Thanks for the mention. While it's true that literature can yield enormous insight, both into ourselves and others, it's just as possible to get lost in its labyrinth. As a memoirist, I tell myself that my purpose is to serve others, not to be self-serving, but surely there are ulterior motives for writing about the past: to comfort myself, position myself in the best possible light. I know people who have never gone to college who are clear-headed about who they are and are compassionate toward others. The business of truth-seeking in literature is grand, but art is tricky and sometimes aesthetics becomes its own source of meaning. Whether it's delusion or truth can be hard to discern.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment Joshua. Appreciate you taking out the time and hope to continue to get your thoughts on future pieces.
Your ambivalence on literature/art reminded me of Kafka's short writing, on what seems to be his frustration with parables as well?
"Many people complained that the words of the wise were always couched in the form of parables, but were useless in daily life, which is the only sort of life we have. When the wise man says 'Cross over, he doesn't mean we should cross over to the other side of the street, which is something one might at least be able to do, if it were worth our while; no, he means some fabulous yonder, some place we don't know, some place that doesn't get any closer description from him either and that therefore can't help us. All these parables are trying to tell us is that the intangible is impossible to grasp, and we knew that anyway. But the things we struggle with every day, those are different.
Thereupon someone said: 'Why struggle? If you followed the parables, then you would have become parables yourselves, and thereby free of your daily cares.'
Someone else said: 'I bet that's a parable as well' The first person said: 'You've won.'
The second said: 'Yes, but unfortunately only in a parable'
The first man said: 'No, in reality; in the parable you've lost."
— Franz Kafka, The Basic Kafka 158 (New York: Pocket Books, 1971)
I like to say that, when trying to get ideas across, humor and storytelling function to BYPASS COGNITIVE DEFENSES.
This was not immediately obvious to me, because I genuinely just prefer if people explain their theories to me upfront (I don't mean to say that I'm unlike all the normies or whatever -- but I do have an obsession with truth that drives me to read for hours everyday, and I score very highly on Openness, and I think these help me be a little less self-deluded). For a couple of years, I mainly read philosophy, social theory, and even moral psychology, where very brilliant intellectuals would straight up tell you that you have an innate drive for power, that you would be unjust if you could do so without getting caught, that your moral intuitions are merely meant to help you get along with your group, that religion is the opium of the masses, etc.
But it quickly dawned on me that trying to discuss these things in a group setting produces a weird energy that make you unlikeable (unless you do so in a funny manner). Or if you bring these up in a one-on-one situation, they quickly shut you down and change topics. In any case, saying things as they are, for some reason or other, drains people. It paints you as a cynical, overly serious person, it implies that you have superior intellect, it reminds them of the uncertainties and contradictions in their cobbled-together worldview. All these coalesce to make truth-telling socially unprofitable and ultimately unconvincing.
With humor and storytelling, you get past all these obstacles. I'm not implying superior intelligence -- I'm just trying to make you laugh, or tell an interesting story. I'm not cynical, it's just a joke. I'm not trying to persuade you -- we're just having fun aren't we? And, if reason is truly the slave of the passions, then by inducing a positive attitude in you, you've become more receptive to my ideas.
Social intelligence, then, is virtually synonymous with emotional manipulation. The poets and artists know this. The philosophers, bless their hearts, try to treat their audience as rational creatures, to be convinced on the basis of logical reasoning rather than the emotional sophistry which treats people like objects to be manipulated. Unfortunately, things don't work like that. For better or for worse, we're in a society where any intellectual who wants to get their ideas across must wrap them in the guise of humor or fiction, all because the majority of people have brains that work a certain way.
Thank for the thought comment genly. Hope to see you continue to read and share your thoughts here. Your comment reminded me of a quote on Philosophy and Poetry (from a Poet) - "Philosophy is a set of abstractions shivering in the cold night of human reason. The poet comes and warms them up into objectivity."
Another very insightful post. I completely agree with yourself and Baldwin when it comes to poets/artists being the real truth-tellers. I think it's what keeps me going back to works of fiction time and time again - it feels like the only arena where there is a genuine attempt to strike at the real heart of truth in all its subjective, myriad messiness.
Even the works of fiction that are resolutely unrealistic, when guided by the poetic impulse, have some kind of inherent truth baked into them. I admire the poets whose only agenda is expression, in their works I think we can see at least a genuine attempt at presenting the world that, for all their unreality, try in good faith to wear no mask when it comes to the revelation of truth.
Thanks for taking out the time to read Riley. And hope to see you continue to share your thoughts on future posts. Similar to genly's comment your comment reminded me of the same quote on Philosophy and Poetry (from a Poet) - "Philosophy is a set of abstractions shivering in the cold night of human reason. The poet comes and warms them up into objectivity."
So true on fiction David! And thats why I think its a lot more fundamental genre.
But once in a while though I do like to pick up some pieces from the self-help genre just to make sure I am not losing touch with reality. I wrote previously on where these books are helpful for me and can be for others
Thanks for the mention. While it's true that literature can yield enormous insight, both into ourselves and others, it's just as possible to get lost in its labyrinth. As a memoirist, I tell myself that my purpose is to serve others, not to be self-serving, but surely there are ulterior motives for writing about the past: to comfort myself, position myself in the best possible light. I know people who have never gone to college who are clear-headed about who they are and are compassionate toward others. The business of truth-seeking in literature is grand, but art is tricky and sometimes aesthetics becomes its own source of meaning. Whether it's delusion or truth can be hard to discern.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment Joshua. Appreciate you taking out the time and hope to continue to get your thoughts on future pieces.
Your ambivalence on literature/art reminded me of Kafka's short writing, on what seems to be his frustration with parables as well?
"Many people complained that the words of the wise were always couched in the form of parables, but were useless in daily life, which is the only sort of life we have. When the wise man says 'Cross over, he doesn't mean we should cross over to the other side of the street, which is something one might at least be able to do, if it were worth our while; no, he means some fabulous yonder, some place we don't know, some place that doesn't get any closer description from him either and that therefore can't help us. All these parables are trying to tell us is that the intangible is impossible to grasp, and we knew that anyway. But the things we struggle with every day, those are different.
Thereupon someone said: 'Why struggle? If you followed the parables, then you would have become parables yourselves, and thereby free of your daily cares.'
Someone else said: 'I bet that's a parable as well' The first person said: 'You've won.'
The second said: 'Yes, but unfortunately only in a parable'
The first man said: 'No, in reality; in the parable you've lost."
— Franz Kafka, The Basic Kafka 158 (New York: Pocket Books, 1971)
As a person with Czech ancestry, I love any excuse to read more Kafka!
I like to say that, when trying to get ideas across, humor and storytelling function to BYPASS COGNITIVE DEFENSES.
This was not immediately obvious to me, because I genuinely just prefer if people explain their theories to me upfront (I don't mean to say that I'm unlike all the normies or whatever -- but I do have an obsession with truth that drives me to read for hours everyday, and I score very highly on Openness, and I think these help me be a little less self-deluded). For a couple of years, I mainly read philosophy, social theory, and even moral psychology, where very brilliant intellectuals would straight up tell you that you have an innate drive for power, that you would be unjust if you could do so without getting caught, that your moral intuitions are merely meant to help you get along with your group, that religion is the opium of the masses, etc.
But it quickly dawned on me that trying to discuss these things in a group setting produces a weird energy that make you unlikeable (unless you do so in a funny manner). Or if you bring these up in a one-on-one situation, they quickly shut you down and change topics. In any case, saying things as they are, for some reason or other, drains people. It paints you as a cynical, overly serious person, it implies that you have superior intellect, it reminds them of the uncertainties and contradictions in their cobbled-together worldview. All these coalesce to make truth-telling socially unprofitable and ultimately unconvincing.
With humor and storytelling, you get past all these obstacles. I'm not implying superior intelligence -- I'm just trying to make you laugh, or tell an interesting story. I'm not cynical, it's just a joke. I'm not trying to persuade you -- we're just having fun aren't we? And, if reason is truly the slave of the passions, then by inducing a positive attitude in you, you've become more receptive to my ideas.
Social intelligence, then, is virtually synonymous with emotional manipulation. The poets and artists know this. The philosophers, bless their hearts, try to treat their audience as rational creatures, to be convinced on the basis of logical reasoning rather than the emotional sophistry which treats people like objects to be manipulated. Unfortunately, things don't work like that. For better or for worse, we're in a society where any intellectual who wants to get their ideas across must wrap them in the guise of humor or fiction, all because the majority of people have brains that work a certain way.
Thank for the thought comment genly. Hope to see you continue to read and share your thoughts here. Your comment reminded me of a quote on Philosophy and Poetry (from a Poet) - "Philosophy is a set of abstractions shivering in the cold night of human reason. The poet comes and warms them up into objectivity."
Another very insightful post. I completely agree with yourself and Baldwin when it comes to poets/artists being the real truth-tellers. I think it's what keeps me going back to works of fiction time and time again - it feels like the only arena where there is a genuine attempt to strike at the real heart of truth in all its subjective, myriad messiness.
Even the works of fiction that are resolutely unrealistic, when guided by the poetic impulse, have some kind of inherent truth baked into them. I admire the poets whose only agenda is expression, in their works I think we can see at least a genuine attempt at presenting the world that, for all their unreality, try in good faith to wear no mask when it comes to the revelation of truth.
Thanks for taking out the time to read Riley. And hope to see you continue to share your thoughts on future posts. Similar to genly's comment your comment reminded me of the same quote on Philosophy and Poetry (from a Poet) - "Philosophy is a set of abstractions shivering in the cold night of human reason. The poet comes and warms them up into objectivity."
So true on fiction David! And thats why I think its a lot more fundamental genre.
But once in a while though I do like to pick up some pieces from the self-help genre just to make sure I am not losing touch with reality. I wrote previously on where these books are helpful for me and can be for others
https://ranas9.substack.com/p/from-wisdom-to-action
Thanks for continuing to read and sharing thoughts Zoe! Really like the Zhuangzi quote. Hope you continue to find this substack useful