<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
	
	<TITLE>The
Philosopher as an
Artist</TITLE>
	
</HEAD>
<BODY LANG="en-US" DIR="LTR">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
	<tr>
		<td>
<p align="center" style="line-height: 150%; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0"><B>
<font size="4" face="Times New Roman,sans-serif">The
Philosopher </font><FONT face="Times New Roman" size="4">as an
Artist </FONT></B><font size="4"><FONT face="Times New Roman"><B>and </B></FONT>
<FONT face="Times New Roman,sans-serif"><B>Philosophy
</B></FONT></font><FONT face="Times New Roman"><B><font size="4">as an Art</font></B></FONT></p>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<font face="Times New Roman"><BR></font><FONT SIZE=3>I WONDER why Philosophy has never been considered as a
variety of Art. Philosophy is admired for the depth and height of its
substance, for its <SPAN LANG="en-GB">endeavour</SPAN> to discover
the ultimate Truth, for its one-pointed adherence to the supremely
Real; but precisely because it does so it is set in opposition to Art
which is reputed as the domain of the ideal, the imaginative or the
fictitious. Indeed it is the antagonism between the two that has
always been <SPAN LANG="en-GB">emphasised</SPAN> and upheld as an
axiomatic truth and an indisputable fact. Of course, old Milton (he
was young, however, when he wrote these lines) says that philosophy
is divine and charming:</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="margin-left:0.5in; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>Not harsh, and crabbed as dull fools suppose,</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="margin-left:0.5in; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>But musical as is Apollo's lute.!</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="margin-left:0.5in; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>Well, I am not sure if the poet was anything more than
being metaphorically rhapsodical, at the most he had only a poetic
perception, he did not give us the scientific truth of the matter.</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="text-indent:0.16in; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>In the face of established opinion and tradition (and in
the wake of the prophetic poet) I propose to demonstrate that
Philosophy has as much claim to be called an art, as any other
orthodox art, painting or sculpture or music or architecture. I do
not refer to the element of philosophy-perhaps the very large element
of philosophy -that is imbedded and ingrained in every Art; I speak
of Philosophy by itself as a distinct type of authentic art. I mean
that Philosophy is composed or created in the same way as any other
art and the philosopher is moved and driven by the inspiration and
impulsion of a genuine artist. Now, what is Art? Please do not be
perturbed by the question. I am not trying to enter into the
philosophy-the metaphysics</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="text-indent:0.16in; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<BR>
</P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="text-indent:0.16in; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=2><FONT FACE="Luxi Serif">¹</FONT> <I>Comus, I,
</I>477-8.</FONT><BR>
		</P>
<P ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="border-bottom:1px solid black; text-indent:0.16in; padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0.03in; padding-left:0in; border-top-style:none; border-right-style:none; border-left-style:none; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=2>Page - 245</FONT><BR>
		</P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>of it, but only into the science - the physics - of it.
Whatever else it may be, the <I>sine qua non, </I>the minimum
requisite of art is that it must be a thing of beauty, that is to
say, it must possess a beautiful form. Even the Vedic Rishi says that
the poet by his poetic power created a heavenly <I>form -kavih
kavitva divi r<FONT FACE="Luxi Serif">u</FONT>pam asajat. </I>As
a matter of fact, a supreme beauty of form has often marked the very
apex of artistic creation. Now, what does the Philosopher do? The
sculptor hews beautiful forms out of marble, the poet fashions
beautiful forms out of words, the musician shapes beautiful forms out
of sounds. And the philosopher? The philosopher, I submit, builds
beautiful forms out of thoughts and concepts. Thoughts and concepts
are the raw materials out of which the artist philosopher creates
mosaics and patterns and designs architectonic edifices. For what
else are philosophic systems? A system means, above all, a form of
beauty, symmetrical and harmonious, a unified whole, rounded and
polished and firmly holding together. Even as in Art, truth, bare
sheer truth is not the object of philosophical inquiry either. Has it
not been considered sufficient for a truth to be philosophically
true, if it is consistent, if it does not involve self-contradiction?
The equation runs: Truth=Self-consistency; Error=Self-contradiction.
To discover the absolute truth is not the philosopher's task-it is an
ambitious enterprise as futile and as much of a <I>m<FONT FACE="Luxi Serif">a</FONT>y<FONT FACE="Luxi Serif">a</FONT>
</I>as the pursuit of absolute space, absolute time or absolute
motion in Science. Philosophy has nothing more to do-and nothing
less-than to evolve or build up a system, in other words, a</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>self-consistent whole (of concepts, in this case). Art
also does exactly the same thing. Self-contradiction means at bottom,
want of harmony, balance, symmetry, unity, and self-consistency means
the contrary of these things-the two terms used by philosophy are
only the logical formulation of an essentially aesthetic value.</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="text-indent:0.17in; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>Take, for example, the philosophical system of Kant or
of Hegel or of our own Shankara. What a beautiful edifice of thought
each one has reared! How cogent and compact, <SPAN LANG="en-GB">organised</SPAN>
and poised and finely <SPAN LANG="en-GB">modelled</SPAN>! Shankara's
reminds me of a tower, strong and slender, mounting straight and
tapering into a vanishing point among the clouds; it has the
characteristic linear movement of Indian melody. On the other</FONT><BR>
		</P>
<P ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="border-bottom:1px solid black; text-indent:0.17in; padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0.03in; padding-left:0in; border-top-style:none; border-right-style:none; border-left-style:none; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=2>Page - 246</FONT><BR>
		</P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="text-indent:-0.01in; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>hand, the march of the Kantian Critiques or of the
Hegelian Dialectic has a broader base and involves a composite
strain, a balancing of contraries, a blending of diverse notes: there</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>is something here of the amplitude and comprehensiveness
of harmonic architecture (without perhaps a corresponding degree of
altitude).</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="text-indent:0.14in; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>All these systems, commonly called philosophical, appear
to me supremely artistic. The logical intellect has worked here.
exactly like a chisel or a brush in the hands of the artist. It did
not care for truth <I>per se, </I>its prime preoccupation was
arrangement, disposition; the problem it set before itself was how
best to present a consistent and unified, that is to say, a beautiful
whole.</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="text-indent:0.15in; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>But the philosopher's stone is not, after all, a myth,
as is being proved by modern science. Even so, the philosopher's
truth -the truth, that is to say, in the noumenal sense, to which he
aspires in his heart of hearts-is also existent. There is a reality
apart from and beyond all relativities and contin­gencies: truth
is not mere self-consistence, it is self-existence. Art and
philosophy as an art may not comprehend it, but they circuit round it
and even have glimpses of it and touch it, though the vision they
have more often aberrates, distorting a rope into a snake.</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="text-indent:0.15in; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>It is a grain of this truth that is the substance and
the core of all true art and philosophy. Philosophy works upon this
secret strand by its logic, art by imagination-although logic and
imagination may not be so incommensurable as they are commonly
thought to be; even so, both art and philosophy arrive at the same
result, viz., the building of a beautiful superstructure.</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="text-indent:0.17in; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>This golden core of truth comes from elsewhere-it is
beyond the <I>mayic </I>circle of art and philosophy. To have access
to it, a lid overhead is to be broken through-rather, as it is said,
it is that that breaks through of its own accord and reveals its
identity.</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="text-indent:0.19in; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>Plato would not tolerate the poets in his ideal society
since they care too much for beauty and very little for the true and
good. He wanted it all to be a kingdom of philosophers. I am afraid
Plato's philosopher is not true to type, the type set up by his great
disciple. Plato's philosopher is no longer</FONT><BR>
		</P>
<P ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="border-bottom:1px solid black; text-indent:0.19in; padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0.03in; padding-left:0in; border-top-style:none; border-right-style:none; border-left-style:none; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=2>Page - 247</FONT><BR>
		</P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>an artist, he has become a mystic-a Rishi in our
language.</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="text-indent:0.16in; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>For we must remember that Plato himself was really more
of a poet than a philosopher. Very few among the great representative
souls of humanity surpassed him in the true poetic afflatus. The poet
and the mystic -Kavi and Rishi - are the same in our ancient lore.
However these two, Plato and Aristotle, the mystic and the
philosopher, the master and the disciple, combine to form one of
these dual personalities which Nature seems to like and throws up
from time to time in her evolutionary march-not as a mere study in
contrast, a token of her dialectical process, but rather as a
movement of polarity making for a greater comprehensiveness and
richer values. They may be taken as the symbol of a great synthesis
that humanity needs and is preparing. The role of the mystic is to
envisage and unveil the truth, the supernal reality which the mind
cannot grasp nor all the critical apparatus of human reason
demonstrate and to bring it down and present it to the understanding
and apprehending consciousness. The philosopher comes at this stage:
he receives and gathers all that is given to him, arranges and
<SPAN LANG="en-GB">systematises</SPAN>, puts the whole thing in a
frame as it were.</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="text-indent:0.17in; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>The poet-philosopher or the philosopher-poet, whichever
way we may put it, is a new formation of the human consciousness that
is coming upon us. A wide and <SPAN LANG="en-GB">rationalising</SPAN>
(not</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=JUSTIFY STYLE="text-indent:0.17in; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=3>rationalistic) intelligence deploying and <SPAN LANG="en-GB">marshalling</SPAN>
out a deep intuitive and direct Knowledge-that is the pattern of
human mind developing in the new age. Bergson's was a harbinger, a
definite landmark on the way. Sri Aurobindo's <I>The Life Divine
</I>arrives and opens the very portals of the <SPAN LANG="en-GB">marvellous</SPAN>
temple city of a dynamic integral knowledge.</FONT><BR>
		</P>
<P ALIGN=CENTER STYLE="border-bottom:1px solid black; text-indent:0.17in; padding-top:0in; padding-right:0in; padding-bottom:0.03in; padding-left:0in; border-top-style:none; border-right-style:none; border-left-style:none; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0">
<FONT SIZE=2>Page - 248</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN="right" STYLE="text-indent:0.17in; widows: 0; orphans: 0; line-height:150%; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0"> 
<a href="-00_Ccontent"><img src="/Nolini/Volume-2/_Gif_Image/home03a.gif" width="38" height="49" border="0"></a></P>
<div align="right"> 
	<p style="line-height: 150%; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0"> </div>
		</td>
	</tr>
</table>
</BODY>
</HTML>