An introduction to not only the central philosophical questions concerning the reading and interpretation of literature, but also the possible cross-fertilizations between philosophy and literature. It explores the ways in which philosophy pursues questions relating to the nature and value of literature, while literary analyses can show how philosophy's modes of persuasion are in seeming conflict with its self-definition as the discourse of pure and untainted reason. Examples both from literature and philosophy are the main vehicles for the development of the argument. The main aspects of the field of philosophy and literature are outlined, and we see the reasons why Plato divided philosophy and literature from his ideal state, and how Aristotle answered Plato's criticisms of literature. The philosophical characteristic of wanting to define phenomena takes us into different ways of defining literature.
This book also investigates the nature of interpretation and its sources of authority, how literary forms can be read as vehicles for the development of philosophical problems, and how different philosophical forms can be analyzed as using typically literary means in order to persuade readers. The question of whether it is warranted or useful to maintain the distinction between philosophy and literature is addressed.
Industry Reviews
'Ole Martin Skilleas has written what may be the first introductory book in English that looks not only at what philosophy of literature is, but also and more originally at how both Philosophy and Literature interact ... The examples are clear and engaging ... Skilleas presents a cogent phillosophy that ties the work together ... This book may be a good and interesting choice for courses on the subject itself or as a supplement.'--Jesus Ilundain-Agurruza, American Society and Ethics A many-sided introduction to a rich and fascinating field A poised and informative introduction to the relations between philosophy and literature engagingly - often originally - argued from a philosophically coherent point of view."-- Martin Warner, Department of Philosophy, University of Warwick '[An] excellent and well-written study.'--Choice