Poetry

[Xeno]

Poetry is either true or false. If poetry is false, it is misleading. If poetry is true, it is obfuscated truth. Therefore, poetry has a negative impact on the common wealth.

Agree?

[Secular Elation]

I don't look at most poetry as either true or false. I see it as a creative, symbolic representation or description of something through words.

In regards to your question, I say irrelevant.

[Will I Am]

I like the initial question.



Poetry is either true or false.

Poetry explicitly addresses subjective “truth”. There are as many subjective truths as there are human beings.

Therefore, except in the case of the authoring poet, at the time she is writing the poem, poetry is an analog measure of truth, not digital.

And as is the case with music, decrypting the encrypted meanings in art like poetry is akin to decrypting the workings of Nature, as is the case with science and math. Pattern acquisition and interpretation has been evolutionarily selected in primates for it’s survival advantages.

It’s a simple as that.


…obfuscated truth. Perhaps. But perhaps poetry, like all art, is a genuine attempt to map subjective truth. Just like Science is a genuine attempt to map objective truth. (Discussion on “what’s the difference” – need it’s own topic).


Music is the pleasure the human mind experiences from counting without being aware that it is counting.

- Gottfried Leibniz

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Xeno
Poetry is either true or false. If poetry is false, it is misleading. If poetry is true, it is obfuscated truth. Therefore, poetry has a negative impact on the common wealth.

Agree?

There was a discussion on the issue of truth/falsity in fiction down in the Media forum which might be considered relevant to this OP:

Fiction (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62973)

[John Page]

Originally posted by Xeno
Poetry is either true or false. If poetry is false, it is misleading. If poetry is true, it is obfuscated truth. Therefore, poetry has a negative impact on the common wealth.
Hi Xeno:

X is either true or false. If X is false, it is misleading. If X is true, it is obfuscated truth.

If false is not true then obfuscated truth is not misleading. :)

Seriously, is not poetry a way to sample different views of life and gain experience of an enriched commonwealth?

Cheers, John

[OBKB]

Is poetry a cacophony of word ideas similar to Picasso’s graphical transference of mind to media for the masses?

[lunachick]

Originally posted by Xeno
Therefore, poetry has a negative impact on the common wealth.


You've just made me hyperventilate!

What is this "common wealth" you speak of, and why would art (in this case, the art of poetry) have a negative impact on it?

As far as truth, obfuscated truth, or outright creative lies go, I think poetry has a great deal to ADD to the idea of "common wealth".

For example, someone could describe at length an event or idea or visual, or whatever, and describe it in such fact-laden droning that the essence, the "truth" of the message, is lost - the humanity or universality is lost in the telling. A well-crafted poem condenses, refines and then expands language; adding rich imagery, engaging the senses, layering meanings. Each word is worth 50 bucks - nothing is superfluous. Value added to the common wealth. Knowledge distilled. Greater than the sum of it's parts.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Xeno

Poetry is either true or false.
Wrong.
If poetry is false, it is misleading.
Not necessarily so. Wrong.
If poetry is true, it is obfuscated truth.
Wrong
Therefore, poetry has a negative impact on the common wealth.
Wrong.
Originally posted by OBKB

Is poetry a cacophony of word ideas similar to Picasso’s graphical transference of mind to media for the masses?
Not necessarily.

Poetry is a device for transferring impressions and/or ideas that involves three seperate systems, grammatical, musical/rhythmical, and emotional.

It is often a way of conveying very complex expressions in as few words as possible.

The best poetry is stunningly beautiful, and cannot be captured in a utilitarian philosophy.
Naïve utilitarianism sucks
(as expressed in the premise "poetry has a negative impact on the commonwealth").

[Will I Am]

The best poetry is stunningly beautiful, and cannot be captured in a utilitarian philosophy.


What?

Poetry: cost of production and dissemination: x “Good” that results: y.

I can’t imagine any Utilitarian who would argue that x is greater than y.

[lunachick]

Originally posted by Will I Am
...cannot be captured in a utilitarian philosophy.


What?

<snip>

I can’t imagine any Utilitarian who would argue that x is greater than y.


Hmmm. I thought that was pretty much what Gurdur had said.

*scratches head*

I musta missed something.

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Secular Elation
I don't look at most poetry as either true or false.

Alternatives?

In regards to your question, I say irrelevant.

Is the impact of lies on the common man irrelevent? Do you subscribe to the emotion of "empathy"? Would you prefer not to be mislead? Would you prefer the clear truth as opposed to the confused truth? If yes, the question is not irrelevent.

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Will I Am
And as is the case with music, decrypting the encrypted meanings in art like poetry is akin to decrypting the workings of Nature, as is the case with science and math. Pattern acquisition and interpretation has been evolutionarily selected in primates for it’s survival advantages.

Is it advantagous for truth to be expressed in such a way that it must be decrypted? Thus opening it up to false (and perhaps dangerous) interpretations?

Perhaps. But perhaps poetry, like all art, is a genuine attempt to map subjective truth. Just like Science is a genuine attempt to map objective truth. (Discussion on “what’s the difference” – need it’s own topic).

But why obfuscated truth? Why not clear statements?

[Xeno]

Originally posted by John Page
Seriously, is not poetry a way to sample different views of life and gain experience of an enriched commonwealth?

Cheers, John

Perhaps not. What experience is gained from confused truth, or misleading statements? Wouldn't "clear" truth be more advantagous to the common wealth?

[Xeno]

Originally posted by lunachick
What is this "common wealth" you speak of, and why would art (in this case, the art of poetry) have a negative impact on it?

The common person. It has a negative impact because poetry is either false (misleading) or true (confused statements of truth). Something that is not easily interpretable is useless.

As far as truth, obfuscated truth, or outright creative lies go, I think poetry has a great deal to ADD to the idea of "common wealth".

It adds to the lies? How does this help?

For example, someone could describe at length an event or idea or visual, or whatever, and describe it in such fact-laden droning that the essence, the "truth" of the message, is lost - the humanity or universality is lost in the telling. A well-crafted poem condenses, refines and then expands language; adding rich imagery, engaging the senses, layering meanings. Each word is worth 50 bucks - nothing is superfluous. Value added to the common wealth. Knowledge distilled. Greater than the sum of it's parts.

Why is the alternative to "fact laden droning" better? If humanity is found in subjective interpretation, wouldn't it be better for a subjective interpretation to be made of clear statements then confused ones, as in the case of poetry?

[Xeno]

Xeno: Poetry is either true or false.

Gurdur: Wrong.

Alternatives?

Xeno: If poetry is false, it is misleading.

Gurdur: Not necessarily so. Wrong.

All false statements are not misleading? All lies are not misleading? Justification?

Xeno: If poetry is true, it is obfuscated truth.

Gurder: Wrong

It cannot be said to be clear truth, otherwise it would not be poetry, it would be logic. Therefore, what is poetry except obfuscated logic (and therefore, truth?).

Xeno: Therefore, poetry has a negative impact on the common wealth.

Gurder: Wrong.

You can say wrong 4 times in a row, but that doesn't mean you have any kind of argument to justify your answer.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Xeno
Poetry is either true or false. If poetry is false, it is misleading. If poetry is true, it is obfuscated truth. Therefore, poetry has a negative impact on the common wealth.

Agree?

I disagree, by the way.

Poetry is an art which is also keenly insightful.

It all depends on how one interprets poetry (or any other form of literature).

A bit of research into literary theory might help.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Xeno
All false statements are not misleading? All lies are not misleading? Justification?

Can you justify your claim that poetry is 'misleading'?

It cannot be said to be clear truth, otherwise it would not be poetry, it would be logic. Therefore, what is poetry except obfuscated logic (and therefore, truth?).

To define poetry as 'obfuscated logic' is to misinterpret poetry.

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Luiseach
I disagree, by the way.

Poetry is an art which is also keenly insightful.

It all depends on how one interprets poetry (or any other form of literature).

A bit of research into literary theory might help.

Enlighten me.

How do statements from poetry (with ambiguous interpretation, ie. confused truth) contribute more then plain statements of logical inference (non-ambiguous deduction)?

What research about literary theory am I lacking exactly?

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Luiseach
Can you justify your claim that poetry is 'misleading'?

False statements are not misleading.

I think most people will find this a tough axiom of truth to swallow.

To define poetry as 'obfuscated logic' is to misinterpret poetry.

Poetry is more ambiguous then clearly written logical propositions, is it not? Then it is more confused then the simplest possible truth statements. How should I interpret poetry?

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Xeno
It has a negative impact because poetry is either false (misleading) or true (confused statements of truth).

This is a false dichotomy.

Something that is not easily interpretable is useless.

Wrong. Something that is not easily interpretable is simply that: not easily interpretable, unless one has suitable training in literary theory and textual criticism.

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Luiseach
This is a false dichotomy.

Why?

Wrong. Something that is not easily interpretable is simply that: not easily interpretable, unless one has suitable training in literary theory and textual criticism.

Enlighten me.

A well crafted poem is hard to understand to the common man. That which can be said, can be spoken clearly (Wittgenstein ). Why is poetry better then well formulated postulates (unambiguous) built from basic axioms (also unambiguous)?

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Xeno
Xeno: Poetry is either true or false.

Gurdur: Wrong.

Alternatives?
You've used a fallacy of false bifurcation (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#bifurcation).
Who says it must be either true or false ?
Who says logical truth statements apply to poetry ?
Xeno: If poetry is false, it is misleading.

Gurdur: Not necessarily so. Wrong.

All false statements are not misleading? All lies are not misleading? Justification?
Because you assume that being false, it must be misleading, therefore you assume that poetry represents a truth value statement.
It doesn't.

Xeno: If poetry is true, it is obfuscated truth.

Gurder: Wrong

It cannot be said to be clear truth, otherwise it would not be poetry, it would be logic. Therefore, what is poetry except obfuscated logic (and therefore, truth?).
Fallacy again. Why do you think that poetry represents naïve logic statements ?

Xeno: Therefore, poetry has a negative impact on the common wealth.

Gurder: Wrong.

You can say wrong 4 times in a row, but that doesn't mean you have any kind of argument to justify your answer. I simply pointed out just some of the fallacies, starting from the outset.
This whole argument represents another fallacy, that being your presumption of naïve utilitarianism right from the outset.
You assume that either poetry is true or false, then you also make an illogical jump to helpful/unhelpful without proving any connection ---- you assume false=unhelpful & true=helpful, a very dubious position when considering poetry.
Then you assume that poetry must serve a utilitarian purpose.

By way of example, do you think Beethoven's Ninth Symphony has a truth value ?

Do you think the song Spanish Caravans by The Doors must be either true or false ?

Does beauty have a truth value ? Does taste ?

Like I said, naïve utilitarianism sucks.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Xeno
Enlighten me.

lol...if you're interested in literary theory, you could start with one of the leading literary critics working today...namely, Terry Eagleton. He has written a highly successful, and most importantly for the novice - a highly accessible - introduction to the field:

Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.

How do statements from poetry (with ambiguous interpretation, ie. confused truth) contribute more then plain statements of logical inference (non-ambiguous deduction)?

Contribute more to what, exactly?

What research about literary theory am I lacking exactly?

That would depend on how much literary theory one has studied.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Xeno
Why is poetry better then well formulated postulates (unambiguous) built from basic axioms (also unambiguous)?

Doesn't it occur to you that poetry and formal axioms are in entirely different categories and fulfill different roles ?

How can you make a subjective value judgment between two different categories ? Doesn't work.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Xeno
A well crafted poem is hard to understand to the common man.

Says who?

That which can be said, can be spoken clearly (Wittgenstein ). Why is poetry better then well formulated postulates (unambiguous) built from basic axioms (also unambiguous)?

Who said that poetry was better than well formulated postulates built from basic axioms?

Because I sure didn't.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Doesn't it occur to you that poetry and formal axioms are in entirely different categories and fulfill different roles ?

How can you make a subjective value judgment between two different categories ? Doesn't work.

Good point, Goethe-Gurdur.

;)

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Gurdur
[B]You've used a fallacy of fals bifurcation.
Who says it must be either true or false ?

You haven't answered the question. If poetry is not either true or false, what are the alternatives?
I will continue to claim poetry is either true or false until you can give me a valid alternative.

Who says logical truth statements apply to poetry ?

Why wouldn't they apply? If logical doesn't apply to poetry, what good is it? Justification?

Because you assume that being false, it must be misleading, therefore you assume that poetry represents a truth value statement.
It doesn't.

Poetry does not represent a truth value statement? So what does it represent? Nonsense? How is it then good for the common wealth?

Fallacy again. Why do you think that poetry represents naïve logic statements ?

If logic does not apply to poetry it is senseless.

I simply pointed out the fallacies, starting from the outset.

Wrong. You simply stated "wrong" 4 times with no justification.

You assume that either poetry is true or false, then you make an illiogical jump to helpful/unhelpful withoutz proving any connection ---- you assume false=unhelpful & true=helpful, a very dubious position when considering poetry.

Why is it dubious? Why can false statements be helpful? You can point fingers at my utilitarianism all you like, but you have not given a substantial argument in defence of poetry (besides pointing fingers).

Then you assume that poetry must serve a utilitarian purpose.

No, the only things I assume are that something is either true or false, and that that which is false is misleading, and that which isn't clear is not as helpful as possible. Where do you disagree and why?

By way of example, do you think Beethoven's Ninthe Symphony has a truth value ?

The subject isn't music, it is poetry. Poetry is created within a language, therefore it makes propositions. Do you disagree? Why?

Music is made with notes, ie. C sharp and E minor do not make any kind of logical proposition.

Poetry is made with words, therefore the picture created in your mind has either logical truth or falsity. If you think poetry is as senseless as music, that is, it does not make any substantial statements, then you admit that no inferences can be made from poetry, and then it's words can be safely ignored (to it's respective C sharps and E minor's).

Do you think the song Spanish Caravans by The Doors must be either true or false ?

The lyrics represent a proposition, do they not? Are the words meaningless to you?

Does beauty have a truth value ? Does taste ?

I'm not talking about basic values, ie. prefering blue over red, I'm talking about the propositions poetry makes with language.

Like I said, naïve utilitarianism sucks.

So does finger pointing, but you are free to do it.

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Luiseach
lol...if you're interested in literary theory, you could start with one of the leading literary critics working today...namely, Terry Eagleton. He has written a highly successful, and most importantly for the novice - a highly accessible - introduction to the field:

Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell; Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.

Hmm, all that reading just to understand the usefulness of poetry. Wouldn't unambiguous sentances eliminate the need for such a waste of time?

Contribute more to what, exactly?

Knowledge.

That would depend on how much literary theory one has studied.

Again, what is the need of literary theory when the literature is unambiguous?

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Xeno
Poetry is more ambiguous then clearly written logical propositions, is it not?

It can be, but not always. Jacques Derrida might argue that 'clearly written logical propositions' are inherently ambiguous/ambivalent as well.

Then it is more confused then the simplest possible truth statements. How should I interpret poetry?

Goodness. If you really want some insight into how to interpret poetry, then you need to be more specific in your socratic questioning on the topic.

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Doesn't it occur to you that poetry and formal axioms are in entirely different categories and fulfill different roles ?

If poetry is not meant to reveal truth, what is it's purpose? Why are formal axioms and the axioms assumed by poetry "entirely different"?

How can you make a subjective value judgment between two different categories ? Doesn't work.

What seperates formal axioms constructed with language from the axioms implied from poetry? I don't think I'm making a value judgement that anyone would disagree with: That which is confused is not as good as that which is clear.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Xeno
Hmm, all that reading just to understand the usefulness of poetry. Wouldn't unambiguous sentances eliminate the need for such a waste of time?

Do you have an example of a poem (or a sentence from a poem) which is causing you such concern? I may be able to help you unravel its mysteries.

Again, what is the need of literary theory when the literature is unambiguous?

Who said that literature was unambiguous?

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Luiseach
Says who?

Show anyone Peano's axioms.
Then show that same person "The Wasteland" by T.S. Eliot.

Who said that poetry was better than well formulated postulates built from basic axioms?

Because I sure didn't.

Then you admit it would be better for poetry to be replaced completely by formal postulates?

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Luiseach
It can be, but not always. Jacques Derrida might argue that 'clearly written logical propositions' are inherently ambiguous/ambivalent as well.

Only ambiguous in-so-far as they are created from language, which poetry necessarily is. Would you like to argue how the symbolic language of logic is as ambiguous as the language of poetry?

Goodness. If you really want some insight into how to interpret poetry, then you need to be more specific in your socratic questioning on the topic.

Your reasoning led to the dicotomy posed in the original post. Either poetry is false, or it is confused truth. Either way it is not helpful for a person to be reading.

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Luiseach
Do you have an example of a poem (or a sentence from a poem) which is causing you such concern? I may be able to help you unravel its mysteries.

Any poem is subject to the same faults. It tries to create truth out of ambiguous and confused language. If it didn't, it would be considered logical axioms (or conclusions).

Who said that literature was unambiguous?

No one. Would you like to argue how poetic language is less ambiguous then symbolic logic?

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Xeno
Show anyone Peano's axioms.
Then show that same person "The Wasteland" by T.S. Eliot.

Ah...The Waste Land. It might be a difficult work for some people to understand, especially if one isn't very well-versed in its social, historical, political, cultural and philosophical subtexts.

Then you admit it would be better for poetry to be replaced completely by formal postulates?

lol. Nope.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Xeno

You haven't answered the question.
Yes I have, You simply don't like the answers.
You made an argument that relied on at least 3 different logical fallacies.
Furthermore, from your further reply here it is obvious that your whole argument also becomes a fallacy of begging the question (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#begging).
If poetry is not either true or false, what are the alternatives?
Unapplicable for truth values.
A sunset is neither true nor false.

1) true
2) false
3) undecided
4) not applicable

So (4).
I will continue to claim poetry is either true or false until you can give me a valid alternative.
*shrug*
You can claim the moon is made of green cheese too, if you like.
It's not my problem.
:cool:
Why wouldn't they apply? If logical doesn't apply to poetry, what good is it? Justification?
A thing of beauty is a joy forever, yada yada yada.
Beauty needs no justification.

Really, I couldn't care less. If you wish to pretend that everything must be judged in terms of how it serves the commonwealth, then you're committing logical fallacies wholesale --- and you also become irrelevant to real life.
Poetry does not represent a truth value statement? So what does it represent? Nonsense? How is it then good for the common wealth?
Fallacy of false bifurcation again.
Fallacy of circular argument.
Fallacy of begging the question.
If logic does not apply to poetry it is senseless.
That is your subjective opinion.
It is also wrong.
:)
Wrong. You simply stated "wrong" 4 times with no justification.
Bollocks. I point out all the logical fallacies and you wish to ignore them ?
You're not going to be able to build your commonwealth on an illogical basis, you know.
:p
Why is it dubious? Why can false statements be helpful? You can point fingers at my utilitarianism all you like, but you have not given a substantial argument in defence of poetry (besides pointing fingers).
Why should I ?

I'm quite happy simply pointing out logical fallacies.
:)
Man, if you ain't got soul, can't explain it to you.
:p

The subject isn't music, it is poetry. Poetry is created within a language, therefore it makes propositions. Do you disagree? Why?
Did you even read my previous post on this ?
What happened to rhythm ?
And, BTW, neurologically music is handled by the human brain in an extremely similar way to language ----
homologous areas on the two hemispheres.
Broca's Area on the left (in mosot people) for syntax production,
the homologous area of Broca's on the right hemisphere for music production.
Surely that must give you a hint how the human brain processes things.
Poetry involves both rhythm, cadence and syntax. Three very different things, similar systems.
Then there's emotion.
:)
lyrics represent a proposition, do they not?
No.

Can you come up with a better argument ? One rather less based on logical fallacies ?
____________________

Originally posted by Luiseach

Ah...The Waste Land.
Actually, some lines from The Waste Land are extremely apt and applicable here.
;)

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Gurdur
What happened to rhythm ?
And, BTW, neurologically music is handled by the human brain in an extremely similar way to language ----
homologous areas on the two hemispheres.
Broca's Area on the left (in mosot people) for syntax production,
the homologous area of Broca's on the right hemisphere for music production.
Surely that must give you a hint how the human brain processes things.
Poetry involves both rhythm, cadence and syntax. Three very different things, similar systems.
Then there's emotion.
:)

Gurdur, you make poetry sound so wonderfully primal.

I think you missed your true calling by becoming a linguist instead of a literary critic.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Actually, some lines from The Waste Land are extremely apt and applicable here.


Which ones were you thinking of?

Here's a nice garden-y bit of the poem:

"You gave me hyacinths first a year ago;
They called me the hyacinth girl."
-----Yet when we came back, late, from the Hyacinth garden,
Your arms full, and your hair wet, I could not
Speak, and my eyes failed...

(from T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land, ll. 35-39)

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Luiseach

Good point, Goethe-Gurdur.
For such small compliments I gladly sacrifice my all.
Gurdur, you make poetry sound so wonderfully primal.

I really don't mind if you sit this one out ----
My words are but a whisper -- your deafness is a SHOUT.
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
Your sperm's in the gutter -- your love's in the sink.
So you ride yourselves over the fields
And you make all your animal deals
And your wise men don't know how it feels
To be thick as a brick.
__________

I'll make love to you
in all good places
under black mountains
in open spaces.
By deep brown rivers
that slither darkly
through far marches
where the blue hare races.

Come with me to the Winged Isle ---
northern father's western child.
Where the dance of ages is playing still
through far marches of acres wild.
_________

The leaded window opened
to move the dancing candle flame
And the first Moths of summer
suicidal came, oh suicidal came.
.......
Life's too long (as the Lemming said)
as the candle burned and the Moths were wed.
And we'll all burn together as the wick grows higher ---
before the candle's dead.
The leaded window opened
to move the dancing candle flame.
And the first moths of summer
suicidal came
to join in the worship
of the light that never dies
in a moment's reflection
of two moths spinning in her eyes.

---- Jethro Tull

I think you missed your true calling by becoming a linguist instead of a literary critic. No comment.
:p

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Xeno
Would you like to argue how poetic language is less ambiguous then symbolic logic?

Why should I?

:confused:

I don't think that poetic language is unambiguous at all.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Luiseach

Which ones were you thinking of?

(from T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land, ll. 35-39)
Applicable to the OP argument:

we are the strawmen, we are the hollow men,
Heads filled with straw, knocking together

Or something like that. I'm quoting from bad memory.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Xeno
Perhaps not. What experience is gained from confused truth, or misleading statements? Wouldn't "clear" truth be more advantagous to the common wealth?
But why pick on poetry? How about methodist hymns? Or the Washington Post? Or Jackie Chan movies?

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Gurdur
[B]Yes I have, You simply don't like the answers.

Hey, you obviously don't like my answers either, but that doesn't change the argument's validity

Unapplicable for truth values.
A sunset is neither true nor false.

1) true
2) false
3) undecided
4) not applicable

So (4).

With both 3) and 4) the poetry is meaningless, for all intents a purposes. As meaningless as the C-Sharp note. If poetry has meaning it is trying to say something, is it not? Yes/no? is this form of poetry not expressing a proposition?

Really, I couldn't care less. If you wish to pretend that everything must be judged in terms of how it serves the commonwealth, then you're committing logical fallacies wholesale --- and you also become irrelevant to real life.

Interesting ad hom.

How about you answer this question: Should something that is good for the majority be encouraged? Should something that is misleading to the majority be condemned?

Fallacy of circular argument.
Fallacy of begging the question.

Next your going to accuse me of petitio principii.

But seriously, my conclusion is deduced, not assumed. If you have a problem with either my basic assertions or my inference, please state where (and it's not circular, unless you can show me how).

That is your subjective opinion.
It is also wrong.

Why even bring up subjective considerations into this?

Bollocks. I point out all the logical fallacies and you wish to ignore them ?
You're not going to be able to build your commonwealth on an illogical basis, you know.

Not ignoring. I cut off your false dilemma accusations by saying that rythmic poetry is not what I'm talking about. Neither is a string of words which paints a picture that is suppose to give no meaning (ie. message).

Man, if you ain't got soul, can't explain it to you.

"You don't have a soul, therefore, your arguments are wrong"... never would of expected that from an atheist forum.

What happened to rhythm ?

Ok, fine, I concede rhythmic poetry falls outside the bounds of my inital conclusions (as long as its not trying to say anything with language). So are poems that offer no message and are just presenting pictures which aren't logically connected to say anything. Does that satisfy your false dilemma accusations?

And, BTW, neurologically music is handled by the human brain in an extremely similar way to language ----
homologous areas on the two hemispheres.

So the message of a particular poem is irrelevent then? The only use of poetry is rhythm? You conclusions are not so far off from mine.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Xeno

Hey, you obviously don't like my answers either, but that doesn't change the argument's validity
Correct !
Yoiur argument is still invalid, whether I like it or not, owing to all those logical fallacies I detailed of yours.
http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/roflmao.gif
With both 3) and 4) the poetry is meaningless, for all intents a purposes. As meaningless as the C-Sharp note.
You are pushing a meaningless definition of "meaninglessness".
How about you answer this question: Should something that is good for the majority be encouraged? Should something that is misleading to the majority be condemned?
ROFLMAO !
How about you answer to the point first, and answer all the points about your logical fallacies ?
:D

But seriously, my conclusion is deduced, not assumed. If you have a problem with either my basic assertions or my inference, please state where (and it's not circular, unless you can show me how).
Since I have already detailed each logical fallacy, obviously then you'ld better go back and deal with it, no ?
Why even bring up subjective considerations into this?
I have absolutely no idea as to why you think your subjective opinions constitute an objective judgment on this. Why ?

"You don't have a soul, therefore, your arguments are wrong"... never would of expected that from an atheist forum.
*yawn*
Answer the point.

Ok, fine, I concede rhythmic poetry falls outside the bounds of my inital conclusions (as long as its not trying to say anything with language). So are poems that offer no message and are just presenting pictures
You contradict yourself. Since when is a picture not a message ?
:eek:
So the message of a particular poem is irrelevent then?
Now who said that ?
You conclusions are not so far off from mine. Wrong again.
Now how about you go right back and actually tackle the points without bringing your strawmen into this, yes ?
Start with your fallacies of so-called deduction.
:D

[Will I Am]

Is it advantagous for truth to be expressed in such a way that it must be decrypted?

All language, all expression, is encryption.

But why obfuscated truth? Why not clear statements?

Let me encrypt this in another way:

All comprehension requires decryption.

For example, is “e = mc squared” a clear statement? Or an obfuscation of the of the “clear statement” that mass and energy are the same thing? Both “expressions” require decryption, but one is much more precise than the other. Some things are "clearer” when “obfuscated” by special encryption. Like the subjects of poetry.


Hmmm. I thought that was pretty much what Gurdur had said. I musta missed something.

One of us did.

I think "Naïve utilitarianism sucks" is naïve.



Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler.

- Albert Einstein

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by John Page
But why pick on poetry? How about methodist hymns? Or the Washington Post? Or Jackie Chan movies?

Good question, Mr. Page.

But Jackie Chan movies? They're sacrosanct! ;)

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Xeno
Only ambiguous in-so-far as they are created from language, which poetry necessarily is. Would you like to argue how the symbolic language of logic is as ambiguous as the language of poetry?

I didn't claim that the symbolic language of logic is as ambiguous as the language of poetry. Therefore I don't feel obliged to argue for a position which I do not necessarily hold. I was merely pointing out the fact that Jacques Derrida might argue that 'clearly written logical propositions' are inherently ambiguous/ambivalent as well.

Your reasoning led to the dicotomy posed in the original post. Either poetry is false, or it is confused truth. Either way it is not helpful for a person to be reading.

No it wasn't my reasoning that led to the dichotomy of the OP. It was you who posed the false dichotomy about poetry, not I, after all.

If you don't find reading poetry helpful, I hardly think the poets will be too concerned if you decide not to read their poems.

Chacun a son gout. ;)

[Amos]

Originally posted by Luiseach
Can you justify your claim that poetry is 'misleading'?




I can, I can! Just look at the negative impact bible reading has on cultural development.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Amos
I can, I can! Just look at the negative impact bible reading has on cultural development.

Amos...wha?! :eek:

[John Page]

Originally posted by Luiseach
But Jackie Chan movies? They're sacrosanct! ;)
Yep, JC's the man.

[RED DAVE]

From Shelley's "A Defence of Poetry"The most unfailing herald, companion, and follower of the awakening of a great people to work a beneficial change in opinion or institution, is poetry. At such periods there is an accumulation of the power of communicating and receiving intense and impassioned conceptions respecting man and nature. The person in whom this power resides, may often, as far as regards many portions of their nature, have little apparent correspondence with that spirit of good of which they are the ministers. But even whilst they deny and abjure, they are yet compelled to serve, that power which is seated on the throne of their own soul. It is impossible to read the compositions of the most celebrated writers of the present day without being startled with the electric life which burns within their words. They measure the circumference and sound the depths of human nature with a comprehensive and all-penetrating spirit, and they are themselves perhaps the most sincerely astonished at its manifestations; for it is less their spirit than the spirit of the age. Poets are the hierophants of an unapprehended inspiration; the mirrors of the gigantic shadows which futurity casts upon the present; the words which express what they understand not; the trumpets which sing to battle, and feel not what they inspire; the influence which is moved not, but moves. Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world. A Defence of Poetry (http://www.bartleby.com/27/23.html)

RED DAVE

[Amos]

Poets are the hierophants of an unapprehended inspiration; the mirrors of the gigantic shadows which futurity casts upon the present; the words which express what they understand not; the trumpets which sing to battle, and feel not what they inspire; the influence which is moved not, but moves. Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Does anyone see a contradiction in this? Poets are what they are and poetry is all what Shelly said it is but if poets don't understand their own words how can they be the unacknowledged legislators of the world?

Philosophers are these for they alone can critique the words of a poet and once we have one of those who needs the words of a poet except for a casual read?

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Amos
.....
Philosophers are these for they alone can critique the words of a poet
Well that assertion will certainly arouse criticism from Luiseach !

and once we have one of those who needs the words of a poet except for a casual read?
Lovers.
I have never yet met a modern philosopher who could adequately speak in ways to move lovers.

Moreover, the whole human condition occasionally demands far more than mere philosophy to describe its paradoxes and traumas: it demands poetry too.

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Gurdur
[B]Yoiur argument is still invalid, whether I like it or not, owing to all those logical fallacies I detailed of yours.

"All" my logical fallacies? I've dealt with the false dilemma, and you accused me of circular reasoning three times without explaining why it is circular reasoning.

You are pushing a meaningless definition of "meaninglessness".

No, I'm pushing a definition of meaning that is tied only with propositions. "Blah car red" is meaningless. "The sunset fell on the fields" is not meaningless. "The sunset" is, by itself, meaningless (simply a picture with no logical end or relation).

Do not most poems try to express a meaning with language and pictures?

I have absolutely no idea as to why you think your subjective opinions constitute an objective judgment on this. Why ?

So after finger pointing and your accusations of a false dilemma don't work, not you say my subjective opinions cannot have an objective judgement. It's probative you've run out of defences for your precious poetry.

Until you show how this is at all related to the charges I bring against poetry, I'm going to ignore it.

You contradict yourself. Since when is a picture not a message ?

When it is not a proposition. "A sunset" is not a message unless it is part of a proposition. If the poem is trying to tell you something about the nature of sunsets, or the relationship between sunsets and some other object, then it could be considered part of a proposition, as in, the sunset is related to x in such and such a way.

Now who said that ?

You are implying that with the "rhythmic defense", which essentially says ignore the words and just listen to the individual sounds that the words make.

Wrong again.
Now how about you go right back and actually tackle the points without bringing your strawmen into this, yes ?
Start with your fallacies of so-called deduction.

blah blah, "you are commiting so many fallacies".

i've dealt with them. i'm not talking about the rhythmic aspect of poetry. I'm not talking about the pictoral aspect of poetry. I'm talking about the propositional aspect of poetry, and so far as it has a propositional aspect is so far as it has a meaning, that it is trying to say something.

Are you going to deal with the charges I bring against poetry?

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Will I Am
[B]All language, all expression, is encryption.

Alright, so the issue is still that poetry is unnecessarily hard to decrypt.

Let me encrypt this in another way:

All comprehension requires decryption.

For example, is “e = mc squared” a clear statement? Or an obfuscation of the of the “clear statement” that mass and energy are the same thing? Both “expressions” require decryption, but one is much more precise than the other. Some things are "clearer” when “obfuscated” by special encryption. Like the subjects of poetry.

e=mc squared is not obfuscated
energy is related to mass by a constant factor is not obfuscated

poetry, if it is even true, is obfuscated

you are not dealing with the problems of poetry

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Luiseach
[B]I didn't claim that the symbolic language of logic is as ambiguous as the language of poetry. Therefore I don't feel obliged to argue for a position which I do not necessarily hold. I was merely pointing out the fact that Jacques Derrida might argue that 'clearly written logical propositions' are inherently ambiguous/ambivalent as well.

Yes, that's fine, Derrida could say that. The intersubjective understandings of clearly written logical propositions are unquestionably less ambiguous then the intersubjective understandings of Down by the Sally Field by William Butler Yeats, unless you can provide a reason why they aren't?

Clearly written logical propositions have a clear meaning within the context of their expression.

Read all the linguistic theory you want, you will only ever know what William could have meant while writing his poems.

No it wasn't my reasoning that led to the dichotomy of the OP. It was you who posed the false dichotomy about poetry, not I, after all.

Your misinterpreting me. I got the impression before that you were reasoning in the same way as my original message, but now I don't see why I was thinking that. I'll retract the comment.

If you don't find reading poetry helpful, I hardly think the poets will be too concerned if you decide not to read their poems.

If it is harmful for people to read poetry, I think poets would be interested to know their creative energies are being wasted on a negative pursuit.

[Devilnaut]

"Is it advantagous for truth to be expressed in such a way that it must be decrypted?"


What's important for a man is not what he says he is, but what he is.

Poetry is wonderful because it's beauty allows it to be assimilated quickly by the subconscious mind. While your consciousness reels from the metaphor your subconscious sees what's underneath. You might understand that it's not as important to know "truths" in your head as to know them in your heart. Once you know both you can truly be a man of your word.

Did you think your virtues came from textbooks?


""Why is poetry better then well formulated postulates (unambiguous) built from basic axioms (also unambiguous)?"

Because what others tell you is a reflection but what you realize for yourself is real.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Xeno
.......{various strawmen and whatnot blah}

Are you going to deal with the charges I bring against poetry?

What charges ?
:D
All you've tried claiming so far is that poetry is somehow magically unhelpful to your mythical commonwealth.

I look forward to any real charges being brought.
:)

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Xeno
Yes, that's fine, Derrida could say that. The intersubjective understandings of clearly written logical propositions are unquestionably less ambiguous then the intersubjective understandings of Down by the Sally Field by William Butler Yeats, unless you can provide a reason why they aren't?

Again, I'm not sure why I should argue for a position that I do not hold; I've already pointed out - unambiguously, indeed clearly - that I don't think poetry is unambiguous.

Sure the 'intersubjective understandings' of any work of literature will often (indeed always) involve debate. No two literary theorists/critics would necessarily agree on the meaning of any given verse of poetry. Debate about the meaning of a poem, however, is not a bad thing; indeed, I would argue that debate about meaning in literature is one of the driving forces for both the production of and the criticism of literary texts. It creates a dynamic, open-ended dialogue which leads to a dialectical understanding of the function(s), purpose(s) and meaning(s) of literary works.

Read all the linguistic theory you want, you will only ever know what William could have meant while writing his poems.

Well, of course...why should this be considered problematic?

(By the way, it's literary theory)

If it is harmful for people to read poetry, I think poets would be interested to know their creative energies are being wasted on a negative pursuit.

Is there any evidence that poetry has done harm to people, then?

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Luiseach
.....
(By the way, it's literary theory)
Life can be hard.
:p
Is there any evidence that poetry has done harm to people, then? Betjeman ?
:p

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Betjeman ?
:p

D'you mean this guy? What did poetry ever do to him? ;)


'The Garden City', by John Betjeman

O wot ye why in Orchard Way
The roofs be steep and shelving?
Or wot ye what the dwellers say
In close and garden delving?

'Belike unlike my hearths to yours,
Yet seemly if unlike them.
Deep green and stalwart be my doors
With bottle glass to fryke them.

'Hand-woven be my wefts, hand-made
My pottery for pottage,
And hoe and mattock, aye, and spade
Hang up about my cottage'....

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Luiseach

D'you mean this guy? What did poetry ever do to him? ;)
A neat and subtlely rather powerful retort; nevertheless, for nature I'ld stick with Yeats or Hopkins or half a dozen others, (wot ye what indeed),
and as for gardening.....

My vegetable love should grow
Vaster than empires, and more slow;
A hundred years should go to praise
Thine eyes and on thy forehead gaze;
Two hundred to adore each breast,
.....

But at my back I always hear
Time's winged chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity.
....
The grave's a fine and private place,
But none, I think, do there embrace.
....

---- Andrew Marvell

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Gurdur
A neat and subtlely rather powerful retort; nevertheless, for nature I'ld stick with Yeats or Hopkins or half a dozen others, (wot ye what indeed),
and as for gardening.....

My vegetable love should grow
Vaster than empires, and more slow;
A hundred years should go to praise
Thine eyes and on thy forehead gaze;
Two hundred to adore each breast,
.....

But at my back I always hear
Time's winged chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity.
....
The grave's a fine and private place,
But none, I think, do there embrace.
....

Okay, the first verse you posted is, I admit, far superior to the one I posted above, but surely you don't think the last two excerpts can, in any sense, compare with gardening imagery - bordering on the sublime - as found in Kubla Khan, by the immortal Sammy Coleridge.


So twice five miles of fertile ground
With walls and towers were girdled round :
And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills,
Where blossomed many an incense-bearing tree ;
And here were forests ancient as the hills,
Enfolding sunny spots of greenery.
But oh ! that deep romantic chasm which slanted
Down the green hill athwart a cedarn cover !
A savage place ! as holy and enchanted
As e'er beneath a waning moon was haunted
By woman wailing for her demon-lover !
And from this chasm, with ceaseless turmoil seething,
As if this earth in fast thick pants were breathing,
A mighty fountain momently was forced :
Amid whose swift half-intermitted burst
Huge fragments vaulted like rebounding hail,
Or chaffy grain beneath the thresher's flail :
And 'mid these dancing rocks at once and ever
It flung up momently the sacred river.


I mean to say, this is a garden with soul. ;)

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Luiseach

Okay, the first verse you posted is, I admit, far superior to the one I posted above, but surely you don't think the last two excerpts can, in any sense, compare with gardening imagery - bordering on the sublime - as found in Kubla Khan, by the immortal Sammy Coleridge.
......
I mean to say, this is a garden with soul. ;)

Actually, I hate to admit it, but you are completely correct
(excepting possibly that that is more a garden of heavy breathing Freudian-implication-style (*) than soul --- it reminds me of certain scenes in the film Alien IV).
Ironically enough, of course, I have one million genuine Papaver somniferum seeds (harvested from this year) waiting sowing in Feb./March.
Coleridge would never go without laudanum staying at my place.
;)

And BTW, one of my favourite mottos is from that miscreant Ezra Pound, who deserved to be shot but wrote magnificent poetry; this is from one of his cantos, and I'm reciting from bad memory, so don't hassle me about inaccuracies:

The apple blossoms blow from East to West,
And I have tried to stop them from falling.

__________

(*) Not that I'm complaining. Keep it up.
:)

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Gurdur

...(excepting possibly that that is more a garden of heavy breathing Freudian-implication-style (*) than soul...

That's why I put the word 'soul' in italics. :cool:

No wonder Plato railed against the poets in The Republic, eh?

;)

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Luiseach

That's why I put the word 'soul' in italics. :cool:
Always having the last word, thy name is......
No wonder Plato railed against the poets in The Republic, eh?

;) He was a misogynistic old fart who prefered anything that wouldn't challenge his intellect ---- therefore the emphasis on perfect order, and avoidance of women.

BTW, did you ever read The Trial Of Socrates (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385260326/qid=1064731999/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/002-6404368-5341659) by I.F. Stone ?
Bit of myth-busting there.

Let me bring you songs from the wood:
To make you feel much better than you could know.
......
Let me bring you love from the field:
Poppies red and roses filled with summer rain.
To heal the wound and still the pain
That threatens again and again
.....
Let me bring you all things refined:
Galliards and lute songs served in chilling ale.
.....
I am the wind to fill your sail.
I am the cross to take your nail:
A singer of these ageless times.
With kitchen prose and gutter rhymes.

---- Jethro Tull

[RED DAVE]

As others have pointed out, this discussion reprises the famous one in the 10th book of Plato's Republic, where Socrates bans poets from his ideal state.

Totalitarians like Plato/Socrates have always been suspicious of poets. Poetry answers to the pleasure principle, not the reality principle and, therefore, always embodies within itself the spirit of love and revolt.

Thus the poet is like the painter in two ways: first he paints an inferior degree of truth, and secondly, he is concerned with an inferior part of the soul. He indulges the feelings, while he enfeebles the reason; and we refuse to allow him to have authority over the mind of man; for he has no measure of greater and less, and is a maker of images and very far gone from truth. But we have not yet mentioned the heaviest count in the indictment--the power which poetry has of injuriously exciting the feelings. When we hear some passage in which a hero laments his sufferings at tedious length, you know that we sympathize with him and praise the poet; and yet in our own sorrows such an exhibition of feeling is regarded as effeminate and unmanly (Ion). Now, ought a man to feel pleasure in seeing another do what he hates and abominates in himself? Is he not giving way to a sentiment which in his own case he would control?--he is off his guard because the sorrow is another's; and he thinks that he may indulge his feelings without disgrace, and will be the gainer by the pleasure. But the inevitable consequence is that he who begins by weeping at the sorrows of others, will end by weeping at his own. The same is true of comedy,--you may often laugh at buffoonery which you would be ashamed to utter, and the love of coarse merriment on the stage will at last turn you into a buffoon at home. Poetry feeds and waters the passions and desires; she lets them rule instead of ruling them. And therefore, when we hear the encomiasts of Homer affirming that he is the educator of Hellas, and that all life should be regulated by his precepts, we may allow the excellence of their intentions, and agree with them in thinking Homer a great poet and tragedian. But we shall continue to prohibit all poetry which goes beyond hymns to the Gods and praises of famous men. Not pleasure and pain, but law and reason shall rule in our State.

Plato's Republic (http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext98/repub11.txt)

RED DAVE

[Amos]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Well that assertion will certainly arouse criticism from Luiseach !


Lovers.
I have never yet met a modern philosopher who could adequately speak in ways to move lovers.

Moreover, the whole human condition occasionally demands far more than mere philosophy to describe its paradoxes and traumas: it demands poetry too.

Lovers, for sure! and I did agree that poetry is all Shelly said it was. Lyrical vision is a gift of God and is really an expression of the well being of a society.

[Amos]

Originally posted by Gurdur
A neat and subtlely rather powerful retort; nevertheless, for nature I'ld stick with Yeats or Hopkins or half a dozen others, (wot ye what indeed),
and as for gardening.....



Hopkins was not poet was he? I thought he was a wordsmith!

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Gurdur
What charges ?
:D
All you've tried claiming so far is that poetry is somehow magically unhelpful to your mythical commonwealth.

I look forward to any real charges being brought.
:)

1. That which is false is misleading.
2. That which is true can be stated clearly.
3. Poetry that expresses itself with language towards a message (ie. proposition) is either true or false.
4. If such a kind of poetry is false, it is misleading.
5. If such a kind of poetry is true, it is not stated as clearly as possible.
6. Poetry is either misleading or obfuscated truth.

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Luiseach
Again, I'm not sure why I should argue for a position that I do not hold; I've already pointed out - unambiguously, indeed clearly - that I don't think poetry is unambiguous.

You state it's not unambiguous and then state that you can never know what the poets meant by their words.

People don't think the same about Peano's axioms.

Sure the 'intersubjective understandings' of any work of literature will often (indeed always) involve debate. No two literary theorists/critics would necessarily agree on the meaning of any given verse of poetry. Debate about the meaning of a poem, however, is not a bad thing; indeed, I would argue that debate about meaning in literature is one of the driving forces for both the production of and the criticism of literary texts. It creates a dynamic, open-ended dialogue which leads to a dialectical understanding of the function(s), purpose(s) and meaning(s) of literary works.

No mathmeticians are going to argue about the meaning of Peano's axioms within the context they were given.

Also, I'm arguing that the production of literary text has a negative impact, so saying that the debate of meaning fuels more nonsense isn't a good point in this case.

Well, of course...why should this be considered problematic?

Because the poets are not stating what they want to say clearly, therefore it is obfuscated truth.

(By the way, it's literary theory)

I replied pretty late.

Is there any evidence that poetry has done harm to people, then?

I think there is evidence from you that it has wasted a lot of your time, which is evidence for the obfuscated truth aspect of poetry.

[Xeno]

Originally posted by Devilnaut
"Did you think your virtues came from textbooks?

Do you think virtues can't come from textbooks?

To answer the question, no. I think my virtues came from experience. Do you honestly believe virtues can come from poetry?

Because what others tell you is a reflection but what you realize for yourself is real.

well that's nice. But poetry is people telling you, how is poetry not a reflection?

I admit experience is valuable, but poetry, which is someone trying to tell you something, is either confusingly true, or misleadingly false.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Xeno

1. That which is false is misleading.
heh, heh.
Newton's Laws are false in that they do not explain minute variations in Mecury's orbit, let alone a fair few other things like gravity lens in the cosmos.
Does that make Newton's Laws misleading ?
Of course not, in the right context.

2. That which is true can be stated clearly.
Blech.
Try stating clearly a model of general relativity.
3. Poetry that expresses itself with language towards a message (ie. proposition) is either true or false.
Not paying attention, are you ?

Poetry does not exist to represent logical axioms and arguments.
Therefore logical truth values do not pertain to poetry.
You've been informed of this time and time again, and your only answer has so far been,
"Yes, it does ! It does, 'coz I say so !"
Well, bollocks.
Unless you can come up with any halfway rational argument as to why poetry does represent a logical propositional sytsem, then your entire argument is still a dead duck in the water.

And I'll simply repeat this till you can come up with a better idea.
:)
4. If such a kind of poetry is false, it is misleading.
That's a jump in logic. Missing a few steps there, aren't you ?
:D
5. If such a kind of poetry is true, it is not stated as clearly as possible.
In psychophysioneurology, there are two models of colour-processing;
one is a two-colour model,
the other a three-colour model.
Each model is used in the contexts which bring the best results.
Now tell me about clarity and "truth" there.
:)
Make sure to do it clearly.
:D
6. Poetry is either misleading or obfuscated truth. Codswallop.
:)

Originally posted by Xeno
......
I think there is evidence from you that it has wasted a lot of your time, which is evidence for the obfuscated truth aspect of poetry.
No, there is no evidence that it has wasted Luiseach's time --- there is only a subjective opinion from you, Xeno, which you attempt declaring in an authoritarian manner
---- your attitude is that it's true only because you say so.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Xeno
You state it's not unambiguous and then state that you can never know what the poets meant by their words.

People don't think the same about Peano's axioms.

Yes I did state that poetry is ambiguous, and I do agree that we can never know what the poets meant by their words. These two claims are consistent with one another and with how literature functions.

We can never know what, exactly, T.S. Eliot had in mind when he wrote The Waste Land, or what, exactly, Samuel Taylor Coleridge intended in composing Kubla Khan.

Literary theorists/critics aren't mind-readers, after all.

However, just because we don't know exactly what either of them intended does not detract from our attempts to understand what they meant. We read their words either as a self-enclosed system (New Criticism), or as contextualised within what we know about the poets, their respective time-frames, and their other writings (New Historicism). Other theoretical frameworks could help us understand their texts in even more nuanced ways.

This is why I think a solid grounding in literary theory is helpful.

No mathmeticians are going to argue about the meaning of Peano's axioms within the context they were given.

True enough. But that's Peano's axioms, and that's mathematicians. Literature is not beholden, or answerable to either the mathematicians or Peano.

Also, I'm arguing that the production of literary text has a negative impact, so saying that the debate of meaning fuels more nonsense isn't a good point in this case.

Yep...you keep saying this, but as yet you have produced no evidence that the production of literary texts has a negative impact on anything or anyone.

Where's the evidence of, say, the negative impact of Eliot's The Waste Land? What harm has Eliot done in writing a wee poem?

Because the poets are not stating what they want to say clearly, therefore it is obfuscated truth.

What makes you think that poetry is about truth in the first place?

I think there is evidence from you that it has wasted a lot of your time, which is evidence for the obfuscated truth aspect of poetry.

lol...I was wondering when this sort of thing was going to happen. ;)

[Gurdur]

Let's take a look at Xeno's whole argument, shall we folks ?

As was very obvious from the beginning, and as Luiseach finally noted in full text, Xeno's cribbed (without attribution) his entire argument from Plato's The Republic.

In that text, Plato demands the exile of poets from his authoritarian society, because poets are subversive.
But the question remains:
If poets are so supposedly false and misleading, just why is Plato so afraid of them ?
Just why the demand for their exile ?
Surely you would think that any intelligent man would not be led astray by (alleged) falseness :); so why the authoritarian dictates against poetry and poets ?
Is it because they represent a subversive element that complies better to the human reality and undermines Plato's hopelessly ideological objectivism ?

Turning and turning in the winding gyre
The falcon can not hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre can not hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the second comming is at hand.
......
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

--- W.B. Yeats

Or, IOW, when discussing schemes like Plato's Republic:

......
But because I love you,
And because you love me,
A model worker
I'll willingly be,
.....
And I just want to know while the revolution lasts,
Will it enable me to swallow broken glass ?

I'm not too worried by hegemony;
I know the cadre will look after me

And I just want to know while the revolution lasts,
Will it enable me to swallow broken glass ?

---- Magazine

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Gurdur
No, there is no evidence that it has wasted Luiseach's time...

True enough, Gurdur....I mean to say, where would any of us be without our books of poetry from which to spout subtle and powerful quotations?!

What would life be like if it all just boiled down to a modus ponens?

:D

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Gurdur
In that text, Plato demands the exile of poets from his authoritarian society, because poets are subversive...

And Plato was correct to think of poets as subversive. ;)

Subversiveness is where it's at... :D

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Amos
Hopkins was not poet was he? I thought he was a wordsmith!

There's a difference?

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Luiseach

True enough, Gurdur....I mean to say, where would any of us be without our books of poetry from which to spout subtle and powerful quotations?!

What would life be like if it all just boiled down to a modus ponens?

You're doing your best to persuade me to suddenly switch sides and support Xeno, aren't you ?
:)
Dangerous behaviour, that. I shall be back in a couple of hours. Perhaps I shall be swayed by such provocation.
Whip me some more in the meantime --- I love it.
;)

Originally posted by Luiseach
....
Subversiveness is where it's at...
But modern literary criticism is about as subversive as a feather duster.
:p

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Gurdur
You're doing your best to persuade me to suddenly switch sides...
:)

God knows, the 'poetry is BAD, I tell you, BAD' stance could do with some convincing support.

Dangerous behaviour, that. I shall be back in a couple of hours.

Does it really take you that long to water your tulips?

Perhaps I shall be swayed by such provocation.


Quote some more Magazine at me, then.

But modern literary criticism is about as subversive as a feather duster.
:p

Ha! I would never underestimate the potential for subversive insubordination from my feather duster.

[John Page]

[sticks fingers down throat]

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Gurdur
He was a misogynistic old fart who prefered anything that wouldn't challenge his intellect ---- therefore the emphasis on perfect order, and avoidance of women.

A good and interesting point.

Further, I'm sure you would agree that he was probably neither the first philosopher, nor indeed the last philosopher, to be either old and farty or nervous about challenges to his intellect.

Poor old humourless, sour-grapes Plato...no joie de vivre whatsoever.

;)

[Edited to add: although I must admit, The Republic, no matter what its flaws, makes for some darn good reading nonetheless!]

[Tyler Durden]

Not to mention the fact that the Dialogues were essentially a representation of the philosophy of Platonia.

If Plato considered art the most inferior aspect of reality, since it was purportedly a replica of a replica of a replica of the real McCoy, then one wonders why he chose the medium of art to present his philosophy - the play.

Sort of like how a television program is condemning television programming en toto. :D

What does this say about the self-referential nature of Plato on Art and the very medium he says this with? Despite bashing the artist as a thickwit whose lone tool is a distorted mirror, Plato himself is an expert with the techniques of the poets and rhetoricans of his time. The critic of art is also the artist himself.

Is it really a good thing history has left us Plato's fictional plays and Aristotle's non-fiction lecture notes? :p

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Luiseach

A good and interesting point.
Further, I'm sure you would agree that he was probably neither the first philosopher, nor indeed the last philosopher, to be either old and farty or nervous about challenges to his intellect.

I think the truth of that proposition is confirmed by naturalist observation around us.
:cool:

I'm also going to delineate a few of the reasons just why we observe such things as misogynistic philosophers in the middle of this post.

Let's go back to the argument --- why did Plato, and allegedly Socrates, feel that poets are so bad ?
Now for this foray I really need my copy of The Trial Of Socrates (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385260326/qid=1064731999/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/002-6404368-5341659) by I.F. Stone, but since it's up in the attic with 3, 800 other books providing hiding, I'm going to have to only sketch this out.
We know that one of the accusers of Socrates was representing the poets of Athens --- for the rest, we have only Plato's spin to go on, and that might be very misleading indeed.
We have hints that the central issue revolved around the demos of ancient Athens --- the democracy was still then under threat from authoritarian putsches, and the youger clique around Socrates was composed of rich young upper-class twits with a tendency to cause trouble in a nasty rightwing way.

From Plato's description and other sources, the charge was essentially that while the poets cast the gods in human and therefore de-obscured images, Socrates and/or Plato wanted an authoritarian imaginary ideal of absolute perfectionism instead (we cannot be sure if Plato twisted much of what Socrates really wanted, and instead pushed his own agenda while using Socrates as legitimization).
Plato certainly saw the unabashed humanness of poets and poetry as a subversive threat to his wannabe kingdom; he was simply unable to handle messy human complexities, especially female ones --- we also get hints from St.Augustine, Acquinas and of course poor old Origen (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/o/origen.htm) of much the same neurosis expressed in other ways.
Otto Weiniger, anyone ?

It's all very similar to G.K. Chesterton's critique of Nietzsche:
that Nietzsche's superman complex was not the result of a genuine feeling of superiority, but instead the result of having a bad day with nerves rubbed raw by pressing humanity --- the kind of feeling when surrounded by people and screaming infants on the upper-deck of a London bus on a really hot day.

The fleeing of complex, gross humanity, as shown by Plato's gripe against poetry, is not a sign of strength, but rather a sign of weakness.

And let's look at counter-examples; can in fact poetry be helpful ?
Well, of course there's always the
Some bow towards the East to pray,
But I bow towards your bed, o Jasmine
(or something like that)

stuff, but where poetry really comes into its own is in helping people express the most pressing and awful of feelings --- the kind of problem any over-intellectualized philosopher would run away in abject cowardice from.
While Boethius did a very good stab at the Consolations Of Philosophy, it's poetry that one needs when time and feeling are too pressing.
It seems fairly clear that poetry extended Sylvia Plath's life; while it also gave her more scope for her self-destructive narcissism, it helped her to expressed her agony, and therefore bear it; poetry in the end was an exit for her from narcissism, not an amplifier or trap.
Was it Robert Frost for whom poetry was also a healthy antidote to psychological illness ?

These problems --- pain, agony etc. ---- are problems self-satisfied ivory-tower philosophers simply cannot deal with, and often will not even try. It is left to poetry for healing of the tormented soul, not the useless self-declared philosopher-kings.
Originally posted by Luiseach

God knows, the 'poetry is BAD, I tell you, BAD' stance could do with some convincing support.
Yes. And how.
I'm still waiting for a decent claim I can really sink my teeth into. All I get is this penny-ante stuff about it being misleading therefore unhelpful to the commonwealth. Bah, humbug.
Does it really take you that long to water your tulips?
You would be astonished at the sheer amount of time and energy I can devote to an opening blossom.
:p
:)
Quote some more Magazine at me, then.
Ooooooooer, I will, I will.
When you least expect it.
:p
Ha! I would never underestimate the potential for subversive insubordination from my feather duster.
Not too sure on that yet.
:p

Apart from battling the Germanistik Faculty's attempts at a take-over of the whole philo faculty at my old alma mater (and just why isn't it alma pater ? Many a truth expressed in set phrase :D ), there's also the attitude of the deconstructionists relying on really poor extended forms of Freudianism, and their self-satisfied way of thinking they're somehow upsetting the Establishment.
Best brought to life through the portrayal of the Robyn Penrose character in David Lodge's novel Nice Work (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140119205/ref=pd_sim_books_2/002-6404368-5341659?v=glance&s=books); while I tend to not actually dislike Robyn Penrose, or the factory manager character Vic Wilcox, one gets the feeling that for Robyn Penrose us lowly lumpenproles are a class and a cut below --- to be pitied or managed, but certainly not as equals.
Or, IOW, the deconstructionists saw themselves as the leading revolutionary cadre who would lead the hoi polloi into the Golden Age ---- being derived from lumpy prole background as I am, such an attitude easily sets my teeth on edge --- and I can display sharp teeth indeed, together with that muscular and creative tongue of mine.

But enough of all that: I can do amazing things in the right context :) with a feather-duster --- one can very well speak of primal poetic dialogue.
:cool:
I await evidence that you too could muster such inventiveness and whatnot with a feather-duster. Or courage in the face of one.
:)

[John Page]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Yes. And how.
I'm still waiting for a decent claim I can really sink my teeth into.
I believe poetry generally enriches experience. How about the poetry of William McGonagall (http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/) , though, do you think it good or bad?

Cheers, John

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by John Page

I believe poetry generally enriches experience. How about the poetry of William McGonagall (http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/) , though, do you think it good or bad?

I believe McGonagall's poetry suits you very well, John. I'ld also recommend Betjeman as another soul-mate for you.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Gurdur
I believe McGonagall's poetry suits you very well, John. I'ld also recommend Betjeman as another soul-mate for you.
I take your reply to mean that you think McGonagall's poetry of insufficient quality for you.

As for Mr. Chintzy chintzy cheeriness, I had to do him at school, thus it has some unfortunate (but possibly illogical) associations.

Now cummings....

[Amos]

Originally posted by Gurdur

These problems --- pain, agony etc. ---- are problems self-satisfied ivory-tower philosophers simply cannot deal with, .

Probably not but you fail to recognize that ivory towers exist to be occupied by philosophers and you must be forgiven for making this comment because they tower above to indicate that small minds cannot comprehend theirs. In other words, your measuring stick is too short.

. . . stuff, but where poetry really comes into its own is in helping people express the most pressing and awful of feelings --- the kind of problem any over-intellectualized philosopher would run away in abject cowardice from.

Are you trying to tell us that poetry is like nursery rhymes for adults?

While Boethius did a very good stab at the Consolations Of Philosophy, it's poetry that one needs when time and feeling are too pressing.

Boethius was a [continental] philosopher who wrote poetry. Couldn't you tell?

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Amos

Probably not but you fail to recognize that ivory towers exist to be occupied by philosophers and you must be forgiven for making this comment because they tower above to indicate that small minds cannot comprehend theirs. In other words, your measuring stick is too short.
Since I have absolutely no intention of comparing measuring sticks with you, I must forgive you your misapprehensions.
Are you trying to tell us that poetry is like nursery rhymes for adults? No.
Are you trying to tell me that is obviously not the case ?
Boethius was a [continental] philosopher who wrote poetry. Couldn't you tell? Since I was comparing philosophy with poetry in regard to one specific area, it's rather immaterial whether Boethius did poetry as well, or in fact if he understood the Virtues Of The Angle-Grinder well too.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Since I have absolutely no intention of comparing measuring sticks with you, I must forgive you your misapprehensions.
ROFLMAO. Feather dusters at dawn.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by John Page

ROFLMAO. Feather dusters at dawn.
Not at all.
I rest secure in the knowledge my measuring stick is more than long enough;
but actually whipping it out to compare it with someone would remind me too dreadfully of the time Hemingway took F. Scott Fitzgerald into the men's to compare measuring-sticks, to reassure F. Scott Fitzgerald that his was OK.
So tacky, somehow.
And there's the risk I would not reassure Amos.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Gurdur
...Hemingway took F. Scott Fitzgerald into the men's to compare measuring-sticks....
Well that puts "A Diamond as big as the Ritz" in a new complexion.

Poor Xeno, only halfway to his goal - poetic justice, perhaps.

Goodnight, John

[Gurdur]

A small note for lurkers:

Boethius (circa 480 - 525/26 A.D.) wrote much of his The Consolation Of Philosophy (Consolatio Philosophiae) (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/boethius/boethius.html) in the form of poetry; but it's more his prose which is material to the point I made above.
I did think before mentioning Boethius at all of mentioning the comparative usage of prose and poetry in his work; but there are too many difficulties inherent in trying to make that, plus such a job needs an excellent knowledge of Latin.
Besides which, the point is more than adequately covered otherwise above.

Boethius' work is extremely comparable, BTW, to one of the works of Matuso Bashô (http://hkuhist2.hku.hk/Nakasendo/basho.htm) (1644 - 1695 A.D.), The Narrow Road To The Deep North (http://terebess.hu/english/haiku/basho2.html), which was also a masterpiece combining prose and poetry --- and deeply philosophical, if far more subtle than Boethius', which was written for other aims than Bashô's.
_________

Originally posted by John Page
....
Poor Xeno, only halfway to his goal - poetic justice, perhaps.
The coup de grace.....
Goodnight, John .... as a Parthian shot.

Originally posted by John Page
....
Now cummings....
archibald sends regards

[Devilnaut]

Perhaps it could be said that poetry is a good way to deliver secret messages and keep divine knowledge from the unworthy.

;)

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Devilnaut

Perhaps it could be said that poetry is a good way to deliver secret messages and keep divine knowledge from the unworthy.

;) A lot of alchemists in the late Middle Ages did exactly that.

Then there's also Edgar Allen Poe.
;)

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Gurdur
...why did Plato, and allegedly Socrates, feel that poets are so bad ?

(.....)

From Plato's description and other sources, the charge was essentially that while the poets cast the gods in human and therefore de-obscured images, Socrates and/or Plato wanted an authoritarian imaginary ideal of absolute perfectionism instead...Plato certainly saw the unabashed humanness of poets and poetry as a subversive threat to his wannabe kingdom; he was simply unable to handle messy human complexities, especially female ones...

So in a sense Plato's thought was, to a certain extent, influenced by an underlying misanthropy?

How interesting. I hadn't thought of that before.

Also, I think Plato was missing the point about all kinds of art, not just poetry. Which is ironic. Because, as Tyler Durden pointed out, he was a consummate creator of texts which could themselves be construed as literary.

For instance, and I bet Plato would have been majorly miffed by this, we study Shakespeare's texts alongside The Republic (as well as the works of other philosophers proper). Indeed, Republic is often examined as literature.

The borders between the 'literary' and the 'philosophical', between the 'creative' and the 'critical,' aren't as clearly delineated as they may seem to be at first glance.

Here's an interesting comment on Plato's esthetic theory:

"He [Plato] thought of the artist as a kind of magician whose rites and incantations release powerful and undisciplined emotions otherwise kept in check. All the arts, but particularly music and poetry, have great influence in molding character. It is no wonder that Plato, taking this view of the nature of art, insisted on rigid censorship of artists' activities, or that he judged artists harshly. When he thought of the cognitive intent of art, he found the artist a poor failure; when he thought of its emotive powers, he found the artist a social menace."

-----. W.T. Jones, A History of Western Philosophy: The Classical Mind. Second Edition (Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, 1970) p. 193.

At the moment, I can't reconcile Plato's dislike of poets with his own investment in the literary as part of his philosophising.

Was it Robert Frost for whom poetry was also a healthy antidote to psychological illness ?

I'm not sure...but you're probably correct.

I think that poetry's power and subversiveness have more to do with the intellectual challenges it poses, its scathing social critiques, and not its emotional benefits (although these too can be nice).

You would be astonished at the sheer amount of time and energy I can devote to an opening blossom.
:p
:)

I'm sure you're a very devoted gardener indeed. In fact, I would argue that gardening is itself an art.

...there's also the attitude of the deconstructionists relying on really poor extended forms of Freudianism, and their self-satisfied way of thinking they're somehow upsetting the Establishment...(.....)...Or, IOW, the deconstructionists saw themselves as the leading revolutionary cadre who would lead the hoi polloi into the Golden Age ---- being derived from lumpy prole background as I am, such an attitude easily sets my teeth on edge --- and I can display sharp teeth indeed, together with that muscular and creative tongue of mine.

Are you saying that deconstruction is a conservative theory? (BTW, please don't take my question as a disagreement; it's just that this is something I'd never thought of before, and I'm interested in the idea that deconstruction could perhaps be more conservative than progressive/subversive)

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Luiseach

I'm sure you're a very devoted gardener indeed. In fact, I would argue that gardening is itself an art.
I make an art out of my attention to a beautiful blossom --- but I'm none too sure about my gardening.
:)
So in a sense Plato's thought was, to a certain extent, influenced by an underlying misanthropy?
My English is a wee tad too rusty for thinking of the right word --- but IMHO it wasn't so much misanthropy as distaste for the common herd, a fear and contempt for the rabble, a preference for the elite.
....At the moment, I can't reconcile Plato's dislike of poets with his own investment in the literary as part of his philosophising.
He probably thougt he did it better than they.

I think that poetry's power and subversiveness have more to do with the intellectual challenges it poses, its scathing social critiques, and not its emotional benefits (although these too can be nice).
In my next long post, I want to cover Berthold Brecht's work.
Please stay !

Are you saying that deconstruction is a conservative theory?
Yes, in the same way that the ruling class of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) were very conservative --- that is, there was a genuine roll-over in terms of ruling class from 1946 - 1950, then an ossification.

Relying on Freud is itself very conservative; and building up an edifice on just in which way things are to be understood or not to be understood is fairly conservative ---- and apart from a successful revolution and power-play in the literary departments, and a failed take-over bid of science by the extremists of dc, dc hasn't had much of an effect on the outside world.

Please note there I'm trying to be as honest as possible while I'm not knowledgeable as needed --- in fact, I threw this in more to get a nibble than as a central, vital thesis; but in fact it is indeed a view I hold.
Please feel very free to correct me on this; quite truthfully, your knowledge is far, far better than mine on this subject.
You're the expert --- I'm just jaundiced.
(BTW, please don't take my question as a disagreement;
Oh, for Simone de Beauvoir's sakes, Luiseach, I wish you would disagree with me.
This is hardly a view I've yet thought out hard enough, and it needs hard refining; and besides which, I like it when you beat me up.

it's just that this is something I'd never thought of before, and I'm interested in the idea that deconstruction could perhaps be more conservative than progressive/subversive) Please note that I've avoided all cheap shots (and they would IMHO be fallacious anyway), like bringing up Derrida's connections to de Man or Heidegger.

I really don't see deconstructionism as now being subversive, or even progressive; it's now the established view, it works, it reigns in its own kingdom --- but it has little to no effect outside that kingdom.
But please, very truthfully, I would be very interested in your hard criticisms of this.

Snap up your beer and collect your fags,
There's a row going on down near Slough,
Get out your mat and pray to the West,
I'll get out mine and pray for myself.

Thought you were smart when you took them on,
But you didn't take a peep in their artillery room,
All that rugby puts hairs on your chest,
What chance have you got against a tie and a crest ?
Hello-hurrah - what a nice day - for the Eton Rifles,

...Thought you were clever when you lift the fuse,
Tore down the House of Commons in your brand new shoes,
Composed a revolutionary symphony,
Then went to bed with a charming young thing.
....
What a catalyst you turned out to be,
Loaded the guns then you ran off home for your tea,
Left me standing - like a guilty schoolboy.
We came out of it naturally the worst,
Beaten and bloody and I was sick down my shirt,
We were no match for their untamed wit,
Though some of the lads said they'll be back next week.
Hello-hurrah - there's a price to pay - to the Eton Rifles, Eton Rifles.....

----- The Jam

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Gurdur
I make an art out of my attention to a beautiful blossom --- but I'm none too sure about my gardening.
:)

Then you've discovered the secret of really great art - whatever the form this art happens to take.

My English is a wee tad too rusty for thinking of the right word --- but IMHO it wasn't so much misanthropy as distaste for the common herd, a fear and contempt for the rabble, a preference for the elite.

Classism? Elitism? Snobbery?

In my next long post, I want to cover Berthold Brecht's work.
Please stay !

Sounds intriguing. I'll look forward to that!


Relying on Freud is itself very conservative; and building up an edifice on just in which way things are to be understood or not to be understood is fairly conservative ---- and apart from a successful revolution and power-play in the literary departments, and a failed take-over bid of science by the extremists of dc, dc hasn't had much of an effect on the outside world.

Ah, but you forget, Tim, that intellectual revolutions often take time...I like to think of revolutionary thinking as having the same effect as waves on a beach. Each time the wave strokes the sand, minute changes, not necessarily perceivable to the naked eye, have taken place. It might take tens or hundreds or even thousands of years before the changes wrought by these steady, gentle waves are discernible to more than a few keen and interested observers, but that doesn't mean that the sand isn't shifting, that seemingly permanent landscapes aren't being transformed into something completely different, that apparently solid rock isn't being eroded into the stuff from which clever Venetian glass-blowers can make exquisite works of art.

Subtlety, Gurdur. The secret to a really rockin' intellectual revolution is subtlety.

I disagree with you that deconstruction has had little effect beyond the literary departments. Most intellectual revolutions begin with and work downwards from the metaphorical (and actual) ivory towers you seem to think of as enclosed wee citadels, not the other way around. And don't you think it would be rather unreliable to judge the advances made by revolutionary thought by looking for the overt effects they may have had on the general population?

Please note there I'm trying to be as honest as possible while I'm not knowledgeable as needed --- in fact, I threw this in more to get a nibble than as a central, vital thesis; but in fact it is indeed a view I hold.
Please feel very free to correct me on this; quite truthfully, your knowledge is far, far better than mine on this subject.
You're the expert --- I'm just jaundiced.

Before proceeding, may I ask that you outline what your understanding of deconstruction is? It'll give me more material to work with, you see.

Oh, for Simone de Beauvoir's sakes, Luiseach, I wish you would disagree with me.
This is hardly a view I've yet thought out hard enough, and it needs hard refining; and besides which, I like it when you beat me up.

Have I disagreed enough? Was my defence of deconstruction sufficiently impassioned? ;)

Please note that I've avoided all cheap shots (and they would IMHO be fallacious anyway), like bringing up Derrida's connections to de Man or Heidegger.

Why would it be a 'cheap shot' to connect Derrida to de Man or Heidegger? Go on, be a devil and make the connections.

I really don't see deconstructionism as now being subversive, or even progressive; it's now the established view, it works, it reigns in its own kingdom --- but it has little to no effect outside that kingdom.
But please, very truthfully, I would be very interested in your hard criticisms of this.

Well.

Firstly, I think you underestimate the potential subversiveness of that which seems, on the surface, to be conservative, or part of the 'establishment.'

Second. Surely you know that ideology is at its most powerful when it is seemingly invisible? What's that saying about the Devil? His best trick being to convince us that he doesn't exist? ;)

Thirdly, how do you know that deconstruction hasn't had an effect outwith the academy?


Composed a revolutionary symphony...


See? The Jam knows that even popular music - as poetry we can dance to - can ride the crest of revolutionary thought.

;)

[Amos]

Originally posted by Gurdur
A small note for lurkers:

Boethius (circa 480 - 525/26 A.D.) wrote much of his The Consolation Of Philosophy (Consolatio Philosophiae) (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/boethius/boethius.html) in the form of poetry; but it's more his prose which is material to the point I made above.
I did think before mentioning Boethius at all of mentioning the comparative usage of prose and poetry in his work; but there are too many difficulties inherent in trying to make that, plus such a job needs an excellent knowledge of Latin.
Besides which, the point is more than adequately covered otherwise above.



Thanks for the link Gurder. The poetry in such work is needed to give direction to the prose and this suggests that philosophy "towers" above poetry or it would be the other way around, don't you think?

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by Amos
The poetry in such work is needed to give direction to the prose and this suggests that philosophy "towers" above poetry or it would be the other way around, don't you think?

Amos, if prose requires the existence of poetry to give it 'direction' - and this is not necessarily so - then you've just undermined your rhetorical devaluation of poetry, and overvaluation of philosophy.

lol!

:D :D :D

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Amos

Thanks for the link Gurder. The poetry in such work is needed to give direction to the prose and this suggests that philosophy "towers" above poetry or it would be the other way around, don't you think?
Given your misplaced Sneer Misaimed and your extreme mischaracterization of my statements in your second-last post above, perhaps you'ld like to go back and make a much more serious response before asking me questions about inappropriate value judgements of different categories ?

Neither prose nor poetry must nor are needed to give direction to the other, and value judgments between two different categories of communication are inadmissable.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Luiseach
....
Classism? Elitism? Snobbery?
No, worse than that, worse than that.
There's to my mind a definite element of contempt and real fear in Plato's attitudes.

Ah, but you forget, Tim, that intellectual revolutions often take time...
Paying attention to an opening blossom demands time; but overly intellectualized revolutions which promise far more than they can deliver ?
I'm comparing deconstructionism's actual results with its claims --- I am certainly no expert, and only you, Hugo Holbling and Tyler Durdan can in the end pronounce final judgment, but as an onlooker in both academia and real life, it rather reminds me of Marvon Minsky promising us self-aware Artificial Intelligences within 15 years, and promising us that faithfully since 1970, or the promises of transformational grammar to revolutionize the understanding of human language within 5 years, and that being promised faithfully for the last 30 years too.

Rest in the next post.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Luiseach
.....
See? The Jam knows that even popular music - as poetry we can dance to - can ride the crest of revolutionary thought.
*cough* *cough* *splutter* *enraged snarl*

The Jam were pointing out in that song the rather distressing tendency of self-declared Leading Cadres to want to fulfill their own aims and then bugger off leaving their manipulated foot-troops in the lurch.

OK, OK, you are perfectly correct otherwise; most certainly, poetry, music and song can be and extremely often are used in revolutionary ways.
But you gotta be bloody careful of the self-appointed leaders.

If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution

---- Emma Goldman

[DoubleDutchy]

Originally posted by Gurdur


Yes. And how.
I'm still waiting for a decent claim I can really sink my teeth into. All I get is this penny-ante stuff about it being misleading therefore unhelpful to the commonwealth. Bah, humbug.




Thought in poetry.— The poet conducts thoughts along festively, in the carriage of rhythm: usually because they are incapable of walking on foot.
- Nietzsche ( Human all too human)

Go Gurdur, go ! :D

[Amos]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Neither prose nor poetry must nor are needed to give direction to the other, and value judgments between two different categories of communication are inadmissable.

Lyric poetry is interspersed with gnostic text to direct our train of thought when reading the text and the reason for this is that when we read poetry we are willing to place ourselves as subjects to the poets words while when we read prose we are more inclined to use the dictionary to help us out.

A good question here would be if his "Consolation" would mean the same thing without the poems and if it does why are the poems there.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Luiseach
......
Ah, but you forget, Tim, that intellectual revolutions often take time...I like to think of revolutionary thinking as having the same effect as waves on a beach. Each time the wave strokes the sand, minute changes, not necessarily perceivable to the naked eye, have taken place. It might take tens or hundreds or even thousands of years before the changes wrought by these steady, gentle waves are discernible to more than a few keen and interested observers, but that doesn't mean that the sand isn't shifting, that seemingly permanent landscapes aren't being transformed into something completely different, that apparently solid rock isn't being eroded into the stuff from which clever Venetian glass-blowers can make exquisite works of art.

There's a certain value to genuine conservatism (as opposed to rightwing radicalism), just as there is value to geunine reformism and even sometimes genuine revolutionarism.

I live 40 Km away from The Roman Museum in Cologne; in that museum are Roman glass works that have survived over 2,000 years, and are still beautiful.
The major luminous numinousity of church stained-glass windows lies in their aging; the top layer of glass is rendered porous and honey-combed by the atmosphere's slow actions upon it, and the resultant effect on light by the window is stunningly beautiful.

When I make, as I do when possible, such glass pieces as below :

http://www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~skellett/6_Glass3.jpg

http://www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~skellett/6_Glass7.jpg

despite the small size of the first example (the second being bowl-sized) then I know I have made something that will with mild care outlast my own life-span by at least a factor of 10; I have made a concrete poem, so to speak, and while its initial value lies in mildly revolutionary actions (the "fletching" of the glass in the second example), its long-term value lies in what it conserves, how it conserves it and how it is conserved.

The initial revolution is necessary to bring in new thoughts or to cure injustices; there is no value to a permanent Cultural Revolution that merely brings in new injustices, no value to simply swapping one ruling-class for another small one.

And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
.........
The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war
........
There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
.......
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again......

Meet the new boss: Same as the old boss


--- by The Who.

Then there is the question of just what deconstructionism is supposed to be bringing us ---- however slowly.
Would you mind detailing what you see as its real or potential long-term effects ?

Subtlety, Gurdur. The secret to a really rockin' intellectual revolution is subtlety.
heh, heh, the secret to a really good rockin' 'n a'rollin' intellectual and emotional experience is a mixture of subtleties and heavy contrasts
----
but the key to a real revolution affecting many more than just two people lies in its transparency and openness, not in its hidden claims and aims,

"To bore into the system from within" becomes too often that simple turn-over in ruling -class followed by ossification and repression, as noted in the East German example.
I disagree with you that deconstruction has had little effect beyond the literary departments.
Then would you, Hugo Holbling and Tyler Durdan please detail some of what you see as its concrete effects outside of literary departments ?
Please understand me, I am not trying to just sneer or be snobbish; I am far, far, far ruder about modern Applied Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence, Chomsky And The Transformators, and Tony Blair nowadays.
I am only attempting a balanced critique, despite the glaringly obvious chip on my shoulder; and I'll need your criticisms to make my critique any worth.
Most intellectual revolutions begin with and work downwards from the metaphorical (and actual) ivory towers you seem to think of as enclosed wee citadels, not the other way around.
Really ?
I could just as easily retort that intellectual revolutions from above are prompted and powered by new value movements from below; that the intellectual merely responds to the value from beneath.
And don't you think it would be rather unreliable to judge the advances made by revolutionary thought by looking for the overt effects they may have had on the general population?
Not at all. What would you suggest as a better mode of judgment ?
Before proceeding, may I ask that you outline what your understanding of deconstruction is? It'll give me more material to work with, you see.
Ah, you've obviously studied Sun Tzu on The Art Of War.

I will detail my own understanding in a couple of posts later.
Have I disagreed enough?
um, not quite, sorry.
Was my defence of deconstruction sufficiently impassioned? ;)
I would never criticize your passion, I merely seek to excite it.

Why would it be a 'cheap shot' to connect Derrida to de Man or Heidegger?
Because it would constitute an ad hominem and in particular fallacy of "poisoning of the well".
Firstly, I think you underestimate the potential subversiveness of