Hey, it's Amy.
I thought that lines 83-84 were interesting, they almost tie in with the section of lines 76-82, but the message is a little different.
"Now I re-examine philosophies and religions,
They may prove well in lecture-rooms, yet not prove at all under the spacious clouds
and along the landscape and flowing currents."
This goes along with the idea of the individual experience, that no two experiences are the same, and that wisdom cannot be shared, you have to understand the experience yourself. But I feel that it more talks about the unpredictablility of life, that nothing is certain and no two views are the same. It illustrates the idea that we want to gain knowledge from science and from technology, that we see ourselves as beings that can go against the path of nature and be above all other creation. The thirst for answers is a human drive that leads us to wanting explanations and not resting until we have those philosophies or rules for the universe. However, there always seem to be exceptions to every rule, for example, the platypus is an egg laying mammal. What's up with that? But it shows us that it is virtually impossible to define a rule that encompasses every situation, that these theories work well in the classroom, but in the world we don't have the ability to predict every occurence, to eliminate exceptions to rules. Even things or ideas that man creates has exceptions ( i before e except after c or that sound like a as in neighbor or weigh). If we can't even account for our exceptions, how can man possibly define a rule to stand strong against the unpredictability of life or the surprises of nature. The flowing currents mentioned in the quote above emphasize the idea that the world is always changing and that the universe cannot be defined by rules.
Whitman also discusses his desire to return to the open road and accept whatever comes his way. In lines 4-7 it appears to say that he wants to leave his earthly attachments and unneccessary desires behind him as he writes
"Henceforth I whimper no more, postpone no more, need nothing,
Done with indoor complaints, libraries, querulous criticisms,
Strong and content I travel the open road."
This section is similar to one of the teachings of Buddha, that suffering is caused by our attachment to worldly desires. In order to be optimistic and accept whatever may come our way, to develop as a person we need to follow the open road and leave the past and our attachments behind us and embrace whatever comes our way in order to truly accept the future. Whitman sees life as good-fortune, as the prize itself as he writes,
"Henceforth I ask not good-fortune, I myself am good-fortune."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
In response to your comment about the relation to Buddha, a lot of what the romantics, and especially the transcendentals wrote about seems to come from "Eastern" religions - i.e Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. etc. For example, the idea of the individual pursuit of truth is a very fundamental Hindu concept, that one can pursue truth (aka God) in whatever way one feels is true, as opposed to more doctrine-based "Western" religions, who generally have a few specific ways. Furthermore, many of the ideas of the "Oversoul", ie that we all have parts of god in us, is another idea that appears in Hinduism. In Hindu theology, all of us has a soul, called the "Atman", which is part of the larger universal cause/truth , "Brahman." An analogy the frequently appears is that Brahman is the ocean, and Atman is like dipping a clay pot into the ocean and taking some water out - eventually when the pot breaks (one dies), the Atman returns to Brahman.
These and other similarities appear frequently when dealing with Romanticism, which raises the question whether Romantic writers such as Whitman were exposed to such ideas from other religions. What does everyone else think?
About what you were saying about the Atman returning to Brahman, it sounds similar to the idea of "rise from ashes, fall to ashes," the romantic idea that we are all a part of the bigger universe, that we are part of nature and returned back to nature when we die, yet although we are part of this larger picture, we have the ability to search for our own truth, to go past the limitations of organized religion and focus on the human experience, the individual experience. The bible teaches Christian virtues, however similar to what Whitman wishes to get across, the only way we can really explore the value of these virtues is through our own experience. After a while we get used to hearing the commandments over and over again, but they really become real when we find the truth ourselves.
This is slightly going off on a tangent, but to what extent do we have to learn from our experiences - as you stated about religion in your comment and post. The question I have though is at what point do we stop being able to learn from our experiences and have to be taught. Mr . Laz brought up today how he can tell us certain things not to do, but until we experience them its not going to stick. But what about things like, say drugs - by the time you try them, its potentially too late already. And there are plenty of things that we learn about in school like abstract math, etc. that we will never "experience". By this same logic, couldnt one argue that the government can't tell people to not have abortions, but people won't learn until they "experience" them?
You talk about abstract math, but doesn't that go along with my original post that philosophies prove well in lectures, but not in real life? Honestly, when are you going to need to use abstract math in everyday life? Is that a necessary experiece? Although I do agree that there is a certain limit, for example murder, where that should not even happen, but like Mr. Laz said, Whitman wanted to portray that we can learn from every human experience, no matter the tragedy, and that is when we can really travel the open road. However, drugs, although terrible, are something that people will always try, and the only way to make those kids see what those movies in health class were about is to see the harmful effects for themselves if lessons aren't enough. But for some people a lesson is enough to know not to do drugs, but the individual experience is still more effective.
The second and the fourth comments are Amy Z by the way.
Hey, it's Erin.
I think that what Whitman was saying was that yes, every experience is good, but it's good because you can learn from it. The road is something that you can experience everything on, but that does not mean you will experience it all. Even though Romanticism can be seen as focusing on the individual rather than the group, Whitman adopts an almost Hayakawa-like perspective on experience (what makes us able to learn about other experiences that we never had is our ability to communicate our experiences and thoughts with others. Whitman describes the infinite progression of people on the road as going toward "something great," but the point is that they are going there together, and seem to be in some way relying on each other. In a way, he communicates his own experiences with all who he is urging to go on the road. In lines 140-148, he is telling them what to expect and in lines 193-202, he is describing those who feel they cannot join the road. In the poem Whitman, takes the role of an advisor, describing what will be and encouraging others to join him, but relying on his own experiences to do so.
Post a Comment