Degree of Binary Literature

Question: Can a work contain literary element but not be literature?

Yes, I think that many works could. Any instruction manual satisfies the first two necessary conditions (mentioned in the previous post), however, it doesn't satisfy the last, or any of the sufficient. Additionally, a history textbook could satisfy all the necessary but none of the sufficient. A speech or play without being written down can satisfy all of the sufficient conditions and but not the first necessary one.

I think it is also important to have literature on a sliding scale, though I think there is a line where something is or is not literature. Something could very well be very close to literature, satisfying all necessary but only one sufficient. Additionally, there would be little doubt that a work that satisfies all the necessary conditions and the sufficient definitions is literature.

Necessary & Sufficient Conditions - Literature Definition

Question: What are my necessary and sufficient conditions to define literature?

Necessary:
1.)It must be a written work - if a work were originally oral in nature, it could be transcribed, and so long as it satisfied the other necessary and some of the sufficient conditions, it could be considered literature.
2.)It must be intentionally created - which is to say, by some sentient being, be it human or otherwise (when, where, and if it is possible for non-humans to create a written work).
3.) It must possess literary aesthetic style and form rather than an artistic style and form (lines, colours, and shapes) - artistic form and style can be a part of a work, but it is the words and grammar that are literature.

Sufficient:
1.) Consist of dialogue with or without narrative
2.) Be fictitious
3.) Convey a message through an indirect means
4.) Convey emotion and/or imagery

I think that a work should have all the necessary conditions and two, at least, of the sufficient to be qualified as literature. Though there is still more room for sufficient conditions.

Incoherently Coherent *plays Twilight Zone music*

In response to Nicole - full post here - http://bradenphilandlit.blogspot.com/2012/01/oral-literature.html
While I don't necessarily disagree that literature should be a written work, I want to say that as philosophers, we are not looking for what is currently defined as literature, rather we are looking to see if that definition is unnecessarily inclusive or exclusive. Additionally, just because something has been associated with one word for a long time does not mean that it would be 'wrong' to change it - it may very well be warranted to do so.

Secondly, I was wondering if you thought a distinction should be made between the text of a speech and that of the written play? I know that I would certainly make that distinction. I would also not view even the text of a speech as literature, if literature is binary. I would say that based on it not satisfying my own sufficient conditions of literature - Not having text and dialogue, not being fictitious, or conveying a message through slightly indirect means.

Thirdly, you added coherency as a necessary condition for a work to be literature. I was wondering works like "next to of course god america i" (e e cummings) fit in to your definition - I would not argue in favor of it's coherency in either immediately discernible meaning or grammar. I suppose, in addition to that, where would a work like "The Sound and The Fury" by William Faulkner come into this. The story is arranged in quite the incoherently, the narrators (four of them) tell many small parts, not in chronological order, of the same story from their individual perspectives. One of the narrators has the mental capacity of a small boy, and so, his sections has terribly lousy grammar - he doesn't differentiate between past, present, and future.

Well, That's New.

Today, in class, we received a claim stating that there is nothing new that is ever created, everything in an imitation of something else. It was stated that Edgar Allen Poe's, The Raven, is purely mimetic. He took many ideas (raven, depressed man, and so on) and combined them into one unoriginal work. Another classmate of mine, in response, brought up the list of elements and stated that we have created new elements. I desire to elaborate on those elements and try to show how taking two things and smashing them together can make something new.

For example, by smashing together many ions of calcium, a non-metal element, and many ions of californium, an actinide - radioactive metallic element, we have created ununoctium, a noble gas, the likes of which have never seen before we created it. The point is, though it was made from two naturally occurring elements, it is something completely unlike either of them.
Even if we didn't create new a new element, a compound can be radically different as well. I invite anyone to intake pure sodium, by itself, and then to follow that up with intaking pure chlorine. In reality, I don't recommend that any person consume either one of those by itself, since it will have fairly detrimental effects on one's health. If, however, you were to ionize the two, they become the compound Sodium Chloride (NaCl), or table salt. Something unlike either of it's pure elements.