T.S Eliot's The Waste Land
This post is in response to the questions asked here.
1) If there is an argument on whether Eliot was regressive and simultaneously about whether Nietzsche was progressive compared him, my opinion would be to accept both their views in terms of their context. At the time when humanity found itself hopeless because of an existential crisis, the role of a philosopher and a poet would of course have different perspectives and solutions to the situation. In fact it would be a prejudiced opinion to call Eliot regressive just because he uses the religious and mythical stories for finding a solution to the present socio-cultural problems. Neither can we proclaim Nietzsche as progressive and forward looking just because he presents solutions from contemporary times.
2) Once again, before having opinion on whose method would lead us to a satisfied life, we must remember, that Freud is a psychoanalyst, so he would stress on the findings of his research. While on the other hand, Eliot is a poet, so he would suggest something which is not just based on his perspective, but which people at large would find relatable. He has to pose questions and answer them in a way that people would easily consider and think about. Now, one might argue that the way Eliot writes The Waste Land, he expects a lot from his readers and that the common people might not be able to grasp his message. Again, Eliot's modernist technique of broken images might add to the difficulty level, when on the other hand Freud's arguments on the primitive instincts might seem easier as well as credible to understand and practice. The choice therefore depends on the individual. My opinion then is that the choice is subjective, whether to opt for Eliot or Freud since both of them seem correct in their contexts.
3) The allusions to Indian thought in the poem begin from The Fire Sermon, the title itself alluding to Buddha's Fire Sermon Discourse, to the Shantih Shantih Shantih of What The Thunder Said. The answer to why Eliot alludes to Indian thought from the Upanishads and Buddhist preachings, can be either be his avid reading of scriptures of various cultures, or can be his perspective that the answers to the questions posed by the modern problems can be found in them. However, Eliot isn't merely using them as it is, he interprets them in his own way in order to find answers to the spiritual vacuity and sexual perversion of the modern world. he might even be hinting at the argument that Indian hasn't suffered the spiritual crisis because it has preserved these scriptures and has tried to think about it a lot earlier than the western thought. Yet, this is just my perspective and opinion.
1) If there is an argument on whether Eliot was regressive and simultaneously about whether Nietzsche was progressive compared him, my opinion would be to accept both their views in terms of their context. At the time when humanity found itself hopeless because of an existential crisis, the role of a philosopher and a poet would of course have different perspectives and solutions to the situation. In fact it would be a prejudiced opinion to call Eliot regressive just because he uses the religious and mythical stories for finding a solution to the present socio-cultural problems. Neither can we proclaim Nietzsche as progressive and forward looking just because he presents solutions from contemporary times.
2) Once again, before having opinion on whose method would lead us to a satisfied life, we must remember, that Freud is a psychoanalyst, so he would stress on the findings of his research. While on the other hand, Eliot is a poet, so he would suggest something which is not just based on his perspective, but which people at large would find relatable. He has to pose questions and answer them in a way that people would easily consider and think about. Now, one might argue that the way Eliot writes The Waste Land, he expects a lot from his readers and that the common people might not be able to grasp his message. Again, Eliot's modernist technique of broken images might add to the difficulty level, when on the other hand Freud's arguments on the primitive instincts might seem easier as well as credible to understand and practice. The choice therefore depends on the individual. My opinion then is that the choice is subjective, whether to opt for Eliot or Freud since both of them seem correct in their contexts.
3) The allusions to Indian thought in the poem begin from The Fire Sermon, the title itself alluding to Buddha's Fire Sermon Discourse, to the Shantih Shantih Shantih of What The Thunder Said. The answer to why Eliot alludes to Indian thought from the Upanishads and Buddhist preachings, can be either be his avid reading of scriptures of various cultures, or can be his perspective that the answers to the questions posed by the modern problems can be found in them. However, Eliot isn't merely using them as it is, he interprets them in his own way in order to find answers to the spiritual vacuity and sexual perversion of the modern world. he might even be hinting at the argument that Indian hasn't suffered the spiritual crisis because it has preserved these scriptures and has tried to think about it a lot earlier than the western thought. Yet, this is just my perspective and opinion.
Comments
Post a Comment