Coleridge

The Biographia Literaria- Samuel Taylor Coleridge 

   Samuel Taylor Coleridge (born October 21,1772,Ottery St. Mary, Devonshire , England -died July, 25,1834,Highgate, near London ) , English Lyrical poet,  critic and philosopher.  His Lyrical Ballads,  written with William Words worth , heralded the English Romantic movement,  and his Biographia Literaria (1817) is the most significant work of general literary criticism produced in the English Romantic period .

1) write in your words the difference between poem and prose.
Answer)   It is very difficult to differentiate between poem and prose. We can see that metre or rhyme or both is used in a poem . But they are not used in prose composition .
            Poem's purpose is the communication of pleasure . But prose's purpose is the communication of truth . A poem must be an organic unity. But a poem can not please us if there is no organic unity. The main aim of poetry is to give pleasure . The language of poem is highly ornamental and complexity of words. While in the prose, the language is very simple and we do not find a use of rhyme and meter like poem. Prose has natural form of writing . It is very simple . In poem, it has structured form and also it is decorated by the poet. Poetry express ideas and feelings in few words which are more attractive and prose express ideas and feelings with lots of words . And sometimes , they are not more attractive as poetry has.

Because I could not stop for death

Because I could not stop for death -
He kindly stopped for me-
The Carriage held but just Ourselves -
And Immortality .

We slowly droves- He knew no haste
And I had put away
My labor and my leisure too,
For His Civility-

We passed the school, where Children strove
At Recess- in the Ring-
We passed the Fields of Gazing Grain -
We pssed the Setting Sun-

Or rather- He passed us-
The Dews drew quivering and chill-
For only Gossamer, my Gown-
My Tppet- only Tulle-

We passed before a House that seemed
A swelling of the Ground -
The roof was scarcely visible-
The cornice - in the Ground-

Since then  - tis Centuries - and yet
Feels shorter than the Day
I first surmised the Horses' Heads
Were towards Eternity -


2)   Difference between poem and poetry .

Answer )   Poetry is a wider term than a poem. Poem is different than prose while poetrh could be a part of prose. Poem gives pleasure . Meter or rhyme or both is used in a poem. While poetry gives an aesthetic delight . We can say that it is an activity of poet's mind. Through poem, poet express their ideas and feelings . So, it is merely a form of verbal expression of poet's mind . 

Post truth

Post truth Thinking Activity

•  post truth is a new word for me.The oxford dictionaries word of the year 2016 is 'post truth'.

• The oxford dictionaries word of the year 2016 is a post-truth -an adjective defined as 'relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief '.

• post-truth has gone from being a peripheral term to being a mainstay in political commentary, now often being used by major publications without the need for clarification or definition in their headlines.

• oxford dictionaries says post-truth is thought to have been first used in 1992.

• Example: sometimes people disagree with some rules and regulations.That's why they commentson this condition.they shares their disagreement with another person. and finally it becomes large movement.

Assignment How and why do you think T.P.Kailasam’s perspective differs from the myth of Mahabharata with reference to the Purpose.

Name: Vaghasiya Alisha S.

Roll No: 1

M.A.

Sem- 1

Paper: -4) Indian Writing in English

Assignment Topic:

Explain what is Perspectivism? Or

How and why do you think T.P.Kailasam’s perspective differs from the myth of Mahabharata with reference to the Purpose.

Submitted to: Department of English, M.K. Bhavnagar University,(Gujarat, India)

ANSWER:- Nietzsche’s Perspectivism

Perspectivism ( German: perspektivismus) is the term coined by Friedrich Nietzsche in developing the philosophical view (touched upon as far back as Plato’s rendition of Protagoras) that all ideations take place from particular perspectives. This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or values can be made. This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world be taken as definitively ‘true’ but does not necessarily entail  that all perspectives are equally valid.           

     Perspectivism rejects objective metaphysics as impossible, claiming that no evaluation of objectivity can transcend cultural formation or subjective designation. Therefore, there are no objective facts  nor any knowledge of a thing-in-itself. Truth is separated from any particular vantage point, and so there are no ethical or epistemological absolutes. Rules are constantly reassessed according to the circumstances of individual perspectives. ‘truth’ is thus created by integrating different vantage points together.People always adopt perspective by default whether they are aware of it or not. And the concept of one’s existence are defined by the circumstances surrounding that individual Truth is made by and for individuals and peoples. This view differs from many types of relativism which consider the truth of a particular proposition of something that altogether cannot be evaluated with respect to an ‘absolute truth’  without taking into consideration culture and context.

          

      In the opening section of the book, Nietzsche, repeatedly refers to ‘perspectives’. In preface he says that perceptivity is the  fundamental condition of all life. He refers to the belief in the opposition of the values and the value of truth as foreground evaluations, temporary perspectives.The term perspective comes from the language of vision. we literally see things from and with particular perspectives. Our eyes are located at a particular space, from which something are visible and others are not, e.g. –the top of the table, but not its underneath. A scene looks different from different perspectives- from high up, we can see further and things looks smaller, from below  things ‘loom’ over us and we cannot see very far.                The idea of a perspective has a rich metaphorical life. Important of our projects, when someone seems to overreact emotionally, we tell them to ‘ get thing in perspective’- what has happened is nit important as they seems to think, they need to see the bigger picture or take the lower view. In emotional overreaction, the immediate experience ( which is near) dominates the person. This relates Nietzsche’s  talk of foreground evaluations. We talk what is near to us( in the foreground) as the standard by which we interpret the world.         

       Nietzsche talks about ‘perspective’ when he is relating beliefs to our values. He uses the word interpretation to mean a belief about something as if it is like this or that. An interpretation is an understanding of a world from a particular perspective, and so interpretations, like perspectives, relate back to our values.( different perspectives are defined by different values, differences in belief are not themselves enough. Two people with different religious belief, for instance, may occupy the same perspective I their belief reflects the same underlying set of values.                 So Nietzsche is saying that philosophical  belief about truth and goodness are part of a particular perspective on the world, a short  sighted, distorting perspective. One of its most important distortions is that it denies that it is a perspective, that its truths are unconditional, that it represents  the world as it truly is. But philosophers are wrong to think that it is possible to represent or hold belief about the world that are value free, objective, disinterested.This applies even to sense perception, which we might expect to be most responsive to how the world is. First we find world easier, argues Nietzsche, to reproduce an image we are familiar with than to remember what is new and different in our sense impression. We are averse to new things, and so already, our experience of the world is dominated by an emotion. Familiar emotions- what we fear or love will affect what we see.

Nietzsche’s concept of Truth:-  

According to Nietzsche there is not any universal definition of

truth. So he says: “there are no truths”. Nietzsche points that an individual tries to ‘çreat’ truth . so truth exist in an individuals perspective only. An individual’s perspective depends upon his or her personal subjective experience. So when a writer writes he or she creates a truth from his or her own individual perspective. That’s why there are  possibilities that the ‘created truth is biased’. Because of contradictory perspective one can not rely on the truth/ reality which is shown. It can be deceptive.

      

      How can one who believes that one’s conception of truth depends on the perspective from which one writes also posit anything resembling a universal truth?

        

  Given this idea that there is no truth outside of a perspective, a transcendent truth, how can a philosopher make any claim that all which are valid outside his personal perspective?

          In beyond good and evil, Nietzsche begins with a chapter entitled “On the Prejudices of Philosophers”. Almost immediately he begins to tear into the lack of integrity on the part of traditional philosophers who present their ideas as the product of pure reason. Nietzsche declaims, “they pose as having discovered and attained their real opinions through the self evaluation of a cold, pure, divinely unperturbed dialectic. While what happens at bottom is a prejudice, a notion, an inspiration, generally a desire of the heart sifted and made abstract, is defended by them with reasons sought after the event. 

Truth is not attainable. True reality is always hidden.

      

   If we are doomed to always view the world from our own point of view, then one can never know an absolute truth. Nietzsche states that in light of perspectivism the very idea of an absolute truth is unintelligible. So there can be no absolute truth to be known.

          Nietzsche perceives that a person cannot act while examining his action with an uncertain eye. A person must believe his or her actions  to be the true. And just ways to act even if this belief is a lie in the will to power, he writes his idea as ‘truth’ is the kind of error without which a certain being could nit live. To see that this certain kind of being to which he is referring is definitely humanity. One need only look to beyond good and evil, where he says that for the purpose of preserving beings such as ourselves,  such judgment must believed to be true. Although they might be of course still be false judgment. Therefore, we human need to act as if we are certain of what we are doing even though we cannot be certain.

‘The Purpose’

-T.P. Kailasam

T.P. Kailasam (1884-1946), dramatist, poet, and short story writer In Kannada and English, specialized In geology and went to London for further studies. He returned to Mysore state where he served the Geological Department for a brief while. He sought to educate the sympathies and challenge in prejudices of his audience. His five English plays are based on The Ramayana and The Mahabharata.

       

   the Purpose, written over a period of six years, is a tragedy in two acts, the main characters are Eklavya, Arjuna  and Drona. the central idea is that the aim of learner finally determines his proficiency. Behind the mighty characters of the play looms an unseen power, with its own purposes hidden even from the great Bheeshma.

                Kailasam has brought his theme from the Indian Epics and he says that

                “ these scenes and words you’ll see and hear

I’ve seen and heard before;

as King or priest, poltroon or peer,

somewhere…….some when of yore”

                Kailasam’s play have a uniform technical excellence for this, C.R. Reddy  has said,

                “ greater than any writer i have known is Kailasam in dramatic technique”. Kailasam tried to high light something which in original myth was neglected. The playwright has made change in original myth and gave it a totally new form.

                His English plays are his small but significant effort to perceive and convey an original pattern of reinterpretation of traditional myth. For this purpose he looked afresh into some of the fringe characters from the Mahabharata. He attempted to bring into limelight marginalized of fringe character such as Eklavya.

                Kailasam’s uniqueness lies not merely in evoking our sympathies for Eklavya but also in elevating them to the level of tragic heroes who were masculine, skilful and capable of achievement. In addition, Kailasam attempted to reveal in these heroes the features that the colonizers believe they possess and which accounted for their superiority over Indians.

                The Purpose highlights Eklavya’s  ambition to become the greatest archer in the world in order to protect his fawns from the wolves, just as it highlights the questionable motivation of other heroic characters  in their shabby treatment of the low born hero. There ‘purposes’ of Kailasam can be linked to the broader purpose of the nationalistic movement of India to rewrite India’s past as a foundation of the nationalistic feeling, movement and sense of self.    

                He investigates his characters beyond the roles assigned to them by the authorized versions of the great epics, and he transforms them from passive victims to active participants, thus fitting them into western definitions of ‘masculinity’.

‘THE PURPOSE’ by T. P. Kailasam is a drama in two acts, the story is based on Adiparva from the Mahabharata.

The story moves around Eklavya and Arjuna and their purpose behind learning archery. Both h want to learn archery from the great Dronacharya.

Now if we try to evaluate the story of the play The Purpose by comparing it with the story of Mahabharata, then we will find a vast different in both the things.

In ‘Mahabharata’, Arjuna is drawn as a heroic character possessing super human quality. He is drawn as noble, kind, warrior, committed to his duty kind of person. We cannot imagine him doing any bad things. About Arjuna we have very good image in our mind. He is the greatest archer in the world. This is the myth we heard from our childhood, so we cannot imagine this ideal character committing any wrong things.

                But Kailasam challenges this myth and makes an attempt to present this myth in a totally different way, with his own perspective. In the play ‘The Purpose’  Kailasam has drawn Eklavya a marginalized character in Mahabharata as a hero of the play, whereas Arjuna is drawn as not  good character . in the play Arjuna’s intention behind learning archery was not noble. He wanted to learn only because he wanted to became greatest archer in the world. This was the only his limited ambition. We cannot imagine a character like him thinking so selfishly but in this play it is not so. In contrast to this Eklavya, is a nishadha boy wanted to learn archery not for his personal ambition but he wanted to protect/ save animals. His intention was noble. He has no personal aspirations. He behaves like a real hero. And at some extent, playwright has shown him greater than Guru Dronacharya also. Eklavya is drawn here as a fast learner, noble and greater kind of character in comparison to Arjuna.

This all are the things when Kailasam’s perspective differs from the myth of Mahabharata.

                Arjuna and Eklavya both wanted to learn archery. Dronacharya teaches archery to Arjuna  but cannot accept Eklavya’s proposal because of his promise to Arjuna. Both of them have difference purpose behind to learn archery. Arjuna wanted to became the greatest archer in the world, and Eklavya explains that he wants to learn archery to save lives of innocent animals. Arjuna’s purpose behind learning archery is self- centered while Eklavya’s purpose is noble. This is the point where the perspective of writer differs.

                Rejected by Guru Drona, Eklavya leaves the Ashrama but with the firm decision to learn archery. Eklavya put guru Drona’s idol and because of his hard work and gurubhakti, becomes the great archer.

In the 2^nd act Eklavya is far ahead than Arjuna in archery. In anger Arjuna says that he will tell everyone that guru Drona has not kept his vow. To save his Guruji, from social criticism Eklavya gives willingly his thumb to Drona as GURUDAKSHINA.

                This is the change made by Kailasam. Here the perspective differs.

The behavior of Arjuna is unexpected in this play. It is my personal ambition to become greatest archer in the world- Arjuna. But how can a prince have personal ambition??? He must be patriotic, think about other. And more than that Arjuna says “ I have trouble” , at that time Drona says you usually have problem in learning, and your aim is wrong. This has double meaning. Now this Arjuna is different from Mahabharata. In the play he is a self obsessed child. His understanding is very limited. Whereas Eklavya learns after even watching behind the tree. Eklavya says that this boy Partha will never improve, he still making mistakes.

All this things shows the upliftment of the character of Eklavya. Thus the Kailasam has highlighted the character of Eklavya. Arjuna is portrayed as anti hero. Eklavya is nobler than Arjuna.

So the story told by MAHARSHI VED VYAS

, in the Mahabharata is conflicting with the story told by T. P. Kailasam in the Purpose.

In the Purpose T.P. Kailasam’s Eklavya is greater than Arjuna. Though Eklavya is a Nishadha boy, his purpose in learning archery is for the betterment of others. In actuality  it is the duty of the prince, but the prince the Arjuna is selfish.

The reader are looking at the story from different perspectives and that are of the writers. Both the writers have created truths in their individual perspectives. Their individual perspective are contradictory.

                The Mahabharata is a story of a princes and in the purpose Kailasam has given voice to marginalizes. 

Ø CONCLUSION

Ø  According to Nietzsche there is not any universal definition  of truth. So the readers can’t rely on the contradictory perspectives for to attain truth because what the writer have written in their subjective experiences and the reality presented by them is complex.

                 We cannot prove Ved Vyasa right and Kailasam wrong or vice versa. So the reality presented by the writer is just their individual perspective not the truth.