I voiced, today, the possibility, indeed proffered the hypothesis, that writers of literature and writers of philisophical discourse have distinct ends. The philosopher aims at truth while the novelist aims at the aesthetic. I used the term 'entertaining' today and I wish to recant that; it was an incorrect term. The novelist may be trying to convey an important concept, he might be trying even to get at the truth, but once she has chosen the form of literature as his medium, she commits himself to producing a work that is aesthetically pleasing. The aesthetic pleasure is an essential goal of the form.
Therefore, the use of metaphor and the laudability thereof is also distinct. It is my contention that the metaphor adds no meaning and is mostly an aestheticconsideration. Now, aesthetic considerations are extremely important but much more important for the novelist than the philosopher. I actually think that philosophers should pay some more attention to the aesthetic but not at the price of obscurity.
I have responded to this on my blog
ReplyDeleteOne issue I cant help but return to when we discuss the aesthetic and use of metaphor in literature, is whether or not we are discussing degrees of content. How much metaphor is too much metaphor? Obvioulsy if the point of the author's text is missed then there might be too much emphasis on making the form of the text aesthetic, but otherwise how do we know when the piece has crossed the line from explanatory to pure entertainment? I agree with ultimately but this issue keeps coming back to mind.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the information,
ReplyDelete