/lit/ - Literature

>>3510491
Should have proofread. Whoops.

pls respond /lit/

Poetry is the art of raw language

>>3510564

4chan posting is the art of vacant pontification through platitudes

>>3510564
That doesn't really help me.

>>3510585
Because language is everything. You need to understand the innate nature of language to understand the art of the spoken / read word.

>poetry that isn't lyrical appears more like the result of someone breaking up his or her sentences and assigning arbitrary sentimental meaning to it.
Language IS arbitrary.

Stephen Fry's book The Ode Less Travelled is what you want.

>>3510601
Let me guess, you probably think the only real or objective things are physical things? You believe that reason itself isn't as arbitrary as morals are. You're probably a nihilist too I bet.

humans make the rules
if the majority believe it, then it is objective.

deal with it

can you guys post some of your favourite poems?

>>3510626

Of all sad words of tongue and pen
The saddest are these:
It might have been

>>3510606
>you probably think the only real or objective things are physical things?
Why even consider an objective physical plane? The only way to experience it is through the mechanism of consciousness. But that's beside the point, the only thing I can logically deduce as being real is my own consciousness.

>humans make the rules
>if the majority believe it, then it is objective.
If the majority believe it, it is subjectively considered objective. Objectivism is a farce.

Come to grips with the idea that language defines everything around you, as you systematically compress the true nature of the universe into small, discrete, and abstract concepts. It's not a bad thing, it's simply the nature of your understanding.

>>3510601
Well, I know that. Just because language is arbitrary as a whole, that doesn't mean the methods and material specific individuals use or create with said language can't be arbitrary relative to the language they are using. For example, could this not be considered poetry:

>The child walks through the streets,
>Listening to the cars pass her by.
>She listens,
>Yet she cannot hear.

The above is logically nonsensical and the only worth in it is that which the author or reader assigns to it, i.e. subjective and mysterious meaning. How could a deaf child hear? Why is the child in the streets? There is no rhyming or any set rhythm to follow. It's simply an absurd sentence, or string of sentences, that gives the reader a false impression of depth and meaning, and indicates the author's sense of pseudo-intellectualism.

I'm not meaning to degrade poetry, but it just seems to senseless without any form of order or standards. Without them, anything can be poetic. While that can be true in a very general, super-equivocal sense, going to such extremes to justify the absurdity of the poem is similarly as, well, absurd. In other words, it's as if poetry has no objectivity to it, or any conventional standards to follow. Unlike language, however arbitrary and subjective, it has no necessary grammatical rules or form that is considered formal or ideal. It's simply a clusterfuck of disorganized creativity and illusory depth.

>>3510642

Not only that. YOU define language as well.

>>3510642
you a baka

>>3510491
What you want from poetry and what a reader gets from poetry is largely subjective. Similarly, what an author attempts to convey/how they attempt to convey thoughts through poetry is largely determined by the beliefs of the author.

Some think it's just about conveying thoughts and ideas in an interesting way that is pleasing/beautiful to the eye, ear, mind, and soul.

For me, I think every aspect of poetry should be used to help convey ideas or emotions that the author would not otherwise be able to convey. Meter, structure, breaks, and other literary elements not exclusive to poetry should all support whatever it is you're trying to convey, be it a concrete emotion, like existential bliss, or something more complex and abstract. A poem should convey something from the deepest parts of your psyche in a way that will give the reader a better understanding or feeling of the thought, idea, or emotion than if you simply stated it. It's about trying to drag the reader into your head and get them to directly feel or understand the thought, or come as close to doing so as they can.

That being said, good poems should also have multiple interpretations, not all of which should be intended by the author. A relationship between a text and a reader in which their own conclusions and emotions can be mixed with the words, emotions, ideas, and feelings of a text. Words should be selected to avoid misinterpretation, but still allow for a reinterpretation. A poem that can be interpreted as either happy or sad, or a combination of the two, I would say has done it's job well.

Again, this is all my opinion as to how poetry should be written. There will be those who argue that if an author allows for multiple interpretations has failed to convey their message properly, but I would disagree, particularly in the case of poetry. It's not about just conveying an idea, but allowing a reader to examine that idea through the lens of their life/worldview anddrawtheirownconclusions.

>>3510643
Well it seems you can raise a lot of the same concerns about music. Music is just organized sound, and even then, people find value in listening to harsh noise music. I think the problems you're finding have more to do with the concept of Art as a whole, than just poetry.

Your passage does sound like it imparts some profound wisdom, and I do find myself trying to figure out what that is. And if it has no meaning, so what? You could make the case the point is the absurdity, or that brings about a deep desire to find hidden meaning in something where there is none. All depending on the person who wrote it and/or the person reading it.

tl;dr it's art I ain't gotta explain shit

>>3510667
Thank you very much! This was the type of in-depth response I was looking for.

Some explanations and analyses of poetry I have read attempt to assert the sheer subjectivity and lack of necessity of rules or standards in poetry. Although I don't mind (and actually encourage) digressions from the norm—or from the conventionally-accepted standards—when it comes to literature, discourse, and philosophical conception, the value of such endeavors endures just so long as it is the exception and not the rule. Some, such as the individual above, argue such extreme divergence and creative originality that they lose their meaning and value as unique works of art. How can something be truly unique when there is no basis with which to compare it?

However fundamentally arbitrary and subjective logic, standards, and objectivity may be, they should nevertheless be applied in order to organize and find sense in the mass of raw creativity. What worth is a book of scribbles and odd, artificial runes if there is no comprehensive order inherent within it? What value is a series of sounds and vocal utterings if not categorized and made intelligible? Value and worth may be virtually undefinable, but that does not necessarily mean they do not have foundations upon which they are judged. When this foundation or basis (of uniformity, convention, majority consensus, etc.) is the exception and not the rule, that value and worth becomes worthless.

>>3510643
I would argue that subjective intepretation is the nature of poetry, and that if you're looking for something concrete, then, while you can write poetry, it probably won't be poetry I personally would enjoy.

The poem you claim is nonsensical is actually quite interesting to me. It leaves a lot open to discussion and interpretation, though I think it could have done without the punctuation, which is slightly visually displeasing, and the meter is eh.

Sort of reminds me of the Hafiz poem that's been arranged and translated differently hundreds of poem, Two Giant Fat People.
God
and I have become
like two giant fat people living
in a tiny
boat

We
keep bumping into
eachohter
and laughing

This isn't actually my favorite arrangement, but my favorite uses vertical text, and I'm not doing that.

This poem, on the surface, appears nonsensical, but it's not. It's all about finding God and happiness, and by making the reader laugh with a whimisical setup (which is still chuckleworthy hundreds of years later) brings the reader closer to god.

On top of that, it sounds pretty, and with the new arrangement from the translator, they emphasize the becoming one with god, etc.

I honestly cannot tell you precisely what the author of your "nonsensical sentence" was going for, and I've yet to develop my own subjective interpretation, but to just brush it off as pseudo-intellectual may be jumping to conclusions. Even if it's just some nonsense you came up with, it does not necessarily mean it has no value.

>>3510677
I suppose you're right. I have no issue with the subjectivity of art and I personally define art as anything which is beautiful (and beauty as anything which functions virtuously; and virtue as anything which fulfills its role and contributes productive or constructive results; and so on). The specific problem I have with poetry, however, that I do not have with music is that while the latter is divided into organized categories of genres/subgenres and a certain musical sound can be classified under a specific type of resonance or harmonic variety; the former is much less orderly. For example, there is no clear distinction between the apparent absurdist approach in poetics and the more rationalized, formal, and logical one(s). With music, harsh noise "music" is classified under those genres; with poetry, it's simply "poetry" or "literary art." I find the lack of organization dissatisfying.

firstly op--the framing of your ideas here is an unwitting invitation for an overwhelming flood of theoretical interpretation. As is often the case, the ostensibly simple questions like "what is poetry?", should we attempt to answer them with any exactitude, end up putting the cart before the horse.

Now, when it comes to guidance for the budding poet, there are essentially two schools of thought. One is to pick up some books on poetry (sound and sense is one of the finest) and study the mechanics of poetry and the techniques employed by the masters of the craft. The 'radical' approach would be to eschew such restricting labor that countervailes the very artistic spirit. In my opinion, its fairly obvious that the latter approach only yields decent results if you happen to have some kind of latent poetic genius.

>>3510734
That guy here. My message was actually pretty heavily truncated, but I got most of what I wanted to say in it. I actually find raw stream of consciousness writing to have merit, even though on the surface they appear nonsensical. Just because of basic psychological concepts, stream of consciousness and "raw creativity" can actually accidentally convey complex ideas and emotions you didn't even know you held, the same way you can discover dreams you had that at first seemed meaningless have meaning.

While I think you should always try to actively organize and make clear your points while writing poetry, if you focus too much on making your point clear and obeying the laws of what is right and what sounds good, you tend to lose a lot of the original emotion/idea you were trying to convey, and actually distance the reader from what you wanted them to get from your poem.

I write stream of consciousness every once in a while, and I've gotten some interesting phrases that have sprouted into poems later.

It should be noted that I am schizotypal, so I suppose my view may not be typical, and my love for the non-concrete may be more unique.

I'll leave you with a poem I wrote that literally came to me in a dream, and I'll admit, you may say it's meaningless and to assign meaning to it would be ridiculous, but most of my poetry is stuff that sounds meaningless, and I would say the beauty of it is the subjective assigning of meaning by the reader after it leaves my hands. I can give you what it means to me, what it meant to me to write it, and how it came to me during my dream, but, to be honest, to do so seems to ruin the poem to me, because it returns it to a state with concrete meaning. Poems should provoke thought in a reader, and it's relationship with the reader should not be the same as it's relationship with me.

Last night, I dreamed
That you were an apple
And I was an apple
But together, we were pears
And it made me feel green

>>3510731
The short "poem" I posted above is one I had literally typed up within a few seconds. I gave it no thought, nor did I attempt to place any meaning into it. The value you find in the poem is illusory because the meaning you claim to perceive is in reality your own perspective superimposing its emotional and psychological states onto my nonsense. You could analyze what I wrote, but you'd be essentially interpreting some pseudo-deep bullshit I just wrote without a second thought. Now, some would classify that bullshit as poetry; and while it may be poetic to some degree, it is less a creation of original art and more of a series of words placed together to form sentences and claims which have no intrinsic meaning. You could say that of all language, but relative to the "poem" I wrote, the artistic value is not intentional, nor does it deserve such consideration. If it stimulates intellectual cognition, or aesthetically pleases someone, then that can justify the claim that it's "art" or "poetry," but such labels (in my opinion) diminish the nobility and dignity of "real art" and "real poetry.

I guess the problem I have is that I think of art as either purposeful (in the form of poetry, visual artwork, literature, etc.) or accidental (in the form of function, productivity, stimulation, etc.). Whereas the former is intentional and can be better defined under the sense of "creative works of art" due to the intent and sentience needed in its formation, the latter is unintentional and more abstract. The basic processes of life, reality, and existence can be considered "art," though they are not so much creative as they are "original" or "constructive." Original art is the basis upon which all existence manifests, whereas creative art is the expression of sentience and perception with the intent of aesthetic appeal.

>>CONTINUED<<

>>3510835
The "poem" I created is not really creative art because it was not formed with conscious intent. It is not original art either because it is the result of sentient creativity. This gray area is the same place I tend to consider a lot of so-called absurdist or excessively abstract and vague poetry: it's not really creative art, but it was created nonetheless. In this sense, I consider it a crude representation of art, a mediocre form that attempts to (poorly) approximate creative art. Without form, style, or at least some sense of order, it is art as much as mythology is a theological doctrine.

>>3510838
That's me, by the way. The tripcode dropped temporarily.

>>3510767
In that sense, I suppose I'm more of a mechanical poet (and someone who prefers mechanical poetry) than the more "radical" type. I suppose this issue in poetry can be traced back to the battle between Stoicism and Epicureanism (and even further still to the battle between the heart and the mind): which is more important? Reason or emotion?

Thanks for your post.

>>3510768
You make a good point. In a way, I guess the poetry of more "raw creativity" is akin to a psychoanalysis of oneself. It is a way through which the unconscious can speak to one's conscious self. My main aversion in poetry is the emphasis placed on this more "radical" approach, hence the concern I expressed above about how it has turned from being the exception to the rule. I am a major supporter of raw creativity, but I believe it should be (and only has worth when it is) secondary to a more formal approach.

Your poem was interesting and, dare I say, beautiful. I would consider it creative poetry (read my above conception of "art") because although it is radical and very abstract, it still appears to have some intent or intrinsic meaning that anchors it. Unlike the "poem" I wrote above, yours seems to have a sort of order or meaning to it, however abstract and superficially nonsensical.

I genuinely appreciate your input.

>>3510863
I suppose that's all fair. Personally, I think the largest reason I accept it as "Art" is I assign art no real objective value, only subjective value. while I have written poem mechanically correctly that I value higher than the one I posted above, I wrote them more deliberately, with a focus on how to guide the reader along with wordflow, rhymescheme, and alliteration, emphasizing certain symbols, always overdoing my personification just a little, I really do love that one, because that one put me in contact with emotions I didn't think of, that I didn't realize I had.

Back to my original point, I guess we tend to try to assign value, as to what is the best of poetry, and what is the worst, and this tends to show up in other art mediums more in the form of "price." Paintings are priced based on how they're valued by certain communities. I remember seeing a work at MOMA that was just a blank canvas painted entirely white. I can only imagine it's price was enormous. That bothers me, because, while I still think it was a creative artistic endeavor and it did evoke a response from me, though forgoing all the traditional mechanics of idea conveyance, it is not a stroke technical, mechanical, or any other form of genius.

If I valued mechanical works, and thought they were priced justly, it would upset me that that painting was priced similarly, and I can understand that way of looking at it, that we shouldn't value these "Neat ideas" in the way we value mechanical works that took long hours of thought and effort.

But, to me, those little ideas that pop into your head, while certainly being mechanically lacking, can evoke a wider, and, in some cases, deeper response than those who stick to the mechanics, and I value that much higher than any sort of mechanical genius. Perhaps that's wrong and unfair of me, but there are certain absurd, surreal, and initially nonsensical combinations of words and mechanics that evoke very strong responses from me.

>>3510935
Oh my does that need editing. Fuck, I'm tired, I'm going to bed. Most of the world agrees with you, and I actually tend to write my poetry more like the way you describe, with stanzas and traditional elements, only ever deviating slightly, but every once in a while, I have a dream, or a thought, and I put it to paper. I spend most of my times trying to put emotions found in dreams and thoughts to paper, and sometimes it's almost easier to do it with words that just appear in the mind than words you spend long hours thinking of.

Who knows. Maybe I'm wrong. But I guess right and wrong are all subjective anyways.

If the thread is still up in the morning, I might pop my head in round 6 30 if I don't oversleep

It tries to achieve what all true art does. The expression of beauty.
>inb4 beauty=aesthetic beauty only.

>>3511018

That's pretty narrow. Art expresses much more than 'beauty'

>>3511025
Then what?

>>3511034

Art is a temporal, sensational dance between content and audience. It engages the full spectrum of human feeling in a wide variety of ways

Poetry is experience materialized.

>>3511045
These short, quasi-enigmatic statements are deep and poetic and all, but they explain little. I'm looking for extensive, in-depth explanations, like the ones above, not quotable sayings thought up by a self-approving thinker of profound things. While I appreciate your elegant definitions of art and poetry, it's simply not substantial.

OP when you write poetry you really need to let go of the idea that you as the writer control the meaning of the poem. Poems are valued by what their listeners glean from the words, not from what you're intending to put out. It's useless at this point because the work stands on its own, maybe inspired or influenced or even directly drawn from your experiences and imaginative considerations, but it's not those raw thoughts and emotions transmitted directly to the minds of others. Language is the persistent obfuscator, and only temporary contexts keep the fog away. But we're really only cordoning off a little dew cloud from the whole to examine.

the real problem with this new wave poetry is lack of craft and the resurgence of a hunt for meaning in everything. you can't reconcile what I've said above with a search for meaning unless you want to speed along killing yourself, because if you bring these two considerations together meaning pops up EVERYWHERE. without criteria of craft (whatever that criteria is) you'll simply bury yourself in illusory intricacies.

>>3511057
You already have an idea of what poetry is, you just want to read something to agree with. Poetry is by that definition simple, "experience materialized." Philosophy is the abstraction of experience. You want a philosophy of poetry. You want a school of thought.

>>3511060
Fair enough. I do indeed place emphasis on the author's intent, but that is because it provides a unique (and highly valuable) interpretation of the art or work in question. It's not that I consider his or her initial intent as the infallible last word, but rather I see it as a basis with which the interpretations others developed regarding the artwork can be compared and contrasted. What was the author's intent? How do the interpretations of others compare? How are they similar or different? Why did the digression, if any, occur? The intent of the author is an invaluable piece of information, one that provides another facet of complexity and interest to his or her creations.

The creator of the artwork typically has an intent and when that is not expressed at some point, I find it extremely frustrating and angering to say the least. The mere thought of an author's intent or the knowledge, nuances, and meanings hidden in [his] work dying without anyone ever knowing is more infuriating than knowing that treatises from some of the greatest philosophical minds have been lost to man. Even if they may be recovered some day, that doesn't mean I will be a witness of it or will be alive to see it occur; that is the source of my anger.

>>CONTINUED<<

>>3511109
Lastly, the conscious intent of an author is a key aspect in distinguishing the cruder forms of art only loosely associated with creative art (read my perception of art above) from the more refined (and better defined) forms of truly creative artwork. The intent of the artist may not define the art, but it certainly does give it more value, not to mention a basis upon which it could stand if no other interpretations were available. The primary issue I have, however, is not that I focus solely on the author's intent (for that is not the case); rather, the conflict lies in what I believe to be a reversal of tendencies between the more formal mechanical poetics and the more abstract, absurdist radical ones. I believe the exception (radical poetry) should be the exception, not the rule.

P.S. – I just realized that my views toward art and poetry is quite Aristotelian in concept. Perhaps that may give you (and me) more insight as to my thinking regarding the intent of authors and its relation to their artwork.

>>3511071
I want to refine and improve my views, that much is true. Whether this is through me identifying with a specific school of thought or by comparing my views to them is irrelevant to my desire to achieve a higher level of comprehension and understanding. I am definitely not focusing my search on finding others to agree with me, though, and I actually seek the opposite, for I believe conflict yields creativity, wisdom, and understanding. You are correct in stated that "[p]oetry is experienced materialized" (assuming you were the one who did so) because that is a valid and accurate interpretation of poetry. The issue I have with it, however, is with the simplicity and absence of elaboration. What type of materialization? Is it only that type? Is only poetry a materialization of experience, or are other concepts subject to the same interpretation? It's not so much that I disagree. I just find it dissatisfying.

>>3511110

but there isn't any value in your own interpretation alone, since the work isn't really yours

what you produce isn't the point of a poem, what's gained from the production is. you are being merited based on the meaning understood, not the meaning you attempt to put across. i don't see how you don't consider it as the last word when you say its the basis for every other interpretation and when you give it value merely on the fact that it derives from the author. i think the authors intent is valuable if you can a. find that intent in the work w/o the author telling you and b. the intent registers on some scale of value (whether that be a technical criteria, an acceptable meaning, or w/e else people like)

a poem is a creation from you, but when you expose it the public you relinquish all rights of ownership. why you would get mad at a work that isn't proficient enough at expressing its intended meaning is beyond me. thats like getting mad at people not recognizing a pig as a chicken when you put a "chicken" sign around its neck. it just isn't what you want it to be.

what reversal of tendencies? that mechanical poets are moving away from finding meaning and absurdist poets are moving towards that? or do you mean as a reversal of trend?

>>3510605
I'm reading it now. I think it blows, but at least it's nicely written and is explaining all the different conventions and terms.

I posted this poem here last week, claiming it as my own, and got four responses. Three said it was garbage, one said it was garbage but when challenged said it was 'alright'.

A Better Ressurection

I have no wit, no words, no tears;
My heart within me like a stone
Is numbed too much for hopes or fears.
Look right, look left, I dwell alone;
I lift mine eyes, but dimmed with grief
No everlasting hills I see;
My life is in the falling leaf:
O Jesus, quicken me.

My life is like a faded leaf,
My harvest dwindled to a husk:
Truly my life is void and brief
And tedious in the barren dusk;
My life is like a frozen thing,
No bud nor greenness can I see:
Yet rise it shall--the sap of spring;
O Jesus, rise in me.

My life is like a broken bowl,
A broken bowl that cannot hold
One drop of water for my soul
Or cordial in the searching cold;
Cast in the fire the perished thing;
Melt and remould it, till it be
A royal cup for Him, my King:
O Jesus, drink of me.

by Christina Rossetti

Anyways - I don't think /lit/ knows anything about poetry, and I think the whole idea of poetry is deprecated.

The fact that anyone can write poetry means that there will never be a van gogh or picasso of poetry, and therefore poetry will never be meaningful in a contemporary sense.

>>3511180

It's not garbage, but it's certainly mediocre.

>>3511218
>certainly
I chuckled

>>3510491
>what is poetry?

Its literature for butter-face bitches and autistic homosexuals.

>>3511180
women cant know about that kind of shit esp not in that time period it's garbage

>>3511163
Why is one's work not really one's own? If you mean that one's work is the accumulation of interpersonal experiences, inherited traits, and every single infinitesimally small moment of time in the history of forever, then I disagree because while such a deterministic view may be true, that in no way means the nexus at which these events culminate and produce a creative work of art, i.e. you, cannot express a sense of ownership over said artwork. Even if an individual is the medium through which the universe creates itself (some of which we identify as art), the individual who "created" the art should be given the right to claim ownership over his or her creation. Especially seeing how language is so arbitrary and we already claim ownership when nothing can be owned, why not?

I believe the author's intent to be the basis with which all other interpretations can be compared because the intent of the author is what one can call the "first interpretation." The basis or foundation to which all other interpretations must be compared is assigned to the first interpretation and in most cases, that is the author's. The author's intent and interpretation, while important and distinctly unique from all other interpretations of the author's work, is not the final word on the art because a better interpretation may be produced, one which supersedes the author's.

The value of the author's intent is established not only because it is the intent of the author, but also because it is an interpretation and unique view of the artwork. Although the author's intent and interpretation could be seen as placed in a special category reserved for it, that does not necessarily indicate that it is superior over other interpretations.

>>CONTINUED<

>>3511232
Damn tripcode

Exposure of a work of art to the public does not relinquish the author's rights of ownership whatsoever. Ownership is assigned to the creator or producer of any given material or work; it can be transferred if the owner sells the legal or reputed rights to another; and it can only be dissolved legally or reputably, but not utterly and absolutely. When the product or creation of its owner is exposed to the public, the ownership is contested and may be lost in some cases, but it is never relinquished or removed entirely. What sense is there in considering the community or public as the owners of publicized art? That completely diminishes the value, worth, and efforts of the artist.

I am angered when an author or artist does not express his or her intent when creating the work of art because that is knowledge and information I would like to possess. I believe the author's intent enhances his or her work when expressed and explained; therefore, when this does not occur, I believe it is an injustice to not only the work, but the author as well. Your analogy is inaccurate because it implies that my anger is targeted at the fact that the rest of society does not think the way I think and does not recognize the uniquely defined labels I arbitrarily place on specific entities and categories. My anger is due to the loss of data, not the lack of understanding on the behalf of the populace.

By a reversal of tendencies, I mean that the tendency of poetry being more mechanistic than absurdist—more formal and uses techniques rather than raw creativity and free from—has reversed, where the rule (mechanical poetry) appears to have become the exception while the exception (radical poetry) has now become the rule.

>>3511230
> misogyny
I giggled slightly

>>3511180
Maybe they Googled the text and found the poem, then proceeded to call it garbage because they knew it was a troll thread? I do agree with your last sentence, though.

>>3511228
I'm from /b/, faggot. You have to step it up if you want to troll.


Just FYI everyone: I'm going to sleep, but I'll leave the laptop open so that any new posts will update while I'm asleep in case the thread 404's by the time I wake up. Hopefully, it's still up and I get up. If not, though, then I sincerely appreciate all the responses I received! It's definitely helped me better understand poetry and its form (or lack thereof).

>>3511238
>Maybe they Googled the text and found the poem, then proceeded to call it garbage because they knew it was a troll thread?
Nope. People on this board literally know nothing. This is the kind of place where you see shit like:
>oh wow, it's in iambic pentameter! That means it's good!

>>3511235
name one relevant woman philosopher

>>3511242
>philosophy
Are you trying to be funny or is this the way you actually live your life?

>>3511243
philosophy is the highest form of the arts and determines aesthetic value. without it, how can you write poetry?

poets try to express what philosophers do express.

women cannot into philsophy and so it extends that women cannot into poetry, literature, and the arts, and then on into science.

everything in that makes your world good comes from philosophy.

go suck some cocks, slut.

>>3511248
Philosophy is the ghetto of higher though, where we put everything that can't fit into practical applications. The 'nice part of town' being economics, political science, management.......

>>3511249
all of that came from philosophy, which came from the minds of men.

you don't understand because you're a woman. it's ok, that's your nature. don't let it bother you.

>>3511251
>all of that came from philosophy
Yes, and as soon as we realized it was worthwhile, it was no longer a part of philosophy. It's like a nigger that goes to med school.

>>3511248
>>3511249
>>3511251
I don't think you guys are bouncing your balls as proficiently as you guys could be bouncing your balls.

>>3511252
have you even read poetics?

poetry is 100% philosphy. its like a befuddled to shit philosophy. women cant be poets.

we would be better off to stop thinking and live as we are indefinitely is what you are claiming by making a statement like that.

>>3511257

This post also: >>3511252

>>3511260
I'm not so sure. I would say philosophy is such a shithole, that as soon as any good idea is developed it is instantaneously no longer philosophy. Therefore no good idea has ever come from philosophy.

Besides that, you can't name one great philosopher who was also a great poet..

>>3511269
logic is philosophy by definition but i see you dont view it as a good idea

i would call mark twain a philosopher and he was a great poet.

and all prose fiction is by nature philosophy

>>3511282
>everything is philosophy
Wow, you're really chasing your tail there, aren't you?

>>3511290
at least im not a woman

>>3511299

>>3511299
fair enough

>>3511175
Why do you think it blows?

>>3511313
To say it blows is really just reactionary hyperbole on my part. I think it's nicely written so far and I've enjoyed learning about various meters. However, I've been a bit put off by his pro-institutional approach to art and sometimes I feel like he's going out of his way to avoid saying anything controversial. And ultimately, at this point, I would appreciate a text which took a firmer philisophical stance on the art and the effects of various conventions. But obviously that's not what this books for. Overall I think it's a good book for what it is, but its value is not as serious as some might lead you to believe.

>>3511248

philosophy has been ass since parmenides got co-opted, get fucced fillosophist :funny:

>>3511232

your work is yours until you put it into the public sphere and expect others to derive meaning off what you've put forward. i'm not talking about the variables behind the production - that's w/e. ownership in this case means control over the discourse about the piece. because that's all poetry is really - discourses about pieces. at base we are trying to receive something from a poem, right? an emotion, a piece of knowledge, a collection of cleverly arranged words. and the only way we can do this is through what we bring to the page. a poem isn't here to teach, not as a teacher would anyway. it's more like a mirror, tinted and tilted so that you get a different view of yourself or a unique view on something else. this isn't necessarily in search of meaning either.

authorial intent is incredibly biased because it routes itself through the natural brain patterns of the author. the author himself isn't gleaning anything from the poem that he doesn't already know or thinks he knows. most authors are notoriously untrustworthy with putting forward what they want to say how they want to say it; that's just the eternal conundrum of literature i guess. as an interpretation the author's intent has just as much value as any other interpretation, like you said...but i still don't see the reason why it forms the baseline on the basis of itself alone. if its the 1st interpretation and an ass one, it's really just an ass one. chronology doesn't matter in the grand scheme of quality except in certain contexts and when considering the introduction of new interpretations.

i think ownership is bullshit in the public sphere and in media in general, but that's a whole 'nother topic and not really related to ownership of discourse.

>>3511358

continuing this but 1st

>>3511180

>meaningful

welcome to the pre-postmodern era, you're five decades late to a party that dispersed on arrival

but anyway

how do you know what intent an author's trying to put forward if he or she doesn't tell you that intent? do you think authors are really interested in providing data to people? especially poets and novelists and "literary" writing - most of that shit works as far out from quantitative and qualitative-as-quantitative digits as it can get.

do authors/poets always have to illuminate? do they always have to contribute to intellectual accumulation in their writings?

>>3511376
will never be meaningful as in there will never be any serious reason for it.

>>3511330
Eh, what Fry is saying is highly controversial in this day and age. If you think free-verse is somehow rebellious or new you're just plain wrong. You are also confusing having a rigid structure with less effort in poetry. It's exactly the opposite.

OP is back and I'm glad to see this thread still alive and kicking!

>>3511241
That may be true when it comes to critical analyses of poetry, but it appears that /lit/ has a solid grasp on the mechanics and philosophy of poetry.

>>3511242
Well, to be fair, philosophy has been dominating almost entirely by men. Although I cannot name any female philosophers in specific due to the fact that I've yet to read any of their work (and I myself am a novice philosopher), I can assert that feminism (not radical feminism, mind you) is still relevant to contemporary society, albeit only in the developing and undeveloped regions, where it is needed to empower an oppressed female demographic.[1] Moreover, there have been numerous modern woman philosophers who have contributed to existential thought, ethics, psychology, and morality. To discredit females on the premise that the female sex is seldom recognized as producing a philosopher of any great magnitude is fallacious and logically flawed to say the least, if not altogether sexist as well.


>[1] – I believe feminism is an outdated doctrine when pertaining to developed societies, such as the United States and most of Europe. This is because the main goal of feminism has already been essentially accomplished: equity of opportunity and to some degree treatment with men. Only in less developed and impoverished regions, where sociocultural structures are still primitive and outdated themselves, is feminism needed

>>3511243
Hey now, philosophy is extremely important.

>>3511248
The first too lines are correct, as is the fourth; the third and fifth is misogynistic horseshit.

>>3511249
That's absolutely false. Philosophy is the epitome of human endeavors and a manifestation of reason, intelligence, and wisdom in its highest form. Lest you forgotten, science, theology, mathematics, and even organized religion to some extent are all children of philosophy, as is psychology, sociology, logic, and virtually all moral and ethical theories. Applied sciences is the result of two philosophical creations being applied together: scientific thought and logical analysis. Science is basically a philosophy of matter at this point.

You are either trolling or utterly ignorant of philosophy, seeing how economic and political theory are both philosophical pursuits. The economic and political sciences are simply the operational analysis and application of philosophical doctrines on a strictly economic or political scale. Philosophy synthesizes the findings and applies it to a broader range of comprehension.

>>3511252
Science is philosophy at its most basic core; therefore, any achievement of science is an achievement in philosophy as well. Science is merely the rational analysis and application of philosophical doctrines in a strictly specialized field. Philosophy synthesizes the data and applies its doctrines (and the information gathered by science) to a more universal level.

>>3511260
Some of the best poets to have ever existed were either women or heavily influenced by them. Read some poetics yourself.

ON ORIGINALITY

Poets, I want to follow them all,

out of the forest into the city

or out of the city into the forest.
The first one I throttle.

I remove his dagger

and tape it to my ankle in a shop doorway.

Then I step into the street

picking my nails.
I have a drink with a man

who loves young women.

Each line is a fresh corpse.
There is a girl with whom we make friends.

As he bends over her body

to remove the clothing

I slip the blade between his ribs.
Humming a melody, I take his gun.

I knot his scarf carelessly at my neck, and
I trail the next one into the country.

On the bank of a river I drill

a clean hole in his forehead.
Moved by poetry

I put his wallet in a plain envelope

and mail it to the widow.
I pocket his gun.

This is progress.

For instance, it is nearly dawn.
Now I slide a gun into the gun

and go out looking.
It is a difficult world.

Each word is another bruise.
This is my nest of weapons.

This is my lyrical foliage.

My Father’s Bomber Jacket - Bob Orr

My father’s bomber
jacket still hangs on
a peg beside a squadron photo.
Once I tried it on
but found that it was
far too small.
After all
when he wore it
he was not much more
than a boy –
in his tin machine
with his instruments
& weapons
alone &
far from
land
way out above the Pacific
as the waves beneath
moved like cards
being shuffled.

>>3511269
Aristotle, Parminedes, and Edgar Allan Poe are three philosopher poets I could name off the top of my head.

Once an idea in philosophy is developed, it is applied through the medium of science. Once the scientific data is gathered, the scientists—who in many cases are also philosophers to some degree—analyze and categorize it. It is the philosopher, however, who comprehends and applies the newfound information. Science is "applied" only so much as it is given clearance by philosophy. Without philosophy, science is simply a marriage of curiosity and logic let loose and without guidance. Science may be extremely important to human endeavors and at times, it does appear to supersede philosophy, but only ephemerally. In the end, it is philosophy's call to which science answers.

>>3511282
Mark Twain was a bit of a philosopher, though only in a crude sense, similar to how Edgar Allan Poe was. He was more philosophically-minded than a philosopher because he didn't devote his life (or primary focus) to philosophy, only on what it suggested or implied. He was an author and literary artist first, a philosopher second. Similarly, Edgar Allan Poe was a poet first and a philosopher on the side.

Scientists could be loosely defined as philosophers, though this skews the meaning of philosophy. Whereas science is the search of knowledge and information for the sake of knowing and applying it, philosophy is the search for wisdom and truth with the intent of comprehending and understanding it. Scientists are frequently philosophically-minded, as evident by numerous psychologists, sociologists, and theoretical physicists, but I find it difficult calling them philosophers because their main focus is scientific, not philosophical.

>>3511290
You're underestimating the scope of philosophy. Virtually every developed thought, doctrine, concept, and belief has its foundation in philosophy. It's true that not all things are philosophy by nature, though; for example, mythology predates philosophy significantly and I doubt anyone would consider the former a part of the latter. Science, while fundamentally a manifestation and medium of philosophy, retains its own unique focus and due to that, many consider science to be separate and at least distinct from its parent. Generally speaking, however, philosophy is the epitome of human thought and abstraction as well as the nexus at which nearly all human accomplishments meet and to which they all can be traced.

Stevie Smith - Not Waving But Drowning

Nobody heard him, the dead man,
But still he lay moaning:
I was much further out than you thought
And not waving but drowning.

Poor chap, he always loved larking
And now he's dead
It must have been too cold for him his heart gave way,
They said.

Oh, no no no, it was too cold always
(Still the dead one lay moaning)
I was much too far out all my life
And not waving but drowning.

>>3512031
You're right that sometimes, the author's interpretation is shit. In that case, while author is given the position of being the base interpretation only because it was the first, it's likely—or even inevitable—that a better, more insightful interpretation will rise from without. In that case, the popularity of that interpretation will (hopefully) rise and although the author's interpretation remains the base, it is one that can be easily surpassed. It nonetheless forms the baseline because it is the first interpretation; if there is no authorial intent connected to a given work, the first interpretation of it by another would take its place as the baseline. Regardless of whether this external interpretation approximates the author's hypothetical and unknowable intent or if it diverges from it altogether, that is irrelevant; the external interpretation is a surrogate to fill the void that is the author's intent. If the external interpretation is shit, then oh well; it'll simply be easily surpassed by the subsequent interpretations. What matters is the need for a base, not necessarily whether that base is of good quality.

>>CONTINUED<<

>>3511358
Why do you assert that ownership necessitates control over the product or creation of the owner? In no way does ownership require control of that which is owned. Does not a parent own a child, at least until that child achieves a certain level of maturity? Is that child utterly controllable? Do not people own pets, yet they cannot completely control their pets? Do not people own their cars, yet even these get away from them at times? Ownership only implies a recognition or acknowledgment of ownership; and legitimate ownership, or ownership that is accepted as valid or appropriate, only implies the same but within a given population.

Unless you're stuck on connecting the concept of ownership to that of control, I believe the issue we have on this issue is one of semantics and perception. What you're saying regarding how the owner relinquishes CONTROL over that which he or she owns when exposed to the public is true, but that is not ownership; that is one's control over that which is owned. If you are referring to ownership being relinquished, then I strongly disagree. If you mean the relinquishment of control an owner has over that which he or she owns, then I concur.

While authorial intent may be biased and can skew the meaning of the artwork for the interpretations others draw, that is more of a problem with how one receives the author's intent rather than the intent of the author itself. For example, I personally read the author's personal interpretation of [his] work after I interpret the work for myself. Doing this, I receive the most out of the work. Sometimes, I read the interpretation given by the author first or during my reading of the work, but that usually occurs because I either do not understand the work or I believe I would receive it better if I was given a default interpretation to fall back on.

>>CONTINUED<<

>>3512033
The reason, in case you're wondering, why I place so much emphasis on authorial intent is because I believe strongly that only through conflict can creativity, originality, and improvement form. Due to that, a base interpretation is necessary in order for other interpretations and perspectives of the same work to compare and contrast. Through this comparison and contrasting of interpretations, better, more creative, and more original ones can be yielded. This can only occur if there is a base interpretation with which all others can be compared, though, whether that be the author's intent and personal interpretation or simply the first one to arise from without. I merely prefer the former over the latter because I hold special value for the meaning and perspective of the author for [his] own work. Others undoubtedly disagree.

The rest of what you stated, I agree.

>>3511249
Posts like this reveal how fucking ignorant you are. Philosophy certainly has had more real world impacts than some new-age pseudo science like sociology.

The most influential person on the 20th century was, without a doubt, Karl Marx. His writing and philosophy (nothing but a book) was directly responsible for the 1917-1940s pan-European Communist revolution that not only resulted in the Bolsheviks rising to power, but also the direct reaction TO these proletariat revolutions, fascism (Eg. Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, etc.) In other words, every important historical event in the 20th century was caused by this man's philosophy.

Philosopher John Locke intellectually paved the way for the American Revolution, his philosophies not only inspiring and justifying the American Revolution, but also providing a framework in which the Found Fathers based the American Constitution off of. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson directly plagiarized the most famous lines of the Declaration of Independence from Locke's Second Treatise on Government.

If that's not enough proof for you, look at who discovered the atom. Sure John Dalton successfully theorized it in the 19th century, but before him Greek philosopher Democritus first came up with the theory of the atom in the 5 century bc, whose writings inspired Dalton to pursue that theory.

Those are just 3 examples off the top of my head. You lose. Anybody who says philosophy is irrelevant needs to go back to middle school history class

What does /lit/ think of my poetry, please tell me why it is so awful, I know it is, so I can stop being so delusional.

Nothing changes and somethings end.

I do not know what it means
... I wrote down the title
and forgot what i was trying to say.

No things change but some things end?
Duality and Alan Watts;
I like his videos, he sounded smart.

Maybe people will think I am smart,
If I wrote poetry with grammar
and learnt all about Zen.

-By angsty 2pleb4u teen.

>>3512154
Hold up now. You claim the other person is ignorant for not respecting philosophy, then proceed to degrade the value of sociology to that of a "new-age pseudo science"? Sociology is a respectable and important scientific endeavor that aims at studying the anthropological psychological of society. Should I consider you ignorant for being so dismissive of sociology? Perhaps, but I'm not that much of an asshole.

While Karl Marx was arguably the most influential philosopher of the 20th Century, it was Vladimir Lenin who applied his communist and socialist teachings.[1] One could easily argue that Lenin (who was also a philosopher) applied Marx's views and thus Lenin changed the world, not Marx. Additionally, it's believed that Nietzsche's works influenced Adolf Hitler more than Karl Marx did. Similarly, John Locke was only one of many who influenced the American Revolution. Many others, including Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques-Rousseau, René Descartes, and Thomas Paine, contributed to the revolutionary mindset. Thomas Jefferson didn't plagiarize Locke's works, either.

Despite these conflicts, I do agree that philosophy is not only relevant, but vital for human progress.

>[1] – Not only did Lenin manipulate Marx's analyses to justify totalitarian rule, contrary to what Marx endorsed, but Marx's political manifestos and treatises was only a small portion of his entire works. It's simply his most popular.

>>3512203
Fair enough. Sociology is legitimate. I got angry


I was hardly saying Hitler was influenced by the Marx, but the Nazi party only gained power as a direct result of the majority of the German people being scared of a Communist revolution a la Russia, so they turned to fascism. Same story in Spain and Italy.

As for Lenin, sure he manipulated Marx's theory, but Marxism was the motor that powered the urban lower class. Marx was the tool with which Lenin gained support. Without ideology/justification, there could be no revolution.

Locke: Inalienable rights to life, liberty, property
Jefferson: Inalienable rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

Close enough.

>>3510582
oh, the ironing.

>>3512154
Are you dense? Most of Marx falls within the field of sociology?

Poetry is using the best words in the ideal order.

the line breaks in poetry are always what puts me off, too. they seem so arbitrary.

>>3512240
Fair enough.

I'd consider Jefferson to be adapting Locke's words, a bit of a head-nod in his direction, rather than plagiarize it. Additionally, the concept of recognizing the pursuit of happiness as a reason for property and replacing the latter (which is a product of desire) with the former (which is the desire itself) as an inalienable right is quite original in my opinion.

>>3512292
I feel the exact same way. I find line breaking as pretty much based on the whim of the poet during its writing. Where is the form? Apparently, there is none.

Well, this was a very productive and interesting thread. I appreciate all the responses and will continue monitoring this thread in case anyone else would like to respond. Otherwise, thanks a bunch! You've really helped me better understand poetry and now, I feel more comfortable writing it without worrying that I'm violating any poetic standards. More importantly, I now know that there is a lot of mechanical poetry techniques and methods I need to learn.

Danke!