Poetry and philosophy.

[diamantis]

I am interested to discover the deeper connection between poetry and philosophy.If anyone has knowledge or any ideas on the subject I would be gratefull if he or she enlightened me on this subject.

[Didymos Thomas]

If I recall correctly, it was George Santayana who began to call philosophy art. Whoever it was, I agree with them. And poetry is certainly art. Some poets seem more like philosophers - Walt Whitman, for example.

To be a decent poet, chances are you need to have some eye for philosophy. There has to be some real content to the words.

[Master Pangloss]

I would read Tragic Sense of Life by Miguel de Unamuno. Aside from being an amazing book, by an amazing philosopher, it has a little bit to say about this. He argues that philosophy is actually much closer to poetry than to mathematics for instance. At least in the sense that it requires a creative impulse which has more in common with art than the creativity of a mathematician, and that philosophy has an aesthetic quality and ability to move people which math does not. I tend to agree with him.

[Doobah47]

There's a difference between philosophy and poetry; a philosophy can be non-existent yet still convey a message.

Although not ignorant, an audience member could respond to a performance with still silence, yet it is possible that such a response conveys philosophy relevant to the cause (perhaps a moral value or a contrived appreciative response). An example might be the sales-person who calls the house; saying nothing could convey a philosophical position just as a speech could - perhaps the audience regards salesmanship as unworthy of response, perhaps relevant to the soul or to karmic intention - it is possible that the salesperson acknowledges the response and understands the reasoning based on intuition.

It is also possible to prove the non-existence of concepts which are accepted as existent, thus creating voids within a philosophy. Reason indicates that a hole does not exist, yet a hole is accepted as a phenomenon although technically it does not exist. The truth could be proven as an impossible, ineffable facet of language; there is no way to replicate reality in language, so any statement deviates from the intention and the reality which it seeks to replicate; so the words become symbols, which appropriate definitions that deviate, and thus deceive an audience by replacing reality with symbol. If language constitutes deception, any attempt at truth would be invalidated by the inclusion of deception. The truth could not be a lie. This explanation defines the non-existence of a concept, so one could infer that the conclusion of the philosophy is ineffable, or not logically possible - the conclusion is a 'true' statement that manifests itself, and self-destructs, thus becoming non-existent. In truth, the conclusion is silence.

A poem might contain silence, or a performance might include pauses; it is possible that words be omitted and the audience complete the poem or not, but a poem of complete silence - without title or verse - could not be defined as a creative work; it is surely clear that poetry is defined by it's existence as a creation, created by a poet.

A poem could not be created and not contain words, for such an act contradicts the notion of creativity; so the poem was not created, therefore there is no poem. It is possible that a philosophy could contain no words, yet still convey a reason or conclusion. The reason for philosophy is brought into question; if philosophy were not expressed nor conceived, could it cause effects upon reality? The answer is perhaps that there are reasons and conclusions for phenomena that have not been expressed, perhaps ineffable or perhaps undiscovered and not yet documented - it is possible that somebody discovers an object which wields power and influence, the linguistic identification and composition of explanations of such effects seem to be pre-ordained by the nature of the existing language, the invention of new words an act of poetry perhaps.