Advertisement

Lyric Poetry

  • Mathew AbbottEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter characterises an aspect of the relationship between philosophy and lyric poetry by giving an account of poetic thought: a mode of thinking in which philosophical contributions are made poetically. When one encounters poetic thinking, it will be harder to detach what has been said from how it has been said; hence poetic thought is resistant to paraphrase in a way that traditional philosophy typically isn’t. Yet this raises problems that will remain intractable unless we reconsider what it can mean to think philosophically. Taking poetic thought as this chapter recommends means we can insist on its cognitive and rational dimensions, but without overlooking the crucial role in it of feeling and embodiment.

Keywords

Poetic thought Paraphrase Cognition Embodiment Heidegger 

Bibliography

  1. Ashton, Jennifer. 2005. From Modernism to Postmodernism: American Poetry and Theory in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Cerbone, David. 2012. Lost Belongings: Heidegger, Naturalism, and Natural Science. In Heidegger on Science, ed. Trish Glazebrook, 131–155. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  3. Crary, Alice. 2012. W. G. Sebald and the Ethics of Narrative. Constellations 19 (3): 494–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Diamond, Cora. 1982. Anything but Argument? Philosophical Investigations 5 (1): 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Heidegger, Martin. 1971. On the Way to Language. Translated by Peter Hertz. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 1975. Language. In Poetry, Language, Thought, trans. Albert Hofstadter, 185–208. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2000. Elucidations of Hölderlin’s Poetry. Translated by Keith Hoeller. New York, NY: Humanity Books.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2002. The Age of the World Picture. In Off the Beaten Track, ed. and trans. Julian Young and Kenneth Haynes, 57–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hulatt, Owen. 2016. The Problem of Modernism and Critical Refusal. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 74 (1): 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jarvis, Simon. 2006. Wordsworth’s Philosophic Song. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kant, Immanuel. 1998. The Critique of Pure Reason. Edited and translated by Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kivy, Peter. 1997. Philosophies of Arts: An Essay in Differences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lamarque, Peter. 2009. The Elusiveness of Poetic Meaning. Ratio 22: 398–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 2015. Semantic Finegrainedness and Poetic Value. In The Philosophy of Poetry, ed. John Gibson, 18–36. Oxford and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lepore, Ernie. 2009. The Heresy of Paraphrase: When the Medium Really Is the Message. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 33: 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leys, Ruth. 2011. The Turn to Affect: A Critique. Critical Inquiry 37: 434–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McDowell, John. 1998. Aesthetic Value, Objectivity, and the Fabric of the World. In Mind, Value, and Reality, 112–130. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1961. On What There Is. In From a Logical Point of View: 9 Logico-Philosophical Essays, 1–19. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  19. Richards, I.A. 1970. Poetries and Sciences: A Reissue of Science and Poetry (1926, 1935) with Commentary. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  20. Ricks, Christopher. 1964. The Nature of Housman’s Poetry. Essays in Criticism XIV (3): 268–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1978. Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics. Edited by Rhees Wright and G.E.M. Anscombe and translated by G.E.M. Anscombe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Zerilli, Linda. 2015. The Turn to Affect and the Problem of Judgment. New Literary History 46: 261–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Federation University AustraliaBallaratAustralia

Personalised recommendations