The process of interpreting a written work is in many ways dependant on the form of the work, e.g. you will interpret a poem in a slightly different way then you would a philosophical essay. The difference in interpretive process is due to the format. A poem is often descriptive while being abstract, and it will describe the physical world in an attempt to instill an emotion or idea. The process of interpreting poems is then (in my personal experience) to take the imagery and situation described in the poem and to relate it to personal experience of the world. Philosophical text is different from poetry as it is almost entirely void of descriptions of the physical world, and purely analytical. In philosophy the author sets out logical thought processes, deductions, and conclusions relating to the theory that is being discussed. The reader of philosophical texts is then left to take the abstract ides and find the ways it is true (or false) to their experience. This can become a muddled process, as philosophy unlike poetry is not limited to one discipline, philosophy can be found in poetry, essays, stories, narratives and other forms, while poetry is more of a discipline with many different formats. This applies to Plato and particularly to the text of Symposium, one could potentially read Symposium and see it as nothing more then the ramblings of Greek men, but the text can also be deeply philosophical—when interpreted properly. Philosophy is unique as it can be found in many works and disciplines; and what is taken from the text is entirely dependant on the reader’s process of interpretation. Poetry is unique in that it is not written as a philosophical text, but through the action of paraphrasing can become philosophy.
Interpretation certainly is relative to the form of the work that is being considered, but there is indeed a possibility for one to access the same experience of these abstract ideas through a poem just as well as through a philosophical text. One could potentially argue that both philosophy and poetry are separate means by which one is able to experience or interpret the physical and the cognitive world. Poetry however, much in the same way as mysticism, is able to reach these conclusions of extramental reality through an emotional means, as opposed to the logical and regimented nature of a philosophical treatise. As you said though philosophy is certainly not limited to a single format, so one is able to find merit in these near limitless forms of philosophical thought, which we can then apply to our own understanding, and perhaps reach some tenable conclusion regardless of the physical forms of text with which we seem to find ourselves endlessly wrestling.
ReplyDelete“The process of interpreting a written work is in many ways dependant on the form of the work, e.g. you will interpret a poem in a slightly different way then you would a philosophical essay. The difference in interpretive process is due to the format. A poem is often descriptive while being abstract, and it will describe the physical world in an attempt to instill an emotion or idea. The process of interpreting poems is then (in my personal experience) to take the imagery and situation described in the poem and to relate it to personal experience of the world.”
ReplyDeleteAs someone who has been “studying” poetry both personally and academically for years, I can say that there is almost no form of writing more personal. When we encounter poetry, we immediately put a face to a name, so to speak. We consider the author, what kind of life they live, perhaps what their beliefs are, ect. We seem to have a need to create a persona on the author first, before interpreting the work. For example, if I read a poem written by Edgar Allan Poe, I will immediately have a different mindset than if I were reading a poem by Frost. That is to say, in a sense, it is difficult to separate the work from the artist when it comes to poetry. However, the same CAN be said for philosophy. After all, philosophers offer ideas of how to live one’s life, each day, everyday; what could be more personal than this? However, when interpreting a philosophers work, the work itself seems less personal, perhaps because the author is not necessarily telling us of their experience of the world as poetry often does, but rather in philosophy the author is providing a kind of matter-of-fact instruction manual on how to live. Perhaps if he included a small bio at the end of his work, we would start to look at Socrates differently .