How to Draw the Line

What is the difference between literature and philosophy?

When does philosophy cease being philosophy and become literature and vice versa?

By what method(s) can we approach this problem?

Seems to me that the line can't be drawn based on an objective evaluation of the work itself. I'd say that many works of "philosophy" can be read just as easily as literature, that is, by attending to matters of word choice and style over the structure of the arguments (or, better yet, how word choice and style inform the arguments). I'm thinking here especially of Plato's dialogues, pretty much everything by Nietzsche, and some shorter works by existentialists like Sartre, and especially Camus. I'm bound to have missed somebody.

All of those authors benefit as much from being read as creators of literature as they do from being read as philosophers. I don't think it helps us to try to classify them as one or the other, but I'd suggest we ought to take from each mode of reading whatever it offers.

By literature I assume you mean fiction and poetry? Or simply written works? If you mean the latter, I'm not sure there needs to be a line. Literature simply encompasses philosophical writings. It's not like literature as a term only describes works past a certain age or cultural relevance.

Literature should belong to the field of aesthetics and philosophy to the theoretical? Of course it is possible that philosophical writings can evoke aesthetic emotions as secondary (like Nietzsche and Plato, already mentioned) - the main - explicit - goal of these texts are still theoretical. Literary texts (belles lettres) can include philosophy in the form of ideas represented poetically, through aesthetic experience - implicitly. But, to bring forth one or the other as the dominant principle is still up to the reader, because reception changes the nature of works. To bring Plato's dialogues to the stage could certainly be an option, or reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra as a prose poem. And, for example, those familiar with Eco's theorical works, tend to read The Name of the Rose as belonging to this body of work.

There's no way any 'objective' distinction can be made between the domains of literature and philosophy. Especially when considering such philosophers as Nietzsche, or, such authors as Dostovesky and Tolstoy. Nietzsche himself identified Dostovesky as the 'finest psychologist' he had ever read (rough paraphrase). Whilst Tolstoy's reputation by the beginning of the 20th C was much more profound and political than any 'mere' writer of fiction

Philosophy is the stuff studied in philosophy departments; literature is the stuff studied in English departments.

>6 Alixtii:, I don't think that's a very hard and fast distinction. For example, I've never heard of Thus Spoke Zarathustra being studied in a Literarure class (though it probably has been), but still, anybody who thinks that Thus Spoke Zarathustra doesn't qualify as literature on that basis just doesn't understand the meaning of the word. The bigger difference (I think) between Philosophy and Literature Departments is not so much the identity of the texts studied, but that they emphasize different approaches to texts. Those approaches can then be appropriated and deployed on texts that are traditionally considered the province of the other field.

>6 Alixtii:, Philosophy definitely isnt the 'stuff studied in philosophy departments', one can live ones entire life philosophically, and be recognized by others as a philosopher, and never step a foot into a philosophy department. Epicurus never taught in a philosophy department, yet he is one of the preeminent philosophers of antiquity.

I don't really have anything to add to the discussion about how to distinguish the two fields, but I would throw in some more cases to consider. Mr_Wormwood already brought up Dostoyevsky, which I think was helpful; there's definitely some philosophy being done in his novels.

And I have to contribute the obvious, which no one mentioned so far: science fiction. A lot of older science fiction resolves around philosophical questions. Some stories don't really consist of much more than a philosophical dilemma and an example solution. I suppose you could argue that since most of these stories don't offer a definitive take on a problem, that they're not philosophy, but if you take them as a sort of narrative dialogue... I don't know; something worth thinking about anyway.

The question, as stated, is not complete and therefore unanswerable. All attempts to do so would just be speculation.