Works of literature and works of philosophy are both the meaningful products of human thought and action. This makes them interpretable, which is an important characteristic of both. Moreover, both philosophy and literature are predominantly linguistic, although non-linguistic representations such as pictures and diagrams can play a part in either. In the contemporary context, both literature and philosophy are 'text-centric', but the centrality of texts is not a necessary part of either practice. Think of Socrates (who didn't produce any written texts) as well as traditions of oral literature. Both literature and philosophy often address issues of deep human concern (e.g., serious ethical issues), and this is an important feature of both practices. But it is also plausible that this is a not a necessary condition of either. Philosophy doesn't have to address deep human concerns (e.g., you can philosophize about horror movies and--though I like them--I don' t think they're a matter of deep...

Architecture is traditionally thought of as a form of art, and architects (at least many of them) are often considered artists. This suggests further reason to think that the two approaches you describe may go hand in hand. But I think there's a myth about art embedded in your question. While some art is a matter of a personal journey and the product of 'an inner gnawing', much art--even some great art--has little to do with the artist's own life journey or deepest psychology. Consider, for example, all the great visual art that has been done on commission for patrons, the immense amount of traditional folk art that does not seem to stem from 'inner gnawing', and the vast amount of art that is produced by groups rather than individuals (e.g., cathedrals, the majority of films, most theatrical and dance performances). Artmaking itself--like philosophy--is motivated by a variety of concerns.

I thinkAlex was a bit quick to dismiss the relevance of philosophy to theissue you're interested in. There is a long tradition of philosophicalinterest in entertainment/mass culture/mass art. For example, Plato wasconcerned in The Republic about the negative effects of tragedy and poetry (theentertainment of his time), and versions of his concerns can be foundin contemporary debates about the effects (and moral status) of variousforms of mass culture. See Alexander Nehamas' interesting essay "Platoand the Mass Media." Monist (April 1988), 214-234 fordiscussion of Plato's arguments and their relation to contemporaryconcerns. A good discussion of some of the ethical issues relating toentertainment (including moral concerns about its effects) can be foundin No ë l Carroll's book A Philosophy of Mass Art . You won't find useful answers to empirical questions about the actual effects of entertainment on people in the above works. I guess that's what Alex was getting at. On the...

Many seemingly simple questions are, in fact, complicated. That is, they only seem simple. Typically, philosophers don't make questions complicated and confusing, they show how complicated and confusing they actually are.

I suppose I don't think philosophy (in general) depends on science, nor does it seem plausible that science depends on philosophy. With respect to the former--it's hard to see how science could possibly help very much with a range of philosophical issues (e.g., vagueness, the nature of modality, the metaphysics of mathematical entities or musical works). And it's also hard to see how science (in general) could depend on philosophy. What would that amount to? Scientific investigation doesn't seem as if it has to wait on (or for) philosophical approval. But this doesn't mean the two don't have anything to do with one another. Much of the most interesting recent philosophy (at least the philosophy that interests me) is profoundly influenced and inspired by science--it looks to science for data to be accommodated, it is inspired by scientific theorizing (i.e., it is explanatory rather than analytic), and it holds consistency with our best scientific theories to be one of the most important criteria...

The philosophy of art investigates a range of general questions about art. Here are a few: What is art? What is the nature of artistic representation? What is the nature of artistic form? What are the values of art? Is artistic evaluation simply a matter of opinion, or are there objective facts about artistic quality? P hilosophers of art are also interested in questions about the individual arts: What is literary value? Is film an inherently realistic medium? What is the nature of musical expression? What is the relationship between a theatrical work and a theatrical performance? There are many other interesting philosophical questions about the arts—even ones about comic books and horror movies! Sometimespeople use the terms ‘aesthetics’ or ‘philosophical aesthetics’ torefer to the philosophy of art, but this can be misleading for tworeasons. The first reason is that philosophicalaesthetics encompasses more than the...