Can Fiction be Philosophy?

This paper examines the relation between philosophy and literature through an analysis of claims made by Martha Nussbaum regarding the contribution novels can make to moral philosophy. Perhaps her most controversial assertion is that some novels are themselves works of moral philosophy. I contrast Nussbaum’s view with that of Iris Murdoch. I discuss three claims which are fundamental to Nussbaum’s position: the relation between writing style and content; philosophy’s inadequacy in preparing agents for moral life because of its reliance on rules; and the usefulness of the moral work engaged in by readers of novels. The evaluation of these claims requires a discussion of the nature of philosophy. I find that Murdoch and Nussbaum agree on the ability of literature to contribute to moral understanding, but disagree on the issue of what philosophy is. Therefore, they disagree on the question of whether certain works of fiction are also works of philosophy. I argue that the task Nussbaum assigns philosophy is too broad. Through the use of critical and reflective methods, philosophy should examine and sort moral claims. Literary, philosophical and religious texts contribute to moral eduction; keeping them separate helps us appreciate their distinct contributions, as well as respect their distinct aims and methods. Therefore, I conclude that Nussbaum’s inclusion of certain novels in philosophy cannot be sustained.

In a recent article, Richard Posner examines the notion, advanced by scholars in the law and literature movement, that "...immersion in literature ... make[s] us better citizens or better people." (1) The focus of his discussion is a set of assertions, including a number made by Martha Nussbaum, concerning the moral influenc...

... middle of paper ...

...h draws the following distinctions: literature does many things, philosophy does one thing (has one aim); literature is natural, philosophy is counter-natural; literature arouses emotion, philosophy tries to eliminate emotional appeal; literature is indirect, philosophy is direct; literature has no problem to solve, philosophy seeks to solve a few technical and abstract problems; literature is concerned with aesthetic form, philosophy does not aim at formal perfection. Murdoch says that she sees "no 'general role' of philosophy in literature" (p. 242).

(15) See Frank Palmer, Literature and Moral Understanding (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), chapter 8.

(16) In considering what is characteristic of philosophy, I was helped by reading Derrida and Wittgenstein, by Newton Garver and Seung-Chong Lee, (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994), chapter 6.