In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Notes to Chapter 14 / 253 Notes Chapter 14 1. Quoted by Jack Diether, in “Notes to the Program,” Carnegie Hall, Tuesday Evening, November 4, 1997, 19. 2. Another view of this relation sees philosophy as sharing a method of knowledge with both literature and science. This is why, so the argument goes, it is not possible to distinguish philosophy from literature, strictly speaking. See Christiane Schildknecht, “Entre la ciencia y la literatura: Formas literarias de la filosofía,” trans. José M. González García, en María Teresa López de la Vieja, ed., Figuras del logos: Entre la filosofía y la literatura (Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1994), 21–40. 3. José Luis Gómez Martínez, “Posmodernidad, discurso antrópico y ensayística latinoamericana. Entrevista,” Dissens, Revista Internacional de Pensamiento Latinoamericano 2 (1996), 46 and 45. 4. Eduardo Mendieta, “Philosophy and Literature: The Latin American Case,” Dissens 2 (1996), 37. 5. Gómez Martínez, art. cit., p. 45; Mendieta, art. cit., 37–40. 6. See also Foucault’s “What Is an Author?” trans. Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon, in Donald F. Bouchard, ed., Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977), 113–138; and Gregory Currie, “Work and Text,” Mind 100 (1991), 325–339. 7. Keep in mind that in this chapter I am staying away from several other questions that are under discussion today concerning philosophy, literature, and art. For example, I do not discuss issues concerned with the morality, value, or use of literature and art, or questions that have to do with the cognitive or noncognitive nature of the knowledge we derive from literary texts or artistic visual images. These 254 / Notes to Chapter 14 topics have received considerable attention recently. See, for example, Martha Nussbaum, Love’s Knowledge: Essays in Philosophy and Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), Stephen Davies, Philosophical Perspectives on Art (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) and The Philosophy of Art (New York: Blackwell, 2006), and Dominic McIver Lopes, Understanding Pictures (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). 8. I discuss these in Gracia, Metaphysics and its Task: The Search for the Categorial Foundation of Knowledge (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1999), ch. 2. 9. For other attempts at distinguishing literary texts and works from philosophical ones, and at exploring the relations between philosophy and literature, see, for example, S. Halliwell, “Philosophy and Literature: Settling a Quarrel?” Philosophical Investigations 16, 1 (1993), 6–16; George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974); Susan L. Anderson, “Philosophy and Fiction,” Metaphilosophy 23, 3 (1992), 207; Peter Lamarque and Stein H. Olsen, Truth, Fiction, and Literature: A Philosophical Perspective (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), chs. 15 and 16; and Anthony Quinton, The Divergence of the Twain: Poet’s Philosophy and Philosopher’s Philosophy (Warwick: University of Warwick, 1985). 10. For my discussion of other views, see Gracia, A Theory of Textuality: The Logic and Epistemology (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1995), 59–70. 11. Ibid., 4. 12. For a discussion of signs and their relation to texts, see ibid., 7–14. 13. For some suggestions in this direction, see ibid., 59–70. 14. Cf. Hans-Georg Gadamer, “Plato and the Poets,” in Dialogue and Dialectic: Eight Hermeneutical Studies in Plato, trans. P. Christopher Smith (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1980), 46 ff., and “Goethe and Philosophy,” trans. Robert H. Paslick, in Literature and Philosophy in Dialogue: Essays in German Literary Theory (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1994), 18–19. 15. Cf. Renford Bambrough, “Literature and Philosophy,” in Renford Bambrough, ed., Wisdom: Twelve Essays (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974), 274–292. 16. Cf. E. D. Hirsch, Jr., “Objective Interpretation,” PMLA 75 (1960), 463–479, and Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1967, 62; also Gracia, A Theory of Textuality, 18–19. 17. Arthur C. Danto, “Philosophy as/and/of Literature,” in Anthony Cascardi, ed., Literature and the Question of Philosophy (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), 7. Danto goes too far, however, when he argues that literature, in contrast with philosophy, is a kind of mirror, and finds its subject only when it is read (19): first, not just literary texts require an audience, all texts do and, second, that texts require an audience does not mean that they are about the audience. For my discussion of these issues, see Gracia, Texts: Ontological Status, Identity, Author Audience...

Share