0 Comments
In her article, Hämälänen describes a “thick use” of fiction. She thinks that fiction might express philosophical positions that are hard to express in ordinary philosophical prose. However, Hämälänen does not offer much explanation or defense of this point of view. In this paper, I will try to offer an argument on her behalf for thinking that fiction in particular might present philosophical positions that are “difficult to get at in the regular argumentative style” (21). However, before giving my argument, I want to first clarify the term “philosophical positions.” People might think that a different “philosophical position” means a brand new philosophical theory or philosophical conclusion, such as “we should make decisions that maximize social utility.” However, in this paper, a “philosophical position” means more than that: it can also represent a new philosophical “argument” for the same principle or theory. In other words, if fiction, by using substantial details, which I will explain later in this paper, can offer a stronger or more objective argument of the same principle stated in any philosophical prose, we consider that fiction can offer a different “philosophical position” which cannot be expressed in regular argumentative prose.
My first argument is that fiction, by providing substantial details, can make more reliable and stronger arguments that cannot be equally made by philosophical prose. Reading philosophy can only impel people to think about which principle is right or wrong. People know that “we should make choices which maximize social utility” because utilitarian theories persuade them to do so in a plain, argumentative way. However, fiction offers lively portrayals of characters, their motives, their thoughts, and the consequences of their actions. All of these details can invoke people’s empathy with the characters, therefore prompting people to develop moral feeling that accompanies moral thought. In other words, since these details appeal to people’s own emotions and feelings, they can form more accurate judgements about moral principles and act more reliably. For example, philosophy has taught people that slavery is immoral. However, if people learned this moral principle merely through philosophical argument, they would just have an impartial mental representation of this idea. This mental representation might not be reliable because, if another philosophical argument tells people that “slavery is a good thing,” they might change their minds easily. Expecting a mind to work on logic alone is similar to trusting in the functions of an unfeeling machine. A machine may be exact, but its function depends on an intricate conjunction of interdependent parts and contingent motions. The malfunction of any one part leads to the failure of the whole. However, fiction might offer a more reliable and impactful philosophical position than philosophy can. By reading the sentimental novel, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, people can understand what the life of a slave really feels like. They feel his miserable life, the inequality that he suffers from, and the awful society that he lives in. Fiction arouses people’s empathy with Tom, motivating them to think, on an intuitive level, that “slavery is immoral.” This philosophical position is much reliable than the previous one because people come to this conclusion by the impulse of their own feelings. Because of the moral feeling that fiction cultivates, the mind is motivated to work towards the general conclusion that slavery is wrong. Therefore, even though fiction and philosophy tell people the same moral principle, fiction offers a stronger or more impactful philosophical position that cannot be expressed in ordinary philosophical prose. One of the potential arguments against mine might be that, if philosophy cannot express more impactful positions because of its relative lack of detail compared to fiction, philosophers can just add more details to their examples and make them as invocative as fiction. I do not deny that philosophers can add more detail in order to express more impactful philosophical positions; however, if philosophical prose contains too many details, it is hard to categorize them as “philosophical prose.” From my perspective, philosophical prose, or, as Hämälänen put it, “regular argumentative prose,” is supposed to be logical and inductive, with only some help from simple examples. If we write philosophical prose as we write fiction, adding complete storylines and vivid portrayals of characters, the product will contradictory the definition of philosophical prose. Even though philosophy might not be as detailed as literature, it should, at least, be somewhere in the intermediate state, which I call “philosophical fiction.” This intermediate state shares the features of both philosophical prose and fiction. However, we should not discuss this form of prose in this paper. We should just focus on the differences between pure fiction and regular argumentative prose. However, even though fiction arouses people’s feelings, it does not mean that it cannot offer any objective philosophical position. As a matter of fact, my second argument is that, fiction offers a third point of view of the world, through which a more objective philosophical position than ordinary philosophical prose can be achieved. Most people agree that it is harder for people to understand their world if they live in their world. Sometimes, we can better understand our behavior through other people’s eyes. Fiction enables us to do this. By reading fiction, we can see other people’s life as an outsider. We can achieve a certain detachment which enables us to make more objective judgments. Here, I take self-deceit as an example. Many philosophers theorize self-deceit, and they think that it is immoral even though sometimes they admit that our tendency to deceive ourselves in order to achieve happiness or other benefits is within human nature. When reading these philosophical theories, I can completely understand what those philosophers mean, and I agree with them that self-deceit is, to some extent, immoral. However, when I try to think of my philosophical position on this subject, I do not always think that it is immoral to self-deceive, for the reason that I gain benefits from it. In other words, I am employing self-deceit when thinking about self-deceit, because it is so closely related to my personal interests, and everyone is self-interested. However, when I was reading the novel, The Tremor of Forgery, it is quite easy for me to tell when the main character, Ingham, is deceiving himself, and when his self-deceit becomes immoral. I am an outsider to his world, and my detachment makes me think more objectively. If the same situation happens to me in real life, even if I have been influenced by many philosophical theories, like Ingham, I would not be able to make the equally objective judgement. Therefore, fiction, by giving us the opportunity to see others’ worlds as an outsider, offers more objective philosophical positions than philosophical prose does. However, people might think that most philosophers also write in a very objective position, and that they can be considered as “detached” from the real world, too. I do not deny the objectivity that philosophical theories can have. However, when people read philosophy, they subconsciously apply those principles to their own world. Being a self-interested creature, people unconsciously think of questions like “how would this principle affect my world and my life if it is put into practice.” However, when we are reading fiction, we are not concerned with our own interests because the world in the fiction is a different world from ours. No matter what consequences the philosophical principle can have on a fictional world, the consequences will only stay there. With this subconscious detachment, people can be more objective towards different ideas and principles. Aside from my argument, we can never separate fiction and philosophy completely. Unlike other forms of expression --visual arts, music, or film--both fiction and philosophy are expressed verbally, which makes the distinction between them much smaller than that between them and other forms of expression. However, even though fiction and philosophy can be considered “close” to each other, it is true that fiction can offer stronger or more objective philosophical positions which are harder to express in regular argumentative prose. According to my arguments, reading fiction enables us to have more reliable and objective view of the world. |
AuthorLayne |