What do you think?
Rate this book
Cognitive Science, Literature, and the Arts
The rise cognitive science has been one of the most important intellectual developments of recent years, stimulating new approaches to everything from philosophy to film studies. This is an introduction to what cognitive science has to offer the humanities and particularly the study of literature. Hogan suggests how the human brain works and makes us feel in response to literature. He walks the reader through all of the major theories of cognitive science that are important for the humanities in order to understand the production and reception of literature.
- GenresNonfiction
256 pages, Paperback
First published June 20, 2003
3 people are currently reading
81 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 18, 2012
I have mixed feelings with regard to this. I have given it 5 stars because I think that 1. it is a very good introduction to how the brain works 2. it is extremely clearly written 3. the ideas are interesting for further research.
The problems however stem precisely from 1 and 2 I think. It seems almost too good to be true. We would have to worry about the ascendency of science over the arts -- using A to explain B. Perhaps Hogan's ability as a critic is compromised here. My impression of him is that he is a very competent neuroscientist and a less interesting reader. Evidently writing how the brain works, then talking about how one's interpretation 'fits' this structure -- leads to some simplicity in reading. One of my sore points is his explication of The Triumph of Life. I do not think that the reading is very nuanced, and it's partly because he wanted to make his point re the workings of the brain. This might be an indication of how style affects content.
Secondly, I think any decent work re aesthetics MUST have a discussion of what IS aesthetics. Hogan's stuff about the Titanic might work, but then we have things like poetry -- which he uses for metaphor -- but he does not really link how emotion might be generated -- and poetry is probably (?) more affecting than most prose to poetic language. One needs to talk about what constitutes a work of literature, somehow. I am not sure if some of the stuff he said re creativity might work. It seems counterintuitive to provide a framework for creativity. My little brain has not worked this out yet.
Thirdly, the function of literature. We have to contextualise the rise of cognitive science (he does do a bit of this, with Kant) while acknowledging its validity. That something belongs to a historical period does NOT diminish its value. I know a lot of people who would say, 'O reading is a matter of historical context' -- that to me seems a bit extreme. To apply the same logic to scientific advancement would imply that those using mercury as medicine simply 'had an alternative medicine'. It IS true, but it is also true that mercury poisoning can kill you -- and it does not 'cure' ailments (unless death is a form of cure, but let's not get into that). The thing is, in order to sort out the ascendency problem we need to deal with this. Specifically how did cog sci grow, what are its relations to philosophy -- and ultimately how it relates (or not) to current philosophy. My specific interest is continental philosophy -- I am aware that other books have covered this -- but to point out that cog sci principles resemble the structure of our capitalist world nowadays seems rather banal (and also seems to ask a chicken and egg question).
In short, we have several issues that are at stake here.
1. the relationship of cog sci to literature
2. the discussion of the use of language and its relation to affect -- a more indepth explanation needed re use of poetry VS prose and the many diffrent types of writing. An investigation of the relation of how closely 'literary' language is related to 'ordinary' language. Hogan has some interesting ideas here.
3. the history of cog sci VS the history of reading.
4. the relation of the disciplines of cog sci and literature to related philosophy (one could argue, what Kant is to cog sci, Aristotle is to literature). The investigation of how these relations would affect ethics.
This is as far as my little brain can see it, for the moment.
The problems however stem precisely from 1 and 2 I think. It seems almost too good to be true. We would have to worry about the ascendency of science over the arts -- using A to explain B. Perhaps Hogan's ability as a critic is compromised here. My impression of him is that he is a very competent neuroscientist and a less interesting reader. Evidently writing how the brain works, then talking about how one's interpretation 'fits' this structure -- leads to some simplicity in reading. One of my sore points is his explication of The Triumph of Life. I do not think that the reading is very nuanced, and it's partly because he wanted to make his point re the workings of the brain. This might be an indication of how style affects content.
Secondly, I think any decent work re aesthetics MUST have a discussion of what IS aesthetics. Hogan's stuff about the Titanic might work, but then we have things like poetry -- which he uses for metaphor -- but he does not really link how emotion might be generated -- and poetry is probably (?) more affecting than most prose to poetic language. One needs to talk about what constitutes a work of literature, somehow. I am not sure if some of the stuff he said re creativity might work. It seems counterintuitive to provide a framework for creativity. My little brain has not worked this out yet.
Thirdly, the function of literature. We have to contextualise the rise of cognitive science (he does do a bit of this, with Kant) while acknowledging its validity. That something belongs to a historical period does NOT diminish its value. I know a lot of people who would say, 'O reading is a matter of historical context' -- that to me seems a bit extreme. To apply the same logic to scientific advancement would imply that those using mercury as medicine simply 'had an alternative medicine'. It IS true, but it is also true that mercury poisoning can kill you -- and it does not 'cure' ailments (unless death is a form of cure, but let's not get into that). The thing is, in order to sort out the ascendency problem we need to deal with this. Specifically how did cog sci grow, what are its relations to philosophy -- and ultimately how it relates (or not) to current philosophy. My specific interest is continental philosophy -- I am aware that other books have covered this -- but to point out that cog sci principles resemble the structure of our capitalist world nowadays seems rather banal (and also seems to ask a chicken and egg question).
In short, we have several issues that are at stake here.
1. the relationship of cog sci to literature
2. the discussion of the use of language and its relation to affect -- a more indepth explanation needed re use of poetry VS prose and the many diffrent types of writing. An investigation of the relation of how closely 'literary' language is related to 'ordinary' language. Hogan has some interesting ideas here.
3. the history of cog sci VS the history of reading.
4. the relation of the disciplines of cog sci and literature to related philosophy (one could argue, what Kant is to cog sci, Aristotle is to literature). The investigation of how these relations would affect ethics.
This is as far as my little brain can see it, for the moment.
August 3, 2011
Solid and fairly accessible introduction to CS and its applications to the arts. It is hard to simplify this stuff for a broad audience, but this is an admirable attempt.
March 29, 2019
I liked the author's writing style but ultimately all that this book taught me is that I hate cognitive science with a fiery passion.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews