"Quixote," Colbert and the Reality of Fiction

[mgc1961]

In his contribution to The Stone last week, Alex Rosenberg posed a defense of naturalism — “the philosophical theory that treats science as our most reliable source of knowledge and scientific method as the most effective route to knowledge” — at the expense of other theoretical endeavors such as, notably, literary theory. To the question of “whether disciplines like literary theory provide real understanding,” Professor Rosenberg’s answer is as unequivocal as it is withering: just like fiction, literary theory can be “fun,” but neither one qualifies as “knowledge.”

Literature has played a profound role in creating the very idea of reality that naturalism seeks to describe.
Though the works of authors like Sophocles, Dante or Shakespeare certainly provide us with enjoyment, can we really classify what they have produced as “fun”? Are we not giving the Bard and others short shrift when we treat their work merely as entertainment? Does their fictional art not offer insights into human nature as illuminating as many of those the physical sciences have produced?

As a literary theorist, I suppose I could take umbrage at the claim that my own discipline, while fun, doesn’t rise to the level of knowledge. But what I’d actually like to argue goes a little further. Not only can literary theory (along with art criticism, sociology, and yes, non-naturalistic philosophy) produce knowledge of an important and even fundamental nature, but fiction itself, so breezily dismissed in Professor Rosenberg’s assertions, has played a profound role in creating the very idea of reality that naturalism seeks to describe.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/quixote-colbert-and-the-reality-of-fiction/?hp

[msedano]

1. literature as equipment for living

i need to read that article and get current on lit theory, it seems. still, i've long found kenneth burke's phrase apt as the raison d'être for reading at any age.

mvs

[mgc1961]

2. I like that.

Literature as equipment for living.

[ensho]

3. kick

nt

[Uncle Joe]

4. I believe there are two major branches of knowledge; intelligence and wisdom.

While naturalism may feed the former, history and literary theory are excellent sources of sustenance for the latter.

I also believe that if humanity is to survive for the long term, both will be desperately needed.

Thanks for the thread, mgc.

[The Second Stone]

5. Prior to Jane Austen it was "common knowledge" that

women were not full thinkers like men and the exceptions were freaks. Science is great because you can know things with great confidence. But the things we can know are limited to what can be tested. Most things worth knowing for most humans are not testable that way, but rather insights into human relationships. I am really bit on science, but it has its limits.

Knowing how gravity works would be very interesting to a few thousand human beings and possibly useful. To the rest of us the knowledge that it does work is enough, and to our animal friends (or food), it just happens.