Does "but this poetry tends to arrogate to itself" mean "but this poetry..."?

Forums: Esl, English, Grammar, Learning English, Efl
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Does "but this poetry tends to arrogate to itself literal truth and moral authority, neither of which it possesses" mean "but this poetry of religion tends to arrogate to religion itself literal truth and moral authority, neither of which it (religion) possesses"?

Context:
The condition and the aims of life are both represented in religion poetically, but this poetry tends to arrogate to itself literal truth and moral authority, neither of which it possesses.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 924 • Replies: 14

No top replies

View best answer, chosen by oristarA

@oristarA,

Quote:

Does "but this poetry tends to arrogate to itself literal truth and moral authority, neither of which it possesses" mean "but this poetry of religion tends to arrogate to religion itself literal truth and moral authority, neither of which it (religion) possesses"?

I think "religion" is what's being suggested or insinuated, oris, but I don't think that's what it's literally saying. The poem is what is presenting itself as possessing (and conveying) literal truth and moral authority.

How could it mean anything else, literally? "..this poetry tends to arrogate to itself..."

You can always impute what is written in poetry to it's author, I suppose, but "religion," per se, does not write poetry.

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

it's author

Its author

1 Reply

@contrex,

right.

Even though the form "it's" would be the normal way to establish the possessive case, not so with the word "it" which can create a lot of ambiguities because it's often contracted ("it is" becomes "it's")--so they make a rule which breaks the rule.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
Does "but this poetry tends to arrogate to itself literal truth and moral authority, neither of which it possesses" mean "but this poetry of religion tends to arrogate to religion itself literal truth and moral authority, neither of which it (religion) possesses"?

I think "religion" is what's being suggested or insinuated, oris, but I don't think that's what it's literally saying. The poem is what is presenting itself as possessing (and conveying) literal truth and moral authority.

How could it mean anything else, literally? "..this poetry tends to arrogate to itself..."

You can always impute what is written in poetry to it's author, I suppose, but "religion," per se, does not write poetry.

Religion does not write poetry? How about the Psalms of the Bible?
What still confused me is that "(something)... represented in religion poetically". It sounds to me that the process of presenting itself makes the poetry.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Quote:

What still confused me is that "(something)... represented in religion poetically". It sounds to me that the process of presenting itself makes the poetry.

Well, not sure what you mean, oris. According to the sentence the things being (re)presented in religious poetry are "the condition and the aims of life"

Quote:

Religion does not write poetry? How about the Psalms of the Bible?

Not sure what you're getting at here, either. Are you suggesting that the pslams had no author? That "religion" wrote the psalms, rather than a person?

Edit: Well, I guess I do see what you're saying, kinda. What is "religious poetry?" I may be a religious person. I may try to say, it poetic form, what religion claims the "aims of life" are. You could call that "religious poetry." But that doesn't make ME religion. You cant personify religion, except figuratively.

1 Reply

@layman,

Well, let's get things done one by one.
First, do you think there is literal truth in the condition of life?

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Quote:

First, do you think there is literal truth in the condition of life?

I thought this was just a question about the meaning of a sentence. Now we're getting philosophical, eh? I don't mind pursuing it along those lines, if you want, though.

I don't even know what "condition" is supposed to mean here. For our lives, the presence of oxygen, just for example, seems to be one "condition" of our existence.

If it means something else, then I'm not sure how to answer. But lets just say my answer is "no." Now what?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
First, do you think there is literal truth in the condition of life?

I thought this was just a question about the meaning of a sentence. Now we're getting philosophical, eh? I don't mind pursuing it along those lines, if you want, though.

I don't even know what "condition" is supposed to mean here. For our lives, the presence of oxygen, just for example, seems to be one "condition" of our existence.

If it means something else, then I'm not sure how to answer. But lets just say my answer is "no." Now what?

I don't understand why you've said "no" to this question. To me, sunlight and air and water are three necessary conditions for life. Are they literal truth?

1 Reply

@oristarA,

I said:

Quote:

But lets just say my answer is "no." Now what?

Let me now change that to:

But lets just say my answer is "yes." Now what?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

I said:

Quote:
But lets just say my answer is "no." Now what?

Let me now change that to:

But lets just say my answer is "yes." Now what?

Okay now. Let us return back the context of the original question:

Quote:

The condition and the aims of life are both represented in religion poetically, but this poetry tends to arrogate to itself literal truth and moral authority, neither of which it possesses.

Since the condition of life includes those literal truth, so what the author deems (this poetry doesn't possess the literal truth) is wrong. Do you agree with me?

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Quote:

Since the condition of life includes those literal truth, so what the author deems (this poetry doesn't possess the literal truth) is wrong. Do you agree with me?

Hmm, not sure I can decipher what you're getting at here, Oris. A couple of responses come to mind, though, if you are saying what I think you are.

1. The author never says the poetry "doesn't" possess literal truth.

2. I don't think those (physical) conditions are even what the author had in mind. Theologians would argue that god is a necessary condition for life, which precedes any physical conditions that may apply. I think that's what he intended by "conditions of life."

2 Replies

@layman,

Another thought:

3. The author refers to the "condition (singular) of life." Condition has more than one meaning. Sometimes it means something contingent or qualifying. But another meaning is akin to "the existing current state of affairs." E.g., "what is the patient's condition?

The author may be using the word in this latter sense, also. Now that I think about it, this would probably make the most sense, in this context.

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

1. The author never says the poetry "doesn't" possess literal truth.

When the author says "neither of which it possesses", he clearly refers to "it (the poetry) possesses neither literal truth nor moral authority". Why did you say he never says this?

Context:

Quote:

The condition and the aims of life are both represented in religion poetically, but this poetry tends to arrogate to itself literal truth and moral authority, neither of which it possesses.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Quote:

When the author says "neither of which it possesses", he clearly refers to "it (the poetry) possesses neither literal truth nor moral authority".

You're absolutely right about that, oris. I had forgotten that part, my bad.

0 Replies

Does "but this poetry tends to arrogate to itself" mean "but this poetry..."?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know