Poetic Philosophy

Abstract

It is well-known that Plato thinks philosophy and poetry are at odds with each other. Although both philosophy and poetry share a common medium of expression, nevertheless the manner and goal of their expressions are not at all the same. A philosopher such as Socrates employs simple words and phrases (Apology, 21 ). Poets of various sorts-tragic, epic, dithyrambic-use fancy words and phrases. Of course, philosophers know what they are talking about in the sense that they can present evidence, argument, explanation, and justification for what they say. While poets create their works a certain divine inspiration, like soothsayers and prophets(Apology, 27). In short, poets don't know what they are saying.' Philosophers pursue the truth. The truth, which is not to be understood as merely a logical or an epistemological term, but as a metaphysical one, is to be, if not wholly attained, at least, approached by means of dialectic. Dialectic, as I understand Plato, is not only a process of cross examination, it is also a process of or a progress towards abstraction, abstraction which is also reality. Dialectic has been likened to a ladder we climb, both epistemologically and metaphysically, beyond the here and now. Philosophers and poets, accordingly, are headed in opposite directions. While philosophers try to live among ideas and perhaps cast a bird's eye view upon appearance, poets make images of appearances, i.e., appearances of appearances and revel (or is it wallow?) in them. The poet's aim is not the truth but merely a celebration of appearances, one perhaps a bit too rich, a bit too Dionysian for Plato's blood. The effects of poetry, especially poetry left to its own devices are quite grave; poets, in their blindness to the truth, intoxicated by the power of rhetoric, can create sores at the very heart of society; they can corrupt the moral and religious education of the young. Where education is poor justice shall never flourish. Alfred North Whitehead said that all philosophy is a footnote to Plato. In respect to the conflict between philosophy and poetry this is surely true; that is, at least, until the twentieth century. Since Plato the great moral philosophers have either avoided or ignored what poets have to say about moral issues, even though there are pockets of sympathy here and there, e.g., J. S. Mill's feel for Wordsworth. For the most part, poets have been thought of as weird and immoral, perhaps like actors, because their performances reveal the seamy side of life. Often one finds that the poet has to apologize for what he says, lest his audience think he is a bad character: nam castum esse decet pium poetam/ ipsum, versiculos nihil necesse est [It is proper that a poet himself is pious, pure, although it is not at all necessary that his little verses be. my trans.] (Catullus, 16). As far as philosophers' attitudes as to what poets can tell us about the world, about existence, clearly philosophers believe they are talking about reality, while poets merely are creating fictions. The notion that philosophers actually discover something true about the world, that philosophy, like science, progresses, has been as abiding faith among philosophers ever since Plato sowed the seed of that faith. While philosophers foment Copernican-like revolutions, poets, in contrast, bear forward the lighter, and perhaps somewhat paltry, burden of tradition. Wittgenstein: Philosopher on Philosophy Wittgenstein's approach to philosophy, especially the later Wittgenstein, is a break from the way philosophy had been done since Plato's time. It is debatable whether Wittgenstein brought off the revolution single-handedly; some scholars would cite Karl Kraus or Nietzsche as Wittgenstein's comrades in arms;others would point out that people such as Heidegger and Dewey were independently working along lines similar to Wittgenstein's. No one, however, would deny that Wittgenstein was a major player in setting a new course for philosophy; or was it the very destruction of philosophy? …