There is no better book than Ecclesiastes to show how conservatism works in the interpretation of ancient philosophical books. The following is the text for chapter 4.1-3 of Ecclesiastes.
Then I looked again at all the injustice that goes on in this world. The oppressed were crying, and no one would help them. No one would help them, because their oppressors had power on their side. I envy those who are dead and gone; they are better off than those who are still alive. But better off than either are those who have never been born, who have never seen the injustice that goes on in this world.
Conservatism requires one to take the surface meaning if at all possible. On the surface of the above passage, one is bound to see the pessimism or futility of living. "A person can't fight city hall" is the underlying message of the passage. In the second part of the passage, the dead and unborn are in better states than the living are. Have humans really stooped to such depths of depression as a group. The book is purported to have been written by a renowned philosopher. The first several verses of chapter 1 point this out. Does that mean that the prevailing philosophy of the time was one of bleakness, darkness, and futility? Even if the people didn't feel the way that the philosopher felt, the book that people of the generation wanted to pass on to posterity was filled with pessimism. That does say something about the people.
But there is another way of looking at the book and passages like the one cited so that it makes more sense that people would be proud to pass down such a book for the next generation. But, to do so, one has to throw the surface value out the window. One has to drop conservatism and take a more liberated approach. One needs to assume that literature was not being born as this philosopher was writing. The Iliad and the Odyssey were being written in a different part of the world about this time. The Indus Valley in India was experiencing some of its enlightenment and keeping records during this period. The Sumerians had recorded all kinds of stories a millenium and a half before Ecclesaistes came to the mind of the philosopher. So, people were fully aware of literary devices used in writing. Figurative language had been extant in languages of all kinds of people. Likely, the people of Israel were no different from their neighbors in understanding the elements of writing.
In every known society, injustices have existed. By bringing up the subject, the philosopher is not saying it is new or even overlooked. He makes a "life goes on statement" at the very least or he makes a broad generalization to denote a problem by stereotyping. Authors still do this in the modern era. It's a way get people to identify with a general set of characteristics so that they will stay interested in the book. He simply wanted people to say, "I have felt like this before" so that they would read what came next.
Another way to look at the passage is to capsulize it as an ancient document that reflected the philosophy of an era. Ideas from the book are bound by a context. Only if the ideas represent the universals of history should they be delivered to a future or applied to a past civilization. So, even if it was true that the philosopher was commenting about the harshness of life for most people, to say that he envied unborn or dead people presupposes that there is no afterlife. After the time of Jesus, the largest religion in the world values the afterlife. Thus, the reading is not to be taken univerally.
Yet a third way to look at the passage is to say that the philosopher is using the literary technique of hyperbole—exaggeration for an effect. He overstates the case so that people will see that the point of the passage is actually the opposite of what is being said. People should not feel so hopeless although circumstances could dictate that they do so. But who really wants to envy the dead or the unborn?
Even at the very end of chapter (vs. 16), the philosopher wants to make a point about leaving an imprint on the world.
There may be no limit to the number of people a king rules; when he is gone, no one will be grateful for what he has done. It is useless. It is like chasing the wind.
At face value, the passage is still very negative. Who can hope to be more than a mere speck in the sands of time? Give it up. No one is anybody. Percy Shelley said about the same thing in the beautifully written poem of the early 1800s, Ozymandias. If the great people cannot hope to be remembered, why would the ordinary person think he or she could? The second way takes the above cited verse and says that it has limited effect. The Jews in a little later time period came to understand that their way to be remembered was through their children. Their way to leave an imprint on the world was to perpetuate it through their lifestyle which lived on through their children, their children's children, etc. So, the passage is not universal but reflects only beliefs of a certain time period. The third way to understand the passage allows for one to say the philosopher is making an overstatement. He wants everyone to leave an imprint, but he knows that they will have to work hard to do so.
So, conservatism doesn't always work in interpreting ancient books. Sometimes the message of a book is like looking out at a certain terrain and finding features that don't fit the rest of the landscape. A person knows that there is an explanation for the anomaly of pointed rocks in a desert plain, but one has to go to the trouble of finding the explanation. Tolerance is the watchword I am trying to point to. Interpretation matters because it drives one's belief system. But, allowing for various supported conclusions takes maturity, education, or both.
Then I looked again at all the injustice that goes on in this world. The oppressed were crying, and no one would help them. No one would help them, because their oppressors had power on their side. I envy those who are dead and gone; they are better off than those who are still alive. But better off than either are those who have never been born, who have never seen the injustice that goes on in this world.
Conservatism requires one to take the surface meaning if at all possible. On the surface of the above passage, one is bound to see the pessimism or futility of living. "A person can't fight city hall" is the underlying message of the passage. In the second part of the passage, the dead and unborn are in better states than the living are. Have humans really stooped to such depths of depression as a group. The book is purported to have been written by a renowned philosopher. The first several verses of chapter 1 point this out. Does that mean that the prevailing philosophy of the time was one of bleakness, darkness, and futility? Even if the people didn't feel the way that the philosopher felt, the book that people of the generation wanted to pass on to posterity was filled with pessimism. That does say something about the people.
But there is another way of looking at the book and passages like the one cited so that it makes more sense that people would be proud to pass down such a book for the next generation. But, to do so, one has to throw the surface value out the window. One has to drop conservatism and take a more liberated approach. One needs to assume that literature was not being born as this philosopher was writing. The Iliad and the Odyssey were being written in a different part of the world about this time. The Indus Valley in India was experiencing some of its enlightenment and keeping records during this period. The Sumerians had recorded all kinds of stories a millenium and a half before Ecclesaistes came to the mind of the philosopher. So, people were fully aware of literary devices used in writing. Figurative language had been extant in languages of all kinds of people. Likely, the people of Israel were no different from their neighbors in understanding the elements of writing.
In every known society, injustices have existed. By bringing up the subject, the philosopher is not saying it is new or even overlooked. He makes a "life goes on statement" at the very least or he makes a broad generalization to denote a problem by stereotyping. Authors still do this in the modern era. It's a way get people to identify with a general set of characteristics so that they will stay interested in the book. He simply wanted people to say, "I have felt like this before" so that they would read what came next.
Another way to look at the passage is to capsulize it as an ancient document that reflected the philosophy of an era. Ideas from the book are bound by a context. Only if the ideas represent the universals of history should they be delivered to a future or applied to a past civilization. So, even if it was true that the philosopher was commenting about the harshness of life for most people, to say that he envied unborn or dead people presupposes that there is no afterlife. After the time of Jesus, the largest religion in the world values the afterlife. Thus, the reading is not to be taken univerally.
Yet a third way to look at the passage is to say that the philosopher is using the literary technique of hyperbole—exaggeration for an effect. He overstates the case so that people will see that the point of the passage is actually the opposite of what is being said. People should not feel so hopeless although circumstances could dictate that they do so. But who really wants to envy the dead or the unborn?
Even at the very end of chapter (vs. 16), the philosopher wants to make a point about leaving an imprint on the world.
There may be no limit to the number of people a king rules; when he is gone, no one will be grateful for what he has done. It is useless. It is like chasing the wind.
At face value, the passage is still very negative. Who can hope to be more than a mere speck in the sands of time? Give it up. No one is anybody. Percy Shelley said about the same thing in the beautifully written poem of the early 1800s, Ozymandias. If the great people cannot hope to be remembered, why would the ordinary person think he or she could? The second way takes the above cited verse and says that it has limited effect. The Jews in a little later time period came to understand that their way to be remembered was through their children. Their way to leave an imprint on the world was to perpetuate it through their lifestyle which lived on through their children, their children's children, etc. So, the passage is not universal but reflects only beliefs of a certain time period. The third way to understand the passage allows for one to say the philosopher is making an overstatement. He wants everyone to leave an imprint, but he knows that they will have to work hard to do so.
So, conservatism doesn't always work in interpreting ancient books. Sometimes the message of a book is like looking out at a certain terrain and finding features that don't fit the rest of the landscape. A person knows that there is an explanation for the anomaly of pointed rocks in a desert plain, but one has to go to the trouble of finding the explanation. Tolerance is the watchword I am trying to point to. Interpretation matters because it drives one's belief system. But, allowing for various supported conclusions takes maturity, education, or both.
No comments:
Post a Comment