In any endeavor of the mind, and perhaps especially in Ethics,
there are matters of fact (real and hypothetical, historical,
present, and future), and there are matters of meaning. What an action
means to people can say a lot about its importance in Ethics.

Martha Nussbaum is one contemporary Philosopher who is well known for
applying classic Greek Philosophical principles to contemporary situations.
Where does she look to get a feel for what that all means today?

I noticed one source (of many, probably) at the bookstore the other day. Here
is a review of some literature Professor Nussbaum relates to:
phillislevin.com/books-may-day
"...Lyrical, metaphysical, tender, and fierce, Phillis Levin's May Day delights and astonishes. Her use of Greek myth to illuminate contemporary violence and disgust summons up both tears and deep thought about our present and future."

I got the book in question.
There isn't actually much in the way of rhyme or meter (as many peculiarly
suggest about contemporary poetry) in Levin's work, but it does manage to say
things with a striking clarity.

Not that literature is a stranger to thinkers throughout history. Perhaps it is
not so strange that people who want to carefully consider how we feel
in Morality and Ethics turn to those who describe those feeling well to inform
their arguments. Both the current feelings and the current mode of expressing
them accurately are important.

I absolutely adore Levin but I think that you are wrong when you say there isn't much rhyme or meter. The woman has it in spades, she knows exactly what poetry is and remains a complete natural. But, it has been rare to find one daring enough to venture into the paradoxical world of poetry and philosophy that I can only applaud you (even though your energy in the post is lacking any real clarity of the topic).

Nevertheless, a question on interpretation: does poetry strike in us an emotional connection to the world, of things beyond the self but yet contained within our 'conscience' to give us something morally worthy, or do we take a platonic view and be weary of the false assumptions and illusions poetry induces in the mind of the irrational?

I will have to check out those folks. TL, I would like to think that the poetic vision is something true but independent of any morality. Honestly, I haven't read much poetry, so my frame of reference is negligible. I was just collecting some things I need to re-read...and I always enjoy Robert Frost. I'm about to jump on a plane and I will try to check back to EP to get insight from others on your good question about poetry

I don't feel like I read an incredible amount. A lot of what I read is non-fiction (philosophy really); overall, I spend a lot more time thinking, writing and in discussion with friends than reading. However, my engagement with literature and poetry has always been incredibly powerful - this is part of why I don't read as much possibly, since I take so long to digest and think about everything that I read, and re-read, and re-read.


TimeLine wrote:
Nevertheless, a question on interpretation: does poetry strike in us an emotional connection to the world, of things beyond the self but yet contained within our 'conscience' to give us something morally worthy, or do we take a platonic view and be weary of the false assumptions and illusions poetry induces in the mind of the irrational?

Poetry, like other arts, does allow the common to shock us anew (just like a good reading of a philosopher should). A poem can draw our attention to the simple in a way that makes it stand out what it means essentially to us.

"What a sense of the tolerableness of life the lights in the bedrooms of small shopkeepers give us!" -The Waves, Virginia Woolf

This line from the waves (there are others that mention the windows of shopkeepers) strikes me so powerfully as to often bring me to tears. That such a simple line, by suggesting to us a feeling in relation to a thing, can cause me to evaluate my own position in life and consider if my life, much like that of the small shopkeepers, is only just tolerable. This sentence about light from windows calls into question my life like an ethical question of the highest eschelon.

I remember reading Kierkegaard's Fear and Tremmbling, and after the first section I was so thrilled to ask, and answer, why the story of Abraham and Isaac was glorious. I was swept up in the beauty of Kierkegaard's prose, and caught myself. I thought, but wait, what Abraham does is obviously reprehensible. This effect is exactly what Kierkegaard wanted, if you continue and examine the three questions he asks concerning Abraham.

Between just the Woolf and Kierkegaard there is enough evidence that poetry may pose a risk to morality, just as much as it may be a friend to it. This leads me to your mention of Plato.

Plato's worry with poetry is not that poetry is wicked itself, but that it poses a threat for morality. We can witness above in the praise of a murderer the lure of beauty (I don't think Kierkegaard is praising murder, but there is a risk in reading that first section, being affected, and not reading on). Plato seems particularly to be reacting to the use of Homer's work as a moral compass.

Plato's consideration of the poets in the Republic is quite sever, but when we consider the aim of the work, and also that it contains the noble lie, it clear that the work is oriented towards an end of humanity. However, I admit that it is a shock to think that the end of humanity would be stifled by poetry. This is deeply troubling for me in Plato's work and demands careful consideration before it is assumed that Plato doesn't care for any poetry. He certainly mentions the poets with enough praise in the dialogues.

Schiller, in Kantian fashion, talks about the beautiful as a friend to good, but by being a friend it runs the risk of having us act for aesthetic reasons rather than out of duty. This sort of sentiment is something that Plato may have in mind. His censorship of poetry in the republic seems to be out of a concern that it will mislead, and I have a feeling that those it would be at risk of misleading would be the lower class (and maybe middle class) discussed in the noble lie. I'm worried that a sentiment like this produces an outlook inevitably like the Catholic Church that feels like it should handle matters of truth, and pass the results down to those who couldn't possibly understand (Plato influenced Christianity to a degree that makes me wonder why it isn't just called Platonism sometimes). I don't see this extending beyond Plato's politics and into his ethics, where truth seems to be accessed from poetry quite clearly.

TimeLine wrote:
I absolutely adore Levin but I think that you are wrong when you say there isn't much rhyme or meter.


My apologies...I was tweeking noses a bit (not yours).
I have read a bit...and there is no shortage of in-rhyme, complex alliteration,
sense, and image play. Just not the sort of blatant, outright rhyming
some members had accused poetry of being solely about.


The woman has it in spades, she knows exactly what poetry is and remains a complete natural.


A 'natural', as in, 'writes that way almost without trying'. Some people
have that gift. And I don't think is should be held against them when it
rings true. Same as important ideas in Dickens or Dostoevski, for example.
Th aren't exactly writing maintanence manuals, either, are they. Levin
makes a good example, and Nussbaum is fortright and honorable enough to
say so.


But, it has been rare to find one daring enough to venture into the paradoxical world of poetry and philosophy that I can only applaud you (even though your energy in the post is lacking any real clarity of the topic).

Um, some things are hazy for reasons. I will PM.



Nevertheless, a question on interpretation: does poetry strike in us an emotional connection to the world, of things beyond the self but yet contained within our 'conscience' to give us something morally worthy, or do we take a platonic view and be weary of the false assumptions and illusions poetry induces in the mind of the irrational?


Both...I think.

People are wary of poetry, and indeed should be even
more wary of the cultural noises they love at the moment, because
the arts are the oars we stir each other with. It is surely
hypocritical for someone to reject all poetry, especially that
which addresses issues, and then to go quoting song lyrics or
showing video clips to make their point. Was Mick Jagger or
Robert Frost more Philosophically deluding? The poetry compliaint
seems like a weirdly ancient and ill-informed vendetta.
Pop culture bits are more potent distractors, obviously. But all
the arts are the main way we transmit culture,
and performance arts are main way we coin and pass new words and terms.

I think Phillis Levin is just one (excellent) example of how poetry
can be on the good side of the two-edged sword of the arts.

leonardomenderes wrote:
TimeLine wrote:
I absolutely adore Levin but I think that you are wrong when you say there isn't much rhyme or meter.


My apologies...I was tweeking noses a bit (not yours).
I have read a bit...and there is no shortage of in-rhyme, complex alliteration,
sense, and image play. Just not the sort of blatant, outright rhyming
some members had accused poetry of being solely about.


The woman has it in spades, she knows exactly what poetry is and remains a complete natural.


A 'natural', as in, 'writes that way almost without trying'. Some people
have that gift. And I don't think is should be held against them when it
rings true. Same as important ideas in Dickens or Dostoevski, for example.
Th aren't exactly writing maintanence manuals, either, are they. Levin
makes a good example, and Nussbaum is fortright and honorable enough to
say so.


But, it has been rare to find one daring enough to venture into the paradoxical world of poetry and philosophy that I can only applaud you (even though your energy in the post is lacking any real clarity of the topic).

Um, some things are hazy for reasons. I will PM.



Nevertheless, a question on interpretation: does poetry strike in us an emotional connection to the world, of things beyond the self but yet contained within our 'conscience' to give us something morally worthy, or do we take a platonic view and be weary of the false assumptions and illusions poetry induces in the mind of the irrational?


Both...I think.

People are wary of poetry, and indeed should be even
more wary of the cultural noises they love at the moment, because
the arts are the oars we stir each other with. It is surely
hypocritical for someone to reject all poetry, especially that
which addresses issues, and then to go quoting song lyrics or
showing video clips to make their point. Was Mick Jagger or
Robert Frost more Philosophically deluding? The poetry complaint
seems like an ancient and now ill-informed vendetta in 2010.
Pop culture bits are more potent distractors, obviously. But all
the arts are the main way we transmit culture,
and performance arts are main way we coin and pass new words and terms.

I think Phillis Levin is just one (excellent) example of how poetry
can be on the good side of the two-edged sword of the arts.