Thank you. You raised interesting questions and I've enjoyed the discussion here :sparkle:

I think Rorty's explanation of poetry shows he has no real grasp of how it works or what it does. — T Clark

His use of the extended sense of poetry is in line with the way the term was used prior to its modern restrictive sense. Poetry comes from the Greek term poiesis ποίησις. It means to make.They were makers of images, of stories, of what he calls the "paths of the imagination". They were the principle educators of the Greeks. The makers of the puppets that cast shadows on the walls of Plato's cave.

Modern translators must make the choice to render their works in verse or prose.

This is so arrogant and pompous - to claim that we are, that he is, somehow intellectually and spiritually more advanced than Plato and Aristotle (or for me, Lao Tzu). — T Clark

Rorty does not claim that we are intellectually and spiritually more advanced. Perhaps there are other reasons why Plato was not able to acknowledge our finitude.

In the Apology Socrates acknowledges the possibility of our finitude.

... to be dead is one of two things: either the dead person is nothing and has no perception of anything, or [death] happens to be, as it is said, a change and a relocation or the soul from this place here to another place.

(40c).

In the Phaedo and elsewhere, however, rather than acknowledging our finitude he tells stories of the afterlife, obscuring the possibility of our finitude. This was not because of a limit of Plato's intellectual or spiritual abilities, but a limit of what could in his time be freely acknowledged. Rorty argues that things had changed by the time of Shelley.

But this is too small a matter and too big a subject for me to venture much further. — Tom Storm

I think you're trying too hard to make Rorty not look like a putz. I'm not a poetry snob at all, but I can see that poetry does something different than other sorts of written works and other artistic works in general.

I've only read a little of Rorty but I don't have anything against him, at least till now.

His use of the extended sense of poetry is in line with the way the term was used prior to its modern restrictive sense. Poetry comes from the Greek term poiesis ποίησις. It means to make.They were makers of images, of stories, of what he calls the "paths of the imagination". They were the principle educators of the Greeks. — Fooloso4

This is an odd argument. We're not talking about how "poetry" was used was 2,500 years ago, we're talking about how it is used now. I don't think poetry as it is currently understood is better than prose or any other art, but it's different. It does different things. It's clear Rorty doesn't get that.

Rorty does not claim that we are intellectually and spiritually more advanced. — Fooloso4

I think what he wrote speaks for itself.

In the Phaedo and elsewhere, however, rather than acknowledging our finitude he tells stories of the afterlife, obscuring the possibility of our finitude. This was not because of a limit of Plato's intellectual or spiritual abilities, but a limit of what could in his time be freely acknowledged. — Fooloso4

Many (most?) people today don't "acknowledge our finitude." I'm not even sure what that means. I guess it's a code word for being an atheist. What hubris.

I think we've gone outside the intended scope of this thread. It would be an interesting subject for a new one. I'll put it on my list.

This is an odd argument. We're not talking about how "poetry" was used was 2,500 years ago, we're talking about how it is used now. — T Clark

His extended use of the term extends back to the Greeks.

If might be helpful if you tell us how you think the term is proper used today.

I don't think poetry as it is currently understood is better than prose or any other art, but it's different. It does different things. It's clear Rorty doesn't get that. — T Clark

In the short piece you referenced Rorty says:

I suspect that no comparable effect could have been produced by prose. Not just imagery, but also rhyme and rhythm were needed to do the job. In lines such as these, all three conspire to produce a degree of compression, and thus of  impact, that only verse can achieve.

What does he get wrong here?

I think what he wrote speaks for itself. — T Clark

Its ability to speak and our ability to listen are two different things. He does not:

explains it away as nothing significantly different from other types of intellectual endeavor. — T Clark

What makes it significantly different is that these writers:

invented new language games for us to play

This is a tip of his hat to Wittgenstein who said:

Philosophy ought really to be written only as a form of poetry.

(Culture and Value)

Many (most?) people today don't "acknowledge our finitude." I'm not even sure what that means. — T Clark

If we are to allow what he says to speak for itself, we need to get what he said right.

What he says is (emphasis added):

We are now more able than Plato was to acknowledge our finitude.

Far fewer people today believe in an afterlife. Whether or not one does, we are able to question such assumptions freely in the West.

I think we've gone outside the intended scope of this thread. — T Clark

As to the scope of this thread, from the OP:

I fully consider poetry as a topic of philosophy. — Amity

As with many threads the scope expands. I am addressing your attack on and what I take to be your misunderstanding of this little piece by Rorty.

As to the scope of this thread, from the OP:

I fully consider poetry as a topic of philosophy.
— Amity

As with many threads the scope expands. I am addressing your attack on and what I take to be your misunderstanding of this little piece by Rorty. — Fooloso4

Yes indeed. To clarify, the quote is from javi in reply to me. Sorry, I didn't format our conversation as clearly as I should have. Now edited. It was the first part of the OP.

Your clear, civil and intelligent explanations have helped consolidate my understanding. They provide a stark contrast to the personal attack made against Rorty in one of his final reflections.

Time to let it go, now, I think. Thanks to all :sparkle:

Interesting comments.

We are now more able than Plato was to acknowledge our finitude.

Far fewer people today believe in an afterlife. Whether or not one does, we are able to question such assumptions freely in the West. — Fooloso4

Indeed. Would you say this is an advance in human thinking or is this too value laden?

Really? Fascinating as this is, we're now taking it well beyond Feedback.
I think you know that, bad boy. :brow:

Please clarify. Not sure to what you are referring.

As I noted, if you want to start a new thread, I will participate.

Would you say this is an advance in human thinking or is this too value laden? — Tom Storm

It certainly is a change but I am hesitant to call it an advance. What follows from this change? I don't think there is a single unified response to either believing or rejecting finitude.

As I noted, if you want to start a new thread, I will participate. — T Clark

So, you attack Rorty and retreat. You make claims about poetry but will not say what you think is the proper use of the term poetry, It is not up to me to start a new thread so you can defend your unsubstantiated claims.

Thanks. All very interesting.

My aim is not even debate with others but trying to read more poems that can make me feel that 'unbearable nostalgia' that Kundera referred to in his novel.
Poetry may have a bit of philosophical content per se, but I mainly focused on nostalgic poems. These have a lot of art but not philosophical content. If I feel nostalgia reading a poem it is just a personal emotion of mine that escapes from rational thinking... — javi2541997

I've re-read this, especially the part I underlined. It seems that the problem might lie in the category heading 'Philosophy of Art'. This seems to require the inclusion of a philosophical argument. I can understand the reluctance and difficulty of placing your thread there. And as much as 'The Lounge' is an interesting hang-out for blethers, your thread - and similar - deserves more than that, in my opinion.

I can't remember but I think I mentioned the category of 'Aesthetics' earlier. This too has its problems and paradoxes but I think it is broader and can include the 'emotions' and experience of ' nostalgia' you find in the contemplation of poems.

***

It's difficult to know where it would best fit. The PoA category has a variety of threads. Some I noted with titles like 'Beautiful Structures' or 'Beautiful Things' are not of the argumentative type.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2678/beautiful-things/p1
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3112/beautiful-structures/p1

So, if not there, where else would you suggest? — Amity

@Jamal et al - I'd be interested to hear your views on using 'Aesthetics' as a category or sub-category? It seems broader in scope with non-argumentative approaches as to what we find beautiful and valuable in human experience. Also, our aesthetic experience, response or attitude to works of art, including objects and nature.

I haven't delved into the intricacies of Aesthetics but I found this substantive and helpful article.
A few excerpts from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/aesthetics

Recent work in aesthetics, to some extent inspired by the seminal writings of Sartre and Wittgenstein, has devoted considerable attention to the study of creative imagination. The hope has been to provide the extra ingredient in aesthetic experience that bridges the gap between the sensory and the intellectual and at the same time shows the relation between aesthetic experience and the experience of everyday life—an enterprise that is in turn of the first importance for any study that seeks to describe the moral significance of beauty. [...]

...it is not only art that stirs our emotions in the act of aesthetic attention: the same is or may be true of natural beauty, whether that of a face or of a landscape. These things hold our attention partly because they address themselves to our feelings and call forth a response which we value both for itself and for the consolation that we may attain through it. Thus we find an important philosophical tradition according to which the distinctive character of aesthetic experience is to be found in distinctively “aesthetic” emotions. — Britannica - Aesthetics

I've re-read this, especially the part I underlined. It seems that the problem might lie in the category heading 'Philosophy of Art'. This seems to require the inclusion of a philosophical argument. — Amity

We can share, enjoy, and read poems together. But again, my aim was not to discuss the content of Kundera's views. I am currently reading a novel by him, and I am very hyped. The main character, Agnes, is melancholic, so am I. After reading the chapter where she reads Goethe's poetry, I felt like it was interesting to share it here. The thread even went unnoticed for two days. It is obvious that it is not philosophical enough. I only invited the users to share similar poems in the thread.

I really appreciate how you value my thread, Amity. But you—and I—need to understand that the forum has standards and all.

I'd be interested to hear your views on using 'Aesthetics' as a category or sub-category? It seems broader in scope with non-argumentative approaches as to what we find beautiful and valuable in human experience. Also, our aesthetic experience, response or attitude to works of art, including objects and nature. — Amity

Aesthetics is cool. It comes under philosophy of art, and we have a category for that. There's no requirement for elaborate argumentation; there just has to be some philosophical meat. More than just a mention of an idea.

As @javi2541997 has just said, his aim was not really to discuss the aesthetic ideas, but to share his appreciation with others, so the Lounge was the right place for it. But as I said, I likely would not have removed it from the philosophy of art category if it had originally been placed there.

Javi, I understand well what your aims were. There was no need to repeat. However, your thread was a starting point. For me, it led to other questions re the separation of Art and Philosophy - Creative v Argumentative. I think that there is a problem with how threads related to poetry are not given their place. But it seems I'm hitting my head against a brick wall. No matter...some things never change...

I really appreciate how you value my thread, Amity. But you—and I—need to understand that the forum has standards and all. — javi2541997

That goes without saying.

OK. I give up. You're the boss. Now out to enjoy the sun :cool:

Take pleasure in it while you have the chance, for a storm is brewing on yonder horizon.

Take pleasure in it while you have the chance, for a storm is brewing on yonder horizon. — Jamal

Twas ever thus. Life and an appreciation of it goes on. No matter the weather. Cheers :sparkle:

It seems that the problem might lie in the category heading 'Philosophy of Art'. This seems to require the inclusion of a philosophical argument. I can understand the reluctance and difficulty of placing your thread there. — Amity

I don't know how likely other are to agree, but I think philosophy of mind would be a perfectly legitimate category for a wide ranging discussion of how and why poetry affects us as it does, and what that can tell us about the nature of our minds. What is special about the ways that we can use poetry to communicate with each other?

At first I didn't get, and was a bit put off by, Rorty's use of "compression" in referring to poetry. But now perhaps, I have a sense of what Rorty meant. I'm thinking instead of compression there is (or at least can be) a minimalism to poetry, in that often what we might call the poetry itself is a few lines taking up part of a page. But perhaps compressed within those few lines is something with an ability to show us a part of ourselves or the world that we hadn't previously recognized.

That being said,
this is just something that popped into my head,
and not feeling sufficiently well read,
I doubt I'll write that OP before I am dead. :joke:

Hi and thanks for response. Just when I thought I'd managed to escape!

Regarding:

...the category heading 'Philosophy of Art'. This seems to require the inclusion of a philosophical argument. — Amity

Jamal clarified this:

Aesthetics is cool. It comes under philosophy of art, and we have a category for that. There's no requirement for elaborate argumentation; there just has to be some philosophical meat. More than just a mention of an idea. — Jamal

So, how much philosophical meat is baked in the pie. The OP, apparently, needs to be justified as philosophy - its relevance for a particular category made clear.

I think philosophy of mind would be a perfectly legitimate category for a wide ranging discussion of how and why poetry affects us as it does, and what that can tell us about the nature of our minds. What is special about the ways that we can use poetry to communicate with each other? — wonderer1

Yeah, well. I think poetry, or poetic expression, could probably fit into any category dealing with the human body, mind and soul. Interactions at any level. It's not boxed in, is it?

***

Aesthetics - the aesthetic mind - holds its fascinations. There's been plenty written about it:

5 Aspects of the Aesthetic Mind: Exploring its Meaning and Significance - Renee Speaking
https://reneespeaking.com/aesthetic-mind-meaning/

The Aesthetic Mind - Hardback - Elisabeth Schellekens, Peter Goldie - Oxford University Press

The Aesthetic Mind breaks new ground in bringing together empirical sciences and philosophy to enhance our understanding of aesthetics and the experience of art.

An eminent international team of experts presents new research in philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and social anthropology: they explore the roles of emotion, imagination, empathy, and beauty in this realm of human experience, ranging over visual and literary art, music, and dance.

Among the questions discussed are: Why do we engage with things aesthetically and why do we create art? Does art or aesthetic experience have a function or functions? Which characteristics distinguish aesthetic mental states? Which skills or abilities do we put to use when we engage aesthetically with an object and how does that compare with non-aesthetic experiences? What does our ability to create art and engage aesthetically with things tell us about what it is to be a human being?

***

At first I didn't get, and was a bit put off by, Rorty's use of "compression" in referring to poetry...

...But perhaps compressed within those few lines is something with an ability to show us a part of ourselves or the world that we hadn't previously recognized. — wonderer1

Yes, it could well be that. Or written by a creative someone moved by an experience but who can't be arsed writing a complete descriptive essay. A magical encapsulation. Catch a falling star and put it in your pocket. An emptying of a rhythmic, chiming mind.

That being said,
this is just something that popped into my head,
and not feeling sufficiently well read,
I doubt I'll write that OP before I am dead — wonderer1

An OP I will never write
Too much trouble
Too much strife :monkey:

An OP I will never write
Too much trouble
Too much strife — Amity

:broken:

"And when they've given you their all
Some stagger and fall, after all it's not easy
Banging your heart against some mad bugger's wall."
- From Outside the Wall, Roger Waters

:hearts:

The space with Michael

I see him in the car carrier on the floor, on the night I rode around with Jeff.
Jeff was looking for Patty, with a rage which was a mystery to me then and now.

Again, I see Michael in the car carrier on the floor,
and that I need to prevent Jeff from drunkenly stepping on Michael as I yank Jeff back.
That image is flickering though,
from Michael,
to Patty in terror,
to what I can see of Jeff as I grab him from behind,
and back to Michael...

I see Michael lying on his back on my lap. Here I can linger for awhile.
Here the view is always worth the pain.
I watch Michael as he looks at my hand,
and somehow I know how to move my fingers in a way that tells him,
"I am here with and for you."

I see Michael in Patty's arms.
He is near a year old.
As Patty approaches though the crowd of strangers Jeff reaches out to take his son from his wife,
but Michael has spotted me,
and reaches out to be held,
by me.

But there is so much emptiness in this space now.
Thirty eight years,
and I only see bits and pieces of one.
Many of the bits are so faded,
amidst those that seem indelible in this space.

Pleasantly surprised by this. Not what I was expecting in 'Feedback'.

I'm assuming 'The space with Michael' is written by you. Perhaps inspired by 2 of your posts - related to 'How might 'metaphysical imagination' be used?' in @Jack Cummins' thread 'How Surreal are Ideas?' where you spoke of being unwilling to share an extremely personal experience. Then managed to express this PTSD in another discussion: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/929238

The poem creatively encapsulates your story.

...But perhaps compressed within those few lines is something with an ability to show us a part of ourselves or the world that we hadn't previously recognized. — wonderer1

It reminded me of other creative writing by TPF members. And, annoyingly, I couldn't find them.
First, you need to sign in to see the category 'The Symposium', under this lies 'Short Stories'.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/categories/40/short-stories

Here you will find @Jamal's sticky'Show Us Your Fiction!' and other stand-alone stories and ideas. The ones that stayed in my mind were: @Benkei's 'Letter from Oslo, @Tobias 'Eden by Night' and @Jack Cummins - 'Flash Fiction and Writing Prompts'

There was also an active Lounge thread - @Baden's 'Get Creative!' - but last post was 10 months ago.

And under another category'Article Submissions', I found my thread, started 6yrs ago! https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4858/critical-thinking-and-creativity-reading-and-writing/p1

I think it was here that @ArguingWAristotleTiff suggested the revival of the Short Stories Competition. Now, changed to 'Literary Event', including micro-stories and poems. With thought-provoking feedback and discussions. Pretty damned fab :fire:

Anyway, no wonder I'm having a sense of déjà vu!
I'm so impressed by the way Jamal, Baden and others created and encouraged space for creativity in a philosophy forum. The way it encouraged writing, reading and reflecting.

I addressed this Feedback thread to @Baden and also enquired about the 'Literary Event'. I'm not sure how to interpret his lack of response - or anything from other mods. Perhaps there was a team meeting behind the scenes...

Having the Symposium as a Main Category was a good idea. There, the Shoutbox is stickied and also appears Top of the Main Page. Like the Lounge, another chattering place for the community.
There's plenty opportunity for creativity but hell, the pieces are scattered all over the place...buried so deep to be invisible and even if read, later responses don't surface. Can't there be a dedicated place to bring this all together and be more accessible?

Just sayin'. I suppose I'm concerned that the enthusiasm for creative expression is dwindling. And that there is a return, a move back, to pure philosophy and strict ways of writing. Perhaps, I'm wrong and best to 'let it be'.

Let it Be - the Beatles

When I find myself in times of trouble
Mother Mary comes to me
Speaking words of wisdom
Let it be

And in my hour of darkness
She is standing right in front of me
Speaking words of wisdom
Let it be

Let it be, let it be
A-let it be, let it be
Whisper words of wisdom
Let it be
[...]
And when the night is cloudy
There is still a light that shines on me
Shine until tomorrow
Let it be

I addressed this Feedback thread to Baden and also enquired about the 'Literary Event'. I'm not sure how to interpret his lack of response - or anything from other mods. Perhaps there was a team meeting behind the scenes... — Amity

Sorry, I missed the second bit. For the first bit, I think @Jamal explained the general approach well. We both value art and creativity highly (e.g. much of the time my main interest is art and trying to create it, though I do oscillate between that and work and more philosophical stuff), but the forum is set up to prioritize philosophical content on the first page, so that means less-philosophical content may be put in the lounge.

To me, that's not a value judgement: "Less-philosophical" does not equal "worse" in a general sense, but logically it equates to a lower priority overall on a philosophy forum. Otherwise, we would need to redescribe / rename ourselves.

For the literary event part, I think once a year makes it more special. However, I encourage creative activity year round. The "Get Creative" thread is part of that and anyone can write a short story any time and post it in the category set up for that.

Note that if you look at my content, most of it is non-philosophical. A lot of it is my own idea of art (or just messing around) in the Shoutbox. That's one reason I decided to step out of admin shoes. It's a philosophy, not an art, forum, and I don't feel I do enough philosophy on here now to justify being an admin. I remain a mod because I think I can still offer enough to the site to justify that. But we all need to recognize where we are and act accordingly.

Of course, @Jamal is the owner, so he has to be an admin, despite the fact he spends most of his days filling out colouring books and watching Peppa Pig.

Good to hear from you!

...the forum is set up to prioritize philosophical content on the first page, so that means less-philosophical content may be put in the lounge. — Baden

Understood. However, as I have argued, creativity does have an important place in philosophy and should have a dedicated space.

To me, that's not a value judgement: "Less-philosophical" does not equal "worse" in a general sense, but logically it equates to a lower priority overall on a philosophy forum. Otherwise, we would need to redescribe / rename ourselves. — Baden

Well, I think giving it a lower priority is a value judgement. There's no need to change the name of the forum. That would be ridiculous.

For the literary event part, I think once a year makes it more special. However, I encourage creative activity year round. The "Get Creative" thread is part of that and anyone can write a short story any time and post it in the category set up for that. — Baden

OK, thanks. So, around December time? Looking forward to hearing more, later.
The 'Get Creative!' thread is only a small part along with the other parts. All well hidden in the Lounge/ Symposium. Most newcomers would be unaware of their existence. Even oldies haven't posted there for some time.

I've been thinking about where they might be gathered, sensibly, under a useful and accessible philosophy category.

Has anyone considered 'Philosophy of Creativity'? That would be a place where we could discuss the value of creativity (theory) AND also give expression to it (practice). Telling and Showing its worth. @Jamal, other mods, anyone?

Abstract
This is the opening chapter to The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays. It argues that since creativity is such a significant aspect of the human experience, and since it raises a wealth of philosophical questions, it deserves much more attention than it currently receives in philosophy.

It also argues for the fruitfulness of interdisciplinary exchange, integrating philosophical insights with research in experimental psychology. Providing an overview of the field and of the subsequent essays in the volume, this chapter surveys issues such as the definition of creativity, the role of consciousness in the creative process, the role of the audience in the creation of art, the emergence of creativity through childhood pretense, whether great works of literature give us insight into human nature, whether a computer program can really be creative, whether creativity is a virtue, the difference between creativity in science and art, and whether creativity can be taught—both in general and within philosophy itself. — Academic.oup - The Philosophy of Creativity

Also, this: https://philosophyterms.com/philosophy-of-creativity/