Philosophy Lecture Archive: March 24, 2009: Buried in the Wall: When Poetry, Philosophy, and Faith Converge.
Alan Birkelbach
Texas Poet Laureate 2005.
Poetry and Philosophy are viewed as opposites, that is, Poetry is generally considered an emotionally-centered discipline and Philosophy an academic-driven one.
And Faith tends to keep feet firmly planted on both sides.
But what are the questions that arise when all three converge?
Does poetry become a philosophical tool?
Can poetry become inseparable from faith?
Can poetry become worth dying for?
Can fervor and passion co-exist with rational thought?
These, and other questions, will be examined in this high-level overview of the issues that arise when the lines between faith, philosophy, and poetry blur.
Like I said that evening, Philosophy, Poetry, and Faith are three distinct points on a spectrum.
While their worlds can definitely overlap at their heart they should be considered as separate
and distinct points: philosophy discusses more those things that are real and measureable,
poetry discusses those things that MIGHT be (or how we wish the world would be) and Faith
discusses those things that have no evidentiary proof at all.
I mentioned, and a question was raised, about poets that were ultimately untrue to their
own philosophy. It might be an emotion-driven opinion but I think we want poets to stand
for something consistently. That is, if a poet declares they are communists one day
we don't want to them to say they're capitalists the next (or a black female one day and a white male the next).
How can we believe in a poet when a poet doesn't know what he believes himself?
I kept bringing up the demi-monde life regarding a lot of poets.
That, of course, brought up:
does a poet drink to become a better poet?
does a poet drink because they aren't a better poet?
does a poet drink because they just have to (they carry their own doom with them)?
The real answer is--it depends on the poet. But a poet who follows the demi-monde life
is neither more nor less than the poet who doesn't. What's important here is the PERCEPTION
that the world has of poets. The romantic view of poets is that we are disconnected,
that we have our heads in the clouds, that we lead bohemian lives. Sometimes that's true
and sometimes it isn't.
It's that perception that has to be overlayed over the view of how poetry relates to
philosophy and faith. We (that is, everyone, poets and non-poets alike) need to
reconcile that perception of the creators of poetry with the actual role that poetry has.
If we have a skewed view, or skewed expectations, of what we think a poet is
then we will have a skewed view of what poetry is supposed to do.
Putting it more succintly, if we think all poets are like Maya Angelou
we might think that poetry is emotionally driven racial issue female centric.
But that would not allow us to include poets like John Auden
or Milton or Dante who had such a religious grounding.
Or poets like Basho who were grounded in Eastern philosophy.
Finding poets who are 'true' (for lack of a better word)
and talented
and accessible
is a real quest. Joy Harjo is such a poet, Heaney is another.
They expand the breadth of poetry on that philosophy/poetry/faith spectrum - and make poetry more an obviously essential thing.
Opinions given at lectures of the Dallas Philosopher's Forum
are the solely the opinions of the speaker
and do not the necessarily represent the opinions of the members of the The Dallas Philosophers Forum or its Board of Directors.