Skeptical POET and PHILOSOPHER, safety and danger: the difference

Ahmad Reza Taheri

The term "skeptical poet and philosopher" refers to those poets or philosophers who tend not to believe, or apparently accept things but question them.

I often come to the conclusion that there is at least one notable difference between philosopher and poet. Well, first, I have to contextualize my note by pointing out that this difference might not be felt in secular societies rather it comes to light particularly in authoritarian societies where obedience to the ruling institution or tradition is strongly enforced. Secondly, the difference can be drawn when both philosopher and poet are involved in similar fields of knowledge or edification. However, before discussing the "difference" let me make the text clear by referring to the issue of what fields of knowledge I mean?

The fields of knowledge in question are confined to domain of religion. These fields, for example, are known as pantheism or belief that god and the material world are one and god is present in everything; deism or belief that god does exist but does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe; agnosticism or belief that it is impossible to know whether or not god exists; and atheism or disbelief in the existence of gods. Yes, these are some of the study areas that skeptical philosophers and poets quite often express their opinions in diverse and unusual ways.

Those philosophers who believe in agnosticism or atheism and attempt to publicize such theories, no doubt, will be marginalized, disrespected, and in cases will be terminated. This is usual to any religious society where majority believe in divine laws rather than the secular laws. Socrates (469 BC – 399 BC) perhaps is a good example. He was found guilty of corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety; he was finally sentenced to death. Equally important example is Epicurus (300 BC) who advocated that the cosmos was governed by the laws of chance without divine intervention; he believed in deism. According to him, the gods do not punish the bad and reward the good as the common man believes. Although he did not face what Socrates faced, his teachings were severely attacked by other school of thoughts such as Stoicism. The philosophy of Epicureanism, therefore, to this date has remained marginal. Of the modern times, perhaps Karl Marx (1818 –1883) is a prime example. He is not welcomed by the religious people, mainly because of his attack on religion. Marx believed that "religion is the opium of the masses."

Well, in the contemporary time, there exist many identical instances. Every society does have a small number of like-minded philosophers whom if make themselves known to the public will be extremely exposed to danger. But, the question now is that does the safety of a poet with comparable views equally will be endangered?

I don't think so. This is what I mean by the difference. After all, a poet, I believe, apart from being philosopher is an artist. The poets, unlike the philosophers, often are complex and problematic in their poetic expressions. The poets are so artful that it is difficult to understand their real inclinations as far as their approach to understanding god is concerned. There are widely divergent views on prominent poets. The poems of a poet would be prone to much analysis and interpretations. In this particular context, if I'm supposed to classify the poets, I may not; simply because they cannot be classified. For the poets can belong to every school of thought. One can sense individualism, materialism, socialism, spiritualism, and mysticism in the works of great skeptical poets. But, philosophers can be characterized and recognized easier. It is owing to the fact that in comparison with poets, philosophers express themselves in black and white; they are more straightforward and direct. The poets, by contrast, are intricate and enigmatic in a way that poetic expressions can take on many meanings and interpretations. Omar Khayyam (1048–1131), for example, can be taken as a good case. Khayyam's personal beliefs are not known with certainty, but many from different classes admire his great works. Although some of his poems are not Islamic, they are pretty well welcomed in the Islamic world. Actually, there is a spectrum of opinions about this great poet. At one end of the spectrum Muslims are proud of him, regarding Khayyam as a Sufi. On the other end of the spectrum he is seen as an agnostic, skeptical or perhaps atheist. The poem which talks of "enjoy wine and women, the earthly world is momentary and would end into nothing, Khayyam, to the world your presence does not matter, as if you don't exist at all, thus enjoy your limited time," or the poem "nobody knows the secret laws of the universe, behind the curtain you and I are discussing the issue, but once the curtain falls, neither you nor I can escape unharmed," or, where he talks to god telling him that "there should be a difference between YOU and I", referring to the poem where Khayyam's wine glass would break and for that he would make god responsible, all these can be considered non-Islamic. It is also said that Khayyam objected to the idea that every particular event was the result of god intervention. These expressions suggest that Khayyam was not a religious man, or at times, he would be critically skeptical. To some, he did not believe in religion. Yet again, Khayyam is highly respected by the Muslims; because, to many Muslims, Khayyam was a true believer. So, when some claim that Khayyam was not religious, some others claim the otherwise. The roots of such contradictory claims can be found in different interpretations of his poems. In some Muslim countries such as Iran Khayyam's birthday would be celebrated and quite often his poems would be remembered. Now, are the like-minded philosophers treated equally?

Obviously, it is not the case with the like-minded philosophers. To me, the poets belong to all sections irrespective of their belief systems. Many believe that "the poetry of Hafez Shirazi is influenced by Islam", yet he is widely respected by Hindus and Christians; a poet for all. This is his masterpiece. The credit goes to Hafez himself; to his art and to his talent.  

In short, a poet transfers the same teachings as those which are being taught by a philosopher. Yet, the poet remains safe and secure, respected and popular. But, it is the poor philosopher who faces the consequences. Is not it because the poets write in poetic fashion, but the philosophers write in prosaic fashion?   

 Introduction to REALITY: Skeptical POET and PHILOSOPHER, safety and danger: the difference. Dr. Ahmad Reza Taheri. All Rights Reserved by www.ahmadrezataheri.org