Nussbaum contends that literature is the best medium for the conveyance of moral truths. Shelby Giaccarini successfully defended a commonwealth thesis in which she maintained that literature might be an essential tool in disseminating the impulse to help fight anthropogenic climate change. These are all axiologic areas of interest. Is this where the utility of literature stops? My instinct is to deny this.
Literature can be and ought to be the medium of dissemination for more than just moral truths. The ability to engage and retain interest, the ability to stir emotion, these are tools useful to the forays of many different categories of thought. Describing and capturing a dynamic and elusive aspect of human nature may not be within the purview of philosophical discourse, though I suspect it can accomplish this as well. Literature, while not unique in any of its virtues, is an ideal candidate for the dissemination of many non moral claims.
I agree that literature can help disseminate information unrelated to ethics. One particular use of this ability is inspiration. A text utilising emotionally charged language to describe the exploits of scientists might inspire readers to pursue the study of science themselves. Of course, they may find that it is not as thrilling as depicted in the text, but hopefully some of them would continue their studies regardless.
ReplyDeleteSuch use of literature requires caution, however. Inaccurate portrayals of certain careers, activities, or other aspects of life may at first inspire readers to take action based off the text, and then result in their eventual disillusionment because of the text's lack of accuracy. This would actually cause more harm than good in terms of whatever the text's writer hoped to accomplish.
P.S. I also posted this on my blog if you'd rather read it there.