Shelley A Defense of Poetry

In A Defense of Poetry, Shelley’s main concern of his essay is to stress the beneficial impacts poetry has on the human mind. To do this he feels it is necessary to define the nature of poetry. Thus, Shelley he must first address the nature of the poet, which leads to, addressing the nature of man. He argues that the creation of language reveals a human desire to reproduce the rhythmic and ordered. This is then, is expressed in the form of speech. Shelley also, however, realizes that language is not exactly poetry at its finest state of art. Yet, he claims that it hold a various degree of art to an extent. He claims this because language holds many qualities of poetry: rhythm, patterns, order, harmony, unity, ect. In analyzing the nature of poet and man, Shelley concludes the duty of a true poet is to communicate art and certain feelings, beauty, or experiences to their audience in the most clear and vivid way possible. They should be able to accomplish this simply because of their high sensitivity or capability to depict true beauty and art from situations in ways the common person cannot. “Faculty of approximation” allows the viewer to experience the beautiful, by forming a “relation between the highest pleasure and its causes”. Those who possess this trait “in excess” as opposed to the common spectator are poets, and their task is to communicate the pleasure of their experiences to the community

            According to Shelley, poets are not only the authors of language, dance, music, or just about every form of art. They are rather, the institutors of law and social order. He says "poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.” With these strong opinionated statements, my question to Shelley would be: is a poet superior to the average, non-artistic man? From what I seem to understand of Shelley’s writing, he believes these poets are superior to other men because they are more capable of accurately observing experience and order in its highest form of pleasure. In my opinion this is like a “sixth sense” that Shelley is trying to describe. And it is because of the poets extra sensibility to knowledge of art, and experience, that they are able to be the unsung legislators of law, and rulers of society.

Aristotle's Poetics

In Aristotle’s Poetics he studies poetry by analyzing and drawing conclusions of its general parts. A big portion he mainly targets is the forms of tragedy and epic poetry. He defines poetry as the mimetic, or imitative, use of language, rhythm, and harmony, separately or in combination.  Aristotle concludes that poetry has a strong connection and natural pull on humans, because we tend to be drawn to imitation and its mimetic nature. He says that Tragedy is composed of 7 characteristics, it is mimetic, serious, tells a full story, contains rhythm and harmony, rhythm and harmony occur in different combinations in different parts of the tragedy, its performed rather than narrated, and it brings feelings of pity and fear then be rids these feelings through catharsis. It also contains six components that are as follows: plot, character, thought, diction, melody, and spectacle. While tragedy is presented in a dramatic form, epic poetry is presented in a narrative form. Both versions of poetry hold common qualities but are most different in their ways of plot and unity of the poetry. An epic poetry can be a long story with action. It is creative with wide boundaries; however, a tragedy is performed dramatically and is more concise with much action.

I agree with all Aristotle says about poetry, however, I would say it is more of an art than what he observes. As opposed to the scientific ways Aristotle and analyses, I believe to more successfully depict what poetry exactly is as a whole Aristotle should have admired the aesthetic nature of poetry in addition to its order. His scientific approach works to identify the objective, law-like behaviors that underlay the writing. By doing this he is able to draw conclusions about the nature of poetry and how it achieves its effects. Aristotle’s concept of mimesis, I saw, explained what is distinguishing about our understanding of art. Poetry is mimetic, it relates to humans on a much more personal term than any philosophical writing would. Poetry mimetically also allows us to imagine the subject matters as realistic concepts while at the same time being able to recognize it’s fiction.

Thomas Paine’s Common Sense

            
Thomas Paine’s Common Sense is a pamphlet created in the 1800’s. It posed an argument for freedom from British rule at a time when the question of independence was still undecided. Once the pamphlet was distributed among the public it spread like wild-fire and quickly became a best-seller. With its undeniable popularity it even became the second most popular piece of literature, (next to the Bible of course.) Common Sense spoke in a way that people understood; it was structured like a sermon to catch the common person’s attention, speaking in a very personal language. Also, the Paine made references to Enlightenment era writers, and relied on Biblical references to make his case to the people.

Common Sense begins by stating a sensible argument that says, “a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT.” Thus he goes on to really preach the oppression of the people and how inconsiderably wrong and poorly they are being treated. He states that society is a blessing, yet government even in its best form is evil.

My argument for Paine would ask him a simple question “is the government truly evil?” In my opinion Paine is being a bit over dramatic and using terms that will just quickly grasp people’s attention, and create a rebellious rage among them. Evil is defined as “Profound immorality, wickedness and depravity especially when regarded as a supernatural force.”  I would agree that the government is wrong in what they are doing, and how they are oppressing the people. However, to deem the government “evil even in their best state” seems silly.   Yes they are being selfish and inconsiderate, however, they are not killing people or forcing them to sin. After all, the government’s first priority should be to serve the people and promote a greater good among them. If the underlying purpose behind government is to do those beneficial things, then is it ok they make mistakes in trying to? Can something with an essentially “good” purpose at the root be truly evil?

Michel-Guillame Jean de Crevecoeur's Letters from an American Farmer

In Letters from an American farmer Crevecoeur poses as a provincial, evaluating the American lifestyle and what it means to be American. He also develops strong determined opinions regarding the European and American cultures. He claims America to be a “Land of opportunity.” The independent country is not for wealth but for humanity, he declares. Crevecoeur also states that Americans are shaped as must by land as they are by their origins. In this attempt to reason our differences, Crevecoeur however, begins making racist and sexist comments against the Irish and women. 

After evaluating Letters from an American Farmer, my question to Crevecoeur would be; does the same America you describe in your letters apply to, and define America today? The America Crevecoeur describes in his letters, is very rural and filled with opportunity. However, the America we experience today consists of many cities, and is extremely wealth driven. The drive towards money that is seen so clearly in society today completely contradicts Crevecoeur’s statement “the independent nation is not for wealth but for humanity.”  Although we still hold to the same values such as freedom, and opportunity I feel the America we experience in the 21^st century has been corrupted since the simple times that Crevecoeur describes. 

Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Indepence

The Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson states the reasons the Colonists sought independence. The declaration opens with a preamble that states the essentiality of why the colonies had to overthrow their ruler and become their own independent nation due to oppression. It then goes to explain all men are equal and have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are some that the government has no hold over and should never impose on. If these rights are violated by the government however, it is the people’s duty to be rid of them and establish a new government who will abide to those standards. The Constitution then goes onto claim that the King and Parliament are guilty of downright obliteration of American life and property by their refusal to protect the colonies' borders, claiming American ships at sea, and their intent to hire foreign armed forces to fight against the colonists. After numerous peaceful attempts to resolve their differences with Britain, the colonies felt no choice but to declare their independence as a separate nation.

I agree with what the constitution declares. The Northern American Colonies were being severely and unjustly oppressed by Britain. In relation to Paine’s Common Sense, Britain truly does allude to an unfit mother. The mother country essentially abused the colonist denying them of general self-rights. When oppressed and afflicted, the colonies had, in my opinion, the correct initial response. They calmly attempted resolute conflicts with the British. However, when those numerous attempts miserably failed, the colonists were brave in taking initiative and declaring their independence as a separate nation. 

Immanuel Kant "What is Enlightenment?"

Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his knowledge and understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when  its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Laziness and cowardice are the reasons men generally do not step out of there comfort zone and question what knowledge imputed upon them. “Dare to know!” Is the motto of Kant’s article. He claims the mind is equipped with reason and is infinitely powerful. Kant challenges us to essentially “think outside of the box,” and stop being mentally imprisoned by society’s knowledge that has solely captivated our minds.

In response to Kant’s claims, I would ask him if it is even possible at this day and age to become enlightened. It seems to me that society has repeated on this pattern of “self-incurred tutelage” for so long that everyone’s knowledge is built off of one another. For one to become enlightened they must step outside of “ordinary thinking.” However, is that really possible if one cannot think for themselves, or receive knowledge outside of their own natural understanding? If everyone has learned, even as a pupil, the basics of each other’s knowledge, then we must all be incapable of enlightenment. Is, and will everyone just continue to drown in this lazy pattern of self-imposed immaturity?