What is said seems a little contradictory. To create fantasies requires a certain logic. And to create the beautiful lines quoted requires an ability to think philosophically, and with meaning. Perhaps the objection relates to rigidity in thought and expression – formal and didactic. It seems to be more about freedom of expression, which to be effective must be based on knowledge as well as intuition and inspiration.
Apathy of logic is not denial of that same logic, rather a recognition that it’s there. An author can be self-deluded as to his own real stance. Perhaps making the contradiction visible was the very purpose of a poem. Does a poem have to be philosophically coherent?
No, a poem does not have to be philosophically coherent – only the poet.
And how would you assess that?
It’s a way of thinking – an individual’s attitude and response to life, reflected in a variety of ways. I do not think it can be assessed.
Alas, you’re right. No criteria to settle the matter. Myriad of perspectives flooding our view of reality.
Questions come to mind. Are individuals, poets or other, ever philosophically coherent? Are poems meant to be logically dissected? Is poetry made for the understanding or does it serve another function? Is Pessoa ever logically content, is John Ashbery ever sincere? Perhaps literature is, among many other things, a way to reflect the workings of a human mind, i.e. our contradictions, despairs, hopes and truths – a mirror of uncertainty, a monument to fickleness. The poem is the very surface of change, a ripple distorting – through language- the simplicity of the real.
As philosophy evolves it changes, by incrementally building on the past with increasing knowledge and awareness.
I think poets can be philosophically coherent. It depends on the poet and the philosophy, which can be a guide to a theme. I agree literature can reflect the workings of the human mind. Poets have to be dedicated thinkers. Without thought there can be little if any inspiration or creativity. Poetry is only logical in form. The creative process defies a definition. A poem can be analysed and criticised by outsiders, but not the subjective process. Only the individual poet can create poetry as a unique form of expression.
A New Year Full of Hope, Pablo
We can still hope
I hope
Yes indeed Pablo. Without it we are lost.
Best wishes,
Ken
Happy New Year to all. Thanks for the discussion Ken. Take care!
I enjoyed taking part, Pablo. Thanks for providing the opportunity, and a happy New Year to you.
Beyond Language 
What is said seems a little contradictory. To create fantasies requires a certain logic. And to create the beautiful lines quoted requires an ability to think philosophically, and with meaning. Perhaps the objection relates to rigidity in thought and expression – formal and didactic. It seems to be more about freedom of expression, which to be effective must be based on knowledge as well as intuition and inspiration.
Apathy of logic is not denial of that same logic, rather a recognition that it’s there. An author can be self-deluded as to his own real stance. Perhaps making the contradiction visible was the very purpose of a poem. Does a poem have to be philosophically coherent?
No, a poem does not have to be philosophically coherent – only the poet.
And how would you assess that?
It’s a way of thinking – an individual’s attitude and response to life, reflected in a variety of ways. I do not think it can be assessed.
Alas, you’re right. No criteria to settle the matter. Myriad of perspectives flooding our view of reality.
Questions come to mind. Are individuals, poets or other, ever philosophically coherent? Are poems meant to be logically dissected? Is poetry made for the understanding or does it serve another function? Is Pessoa ever logically content, is John Ashbery ever sincere? Perhaps literature is, among many other things, a way to reflect the workings of a human mind, i.e. our contradictions, despairs, hopes and truths – a mirror of uncertainty, a monument to fickleness. The poem is the very surface of change, a ripple distorting – through language- the simplicity of the real.
As philosophy evolves it changes, by incrementally building on the past with increasing knowledge and awareness.
I think poets can be philosophically coherent. It depends on the poet and the philosophy, which can be a guide to a theme. I agree literature can reflect the workings of the human mind. Poets have to be dedicated thinkers. Without thought there can be little if any inspiration or creativity. Poetry is only logical in form. The creative process defies a definition. A poem can be analysed and criticised by outsiders, but not the subjective process. Only the individual poet can create poetry as a unique form of expression.
A New Year Full of Hope, Pablo
We can still hope
I hope
Yes indeed Pablo. Without it we are lost.
Best wishes,
Ken
Happy New Year to all. Thanks for the discussion Ken. Take care!
I enjoyed taking part, Pablo. Thanks for providing the opportunity, and a happy New Year to you.