Philosophy of Writing: An Introduction

The intention of this series is to deconstruct and analyze aspects of the craft, and in doing so to discover, with a proven rationale, a modern philosophy of writing. Why should we need a philosophy of writing at all? It is apparent to anyone involved in the field of publishing, in any respect, that the craft is morphing at a rapid rate. Print had almost been beat out, made a strong resurgence, and now it stands along-side digital platforms. We now have the ability to type directly into the web and immediately release that work to the public, in the past there were typewriters and before that even, pen and paper that got transcribed onto a printing press. These are clearly all acts of writing, but the actions are different enough to suggest a philosophical dive into what it actually means to write.

I start many of my conversations on meaning starting with etymology. The verb “to write”, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, comes from the Old English writan “to score, to outline, to draw” but this Old English word derives from a proto-Germanic word of the same name which meant “to tear, or scratch”. Here’s a point from the Online Etymology Dictionary explaining how write in most Indo-European languages meant “to scratch, etc.”.

Words for “write” in most Indo-European languages originally mean “carve, scratch, cut” (such as Latin scribere, Greek grapheinglyphein, Sanskrit rikh-); a few originally meant “paint” (Gothic meljan, Old Church Slavonic pisati, and most of the modern Slavic cognates). To write (something) off (1680s) originally was from accounting; figurative sense is recorded from 1889. Write-in “unlisted candidate” is recorded from 1932.

The point of this is to help the reader understand that, although we use the verb “to write” in describing our craft, when it comes to the word’s roots, not many of us —myself included— can say they actually write. Not many of use are carving our words into stone, paper, etc., these days.

When it comes to getting a definition, you’ll quickly realize it is difficult to find something that explains the work we do on an everyday basis. In using the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the first handful of definitions involve writing something down on a surface with an instrument, like pen and paper. It is only until you get to the second definition that we get an answer, “To set down in writing.” It goes on to give examples, such as, “to be the author of,” or “to express in literary form.” All of these leave much to be desired for explaining what writing is, rather than what the physical act of writing is.

Writing is first, the act of ordering one’s thoughts and transforming it into a readable format (words, letters, numbers), and it is also the process of communicating directly with the reader. This definition of writing is in two parts but they form a cohesive unit of understanding about writing. Looking at the first part of the definition, we’re forced to understand writing as a deliberate act of arranging your literary, scientific, or philosophic thoughts and then investing the mental effort to transmute the non-physical  into physical readable words. This is the first act of writing but there’s no point in writing something unless someone reads it —even if it’s just yourself, as in a diary. The second definition deals with the physical words that the writer had transformed from non-physical ideas. The goal of a writer is to communicate these ideas in the best way possible so that the reader can go from the readable format to the idea realm with relative ease.

These definitions of writing, both the transformation of thoughts into a readable format and the communicating directly with your reader, are exactly the processes writers from all periods of time, from stone tablets to tablets, have done within their work. It is therefore safe to use this as a functional definition within the broader philosophy of writing.

I want this philosophy to evolve from my readers and as such, I’d like to ask you to make sure the like the post and comment about what you think about my definition of writing. If you disagree, please feel free to do so. Where do you think this definition can apply to first? We’re on the forefront of creating a new philosophy of understanding the writing process and I would love your help.

9 thoughts on “Philosophy of Writing: An Introduction”

  1. I really enjoyed reading about writing, so much of what you say is true. Writing comes naturally to some, but to others not so much. I love to write but sometimes I am at a loss for words. If you enjoy writing do it, I believe the more you write the better you get. I have never been one to be able to write a ten page paper (so to say stretch things out (bs)) I say what needs said and that is that. I look forward to reading more about your writing philosophy.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I enjoyed your thoughts here, and I agree with the first part of your definition of writing, that writing is a “deliberate arranging of thoughts.” However, I’m not sure if “ease of transition” from the physical to the non-physical is the best way to phrase what we want writing to do. The point at which I personally take issue with this second part of the definition is with the idea of “ease” itself. Personally, I believe there are two ways to write. One is to facilitate the simplest translation of an idea (which appears to be what you are referring to here, and what I am doing in this response). The other is to transport the reader internally. Now, some journeys are simple and others are more difficult, and sometimes the more difficult ones are the more rewarding. When we simply focus on the “ease” of communication, in my experience, we wind up in the world of rhetoric, sophistry and marketing. When we focus on the realm we are being transported to, then we begin to approach philosophy, poetry and literature. Now, of course, I recognize I may have over-simplified what you are saying. I simply get nervous about the notion of “ease” with regard to writing. “Easy” transports often lead us into the most dangerous territories. For example, it can be easy (and potentially very dangerous) to sweep the emotions away, but it can be much harder to infiltrate one’s mind (or perhaps, even, soul–if such a thing exists).

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Allow me to explain our mix up. It comes from the which aspect we are looking at “ease” from. In your perspective, which is also an accurate one, you are speaking about the ease of concept (I’ll speak more on that part later). The ease that I am talking about is ease of reading, or in other words “readability”.

      Readability is the conciseness of prose or verse. It does not, however, reflect the content. It is about making sure there is a proper logic (or else a reason for non-logic) within your structure, it is adhering to grammar patters (again, or else a discover-able reason behind the breaking of certain grammar structures. This is what I am talking about when I talk about ease.

      When you are talking about ease, it seems you are talking about ease of concept. This is another matter entirely that, because of this conversation, I’d like to devote more time to. But essentially what I mean by ease of concept is much of what you outlined above. I do not advocate for ease of concept. I believe that conveying complex concepts in unique ways is the place of the arts of all forms.

      In short, I think we very much agree but perhaps I did you the disservice of not clarifying what kind of ease I was talking about.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thank you very much for clarifying. I agree that it looks like we do, in fact, agree. I look forward to your future post about “concept” itself. For my part, I was afraid I may have muddied the waters some. So, thank you for taking the time to clarify your position.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. No problem! The point of these Philosophy of Writing posts is exactly this kind of communication with people. In fact, most of my blog is dedicated to not just the piece itself but further communicating that concept with others.

          Liked by 1 person

  3. Yes, I’ve noticed. I’m looking forward to going a little deeper with your blog. I enjoy the conversation you’re facilitating.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.