Engaging with works of fiction

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
W. Huemer
{"title":"Engaging with works of fiction","authors":"W. Huemer","doi":"10.4000/estetica.5170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The contemporary debate in the philosophy of literature is strongly shaped by the anti-cognitivist challenge, according to which works of literary fiction (that contain propositions that are neither literally true nor affirmed by the author) cannot impart (relevant) knowledge to the readers or enrich their worldly understanding. Anti-cognitivists appreciate works of literary fiction for their aesthetic values and so risk to reduce them to mere ornaments that are entertaining, but eventually useless. Many philosophers have reacted to this challenge by pointing at ways in which works of literary fiction can be informative even though they lack worldly reference: it has been argued, for example, that fictions work like thought experiments; that they add not to our theoretical knowledge, but to our know-how or to our phenomenal knowledge; or that that they help readers to understand the perspectives of others. A stubborn defense of literary cognitivism, however, risks to collapse into an instrumental understanding of literature. In my paper I will suggest that both sides in the debate focus too narrowly on semantic features of the works in question that are tied to what I will call the “referential picture” of language. A shift of perspective is needed: for one, we ought to fully appreciate that the term “literature” does not refer to a homogeneous phenomenon, but rather to a very heterogeneous and multifarious set of works that are read by many different readers for many different reasons in many different ways. Second, we need to understand that these works have in common much more than the semantic peculiarity of lacking worldly reference: they are a unique means of communication between authors and readers – and in particular the role of the latter is often neglected in contemporary debate. These two points should help us to get a more comprehensive understanding of the practice of literature and the vast range of values we can find in works of literary fiction – and the interplay between them.","PeriodicalId":53954,"journal":{"name":"Rivista di Estetica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rivista di Estetica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/estetica.5170","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The contemporary debate in the philosophy of literature is strongly shaped by the anti-cognitivist challenge, according to which works of literary fiction (that contain propositions that are neither literally true nor affirmed by the author) cannot impart (relevant) knowledge to the readers or enrich their worldly understanding. Anti-cognitivists appreciate works of literary fiction for their aesthetic values and so risk to reduce them to mere ornaments that are entertaining, but eventually useless. Many philosophers have reacted to this challenge by pointing at ways in which works of literary fiction can be informative even though they lack worldly reference: it has been argued, for example, that fictions work like thought experiments; that they add not to our theoretical knowledge, but to our know-how or to our phenomenal knowledge; or that that they help readers to understand the perspectives of others. A stubborn defense of literary cognitivism, however, risks to collapse into an instrumental understanding of literature. In my paper I will suggest that both sides in the debate focus too narrowly on semantic features of the works in question that are tied to what I will call the “referential picture” of language. A shift of perspective is needed: for one, we ought to fully appreciate that the term “literature” does not refer to a homogeneous phenomenon, but rather to a very heterogeneous and multifarious set of works that are read by many different readers for many different reasons in many different ways. Second, we need to understand that these works have in common much more than the semantic peculiarity of lacking worldly reference: they are a unique means of communication between authors and readers – and in particular the role of the latter is often neglected in contemporary debate. These two points should help us to get a more comprehensive understanding of the practice of literature and the vast range of values we can find in works of literary fiction – and the interplay between them.
阅读小说
当代文学哲学的争论受到反认知主义挑战的强烈影响,根据这种挑战,文学小说作品(包含的命题既不是字面上正确的,也不是作者肯定的)不能向读者传授(相关的)知识,也不能丰富他们的世俗理解。反认知主义者欣赏文学小说作品的审美价值,因此冒险将其简化为纯粹的娱乐装饰,但最终毫无用处。许多哲学家对这一挑战作出了回应,指出文学小说作品在缺乏世俗参考的情况下也能提供信息:例如,有人认为,小说就像思想实验;它们不是增加我们的理论知识,而是增加我们的实际知识或现象知识;或者他们帮助读者理解他人的观点。然而,对文学认知主义的顽固辩护有可能崩溃为对文学的工具性理解。在我的论文中,我将提出,辩论双方都过于狭隘地关注所讨论作品的语义特征,这些特征与我所说的语言的“参考图片”有关。我们需要换个角度:首先,我们应该充分认识到,“文学”一词并不是指一种同质的现象,而是指一组非常异质和多样化的作品,这些作品被许多不同的读者出于许多不同的原因以许多不同的方式阅读。其次,我们需要明白,这些作品的共同点远远超过缺乏世俗参考的语义特性:它们是作者和读者之间沟通的独特手段——尤其是后者的作用在当代辩论中经常被忽视。这两点应该有助于我们更全面地理解文学实践和我们可以在文学小说作品中找到的广泛价值,以及它们之间的相互作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Rivista di Estetica
Rivista di Estetica PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信