Literary Cognitivism and the Relationship between Cognitive and Literary Value

Document Type : Original Research

Abstract
There is a tradition in contemporary literary theory and philosophy of literarture according to which there is a rift between literary/aesthetic value and cognitive value. The anti-cognitivist maintains that even if a literary work has some cognitive value, this has nothing to do with the work’s overall aesthetic value. Furthermore, if a work’s perspective on some issue is seriously flawed, this, by no means contaminates its aesthetic purenss. This paper aims to demonstrate the opposite. It thus makes use of a ceratin thought-experiment and the concept of possible worlds to show that the cognitivist’s position is justified and proceeds to illustrate that even polyphony as an aesthectic value cannot be properly understood without recourse to its cognitive status. It then goes on to meet a serious challenge: the so-called “institutional argument” which is deemed to be among the best arguments in the anti-cognitivist’s dialectical arsenal. The argument is shown to have several defects in the context of the contemporary debates in theory and philosophy of literature. The main conclusion of the paper is thus as follows: The cognitive value of a literary work is part and parcel of its aesthetic value

Keywords

Subjects

- خیام، عمربن ابراهیم (1384). رباعیات. با تصحیح، مقدمه و حواشی محمدعلی فروغی و قاسم غنی. ویرایش جدید همراه با ترجمۀ انگلیسی فیتز جرالد. به‌کوشش بهاءالدین خرمشاهی. تهران: ناهید.
- مولوی (1383). مثنوی معنوی. آخرین تصحیح رینولد. ا. نیکلسون. ترجمه و تحقیق حسن لاهوتی. مجلد اول (دفتر اول و دوم). تهران: نشر قطره.
- همدانی، امید (1394). «ادبیات و مسئلۀ شناخت: در دفاع از شناخت‌گرایی ادبی». فصلنامه نقد ادبی. س 8. ش31. صص115 ـ 140.
- Abrams, M.H. (1953). The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and
the Critical Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Arnold, M. (1867). New Poems. Boston: Ticknor and Fields.
- Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Edited and translated by Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
- Brooks, C. (1968). The Well Wrought Urn: Studies in the Structure of Poetry. London: Methuen.
- Culler, J. (2001). The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction. Routledge Classics edition. London and New York: Rouledge.
- __________ (2002). Structuralist Poetics: Structualism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature. Routledge Classics edition, London and New York: Routledge.
- Dennett, D. (1984). Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- _________ (1991) Consciousness Explained. New York: Back Bay
Books.
- Derrida, J. ([1966]). "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of Human Sciences" in his Writing and Difference. Alan Bass (Trans.). Routledge Classics edition. London and New York: Routledge. 2001, pp. 351- 370.
- Gaskin, R. (2013). Language, Truth and Literature: A Defence of Literary Humanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Gaut, B. (2003). "Art and Knowledge" in Jerrold Levinson (Ed.). The
Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Jameson, F. (1972). The Prison- House of Language: A Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian Formalism. Princeton: Princeton Univesity Press.
- Lamarque, P. & H.O. Stein (1994). Truth, Fiction and Literature: A Philosophical Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Lamarque, P. (2009). The Philosophy of Literature. Oxford: Blackwell.
- ________ (2010). "Literature and Truth" in Garry
L. Hagberg & Walter Jost (Eds.). A Companion to the Philosophy of
Literature. Oxford: Wiley- Balckwell pp. 367- 384.
- Lewis, D.K. (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Miller, J.H. (2001). "Derrida and Literature" in Tom Cohen (Ed.). Jacques Derrida and the Humanities: A Critical Reader.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 58- 81.
- Olsen, H.S. (1978). The Structure of Literary Understanding. Cambridge: Camrbidge University Press.
Literary Criticism
Volume 10, Issue 40
Autumn 2017
Pages 40-66