I have been wondering, lately, about the position of poetry relative to that of literature. Specifically, I am curious as to whether I would be right to separate the two forms as distinct or to include poetry as a form of literature. The Greeks seemed to do the latter; poetry, drama, rhetoric, could all be subsumed, in some dialects, under the term literature. (Strictly, philologia translates to 'love of discourse' but was one term used to describe ficitonalized writings of all types.)
My precritical intuition was, though, to do the former. To classify poetry as its own art distinct from literature, distinct from drama. While attempting to define literature in my previous post, a post I suggest looking at, I could find, despite myself, no reason to exclude poetry or drama (the script rather than the production of course). They both satisfied all the conditions I had reason to enumerate for literature. I do not deny the possibility that a poem may not satisfy my last criterion, but generally, I think, they do.
Where does poetry and drama fall in relation to literature?
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Literature Defined
This is Philosophy and Literature. We are two weeks into the semester and we have yet to define one of, if not the single one, key terms: literature. Obviously the question of whether or not it is definable comes first. I am assuming for reasons I make elsewhere, that it is. The correct follow up to my point would then be a proffering of a plausible definition. As an important annotation, this is extremely rough and therefore in need of much refinement.
Literature is an art form; the potential problems begotten by this classification are only actualized with a narrow, truncated conceptualization of the aesthetic which I do not share. This is important as it necessarily subsumes all the necessary conditions for art under the conditions for literature. Art, stipulatively, is the creation of an object through the use of an aesthetic medium with the intent to convey and embody a concept or emotion.
Literature is an art form, the medium of which is language. Unlike the musician whose medium is sound, the painter whose is paint, the medium of the author, of the poet, is language.
Literature is an art form, the medium of which is language, and that possesses, by virtue of syntax and semantics, a coherent narrative.
Therefore, a work of literature is an object created through the use of the medium of language, with the intent to convey and embody a concept or emotion, that possesses by virtue of its syntax and its semantics, a coherent narrative.
Literature:
1) An object
2) Consisting of Language
3) With the intent to convey and embody a concept or emotion
4) Coherent Narrative
Note that I remain silent on qualitative conditions, though I suspect, perhaps, that parsing 'coherent' may beget criteria of quality.
Thoughts?
Literature is an art form; the potential problems begotten by this classification are only actualized with a narrow, truncated conceptualization of the aesthetic which I do not share. This is important as it necessarily subsumes all the necessary conditions for art under the conditions for literature. Art, stipulatively, is the creation of an object through the use of an aesthetic medium with the intent to convey and embody a concept or emotion.
Literature is an art form, the medium of which is language. Unlike the musician whose medium is sound, the painter whose is paint, the medium of the author, of the poet, is language.
Literature is an art form, the medium of which is language, and that possesses, by virtue of syntax and semantics, a coherent narrative.
Therefore, a work of literature is an object created through the use of the medium of language, with the intent to convey and embody a concept or emotion, that possesses by virtue of its syntax and its semantics, a coherent narrative.
Literature:
1) An object
2) Consisting of Language
3) With the intent to convey and embody a concept or emotion
4) Coherent Narrative
Note that I remain silent on qualitative conditions, though I suspect, perhaps, that parsing 'coherent' may beget criteria of quality.
Thoughts?
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Definitions
Q&A Question: Is the role of a definition to describe the current usage or to normatively prescribe usage?
There are many types of definitions; there are lexical definitions which do nothing more than report the usage of the term. I would, actually, plead for another term to call such things; definitions have the connotations of being clear, and common usage, and therefore lexical accounts, are often not.
Definitions that we are interested in are not mere accounts of usage, but stipulative aids to understanding. The role, therefore, I think is to normatively prescribe usage. Indeed, as was made abundantly clear last class, the prescription cannot be arbitrary; there must be reasons for the discriminations of the definiens, as all definitions do discriminate. For instance, the reason that Literature can be oral is because language can be oral and the content of literature is language. Definitions ought to be normative prescriptions. To define 'x' is to describe what we should be meaning when we use the term 'x'.
I'll tempt this: my defintion of art is the creation of an object through the use of an aesthetic medium with the intent to convey and embody a concept or emotion. Therefore, it is my opinion that only when referring to such objects ought we to use the term 'art'.
There are many types of definitions; there are lexical definitions which do nothing more than report the usage of the term. I would, actually, plead for another term to call such things; definitions have the connotations of being clear, and common usage, and therefore lexical accounts, are often not.
Definitions that we are interested in are not mere accounts of usage, but stipulative aids to understanding. The role, therefore, I think is to normatively prescribe usage. Indeed, as was made abundantly clear last class, the prescription cannot be arbitrary; there must be reasons for the discriminations of the definiens, as all definitions do discriminate. For instance, the reason that Literature can be oral is because language can be oral and the content of literature is language. Definitions ought to be normative prescriptions. To define 'x' is to describe what we should be meaning when we use the term 'x'.
I'll tempt this: my defintion of art is the creation of an object through the use of an aesthetic medium with the intent to convey and embody a concept or emotion. Therefore, it is my opinion that only when referring to such objects ought we to use the term 'art'.
Educated Natives
Q&A question: Is the usage of the native speaker the final measure of a definition, or can native speakers, as with everyone else, be wrong?
The specter of the Educated Native Speaker was raised both by Hirsch and in class. The claim was something to the effect that any definition must accomodate the usage of the definiendum by the educated native speaker. This strikes me as patently false, as an educated native speaker is not infallible and may be incorrect. My calling a table a pig should not alter the definitions of either of those terms, despite the fact that I am a native speaker of English and am relatively well educated.
To this Tom objected, not verbatim of course, that it is insufficient for a single native speaker, but if educated native speakers as a whole use the term a certain way than the definition ought to accomodate this. He is partially correct; Hirsch did not have in mind my single wrong speaker example. But I still think the my general objection holds. Definitions of words ought to possess both clarity and utility. If, as a whole, the mass of educated english speakers began conflating two terms, say Argument and Inference (not too far fetched as they are closely related, but importantly not synonymous) we would be within our right to correct them and define the inference as the move from premises to a conclusion within an argument.
The specter of the Educated Native Speaker was raised both by Hirsch and in class. The claim was something to the effect that any definition must accomodate the usage of the definiendum by the educated native speaker. This strikes me as patently false, as an educated native speaker is not infallible and may be incorrect. My calling a table a pig should not alter the definitions of either of those terms, despite the fact that I am a native speaker of English and am relatively well educated.
To this Tom objected, not verbatim of course, that it is insufficient for a single native speaker, but if educated native speakers as a whole use the term a certain way than the definition ought to accomodate this. He is partially correct; Hirsch did not have in mind my single wrong speaker example. But I still think the my general objection holds. Definitions of words ought to possess both clarity and utility. If, as a whole, the mass of educated english speakers began conflating two terms, say Argument and Inference (not too far fetched as they are closely related, but importantly not synonymous) we would be within our right to correct them and define the inference as the move from premises to a conclusion within an argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)