LATE: Blog 3, Love Poems

Two contrasting views of love that I found were in the poems "Love Is Not All" by Edna St. Vincent Millay and "Weighing the Dog" by Billy Collins. In "Love Is Not All", the speaker has love and is able to place it in a relatively healthy context. The speaker is able to recognize the difference between the emotions that he/she feels in that moment and how those feelings subside and become less meaningful over time. Perhaps this is not a realistic view of true love, as the speaker in "Weighing the Dog" might assert, as he/she is in a very different position. The speaker in that poem is definitely dwelling on some lost love, being reminded of it in the totally random act of weighing a dog. This person is unable to put their emotions in the context of the speaker in "Love Is Not All" and sell their love for peace, which I think is a pretty neat phrase. Instead, the love has festered and is disturbing normal, everyday activities that should not be disturbed. I think that the speaker in "Dog" should take a leaf out of the "All"'s speaker's book and get over him/herself. You left your lover! If it meant so much to you, go back. If it didn't, get over it! Regardless, quit confusing your pet and make a decision. Jeez.

LATE: Blog 1, Identity and Culture

I know that I wrote a lot and I know that the prompt said 350 words, but I felt like I should because this is late and all.

The poem "The Quiet Life" by Alexander Pope depicts a very zen existence. All this guy wants is to chill on his farm and be one with nature, to be content with the harmony of the land around him. Unambitious, healthy, and completely at peace, the speaker values his relationship with his little plot of land above all else, with absolutely no desire for anything glorious or material. Having just finished my meaning of life project, I just revisited my thoughts on The Iliad in which the Greeks have the exact opposite mentality. compare and contrast! yay! To the Argives of old, the greatest accomplishment of a mortal is to be remembered forever, which is the closest thing a mortal could get to immortality. This is a bizarre contrast in it's own right because these men, as it is pointed out in the story, are the only creatures in existence who are doomed to die and know that they're doomed to die, so they try desperately to avoid it by gaining glory on the battlefield, but in this quest for glory they almost invariably die. This leads to the conclusion that these soldiers value their posthumous recognition more than their mortal existence, the exact opposite of Pope's poem. However, a significant chunk of the story is about Achilles essentially rejecting that whole idea. Insulted, tired, and sick of the fighting, the Greeks' greatest warrior simply stops caring about glory one day and plans to return home and chill on his farm, much like Pope's speaker. Achilles realizes that glory doesn't matter because it doesn't contribute to a man's actual happiness. And how could it? You're dead! Even if everyone in the world had a statue of you on their front lawn, you would never see them. Is a the spirit of man comprised of the aggregate thoughts of other people?

"They say you die twice. One time when you stop breathing and a second time, a bit later on, when somebody says your name for the last time.” - Banksy

I have no idea, but the idea of existing through others after your dead is as fascinating to me as it is divergent from this discussion. The point is that Achilles decides to value his own experience on this Earth above all else, and, even though he does rejoin the fighting (and dying) by the end of the book, he does so out of a hulk-esque display of vengeance for his slain friend rather than any change in his meaning of life philosophy. So, are Achilles and Pope's speaker right, or are the Argive warriors right? I mean, according to the opposing philosophy, Pope's speaker should just bury himself in his neighbors crops so that the plants can use the chemicals in his body as nutrients. 'What's the point', they would cry, 'of a life that impacts nothing?'. And he would probably retort, 'You are one of 7 billion people on a speck hurtling through an infinite sea of mystery and nothing, so what's the point of all your effort if you can be content with just a quiet farm?'. Personally, I think Pope's speaker's view is pretty terrifying, but does that make it any less true? On the other hand, everything becomes pretty meaningless when viewed in the entirety of the macrocosmos, so if you can find meaning in a good fight, why not go for glory? [in a perfect Mr. Pope impersonation] I don't know!



The second poem that I chose is "Identity Card" by Mahmoud Darwish. This poem reminds me of a list of useful fears that I have been slowly growing:
1) The patience of an enemy
2) A fool with a following
3) The anger of a gentle man
This poem definitely ignites that third one pretty hard.
Anyway, I think that this poem relates to the discussion above because the speaker doesn't really have the luxury of choosing which side of this dilemma he's on. His life is basically one big struggle to stay calm and resist the external forces that are disrupting his way of life. The life he describes in the poem suggests that he is just trying to provide for his family, which is leaning more towards the Quiet Life camp, but what would Pope's speaker have to say about defending your farm from those who would see it ruined? The speaker in "Identity Card" doesn't have anything close to what Pope's speaker has and probably doesn't have the resources to perhaps move somewhere else and buy a new farm. I think that the question of how far you should go to protect what you have needs to be addressed when discussing these matters, and this poem definitely raises that question.