If we lived in a world without literature,
learning only the sciences, would we be the same people? Does the human race need literature at all,
does it have any worth whatsoever except as entertainment? Do people actually learn from literature? These are all questions that divide the human
race into two separate sections, those who believe in the power of literature,
and those who see it as impoverished compared to the social sciences in its
ability to teach us about ourselves.
However we need not be so divided on this issue. Literature is as rich a teacher as science,
but merely differs in technique.
Literature offers knowledge to those that seek it, gives experience to
those who understand it, and pleasure to those that love it. Science on the other hand imparts
knowledge, leads to experience, and
gives pleasure to the few who love it.
Literature is just as varied and expansive as
Science is. There are hundreds of
styles, millions of authors, and thousands of languages which make up
literature. Instead of different fields,
as in science, there are different genres.
Literature is often backed up by research or first hand information, but
can also be fanciful flights of the imagination. They are similar to the research,
observation, and hypothesis found in science.
Experiments can be performed in both.
A scientist could ask what if, and logically and scientifically follow
his what if through. A writer could ask
the same and use his imagination, knowledge, and perhaps a little research, to
guide his imagination. Literature and
Science are similar.
However they differ in some important
respects. Science is an exact realm of
numbers and averages and measurements.
The last time you read a romance novel, were there charts showing the
Freudian prediction of the average persons love life? Literature does not have the same kind of
exactitude that is offered by Science. But
it does offer precision in another way.
Literature often is the description of one or a few peoples lives in
detail. It is from these detailed
"case studies" as a scientist would call them, that we can
learn. It is the argument of science that
people are similar and thus scientific averages do have some relevance to
humans. Yes people often do share
similar characteristics, and behave similarly if coming from the same
society. And thus, a detailed insight
into one persons' life could give you an insight on the lives of others. In a way Literature allows you to live
thousands of lives in a short time, and gain a little experience from each of
them. Science on the other hand, offers
you charts and tables to which you must apply the situations of daily life. It is in this fundamental way that literature
and science are different. Literature
offers you insight which you apply to life, in science, you apply life to your
theories. It's just a matter of whether
life is the cookie cutter or the dough.
Imagine a world without literature. All your Literature courses in school are
replaced with social sciences: philosophy, psychology, etc. Would people be the same? No doubt life would be a great deal less
interesting, as our minds would not be as stimulated. The world would also be a more closed place,
and news, and history would seem less related and more distant. Why?
Because sciences do not show you what something is like, the describe
it. For example, if science wanted to
describe a hit and run it would say "Yesterday, 7/15/96, one 5'4 Caucasian
of birth date 3/16/70, was contacted by a rapidly moving multialloy compound in
the form of a red colored Peugeot 504 on Libertador 2000-2100, Buenos
Aires. The Peugeot 504 maintained its
velocity without regard to the sudden impact of the Caucasian. The human being controlling the Peugeot 504
was not identified, and neither was the license plate." However if literature wanted to describe one
it would say "Yesterday morning a man was struck by a red Peugeot 504,
killing him on impact. The driver of the
car, as of yet unidentified, did not bother to stop the car. This is a sad reflection of some peoples'
inability to face their own mistakes."
Literature could make that last sentence because it does not need to
back up every little thing with two thousand pieces of measurable accurate
evidence. It can think in leaps and
bounds with very little touch with hard facts.
Science can describe an incident, but it can't make you feel anything
about it. Literature on the other hand,
gives you insight and feelings into other peoples minds. For example, it is much more beneficial to
read a book about Egypt, than to read a scientific report on it. Through the characters in the book you can
get a feel for the culture that the scientific report would not have.
A world without literature would also leave
science wanting. Many scientists would
agree that without literature, science would not be the same. It would be colder, and less human. Human's are not creatures of precision and
logic, or we would have rulers for hands, and calculators for hearts. Most people would prefer to sit down and pick
up a science fiction novel than a book on astrophysics. Also, writers do not have to be very skilled
to be able to teach. Scientists who
teach have had to train and learn for many years before they can do so. However, Joe Blow could sit down and write a
book on life in the streets of Amsterdam, and we would learn something. Literature can almost always teach you something,
proficiency in it merely accelerates and improves the teaching process.
This is not to say that science is useless
however. Social sciences and literature
complement each other well in understanding humans and their behavior. Science teaches us the "how", while
literature teaches us the "why".
Literature takes us into peoples' minds, science takes their minds and
categorizes them. This is why literature
will always be perceived as being more human, because it relates to emotions
rather than to logic, and humans are creatures of emotion. Science cannot describe certain things. How does science describe love? It can give all the physical ramifications of
it, psychology can give us the probable actions done by a person in love, but
it can't make us understand what it is to be in love. Literature can give you some experience,
although it be a limited, third person sort of experience. And of course, the only way to know an
emotion is to experience it.
In conclusion I say that we should not pick one
or the other, but continue to let them complement each other. There is a time for hard facts and evidence,
and there is a time for poems and soliloquies.
There is a time for Einstein and Pasteur as there is a time for
Shakespeare and Tolkien. Human beings
are a composite of their primal emotions, and their need for structure and
organization. Thus, without one or the
other, we would not be humans anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment