Literary Criticism and Philosophy By F.R.Leavis
The essay literary criticism and philosophy was first publish in " Strutting " in the year 1937.It was a res-pons to well-ex suggestion that Leavis should spell out the theoretical basis of his criticism.
After reviewing " revaluation " the eminent critic and literary History wee-lex wrote allow me to sketch your idea of poetry, your norn with which you major every poet your poetry must be in serious relution to actually. It must have a firm on actual, it must be in relation to life it must not be cut of from direct vulgar living . It should be normally human, testifying to spiritual health. It should not be personal in the sense of indulging in personal dreams and fantasies, there should be no c motion for it's sake in it . But a sharp conceal realization a sen-soul particularity. The language of poetry should not be cut of from speech should not flatter, should not be malicious . I would ask give to defend this position more abstractly.
According to Leavis criticism is a distinct and septate discipline which is quite different from philosophy and it's abstract speculation.
The reading demanded by Poetry is of a different kind then demanded by philosophy.The critic is concerted with evaluation but Judgement is not a question of plying and an external norm.The crities in should be to realist as completely and as sensitively as possibly. The experience, that is given words.According to Leavis " The business of a literary critic is to all-end peculiar completeness of response a critic should always be against premature generalization of concepts"
"Leavis" depends this practice by painting out that his critical assumptions are implicit in his work , " If i have avoided such generalization it was because they seemed to be plumping to be of any use " . He feels that the best way of presenting theoretical criticism through principle is to show at work in practical criticism. He believes in working in terms of conflict judgement and particular analysis, Leavis thinks of criticism as a co-operative a full in terms of discussing the text with fellow critics. According to the method that he talks about is " This doesn't it ? Was such a relation to that this kind of theme , don't you find it so was better than that etc...........
To reduce his principle's to abstract statement would be to take away the heart of his argument and make it clumping as wall as in quatrain.
Leavis wrote that he believes in demonstrating his critical principles and instating them......." I do not argue in general terms that there should be criticism for it's own sake, no more generous and optional, no luxury in pain or enjoy arrangement and analysis of concrete example by giving those parses of precision of meaning that they couldn't have in any other way"
Discuss how he tried to advance the theory yet it can be sat that in his own way Leavis tries to offer a theory and the assumption . Which guides his judgement of poet and novelists and that it should be nearest to a frame work even if they can not be abstracted into philosophical theory.
The essay literary criticism and philosophy was first publish in " Strutting " in the year 1937.It was a res-pons to well-ex suggestion that Leavis should spell out the theoretical basis of his criticism.
After reviewing " revaluation " the eminent critic and literary History wee-lex wrote allow me to sketch your idea of poetry, your norn with which you major every poet your poetry must be in serious relution to actually. It must have a firm on actual, it must be in relation to life it must not be cut of from direct vulgar living . It should be normally human, testifying to spiritual health. It should not be personal in the sense of indulging in personal dreams and fantasies, there should be no c motion for it's sake in it . But a sharp conceal realization a sen-soul particularity. The language of poetry should not be cut of from speech should not flatter, should not be malicious . I would ask give to defend this position more abstractly.
According to Leavis criticism is a distinct and septate discipline which is quite different from philosophy and it's abstract speculation.
The reading demanded by Poetry is of a different kind then demanded by philosophy.The critic is concerted with evaluation but Judgement is not a question of plying and an external norm.The crities in should be to realist as completely and as sensitively as possibly. The experience, that is given words.According to Leavis " The business of a literary critic is to all-end peculiar completeness of response a critic should always be against premature generalization of concepts"
"Leavis" depends this practice by painting out that his critical assumptions are implicit in his work , " If i have avoided such generalization it was because they seemed to be plumping to be of any use " . He feels that the best way of presenting theoretical criticism through principle is to show at work in practical criticism. He believes in working in terms of conflict judgement and particular analysis, Leavis thinks of criticism as a co-operative a full in terms of discussing the text with fellow critics. According to the method that he talks about is " This doesn't it ? Was such a relation to that this kind of theme , don't you find it so was better than that etc...........
To reduce his principle's to abstract statement would be to take away the heart of his argument and make it clumping as wall as in quatrain.
Leavis wrote that he believes in demonstrating his critical principles and instating them......." I do not argue in general terms that there should be criticism for it's own sake, no more generous and optional, no luxury in pain or enjoy arrangement and analysis of concrete example by giving those parses of precision of meaning that they couldn't have in any other way"
Discuss how he tried to advance the theory yet it can be sat that in his own way Leavis tries to offer a theory and the assumption . Which guides his judgement of poet and novelists and that it should be nearest to a frame work even if they can not be abstracted into philosophical theory.
this shit is straight up wack and its pretty obvious that you dont know wtf you're talking about
ReplyDelete