This lovely poem includes paradoxes, and thus I shall be addressing question 13 with this post. The first line itself is, in fact, a paradox. Madness is equated with Sense, literally lacking sense is compared to having sense. The rest of the poem then sets forth to explain this stark contrast that the speaker sets forth. The speaker goes on to explain that anyone that blindly follows the majority would be considered sane by society, but insane for lacking the ability to think and form opinions independently. Conversely, anyone who goes against the viewpoint of the crowd is deemed insane by society, but is perfectly sane in the sense that they have this ability to form coherent thoughts and opinions on their own without having to borrow ideas others. However, that is not the end of the speaker's rant. The last line adds an entirely new dimension to the argument. The speaker notes that those who go against the majority are not just deemed insane, but actually dangerous, and are "handled with a chain." This last line criticizes one particularly aspect of society that the speaker finds particularly upsetting. It is not enough that society deems free thinkers as insane, but they are actually considered dangerous, and their ideas are held back--chained, if you will--and their potentially beneficial insights are opposed simply because they are different. Reminds me a bit of this guy:
Or this guy:
Or heck, why not this guy:
Thumbs-Up Jesus, almost as cool as Jam-Skating Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment