Murdoch's Arguments And Summary

Iris Murdoch interview with Magee focuses on the question of whether or not philosophy has a place in literature. Murdoch asserts it doesn’t, given her interpretations that the two styles of writing aim at different intentions. Literature aims to entertain, whereas philosophy clarifies and explains. However, both literature and philosophy possess commonalities such as the trait of truth-fulfillment. Murdoch undermines literature on the account of its broad artistic structure that vaguely delivers intended message, and must be interpreted to understand the directive aim. The contrary to philosophy. In moving her argument towards the conclusion that the stylistic writing of literature can’t have a place in philosophy. I will be arguing against
Wherease her claim is too general; she holds the retelling of one’s day as form mode of literature given it falls under the form of story-telling. Murdoch view of literature isn’t to high-standards, undercutting it as a whole. For the statement of philosophy being counter-natural is correct, but ‘well written’ literature is also counter-natural. For anyone can people can naturalize a philosophical thought without ever studying philosophy, but that doesn’t make it ‘good’
Given philosophical writing is often a response to someone else’s thought, and the text itself may adopt a certain style to deliver that message, or use literary devices to emphasize their argument. Such as thought experiments, or allegories. Murdoch doesn’t deny literature participates as a mode of truth seeking, but criticizes it due to its fictitious style of writing. Given the text is fictional, and the authors biases are present in the text can put the reader in dismay. However, Murdoch claims that the the symposiums as good philosophy; given her statement that Plato is the father of philosophy and all of his philosophical works are dialogues, and emphasized through analogies. This counter-acts her statement in how to write philosophy, given dialogue is a literary device in literature. In addition, philosophy adopts literary devices to emphasize the argument, and make it clearer to the reader. If these adaptations don’t belong, then a large portion of philosophical approaches to clarifying an argument must either be disregarded, or re-done, yet dismaying these modes of examples risk the philosophy to become too complex and dense for the reader, literature allows the text to be simplified and grasped. Given Plato is the ‘father’ of philosophy, and most of his profound philosophies are allegorical,