Views: 8
https://www.amazon.com/author/mrdj
T S Eliots opinion of Shakespeares work is controversial because it rests upon an underlying thesis that Religion and Philosophy are more intimately connected than perhaps is the case. Plato’s dialogue, Euthyphro touched upon this relation, when Socrates asked Euthyphro “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” Socrates is attempting to prove that the pious or the holy is a sub category of what is just and that is why even the Ancient Greek gods will agree with what is just whereas some of them may disagree upon whether an action is holy or pious. T S Eliots opinion requires that we define Philosophy which on our view is concerned with justice , what is holy, Truth and many other meanings of Being:
“Philosophy is a profound, symbolic, logical activity with a particular History, areas of exploration and a methodology.”
T S Eliot was a trained Philosopher in the American University system, and this fact leads one to believe that he had encountered the Ancient Greek view that Justice was more valuable for the Gods than piety. He was also probably familiar with the associated Ancient Greek tendency to maintain a psychical distance from the gods, without being totally enveloped by the belief system relating to them. Eliot was of course a poet, but his later work betrayed a commitment to a religious world view similar to that which we find in Dante: a world view which was built upon the thesis that mans soul was flawed with sin and needed the forgiveness and guidance of a superior Being.
Eliots poem “the Waste Land” does express a view of modernity that is shared by many different modern Philosophers, but they perhaps would not agree with the thesis that mans will is incapable of independently steering a course for humanity toward a better form of existence. This course has to take into account the oracular proclamation that “everything created by humanity is destined for ruin and destruction”, but Philosophical proclamations such as “All men desire to Know” (Aristotles Metaphysics) and ” “All activity aims at the Good” (Nichomachean Ethics), permit man to hope that his free will can lead to a better Kingdom here on earth.
Man is responsible for his fate alone, it is argued, but this fate will be determined by the constellation of his powers including the power of reason. God, then, is not in a position to judge mankind just yet, since the journey to the hoped for kingdom will take, Kant argues, one hundred thousand years. Mankind may, however, sit in judgement of the gods in the way Socrates did, declaring that human justice is of greater importance than a pious attitude toward beings who might well be products of the power of our imagination.
The particular History of Philosophy, then, originated in Ancient Greece with the trinity of the “Greats”(Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) who shared that holiest of relations—the teacher-student relation. Their areas of exploration evolved into the Aristotelian “Many meanings of Being”, making Philosophy a “coat of many colours” in contrast to the seamless robe of particular religions devoted to particular Gods who disagreed about what is just and holy.
The methodology we inherited from the trinity began with Socratic elenchus, a method of questioning based upon the principles of noncontradiction and sufficient Reason. If there was a middle ground between Religion and Philosophy in Ancient Greece, it was occupied by the Oracles, who perhaps believed that Philosophy was, as Socrates argued in his trial, one of the children of the Gods. Children as we know can be very different to their parents.
The categorical nature of Philosophical Thought was perhaps best illustrated by Socratic judgements such as “Nothing bad can happen to a Good man”, and this of course does not imply that the Good Socrates could not be unjustly put to death by the Athenian system of justice for attempting to introduce the Athenians to one of the children of the Gods. It does imply, however, that he who leds an examined life can die with the dignity of a Being who has understood what has happened to him.
Poetry possesses an interesting relation to both Religion and Philosophy, but is clearly differentiated from Philosophy by a different area of exploration, different history and different methodology. Philosophy also appears to be eager to explore what poetry, the arts and sciences are in their nature: a relation that is not reciprocated.
Philosophy attempts to understand the role of the divine within the bounds of psuché,human reason and noos. Poetry, on the other hand is merely concerned to “show” humanity “intimations of its immortality”. It also is concerned to “show” us that aspect of being human that is connected to our narcissistic desires and fears, namely
“Everything created by humanity is destined for ruin and destruction.”
Shakespeare, we argue is a philosophical playwright committed to “showing” us via his stage productions that life can be both good-in-itself, and good-in-its-consequences (even if the end of each individual story is to stare into the abyss without eyes, teeth or taste). His creations were designed for audiences who viewed his plots and character through a critical lens which evaluates, praises, blames in accordance with various aesthetic principles. Many of these principles can be found in Aristotles work the “Poetics”. Insofar as many of Shakespeares characters lacked the will or capacity to lead the good life, many of his dialogues or soliloquys can be seen to have a relation to the psychoanalytic dialogue between Freuds patients and their “analyst”. Catharsis was also the issue in Freuds consulting rooms, where women, in particular were provided with a” moral treatment”, during a time when women were being institutionalised for behaviour that deviated from the norm in some European cities.
The actions of many of these patients certainly resulted in tragedy but did not possess the magnitude of the kind of action we encounter in Shakespearean tragedies. Experiencing the right emotions at the right time in the right way was, for Aristotle a part of areté, or virtue. This required the presence of a strong ego which not only inhibited unnecessary or even unlawful action but also could stoically sustain itself as a “precipitate of lost objects” in a world where there is much loss: a world that many experience as a “Wasteland”.
Sexuality, given its close association with organs intimately connected to both the Freudian energy regulation and pleasure principles, was a major concern for Freud given his Aristotelian presuppositions which included the thesis that the first actuality of a body constituted of a constellation of organs and limbs is soul (psuché—the human life-form).
It is an open question whether Shakespeare realised the significance of sexuality in the different phases of personality development. There is evidence for the claim that Shakespeares awareness of the importance of sexuality was at least as complex as Freuds, with the caveat that he was not concerned to explain a personality theory, but rather use it to “show” his audience the powers and capacities of the human form of psuché: He also used his understanding of sexuality to “show” its relation to power, jealousy and other emotions. Freud, however, probably possessed more technical knowledge of the role of sexuality in its relation to the vicissitudes of instincts, e.g. sublimation and displacement.
The crowds attending the Globe Theatre were a mixed bunch and many expected an experience in which they could, for a few precious hours, live vicariously through the lives of Shakespeares characters where violence and death were often elements of the plot, providing a form of catharsis for emotions such as pity and fear. The ability to endure the loss of highly valued objects vicariously, probably had a strengthening effect upon the ego given the psychical distance the audience had to these imitative events.
Hamlets experience of his fathers ghost was not an experience one would expect from the possessor of a strong or mature ego. Horatio, Hamlets friend, also sees the ghost, but his response is less psychologically charged and more measured, attempting to get the ghost to speak to him. Ghosts will not haunt the conscience of Horatio.
Friendship, Aristotle claimed takes three different forms , namely, for the purposes of transient pleasure, utility or the ultimate form which is a good in itself and connected to areté (virtue—doing and saying the right thing in the right way at the right time).
Virtuous friendship requires a balanced mind in which the ego, id, and external world are harmoniously integrated into a self sufficient whole. A ghost appearing to an individual with such an integrated balanced mind would not arouse panic or anxiety but rather, perhaps, an eager curiosity to investigate this strange phenomenon. It is important to emphasise in this context that the friendship of Horatio for Hamlet was one in which he identified himself with Hamlet and was even briefly prepared to commit suicide upon Hamlets death, suggesting that Horatio was on his own journey of self-exploration— a journey which Hamlets death may well have facilitated given that the ego is a precipitate of lost objects.