So basically all the genius works of fiction are nothing more than explorations of philosophy?
Basically the greeks and classical shit are always talking about philosophical issues, beyond using the story to teach the lessons of their ideas.
I don't mean genre fiction BTW.
No
No. Genius drama explores novel action and the sensation of emptying experienced by the audience as the drama resolves (or per Brecht, the unresolveable excess left precisely to cause the audience to engage in revolutionary action).
Great epics explore unique characters, the reader experiences the integration of their own identity as the identities of characters are resolved through stereotyped actions.
Philosophy shit often results in awful dreck like Orwell or Aldus Huxley or Moore's novels.
in other words it explores the philosophy of phenomenology and ethics. op's right you pseud
I have this theory that basically everything interesting about life or anything is philosophical and most of the time people just aren't aware of it.
Yep, that's why Ulysses is great
'The master race'
No, very much no. That is a grievous insult to fiction, poetry and drama to reduce them to something as limited as philosophy. Wittgenstein recognised this -- that these works speak to something about the human condition which is otherwise ineffable, which philosophy (as it must always be clear to be meaningful) should not attempt to describe. Philosophy inherently involves abstraction, whereas the greatest works of fiction, poetry, drama are more concrete and embodied. They speak about things which the abstract lens of philosophy is unable to do. One can apply the lens of philosophy to these works but then one is modifying it to suit one's particular abstract concerns, more often than not ignoring what it really means. Yes, there will be overlap between the concrete and the abstract in literary works, one is wont to say that we cannot understand the one without the other, but one must be careful never to say something as foolish as "fiction is reducible to philosophy" which is a systematic replacement of the concrete for the abstract, Sartre's definition of evil.
the human essense you speak off is aesthetics and ethics/morality and theology and methaphysics and also a bit from politics and self improvement and psychology.
Which are branches of philosophy.
You morono subhuman.
You literally think your genre fiction about le marvelino capcom fighter fighting the isekai dragon is like le deep commentary on human condition, when 99.9% of fiction is weeb garbage for weebs and normies and women.
I honestly think there's modern literary classics like kafka the process and star ship troopers and tolkien and maybe asimov.
a brave new world, farenheit 11 and animal farm tend to also fall into literary stuff.
100 years of solitude as well.
borges also.
>midwit after reading philosophy 101
Everything is reducible to philosophy by your definition. Cooking is philosphy. Trolling is philosophy. Having a shit is philosophy.
in a way yes
the way you do everything is a personal statement on aesthetics, ethics.... philosophy
philosophy is just a rationalization of the hermetic occult knowledge.
You're simply stuck in entry level shit.
if everything is philosophy, nothing is philosophy, frick off
everything is just humans trying to get closer to the truth and the oirign of the world.
religion, art, philosophy, sports, science, technology, occult and magic.
Are just branches of knowledge to be able to master reality and get closer to our knowledge of the circle.
while he is a midwit what he said is basically true
what
is better.
> the human essense you speak off is aesthetics and ethics/morality and theology and methaphysics and also a bit from politics and self improvement and psychology
That shows you have misunderstood my point and simply done the same thing again: you have reduced what is human and real to mere intellectual categories. That is the vain blindness of the intellect to direct, embodied experience and a belief that its representations are able to correspond to the thing itself.
My very point is that artificial categories and boundaries are inherent in the nature of thinking, one cannot think without some form of abstraction, but that is inherently disfiguring to our perceptions of what literature is. There is an inherent tragedy in the nature of criticism and thinking. The recognition of this tragedy, the recognition of the limitations of the intellect, how much I do not know and how much it is impossible to know, is far more worthwhile than a stubborn blindness to the limitations of philosophy because it will somehow compromise our intellects. Yes, I’m an idiot lost in language games as that other anon said. So are we all. The truly idiotic are those who do not recognise it.
you sound like a woman being amazed at the aesthetic experience.
Do you also cry when a sad puppy like cries on a movie and there's like rain behind it?
The aesthetic experience is one of the most integral, mysterious and wonderful aspects of being human. I’m sorry that you have autism.
see
no not really. other people are better at it than you. dont try to lump them with morons such as yourself
stupid homosexual
You are an idiot lost in language games.
moronic pseud take that vainly tries to enforce artificial categories and boundaries. you are incapable of either quality lit or phil discussion
So are you trying to imply the only genius fiction works are Greek classics and everything else is genre fiction?
Yes, you could read Nietszche or you could read Moby Dick for the same effect and insights.
Depends. If your question was reformated to:
>So basically all the genius works of fiction are explorations of philosophy?
Then yes for the most part intentional or not.
I think the point of literature is to convey, exposition, and explore aspects of universal human life and nature. These stories are timeless because human nature is basically static.
Kind of but form is important because it's framework can effect the output and its meaning through a kind of harmony between intention and rules of expression. The Medium is the message and all that.
>what is the point
Aesthetic experience. You wouldn't get it.
I get an aesthetic experience generating porn of gwen of total drama using AI.
>anon is a coombrain
Quelle surprise.
Hardly any smooching in philosophy books, I've looked
Based Darcy. I’ve been Heathcliff-maxing myself lately to become more appealing to women
>Becoming irascible and vindictive towards people around me
>Darkening my skin and always walking around with a moody and grim aspect
>Becoming obsessed with this girl who lives four miles from me and plotting acts of vengeance on her boyfriend
I’m really starting to notice a difference and a lot more female heads turning in my direction.
No. Great fiction like all great art is about the creation of a new thing. What we ideally appreciate in art is this new thing itself, that gets its inherent value from structure, detail, depth, contrast, the particulars, tone and atmosphere, originality, tension and release, subtlety, the work that went into actualizing it, immersion, tastefulness, tastelessness, combinations of a million distinct aesthetic devices and effects... You have to enjoy a piece of art just as you would god’s creation, or the finger painting your child brought home. You have to enjoy it for its own sake. Learning lessons or repeating cliches about the human condition, let alone commenting on things as general and meaningless as current day society has nothing to do with it. It's music. Sadly, compared to music, many more people have literary anhedonia.