Philosophy, poetry and interpretation

This first quote I want to "dedicate" - somewhat paradoxically - to my friend Ph.D Markus Lammenranta Lammenranta, Markus, the master of "dialectical-analytical 'knowledge'."

The latter part of Philosophy and Poetry by Alan White Home

"The quarrel between philosophy and poetry was already old, Plato tells us, in his time. The quarrel is often portrayed as being between two types of human beings, but it is more accurately seen, I believe, as a struggle within the individual. To the extent that poetry and philosophy are taken to be mutually exclusive, poetry is viewed as an activity purely of creating or inventing (poiesis, making), philosophy, as an activity purely of learning (mathesis) or seeing (theorein). Poets are taken to produce, ac­tively, what had not been at all, philosophers to apprehend, pas­sively, what must always be. This is why philos­ophers have been taken, by some, to have access to the truth: they are supposed merely to take in what they view, not to alter it by viewing.

This opposition between making and learning -- and, there­fore, the mutual exclusion of poetry and philosophy -- is a false one. As for making, no matter how creative the poet, the poem created is conditioned by the poet's language and experience: the creation is not ex nihilo. It may be less apparent that the philosopher's learning cannot be a matter of wholly passive recep­tivity -- I argue below that it cannot be -- but even if it were, the receptivity could not go beyond a mute apprehension. As soon as the philosopher begins to speak or to teach, the philosopher begins to make or produce: the philosopher becomes poet.

If the philosopher is not to remain immersed in silent vi­sion -- in which case, I suggest, he cannot be distinguished, by himself or by others, from the lunatic -- then the philosopher must produce a linguistic account, thereby becoming a poet. But even if this similarity between the activities of poet and philosopher is granted, does there not remain a distinction in terms of what is produced? Philosophers attempt to express truths; does this not distinguish them from poets, who attempt instead to produce works of art, things of beauty? But what is a work of art, and what is beautiful? In a conversation between Jordan Elgrably and novelist Milan Kundera, we find the following exchange:"

J. E.: You quote Hermann Broch as having said the novelist's only obligation is the quest for knowledge. Doesn't this somehow sug­gest that a work of art may, rather than providing aesthetic pleasure, have a quality which is void of a certain beauty?
M. K.: But what is aesthetic pleasure? For myself, it is the surprise I experience before something which hasn't already been said, demonstrated, seen. Why is it that Madame Bovary never fails to enchant us? Because even today this novel surprises us. It un­veils that which we are not in a position to see in our daily lives. We have all met a Madame Bovary in one situation or another, and yet failed to recognize her. Flaubert unmasked the mechanism of sentimentality, of illusions; he showed us the cruelty and the aggressiveness of lyrical sentimentality. This is what I consider the knowledge of the novel. The author unveils a realm of reality that has not yet been revealed. This unveiling causes surprise and the surprise aesthetic pleasure or, in other words, a sensation of beauty.

"Can one seek to "unmask the mechanism of illusions," yet have no interest in truth, knowledge, or wisdom? If the novelist's "only obligation is the quest for knowledge," is the novelist poet rather than philosopher? Must not the novelist -- the novelist Broch, in any case, and the novelist Kundera -- be philosopher as well as poet? Some poets may overwhelm us with flights of fantasy, some may seem to teach us nothing; but is there less to be learned from Kundera, Proust, or Tolstoy than from, say, Donald Davidson, Michael Dummett, or Bertrand Russell?

I do not mean to suggest that no distinction between philosophy and poetry may or should be drawn; I do mean to sug­gest that any distinction that would make of every writer either a philosopher or a poet is misleading. The best writers, in my judgment -- the most interesting, the most illuminating, the most informative, the most aesthetically pleasing -- are philosophical poets or poetic philosophers. Nietzsche is among them."

*
The following quote (I Fish Hooks, Epigraph) is aimed as a comment to Leevi Lehto. I would also like to ask Leevi if he thinks Calvino to be in line with his own thoughts about reading and interpreting - in Leevi`s case especially - poems (see Calvino`s answer to the girl).

"A girl came to see me who is writing a thesis on my novels for a very important university seminar in literary studies. I see that my work serves her perfectly to demonstrate her theories, and this is certainly a positive fact-for the novels or for the theories, I do not know which. From her very detailed talk, I got the idea o f a piece o f work being seriously pursued, but my books seen through her eyes prove unrecognizable to me. I am sure this Lotaria (that is her name) has read them conscientiously, but I believe she has read them only to find in them what she was already convinced o f before reading them.

I tried to say this to her. She retorted, a bit irritated: "Why? Would you want me to read in your books only what you're convinced of before reading them.

I answered her: "That isn't it. I expect readers to read in my books something I didn't know, but I can expect it only from those who expect to read something they didn't know."

Italo Calvino

(PS. Just learning to write English once again/RR)