New Quarrels: Innovative Poetry and the Philosophical Horizon (original) (raw)

On the Seeming Incompatibility Between Poetry and Philosophy

Estetika 50 (1): 27-40, 2013

Poetry as a mode of philosophizing can reasonably be considered a failure when making the following moves: from the experientially particular to general content (by means of abstract thought); from ordinary pre-reflective thinking (a contingent thought someone happened to have) to philosophically rigorous thought (which is rationally grounded); from domestic conceptions (connections of thought made by individual readers) to public conceptions (why these connections are relevant to our general, collective understanding). These problems arise when trying to meet the three main requirements of philosophical inquiry: generality, rationality, and justification. In order to show that the thinking involved in reading a poem is akin to the thinking involved in philosophical inquiry, poetry must make the right kind of moves in thought and meet these fundamental philosophical demands. In this article, the author offers a defence of the view that poetry can make a significant and valuable contribution to philosophical inquiry when faced with these three problems.

The Quarrel of Philosophy and Poetry

A discussion of the quarrel of philosophy and poetry in its various stages in the history of western ideas: from the early poets (e.g., Homer), to the first philosophic attack on poetry (e.g., Xenophanes), to the poetic counter-attack against philosophy (e.g., Aristophanes), to the classical synthesis (e.g., Plato), to the modern solution (Machiavelli to Nietzsche).

The Quarrel between Poetry and Philosophy. Introduction

2015

The article introduces to the volume on the quarrel between poetry and philosophy, by focusing on Leo Strauss's interpretation of this issue in Plato, who is widely recognized as the originator of the quarrel. Furthermore, the article describes how the quarrel is developed in the philosophical and poetic perspectives of some key thinkers such as Leopardi, Benjamin and Proust

Poetry and Philosophy: A New Look at an Old Quarrel APSR 109.2 (May 2015)

The subordination of poetry to rational guidance has been denounced as a symptom of a specifically Western sickness, with its origin in Plato’s Republic. But Plato’s disposition to the poets is more complex than is often supposed. Although Book Three’s education in civic virtue includes a call for an austere, civic poetry, in Book Ten Socrates finds the wisdom of this provision to need a serious reconsideration, one made necessary because philosophy has emerged as the true answer to the search for a genuinely fulfilling, happy life. Book Ten’s reconsideration quietly shows that great poets likeHomer are wiser than the earlier examination had suggested, especially about death, and are even indistinguishable from Socratic philosophers in their understanding of and disposition toward death and so in the related matter of the best human life.

Philosophy and poetry: a dialogue

Aoristo))))) International Journal of Phenomenology, Hermeneutics and Metaphysics , 2020

Considering the history of Philosophy, we can see that, before recognizing and stating the peculiarities of its practices, the philosophical discourse was born in intimate connection to poetry. By exploring moments of tension and proximity between poetic and philosophical discourses, the present essay is a reflection on this relationship over time. In order to do so, we focus on the works of authors such as Homer, Plato, Goethe, F. Schlegel, and Schelling as a strategy to show variations and emphasize some specific movements within this long dialogue.

The Old Quarrel Between Philosophy and Poetry

The quarrel between philosophy and poetry has implications for our lives as both citizens and ordinary human beings. By closely reading and interpreting Book X of Plato’s Republic, which judges poetry by the standard of truth, and Aristophanes’ Clouds, which provides a comic critique of philosophy, we may see that the philosopher and the poet seem to engage in conversation, addressing similar points from opposing views and outlining the terms of their disagreement. This thesis aims to point to questions raised and answered by the poet and the philosopher about the status of reason in governing the soul and the city, the best life for human beings according to their nature, and the role of laws and convention in our lives and relationships. It also applies the discussion of these topics to issues of free expression today, and explores moral authority as both the philosopher and the poet see it.

So Much Truth, so Much Being: Poetic Provocations to Philosophical Musings

Paideusis, 2020

This bricolage of verses and prose, addresses the themes of poetics in and of philosophizing, and brings poetic provocations to philosophical musings. The authors muse on what it is to philosophize in the mood and mode of poetics, and why that matters for education. Preliminary incursions are made into the issues of entrenched dualism between intellect (mind) and senses (heart), and ensuing privileging of the former over the latter. A collegially written introduction sets the general framework. Framing Our Bricolage The ancient quarrel between philosophers and poets as portrayed by Plato (1966) in the Republic is still very much alive today. Of many forms of animosity the quarrel takes, there is first of all the separation of philosophy as a "rational," "logical," or "left brain" activity from poetry as "non-rational" or even "irrational," "non-logical," or "right brain" activity. It also takes the form of separating intellect from emotion, science from arts, facts from values, fight of debate from flight of fancy, argumentation from reverie, analysis from intuition, and so on. Not only do we separate these functions, but also we then proceed to privilege one side of functions over the other. Philosophy, once known as the "Queen of All Sciences," still behaves like one today and has identified itself with the rational side, with an unbecoming pride of place. But philosophy is far more than and far greater than this one-sided portrayal. Philosophy need not be and must not be only identified with the rational, logical, and analytic side, notwithstanding Plato's mission of banishing poets from the Republic of Philosophers. Erizim Kohák (1984), the Czech ecological philosopher, reminds us about the birth of Ancient Greek philosophy: that she was the daughter of techne and poiesis. He likens techne to the bright daylight that shows everything in clear and distinct details. Techne, representing the masculine aspect, brings to the world "the precision of analysis and the artifice of constructs" (Kohák, 1984, p. 32), rendering it fit for human action and manipulation. In contrast, poiesis, the feminine aspect, is likened to the soft darkness of night-time that fuses all shapes into vast oneness. In the world given to us by the night vision, "[n]othing is left to do, to say: a human can only stand in silent awe and thanking devotion before the immense wonder of it all" (Kohák, 1984, p. 32). Night is the time of poetry-of deep dreams. Philosophy, Kohák tells us, takes up the intermediate vision between techne and poiesis. Such vision is best had in twilight. Yet, twilight is typically not the light condition of the academy, whose patron saint seems to be Descartes with his rallying cry of clear and distinct ideas to be revealed

The Agon between Philosophy and Poetry

Athletics, Gymnastics, and Agon in Plato, 2020

In Republic 607b, in the context of justifying the exclusion of a certain kind of poetry from the city, Socrates refers to an old quarrel between philosophy and poetry. In this agonistic dispute, which involved harsh words from both parties, Plato himself played a major role and the extensive restrictions Socrates imposes on poetry in the Republic would denounce his view that philosophy, and not poetry, should have the final word when it comes to molding Greek education. When one analyses Socrates’ arguments against traditional poetry, one serious accusation he seems to be open to is that of selectively choosing his quotations from the poets and intentionally distorting their meaning, sometimes by presenting them out of context and supposing that a regular reader/hearer would also do the same. However, in the Republic, before Socrates imposes his restrictions on poetry, Plato introduces Glaucon’s and Adeimantus’ initial speeches, which play a key role in understanding why Socrates distorts the poets. A thorough reading of the brother’s speeches intended to present the “majority’s” views on justice will reveal that they also distort and interpret the poets in a way that fits their own purposes. This seems to be Plato’s strategy to make the reader understand that a distorted reading and appropriation of the contents of poetry is not a far cry from what can actually happen if poetry is not purified of its ambiguities, precisely the sort of ambiguities some of Socrates’ restrictions aim to prevent.