Poets and Philosophy-1

                                      POEMS AND POETS

              20.Poets And Philosophy-1

What do we mean by Philosophy?

The general understanding is that it is an abstract, academic inquiry into aspects of life that do not concern us daily, or engage us vitally. It is usually identified with certain names, and schools like Socrates, Aristotle, Spinoza, Sartre,etc. What these gentlemen say, especially the modern ones, is generally incomprehensible, except to the initiated, though a few quotations may do the rounds.Though a good-natured soul like Will Durant wrote a nice book to help the general reader comprehend the situation better. We can at least appreciate Will Durant's presentation, though the ideas presented there do not appear to have helped the world much or made it a better place. Poor man, the greatest of them was made to drink poison and court death. That way, philosophy does not seem to help even the philosophers, unlike economics which in spite of all the misery it is causing, is a rich source of employment and earning for the economist!

But this was not the sense in which the word was understood in the past.
Look at this scene from As You Like It: Act 3, Scene 2

TOUCHSTONE

                    Hast any philosophy in thee,shepherd?

CORIN 
                     No more but that I know the more one sickens, the worse at ease he is,
                     and that he that wants money, means and content is without three good friends,;
                     that the property of rain is to wet, and fire, to burn;
                     that good pasture makes fat sheep;
                     and that a great cause of the night is lack of the sun;
                     that he that hath learned no wit by nature nor art may complain of good breeding or comes of a very dull kindred.

TOUCHSTONE
                    Such a one is a natural philosopher.

What does philosophy mean here, as understood  in general? Any systematic body  of codified wisdom, couched in academic jargon, floating around in somebody's name,  which some people without better work to do pore over in some closeted institutions?

As Corin the shepherd expressed it, it is common wisdom of the people, result of experience, undecreed by any king or court, and also untouched by it.

More seriously considered, but in the traditional manner, it is, to quote Dr.S.Radhakrishnan: 

"an attitude of mind which can best be described as 'idealistic'. Have you that spiritual dimension in your being,that mood of reflective inquiry and self-contemplation, that anxiety of mind to know the things spiritual in which is the true dwelling-place of man? Or do you belong to the race of  unreflective people who are satisfied with business or politics or sport, whose life is dull prose without any ideal meaning? Philosophy is understanding, contemplation,insight, and a philosopher can find no rest until he gains a view or vison of the world of things and persons which will enable him to interpret the manifold experiences as expressive,in some sort, of a purpose."   ( An Idealist View of Life )

In short, it is what one feels the world is about, and serves as a guide to one's conduct in the world. It is one's own idea about the meaning and purpose of life. It takes one beyond the sensible world. Because most people do not reflect, they find it easy to reflect some one else's view. 

Considered in this light, we can say most people do have a philosophy of some sort, of their own, or borrowed. Every attitude becomes a philosophy; and also its opposite.

About Corin's short discourse, one can say after all it is a shepherd's view, and but reflects his 'level' of thinking. Granted that this shepherd is not the Shepherd of Galilee or Judea, ( or the cowherd boy of Brindavan) he did not have the fortune of his views getting 'academised'. But , can our academics render it simpler? Surely, they can complicate, and mystify!

This is the secret of 'philosophy' in general. It is a view of world and life which pervades a society, shared by the common  man and can be seen in or sensed from their actions. It is in this sense that all traditional societies had  cogent philosophies of their own, while the modern one displays utter confusion about or total incomprehension of even the most basic problem of life.

Not only a society, even sections within it have philosophies of their own. Take art. What was Greek philosophy of art? Embody Beauty. What was the Indian? Use the three dimensions to portray That which defies all human dimensions! So one sees such 'queer' sculptures of gods and goddesses in India.

It is not that modern professions lack any philosophy of their own, or their individual practitioners. Take the movies, for instance. They are divided in India usually into commercial and art films. All movie makers  want to make money- so that is the motive, not philosophy. The philosophy comes in when they select the themes, and decide on the treatment.Some of the so called 'art' movies are as crooked in theme and treatment as the rank commercial ones, at times even more perverted. Only, they may not employ well-known or 'star' actors. A director like Hrishikesh Mukherjee was deeply sensitive and so humane in all his movies, throughout the 40-odd years of his career. But he did not call himself an art movie director.

I have often wondered how the directors could portray the vilest scenes of violence and rape in such lurid detail, unless they believed in it, or at  least enjoyed it? To that extent it reflects their philosophy!

When Hitchcock filmed 'I Confess', he conveyed a philosophy- the sacredness of the institution of the Confession. On the other hand, 'Rear Window' scandalised a deeply held popular philosophy: you could not be a peeping Tom in a cultured society. That simply is not acceptable behaviour. Naturally, many people resented it and even questioned how James Stewart could ever agree to do that role and how Hitchcock could select that theme. This is but an expression of the shared, but unstated philosophy  people believed in!

This is where art and artist are connected by a common philosophy. Jimmy Stewart had that image of a righteous man. After all, the roles chosen by an actor must in some way reflect his own personality or philosophy, unless he was a mere money making machine? It was said that the character of Moses that Charlton Heston played in The Ten Commandments so affected him that he could not accept just any role after that! Gregory Peck is reputed for always choosing roles that accorded with his personality and convictions, so that when 'To Kill A Mocking Bird' came along, we felt we were actually seeing Atticus Finch alive! On the other hand, Clint Eastwood , the hero of Spaghetti Westerns, tried to make amends  by producing, acting and directing 'Unforgiven'! It sure has violence,but does not glorify it . Who can say great artists do not have a philosophy of their own! I am out of touch with current movies, to offer more recent examples.

Ultimately, philosophy is all about the question of whether life or the world has a meaning or purpose. How we answer this question determines the quality and dimensions of our life. The purpose of all education and religion is only to equip us with some philosophy in this sense- not a structured doctrine of fancy jargon. It endows man with a sense of destiny  that is not limited to the physical dimensions of the visible world. Come to think of it- this is what distinguishes humankind from animals. We all share the same visible world. But man can exceed it. In that, he excels himself. No animal could do that.  Without philosophy, man is just an animal- even with his rationality. In fact all his rationality has only made him a more ferocious animal, in the absence of a true philosophy. Else, what is the meaning of the two World Wars?

And it is here that both modern education and religions have failed. They have taught us nice theories, but equipped us with no philosophy. And modern 'philosophies' have turned into pure speculation or abstraction. Like the mud horse,it does not help us cross the river of life.

Of these, the failure of religion is most tragic. Take Christianity, for instance, the largest organised religion in the world. Given that original sin is its starting point, what can be its philosophy-possibly its only philosophy? That man cannot come out of this condition on his own- he needs divine grace. That grace has come in the form of Christ: the lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world. Where then is the need for all that other theology? Or even a Church?

For an outsider, the very idea of Christ is thrilling- no matter the figure of Christ, or his historical truth. That some one has offered to lift humanity by offering himself as sacrifice- there can be no more divine act! 
And the only price one has to pay is to believe he is the Truth and the Way, and follow him! A way is meant to be followed! Many are willing to believe, but few,to follow! But Christ is not Unique! After all, this is what Krishna also says in the Gita, in conclusion: 'Giving up all this preoccupation with your laws, surrender to Me! I will save you!' The Buddha said he did not desire Nirvana till the last life was saved!

It is said  that what distinguishes man  from animals is that man can talk, can laugh, can reason. But what makes him human is this divine spark- can he feel others' pain? Animal lives for itself; man alone can live for others. If he too lives for himself, he is just a two legged animal. To relieve some one else's pain is human enough- but to seek to do it for the entire humanity is nothing short of divine. Unfortunately, this simple philosophy is veiled by layers of theological dogma.

It is the chief merit of the great poets that they do not let humanity forget the simple philosophy of life. As one of our celluloid poets sang:

bhala ka je bhala hoga
bhura ka je bhura hoga
wahi likh likh ke kya hoga?

if you do good, good will happen to you
if you do bad, bad will come back to you
What is the point in writing this down repeatedly?