Are Poets Born Not Made?

[miyako73]

By the way, Mutatis' question was already answered by my very view he questioned. I did not resort to the fallacy of silence nor my not answering him should be construed as declining or ignoring.

Originally Posted by miyako73

The question is simple: Are poets born or made?

I wonder why there are talks about beer, intellectuals, Monty Python, etc.

My answer: born poets fvck me up awake, made poets fvck me up asleep. Boredom is what separates the two.

Mutatis responded:

And how do you distinguish between the two? By what you like?


Had he asked, "how do we distinguish between the two?"

I would have answered with a question, "Isn't that what this thread is all about?"

The problem in most threads here: you are more concerned with shaming or rebutting others but not sharing your opinions.

In a healthy dialectics, more opinions are needed for a sound synthesis.

[stuntpickle]

That Negative Capability is a potent argument against “fact and reason,” and in favor of “being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts” is undeniable, but the way in which Keats REACHED this theory was entirely intellectual. “Several things dove-tailed in my mind, and at once it struck me what quality went to form a Man of Achievement…”

Keats is describing a revelation, not an intellectualization.

[MorpheusSandman]

The essence of a word is a metaphor—

For what? Ok, you’ve got the tenor (word) and vehicle (essence), so what’s the ground?

I wonder what all those organizational letters and numbers mean.

My point wasn’t about what they mean, but rather that you’re trying to denigrate my usage because it’s “secondary,” as if your “primary” trumps mine in rank. I don’t know how much lower an argument can sink.

I suspect J is trying to avoid your obvious ignorance.

Or, instead of trying to interpret his words, you could just read what he wrote:

1. “I told you we do not have much disagreement”
2. “I found the use of the world intellectual confusing... But as I said, I can see what you want to mean and there is no need for wasting time with vocabulary discussions, considering in the end we are not claiming poets are born writing poetry.”

So, accuse me of “misreading” but I take this to mean that JCamilo doesn’t feel as if we’re disagreeing (I get this from where he says “we do not have much disagreement,” but maybe I’m misreading) and that, even though he found my usage of the word confusing, he knows what I meant, and since we agree on the issue, there’s no reason to “waste time” with vocabulary discussions.

So, I’m curious where you see the subtle meaning of “I’m avoiding your obvious ignorance” in those quotes.

I'm equating the two things because they are equatable.

Yes, under one definition of the word.

The problem here is you're some uneducated dolt ignorant of the fact that "intellectual" is precisely the wrong word to use in this context.

Yes, again, I’m “uneducated” because I’m using a word in the way as it’s defined in multiple dictionaries. I do wish you could listen to yourself. But, just to appease you, what is “precisely the right word” to use in this context given my meaning?

It isn't irony, but a contradiction, two things dullards often mistake.

Again, I can't help but notice how you completely sidestep the main point for something completely tangential.

You also flatly accused J of bringing up the word intellectual in the first place.

I had to go back and find out what you were referring to, but you (and he) were correct that I was wrong about that. I thought I apologized to him, but maybe not.

Anyway, that "accusation" wasn't even the gist of that post. It was mostly in response to you claiming J was right for saying something I had said long before him.

Keats is describing a revelation, not an intellectualization.

How would you distinguish one from the other? You make it sound like God came down from the heavens and told Keats this, that this "revelation" didn't happen within the confines of his thinking, pondering brain.

[stuntpickle]

Look, Morpheus, you have the power to end this conversation right now. Just say that when you used the words "anti-intellectual" and "intellectual" in regards to this discussion in general, and Keats in particular, you chose unfortunate terms with obvious connotative baggage that wasn't at all helpful in discussing the subject.

If you want to discuss how "smart", "clever" or "_______" Keats was, I have no problem. But your biggest obstacle in calling Keats an intellectual is Keats, himself. You simply can't get around this. This isn't my pet peeve or my particular attempt to frustrate you, it is a gross mischaracterization that you can only accomplish by completely ignoring the connotation and the historical context of the word.

How would you distinguish one from the other? You make it sound like God came down from the heavens and told Keats this, that this "revelation" didn't happen within the confines of his thinking, pondering brain.

So you're unfamiliar with "epiphany?" I think we can gather that Keats was struck "at once" with this idea since he tells us that much. No one is saying Keats couldn't think. Are you f'n serious? Are you suggesting that thinking and pondering make someone an intellectual? So then would we all be intellectuals? Dude, this is absurd.

[miyako73]

Mental sado-masochists get off from being insulted and called names though they deserve them. I guess time to exit for me.

[MorpheusSandman]

Read what I wrote. Those are my opinions, perceptions, and views.

So what in the world does that have to do with people asking you questions and you not responding to them? Further, how in the world could we ever have a discussion in a thread where you introduce two terms, and then define them by what affect they have on you?

By the way, I'm still waiting for your response to my last post... Understand my question.

What post? What question? What are you referring to?

By the way, Mutatis' question was already answered by my very view he questioned.

Obviously Mutatis was asking about the more generalized "you," and both myself and ShadowsCool did the same thing. ShadowsCool said it most succinctly: "How can one know one from the other? It's such a personal issue."

The point being, that if all that distinguishes "made" poets from "born" poets is how one reacts to them then they are completely useless terms in conversation because everyone will have different tastes. When you start a thread with a title like this, I'm guessing most people think you already have an idea of what "made" vs "born" poets are that everyone can agree on some actual distinction, rather than just personal taste.

I mean, let's put it this way: you say: "born poets fvck me up awake, made poets fvck me up asleep. Boredom is what separates the two." What if I then say: "Made poets fvck me up awake, bprn poets fvck me up asleep. Boredom is what separates the two." I've just stated the reverse of your statement, and we haven't gotten an inch close to figuring out what the difference between a "born" and a "made" poet is.

you are more concerned with shaming or rebutting others but not sharing your opinions.

Again, this arbitrary distinction: so I can't share my opinions while rebutting others? You do know that "dialectics" means taking opposing views and working towards a resolution, correct? So how is that to happen if everyone just opinion vomits and nobody actually engages with others' opinions?

Just say that when you used the words "anti-intellectual" and "intellectual" in regards to this discussion in general, and Keats in particular, you chose unfortunate terms with obvious connotative baggage that wasn't at all helpful in discussing the subject.

I'll agree with that.

it is a gross mischaracterization that you can only accomplish by completely ignoring the connotation and the historical context of the word.

And it's perfectly fine to ignore those connotations and historical contexts as long as one is clarifying that they're doing so and using a definition that is perfectly applicable (and I will admit it's my fault for not doing so from the get-go, but you should credit me for doing so once the misunderstanding arose).

I think we can gather that Keats was struck "at once" with this idea since he tells us that much.

It was an idea that struck "at once" after a lot of other very intellectual pursuits, all of which had to happen for the epiphany to have occurred. I seem to remember reading that General Relativity struck Einstein similarly, but it probably helped that he had thought about the subject beforehand.

Are you suggesting that thinking and pondering make someone an intellectual? So then would we all be intellectuals?

No, and I'm glad you FINALLY mentioned this. This is the distinction I tried to make with JCamilo back when we started. Here's precisely what I said: "I did state that "intellectual" needs to be distinguished from just 'everyday learning" (I'd add thinking) and "academic" and that I think it resides somewhere in the middle. Again, most "everyday learners(/thinkers)" do not come up with something like "Negative Capability," which is the product of much reading and reflection. But because it was done outside of the academy, it couldn't be said to be "academic" either, so "intellectual," to me, seems the right way to describe it."

So, no, I do not think everyone that "thinks and ponders" is an intellectual. Rather, I tried to argue that my usage was for those that think and ponder a great deal on certain abstract subjects, aesthetic theories being one of them. Keats did this. He clearly thought more--longer, deeper, broader--on the subject of poetry than do most, and it lead him to come up with several theories that still resonate today. To me, that's THE mark of an intellectual: think a lot on a subject, come up with concepts that continue to resonate... or at least show some thoughtful engagement with the various intellectual theories and ideas at the time.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

This has to be the most long-winded and complicated semantic argument ever.

[miyako73]

Shadowcool answered it already. "How can one know one from the other? It's such a personal issue."


Dialectics:

Thesis vs antithesis = synthesis


Apples are red - thesis
There are green apples - antithesis
There are green apples and red apples - synthesis


Simply saying you are wrong is not an antithesis. You have to have a thesis that is anti.

This has to be the most long-winded and complicated semantic argument ever.

You are right, Hon. I'll just flirt.

[MorpheusSandman]

Shadowcool answered it already. "How can one know one from the other? It's such a personal issue."

Did you miss my point about how defining such terms completely subjectively makes them useless in social conversation?

Dialectics:

Thesis vs antithesis = synthesis


Apples are red - thesis
There are green apples - antithesis
There are green and red apples - synthesis

Watch this:

Born poets are good - thesis
Made poets are good - antithesis
There are good born and made poets - synthesis

There, I just solved this thread. What do I win?

You are right, Hon. I'll just flirt.

I don't know about you and Stunt, but I'm ready for a three-way so we can relieve all of this sexual tension.

[miyako73]

Born poets are good - thesis
Made poets are good - antithesis
There are good born and made poets - synthesis

There, I just solved this thread. What do I win?

Your logic is really faulty. what's the clear opposing relation of the second to the first? Nothing.

[stuntpickle]

I'll agree with that.

I cannot adequately explain how much it means to see you write this. Look, I know you think I "have it in" for you, but what I don't think you understand is that my biggest disagreements on this forum have been with J and StLukes, not you. Agreeing with them isn't a convenient way for me to get at you.

My only complaint is that you at times seem more concerned about "winning" an argument rather than honestly engaging in one.

And it's perfectly fine to ignore those connotations and historical contexts as long as one is clarifying that they're doing so and using a definition that is perfectly applicable (and I will admit it's my fault for not doing so from the get-go, but you should credit me for doing so once the misunderstanding arose).

I don't think this is always the case. Listen, it seemed to be that you were trying to say that an intellectual approach to literature was necessary and that you were trying to bolster this point by discussing Keats in terms of intellectualism. It honestly seemed that you were trying to prove one statement about intellectualism with another one about a very different variety of intellectualism.

It was an idea that struck "at once" after a lot of other very intellectual pursuits, all of which had to happen for the epiphany to have occurred. I seem to remember reading that General Relativity struck Einstein similarly, but it probably helped that he had thought about the subject beforehand.

No, and I'm glad you FINALLY mentioned this. This is the distinction I tried to make with JCamilo back when we started. Here's precisely what I said: "I did state that "intellectual" needs to be distinguished from just 'everyday learning" (I'd add thinking) and "academic" and that I think it resides somewhere in the middle. Again, most "everyday learners(/thinkers)" do not come up with something like "Negative Capability," which is the product of much reading and reflection. But because it was done outside of the academy, it couldn't be said to be "academic" either, so "intellectual," to me, seems the right way to describe it."

So, no, I do not think everyone that "thinks and ponders" is an intellectual. Rather, I tried to argue that my usage was for those that think and ponder a great deal on certain abstract subjects, aesthetic theories being one of them. Keats did this. He clearly thought more--longer, deeper, broader--on the subject of poetry than do most, and it lead him to come up with several theories that still resonate today. To me, that's THE mark of an intellectual: think a lot on a subject, come up with concepts that continue to resonate... or at least show some thoughtful engagement with the various intellectual theories and ideas at the time.

Yes, the problem I have with this, and the problem I assume J has with it, is that Negative Capability, itself, is a sort of injunction against a variety of intellectualism. Is the idea ingenious? Yes. Is it clever? Yes. Is it something only Keats could have come up with? Yes. Was it "intellectual?" I have to say no. If I say yes, I have to confront the following incoherence:

1. Keats has utilized intellectual means to reach the idea of negative capability.
2. Negative capability suggests we should not rely on intellectual means.

To call Keats an intellectual seems to me, in some way, to argue with Keats in an unhelpful manner. To call him an intellectual seems to diminish what he, himself, was saying. If you mean something else by "intellectual," then let's just use some other term.

[MorpheusSandman]

Your logic is really faulty. what's the clear opposing relation of the second to the first? Nothing.

Can't you even let one harmless joke go by without snipping? Seriously? Let's try another one, just for the hell of it:

-Born poets fvck miyako awake
-Born poets fvck Morph asleep
-miyako and Morph are idiots because they should be reading poets, not being fvcked by them

[miyako73]

Any born-poets here? I'll have insomnia tonight. Bye!

[MorpheusSandman]

My only complaint is that you at times seem more concerned about "winning" an argument rather than honestly engaging in one.

You're certainly not the first to accuse me of this, but I think it's a matter of misinterpreting the intention through the method. My intention is never to "win" (such a thing is impossible in this context), but merely to test and refine my own thoughts on various matters. In many ways, forums like these are where I test out the thoughts I have on whatever I'm interested in, and the best way to sharpen a sword is through heat and hammering.

Listen, it seemed to be that you were trying to say that an intellectual approach to literature was necessary and that you were trying to bolster this point by discussing Keats in terms of intellectualism. It honestly seemed that you were trying to prove one statement about intellectualism with another one about a very different variety of intellectualism.

Well, honestly, I wasn't. In every sense I was using it merely in the general "someone who has studied and thought about poetry a great deal."

Yes, the problem I have with this, and the problem I assume J has with it, is that Negative Capability, itself, is a sort of injunction against a variety of intellectualism... Was it "intellectual?" I have to say no. If I say yes, I have to confront the following incoherence:

What we agree on is that NC is an "injunction against a variety of intellectualism," but I think it's important to clarify what KINDS of intellectualism it's an injunction against. Clearly Keats was not contra-thinking about and pondering poetry deeply. What he was against was the need to theorize everything to the nth degree. He seemed to very much think that one could simply grasp something without having to work it into some kind of academic, formal theory, and it seems to me that that was the only "intellectualism" he was against.

Keats certainly would've promoted the idea of reading a lot of poetry, of writing a lot of poetry, likely even of reading critics, and reflecting on all of it and coming up with one's own aesthetic preferences and ideals because that's very much what he did. I call that process "intellectual," but clearly not "intellectual" in the way Coleridge's theorizing was "intellectual." Really, the difference I see there is that Keats thought that intuition (I'll call it intuition, he may have used a different word) could fill in our understanding where conscious learning and study left-off, but not that such study and thinking were never necessary at all.

1. Keats has utilized intellectual means to reach the idea of negative capability.
2. Negative capability suggests we should not rely on intellectual means.

And that's basically where our disagreement lies. I'm willing to accept this contradiction, where the theory seems to reject the method by which the theory was reached, while you're not. Basically, we just disagree on what term to use for the method he used to get there.

If you mean something else by "intellectual," then let's just use some other term.

Well, in my way of thinking, he reached the theory by:

1. Reading a lot of poetry
2. Reading poetry criticism
3. Discussing poetry with other poets and critics
4. Reflecting on all he read and what he discussed

I'm not sure what to call that whole process if not intellectual, but you be my guest and have a crack at it.

[stuntpickle]

I'm not sure what to call that whole process if not intellectual, but you be my guest and have a crack at it.

We've always known what to call Keats: a genius. "Intellectual" is a demotion.