Monthly Archives: November 2015

One of the most joyful and freely expressed poem in Blake’s Songs of Innocence, I found to be the Laughing Song. William Blake’s expression of nature is very strong and soothing in this particular piece. The poem in itself contains a lot of different yet harmonious beings. From the grasshopper to the birds to the children, it seems that everyone is having a “merry” time, even Merry (however coincidental that is). There is a carefree expression in this poem that greatly correlates with Blake’s theme of Innocence. The very first lines are joyful and they relay a happiness that seems to be universal with all of nature.

“When the green woods laugh with the voice of joy,
And the dimpling stream runs laughing by;
When the air does laugh with our merry wit.
And the green hill laughs with the noise of it;”

This metaphor for laughter personifies nature and ultimately adds an overwhelmed audible sensation in the poem and acts as a reflection on the delight and ecstasy of all Natural objects. This poem celebrates the innocence of joy and beauty. What is even more enchanting is that the audience is welcome to join. The very last lines of this poem directly speak to the reader and offer them a spot among the joyful festivities that nature and youth bring. The laughter unites each aspect and character of the poem, creating a pure atmosphere.

“Come live and be merry, and join with me
To sing the sweet chorus of “Ha, Ha, He!”

Also, here is a very enjoyable Russian melodic version of Blake’s Laughing Song.

Last lecture, we talked at length about the poem ‘London’ and the image it carves of a broken and corrupted city. William Blake’s view of a port town in England wasn’t great, and it bore some odd similarities to a much later view of a similar city by a robust Belgian named Jacques Brel.

Jacques Brel sang in French, but has been covered masterfully by David Bowie, Nina Simone, Ray Charles, Frank Sinatra and Scott Walker. Both Bowie and Walker have done takes on ‘Amsterdam’, a powerful song about a grim and depressing topic. There are many differences, but the bottom line is that both Blake and Brel’s vision of their city is one of crushed hopes and abundant venereal disease. The contrast deserves analysis.

Both the poem and the song have a cyclical slant, with ‘London’ showing a ‘curse’ (venereal disease) being passed on through a family, and Brel saying that in the same night, sailors die and are born in the port of Amsterdam. There is, within the cyclical, a touch of the binding and hopeless – Blake explicitly states the presence of ‘mind-forg’d manacles’, while Brel’s rantlike list of vices strongly implies a stagnation in the low life of mariners and those who service them. The feeling in both is a pervasive hopelessness, the people of the respective cities locked into a grimy life. Children are brought into the world staring down the barrel of this hopelessness, with Blake’s child cursed for its father’s venality and Brel’s young lad born into a class of drunken, whoremongering sailors.

The difference is mainly sympathy, as Blake was significantly more humanistic (and more sex-positive) than Brel. In Blake, the only person really at fault is the father of the child, who has passed the illness he took for his gratification to his unknowing wife and child. In Brel, one can be fairly sure that the acerbic Belgian hates the city of Amsterdam and its inhabitants to his core. He paints a picture of the sailors as unilaterally grotesque, vulgar and brutal, and no kinder to the prostitutes, who he describes as ‘bargain[ing] their bodies and virtue’ to them for ‘a few dirty coins’. Looking at Brel’s discography, it’s hard to find people that he actually likes (his view of the Catholic Church and the upper class in general was very snide), but his most stinging barbs seem to be hurled at women, either specific women in his life or the gender as a whole (that said, he seems to have deeply valued his male friends, as in ‘Jef’, where he talks his buddy out of suicide). Brel’s attitude towards sex seems extremely bitter and distrustful, which makes an exceptionally sharp divide with Blake’s indictment of a time where ‘sweet love was thought a crime’.

In that way, ‘London’ has a more sympathetic set of circumstances, but also a more saddening conclusion when one realizes that even the innocent among them is screwed straight out the gate. If ‘Amsterdam’ sounds like the brandy-abetted rant of good old boy who feels cheated and/or disgusted by their town, ‘London’ rings more like somebody who can feel the Jacob Marley-esque weight of those self-made chains on their body, and opts to take a look around to see that they’re not the only one. I’ll try to end this post on a lighter note (this material is hitting me like a fistful of Seconal, which I definitely wouldn’t recommend in practice) so I’ll say this: Brel and Blake were both brilliant manipulators of language and emotion, and I’m just tickled to be enjoying their work as a graded exercise.

I’ve noticed that in William Blake’s Songs of Innocence and Experience, he uses a variety of animals in both his poems and illustrations. A few of these that caught my eye were the lamb, the tiger, lion, and fly (specifically in Songs of Experience). I begin to wonder why these few were chosen for their own composition and what their significance could possibly be, if any at all.

The Lamb

It is very common to find lambs symbolizing a childish state of nature, whether they be in fables or in Blake’s compositions. The first mention of the lamb is found in the eighth plate of Songs of Innocence, titled,”The Lamb” (Big surprise, right? ha..haa). The poem starts off with questioning how the lamb has come to be and who has created it. Interestingly enough, in Songs of Experience, “The Tyger”, the same question of who the identity of the creator belongs to, appears again (but more on that later). “I a child and thou a lamb” (line 17). The speaker here is clearly not Blake, but rather the child on the plate. The child asks questions out of curiosity only to answer them in response. Because both child and lamb are present in the composition of “The Lamb”, it is safe to say that both the lamb and child represent innocence, as seen with the description of both of them to be “meek” and “mild” on line 5.

In “The CLOD & the PEBBLE”, there is no mention of the lamb in text, but the image shows a variety of animals. There are frogs, ducks, cattle, and the lambs which have grown older into large sheep. So what is their significance in this piece? Well,the most obvious statement one could make is that they demonstrate maturity…or as Geoffrey Keynes interprets it as “selfish love” (144) where the sheep are not as “innocent” as they once had been as a lamb. But as Professor Mota mentioned in lecture, Blake’s pieces are not meant to be interpreted as polar opposites or to be solely one interpretation alone. The sheep’s placement in “The CLOD & the PEBBLE” (Songs of Experience) compared to the lambs in Songs of Innocence do suggest some sort of transition from childhood to adulthood, but this does not necessarily mean the sheep (or anybody who goes through this transition) completely lose their innocence. The end of the first stanza reads, “Hell in Heavens” (line 12) and the end of the poem reads the opposite, “Heaven in Hells” (line 14). Perhaps this suggests experience and innocence are in one another alike and a lack of influence from both of these would result in an inability to mature as wholesome adults like the sheep.

The Fly

This is a common parasite we’ve all had to deal with one time or another. The insect’s life-span is short and so it is ironic that flies are most commonly used to represent death. In the fortieth plate, “THE FLY”, the speaker is Blake. He compares himself to the fly in which it is happy in the short time that it it alive. It is as if to say, adults must come to the realization that death is inevitable. In doing so, they may find themselves to be able to live as freely as the fly does and without care of judgment.

The Tiger

Right off the bat, the forty-first plate is deliberately titled “The Tyger”.  I’m not sure sure why “Tyger” is spelt with a “y” instead of an “i”, however, Blake also did not give the image of the tiger as many stripes as it should have. Unlike “The Lamb”, questions made about the tiger’s existence are never answered. Perhaps the absence of such details are the reasons why Blake has included this beast as a part of Songs of Experience. It is perhaps a statement about this feline’s raw strength and size in nature that is perfectly stunning and at the same time, perfectly destructive.

The Lions

Lions are majestic and symbolize courage and monarchy.  In “The Little Girl Found”, the lion is described with features such as a “heavy mane”, “golden hair”, and has a “crown”. There appears to be a mutual relationship between the lions and the “tygers” as they coexist within the lion’s cave. Blake may have decided to use both the tiger and lion as symbols of strength and pride as they are both capable hunters in the wild. Or perhaps he means to convey the importance of having confidence in one’s identity to live in prosperity. For example,when a child transforms into an adult without a solid understanding of who they are, they may become wild and uncontrollable like a hungry tiger or lion. On the other hand, if one is self-aware, one will not be influenced by the world they interact with. Instead, one can learn to become a strong and confident figure in their community and lead a “pride” of their own such as the lion and his pride of both tigers and lions.

Out of the many books that we’ve read for Artsone so far, I’ve thought greatly about each text and have found the connection it has with Western ideas; specifically and especially with the different types of governance each of these texts has offered. With Oedipus it was his complex way of how he was a ruler and a person–on one hand he cared deeply for his people, and on the other he can be seen as ignorant and corrupted. With Plato, it was his Kallipolis. With The Tempest it was Prospero and the great power he held. And with Hobbes, his idea of the Leviathan.

So what was it with Rousseau? While I did find what he had to say about civilization and the growth of men bold and largely relatable, I couldn’t get myself engaged with the text. It was surprising because many said it was an easy read–and while admittedly it flowed quite nicely–I often found myself lost in the text. The bad kind of lost. I can not grasp any clear concepts he presents, besides the fact that he thinks humankind is deteriorating with what we think is progress.

But perhaps it is because every time I think about Rousseau’s text and try to connect it with something I know–history has by far been my greatest help so far–I get into a place where I am afraid. Although Rousseau wrote Discourse in the mid 1700’s, the direct parallel I find with modern times within his text and his criticism on society and mankind sends a chill down my back.

Before I explain this, though, a bit of context here: My old math tutor often got angry with us whenever we forgot a certain formula and then he’d go on a rant on how much technology –mainly the Internet– was destroying our brains, and then he’d talk about how perhaps we are at the peak of our time and it’s nothing but downhill from here.

And yeah, maybe it was because he was an Old Man who didn’t quite understand technology, but he was smart. Like, human calculator smart. And the worst thing was that I could see how he was right. While we as a society often praise the efficiency technology has brought us, there are also disadvantages. We become dependable and our memories as well as our attention span has deteriorated. I once watched a TED Talk by a woman named Zeynep Tufekci that praised how quickly and widely the news–and in turn, many protests as well as social movements–can spread nowadays thanks to technology and social media. But she mentioned something else. The price we pay? These movements are often short term. While they take flight in the guise of “Trending Topics” on Twitter and other forms of social media, it isn’t soon after that these titles are forgotten as the Internet as a whole moves on to other things.

She also mentioned how the amount of work and organization that has been put into these movements before social media has allowed and manifested a group of people who can think collectively and act collectively. Tufekci’s comparisons of famous historical civil rights movements to many of the movements she’d be a part of is an interesting one. There is nothing different about these protests now, people still participate, still help each other, and still make life-long friendships. It is the fact that we as a large collective struggle with making change in the long term, to agree as a collective the step-by-steps necessary to– in Hobbes’ terms– agree on a new social contract.

While she ends her Talk on a positive note, Tufekci still goes back and emphasize the importance of her analogy on earlier forms of protests organized without social media: Tea without Sugar. And some part of me thinks that if Rousseau was still alive and kicking today, he would agree with Tufekci to a certain extent that media has, in some forms, worsened the civil society and how we move forward.

In fact, I think Rousseau would be very much like my old math tutor.

And to be honest, I had a point before this blog, but now I am lost as well, just like I am in Rousseau.

So…There’s that.

The TED Talk here, if you are interested: https://www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_how_the_internet_has_made_social_change_easy_to_organize_hard_to_win?language=en

In the Second Discourse, Rousseau founds many of his arguments in opposition to Hobbes’ arguments about the state of nature. However, both of their concepts on the state of nature are based on completely different grounds. Rousseau also has a naïve interpretation of Hobbes’ natural man, which serves the theory that Rousseau did not fully understand Hobbes.

Firstly, while Hobbes’ and Rousseau’s arguments are founded in their perception of the state of nature, their presuppositions on what the state of nature actually is are radically different. For Rousseau, the state of nature can be interpreted literally, or as a period in time. His ‘nascent’ men are supposed to be actual human beings that lived within a specific time period of human evolution. This also implies, as Rousseau himself does, that humans today cannot revert to this ‘nascent’ state, and can only mimic it. Hobbes’ state of nature differs quite greatly, and not just because of moral principles. Hobbes’ state of nature, civil war, is not a period in time, nor has it ever actually existed. He argues that it is merely the point which men can potentially revert to in the absence of law and order. It is therefore impossible for Rousseau to base his arguments upon Hobbes’ when their definitions of the state of nature itself are different.

Secondly, Rousseau misinterprets Hobbes’ argument about men in the state of nature almost entirely. He states as follows, “Hobbes claims that man is naturally intrepid and seeks only to attack and fight” (82). The first problem with his interpretation comes with the use of the word intrepid. Intrepid is defined as someone who is fearless and adventurous, which is the opposite word Hobbes would use to describe his natural man. Hobbes’ natural man is actually  in a perpetual state of fear, because without someone upholding peace, he cannot be assured that other people won’t kill him. Rousseau also thinks that Hobbes’ natural man seeks only to attack and fight, which is not the case either. Men merely do not see any constraint on killing one another, but are not naturally inclined towards homicide.

While there are many more references to Hobbes in Second Discourse, there is a clear issue with Rousseau’s critique of Hobbes. These two issues highlight why Rousseau’s perception of the state of nature according to Hobbes should be interpreted with skepticism.

There is distinction between man and animal to justify man’s possession and use of the Earth’s resources explaining why humans have certain unique capabilities such as reason and language. The way Rousseau defines it is that because of this man is unlike any other animal due to the way man develops such as the way he looks or his physique. Through physical strength and the senses of natural man have been established there are more complicated functions to be discussed.

Metaphysical and moral man are what Rousseau intends to described as human intelligence and the higher functions of the brain. This is what exactly distinguishes man from animal. Suggesting that both are mechanical, the ability to act freely, allowing the choice to choose, varying their behaviour. Because of this, the faulty of perfectibility is suggested. Through different interpretations of this idea, it can be seen as a form of change or to have the ability to retain plasticity in order to mould into an individual’s environment. Without this quality, man can never be truly differentiated between man and animal causing Rousseau to argue that this is undeniably a great force.

Rousseau suggests that passions are a great driving force to reason and through this producing the needs in order to fulfil their desires. It is seen that reason and passion go against the basic philosophical ideas and it is also seen through Plato’s work as they fundamentally oppose each other. It is seen that reason can and should rule over passion or even passion ruling over reason. However, in Rousseau’s argument, he suggests passions as a strong emotion that entitles motivation and to reach beyond the possible, and from these emotions, it causes man to develop and act. The leap between passion to the development of reason creates the idea that this theory only works with the prior existence of passion before reason.

I’ll be honest — I don’t really know what to write about Rousseau. After hours of staring at a blank computer screen and flipping through A Discourse on Inequality, I still find myself banging my head against the wall. What is it about Jean-Jacques Rousseau that makes writing a simple response about him so difficult?

I feel that my lack of response to A Discourse on Inequality may partly be due to the style in which it is written. While it is a translated text, the writing style presented certainly makes the ideas presented in the work very easy for the reader to consume. Thus, it seems that the reader can easily fall into a state of passivity while reading. In Plato’s Republic, the dialogue form utilized forces the reader to remain active in the relentless exchange between Socrates and his interlocutors. Hobbes’ Leviathan is constructed with such mathematical precision that a reader must remain thoroughly engaged and critical in order to follow his argument. Because Rousseau’s writing is much less intimidating, it is absorbed almost instantaneously and an understanding of his philosophy forms much faster (and with less resistance).

That being said, the catchy, story-like fluidity of A Discourse on Inequality does not mean that words are wasted — Rousseau manages to saturate his words with many ideas. Rousseau works through many ideas regarding the development of man as he nostalgically describes a glorified, nascent state — these arguments are of great complexity and he finds a successful way to deliver them in a simple and understandable manner.

A Discourse on Inequality was definitely much easier to digest than other philosophical texts, and maybe that is why it doesn’t seem to leave a strong aftertaste.

In Rousseau’s dedication to Geneva, he describes the city of his birth as being the envy of the world in its equality and stability. Geneva’s virtues are numerous, including: its peaceful nature, the justness of its magistrates and the obedience of the people, as well as its small size which contributes to a general sense of community spirit. Although the real Geneva of the early 18th century was very different from Rousseau’s idealistic vision, it is possible to see how some Rousseau’s views on proper governance might of developed through an examination of Genevan history, especially of its association with Calvinism.

Since the very beginning, Genevan politics has been a mix of both secular and religious authority. During the Middle Ages, Geneva was administered by the Bishop of Geneva while the Counts (later Dukes) of Savoy appointed the Bishops (usually from its own family) and offered military protection. In 1457, an elected body of delegates known as the Grand Council was established. The Council was initially made up of 50 citizens and made political decisions on behalf of the population as well as replacing the Duke in electing new Bishops.  Overtime, the Council and the Dukes of Savoy became estranged from each other and in the early 1500s, the Council tried to gain independence from the Duke of Savoy, even trying to convince the Pope to excommunicate Duke Charles III. Eventually, Geneva succeeded in breaking away from Savoy and became a republic in the Swiss Federation in 1526.

Around that time, an influx of Protestant Lutheran refugees from France began arriving in Geneva in large numbers and the new faith became popular among the people. There was considerable animosity towards the pro-Savoy Catholic clergy (who mainly came from the nobility), eventually leading the Council to declare official support for Protestantism. In 1536, every citizen of the city took a public oath to the Protestant faith.

In that same year, the French reformer John Calvin came to Geneva and was crowned the spiritual leader of the city, becoming the Pope to the city which soon became known as the Protestant Rome. Under his guidance, the Council created the Consistory, a court made up of lay elders and ministers which examined a slew of impious behaviour ranging from murder to blasphemy to dancing and playing cards. Genevan became the centre of the new Calvinist tradition, which regarded all human passions and worldly desires as sinful and punished them through severe punishments, which ranged from hanging to public flogging. By the time Rousseau was born, Geneva was no longer a democracy but a theocracy in which the clergy held tremendous sway over all aspects of civil and religious life.

This emphasis on correct behaviour and total obedience to the demands of lawmakers is clearly reflected in Rousseau’s writing. Like Calvin, Rousseau believed that everyone in a society should either accept the established law and constitution (which he describes “the declaration of the general will”) or be ejected from it, as had occurred with the systematic banishment of Catholics in Geneva. Rousseau also shared Calvin’s belief that government should have total jurisdiction over all aspects of life, including making sure that people make use of their liberty to the best of their potential. Despite not being nominally a Calvinist writer (having converted to Catholicism early in life), it is clear that the austere totalitarian theocratic structure of 18th century Geneva had a considerable influence in Rousseau’s moral development.

In Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality, as men are born in a situation of inequality, they reinforce the extent of it by making rules and building society. Every step the society has improved means a further step of men’s degeneration.

The difference in political field consequentially leads to a condition of the inequality between people. Owing to their desires, abilities and growing environments, each class in society is trying to get rid of the higher class’s oppression, and at the same time to oppress the lower class. On the one hand we can say that the prejudice that is produced by those desires and abilities violates sense and morality, but on the other hand we may argue that it is only a certain temporary social condition in a certain day and age. Laws are made by people; rules are made by people; even sense and morality are made up by people.

The inequality between people never reaches to an end. Even though it ends one day, it would just be the ending of a cycle when everything has gone back to the original point of a circle. Then everyone becomes disappointed yet hopeful, because in this new origin, they can build a new condition of inequality.