Eyes to See

[Nathan Sage]

They say only in the depths of madness you find true genius. One must be willing to lose themselves in order to make room for creative brilliance. Countless greats in history were ultimately cursed by this unflinching paradox.

In the end, the light was just as blinding as the darkness. While true balance is a mirage, I wish to explore both sides without drowning.

The world we create for ourselves is formidable, an ultimate canvas. But we also need help from the world we try to escape. While we continue to inquire, we cannot ignore the platform from which we are inquiring. Our hubris cannot grow so large as to think we individually stand a chance of victory over a society expertly skilled in limiting potential.

I was once in a moment of paradise, and I wonder if reminiscing was an included expense. We all need moments in the Sun, but what happens when one day, we accept that life can only give us moments?

We are much more than one-dimensional beings, even the most conditioned of us. We are forced into simplicity and constrained complexity, all in order to restrain the volatility of Beauty.

Many will try to push through the tiny cracks expertly placed to synthesize freedom. Some of us may succeed and change the whole landscape, a goal quite lofty but only remotely possible because of ignorance to its magnitude.

Even if they do not succeed, before the End, peace will find them in the promise of an echo.

We must try to find ourselves, despite being told who we are. In this obligation, the other few may see and accept this world, and perhaps they are the shrewdest of us all; a high price is paired with intelligence. Peace may only find them after the end, when God himself pays penance for their curse.

An endless list of outcomes during this journey may come to pass, and that is okay...because in this we fulfilled our united purpose, we looked.

Hey guys, I'm new to this forum and would like very much to get any feedback on this piece I've been working on. It is leaning more towards a poetic prose sort of style. Thanks in advance.

[bena]

Hmm. Yes, this is definitely prose, not sure how poetic it is though. You have flowery language, but that doesn't make it poetic. It seems to me to be more of philosophical prose than poetic. It is interesting in the thoughts presented, but it does seem very much to be a soup of Nietzsche, Plato, and Hegel vomited onto a page. I'm not sure how qualified I am to give you much input into improvement. Sorry.

bena/mel

[Nathan Sage]

Hmm.  Yes, this is definitely prose, not sure how poetic it is though.  You have flowery language, but that doesn't make it poetic.  It seems to me to be more of philosophical prose than poetic.  It is interesting in the thoughts presented, but it does seem very much to be a soup of Nietzsche, Plato, and Hegel vomited onto a page.  I'm not sure how qualified I am to give you much input into improvement. Sorry.

bena/mel

Thank you so much for your response. I had a good laugh on that soup description haha, but I understand from it how this piece may be lacking a bit in direction. But I also find it essential to have a natural flow of thoughts, and a lot of the times they interweave quite sporadically. I guess it takes practice and more attention to balance in the editing process.

[Erthona]

Nathan Sage,

This seems more pseudo-philosophical rhetoric. There is no stating of thesis and following a logical analysis of the thesis to show the premiss is logically sound as is generally done in philosophy. There are also obviously dubious statements such as "We are much more than one-dimensional beings." In science we are four dimensional beings; three of space and one of time. Philosophically there would have to be some basic presuppositions to even come close to critiquing this subject, and that is 4 dimensions. The only thing that can exist in one dimension is a point, that is all. So your statement that humans are one dimensional beings is completely senseless.

"Many will try to push through the tiny cracks expertly placed to synthesize freedom."

What the devil is "synthesized freedom?"

Is this suppose to arise out of a Hegelian triad? What is freedom synthesized from?
"to form (a material or abstract entity) by combining parts or elements (opposed to analyze )"
As far as I can tell it is simply a flashy word that makes absolutely no sense.


"Our hubris cannot grow so large as to think we individually stand a chance of victory over a society expertly skilled in limiting potential."

What does hubris have to do with this. Are you sure you know what the word means? Fulfilling one's potential is always a struggle whether society is oppressive or not. Or are you saying that someone like Galileo Galilei had it easy? This is a totally spurious assertion.

Most of your lines are pure sophism, or if you prefer, are "full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."  - McBeth, SCENE V.    

I would recommend dropping the philosophizing until you pass through your sophomoric stage, or maybe get better acquainted with what you are trying to discuss; or possibly a nice poem, we are after all a poetry workshop. Something to consider.    

Welcome to the site,

Dale    

PS I did write a poem for you For Nathan Sage
   
         

[Nathan Sage]

Nathan Sage,

This seems more pseudo-philosophical rhetoric. There is no stating of thesis and following a logical analysis of the thesis to show the premiss is logically sound as is generally done in philosophy. There are also obviously dubious statements such as "We are much more than one-dimensional beings." In science we are four dimensional beings; three of space and one of time. Philosophically there would have to be some basic presuppositions to even come close to critiquing this subject, and that is 4 dimensions. The only thing that can exist in one dimension is a point, that is all. So your statement that humans are one dimensional beings is completely senseless.

"Many will try to push through the tiny cracks expertly placed to synthesize freedom."

What the devil is "synthesized freedom?"

Is this suppose to arise out of a Hegelian triad? What is freedom synthesized from?
"to form (a material or abstract entity) by combining parts or elements (opposed to analyze )"
As far as I can tell it is simply a flashy word that makes absolutely no sense.


"Our hubris cannot grow so large as to think we individually stand a chance of victory over a society expertly skilled in limiting potential."

What does hubris have to do with this. Are you sure you know what the word means? Fulfilling one's potential is always a struggle whether society is oppressive or not. Or are you saying that someone like Galileo Galilei had it easy? This is a totally spurious assertion.

Most of your lines are pure sophism, or if you prefer, are "full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing."  - McBeth, SCENE V.    

I would recommend dropping the philosophizing until you pass through your sophomoric stage, or maybe get better acquainted with what you are trying to discuss; or possibly a nice poem, we are after all a poetry workshop. Something to consider.    

Welcome to the site,

Dale    

PS I did write a poem for you For Nathan Sage
   
         

Wow, thank you so much for forming such a well thought out critique. I still haven't absorbed it all but the brutal honesty you use to question each pillar within my work indicates the respect you have for novice writers, showing them quite early their fault of their own hubris (let me know once again if I'm not using it right). I mean, what else could it be but respect?
And I quite enjoyed your poem, everything unsaid was a testament to your skill and talent. I would begin to critique the plausibility of questioning a crease for a hair, but maybe it's in the overeagerness to find one, I mean, at least you weren't hungry lol. Never the less, that would be ignoring the true beauty of it, I really did laugh out loud btw. Cheers.

[Erthona]

"showing them quite early their fault of their own hubris"    No you use hubris more or less correctly, however you seemed to have overstepped your sentence. Should read:

"showing them quite early the fault of their own hubris"  
______________________________________________________

"I mean, what else could it be but respect? "

Could have been a reaction to the preachy condescending attitude that was inherit in the writing...maybe?
I am not condemning you, but neither am I condoning this type of writing. You are certainly not unique in writing this. I wrote reams of my own puffed-up pontificating, as I was minoring in philosophy (actually I ended up with enough hours to major in it, but who in their right mind would want a degree in Philosophy?). This philosophy stuff was all new to me, but after a slight taste I began having grandiose thoughts and became convinced of my own genius to the point I felt obliged to inform the world of the error of its ways. Unfortunately, it took more than a little "brutal honesty" to convince me of the error of my ways.  

"brutal honesty you use to question each pillar within my work"

Ha! Hardly. I could have critiqued your work line by line, but as this was in "Novice" I felt there was no cause to pull the kid gloves off, plus I'm lazy and just didn't see the need to do so.    

BTW Just so the other mods do not accuse me of corrupting the ute, the correct response to a critique you disagree with is Thanks you "Thank you"or some such reply. However, I am perfectly fine if you want to counter punch with me as I love me some good verbal sparring; besides I would expect no less.

Dale