/lit/ - Literature

And that is why we need a /phil/

>>6249261
yep

>>6249261
fucking this.

permaban all /phil/ posters immediately.

>>6249261
Of course. Kant and Hegel are two of the worst writers I have ever read.

But if this is an argument for removing /phil/ from /lit/, it has no grounds because whoever the fuck is running 4chan now will never care enough about of of the lowest-trafficked boards to ever split it up into two even smaller boards to settle a few cases of OCD

>>6249261
>Philosophy is not meant to entertain like literature.

>mfw I remember I used to try and entertain in my undergrad philosophy essays because I did not draw the distinction between a philosophical essay and a standard essay.

I always used to rage whenever I got the marks back because at most I got a credit and I always thought it was easily HD material.

I cringed so hard reading them all the other day.

>>6249392
it was high definition material?

>>6249261
this place is just shitted up by /mu/ kids and college freshmen. I remember being in a /lit/ thread that was discussing comics that could be taken as literature. The thread did not last 4 hours and it was deleted. I think the mod or at least the janitors have big hard on's for this amature hour Philosophy shit.

>>6249261
First of all, what is philosophy of literature?
Second of all, I say that all philosophy is literature, therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove that it's not

Of course, I'm a literary realist, so my position on what you call "philosophy" is that it is a discourse perpetuating norms and elitism for no real reason other than to sustain itself as such. This is why I despise academic philosophy, because it's egotism overshadows its tangible reality. I'm also an existentialist, and therefore think that philosophy should fundamentally be about engaging with one's relation to an everchanging world, and of reconsiling our given beliefs with real experience.

I've read the greeks, the moderns, and some late moderns in the analytic and continental schools. I have been most profoundly affected by Merleau-Ponty, Emerson, Bataille, and recently Nick Land. Most would try and classify the latter three as literature, but their expositions hold truth as well as meaning and beauty. Logicians i've met are so pathetically inconsequential that I can almost feel their self-loathe and the way that others treat them, always with something to prove, but outside themselves. Anyways, disagree with me as you will (you shall).

>>6249428
Not OP, but:

Philosophy is concerned with a drive towards wisdom or truth via discourse.
Literature is concerned with the art of storytelling in prose and poems.

Philosophy simply uses language as a medium.

A text can be both a work of philosophy, and a work of literature, but the two qualities remain discreet from each other.
Literature's subject is language, philosophy's subject is truth; literature, and philosophy, are distinct disciplines in themselves.

>>6249428
The issue isn't philosophy. The issue is the deck waving. I just want to come on here and talk about fiction and non fiction books. But instead, I get sick waving of all flavors. In short, FUCK OFF PHILFAGS.

>>6249443
Dick waving.

>>6249408
high distinction

>>6249439
Counterpoint:
Since OP mentioned Hegel, let me make the point that wisdom and truth were taken to their ultimate conclusion by Kant/Hegel. Nothing of metaphysics prior could be salvaged after Kant's system. Deconstruction tried, but even that found it's limit and ultimately reached the pinnacle of pointlessness because poetry had always done it better. The existence of philosophy begins with that debate that Socrates had about the dispensations of his fate, and since then the history of the west has been taking his implication to its logical conclusion, the trajectory of "wisdom" always ends in idealism, which fails to say anything about reality at all, only creating more boxes around what is. If you want to defend philosophy as a distinct field, you cannot turn to logic or metaphysics. It's only purely sustained purpose is in ethics. And even with that it fails to change people's minds

>>drops mic

>>6249444
How is philosophy any more dick waving than literary critique?
Under the assumptions of OP's post, of course.

Like I said I treat philosophy as literature. So discussing philosophers, critiquing their ideas, is the same practice as literary critique.

>>6249447
And what has that got to do with the distinction between philosophy and literature?

>>6249454
I said that philosophy is literature unless it's dealing with ethics
are you blind, do you want me to sound out the words for you too?

>>6249460
You didn't say philosophy is literature unless it's dealing with ethics. You said you cannot turn to logic or metaphysics to distinguish philosophy, only ethics can do this.

This is irrelevant to literature.

>>6249461
Ok, you're parsing my words. This was a debate about philosophy and literature, so the obvious implication was that if metaphysics and logic weren't philosophy, that they were literature. Since you obviously disagree, there are two possibilities:
1) that logic and metaphysics are neither philosophy nor literature
or
2) that logic and metaphyics are literature

in which case, you would be arguing for 1), and I would be arguing for 2), and which chase the burden of proof is on your fishy shoulders

I hope philosophy becomes a branch of science one day so it'll finally be useful.

>>6249465
pathetic shitpost
He who does not read philosophy does not see how it works.

>>6249464
I think you have failed to understand >>6249439
this comment.
Especially
>A text can be both a work of philosophy, and a work of literature, but the two qualities remain discreet from each other.
>Literature's subject is language, philosophy's subject is truth; literature, and philosophy, are distinct disciplines in themselves.

You have also made the very arguable opinion that metaphysics and logic are not philosophy. There relation to literature is irrelevant as they are traditional features and forms of philosophy, not literature.

>>6249468
Philosophy, unlike science, doesn't work. It's worthless.

>>6249472
Nope. Most of our modes of thought today is a result of philosophy.

>>6249470
No, I'm saying that philosophy reached its pinnacle in Kant/Hegel, just like the OP so blithely admitted. Metaphysics found recourse through Nietzsche/Shopeman/Spinoza after Kant, but that was by systematically dismantling the spectre of Christian Idealism. They refounded philosophy on unequivocal unification of materialism. Philosophy since then has tried to deny this claim by proposing more and more ludicrous iterations of idealism, but the fact remains that ONE is only ONE and not TWO. So while you can splice philosophy and poetry and continue to argue along the well worn tracts, it is in fact regressive and not going forward. The lump sum of my proposition, and the argument that defeats all arguments, was actually hinted by the Hegelian dialectic, which shows that two antithetical things are ultimately unified in a complete sense. If you can't see this, you can't begin to fathom the implication of making such a remark as "this is literature vs philosophy"

>>6249261
>Philosophy is not a branch of literature.
if it's written down then it fucking is poopbrain

>>6249486
It really is as simple as this

>>6249484
>it is in fact regressive and not going forward
In what regard?

>which shows that two antithetical things are ultimately unified in a complete sense
But I've already said philosophy and literature are compatible.

>"this is literature vs philosophy"
Nobody has made that implication.

>>6249491
compatible, yes, but by maintaining their ultimate distinction (which you are), you are not allowing for the dissolution, which is required. In fact, it perpetuates the distinction even further by saying: "well we're close, so fuck it, lets stop for the day and call it good" which is exactly what i mean by metaphysics not moving forward after Kant/Hegel.

>>6249500
>which is required
Required for what?

>>6249508
The dissolution of philosophy into literature, and therefore literature into what-is

unless you wish to remain in your fascile distinctions. At least be clear in your illusions

>>6249512
Define "literature" for me.

>>6249439
> philosophy simply uses language as a medium.

Waitno?

>>6249517

Since I'm assuming you can't use the internet to find a dictionary definition, I did you the honors of pulling it from my subscription to the OED

1. Familiarity with letters or books; knowledge acquired from reading or studying books, esp. the principal classical texts associated with humane learning (see humane adj. 2); literary culture; learning, scholarship. Also: this as a branch of study. Now hist.

2. The action or process of writing a book or literary work; literary ability or output; the activity or profession of an author or scholar; the realm of letters or books.

a. The result or product of literary activity; written works considered collectively; a body of literary works produced in a particular country or period, or of a particular genre. Also: such a body of works as a subject of study or examination (freq. with modifying word specifying the language, period, etc., of literature studied).

b. Without defining word: written work valued for superior or lasting artistic merit.

4. (A body of) non-fictional books and writings published on a particular subject.

5. Printed matter of any kind; esp. leaflets, brochures, etc., used to advertise products or provide information and advice.

Any more useless, pedantic, and socratic requests?

>>6249521
Nothing from any of those definitions links philosophy to literature.

I asked for a definition because you seem to have a peculiar meaning for what literature is. But then you have shown you are linking philosophy to literature without any understanding.

Traditional literature is concerned with poetry and prose.

I get the feeling you just want to justify your literary critique of philosophy. That is okay, but will always be literary and not philosophy, since it is not a philosophical critique.

You have clearly demonstrated you have not understood anything I have said.

>>6249464
>so the obvious implication was that if metaphysics and logic weren't philosophy, that they were literature.
At no point in your post did I get he impression you were trying to imply that

>>6249428
>>6249447
>>6249460
>>6249464
>>6249484
>>6249500
>>6249512
>>6249521

are you retarded?

>>6249526
>>Nothing from any of those definitions links philosophy to literature.
>>2. The action or process of writing a book or literary work; literary ability or output; the activity or profession of an author or scholar; the realm of letters or books.
>>writing a book
>>6249486

I would continue, but I dont think I have to.
I stand on my grounds that philosophy (as logic, metaphysics) is no different from literature, which is essentially a frock coat.
Ethics has substantiative value outside of this debate. But we're not arguing for the ethical value of literature versus the ethical value of philosophy. We're arguing for the rights of distinct categories, which is metaphysical. Your earlier comments about aesthetics

>>Philosophy is concerned with a drive towards wisdom or truth via discourse.

I have debunked this claim. This line of thinking reached the end in Kant/Hegel.

>>Literature is concerned with the art of storytelling in prose and poems.

I can neither confirm nor deny that this is the case, since it neither confirms nor denies the possibility of fiction/nonfiction as literature, which is where philosophy falls

>>Literature's subject is language, philosophy's subject is truth; literature, and philosophy, are distinct disciplines in themselves.

I have debunked these claims previously.

I mean, just look at Derrida's shit if you need further justification that this categorical mess is archaic bullshit to justify egotism. I'm trying to move past the anal retentive mechanism of fear.

But if you must insist on a distinction, I'll allow it insofar as you need to be ignorant before finding the immanent, undifferentiated, capital T Truth of it all.

>>6249465
Science is philosophy. Why the hell do you think it was called natural philosophy before?

Besides, you need a philosophical foundation and worldview to even do science, i.e you need to assume that empiricism is true.

>>6249553

Are you retarded?

>>6249572
hahahahhahahahhahahhahahhahahhahahhahahahahhahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahhahhahahhahahahhahhahah

the fucking delusions of this guy

go back to reddit you cunt

>>6249428
>I say that all philosophy is literature, therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove that it's not
Quite the opposite mate, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

>>6249579

pretty cool delusions huh
i bet you think you're patrish too huh
>>go back to the depths that spawned you
AKA UR MOMS VAGINA

>>6249588
autism

>>6249572
Well, that was a whole lot of nothing. A whole load of opinions miserably attempted to be substantiated in philosophical misinterpretations.

I'm done debating you. You are way too arrogant (unjustifiably so) and short-sighted to waste time with.

>>6249580
>>not knowing how burden of proof works
>>being this retarded

Let me educate you. OP makes post about distinction. He is making a claim. I claim ignorance-- I dont know anything about a distinction. Yes I am making a claim, but I'm not positing a distinction, merely taking the side that says, "what if its not". if it is, the burden of proof is to prove that it is.
This could all be simplified if you just read the wiki before coming here

>>6249592
Here's the door

>>6249261
literature illustrates philosophy


phil>lit

>>6249595
>OP writes why phi is not lit.
>Being this blind.
Is not about reading wikis, you just skimmed op's post

Also, let me tell you something. You will die alone.

>>6249603
well that was pessimistic.

let me take this to the next level

we all die alone,
because we all die,
but we never own our death,
unless we kill ourselves
so are you saying I'm going to kill myself?
Or are you implying that I wont find someone to love before the end?

>>6249261
>people still defining literature as 'entertainment' or 'art'
>mfw they don't realise they're still inside the text

>>6249642
Fuck off Derrida you hack.

>>6249603

Lol that escalated quickly.

OP made an egregious distinction and that dude actually entertained it while those responding to him snidely navigated and dismissed his points. Lesbian honest, you just seem like a dickhead right now.

>>6249646
>mfw people are still having violent and ad-hominem reactions to derridean concepts

It's almost as if people think they can refute him without actually reading him

>>6249572
You should go back and read the Republic if you don't think philosophers have explicitly distinguished between philosophy qua literature and philosophy qua philosophy since the days of Socrates.
Also, I'm pretty sure Thales had nothing to do with literature.
Not all books are literature.

>>6249661
fuck off samefag

>>6249721
>>6249726

Not a samefag you shit eating dunce.

>Unironically citing a 2400 year old book written in a different language during what amounts to an argument about semantics

This thread a shit, OP didn't even define his terms. Literaturely a noob.

>>6249392

Strip your name out and post the fuckers, you degenerate faggot.

>>6249484
>>Spinoza after Kant

Wat.

C: gooms

Captcha agrees with me, you're a complete gooms.

>>6249472
Yea, thinking is for fags.

>>6249721
>Not all books are literature.
books=physical texts
texts=literature
therefore all books=literature

Learn about discourse and semantics before you start making silly claims.

>>6249955
>Implying 'literature' has one and only one meaning
>Implying using the words 'discourse' and 'semantics' makes you right
Literature as the word is most frequently used is almost exclusively applied to fiction.

>>6249955

Argument-by-definition is a pretty useless practice even when the definitions are honestly used. To argue using definitions you know are incorrectly applied is fucking pathetic.

>>6249974
>Literature as the word is most frequently used is almost exclusively applied to fiction.
Contemporary academic thought acknowledges that literature can refer to literally any body of text, or at the very least, that the distinction between literature and non-literature is merely an interpretive construct and not something inherent to the text itself. 'literature' is such a broad term that its helpful to be aware of the distinction between 'literature' and 'literary fiction'

>>6249985
>incorrectly applied
It was a massive oversimplification of one of the basic tenants of modern critical thought. I'm no theorist, I'm not going to be able to paraphrase it for the sake of a post, read Eagleton's introduction to literary theory if you want something a little more substantial

>>6250034
>tenants
tenets, apologies

>>6250034
>Contemporary academic thought
I'm not talking about academic thought, I'm talking about what people understand when you say 'literature.' Modern academia is a waste of time, resources, and energy.

>>6250046
>I'm not talking about academic thought, I'm talking about what people understand when you say 'literature.' Modern academia is a waste of time, resources, and energy.
This is exactly the kind of apathy which results in the word 'literally' entering into the dictionary as an expression of hyperbole. Why would you defer meaning further by trying to render 'literature' as a static and inflexible category?

>>6250058
>Implying there aren't static categories
Your arguments actually lead to 'literally' being misused. If categories weren't static, literally never could have come to mean what it does. If academia were so relevant to language in general, people wouldn't abuse words.
As I said, academia is a waste of time and energy, especially English departments.

>>6250058
>the word 'literally' entering into the dictionary as an expression of hyperbole
It didn't. You failed at comprehension and language nuance.

When somebody calls someone a "literal retard", they don't mean "I'm calling you a retard hyperbolically". What they mean is "I'm pretending that I think you're literally retarded for comedic effect".

Anyways, words switching meanings to the opposite is a natural and very common feature of language evolution. (Not that this is the case for the second usus of 'literally'.)

>>6250108

>When somebody calls someone a "literal retard", they don't mean "I'm calling you a retard hyperbolically". What they mean is "I'm pretending that I think you're literally retarded for comedic effect".
>You failed at comprehension and language nuance.

You're literally a retard.

>I'm talking about what people understand when you say 'literature.'

What people? You?

>>6250064
>If categories weren't static, literally never could have come to mean what it does.
Actually, it's precisely because those categories are static that this slippage of meaning occurs. The chain of signification - and its subsequent defferal of meaning - essentially ruined the potential for distinct, descriptive categories from ever being effective, accurate or ethically viable.

>As I said, academia is a waste of time and energy, especially English departments.
Actually try learning some critical theory so you're informed enough not to dismiss it arbitrarily as you're doing now.

>>6250108
>What they mean is "I'm pretending that I think you're literally retarded for comedic effect".
The inversion is a result of the hyperbole, silly.
Also its use has absolutely nothing to do with comedic effect. what's funny about saying 'I could literally eat a horse?'