Welcome Readers,
As we all know that modernism as the movement was initiated by T S Eliot through his esoteric works full of fragmented
images breaking the foundational notion of 'oneness and unity' of traditional
poetries. Eliot’s well-considered and longest poem “The Waste Land” projects a
symbolic picture of vaporization of modern civilizations. T S Eliot set a
revolution in the taste of poetry which later on became the striking feature of
the 20th century English literature.
This blog is constructed as an
answer sheet exploring ideas, concepts and arguments to three questions asked
by professor Dilip Barad in a blog- T.S. Eliot's 'The Waste Land'.
1) What are
your views on the following image after reading 'The Waste Land'? Do you think
that Eliot is regressive as compared to Nietzsche’s views? or Has Eliot
achieved universality of thought by recalling mytho-historical answer to the
contemporary malaise?
Nihilism (nothingness) or meaninglessness was the thing which Nietzsche (1844- 1900) and Eliot (1888-1965) majorly focused on their works and both in their ways try to answer through their philosophy “How can rootlessness or uprootedness be repaired?” They found a nourishing way which can be somewhat beneficial in clutching the roots and growth of its branches. Both the philosophers try to solve this puzzle. There is a mystery which demands to be encountered.
Nietzsche's writings shed light on pessimism and he emphasizes that modern morality lacks a proper grounding. He had given strength to humans by his concept of the death of God. He said-
'God is dead'.
Here, by giving the world a message of building oneself as a potential human being and not anymore depending on God, his views are more progressive in terms of Eliot's views who stresses all his attention in going back to the religious scriptures (in a way submerging one's self in accordance with the steps or solutions provided by the others) This is purely an act of surrendering. Nietzsche makes a premise of not having any power or control of "GOD".
If we try to look at the concept or the very existence of God than we must know that its very existence is rooted by the fear that is to say on the pillar of fear and power, God exists in the minds of people.
Frederich Nietzsche tried to abolish this very foundational idea of god by making the human hold the central position and he without the fear of anyone becomes his own master and deeply
It has been said that Man does not live by bread alone but he also requires meaning to sustain amidst the harsh realities of life. So somewhere if we deeply analyse, this meaning always leads us to something holy or sacred, in short towards religion. The thing which we can never see with our eyes and its notion is based on the unseen supernatural power and significance. And hence, primitive minds are much likely to get lured by this illusionary notions. So Nietzsche rejects the idea of the master by killing the very notion of God.
“God is dead! God remains dead!
And we have killed him! How shall we console our selves, the most murderous of all murderers? The holiest and the mightiest that the world has so far possessed, has bled to death under our knife, who will wipe the blood from us? With what water could we cleanse ourselves? What purifications, what sacred games shall we have to devise? Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become Gods, merely to seem worthy of it?
There never was a greater event and on account of it, all who are born after us belong to a higher history than any history so far!”
Nietzsche comes up with the idea of "Ubermensch" - 'Superhuman' or master morality, his ide was that if people will have a notion of somebody called god who is the master of everything and on whom people literally surrender their everything as if god will come and save them from all obstacles. due to this the chances of a human being growing into a super human will not be possible and human, throughout his life, will remain dependent on god.
“what if God himself turns out to be our most persistent lie?”
So, Nietzsche in a way has progressive views in giving solution to the of contemporary crises in faith and self. Eliot on the other hand has a contrary view.
Eliot believes that in the waste land, people are sinners and they have completely lost their spirituality. So, Eliot takes the readers back to the scriptures and religion so solve the problems.
"What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow
Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man,
You cannot say, or guess, for you know only
A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,
And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
And the dry stone no sound of water. Only
There is shadow under this red rock,
(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust."
Furthermore, Eliot takes the readers back to Indian scriptures and refers to the Upanishads.
So, in this sense, Eliot seems to be regressive and backwards-looking as he tries to find answers of contemporary malaise in Upanishad, Buddhism and Christianity.
But we cannot completely rely on Nietzsche's philosophy also because of its complete dependency on self. There is a possibility of anarchist culture too.
2) Prior to the
speech, Gustaf Hellström of the Swedish Academy made these remarks:
What are
your views regarding these comments? Is it true that giving free vent to the
repressed 'primitive instinct' lead us to happy and satisfied life? or do you
agree with Eliot's view that 'salvation of man lies in the preservation of the
cultural tradition'?
Once, Eliot had announced that he was a classicist in literature, a royalist in politics, and Anglo-Catholic in religion. So, it is obvious that as a classicist and catholic, Eliot believes in traditional aspects of salvation. The very idea of salvation is itself problematic. If we take the reference of Freud here he believed that giving a free vent to the repressed 'primitive instinct' lead us happy and satisfied life and we never even care for salvation.
'Salvation' and its significance in some ways is related to religion and every religion in one or the other way preaches on living a 'good, simple, and not having any desire' kind of life. It is even a matter of wonder that some religion emphasizes that salvation can only be gained by practising or following strict rules and behaviours, it sometimes involves the matters like fasting, and instead of emphasizing on being virtuous, it leads an individual in forming temples and chanting names and all superstitious stuff.
The concept of salvation has created new norms and superficial con-leaders in various sects who creates their own codes and conducts of achieving salvation. So this idea of salvation sometimes confines the individuals to enslave themselves and follow the conducts blindly. Moreover, these individuals are subjugated in the narrowness of walls.
Hence, it is this idea of salvation which is normalized as a way to happiness and the end of all misery. But can we not remain happy without the thought of Salvation? Aren't we urging ourselves to remain calm and peaceful in frustrating situations? But sometimes the primitive instincts burst out and we return to our basic human nature.
The idea of salvation is highly a kind of 'super ego' which always tempts an individual to behave in a certain 'acceptable manner'. 'The Uneasiness in Civilization' is Freud's work wherein he emphasises on individual experience. The id consists of humanity's most primitive desire. Hence, a balance should be maintained in an individual between superego and id in order to remain in society.
Eliot on the very another hand, have an opposite opinion. For him, the salvation of man lies in the preservation of cultural tradition. So according to Eliot, this preservation will help us to overcome chaos. Eliot as a classic believes in the preservation of culture and as a result of which one has to be rooted with a particular tradition and its preservation which seemed to be a very good idea from a modern perspective.
Moreover, if we generally observe the Indian thoughts or rather an Indian way of celebrating 'Ganesh Chaturthi' or 'Durgotsava'.
3) Write about allusions to the Indian thoughts in 'The Waste Land'. (Where, How and Why are the Indian thoughts referred?)
The Indian philosophy is richly diverse and consists of numerous philosophical and deep meanings and interpretations that lead an individual to a better way of living life.
This Upanishad consisting of six chapters is called 'Aranyaka' as it was taught in the forest (Aranya). And because of its large size, it is called Brihadaranyaka.
T. S. Eliot in his long poem 'The Waste Land' refers to the diverse Indian philosophical thought.
In the Waste Land, the culture had decayed and rotten and the people have become sinners who lack spirituality and the river-the rain which should provide life are all polluted and deserted. Therefore, Eliot by referring to Indian culture takes the readers to the East, the holy river of India- The bank of river Ganges is referred in the poem.
The westerners are advised to refer the East and learn spirituality and Eliot also talks about the thunder which is rolling and saying-
DA, DA, DA
The first DA refers to 'Datta' means to give, 'to contribute'
The second DA refers to 'Dayadhvam' means to empathize and to sympathize
The third DA refers to 'Damyata' means self-control.
Moreover, if we generally observe the Indian thoughts or rather an Indian way of celebrating 'Ganesh Chaturthi' or 'Durgotsava'. The fourth part of Eliot's 'The Waste Land' titled 'Death by Water' has some similarity with these festivals. The way the idols of Ganesh and Durga gets submerged in the water in the same way, Death by water has the idea of ritualistic drowning and rebirth.
- Barth, Karl. “Humanity without the Fellow-Man: Nietzsche’s Superman and Christian Morality.” Studies in Nietzsche and the Judaeo-Christian Tradition, edited by JAMES C. O’FLAHERTY et al., by G. W. Bromiley, vol. 103, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1985, pp. 353–374. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9781469656557_oflaherty.21. Accessed 23 Sept. 2020.
- Barad, Dilip. 'The Waste Land'
- Chandran, K. Narayana. “‘Shantih’ in The Waste Land.” American Literature, vol. 61, no. 4, 1989, pp. 681–683. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2927003. Accessed 23 Sept. 2020.
- GRENANDER, M. E, and K. S. NARAYANA RAO. “The Waste Land and the Upanishads : What Does the Thunder Say?” Indian Literature, vol. 14, no. 1, 1971, pp. 85–98. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23330564. Accessed 23 Sept. 2020.
- Laing, Bertram M. “The Origin of Nietzsche's Problem and Its Solution.” International Journal of Ethics, vol. 26, no. 4, 1916, pp. 510–527. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2376471. Accessed 23 Sept. 2020.
- Miyamoto, Shoson. “Freedom, Independence, and Peace in Buddhism.” Philosophy East and West, vol. 2, no. 3, 1952, pp. 208–225. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1397271. Accessed 23 Sept. 2020.
Post a Comment