Abstract

Texts of philosophical literature are rejected or under-appreciated because philosophical literature is inappropriately evaluated according to the traditional philosophical paradigm, according to which philosophical writing should consist of "fine and subtle distinctions, [the] circumspect marshaling of argument, [the] cautious and qualified inferences" . The traditional paradigm is not equipped to handle philosophical texts which adopt non-standard modes of expression and therefore do not meet the above requirements. These norms are what must be altered in order to "solve" the problems caused by the four texts I consider in the thesis: Jean-Paul Sartre's La nausee, Albert Camus' L'etranger, Plato's Phaedrus, and Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Using the principles of reader response criticism developed by Wolfgang Iser, I show that the reader's experience of these texts is the key to effecting this shift. The indeterminate nature of philosophical literature creates a complex triadic relationship of author, text and reader, which necessitates an equally complex account of textual meaning. ;La nausee and L'etranger are problematic under the traditional philosophical paradigm because they look and feel like novels, and the paradigm is not sufficiently flexible to allow that pure philosophy can be found in the novel format Sartre's La nausee is a roman a these with a clearly didactic and philosophical goal. However, because La nausee substantially reduces the reader's concretizing role, it may be that it is not a successful combination of philosophical and literary conventions. Camus' philosophical novel exploits the reader's invoking of norms and the creation of expectations. Too literary to be philosophy and too philosophical to be literature, L'etranger forces the reader to abandon her expectations of both disciplines. In addition, the primary character of the novel is the very embodiment of norm-breaking. ;The Phaedrus is problematic because the paradigm is not equipped to handle the inconsistencies which Plato incorporates into the dialogue for the purpose of illustrating his preferred question and answer philosophical method. The Phaedrus represents an inextricable combination of narrative and philosophical argument, and requires an accordingly flexible evaluative paradigm. The dialogue is an exercise in philosophical reasoning for the reader. ;Zarathustra is problematic because it appears too obtuse, too inflammatory, too opaque. Nietzsche's obscurity may well be purposeful: barriers are erected both to create and to challenge the ideal reader, who in turn models the concepts of the Ubermensch and the will to power. Nietzsche's apparent inaccessibility is in fact by design and is therefore an essential element of the text that ought to be accounted for rather than explained away. Nietzsche creates a very particular kind of reading experience: one which poses tremendous challenges but offers rewards of similar magnitude. ;I conclude therefore that works of philosophy must be evaluated according to paradigms appropriate to their variable modes of expression. The new paradigm I propose, informed by the principles of reader response criticism, enables appropriate evaluative and interpretive standards to be invoked for each philosophical text. The reader's experience of the text should not be taken for granted, and the traditional paradigm does not appear to be equipped to handle the issues which arise from the shift toward the reader's perspective. Texts of philosophical literature should not be rejected on the basis of their mode of expression, they should not be forced into the traditional mode before their analysis, but should be evaluated according to an appropriately flexible paradigm