Playing to be impersonal ⇒ Kirno Sohochari

In his book “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Philosophy”, the author Jay Stevenson tried to simplify the objective of philosophical discourse by classifying it in three categories. He classified it by Being, Knowing and Acting. The classification is quite interesting. When we feel that something existed in our surface, the question of existed something begins there and the author named it ‘Ontology’. ‘Knowing’ is an indicator that we know about the existed something and question started over there ‘in how and which context we could say that we know the something.’ This is the beginning moment of Epistemology. ‘Acting’ means our activities and interaction with the ‘Being and Knowing’ and soon it’s turning on Ethical discussion.


Philosophy is a categorical discipline. The investigation process is moving and rotating in a surface of logical innovation and invasion. The words, idioms and terminologies are slaves of these categories. Philosophy means ‘Love of wisdom’ and its linguistic expression depends on the correlation between the philosophical schooling to reach the wisdom.

Philosophy is certainly a school of thoughts where the common people not easily possessed on it. Similar point could be appropriate to the many other discipline of the world and it’s necessary indeed, but I feel bit uncomfortable when we try to impose these structural categories on the reading and criticism of any Literature contents.

Our existence personified by “Being, Knowing and Acting” but it is tough to play with these in literature.

Theory is good to understand the meaning of the contents but is it inevitable for literature? We read literature to get some creative ideas and new analysis to the meaningfully meaningless existence. It could have contained profound philosophical thoughts and terminologies but a poet or a Fiction Writer is not the slave to tie up his language by this.

The writer should have thankful to his capacity of imagination where the sudden lightening of any word moving him to his inner world. He’s the narrator of his imaginative talent. When he wrote something, I think, he writes his ‘Inner Self’, which perhaps illusive. He’s not the penman of his critical thinking. He’s the narrator of life and its diversified complexities. His core philosophy is to distort the pragmatic meaning of words and sentences.


This should be considerable when we think about the philosophical meaning of any literature objects. The logical consequence in literature is not similar with any other discipline of thoughts and imagination. Suppose a Fiction Writer has a right to choose any topic, which he thinks perfect for his innovative thinking or imagination, but it’s indeed fulfilled the condition of ‘creating impersonal beauties’. T. S. Eliot once mentioned it in his powerful article “Tradition and Individual Talent”.

I think it’s difficult for a writer to being ‘Impersonal’ in his own writing. Emotion and sensibility is a core object to him. The writer writes his emotional feeling and thinking when he sits down to write any topic. It’s personal and he attached himself to the emotional to serve the ‘aesthetic beauty and meaning’, he has no option without it.

I’m going through this experience when the lightening of imaginary word driven me to write down a fiction. It was more philosophical beyond my expectation and then it was goes to be a hurdle for me to unite my thoughts and imagination in the frame of ‘aesthetic beauty and meaning’.

Writing Fiction in a thought-process is a perilous job and I faced it to write this. It was difficult for me to play the concert with my own ‘Self.’ When I wrote down the last line of the fiction I felt pain to think that, “It’s very hard to personify the ‘Self’ to an impersonal object.” I’m not sure about that how Eliot was doing this when he seated to filtrating his emotion and imagination in the shape of ‘aesthetic beauties’.

Our existence personified by “Being, Knowing and Acting” but it is tough to play with these in literature.