From The Philosopher, Volume LXXXVIIII No. 1 Spring 2001
PHILOSOPHICAL POEMS
AS
CARICATURES OF THOUGHT
By Chengde Chen
I have changed my way of doing philosophy since the mid-nineties,
from writing papers to writing philosophical poems, with the conviction
that philosophy can be made more interesting and accessible. It is reality
that the academic style of writing scares off many who would otherwise
be interested in reading philosophy. Can literature help? (There are at
least twenty times more people who read poetry than those who read philosophical
papers.) The answer may be inferred from the fact that in the 20th Century
there were two, but only two, philosophers who won the Nobel Prize for
Literature - Russell and Sartre.
Understandably, writing philosophy in the form of poetry
is unlikely to be recognised as either philosophy or poetry. However, whether
this is something that can be done is not a matter that can be concluded
by debating, but should be judged by the works that have been written -
to see if they are philosophically valuable as well as poetically worthy.
The Editor of
The Philosopher, has asked me to
write an introduction to explain briefly how philosophical poems can have
a place in philosophy as 'caricatures of thought'. Hegel once said 'architecture
is frozen music'. How would this poetic expression be compared with a usual
academic statement like 'architecture entails similar aesthetic features
as art'? Is it like a concise caricature compared with a realistic painting,
being more imaginative, more vigourous, more profound, and therefore, more
accurate?
Beyond analysis
Philosophy, as intellectual inquiry, pursues the truths
beyond common sense through rigourous logical analysis, appearing as an
abstract reasoning process. Poetry, as a literary form, is used for describing
feelings or stories, presented through images and imaginative language.
It is generally held that the two cannot go together because poetic language
does not have the logical rigour that is vital to philosophical inquiry,
whilst the abstraction of reasoning will cost poetry its vividness.
Does this inevitably abstract nature of philosophy mean
that images should therefore be excluded - or the opposite: that images
are hence a more valuable supplement? The answer, I believe, is the latter.
Many philosophical theories are remembered through their vivid images.
For Plato's theory of the truth of ideas, we remember the image of the
'cavemen' watching shadows on the wall, while for his theory of motivation
and the reason/ will/ desire trinity we remember the image of a 'carriage'
with two horses and a driver. From Zeno's Paradoxes, we recall how Achilles
failed to catch up with the tortoise, as well as the 'flying arrow' being
at rest; for the paradox of set-theory, we remember how Russell's 'barber'
became puzzled; for Popper's falsificationism, we recall the one black
swan contrasted with the many white ones; and finally, for Rawl's theory
of justice, we remember how people in 'the original position' were covered
by 'the veil of ignorance'.
And so on. The importance of an appropriate
image to an abstract theory cannot be overestimated. Like images, imaginative
language is also not only acceptable but indispensable to philosophical
thinking. It is those well-refined and imaginative expressions that are
most memorable in philosophy, such as Pythagoras 'All things are numbers',
Protagoras 'Man is the measure of all things', Descartes 'I think, therefore
I am', Kant's 'Man is an end', and Nietzsche's 'God is dead'. Do such powerful
expressions give the impression that philosophers should also be poets?
If poetic language is not an enemy but an ally of philosophy,
can poetry be used for writing philosophy? Poetry is a powerful literary
form that can do many things, from expressing love, declaring war, to advertising
toothpaste (some say that the best of modern poetry is in advertisement,
and this is not entirely a joke). The tradition that poetry does not engage
in reasoning is based on the understanding that logical rigour and poetic
vividness are undermining each other. But, does poetry have to be image
after image, all the time, so as to exclude reasoning? There is no such
a literary rule, and what is required is that the reasoning involved should
be so interesting that it can be appreciated poetically. In fact, the shared
interest of pursuing profoundness does provide the potential for poetry
to marry philosophical reasoning, so as to make poetry deeper and philosophy
more lively.
There were philosophers who wrote philosophy through poetry
successfully. Xenophanes and Parmenides were two famous ones in ancient
philosophy, and the latter's On Nature is a very serious philosophical
inquiry written as a long poem. So Aristotle, the man who started the scholastic
style of writing philosophy, reckons that 'poetry is more philosophical
and more worthy of serious attention than history', because 'poetry is
concerned with universal truths' (
Poetics).
In the modern age, if Goethe was counted as a great poet
with philosophical thinking, then Nietzsche was a great 'poet-philosopher'
- his poems form an important part of his main contribution Thus Spoke
Zarathustra. In the 20th Century, T. S. Eliot, as a philosophical poet
(who was a student of Russell), discussed metaphysics through his very
imaginative poems (
The Four Quartets). As for why imagination can help
in understanding the world, Sartre explained that imagination is an alternative
mode of consciousness, and is addressed to the same objects as perceptual
consciousness but to these objects 'as they are not' (
L'Imaginaire). Architecture
is indeed not music, but the imaginative expression 'frozen music' does
tell us a lot about it. This 'unreal perception' is more profound than
many real ones, because it is revealed through an 'inner link' , which
so-called philosophy is about.
My experience of writing philosophical poems has made
me believe that poetry can deliver philosophical ideas and make them more
powerful. Compared with a philosophical paper, a philosophical poem is
simpler, but more striking, somehow like 'a caricature of thought'. A caricature
seems not as lifelike as a realistic painting, but it is its simplification
and exaggeration that highlights features, and so guides viewers to appreciate
the essence more 'accurately'. Here are few examples to illustrate such
efforts:
´ To argue that religion is a man-made institution:
'We like to be praised so we praise God. We like big houses so we build
churches. What runs through God's veins, is the blood of human beings'.
´ To explain the market and technology through human
nature: 'Human beings are intelligent, human beings are competitive. The
intelligence of competition is the market, the competition of intelligence
is technology'.
´ To reveal psychological similarities between love
and religion: 'Love needs longing, just as a deity must be distant. Marriage
deletes space, just as there is no religion in Heaven'.
´ To state the precision of thoughts: 'Writing can
be precise because thoughts can be. When reaching the level of no explanation,
it is the water that can't be washed by water'.
Why should such writing be taken as philosophy?
Firstly, the issues are philosophical, in the sense that
some hidden conceptual links which are generally significant can be revealed
through reasoning. If a poem has achieved this, it has accomplished a task
of philosophical inquiry.
Secondly, the tension between logic and literary needs
requires that logic comes first. It may sacrifice certain literary attraction
to maintain logical clarity and consistency (including using the means
of definition, proposition, and inference), but never sacrifices logic
for literary gains, nor takes advantage of language ambiguity to achieve
false reason.
Thirdly, although reasoning in poetry may not be as rigourous
as in philosophical papers, sensible use of poetic language can make it
logically sufficient for delivering philosophical ideas. Logical precision
is something acceptable within a range, just as most philosophical writings
are not as rigourous as those written in formal language, as some logical
formalists insist.
Finally, I would add that because it is philosophy, it
makes poetry. When a poem is arguing philosophy, its literary loss, caused
by abstraction, is compensated by the beauty of reason: the forcefulness
of logic and the attraction of exploration. With the help of powerful images,
metaphors, associations, humour, antithesis, and other rhetorical or structural
means of poetry, a reasoning process can be presented beautifully as well
as powerfully. But this is hardly a mission for those who lack imagination.
There can be many kinds of philosophical poems, from long
pieces of serious investigations on big themes to short pieces of enlightening
discussions. One of the advantages of short or medium pieces is that they
can be welcomed not only by journals, but also at poetry readings, as I
have experienced at various such events. This is most encouraging, because
communicability is part of the philosophical process.
To the poems...
Address for correspondence:
Email: 100451.3443@compuserve.com
In recent years, Chengde Chen's works have been accepted
by publications in both philosophical and poetic fields, including: Five Themes of Today (Open Gate Press, London).
Comments
Post a Comment
Our authors very much value feedback from readers. Unfortunately, there is so much spam on the internet now that we now have to moderate posts on the older articles. Please accept our apologies for any extra time this may require of you.