Skip to main content

A Christmas Day post

 




I quoted, yesterday, the Ivyberry passage from Tennyson's 1880 poem, De Profundis. Today I'd like to say something about what it means, which I will do beneath the image of (21st century) London at Christmas. 

Ivy berries (the phrase is not typically written as one word outside poetry) are symbolic of an ability to thrive even in difficult conditions.  

In the context of this poem, ivy berries appear right after a reference to grapes. Tennyson is writing from out of the depths of his own experience as, at this time, a man of 71.

 "Out of the depths," of course, is the literal English language meaning of the title.

Anyway: young folk, strike out into the world! It is your own responsibility to choose between a life of leisure, drinking the fruit of the grape, and a more rigorous challenging life, symbolically drinking of the Ivyberry. Whatever you do, you will help express the fullness of God who is the fountain of which we are all but droplets. 

Soon thereafter, the poet is speaking of God's greatest creation as "not matter, nor the finite-infinite, But this main-miracle, that thou art thou."  

Tennyson enjoys playing with such contraries. He had already told us that he is speaking "Of this divisible-indivisible world/ Among the numerable-innumerable/ Sun, sun, and sun, thro’ finite-infinite space/ In finite-infinite Time—our mortal veil." 

Tennyson is playing a bit with metaphysics here, with Kantian antinomies in his mind. But in an infinite world, can a God who is both three and one, and a Christ both God and man, be intolerably irregular?  If we are stuck with the divisible/indivisible nature of this mixed up world anyway, who would worry overly much about whether the chain of causes and effects has an infinite number of links or had a beginning?  

Accept paradox, young person, and delight in the fact that God made you with the mission to be who you are, "thou art thou." 

And a Merry Christmas to thee, wherever thou art. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...

A Quote from Parfit

Recently  I wrote a little about ethicist Derek Parfit. I've been doing further research on him since, and will now describe his Big Picture as I've come to understand it. Parfit believes that the western world only started taking ethical philosophy seriously (as a domain separate from theology) around the time Nietzsche declared that God was dead. There are only three possibilities, in terms of the God/morality issue: 1) You believe that God exists and that His commands define morality 2) You deny that God exists and, like Nietzsche, infer from this that in the absence of commands there is no right or wrong, or 3) You deny that God exists yet persist in believing and attempting to discern right and wrong. From a certain point of view there could be a fourth category, for people who believe that God exists but that His existence is irrelevant to morality, He doesn't issue commands at all, etc.  Still, from DP's perspective that sort of God ...