Finding love in philosophy.
Добавлено: 26 ноя 2013, 14:40
Если кому интересно.
“The great secret of morals is love; or a going out of our own nature, and an identification of ourselves with the beautiful which exists in thought, action, or person, not our own. A man, to be greatly good, must imagine intensely and comprehensively; he must put himself in the place of another and of many others; the pains and pleasures of his species must become his own. The great instrument of moral good is the imagination; and poetry administers to the effect by acting upon the cause.” (Percy Bysshe Shelley “A Defence of Poetry”)
In order to determine whether Shelley's rule is applicable to any philosophical context, it is necessary to analyze the context in which this rule was mentioned. "A Defence of Poetry" was written in 1821, and yet is dedicated more to poetry or literary works of art, rather than the many philosophical and scientific works we have analyzed. Despite the fact that Shelley, for instance, calls Plato a poet, in his designation he points out rather «the truth and splendor of his imagery, and the melody of his language», but not the contextual significance of his works. It is difficult to discuss love in an erotic sense through philosophical works rather than pieces of fiction, so I will try to focus on the concept of love as a feeling of compassion, or belonging or non-indifference of a philosopher towards the recipients of his work. Besides, Shelley rather idealistically connects poetry with joy and beauty of the world «poetry lifts the veil from the hidden beauty of the world... », but he does not indicate the commitment of the poet to be critical of the world, to explore it in subjective ways and to show not only the beauty of the world, but also the vices of society. However, even in showing vices, a poet should not forget about the aesthetic side of his work, which Moliere perfectly demonstrates in his stage play "The Misanthrope".
Just as Shelley claimed, Moliere «enlarges the circumference of the imagination by replenishing it with thoughts of ever new delight..», featuring the bureaucratization of the society by making it ridiculous. Does Moliere love his audience by making it possible for them to realize their mistakes through laughter? Still in his comedy he shows the dualism of the protagonist Alceste, who, with his voluntary and not aggressive isolation from society, reminds me of Prince Myshkin from Dostoyevsky’s "The Idiot", whose passive protest against the social laws of society, later more openly and aggressively shown (although not chronologically ) in the "Notes from Underground" and finally realized in an active protest by Rodion Raskolnikov ending with death, is justified by his Napoleonic motto, "whether I am a trembling creature or whether I have the right". At the same time, Alceste, albeit a misanthrope, is not anthropophobic and shows many human emotions, including feelings of love for Célimène - a fairly possessive kind of love. Trying to be a sincerely authentic person, he rather opposes the public, exposing and denouncing his vices, saying that "еverywhere I find nothing but base flattery, injustice, self-interest, deceit, roguery", but does not present himself to society as an ideal man, recognizing certain negative qualities in himself and not plunging into self-centrism. Showing love for Célimène, he is not only ready to accept her personality, because true love is based on the recognition of unicity, but also shows, regardless of his critical approach to the world, his desire for beauty, because what is love, if not the desire for delight?
I am not sure whether it is possible to apply Shelley’s rule to all works, read by us, as not all of them "are accompanied with pleasure". In particular, I refer to the analysis of relations between reason and imagination in Montaigne's Essays.
Trying to defend Raymond Sebond in his attempts to justify the dogma of religion with reason, Montaigne balances between the logical mind and social explanations of natural phenomena and the imaginations of religious imperatives. I cannot explain this duality in his work by anything else but the fear of the Inquisition and the reluctance to repeat the fate of Étienne Dolet, who was accused of atheism and burned at the stake in Paris in 1546. It is impossible to connect Montaigne’s strange attitude towards Raymond Sebond with the love of the immutability of religious dogma and the ability to explain them with reason, especially after the fact that in his essay Montaigne points out that "...by the dislocation that passions cause in our reason, we become virtuous; by its extirpation, occasioned by madness or the image of death, we become diviners and prophets". Even Montaigne’s attitude toward religion is not permeated by love, as he notes, that "religion was but a thing of ..... contrivance, useful as a bond to .... society".
Shelley echoes Montaigne, saying that "all original religions are allegorical, or susceptible of allegory, and, like Janus, have a double face of false and true". Is the true face of religion a sign of reason and the false face a sign of passion? I think the answer lies in Montaigne’s attempt to separate metaphysics from science. Explaining religion through "pure zeal to religion", he believes that people often "are led on by outward appearances". He even makes fun of religious anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism, claiming that even the goose may think that "all the parts of the universe I have an interest in...". While Christianity claims that a man is the center of the universe, because he was created in the image and likeness of God, and all around was created just for him, Montaigne shows that man is only a part of the universe, which can and must be learned and explored.
It is possible to say that Montaigne abides by Shelley's rule, taking the side of society against religion, and pointing out that religion was the reason for obedience, for slavery and for vices. But at the same time, he indulges religion, standing up for it, noting that "the first temptation that by the devil was offered to human nature, its first poison insinuated itself into us by the promise made us of knowledge and wisdom". Montaigne also helps the public understand the importance of peaceful co-existence and the danger of war, and he shows the diversity of the world, thus demonstrating his true love for nature: "we are neither above nor below the rest", and even opposes salutogenesis to pathogenesis, arguing that “our well-being is nothing but the not being ill”.
While Shelley points out that "Poetry ... differs .... from logic, that it is not subject to the control of the active powers of the mind", Montaigne defends the logic of reason, saying that "it is curbed and fettered by religions, laws, customs, sciences, precepts, mortal and immortal penalties. And yet we see that it escapes from all these bonds by its volubility and dissolution."
Returning to the theme of love, however, I would like to quote the words of Shelley that «Dante understood the secret things of love even more than Petrarch».
For a while, the same question came to me over and over: I did not have an answer as to why Dante called his poem "The Divine Comedy" and why he travels through Hell, accompanied by a pagan author. Now, I think the answer to the first question can be found in the Christian concept of Hell, which is contrary to what is indicated by Dante in his poem. Hell, shown by Dante, is even closer to the pagan concept of hell because of its physicality. The problem is, that according to Christian dogma, of the three elements given to man at birth, the Holy Spirit, the soul and the body, the soul is only the only one the individual is knowingly and voluntarily responsible for in the moment of death. After death, the body remains in the ground, decomposes and disappears, the Holy Spirit goes back to God, and only the soul is on a mystical crossroads - either leading to Heaven or to Hell. The destination depends on the free will of the owner and is determined throughout his life. Physical pain, which is the conductor of the body, is not possible in Hell as the body no longer exists. As Montaigne says “We cannot say that the man suffers when the worms feed upon his members, and that the earth consumes them”. Calling his poem "Comedy", Dante shows a lack of seriousness in his presentation of church dogmas and indicates the cognitive moral aspect of his work. That is why, I believe, he wrote his poem not in Latin but in Italian, in an attempt to bring it closer to the people and make it more accessible, thereby fulfilling Shelley's rule.
Dante tries to show pagan aspirations for enrichment and greed (his encounter with a she-wolf) and promote the idea of spiritual rebirth. Not for nothing has he placed in Heaven Joachim of Fiore, who proclaimed the idea (although recognized as heretical) of the end of The Age of the Father and the Son and the beginning of The Age of the Holy Spirit.
Dante's “Comedy” is more a political message, expressed by a secular author using religious language: it is a type of alert to the political figures of the time about the possible consequences of their illegal actions in society. This poem does not claim to be a religious truth and is not based on religious dogmas, although it inspires a certain respect and even fear in inexperienced laypeople. That is why this work, as far as I know, was never officially condemned by the Church, and the author was never prosecuted for his work, although it could be called «the first religious reformer».
Regarding the choice of Virgil as a guide through the Hell the meaning of this choice became clear to me after reading an essay by Joseph Brodsky, in which he directly shows the relationship between Dante and Virgil, saying that "... it was he, Virgil, whose sixth book of Aeneid caused to life, "The Divine Comedy " by Dante». According to Brodsky, "Virgil’s attempt to explain the world was so thorough that forced him to go down to the Hell. .... A modern reader can use Virgil as a guide, as Dante used him in his passage through the Hell.…». Shelley also called Dante's poetry “the bridge thrown over the stream of time, which unites the modern and ancient world”. Even Umberto Eco believed that Dante would not able to complete his journey through all circles of Hell unharmed without Virgil.
It is also interesting that Virgil, albeit a pagan poet, is revered by the Christian church, because in Christian tradition, his fourth Eclogue is seen as a prophecy of the birth of the Messiah. An image of Virgil can be seen in a XIII-century book of psalms form the library in Wolfenbüttel, as well as on one of the frescoes at the cathedral of the Annunciation in Moscow's Kremlin.
For me, Shelley’s words that «poets…. are the institutors of laws, and the founders of civil society, and the inventors of the arts of life, and the teachers...» are very significant. In their works, Dante, Moliere and Montaigne showed their love for mankind, presenting man as the supreme value of human society, thus defining the framework of the civilization development and the beginning of the Renaissance Era in Western Europe. The works of these authors can be considered guidebooks for society, a sort of «Galeotto», which may guide mankind in its difficult journey from one stages of political decisions to the next and away form repeating the errors of the past.
Vancouver, November 2013
“The great secret of morals is love; or a going out of our own nature, and an identification of ourselves with the beautiful which exists in thought, action, or person, not our own. A man, to be greatly good, must imagine intensely and comprehensively; he must put himself in the place of another and of many others; the pains and pleasures of his species must become his own. The great instrument of moral good is the imagination; and poetry administers to the effect by acting upon the cause.” (Percy Bysshe Shelley “A Defence of Poetry”)
In order to determine whether Shelley's rule is applicable to any philosophical context, it is necessary to analyze the context in which this rule was mentioned. "A Defence of Poetry" was written in 1821, and yet is dedicated more to poetry or literary works of art, rather than the many philosophical and scientific works we have analyzed. Despite the fact that Shelley, for instance, calls Plato a poet, in his designation he points out rather «the truth and splendor of his imagery, and the melody of his language», but not the contextual significance of his works. It is difficult to discuss love in an erotic sense through philosophical works rather than pieces of fiction, so I will try to focus on the concept of love as a feeling of compassion, or belonging or non-indifference of a philosopher towards the recipients of his work. Besides, Shelley rather idealistically connects poetry with joy and beauty of the world «poetry lifts the veil from the hidden beauty of the world... », but he does not indicate the commitment of the poet to be critical of the world, to explore it in subjective ways and to show not only the beauty of the world, but also the vices of society. However, even in showing vices, a poet should not forget about the aesthetic side of his work, which Moliere perfectly demonstrates in his stage play "The Misanthrope".
Just as Shelley claimed, Moliere «enlarges the circumference of the imagination by replenishing it with thoughts of ever new delight..», featuring the bureaucratization of the society by making it ridiculous. Does Moliere love his audience by making it possible for them to realize their mistakes through laughter? Still in his comedy he shows the dualism of the protagonist Alceste, who, with his voluntary and not aggressive isolation from society, reminds me of Prince Myshkin from Dostoyevsky’s "The Idiot", whose passive protest against the social laws of society, later more openly and aggressively shown (although not chronologically ) in the "Notes from Underground" and finally realized in an active protest by Rodion Raskolnikov ending with death, is justified by his Napoleonic motto, "whether I am a trembling creature or whether I have the right". At the same time, Alceste, albeit a misanthrope, is not anthropophobic and shows many human emotions, including feelings of love for Célimène - a fairly possessive kind of love. Trying to be a sincerely authentic person, he rather opposes the public, exposing and denouncing his vices, saying that "еverywhere I find nothing but base flattery, injustice, self-interest, deceit, roguery", but does not present himself to society as an ideal man, recognizing certain negative qualities in himself and not plunging into self-centrism. Showing love for Célimène, he is not only ready to accept her personality, because true love is based on the recognition of unicity, but also shows, regardless of his critical approach to the world, his desire for beauty, because what is love, if not the desire for delight?
I am not sure whether it is possible to apply Shelley’s rule to all works, read by us, as not all of them "are accompanied with pleasure". In particular, I refer to the analysis of relations between reason and imagination in Montaigne's Essays.
Trying to defend Raymond Sebond in his attempts to justify the dogma of religion with reason, Montaigne balances between the logical mind and social explanations of natural phenomena and the imaginations of religious imperatives. I cannot explain this duality in his work by anything else but the fear of the Inquisition and the reluctance to repeat the fate of Étienne Dolet, who was accused of atheism and burned at the stake in Paris in 1546. It is impossible to connect Montaigne’s strange attitude towards Raymond Sebond with the love of the immutability of religious dogma and the ability to explain them with reason, especially after the fact that in his essay Montaigne points out that "...by the dislocation that passions cause in our reason, we become virtuous; by its extirpation, occasioned by madness or the image of death, we become diviners and prophets". Even Montaigne’s attitude toward religion is not permeated by love, as he notes, that "religion was but a thing of ..... contrivance, useful as a bond to .... society".
Shelley echoes Montaigne, saying that "all original religions are allegorical, or susceptible of allegory, and, like Janus, have a double face of false and true". Is the true face of religion a sign of reason and the false face a sign of passion? I think the answer lies in Montaigne’s attempt to separate metaphysics from science. Explaining religion through "pure zeal to religion", he believes that people often "are led on by outward appearances". He even makes fun of religious anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism, claiming that even the goose may think that "all the parts of the universe I have an interest in...". While Christianity claims that a man is the center of the universe, because he was created in the image and likeness of God, and all around was created just for him, Montaigne shows that man is only a part of the universe, which can and must be learned and explored.
It is possible to say that Montaigne abides by Shelley's rule, taking the side of society against religion, and pointing out that religion was the reason for obedience, for slavery and for vices. But at the same time, he indulges religion, standing up for it, noting that "the first temptation that by the devil was offered to human nature, its first poison insinuated itself into us by the promise made us of knowledge and wisdom". Montaigne also helps the public understand the importance of peaceful co-existence and the danger of war, and he shows the diversity of the world, thus demonstrating his true love for nature: "we are neither above nor below the rest", and even opposes salutogenesis to pathogenesis, arguing that “our well-being is nothing but the not being ill”.
While Shelley points out that "Poetry ... differs .... from logic, that it is not subject to the control of the active powers of the mind", Montaigne defends the logic of reason, saying that "it is curbed and fettered by religions, laws, customs, sciences, precepts, mortal and immortal penalties. And yet we see that it escapes from all these bonds by its volubility and dissolution."
Returning to the theme of love, however, I would like to quote the words of Shelley that «Dante understood the secret things of love even more than Petrarch».
For a while, the same question came to me over and over: I did not have an answer as to why Dante called his poem "The Divine Comedy" and why he travels through Hell, accompanied by a pagan author. Now, I think the answer to the first question can be found in the Christian concept of Hell, which is contrary to what is indicated by Dante in his poem. Hell, shown by Dante, is even closer to the pagan concept of hell because of its physicality. The problem is, that according to Christian dogma, of the three elements given to man at birth, the Holy Spirit, the soul and the body, the soul is only the only one the individual is knowingly and voluntarily responsible for in the moment of death. After death, the body remains in the ground, decomposes and disappears, the Holy Spirit goes back to God, and only the soul is on a mystical crossroads - either leading to Heaven or to Hell. The destination depends on the free will of the owner and is determined throughout his life. Physical pain, which is the conductor of the body, is not possible in Hell as the body no longer exists. As Montaigne says “We cannot say that the man suffers when the worms feed upon his members, and that the earth consumes them”. Calling his poem "Comedy", Dante shows a lack of seriousness in his presentation of church dogmas and indicates the cognitive moral aspect of his work. That is why, I believe, he wrote his poem not in Latin but in Italian, in an attempt to bring it closer to the people and make it more accessible, thereby fulfilling Shelley's rule.
Dante tries to show pagan aspirations for enrichment and greed (his encounter with a she-wolf) and promote the idea of spiritual rebirth. Not for nothing has he placed in Heaven Joachim of Fiore, who proclaimed the idea (although recognized as heretical) of the end of The Age of the Father and the Son and the beginning of The Age of the Holy Spirit.
Dante's “Comedy” is more a political message, expressed by a secular author using religious language: it is a type of alert to the political figures of the time about the possible consequences of their illegal actions in society. This poem does not claim to be a religious truth and is not based on religious dogmas, although it inspires a certain respect and even fear in inexperienced laypeople. That is why this work, as far as I know, was never officially condemned by the Church, and the author was never prosecuted for his work, although it could be called «the first religious reformer».
Regarding the choice of Virgil as a guide through the Hell the meaning of this choice became clear to me after reading an essay by Joseph Brodsky, in which he directly shows the relationship between Dante and Virgil, saying that "... it was he, Virgil, whose sixth book of Aeneid caused to life, "The Divine Comedy " by Dante». According to Brodsky, "Virgil’s attempt to explain the world was so thorough that forced him to go down to the Hell. .... A modern reader can use Virgil as a guide, as Dante used him in his passage through the Hell.…». Shelley also called Dante's poetry “the bridge thrown over the stream of time, which unites the modern and ancient world”. Even Umberto Eco believed that Dante would not able to complete his journey through all circles of Hell unharmed without Virgil.
It is also interesting that Virgil, albeit a pagan poet, is revered by the Christian church, because in Christian tradition, his fourth Eclogue is seen as a prophecy of the birth of the Messiah. An image of Virgil can be seen in a XIII-century book of psalms form the library in Wolfenbüttel, as well as on one of the frescoes at the cathedral of the Annunciation in Moscow's Kremlin.
For me, Shelley’s words that «poets…. are the institutors of laws, and the founders of civil society, and the inventors of the arts of life, and the teachers...» are very significant. In their works, Dante, Moliere and Montaigne showed their love for mankind, presenting man as the supreme value of human society, thus defining the framework of the civilization development and the beginning of the Renaissance Era in Western Europe. The works of these authors can be considered guidebooks for society, a sort of «Galeotto», which may guide mankind in its difficult journey from one stages of political decisions to the next and away form repeating the errors of the past.
Vancouver, November 2013
