---

Literary cognitivism, as I understand it, comprises two theses: (1) some literary works can convey non-trivial knowledge to readers and (2) the cognitive value of a literary work is part and parcel of its aesthetic value. In this paper, I argue for the first thesis and elaborate upon the various mechanisms by means of which literary works produce propositional and non-propositional knowledge (including perspective-based knowledge, empathic or phenomenal knowledge and ability knowledge or know-how). To do so, I give a brief sketch of Plato’s anti-cognitivist epistemological objections against the epistemic status of literary works and go on to reformulate them from a modern perspective to provide a background for my epistemological inquiry. My defence of literary cognitivism welcomes different kinds of knowledge-forming mechanisms but pace thinkers such as Noam Chomsky and Martha Nussbaum who prefer the literary discourse over the philosophical or scientific discourse in that the former might sometimes provide us with a kind of knowledge that we may not find in the latter, cautiously and deliberatey averts from making such dubious claims.

---

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