How do you justify the importance of literature? Of philosophy...

How do you justify the importance of literature? Of philosophy? The go-to response for both is to learn more about "the human condition", yet all that does is teach empathy, which can be done without reading, and doesn't take a lifetime. The concept of an ultimate truth for philosophy is even more dubious. As far as I can infer, the knowledge we obtain affects our minds only, so learning this ultimate truth wouldn't change much apart from a temporary spike in mood, pleasure, and so on. Why should we expect to arrive at an answer, anyways? The best and brightest minds have built upon each other's logic for centuries, yet there's no indication of an answer in sight. Could we not be going about this wrong?

For some people, it feels wonderful to read. Ideas feel important. The sensation is amazing. I'm a music fan, and we get a similar thing. Yet I don't care if other people feel the same way; what’s "important" varies from person to person. Why, then, do you feel it necessary that every person read literature or philosophy?

This isn't bait, I promise.

>Why, then, do you feel it necessary that every person read literature or philosophy?
Because they're missing out on
> it feels wonderful to read. Ideas feel important. The sensation is amazing.

To distinguish an object from yourself, you have to conceive of identities: this is philosophy. Everyone does philosophy, whether they recognize it or not.

it sfun

>which can be done without reading
If you can make it without reading, good for you. I'm sure there are enlightened Tibetan gymnosophists who've never read a book, and that's amazing.

But I certainly can't do that. I need to consume culture, and I need to be exposed to other people's thoughts and ideas. Now the question isn't really "to read or not?", the real question is "given that you're gonna spend a lot of your wake time eating culture, do you want to eat from the buffet, or from the trash can?".
I'm sure a great number of people spend as much time watching TV as a scholar spends reading book in his lifetime. Why be content with the worse when the best is readily available?

Not for me. I've read dozens of classics: Shakespeare, Dickens, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Kafka, Dostoevsky, Flaubert, Hesse, Conrad, McCarthy, Joyce, misc. poetry, misc. drama. None of it touched me. And I can't be the only one.
Explain further?

>How do you justify the importance of literature? Of philosophy?

I'm noting the absence of the adjective 'inflated' from >importance. I don't need to justify why they are important to me, regardless.

Lit and phil may be important to some, and not ever thought about by others. They are important to me because telling stories and figuratively exploding human minds is important to me and I want to do it for a living.

That makes sense in your case, since literature is a greater return for time/pleasure than TV. But what about people who don't fit that category? Would you say that everyone ought to be reading, not just for practical purposes, but for entertainment as well?

You're right - "inflated importance" is the topic here. Justifying a personal interest in reading isn't.

>of literature
It contributes to the well-being of the reader. Not physical, but to the emotional and spiritual.
>of philosophy
The search for truth really isn't something that should have to be justified.
>so learning this ultimate truth wouldn't change much apart from a spike in mood, pleasure, and so on
This assumption that mood and pleasure is what truly matters shows that you don't really know much about philosophy.
>Why should we expect to arrive at an answer, anyways?
Why should we expect not to arrive at an answer? How do you know that the truth isn't right behind the corner?
>Why, then, do you feel it necessary that every person read literature or philosophy?
I don't feel it necessary.

I honestly don't agree that good (as in skillful) philosophy necessarily has anything to do with "the human condition" or "truth." A philosophy to me is just a theory of practice (e.g. a mechanic's "philosophy" regarding how to diagnose a problem with a car). Academic philosophy is often the theory of the practice of theorizing (i.e. it centers on how to effectively construct a theory), which is why it seems removed from lived experience. This doesn't necessarily mean it's useless, but it does mean that most people won't understand its use (e.g. Hegel's dialectic is still occasionally described as "dazzling" or "bewildering") since the utility has an abstract character.

What do you hope to gain from learning some kind of ultimate truth? This isn't a criticism. If the answer is a path to happiness, then Buddhism seems like a better option. Otherwise, it's to satisfy your drive for meaning, right? Or are you trying to figure out how to live?

Again, this isn't a challenge to you personally. I full-well get why people enjoy doing philosophy, but the premise behind a supreme truth is odd, and I can't tell if people genuinely want to find it, or if it's just a nebulous placeholder to justify the parts people enjoy doing (like working with logic).

You're mistaking religious experiences for critical thinking and critical thinking for religious experiences.

>Why, then, do you feel it necessary that every person read literature or philosophy?
If I didn't live in a democracy I wouldn't.

>What do you hope to gain from learning some kind of ultimate truth?
The ultimate truth.
>Otherwise, it's to satisfy your drive for meaning, right?
No.
>Or are you trying to figure out how to live?
If the ultimate truth will tell me how to live, then yes. If not, then no.

>This isn't bait, I promise
>posts Zappa pic
sure

>How do you justify the importance of literature? Of philosophy?

You should start with how you justify anything. Is anything sacred? Is your culture sacred? Is your language? Is a human important? Is it possible to justify logic without omniscience, or a knowledge alien to humanity?

>to learn

Next you ask what is the will towards knowledge. Obviously we have produced results that affect the world around us so we must say that our willing has opened at least a blurry eye to the universe. Thus we are striving still towards objectivity, that ineffable beyond.

>Could we not be going about this wrong?

What is most interesting is how we are going about this wrong and how changing the fundamentals of our will, our tool of access, can help us move further towards understanding the universe objectively, or as a "universe".

>For some people, it feels wonderful to read. Ideas feel important. The sensation is amazing. I'm a music fan, and we get a similar thing. Yet I don't care if other people feel the same way; what’s "important" varies from person to person. Why, then, do you feel it necessary that every person read literature or philosophy?

No and yes! Because not reading literature or philosophy is impossible for this species to do. The individual will can never be separated from that other will, the will to life, the will to power, the will towards the good, whatever it is that can't be named - that reading is not important to you is only a sign of your worth, your value to it. Unfortunately, you may be only the feedback that helps separate those who feed the beast from those who live in harmony with the beast. It would be better that everyone make literature and do philosophy than read one word. Telling stories about each other, for one another, and seeking the truth of matters for the love of seeking it alone.

The importance is that literature and philosophy are not just outside of you as such - there is no need for a return to tradition - but both are you, as much as you are by the means of some "power", political, environmental and biological. You are cultural, and to be a rational person that strives towards objectivity, just as the rational person asks why we ought to strive towards objectivity, you will refine that other will.

Again, it's not necessary to read, but there is no stopping humanity from striving to reach the infinite from their finite graspings.

There's nothing to justify.

How do you justify a porcupine? A bowerbird? Now apply the same answer to literature.

It makes me feel smarter than I am.

>It makes me smarter

There are scientific studies that prove that reading improvs your brain in various way.
Nonetheless, it's wrong to try to justify literature in a utilitarian way. It's art not medicine.
It shoudln't seek for a final answer. To me, the journey is more important than the destination.

>The individual will can never be separated from that other will, the will to life, the will to power, the will towards the good, whatever it is that can't be named

The "will to life" is very much against the written word, (as per Houellebecq, "people who love life do not read or go to films," etc.), while the will toward "the good" very much subsists upon the written word. "The good" only apparently exists after it is set to paper and refined. Neither my life nor my enjoyment of it need such justification