creative Literature?

Why Study Creative Literature?

Why Study Creative Literature?

kookers
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 09, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 04/09/08 - 11:45 AM: Subject: Why Study Creative Literature?	#1
Identity, or the self, is created through language. We are a collection of labels: Adidas on my shoes, Nike on my back, Puma on my jacket, Arabic on my face, terrorist on your mind, a believer on Tuesday, an atheist on Wednesday, agnostic by Thursday. Young today, you tomorrow. All working together to form the idea of “me.” However, find me someone with the same labels and there will be a difference—excuse the cliché, but we are all unique. The problem, then, is that these linguistic labels, in all their plenitude, do not allow for the rise of the individual. Thus, we find ourselves outside of labels, outside of words—but not outside of existence, and hence, we feel alienated from ourselves because the words that contain us do not define us. Why English then? How does the study of English literature fit into the question of individual being? Essentially, who are you, and how can English help find out who you are? If the problem posited is that no labels are adequate, or individual enough, to capture our self-hood, the only avenue left, in my mind, is self-creation. Create the words that describe you. Yet, these words have to be understood by the common cognomen of this world; in order to realize yourself, someone must realize you—but how does someone realize you through your language and not the labels presupposed by the dominant symbolic order? We do this through metaphor. Metaphors become a subversive way in which to create the self while existing under the structures that be. Poetry, perhaps, is essentially a dissident struggle for identity. In order to find yourself—to realize who you are as an individual—you must write the metaphors of your own being. Metaphors arise from the imagination, an imagination that is cultivated through the arts—in this context, the study of English literature. Literature helps us realize ourselves on our pilgrimage towards metaphor. Yet, the problem is twofold: If, more broadly, art is that which cultivates our identity, what if we are presented only with the artistry, or imagination, of capital industry? No change will come about. Art is the basis of change. If our imagination is cultivated through the imagination of a corporate capitalism that dominates the forms of communication, then the corporate mentality, or the corporate metaphor (e.g. money)—will continue decay the metaphors that stand in its way, (e.g. democracy) . Subsequently, to ask the question: "What transferable skills does an English degree give you?" is to succumb to the influence of the corporate imagination before you have given yourself the opportunity for growth. The study of English literature democratizes identity by widening the space of language through metaphor. No one imagination stands atop the study of literature—to find yourself, look through the eyes of your own mind, unfetter your Fancy, as your own path is but a metaphoric step away.

jeffmcmahan
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 41

Posted 04/10/08 - 08:03 AM:	#2
However, find me someone with the same labels and there will be a difference—excuse the cliché, but we are all unique. The problem, then, is that these linguistic labels, in all their plenitude, do not allow for the rise of the individual. Our webs of "labels" are more sophisticated that you think. I would be astonished if there were actually two people who have been associated with exactly the same descriptive information.

kookers
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 09, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2

Posted 04/10/08 - 08:20 AM:	#3
jeffmcmahan wrote: Our webs of "labels" are more sophisticated that you think. I would be astonished if there were actually two people who have been associated with exactly the same descriptive information. I was thinking of this while writing, and I came to the conclusion that we would run out of words long before we ever touched upon a unique set of labels that are particular to one individual. 8 billion people, compared to 120,000 words in english (that's not just nouns/adjectives, that's including "and/or/hi/hello... etc" words that cannot act as labels). I'd doubt you could find someone entirely unique.

Romans 8
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 04/11/08 - 07:59 PM:	#4
"Poetry defeats the curse which binds us to be subjected to the accident of surrounding impressions. And whether it spreads its own figured curtain, or withdraws life’s dark veil from before the scene of things, it equally creates for us a being within our being. It makes us the inhabitants of a world to which the familiar world is a chaos. It reproduces the common universe of which we are portions and percipients, and it purges from our inward sight the film of familiarity which obscures from us the wonder of our being. It compels us to feel that which we perceive, and to imagine that which we know. It creates anew the universe, after it has been annihilated in our minds by the recurrence of impressions blunted by reiteration." - Percy Bysshe Shelley 'A Defense of Poetry' So Kookers, you say that literature enhances our metaphorical sensibility. I would agree. But the meaning and consequences of this statement are volumous and thus equivocal. Correct me if I am wrong, but you gave the impression that literature is primarily about self-discovery. Perhaps this is the conscious goal of some writers and readers. But wouldnt you agree that the 'study of literature' is first about the study of being in general and that which is outside of the self? And self-understanding (i hate the phrase 'self-discovery') is an inevitable result of the former goal. I think that is what Shelley was saying, and maybe you too. When we look at a metaphor in English Lit, we think 'So what did the writer mean by this?'. Whereas someone merely skimming over the words will just imagine whatever they will, depending on their previous exposure to those words and their predisposition etc. They assume that they know - a terrible sin indeed. But can we ever truly understand what the author meant? Probably not, but if we debunk the study of literature and the humanities on the grounds that it is subjective, then our powers of communication and understanding will diminish. It is funny, skepticism about the power of language seems to coincide with the prevalence of poor writing. I am not criticising you! I am merely making a silly historical observation. I have almost finished C.S Lewis' Experiment in Criticism. It is a top read, and I recommend this if you are really interested in this whole question.

jeffmcmahan
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 41

Posted 04/18/08 - 10:58 PM:	#5
I was thinking of this while writing, and I came to the conclusion that we would run out of words long before we ever touched upon a unique set of labels that are particular to one individual. 8 billion people, compared to 120,000 words in english (that's not just nouns/adjectives, that's including "and/or/hi/hello... etc" words that cannot act as labels). I'd doubt you could find someone entirely unique. If you have 1 descriptor per person, and 20,000 adjectives, you've got 20,000 combinations. If you've got 2 descriptors per person, you've got 20,000 squared. Suppose that every person had ~1,000 descriptors. Suppose there are 20,000 descriptors in total. The total possible combination would be 20,000^1,000. Well, shoot. That would make it (as I stated) VERY unlikely that a population of 8,000,000,000 would yield perfect twins. I mean, 20,000^3 = 8 TRILLION And this only takes into account a linear order -- the descriptors lined up as to indicate emphasis. Our actual webs of association are more complex than that--linking things together in any number of directions/ways. Edited by jeffmcmahan on 04/18/08 - 11:16 PM

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.