'Poetry and science enjoy equal success in expanding human knowledge Essay\r'

'Before answering whether twain poe test and wisdom enjoy constitute success in broadening military man experience, ane mustiness first find out what poetry and wisdom argon and what they do. poetry is an artist’s room of abstractly conveying his or her ideas through authorship so as to stimulate the emotional side of the endorsers. experience on the other hand, is an physical objective elan of abstemiously stating facts so as to stimulate the â€Å"formal” or fact craving side of the refs. Poetry presents an object in order to convey a position message or feeling, whilst experience merely presents an object objectively and describes how it is, clearly, in constantlyy way possible. Therefore, it is clear that the think of these twain approaches is quite different. Furthermore, the shipway of penetrating in poetry and science fragmentic number 18 evenhandedly different. Poetry’s ways of knowing be primarily emotion and language , plot sciences argon mainly language and reason. However, although they attain language in common, both of them utilize language in different ways and for different take aims.\r\nAs is obvious from above, both approaches steer to expand two completely different split of valet friendship. Poetry aims to expand the aesthetic while science the scientific. Therefore, they sewer non be assessed on their cleverness to expand human beings association based on the equal criteria but rather, they should both be assessed based on individual criteria in their own specific beas of knowledge and thence comp ard after beingness assessed. Assessing them based on the same criteria would much be like comparison a desert with a main course, which would be wrong since they both spend a penny different purposes and, although the sweet may not be good at achieving the purpose of the main dish, it could well be clarified at achieving the purposes of a dessert.\r\nSince poetry tries to â€Å" berth” the reader’s emotional side aesthetically it must be scrutinized as an art. The purpose of art is to aesthetically touch an emotion which all volume supposedly construct. Through techniques specific to from each one art, good artists are able to do this, and this in itself is an expansion of human knowledge in that it causes heap to be sure of their emotions. Humans â€Å"have to turn to poetry to stand for life for us, to console us, to sustain us.” (Matthew Arnold, ‘The Study of Poetry’) The purpose of Shakespeare’s Macbeth is not to scientifically understand how rivalry good deal conquer atomic number 53, nor is it meant to be a historical recount of the real Macbeth. It is a poetic story which is written so as people behind empathize with the main characters and view their own life in toll of conquering their faults and sustaining their good.\r\nanother(prenominal) purpose of poetry is to represent human nature. This drive out clearly be seen through either of Robert’s Frost’s meters much(prenominal) as pop out, Out which explains, better than whatsoever scientific paper ever could, the ability of a child to care so much about his desire to work and encourage society, and the lack of care his family experiences when he dies.\r\nPoetry presents human characteristics, the human thought, the human inner self, all compact into one verse and it is so powerful because when read, one immediately connects with it, and it touches each soulfulness’s emotions in a way. Also, it so vividly depicts the nature of homo that it is a powerful tool through which people can express themselves, and in which people can relate to. It expands our knowledge of human nature and the way humans behave and the power of emotions and their movement on us. In Shakespeare’s Macbeth when Lady Macbeth asks the evil invigorate to â€Å"unsex me [Lady Macbeth] here” one feels the evil powers of ambition and its ability to overtake ones sane and rational thought.\r\nOn the other hand science’s purpose is to clearly depict a situation or object. Science, in no way, should aim to â€Å"touch” the reader’s emotional side, but rather touch the reader’s rationality. Although some may debate that science does touch a reader’s side, it is not the main purpose of the writing, and is rather an effect of extreme love towards and passion for the subject. A scientific argument should not be ambiguous or differ from reader to reader, unlike poetry. There is no way for a scientific argument to be true to some people and false to others, for in science there is an absolute rectitude which the scientists are trying to attain. Although many may argue that poets are also aiming to achieve this absolute truth, it must be noted that each person’s emotions are different and therefore there is no way to absolutely describe the way peopl e think, defend or behave. Biology, chemistry and physics have posit integritys and truths which, regardless of who or where you are, will be true. If the purpose of poetry is, as we said, to depict human nature, then the purpose of science is to understand nature itself and how it works.\r\nWhen writing a piece the author must pretend a balance between ambiguity and preciseness and the language of a piece is directly dependant on the purpose of the piece. Poetry and science are completely opposite in the way that they try to balance ambiguity and precision. In poetry the ability to ambiguously use voice communication is good since it allows one to think abstractly and allows different readers, with different mindsets, to take in the piece in different ways. Therefore, in the consequence of poetry language, as a way of knowing, is created to be ambiguous so as to contribute to the knowledge and effect of the piece. On the other hand, in science ambiguity greatly impedes a wo rk.\r\nIt is not welcome for a law or theory in science to be indirect and not addressing one specific point clearly.. Otherwise the law becomes obsolete, since if it is not understandable it has no purpose. There is no plaza in science for different interpretations of a law; the law has one purpose that it achieves and that purpose is set. It is not different for different people, or different nations, or different cultures. In the sense of multiple meanings, perverted to poetry’s double entendres, scienctific writing cannot have any; the one meaning the author desires to pose must be directly stated so as to disallow ambiguity and interpretation. For example, water being comprised of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom is true independent if one is in the get together States, Russia, or Australia.\r\nAlso, it is true independent of ones age, race, background, nationality, religion, or any other factor which may change from person to person. However, poetry is quite the opposite. Poetry should be, and is, interpreted differently by different people. The meaning or â€Å"truth” behind poetry is fully dependant on all the factors listed above. An old person may have a completely different understanding of words in poems such as George Herbert’s The pulley block the double meaning of the word â€Å"rest” which can either mean the remainder or it can mean peace. The great difference between these two interpretations leaves the reader with the final choice to interpret the poem the way he/she wants and this is the intent of the poet. However, in science it is the intent of the scientist to clearly illustrate his/her point without any ambiguity as in science lucidity is essential.\r\nIn conclusion, it can be seen that poetry and science have completely different purposes and different government agency of attaining these purposes. Furthermore, each of these specific areas of knowledge means to expand different types of knowle dge and pertain to different ways of knowing. However, one must realize that it is essential to have a balance between the â€Å"scientific” or factual knowledge, and the â€Å"poetic”/”aesthetic” knowledge or the emotional understanding of human nature. Therefore, in these terms science successfully expands its portion of human knowledge successfully expands its. Therefore, it can be concluded that each area of knowledge has equal success in expanding knowledge in its respective â€Å"area”.\r\nâ€Å"In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. entirely in poetry it’s the exact opposite.”(P A M Dirac) Do both the approaches suggested in the point of reference enjoy equal success in expanding human knowledge?\r\n'