Been a wide reader of philosophy

What metaphysical truths can poetry express that philosophy cannot? I'm not even sure that poetry is appropriate to metaphysics.

Lmaoing irl
Same happened to me bro
I think of nietzsche as an artist, not a philosopher, thats for academia cucks
Rimbaud is god-tier
But you are on Veeky Forums so prepare to get memed the fuck out
Peace out

good poetry is lazy philosophy
lazy minds are satisfied by lazy thoughts

it's no surprise you'd curse the chef for making what's beyond you

Most philosophers would disagree with you
I reccomend psychoanalysis to get read of your insecurity

To explain it is to render it into discourse and thus it becomes philosophy and loses its imminent truth.
You don't experience art in descriptions of it

lmfao
and would most philosophers agree with that recommendation?

poetry rends the world of twin appearances by analogy to expose the face of shared unity in the empty formlessness of existence. Most philosophy, especially logical positivism, is too busying obsessing over getting behind the Ghost and using logic to approach the infinite, whereas poetry sidesteps this realizing that there will never be a final solution to knowledge, and instead serves as a connector of all beings with the tragic beauty of our reality and our necessary submission to the void

Only the ones that matter

A lot of poets I don't enjoy, especially canonized ones. The language is just too archaic for me a lot of the time and as a result can't speak through me, to me. You just have to read a bunch of different fellows and find the ones that you can mesh with. I know it's a cardinal sin to say this, but I don't like Keats, Donne, Aiken, and several other heavy hitters in the poetry world. Their sensibilities simply do not appeal to me, I need tragedy in my poetry phrased in a way that I can appreciate. Unless it's Walt Whitman, the one exalting poet I can dig

I respect zizek and agree with you but he is perma cucked

Philosophical rigor and exactitude is for those who mistake the shadow for the substance

It's the other way round

They're two extremely different things. That's like saying you can't read prose fiction anymore because you got into poetry or philosophy.

Poetry doesn't concern itself with the noumenal 'existence' of things

>our necessary submission to the void

Who do you read other then Rimbaud?

Read before posting, please

kek

yes. Impermanence, transience, ultimate nullity and non-being. A shared temporal existence in infinity

back at you

Saison or illuminations, which is better, Veeky Forums?
Protip: is saison

Woah made me think
*boing*
Back at you again! And now I have a rubber shield so you can throw it back to me because it will boing back at you!

you seem really mad for no reason, go pick a fight with somebody else

Im not mad I was smiling when I made that post, it was a joke, Im sorry user, have a nice day.

Alt right or leave Veeky Forums forever. This is a warning.

Yeah fuck logic I would much rather believe what sounds nice.

>philosophy
>logic

>poetry
>what sounds nice

I think it is logical to kill myself
But it sounds better to become ubermench

Hmm... Thanks for the input.
so which of the underdogs or contemporaries would you recommend?

i did start with nietszche a loong time ago, but it doesnt matter how literary or 'artistic' any philosophy might be, poetry is qualitatively different. it gives you something else, not simply more of the same. just like the difference between a fake and a real flower. they might look the same but the insect flying around wont make a mistake, for theres no polen in plastic.

blake opened the way for me. now im just like a kid in a candystore. rilke rimbaud verlaine novalis... a whole world to discover. not to speak of other times and civilizations.

i guess i just read too many philosophers and scientists talking about the wonders of poetry so eventually that planted the seed. bateson was a key in the transition. i also dived into all the proto-taoist 'philosophers' with an intellectual motivation, but those texts, as i was looking with the intellect, opened the imagination and made it join. that changed the picture.

poetry wont 'explain' or show some truth, be it metaphysical existential or wathever. it will rather give you, or show you, the tools so you can build your own, or rather let your mind do it, for that is the only way you can 'find' truth. poetry is just the testimony of someone else's path, you can relate to it, not by mere reading or copying, but by following your own path being moved by your own imagination. but anyway, any description will be inaccurate, for nothing replaces the actual experience; no recipe book will replace a meal.

i dont think philosophy is to be compared directly with poetry, as if they were two ways of attempting the same thing. they might be concerned with the same phenomena, but that doesnt mean they see the same relevance in it or treat it the same way. if you say, from the philosophy pov, that poetry is a lazy mind, one could say that philosophy is an overactive lost mind that forgot its point, like the buddhist parable of someone trying to cross a river who begins building a boat, but then forgets why he started doing it, becomes an expert in boat making dedicating his life to it but in the end doesnt cross the river. but that is still a mere comparison.

that is not entirely accurate, for that keeps as implicit the division of a shadow as manifesting some substance, not existing without it. plato's cave is not the solution to a problem, it is the legitimation of the point of view that gives it sense. the accuracy/pertincence of that pov is another story.

only someone who already knows what you mean, by experience, can recognize sense in such words. it will look like mysticism for those who dont, it wont be news for anyone already knowing it. so, whats the point of saying it?
>He who does not Know Truth at Sight is unworthy of Her Notice. -W.Blake

I don't know if I'd necessarily call them underdogs, just not ones that are discussed a lot on here, but I like Allen Tate, Olaf Stapledon, Brautigan, Snyder, James Merrill, Paul Celan, Lorca, Spenser, etc.

>only someone who already knows what you mean, by experience, can recognize sense in such words. it will look like mysticism for those who dont, it wont be news for anyone already knowing it. so, whats the point of saying it?

I don't agree, anyone vaguely familiar with Jungian jargon should be able to understand it easy enough, as I do (or at least I think I do)

I agree. I hadn't had an intrest in poetry, until I read The Drunken Ship from Rimbaud, and boy-oh-boy, since then I've quit my job, started writing poetry, overdrinking, drugging out, etc. and living from theft, donations and pity. Currently residing in NYC sewers.

not sure how much of this is a joke. Did you at least like the poem?

Yes, quite a lot actually. But I'm no fan of Rimbaud. It's quite hard to put the finger on 'why', but translations don't do him justice. As with any other poet, of course.
So I've developed a tasting for symbolists from my own country.
And I've seriously begun studying and writing poetry. It eases the existential nerves.

yeah maybe one understands it intellectually, but it can never be grasped by pure intellect. interesting you mention jung, cause he's been compared to blake.

I've never read a philosophy book in my life. You just have know what a few words mean to understand the whole meaning. Are we really waxing philosophically about a Veeky Forums post?

>rend: to tear from
>positivism: apologetics about affirming something I guess
>Ghost: euphemism for soul, or self-awareness in a seemingly unware Universe.
>infinite: the abstraction of time as the only governing body in the Universe/God.
>necessary submission to the void: post-modern existentialism contesting the continuity of a life after death, seen as invariable to the secular mind.

is symbolist another word for imagist? sry poetry noob here

>Ghost: euphemism for soul

lol.

but wait, does that still hold the mind/body dualism?

No

"Getting behind the Ghost" is a term that Stirner used to refer to people who tried to uncover the 'true' meaning or purpose of human motivations and 'figure it all out' so to speak. Stirner of course insisted it was futile and those who pursued it were fools motivated by pride and the power complex

>Stirner

You are actually right, user.
> dat l'Époux Infernal

There's no such thing as non-being or ultimate nullity. Poetry is all about being, as anything that can be expressed, is. You're just acting as an obscuratanist pseud.

I agree for the most part, but I believe that poetry, rather than expressing the “tragic beauty of our reality,” which suggests a sort of universal emotional center or truth that contradicts your premise, expresses a subjective truth, constructed within the confines of a certain system, which through the interpretation of the world constructed by language we are able to inhabit. So, poetry appeals not to the notion of a universal emotional reality that transcends the continual circling of philosophy but to the universal human ability to absorb the construction of subjective systems, from which absorption subjectivity, though never approaching a full construction of the formless infinite, tends away from perspectivism to its realization as an objective fragment of it.

being in a brief temporal epoch surrounded by an eternity of non-being. The acute awareness of the passage of time and being towards death is a key element of the tragic in poetry

>hurr my substance is real i see it! look!

illuminations

i like both but poetry is dumb underrated

You have no clue what philosophy even is. Sounds like you're in need of psychiatric treatment.

>they still haven't realist criticism is the most refined literary form

Is there a novell that reads like literary criticism?

Pale Fire.

what did he mean by this?

i guess youre coming from, if not analytic, then the deleuze/guattari conception of what philsophy is. i lean more towards what pierre hadot thinks about it. theyre just different conceptions i guess.

The critic is the true artist tbqh

who made that pic???

all art is criticism you dumb fucking parrot

This is genuinely the best post i have ever seen on this board. Thanks, user.

>he bought into the inability to create something disguised under the ability to create something about other peoples creations

poets face life and create poetry, critics failed in facing life so they face a poet's work and create criticism about it.

false. all criticism is failed art. art has nothing to do with criticism, unless you wanna call it that in an ironical way to tease religious people.

art is criticism of art that came before it

But what poet would i go to for learning aesthetics 101?

tumblr circa 2010

Use capitalization goddamit

fuck off nigger

interesting, recommend me some good intro poetry, im already starting to get tired of philosophy

what? that doesnt make any sense. you can only criticize a creation. and only human imagination can create. the rest is just there, like life itself. art is just another expression of life, but taking place in the human world. works in that world are the only things that can be criticized. criticism is like some 2nd order creation, which mean it depends on the 1st order one.

>calls him parrot
>>issuing an opinion that can only be formed having never read criticism
>>>issuing opinion he copy pasted from some disgruntled poet upset that critics "misread" his insipid, unoriginal poetry
>>>>poetry unoriginal because the poet never bothered to read criticism
>most artists write criticism too

>they don't realize criticism is the only literary form which requires absolute discipline in every sentence
>>they don't realize that the slightest excess destroys the critical ethos
>>>they don't realize all the other arts have been persistently apologizing for their undisciplined excesses since the 1900s

critique is an artwork in itself.

>you can only criticize a creation.
everything is a creation and everything is intermingling of creations.

i'm so shocked to find that someone who is against criticism knows nothing about art, and can hardly put together a sentence about what he believes about it.

ok, if everything is a creation, then you can only make critique about somthing that you yourself could have created, i.e. the work of another human being. or it would make sense to criticize the singing of a bird or the swimming of a fish. you can make science or literature about that, but not criticism.

you can do anything you want in this world and that's the only real philosophical problem

>He hasn't read the Metaphysical poets

Get out

criticism isn't always about pointing out the flaws in a work. it can be about what fascinates you, what you find beautiful in art; and reading it can show you beauty in things you may not have appreciated before, or find new beauty in things you already love. but it also makes you more discerning, and can help you sort out art that is really special, original, and interesting from the derivative and uninspired dross that makes up most of the so-called art world.

at least, this is what criticism ought to do. and it can be political, too, or politicizing; but too often today it takes the form of political denunciation or endorsement, and this, i think, is one of those excesses of which i spoke in an earlier post and which contributes to the popular image of the critic-as-leech.

wrong. for you to be able to 'do' and 'want' things and to actually reach a concrete creation, your mind has to have already created the bricks which you will use in your conscious work. those bricks are what is valuable and what enables art. not the simple putting together of the pieces, that can be done by any idiot. art happens when both things happen in harmony and complete each other.

>reads poetry and philosophy of an (ostensibly) high caliber
>still equates the satisfaction of "existential uneasiness" (whatever this was supposed to mean) with the feeling of a full belly

That poetry has been wasted on you if you still cannot tell the rough metaphor from the fine.

You fucking fags are comparing Wittgenstein to Rimbaud, do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?

where do you see this comparison

nigga we savage we give 0 fucks boiii

>full belly

he thinks eating is about being full.

>equates

if you think metaphor is just saying two things are the same...well try and see why so called primitive tribes used animals and other stuff they found on nature to name their groups and organizations.

>comparing

the critic destroys and delimits art

that is a contradiction. creation is nothing else than a delimitation, a setting of certain limits, that will give unity to a preceding chaotic meddle. destruction of something cant be its delimitation, it is rather the change or simply the destruction of those limits back into that chaos where you cant identify anything.

the artist delimits the world for the common man. the critic delimits the artist's work for the common man. the common man inhabits that world guided by the artist, and the critic's work is simply some reinforcement of this process.

>implying every creative gesture isn't at once a destructive act