Narrative and Philosophy

[onstanleyon]

Many of the great (and not so great) novels have their narrative embedded in a philosophical ideal. I'm thinking particularly of Nausea by Jean Paul Sartre, Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Neitzsche, L'Etranger by Albert Camus. These novels live out a philosophical idea.
Other novels have a softer approach. Two I have read are Bleak House by Charles Dickens and A Fateful Aberration by Les Jones. The former is a damning critique of British society of the time, arguing that society has a unity rather than a scrambling mass of individuals. The latter gives lead character Fiona James the task of living out many aspects of Mary Wollstonecraft's ideas on the emancipation of women. This is juxtaposed against the struggle that she has with Noakes, who has a far less altruistic view of mankind.
The power of such ideas not only underpin a novel but give it so much more power that it trancends its story.

 

[sparkchaser]

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

 

[Will]

The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera

 

[Augustas]

Found this old thread, and even though it ain't active, the subject, I thought, was really interesting.. I could mention a lot of novels, where narrative is just a tool, and the main goal, as it can be guessed, of the author was to express the idea, the conception of life...

But that's kind of complicated, when I think about.. I mean, I'm talking only on theory now, without any examples, but still - do you think it's possible to draw a line, how much can an author allow sophistications and theorizing for himself, if he wishes to call the writing still prose.. It's hard to explain the question, that I'm trying to raise, but maybe it would be easier with a specific situation -

For example, when I read "thus spoke Zarathustra" I admire both - the style, and the philosophical part of it, but I don't think this piece of writing can be called fiction anymore.. I mean, the narrative becomes a sham tool for the great ideas, but no truth or honesty can be found in the style.. In the content - yes, but the book gets more philosophical, than fictional with every page..

Basically, what I'm trying to do here, is to underline the distinction between fiction and philosophical literature.. The line is though to find, because in both cases, the goal and the motivator for writing is the same - the need to express the conception of the world (or at least some parts of it).. But when a philosopher uses the narrative as a tool and as a tool only, can the piece of writing still be called art, with all of it's flight and inspiration..

any ideas about this..?

 

[SFG75]

I like the title "philosophical literature." It isn't fiction because the works in question have a higher purpose than simply telling a story with minor, unspoken messages. The narrative story is very powerful and perhaps that is why Jesus opted for parables? onstanleyon mentioned Bleak House as a "softer" version of this and I would agree. Virginia Woolf would also be in the same category if you ask me. The Road also comes to mind to me. I believe that you are correct, there is a line, coming up with a definition of it might be more difficult, though I don't believe anyone would argue that it is not possible.

On another note, philosophy not written in a narrative form is definitely a true slog to go through. Don't believe me?, sit down some time and read Critique of Pure Reason.

 

[Blindsided]

David Hume's Natural History of Religion, it's a dialogue and he expresses his ideas differently in this book than his other ones because of this. ( can't go wrong with Hume- was a philosophy major in college and he was definitely my favorite.)

@ sfg75- Kant's critique of pure reason has to be one of the toughest books I ever went through, but I enjoyed it after I started grasping some of his points. It was rough for sure though, and I had a world renowned kant scholar teaching the class and it was a semester almost completely on Kant's critique of pure reason.

 

[SFG75]

@ sfg75- Kant's critique of pure reason has to be one of the toughest books I ever went through, but I enjoyed it after I started grasping some of his points. It was rough for sure though, and I had a world renowned kant scholar teaching the class and it was a semester almost completely on Kant's critique of pure reason.

Great book to read in the mornings before everyone else is up and life picks up steam, definitely not something to take with you on the subway or something.

Just thinking about narrative versus straight talk-Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations leans heavily towards the non-narrative, but he did include a lot of stories about tradespeople to highlight his point. TWON is dry and dreary, but not as dreary as Kant or some others. The stories lift the stories to life to a certain degree. Malcolm Gladwell's Tipping Point is also written in this style, but he tells a more interesting story and when I read it, I couldn't put it down for the life of me, probably not even under gun point. Perhaps one of the best narrative non-fiction books that I have read is The Social Animal by conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks. He blended psychology, neuroscience, and current research from the social sciences to explain the lives of a couple from birth to death. It is difficult to relay how he did this, but as each character passed through the ages, Brooks would mention how social influences affected their education, how friends affected how they thought of themselves, and how the body began to break down in their latter years. Tough style of writing to work in the facts, but Brooks does a masterful job, I highly recommend it.