Art, Philosophy and Propaganda

“Art for art's sake,” is a common critical adage. Scions of this board (like Stlukesguild,
now sadly missing) have often promoted it. I have no objections to this general critical approach.

Nonetheless, it seems to me that many great artists aspire to be philosophers and propagandists. Their art is driven by, informed by, and improved by their faith in their own philosophies, and their desire to promote them.

Many of the very greatest works of literary art are meant by their creators to propagandize. The authors of the Gospels, Tolstoy, Dante, G.B. Shaw, Dickens, Swift, Cervantes, and many more were (it seems to me judging by their works more than their biographies) desirous of being philosophers and of promoting their philosophies.

Indeed, I think Tolstoy's dislike of Shakespeare may have stemmed from the fact that Shakespeare is one of the few great artists who did NOT have a philosophic bent, and therefore Tolstoy thought his plays were “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” (Shakespeare did propagandize for the Tudor monarchy, but that's practical, not philosophical.)

If we look at great poets this philosophical bent is even more explicit.

To us moderns, extreme convictions seem almost bigoted. But in real life, bigotry is most evident in those who have no convictions at all (like our current President). Fanaticism produces arguments (and art); indifference to ideas produces bigotry. Propagandists are philosophers and as such they work in the realm of ideas and ideals. They take ideas and ideals seriously; the bigot simply latches onto ideas and ideals at random.

Just as a teenager might fall in love too easily (because he has no experience with women), those who are not accustomed to the battle of ideas may latch on to any one of them as easily as any other.

The propagandist must arm himself and prepare for battle. He must sharpen his mind and sharpen his literary skills. He is fighting for something which (to him) is more important than art for art's sake, and his art may benefit from the passion with which he fights.

I cannot, try as I might, get over the impression that you're treating literature as though it were a branch of social manifestation liable to being decorticated by means of political economy. This reminds me of Foucault or Heidegger's specious treatment of Hölderlin, or, by the same token, their wanton affiliation with Nietzsche--even the manner in which they insisted upon his legacy being continued, more or less, in their tribulations strikes me as a lapse in taste.

There are domains of which philosophers, and even more so, livid academics and chlorotic scholars should be kept at bay, as a general rule of intellectual hygiene, lest they debase more noble persons to their very own level, from which they shall undoubtedly triumph, in a confrontation for which they alone craved and which for them alone is of any avail.

What is even more flabbergasting is artists' indecent bearing in relation to the hyperboles and superlatives under which they are buried; you can detect in such moments of inexplicable adulation the pleasure pinned to their countenance. Where they should be repugnant, they are flattered, all the more to their ultimate degradation.

Nevertheless, there are people in history from whose fever and macerated wormwood a filigree finds its way to their more sterile work. From Saint Paul to Tertullian and Joseph de Maistre to Dostoyevsky (we shouldn't forget the fourieristic endeavours of his youth, which brought him immense misery, and to which he later reacted with great aplomb), the number of those who drove to the ultimate consequences their ostentatious zeal is high. Nietzsche too inflamed his writings with the passion for which he imagined was his mission. And while what enraptures us the most in reading these dormant volcanoes, as what is conserved the best, is their lack of consideration for camouflage, their assumed violence, their relentlessness in being at grips with the elements, ideas have next to no value in literature.

I feel the urgency of quoting Mallarmé's adage to Degas here: ''Ce n'est point avec des idées, mon cher Degas, que l'on fair des vers. C'est avec des mots.''

An artist is one who mediates constantly between the others and the matter. He is a master artificer. He is not a philosopher, he has no taste for abstractions, for he is, by prop of his art, a mere joiner. And even though he more often than not arrives to operate by simulacra, for he cannot resist the temptation of insufflating the appearance of one's object to the inner scaffolding of its antipode, thus forever transcending the current object to put together the details of the future, forever coming object, his work is nevertheless resumed to making the erratic components of language arrange in living images.

I think there is a confusion there. Art for Art sake is developed as a propaganda by extremely engaged artists. It was a position of independence on the face of the raising "consumerism" that affected the production of art, trying to keep the influence of burgouise (in the very XIX century sense) influence on aesthetics. It was a matter of "empowerment" for people like Baudelaire or Flaubert. It does not means "doing anything for the sake of art", it is more like "doing anything for the sake of the artist".

You may have noticed, that simple naive "i will challenge the a authority just because it is an authority", be it to challenge health authorities and protest against restrictions meant to safe lives or just make a series of poems for this sake is hardly about power or freedom. It is just a spoiled child crying for attention. People like Baudelaire did consider themselves authorities on the field and reckognized those who were. Art for Art sake is taking a certain side on the power struggle that of course, exists, on artistic field. It is not mere anarchy, but independency the aim.

Anyways, I think, specially after the XIX century, very few writers or poets were philosophers. Philosophy is a specialized field, merely being contemplative does not make you a phisolopher. Some, like Coleridge, tried hard to be, but he couldn't get even close to be one, just repeated ideas he more or less discovered. Just having an ideal - for example like Bernard Shaw political ideals - is not enough to be a philosopher. And his position is hardly anything different from Art for Art sake, a propaganda slogan, which could be traced (among others) to Shelley, who was tried hard to be philosopher or at least express his political views on his poetry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Anyways, I think, specially after the XIX century, very few writers or poets were philosophers. Philosophy is a specialized field, merely being contemplative does not make you a phisolopher. Some, like Coleridge, tried hard to be, but he couldn't get even close to be one, just repeated ideas he more or less discovered. Just having an ideal - for example like Bernard Shaw political ideals - is not enough to be a philosopher. And his position is hardly anything different from Art for Art sake, a propaganda slogan, which could be traced (among others) to Shelley, who was tried hard to be philosopher or at least express his political views on his poetry.

---

Philosophy is both a specialized field, and the eternal province of “all men”. Anyone who has political ideals is (in English) described as having a “political philosophy.” Of course some great artists also wrote Philosophy (whether jcamilo would call them “philosophers” is unclear, but I certainly would). Tolstoy, for example, wrote endless philosophic screeds (including his philosophy of art). That wasn't my point, though. My point was that the philosophic stances of famous artists often informed, influenced and motivated their art. Artists need not be professional philosophers for this point to stand.

In his preface to “Dorian Gray”, Oscar Wilde expounds his philosophy of art. This is clearly a “philosophy”. It would seem that Wilde – who wrote in the above preface, “art is useless” – would not fit the mold of the artist motivated to propagandize his philosophical views. However, in “De Profundis” Wilde describes Jesus as a romantic artist.

This may or may not constitute “philosophy” in the professional sense with which jcamilo wants to use the word. Nonetheless, it seems to inform Wilde's art. His great children's stories (The Happy Prince and The Selfish Giant) attempt to create emotional responses in his readers based on this philosophy. In a sense, Wilde is propagandizing for the notion that the beauty inherent in suffering (Happy Prince) and in selfless love (Selfish Giant) has -- like Jesus' life -- artistic merit.

Quote:

---

Quote Originally Posted by EmptySeraph View Post

I feel the urgency of quoting Mallarmé's adage to Degas here: ''Ce n'est point avec des idées, mon cher Degas, que l'on fair des vers. C'est avec des mots.''

An artist is one who mediates constantly between the others and the matter. He is a master artificer. He is not a philosopher, he has no taste for abstractions, for he is, by prop of his art, a mere joiner. And even though he more often than not arrives to operate by simulacra, for he cannot resist the temptation of insufflating the appearance of one's object to the inner scaffolding of its antipode, thus forever transcending the current object to put together the details of the future, forever coming object, his work is nevertheless resumed to making the erratic components of language arrange in living images.

---

Ideas, my dear Degas, are inseparable from words. Symbolic logic requires symbols, as well as logic. The professional philosophy with which jcamilo is enamored is expressed in words. Ideas create words, and words create ideas. The dance between the two is endless, and, per Yeats:

Labour is blossoming or dancing where
The body is not bruised to pleasure soul,
Nor beauty born out of its own despair,
Nor blear-eyed wisdom out of midnight oil.
O chestnut tree, great rooted blossomer,
Are you the leaf, the blossom or the bole?
O body swayed to music, O brightening glance,
How can we know the dancer from the dance?

(double. Mods, delete this)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Philosophy is both a specialized field, and the eternal province of “all men”.

---

This is just not true, Ecurb. Philosophy is the most complex and often, hermetic field of human knowledge. A handful of people can be philosophers, in fact, it is probally easier to find people who can be good astronomers than philosophers.

Quote:

---

Anyone who has political ideals is (in English) described as having a “political philosophy.”

---

Language, as some philosopher would say, is lacking. Commun sense then it is the language of commun error.

Quote:

---

Of course some great artists also wrote Philosophy (whether jcamilo would call them “philosophers” is unclear, but I certainly would). Tolstoy, for example, wrote endless philosophic screeds (including his philosophy of art).

---

Yes, Tolstoy attempted to deal with Aesthetics, but who else? Not Chekhov, Gogol, Dostoievisky and the entire russian pantheon. However, Tolstoy failure is exactly because he was an artist and not a philosopher. He describes his own aesthetical ideal. He never allowed this to be quetioned, to be measured against other ideas. He is Tolstoy, the count, his capacity to brings reflection is limited because he is the light itself. A Philosopher would need to be a few steps behind to analyse art in a philosophical manner. Schiller did it well. Not Tolstoy.

[/quote]That wasn't my point, though. My point was that the philosophic stances of famous artists often informed, influenced and motivated their art. Artists need not be professional philosophers for this point to stand. [/quote]

Yeah, I understand, however when you mention "their philosophies" or suggest they follow a philosophy, it is not only an exageration as it is not something opposite to "art for art sake", it wouldn't be one of their "philosophies" (as I wouldn't use the term. Having aesthetic notions to produce a work of art is not the same of having the domain to produce anything philosophical about aestthetics. Pretty much the same mistake to claim workers have their philosophy ideas in their political fight, while those ideas are just something their learnt from the philosophers that developed them.

Quote:

---

In his preface to “Dorian Gray”, Oscar Wilde expounds his philosophy of art.

---

Wilde did no such thing. He was a satyrist, a cynic. He is mocking people, just like he mocked his society in his plays (which would be enough to dismiss the notion Wilde was using art without more "mundane" motivations. Heck, he wasnt even a true decadentist to abandon society as a whole to struggle only for art. It is better not take Wilde's words as face vallue or give to them intentions that are not clear. Heck, we should not even consider Wilde the finest authority of art as if he would be the final word about literature.

Quote:

---

This is clearly a “philosophy”.

---

Imagine me with Wilde accent: "If it is clear, philosophy it is not".

Quote:

---

It would seem that Wilde – who wrote in the above preface, “art is useless” – would not fit the mold of the artist motivated to propagandize his philosophical views. However, in “De Profundis” Wilde describes Jesus as a romantic artist.

---

Do you mean, someone so dedicated to art as Wilde, who made money with it, would say it is useless? For sure you can see a cynical talking, or better, a Troll, having fun just like he would put all those wittimism on Henry's mouth. Oscar is Trolling. The true Oscar is an artist with a clear political idea about freedom of the artist's, freedom from burgoise "lack of taste" or "cultivation". Art is only useless if they "Must have" an use. In this case, he rebells (and as you notice, he pretty much know art has uses - the use given by others).

Quote:

---

This may or may not constitute “philosophy” in the professional sense with which jcamilo wants to use the word. Nonetheless, it seems to inform Wilde's art. His great children's stories (The Happy Prince and The Selfish Giant) attempt to create emotional responses in his readers based on this philosophy. In a sense, Wilde is propagandizing for the notion that the beauty inherent in suffering (Happy Prince) and in selfless love (Selfish Giant) has -- like Jesus' life -- artistic merit.

---

Happy Prince is not about beauty being inherent to suffering. The suffering in the story are about the people helped by the Prince. What he shows is that beauty is not made of useful things - the refusal of the artist to have his art vallued by commercial figures (gold, jewells, etc, the stuff the prince give away). On giving up those material stuff, the prince produces real good - which is art - inspiring the sparrow. The citzens cannot even reckon the merits of such artist, he is destroyed, but his heart - hidden, or the truth - remains. Obviously, it is a budhist story.

The selfish giant? You see too much there. Suffering or the allienation of the giant, who "let the children come to me", picking an audience that is inocent? But ok, it is a very christian story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

This is just not true, Ecurb. Philosophy is the most complex and often, hermetic field of human knowledge. A handful of people can be philosophers, in fact, it is probally easier to find people who can be good astronomers than philosophers.
.

---

Thanks for setting me straight, JCamilo. It was silly of me to think I could develop my own set of ethics (moral code), or that I could try to figure out what to believe based on what kinds of evidence (epistemology), or that I could think about what constitutes beauty (aesthetics). I should have left those endeavors up to the hermetically approved professionals.

One thing, though. Karl Popper, a credentialed, feted "Philosopher" wrote, "All men and women are philosophers." Maybe I should accept his word, instead of yours. Naaah! You're such an expert. I'm better off just accepting everything you say.

I'm not an astronomer, either, although I can identify Orion and The Big Dipper. Have a good day.

What make you think Philosophy, as just any field, does not require expertise and teaching? That are we have an inate domain of the area? How little you think of Philosophy.

Lets imagine if it is a Lawyer...

All men and women are lawyers. If they are not concious of having legal problems, they have, at any rate, legal prejudices. Most of those laws they take for granted, they have absorved from their working enviroment or from tradition.

Would you claim we are all lawyers too?

By the way... I think you should challenge every authority, mine and Popper. I however would point, that Popper did not claim (language, it must be analysed) every man and woman are philosophers in the sense they can produce their own set of ethics (as if it is possible, but even so, you would still not understand that having a code of ethics is not being a philosopher, it is studying and reflecting about ethics that make one), epistemology (a word most people probally cannot even define) and what is beauty (even if the will say Scarlet Johanson or Keanu Reeves) but kind otherwise. He defends the everyman have those "notions" without reflection and that proper philosophy is made with reflection and study... well, more close to what I am saying. But then, I am not even a huge fan of Popper to go quoting them...

He was pretty much like a rambling doctor that discovers someone is authority about Corona Virus and give advices like drinking bleach and says "Everyone is a doctor those days".

Specialized training and expertise are wonderful things, but (contrary to the adage) if something is worth doing it is worth doing badly. We can be athletes and never make an Olympic team; we can be bridge players, and never beat the Italian Blue Team; we can be writers, and never win a Booker Award; and, yes, we can all be Philosophers, however ill-educated we might be. Indeed, it is our duty as humans to be philosophers. I can only hope that JCamilo is not shirking his duty.

Expertise is as expertise does. We need not have PhD.s in literature to discuss books on Litnet. Some discussion is fruitful; some is not.

You do not need a PhD (do not confund expertise with a degree), but one only need to come near a bad athlete to know the difference of an occasional who can run or play footbal. I am not talking about Pele or Messi, I am talking about playing with a guy who played for fourth division teams for 1, 2 years and couldn't even follow suit, because he was not good enough. Don't be naive and do not write something as ill-educated Philosopher. That only shows a contempt and undervalluing of Philosophy.

Nothing against the worth of people that do it. But, just like the book discussion here: you can talk about chinese literature or you can be JBI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

You do not need a PhD (do not confund expertise with a degree), but one only need to come near a bad athlete to know the difference of an occasional who can run or play footbal. I am not talking about Pele or Messi, I am talking about playing with a guy who played for fourth division teams for 1, 2 years and couldn't even follow suit, because he was not good enough. Don't be naive and do not write something as ill-educated Philosopher. That only shows a contempt and undervalluing of Philosophy.

Nothing against the worth of people that do it. But, just like the book discussion here: you can talk about chinese literature or you can be JBI.

---

What bunk! JCamilo thinks that claiming that all people have a human duty to develop their own philosophies "shows a contempt and undervalluing of Philosophy." (sic.) Huh?

I'll grant that I find little value in JCamilo's attempts at philosophizing. They invariably involve ad hominem arguments ("you can talk about chinese literature or you can be JBI"). Who you are is (acc. to JCamilo) more important than what you say or write.

This sort of ad hominem argument and name-dropping are endemic in JCamilo's posts. Here's an example from this thread:

Quote:

---

However, Tolstoy failure is exactly because he was an artist and not a philosopher. He describes his own aesthetical ideal. He never allowed this to be quetioned, to be measured against other ideas. He is Tolstoy, the count, his capacity to brings reflection is limited because he is the light itself. A Philosopher would need to be a few steps behind to analyse art in a philosophical manner. Schiller did it well. Not Tolstoy.

---

I'll grant, JCamilo, that this is mildly interesting. Nonetheless, it is both incomprehensible and ad hominem. I have no idea what "his capacity to brings reflection is limited" means. Nor do I know what "A Philosopher would need to be a few steps behind to analyse art in a philosophical manner..." means. It's clear, however, that it is not Tolstoy's arguments with which JCamilo takes issue; it is the fact that he is "an artist and not a philosopher" It is true that Tolstoy was an artist, and it is untrue that he was not a philosopher. Tolstoy wrote entire books of philosophy. To determine whether Tolstoy was a good philosopher, one must examine what he wrote, not his credentials.

More annoying, JCamilo invariably accuses me of saying things I didn't say and writing things I didn't write. I have no idea if he is intentionally dissembling, or merely misunderstanding. Here's an example from this thread:

I wrote:

Quote:

---

In “De Profundis” Wilde describes Jesus as a romantic artist.

This may or may not constitute “philosophy” in the professional sense with which jcamilo wants to use the word. Nonetheless, it seems to inform Wilde's art. His great children's stories (The Happy Prince and The Selfish Giant) attempt to create emotional responses in his readers based on this philosophy. In a sense, Wilde is propagandizing for the notion that the beauty inherent in suffering (Happy Prince)...has -- like Jesus' life -- artistic merit..

---

Here's J.'s response:

Quote:

---

Happy Prince is not about beauty being inherent to suffering. The suffering in the story are about the people helped by the Prince. What he shows is that beauty is not made of useful things - the refusal of the artist to have his art vallued by commercial figures (gold, jewells, etc, the stuff the prince give away). On giving up those material stuff, the prince produces real good - which is art - inspiring the sparrow. The citzens cannot even reckon the merits of such artist, he is destroyed, but his heart - hidden, or the truth - remains. Obviously, it is a budhist story.

---

Anyone who has read "The Happy Prince" knows that the suffering similar to that of Jesus is NOT that of the people the Prince helps. In the story, the Prince has his eyes plucked out (he's a statue and his eyes are rubies) to help the poor. He's blinded. Then --once all of monetary value is stripped from him -- he is melted into scrap metal and thrown on a rubbish heap. The swallow refuses to leave the Prince, because he loves him, and dies. Clearly, it is the swallow and the Prince whose suffering (because it is a sacrifice) Wilde wants his readers to find beautiful. In case this point wasn't crystal clear already, here's how Wilde ends the story:

Quote:

---

“What a strange thing!” said the overseer of the workmen at the foundry. “This broken lead heart (the heart of the Prince) will not melt in the furnace. We must throw it away.” So they threw it on a dust-heap where the dead Swallow was also lying.

“Bring me the two most precious things in the city,” said God to one of His Angels; and the Angel brought Him the leaden heart and the dead bird.

“You have rightly chosen,” said God, “for in my garden of Paradise this little bird shall sing for evermore, and in my city of gold the Happy Prince shall praise me.”

---

I know JCamilo is not a native English speaker and the distinction between "inherent in suffering" (which I wrote) and "inherent to suffering" (which he wrote) is a subtle one. But it's annoying for him to proclaim that the story is "not about suffering" when it is, and to suggest that I was referring to the suffering of the artist or the match girl or the seamstress, instead of the major theme of the story. Then JCamilo pronounces, "Obviously, it is a budhist story." Huh? God, angels, paradise, praising God being a reward -- these sure seem to me like Christian concepts (although I'm sure Buddhists also admire selfless behavior). Millions of five-year-olds have had their parents read them "the Happy Prince" and are moved by the artistic beauty inherent in the suffering of the swallow and the Prince, just as millions of Christians are moved by Jesus suffering on the cross.

As I wrote earlier, some discussions are not fruitful. Some aren't even discussions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

What bunk! JCamilo thinks that claiming that all people have a human duty to develop their own philosophies "shows a contempt and undervalluing of Philosophy." (sic.) Huh?

---

Where have I claimed that this outrageous claim (nobody has a duty to be a philosopher or a driver or anything just because ecurd claims)?

That is exactly what I have written : Don't be naive and do not write something as ill-educated Philosopher. That only shows a contempt and undervalluing of Philosophy.

THAT only shows. For someone who is always eager to point I am not a native english speaker as you often do, you seem to be vastly creative to "Uh" after I claim I never made and unable to relate the "THAT" to what was described before.

It is a ridiculous claim that someone ill-educated can be a philosopher, specially considering Philosophy is pretty much one of the highest level of education a human can aspire. That shows that you somehow thinks that idle musings under a waterfal is philosophy, or that philosophy is something that can ba attained or developed without effort and study. This is the same kind of attitude that leads people to believe that they can "debunk" scientists and go claiming earth is flat because they watched some youtube video.

Quote:

---

I'll grant that I find little value in JCamilo's attempts at philosophizing. They invariably involve ad hominem arguments ("you can talk about chinese literature or you can be JBI"). Who you are is (acc. to JCamilo) more important than what you say or write.

---

You seem to be unfamiliar to what an ad hominiem argument is. Claiming JBI is some sort of expert on chinese literature would be closer to an apeal to authority, if, and only if, the topic was chinese literature, which is not the case. An ad hominem attack would be more similar to your attack to my "lack of humor", but that is some childish and out of place that it is hard to classify even as an attack. Plus, it is not an attack, if it is not addressed at your persona and if it is not offensive. I have no idea who Ecurb is to be honest beyond this forum.

Quote:

---

This sort of ad hominem argument and name-dropping are endemic in JCamilo's posts. Here's an example from this thread:

---

Again, you do seem to have a problem with the meaning of Ad Hominem. Calling Count Tolstoy a Count, or that he is an artist, not a philosopher are not attacks on the artists count Tolstoy.

Quote:

---

I'll grant, JCamilo, that this is mildly interesting. Nonetheless, it is both incomprehensible and ad hominem. I have no idea what "his capacity to brings reflection is limited" means. Nor do I know what "A Philosopher would need to be a few steps behind to analyse art in a philosophical manner..." means. It's clear, however, that it is not Tolstoy's arguments with which JCamilo takes issue; it is the fact that he is "an artist and not a philosopher" It is true that Tolstoy was an artist, and it is untrue that he was not a philosopher. Tolstoy wrote entire books of philosophy. To determine whether Tolstoy was a good philosopher, one must examine what he wrote, not his credentials.

---

Do you understand that taking jabs at the fact you cannot understand me and then claiming "it is clear" makes you sound silly. Either the first claim is just a cheap attack (and I have to problem to develop further those ideas) or you the second claims were pure non-sense as you just didnt understood me to analyse me at all.

Anyways: Tolstoy did wrote a lot of books about philosophy. He did try to be reflect about the ideas of philosophers, but Tolstoy was never able to bring something original or develop this "philosophy", which is pretty much the reason why Tolstoy is rarely ranked or studied in Philosophy Courses.I however never denied he wrote about philosophy, since the sentence you quoted starts with Tolstoy wrote about aesthetics. And sure, we should write it, but I forgot you are new to this forum and never partake on any thread about Tolstoy What is Art discussion. It is rather obvious that Tolstoy attempts to explain what is art with a limited vision to what art he, as artist, would attempt. One of his dismall of Shakespeare (the chaos) is more a contrast to his own display of control and organization in works like War and Peace. Tolstoy also dismiss the excessive appeal to emotion, with fits his position as a onisicient, distant novel narrator. That is not (and this is the motive why you will not find his opinion on Shakespeare very vallued or his work often used to study aesthetics, but rather an example of Tolstoy's art) a good critical approach, hence why Tolstoy is more an artist than philosopher, being guided by his emotion rather than reasoning, which is why he should, as a philosopher to give a few steps back to be able to examine and medidate about his topic in a more balanced way.

Obviously, you didnt understand anything I wrote again, but you can claim it is an ad hominem. I called him an artist!

Quote:

---

More annoying, JCamilo invariably accuses me of saying things I didn't say and writing things I didn't write. I have no idea if he is intentionally dissembling, or merely misunderstanding. Here's an example from this thread:

---

I am more curious about this claim than the other, because you did the claim and posted:

I wrote:

...In a sense, Wilde is propagandizing for the notion that the beauty inherent in suffering (Happy Prince).

Here's J.'s response:

Happy Prince is not about beauty being inherent to suffering. The suffering in the story...


When will you start to post the part I post about things you haven't said?

Quote:

---

Anyone who has read "The Happy Prince" knows that the suffering similar to that of Jesus is NOT that of the people the Prince helps.

---

Ironc that you accused me of saying things you didn't say and writing things you didn't write. I suppose you will try to claim you didn't said I made the above claim, so I can ignore it since I didnt even mention Jesus in my reply.

Quote:

---

In the story, the Prince has his eyes plucked out (he's a statue and his eyes are rubies) to help the poor. He's blinded. Then --once all of monetary value is stripped from him -- he is melted into scrap metal and thrown on a rubbish heap. The swallow refuses to leave the Prince, because he loves him, and dies. Clearly, it is the swallow and the Prince whose suffering (because it is a sacrifice) Wilde wants his readers to find beautiful. In case this point wasn't crystal clear already, here's how Wilde ends the story:

---

Yes, very nice and it is always easy to relate sacrifice to Jesus, but the thing is... Jesus never got blind (or anything related to blindness) nor he was stipped of monetary vallue (he never had any monetary vallue). However, Buda story, tell the story of a prince that lived in the high and when he faced suffering, got stripped of all monetary vallue and also ascendend to imortality, once he was free of everything that weighted him.

Of course, I didnt write a single world about jesus, christianism or watever. My whole interpretation has nothing to do with either it is a christian or budhist story. I said it is not about beauty being inherent in (to, whatever) suffering. It is funny you do not see the pararels to Dorian Gray, where beauty is not inherent to (in, watever) suffering. The prince didn't became beautiful in the end of the story - that was his heart, it was his part already, after all it is his heart and what caused him to have empathy for the suffering of the people around him. His sacrifice (not suffering, Wilde works to describe the suffering of the people in the village, but he does not do such effort to describe the prince's suffering at all) and the sparrow's sacrifice produce good when they both give up material objects (and his life, the Prince does not sacrifice his life, it is the sparrow that does sacrifice everything he has) and expose the population, that can only admire art if it has material vallue. At the end of the story, the Prince is not transformed in something new: what lasts is his own self, the same self he already had. His "heart" is beautiful (unlike Dorian) so he deserves Heaven., It is not a story about the redemption thru suffering,

And really, Suffering and Sacrifice may be linked, but they are not the same thing. Samson story is about sacrifice and nothing about suffering. You cannot just link about casually "because it is sacrifice" and pretend it is just true.

Quote:

---

I know JCamilo is not a native English speaker and the distinction between "inherent in suffering" (which I wrote) and "inherent to suffering" (which he wrote) is a subtle one.

---

Oh, I am sorry. But it is irrelevant what I typed, as a non-native both meant the same to me and I just claimed suffering is not the central theme of the story. To or in.

Quote:

---

But it's annoying for him to proclaim that the story is "not about suffering" when it is, and to suggest that I was referring to the suffering of the artist or the match girl or the seamstress, instead of the major theme of the story.

---

Sacrifice and suffering are two different themes, you know. But ok, as a native english speaker you knew that, right?

Quote:

---

Then JCamilo pronounces, "Obviously, it is a budhist story." Huh? God, angels, paradise, praising God being a reward -- these sure seem to me like Christian concepts (although I'm sure Buddhists also admire selfless behavior).

---

I am curious that you go claiming so many things about Tolstoy and seems surprised to find budhist concepts mingled with christian language. Imagine that. I suppose you should avoid Kipling. He mixes Hinduism and Christianism. Well, dont read The Sphynx, Wilde uses some mitological beast to talk about christianism... While at it, do you know Josaphat. He is a medieval christian martyr... but he is also Budha.

This argument... Imagine that... It cannot be a budhist story because it has christian elements when Budha himself may have been a christian martyr at some point of history :D

Quote:

---

Millions of five-year-olds have had their parents read them "the Happy Prince" and are moved by the artistic beauty inherent in the suffering of the swallow and the Prince, just as millions of Christians are moved by Jesus suffering on the cross.

---

Is King Kong a christian story because millions are moved by his suffering? It is just rethorical, do not bother answering it. Sweaping claims are pointless, so you can talk again how a story cannot be budhist because has christian symbols. Do it trying to offend me saying I am not a native english speaker while protesting because you never said such thing then saying it is ad hominem. C'mom, make it is interesting.

Quote:

---

As I wrote earlier, some discussions are not fruitful. Some aren't even discussions.

---

Wow, I am humbled. But tell me again: if there are angels, it cannot be budhist? You know there is a religion created in XIX century mixing budhism and christianism, right? There is some circles of rencarnation, heaven, angels...

"Be fruitful and multiply," said the Lord. This thread appears to be multiplying, but "fruitful" it is not. Have a good day, JCamilo, and "rank" philosophers any way you choose.

Ecurb and JCamilo: You are both serious and thoughtful NitLetters, unlike others in the online world at large. I'm going to revisit this thread as soon as I can devote the time that it richly deserves.

Keep thinking, posting, both of you. And stay healthy.

Auntie

Hey Aunt,

Stay home and stay safe as well. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AuntShecky

Ecurb and JCamilo: You are both serious and thoughtful NitLetters, unlike others in the online world at large. I'm going to revisit this thread as soon as I can devote the time that it richly deserves.

Keep thinking, posting, both of you. And stay healthy.

Auntie

---

As the Buddhists say, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God "

Haha Buddha said that...

Speaking as a novice, I have a hard enough time drawing an arm to look like an arm or writing a poem with the proper number of syllables in it. I'll worry more about the content once I can master the form.

I think it was Ezra Pound who thought that all poets should be trained to translate poetry in order to learn form without worrying about content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

I think it was Ezra Pound who thought that all poets should be trained to translate poetry in order to learn form without worrying about content.

---

Speaking of which, my new copies of The ABCs of Reading and The Spirit of Romance came in the mail yesterday. I think it was in one of those that he said that.