Questioning poetic philosophers or philosophical poets

[marjoram_blues]

[quotevidenus"]

I don't think I would ever call myself a poetic philosopher or a philosophical poet, even if I happened to be one.

It was only a generic observation not meant to be applied to any one person though there are those who qualify.

M: Yes, I didn't take it as a question only for me. However, I wanted to give my p.o.v.
Interesting that you had no curiosity about my reasons. Guess you don't really care. For the record, it is because I'm not particularly fond of labels and those ones sound particularly pretentious.

And yes, your references to a pseudo philosopher and would-be poet, incomprehensible short sentences brings up the usual 'What is...? type questions. What is a poem ? All good questions...but perhaps more for the aesthetics thread.

An “aesthetics thread” isn't going to help one bit if we don't know by now what a poem is or meant to be. Most of the time - especially modern times - poems are nothing more than verbal bunk often indulged in by those who can barely write decent prose. That's what “poetry for all” has done to poetry.

M: What do you think the purpose of the 'Aesthetics' forum is ? Since I don't frequent or trawl the net or bookshops for poetry, I wouldn't know about 'most of the time' or the quality of most 'modern poems'. Do you ? There seems to be a passion in your response for poetry, do you write it, or read it often?
So protective of poetry, do you really want to make it less accessible to all, as readers or producers ? I think you said earlier it was no longer in vogue...and now you suggest that 'poetry for all' has turned it into 'verbal bunk'. Well, if there are more people turning to poetry - for whatever reason - then there will, of course, be different forms and appreciation of whatever quality lies there. Some might well be 'verbal bunk' but not all.

Nevertheless, there is some great writing out there, and even in this very forum.

Interesting statement! Whose writing on this forum, or any other, is so exceptional as to escape the extinction list. I've never encountered a single nugget of great writing but there are enough posts to conclude that there is good writing with the occasional bit of notable writing.

M: Yeah well, there is 'wow, that's great!' and there is 'How Great Thou Art'. I can think of certain posters, perhaps including yourself, whose words have struck me as acute and meaningful. Some I haven't forgotten, like a couple of humorous haikus on 'Evolution'.

Goethe is more than a match for the Shaky one Perhaps that would be a question for Goethe's webchat...
'Wolfy, how would you compare yourself to Willy?' >> 'Let me count the ways...'

As one's personal opinion, I wouldn't dispute it but that is not the global consensus and hardly any in Germany would agree that Goethe is more than a match. But it must be said that Goethe had a profound regard for Shakespeare.[/quote]

M: There will always be comparisons of the great, and disputes about opinion. As for 'global or national consensus', who cares ? You do like your 'mosts' and 'hardly any' type statements, doncha?

Yes, I read that Shaky inspired Goethe. And G. inspired others, who in turn...
So it goes.

[marjoram_blues]

So, there are 47 pages n the 'Poetry Here' thread, plus a few haikus scattered around the joint.
How difficult is it to 'come out' and call yourself a poetic philosopher or a philosophical poet ?

Sadly, the two disciplines, at least in their western stream, are antagonistic. Philosophy is logic, description, definition, organization, drawing up exact and exacting relationships between parts, and then putting ideas into boxes and make them fit, then transfer them into same size-and-shape iron boxes. This is called iron-clad logic.

M: I disagree that poetry and philosophy are antagonistic. Especially, if you take the wider perspective. I think they complement each other, both being reflective and, at times, inspiring. Simply exchanging thoughts and ideas.

Poetry, on the other hand, and in my esteem good poetry, comes from that part of the soul that communicates or absorbs music and dreams. It is unorganized, unscheduled, and therefore free.

M: Now isn't that a perfect example of poetic philosophy: ' poetry comes from that part of the soul...?'


Can you do both? You sure as hell can. Can you marry the two? Yes, but the two will be strange bedfellows. They say opposites attract. To me philosophy is male, poetry is female, much like Chinese watercolours of horses or of cherry blossoms are female, and Albrecht Durer's "Rhinoceros" is male. Cats are female, dogs are male. Female is movement, lightness of being; male is stagnant, stabilized by weight and by will. Birds and butterflies are female, castles and forts with bastions are male. You get the point. Meat and potatoes are male, preserves and sushi are female. Scarborough fair and parsley, sage, rosemary, and thyme are female, The Fifth is male.

M: Again, I have to disagree re the application of gender to philosophy and poetry. Why do you think this way?

One singular exception exists: Beethoven's Leonora Overture. It is a truly symbolic description by concrete images that it evokes, of androgyny; it is a wonderful piece, because at the time other musicians depicted marriage, revolutions, idyllic scenes with their "porgram" music, Beethoven took on a conceptual image and made a masterpiece out of it, before androgyny was even conceptualized by social anthropologists or by anyone else.
M: As before, I don't see the relevance of 'androgyny' to this conversation. Unless you want to ask any poet/philosopher what their gender is ? Or how gender plays a part in their thoughts while composing>

[hajrafradi]

1. M: I disagree that poetry and philosophy are antagonistic. Especially, if you take the wider perspective. I think they complement each other, both being reflective and, at times, inspiring. Simply exchanging thoughts and ideas.

Poetry, on the other hand, and in my esteem good poetry, comes from that part of the soul that communicates or absorbs music and dreams. It is unorganized, unscheduled, and therefore free.

2. M: Now isn't that a perfect example of poetic philosophy: ' poetry comes from that part of the soul...?'

3. M: Again, I have to disagree re the application of gender to philosophy and poetry. Why do you think this way?
4. M: As before, I don't see the relevance of 'androgyny' to this conversation. 5. Unless you want to ask any poet/philosopher what their gender is ? 6. Or how gender plays a part in their thoughts while composing>

1. You're right, I used the wrong word. I should have said "they are incongruent with each other."

2. No, it's not poetic philosophy. I literally think it comes from that part of the soul. Yes, "soul" and "that part of the soul" sounds poetic, lyrical, but I meant that it literally comes form that very part of what we call soul. It sounded poetic, but I did not mean it that way. The words I used carry too much, and by me unintended, emotional connotation.

3. Why do I think that way? How else should I think? Is there a rule book how people ought to think and how they must not think? I don't think I understand your question. Please try to rephrase it, because I don't know what you mean with that question.

4. There is no relevance of androgyny to the conversation. I just branched out because of my flight of fancy of thought. I apologize for acting undisciplined and I dared to involve an unrelated thought. I promise I shall try my best and not do that ever again in the future, but I can't promise full compliance, due to my very fallibility.

5. No.

6. No.

[marjoram_blues]

I won't be rephrasing anything. You well understand that I am questioning your gender fixation.
I don't appreciate your sarcastic style.

[hajrafradi]

I won't be rephrasing anything. You well understand that I am questioning your gender fixation.
I don't appreciate your sarcastic style.

Thanks for clarifying that that's what you were about with asking "Why do you think that way?" Honestly, I couldn't have guessed, and I did not.

So what do you want to know about my gender fixation? Or maybe I am misunderstanding you again?

I apologize for having been sarcastic. I was temporarily upset, because I should have thought side-lining was allowed. Like asking others about their gender fixation (that's also not strictly topic-wise, but hey.)

Friends again?

[marjoram_blues]

I won't be rephrasing anything. You well understand that I am questioning your gender fixation.
I don't appreciate your sarcastic style.

Thanks for clarifying that that's what you were about with asking "Why do you think that way?" Honestly, I couldn't have guessed, and I did not.

So what do you want to know about my gender fixation? Or maybe I am misunderstanding you again?

I apologize for having been sarcastic. I was temporarily upset, because I should have thought side-lining was allowed. Like asking others about their gender fixation (that's also not strictly topic-wise, but hey.)

Friends again?

It's not about being either a friend or a foe.
Again, I think you are being disingenuous.
And playing games.
Count me out.

[Dubious]

You do like your 'mosts' and 'hardly any' type statements, doncha?

Kinda! Since absolute statements are hardly appropriate most of the time.

As for 'global or national consensus', who cares ? Like it means anything...without evidence.

Consensus serves as an index which confirms the view, for example, that Beethoven was a greater composer than Dittersdorf even if the latter was also a genius of which there is no question. Time is a great filter, a lens upon the past which magnifies or de-magnifies reputations and often reverses opinion en masse. There are many instances of that, Shakespeare being perhaps the greatest example of assessments catching up and taking a long time to do it. Goethe's reputation, in contrast, was at its peak while he lived. Though still considered a giant which he undoubtedly was, is, and shall remain, his star has somewhat dimmed since that time, not least among the Germans themselves. Time is distance in which the “peaks” become apparent the more one age is removed from another. So, yeah! It does mean something. It means a whole lot...which does not make it infallible in its evaluations!

What do you think the purpose of the 'Aesthetics' forum is?

I know what it's for. Should any negation of mine prevent me from posting what I consider aesthetical or not?

Since I don't frequent or trawl the net or bookshops for poetry, I wouldn't know about 'most of the time' or the quality of most 'modern poems'. Do you ?

How much “trawling” do you think is required before coming to the conclusion that an abundance of modern poetry wouldn't even have the value of horse droppings on a cobble-stoned road?

There seems to be a passion in your response for poetry, do you write it, or read it often?

I have written some in unfashionable rhyme because it was so easy and read a lot of poetry many years ago. I'm still not immune to Milton, Marlowe and a host of others including some by Goethe and many by Schiller. The good stuff, in short, which actually sounds like poetry meaning language as art which hasn't yet degenerated into the most profuse, pathetic crap imaginable. Seeing it on paper reminds me of used toilet paper. Modern “poets” write as though they were thoroughly immunized against any influx of embarrassment in response to their output.

Well, if there are more people turning to poetry - for whatever reason - then there will, of course, be different forms and appreciation of whatever quality lies there. Some might well be 'verbal bunk' but not all.

I agree. There are a few who do have talent. Some ages have more than others relative to some art. Nothing new here.

[marjoram_blues]

Dubious - thanks for response. I think we're pretty much done here. Or at least I am.