Depressing Goings-on in the House of Actuality: The Philosophical Legacy of Larkin’s “Aubade”

IF 0.4 4区 文学 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM Partial Answers-Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1353/pan.2023.0007
Kathy Behrendt
{"title":"Depressing Goings-on in the House of Actuality: The Philosophical Legacy of Larkin’s “Aubade”","authors":"Kathy Behrendt","doi":"10.1353/pan.2023.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Philip Larkin’s poem “Aubade” tackles the subject of mortality with technical facility and unsparing candour. It has a reputation for profoundly affecting its readers. Yet poets Seamus Heaney and Czeslaw Milosz think “Aubade” is bad for us and for poetry: it lures us into the underworld and traps us there, and betrays poetry’s purpose by transcribing rather than transforming the depressing facts of reality. Philosophers, however, quite like it. “Aubade” crops up repeatedly in contemporary philosophy of death. I examine the various appeals that philosophers have made to Larkin’s poem with a view to drawing out subtleties in the poem and the philosophical texts, before turning my attention to broader questions of its merit. At first glance, philosophy’s affinity for “Aubade” may seem to confirm Heaney and Milosz’s contention that the poem is somehow against poetry and on the side of “reason, science, and science-inspired philosophy” (Milosz). I argue that the philosophical uses of the poem help to undercut if not entirely dissolve Heaney’s and Milosz’s polarising efforts; they are mistaken in their views about the different purposes of poetry and philosophy, but there is some philosophical support for their commitment to averting mortal despair.","PeriodicalId":42435,"journal":{"name":"Partial Answers-Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas","volume":"11 1","pages":"133 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Partial Answers-Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pan.2023.0007","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:Philip Larkin’s poem “Aubade” tackles the subject of mortality with technical facility and unsparing candour. It has a reputation for profoundly affecting its readers. Yet poets Seamus Heaney and Czeslaw Milosz think “Aubade” is bad for us and for poetry: it lures us into the underworld and traps us there, and betrays poetry’s purpose by transcribing rather than transforming the depressing facts of reality. Philosophers, however, quite like it. “Aubade” crops up repeatedly in contemporary philosophy of death. I examine the various appeals that philosophers have made to Larkin’s poem with a view to drawing out subtleties in the poem and the philosophical texts, before turning my attention to broader questions of its merit. At first glance, philosophy’s affinity for “Aubade” may seem to confirm Heaney and Milosz’s contention that the poem is somehow against poetry and on the side of “reason, science, and science-inspired philosophy” (Milosz). I argue that the philosophical uses of the poem help to undercut if not entirely dissolve Heaney’s and Milosz’s polarising efforts; they are mistaken in their views about the different purposes of poetry and philosophy, but there is some philosophical support for their commitment to averting mortal despair.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
现实之屋中令人沮丧的事情:拉金“Aubade”的哲学遗产
摘要:菲利普·拉金的诗歌《死亡》以娴熟的技巧和毫不留情的坦率处理了死亡这一主题。它以深刻影响读者而闻名。然而诗人希尼(Seamus Heaney)和米沃什(Czeslaw Milosz)认为,“Aubade”对我们和诗歌都是有害的:它把我们引诱到地狱,把我们困在那里,违背了诗歌的目的,因为它记录而不是改变了现实中令人沮丧的事实。然而,哲学家们却很喜欢它。“死亡”在当代死亡哲学中反复出现。在将我的注意力转向更广泛的问题之前,我将研究哲学家们对拉金的诗所作的各种呼吁,以期从诗和哲学文本中找出微妙之处。乍一看,哲学对“奥巴德”的亲和力似乎证实了希尼和米沃什的论点,即这首诗在某种程度上反对诗歌,站在“理性、科学和科学启发的哲学”(米沃什)一边。我认为,这首诗的哲学用途有助于削弱希尼和米沃什两极分化的努力,如果不是完全消除的话;他们对诗歌和哲学的不同目的的看法是错误的,但他们对避免致命绝望的承诺有一些哲学上的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Partial Answers is an international, peer reviewed, interdisciplinary journal that focuses on the study of literature and the history of ideas. This interdisciplinary component is responsible for combining analysis of literary works with discussions of historical and theoretical issues. The journal publishes articles on various national literatures including Anglophone, Hebrew, Yiddish, German, Russian, and, predominately, English literature. Partial Answers would appeal to literature scholars, teachers, and students in addition to scholars in philosophy, cultural studies, and intellectual history.
期刊最新文献
(Re)directing Literature to Justice: Ursula K. Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” The Painter and the Muse: On Archetypes, Complexes and the Anti-Jungian Quest for Mother in Kurt Vonnegut’s Bluebeard The Bo/ald Woman in Auschwitz: From Abjection to Writing The Book of Esther: Notes for a Traditional Reading Kinship Novels of Early Modern Korea: Between Genealogical Time and the Domestic Everyday by Ksenia Chizhova (review)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1