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.

Assignment Biographia Literaria: a critical study.

Name:  Vaghasiya Alisha S.   Roll no.- 1

M.A. Sem-1

Paper no.-3) Literary theory and criticism

Assignment topic: Biographia Literaria: a critical study.

Submitted to: DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH,

M.K. BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY.

Assignment

Assignment Topic: ‘Biographia Literaria: a critical study.’

ü      Introduction

Biographia Literaria is written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Coleridge's new technique of criticism is called 'appreciative criticism'. To quote a renowned critic, 'evidently the new poetry needed a new criticism and this was provided by Coleridge in the Boigraphia Literaria'.
He led the way in a new method in criticism, which sought no to judge but to appreciate and interpret.
he illustrated the tendency of romantic criticism to stress the effect of art upon the critic's emotions and to regard art as a source of moral and philosophical wisdom.
Coleridge sought to give charm of novelty to things of everyday objects- by making supernatural natural. he introduced dream like quality-element of mystery- wonder and supernatural. he went to middle ages a d created the atmosphere of magic and mystery. we find elements of mysticism in his diction and he lived in the world of fancy. he differentiates prose and poetry in diction.  

§  Coleridge’s critical work is contained in 24 chapters of Biographia Literaria (1815-17). In this critical disquisition concerns himself not only with the practice of criticism, but also, with its theory. In his practical approach to criticism, we get the glimpse of Coleridge the poet; whereas in theoretical discussion, Coleridge the philosopher came to center stage. In chapter 14 of Biographia Literaria, Coleridge’s view on nature and function of poetry is discussed in philosophical terms. The poet within Coleridge discusses the difference between poetry and prose, and poetry and poem. He was the first English writer to insist that every work of art is, by its very nature, an organic whole. At the first step, he rules out the assumption which, from Horace onwards, had wrought such havoc in criticism , that the object of poetry is to instruct; or, as a less extreme from of the heresy had asserted, to make men morally better.

 

ü Two cardinal points of poetry are discussed by Coleridge in chapter 14 of Biographia Literaria

§  Two cardinal points of Poetry :  Coleridge begins this chapter with his views on two cardinal points of poetry. To him these cardinal points are

ü The power of exciting the sympathy of the reader by a faithful adherence to the truth of natures and

ü The power of giving the interest of novelty by modifying with the colors of imagination.

o   According to him it was decided that Wordsworth would write poetry dealing with the theme of first cardinal point and the other was to be dealt by him. For the first type of poetry, the treatment and subject matter should be, to quote Coleridge, “The sudden charm, which accidents of light and shade, which moon- light or sun-set diffused over a known and familiar landscape, appeared to represent the practicability of combining both. These are the poetry of nature.”  In such poems , subjects were to be chosen from ordinary life; the characters and incidents were to be such, as will be found in every village and its vicinity, where there is a meditative and felling mind to seek after them, or to notice them, when they present themselves.

ü In the second type of poetry , the incidents and agents were to be supernatural . in this sort of poetry to quote Coleridge, “ the excellence aimed at was to consist in the interesting of the affections by the dramatic truth of such emotions as would naturally accompany such situations, supposing them real. And real in this sense they have been to every human being who, from whatever source of delusion, has at any time believed himself under supernatural agency.” Thus with the help of imagination the natural will be dealt supernaturally by the poet and the reader will comprehend it with ‘willing suspension of disbelief’

ü The Lyrical Ballads consists of poems dealing with these two cardinal points. Wherein, the endeavor of Coleridge was to deal with “persons and characters supernatural”, and that of Wordsworth “was to give the charm of novelty to think of novelty to think of every day, by awakening the mind’s attention from the lethargy of custom, and directing it to the loveliness and the wonders of the world before us.”

ü Coleridge’s view towards Wordsworth’s poetic creed:-

ü In defense of Wordsworth’s poetic creed; - Coleridge even though he did not agree with Wordsworth’s views on poetic diction, vindicated his poetic creed in chapter 14 of Biographia Literaria. Coleridge writes in defense to the violent assailant to the ‘language of real life’ adopted by Wordsworth in the Lyrical Ballads. There had been strong criticism against Wordsworth’s views expressed in preface also. Coleridge writes in his defense ; “ Had Mr. Wordsworth’s poems been the silly, the childish things, which they were for a long time described as being; had they been really distinguished from the comossitions of other poets merely by meanness of language and inanity of thought; had they indeed contained nothing more than what is found in the parodies and pretended imitations of them; they must have sunk at once , a dead weight into the slough of oblivion, and have dragged the preface along with them.”

ü He wrote that the ‘eddy of criticism’ which whirled around these poems and Preface would have dragged them in oblivion. But it has not happened. They were founded too not in the lower classes of the reading public, but chiefly among young men of strong ability and meditative minds; and their admiration was distinguished by its intensity, I might almost say, by its religious fervor.” Thus, Coleridge gives full credit to the genius of Wordsworth.

ü It does not mean that he agreed with Wordsworth on all the points. Coleridge writes; “With many parts of this preface in the sense attributed to them and which the words undoubtedly seem to authorize, I never concord; but on the contrary objected to them as erroneous in principle, an as contradictory both to other parts of the same preface, and to the author’s own practice in the greater number of the poems themselves. Mr.Wordsworth in his recent collection has, I find, degraded this prefatory disquisition to the end of his second volume, to be read or not at the reader’s choice”. Hence, we may say that, Coleridge is frank enough to point out that some of the views of Wordsworth were wrong in principle and contradictory, not only in parts of the Preface but also in the practice of the poet himself in many of his poems.

Coleridge distinguish between prose and poem

ü The poem contains the same elements as a prose composition. But the difference is between the combination of those elements and objects aimed at in both the composition. According to the difference of the object will be the difference of the combination. If the object of the poet may simply be to facilitate the memory to recollect certain facts he would make use of certain artificial arrangement of words with the help of meter. As a result composition will be a poem, merely because it is distinguished from composition in prose by Metre, or by rhyme. In this , the lowest sense one might attribute the name of a poem to the well-known enumeration of the days in the several months;

ü twinkle twinkle little star,

how I wonder what you are

ü Thirty days hath September,

April, June and November , &c.

ü Thus , to Coleridge, mere super addition of meter or rhyme does not make a poem.

o   He further elucidates his view point by various prose writings and its immediate purpose and ultimate end. In scientific and historical composition, the immediate purpose is to convey the truth (facts). In the prose works of other kinds, to give pleasure in the immediate object of a work not metrically composed.

o   Now the question is “would then the mere super addition of meter, with or without rhyme, entitle these to the name of poems?” to this Coleridge replies that if metre  is super added the other parts of the composition also must harmonize with it. In order to deserve the name poem each part of the composition, including Metre, rhyme, diction and theme must harmonize with the wholeness of the composition. Metre should not be added to provide merely a superficial decorative charm. Nothing can permanently please which does not contain in itself the reason why it is so, and not otherwise. If metre is super added, all other, parts must be made constant with it. They all must harmonise with each other.

§  A poem therefore may be defined as, that species of composition, which is opposed to works of science by proposing for its immediate object pleasure, not truth; and from all other species it is discriminated by proposing to itself such delight from the whole, as is compatible with a distinct gratification from each component part.

ü Thus, according to Coleridge, he poem is distinguished from prose compositions by its immediate object. The immediate object of prose is to give truth and that of poem is to please. He again distinguishes those prose compositions from poem whose object is similar to poem i.e.to please. He calls this poem a legitimate poem and defines it as, ‘ it must be one , the parts of which mutually support and explain each other; all in their proportion harmonizing with and supporting the purpose and known influes of metrical  arrangement”.

ü Therefore the legitimate poem is a composition in which the rhyme and the metre bear an organic relation to the total work. While reading this sort of poem ‘the reader should be carried forward, not merely or chiefly by the mechanical impulse of curiosity or by a restless desire to arrive at the final solution; but by the pleasurable activity of mind excited by the attractions of the journey itself”    here Coleridge asserts the importance of the impression created by the harmonious whole of the poem. To him, not one or other part but the entire effect, the journey of reading poem should be pleasurable. Thus  Coleridge puts an end to the age old controversy whether the end of poem is instruction or delight. Its  aim is definitely to give pleasure and further poem has its own disatinctive pleasure, pleasure arising from the partsand this pleasure of the parts supports and increases the pleasure of the whole.

ü The differentiate between poem and poetry 

ü
in the last section of the chapter 14, Coleridge considers to distinguish poem from poetry. Coleridge points out that” poetry of the highest kind may exist without meter and even without the contradistinguishing objects of a poem” ha gives example of the writings of Plato, Jeremy Taylor and Bible. The quality of the prose in this writings is equal to that of high poetry. Then the question is what is poetry? How is it different from poem? To quote Coleridge; “ what is poetry? Is so nearly the same question  with what is a poem?  The answer to the one is involved in the solution of the other. For it is a distinction resulting from the poetic genius itself, which sustains and modifies the images, thought, and emotions of the poet’s own mind.  Thus the difference between poem and poetry is not given in clear  terms.

ü Even John Shawcross writes “ this distinction between ‘poetry’ and ‘poem’ is not clear instead of defining poetry he proceeds to describe a poet and from the poet he proceeds to enumerate the characteristics of ith imagination”. This is so because ‘poetry’ for Coleridge is an activity of the poet’s mind and a poem is merely one of the forms of its expression, a verbal expression of that activity, and poetic activity is basically an activity of the imagination.

ü As David Daiches points our, ‘poetry’ for Coleridge is a wider category than a ‘poem’; that is poetry is a kind of activity which can be engaged in by painters or philosopher or scientists and is not confined to those who employ metrical language or even to those who employ language of any kind. Poetry in this larger sense, brings, ‘ the whole soul of man; into activity, with each faculty playing its proper part according to its ‘ relative worth and dignity,. This takes place whenever the synthesizing, the integrating, power of the secondary imagination are at work, bringing all aspects of a subject into a complex unity then  poetry in this larger sense results.

ü David Daiches further writes in A critical History of English Literature’, “the employment of the secondary imagination is a poetic activity and we can see why Coleridge is let from a discussion of a poem to discussion of the poet’s activity when we realize that for him the poet belongs to the larger company of thise who are distinguished by the activity of their imagination”. By virtue of his imagination  which is a synthetic and magical power, he harmonize and blends together various elements and thus diffuses a tone and spirit of unity over the whole. It manifests itself most clearly in the balance or reconciliation of opposite or discordant qualities such as

ü Of sameness with difference

ü Of the general with the concrete

ü The idea with the image

ü The individual with the representative

ü The sense of novelty and freshness, with old and familiar objects

ü A more than usual state of emotion, with more than usual order

o   Judgment with enthusiasm  and while this imagination blends and harmonizes the natural and artificial, it subordinates to nature the manner to the matter, and our admiration of the poet to our sympathy wuth the poetry.

To conclude,

o   We  may say in his own words, he endeavored to establish the principle of writing rather than to furnish rules about how to pass judgment on what had been written by others.’

o   Thus Coleridge is the first English critic who based his literary criticism on philosophical principles. While critics before  him had been content to turn a poem inside out and to discourse on its merits and demerits, Coleridge busied himself with the basic question of how it came to be there at all.” He was more interested in the creative process that made it , what it was then in the finished product.