← Home ← Back to /lit/

Thread 24857692

19 posts 2 images /lit/
Anonymous No.24857692 [Report] >>24857786 >>24857879 >>24857883 >>24858794 >>24859037 >>24859465 >>24860447
Does reading philosophy make it easier to interpret literature?
Anonymous No.24857786 [Report]
>>24857692 (OP)
Yes
Anonymous No.24857793 [Report]
Nah, OP. It makes it harder. What kind of question is that?
Anonymous No.24857794 [Report] >>24857860
Reading literature does. This like when someone learning to box is like "will catching this ball make my jab better?" Sure, but just jab a bag nigga.
Anonymous No.24857860 [Report] >>24857865
>>24857794
It's easier to understand the Matrix knowing the allegory of the cave, no?
Anonymous No.24857865 [Report] >>24857868
>>24857860
No. The allegory of the cave is just being repeated in a modern setting.
Knowing how to interpret literature throw a feminist lens or a Marxist lens would be just the same (and I know how looked down on here that would be)
Anonymous No.24857868 [Report] >>24857875 >>24857987
>>24857865
>throw
through*
Anonymous No.24857875 [Report] >>24857987
>>24857868
No it's not. That's just eisegesis, which this is not
Anonymous No.24857878 [Report]
Philosophy is literature.
Anonymous No.24857879 [Report] >>24857885
>>24857692 (OP)
Depends on how literary the philosophy you read is.
Anonymous No.24857883 [Report]
>>24857692 (OP)
If you intentionally train yourself to use philosophy this way, then yes. You will be picking up premises in texts that you otherwise wouldn't notice and you will remember connotations of particular terms that you'd otherwise discard. But to be honest, reading poetry can have many of the same effects.

However, I've met at least one passionate philosopher irl who trained himself to struggle with text. He would exploit every sentence that was informationally incomplete, semantically imprecise or flexible in interpretations so that he could re-interpret the text to his biases one sentence at a time. He naturally never got past a couple chapters of the books I borrowed him.

TLDR: yes, with an open mind and a bit of training
Anonymous No.24857885 [Report]
>>24857879
No, it depends on how philosophical the literature you read is.
Anonymous No.24857987 [Report]
>>24857868
Wow, thanks.

>>24857875
If the writer had Kant in mind while he wrote his bit, it does not require the reader to read Kant to get the story on any deeper level. It is a mere interesting aside.
Anonymous No.24858794 [Report]
>>24857692 (OP)
I mean, the first literary criticism book comes from a philosopher (Aristotle, poetics), so...
Anonymous No.24858906 [Report]
Welcome to the /lit/ teahouse, we have a channel for discussing philosophy
https://discord.gg/7aRekaBg
Anonymous No.24858970 [Report]
no
Anonymous No.24859037 [Report]
>>24857692 (OP)
Obviously. You'll have a really good background since you will get most topics of any book you will ever read and plus you had to read non fiction which demands a really good interpretation when reading, especially with philosophy.
Anonymous No.24859465 [Report]
>>24857692 (OP)
It is also easier if you know literary criticism or psychology
Anonymous No.24860447 [Report]
>>24857692 (OP)
I don't know.