Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Ecurb]

Few famous poets, novelists and short story writers have felt the scorn of time more than Rudyard Kipling. He is reviled for his moral failures and for being the “poet of Empire”.

There's more than a grain of truth in these complaints, but Kipling (who was, after all, a Nobel Prize winner) was the poet of profession more than of Empire. His stories are about gaining entry into the various exclusive clubs of professionalism, and soldiers, sailors, railway workers, and journalists go through initiation after initiation.

Now rights and duties are clearly flip sides of the same coin. The right to life simply states that other people have a duty not to kill you. The right to liberty means others have a duty not to imprison or enslave you.

We like to think of “rights' as something WE have, but they are really something other people have: a duty to respect our so-called rights.

What does this have to do with Kipling? Kipling repeatedly scorns “rights”, and emphasizes duty. I think that this – more than his affiliation with the Raj – that confuses and disappoints modern readers.

In “Private Honor” Ortheris gets in a fist fight with an officer who hit him.

‘It was your right to get him cashiered if you chose,’ I insisted.

‘My right!’ Ortheris answered with deep scorn. ‘My right! I ain’t a recruity to go whinin’ about my rights to this an’ my rights to that, just as if I couldn’t look after myself. My rights! ’Strewth A’mighty! I’m a man.’

In the poem ”That Day” about a military disaster a verse near the end reads:

We was rotten ’fore we started—we was never disciplined;
        25
  We made it out a favour if an order was obeyed.

Yes, every little drummer ’ad ’is rights an’ wrongs to mind,

  So we had to pay for teachin’—an’ we paid!

For Kipling, emphasizing “rights' is for whiners, emphasizing duty – duty for which one must be trained and prepared – is for men (no apologies to the women, of course).

This is not brand new – it is an important facet of chivalry. But in literature, before Kipling, professional life was limited to battles and adventures. Kipling brought us into the barracks and the City Rooms. Even Mowgli must be initiated into the Law of the Jungle, and the duties of the Pack.

“Rights”, says Kipling, are for whiny recruits who need to be taught a lesson. Duty. Perhaps it is a lesson modern readers don't want to learn.

[Angel Trismegistus]

Few famous poets, novelists and short story writers have felt the scorn of time more than Rudyard Kipling. He is reviled for his moral failures and for being the “poet of Empire”.

...

For Kipling, emphasizing “rights' is for whiners, emphasizing duty – duty for which one must be trained and prepared – is for men (no apologies to the women, of course).

This is not brand new – it is an important facet of chivalry. But in literature, before Kipling, professional life was limited to battles and adventures. Kipling brought us into the barracks and the City Rooms. Even Mowgli must be initiated into the Law of the Jungle, and the duties of the Pack.

“Rights”, says Kipling, are for whiny recruits who need to be taught a lesson. Duty. Perhaps it is a lesson modern readers don't want to learn.

As for Kipling's fallen star: Sic transit gloria mundi. I could name a score of formerly "important" poets and novelists who've fallen out of favor with the changing times. Another Latin phrase comes to mind: O tempora! O Mores! That is to say, readers and writers ain't what they used to be. The last four or five generations have finished the job for democratic philistinism; the dumbing-down of society is done. Google is everybody's friend.

Remember this little poem? As a student I was made to memorize and recite it by heart in front of the class.

If—

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings—nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run—
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream – and not make dreams your master;
If you can think – and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
‘ Or walk with Kings – nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And – which is more – you’ll be a Man, my son!



As the OP opines: "a lesson modern readers don't want to learn."

[Ecurb]

Unfotunately, "If" is Kipling's most anthologized and popular poem. It's jingoistic. Kipling was essentially a story-teller, and his story poems are often very good. "If" is purely philosophical (if that's the right word) and although high school teachers love it (and so do some high school students) it lacks the charm of Kipling's story poems (in my opinon). The sentiments edxpressed in "If" are retold as a story in poems like "The Ballad of East and West", and find a better home there.

"If" does support my notion that Kipling worshipped professionalism. He likes those who "force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone," He likes professionals "with worn-out tools."

My high school teachers liked "If", too. For some reason they also liked (aslmost worshipped) "O Captain, My Captain", which turned me off of Walt Whitman's poetry until I started reading his better poems later on.

[Angel Trismegistus]

Unfotunately, "If" is Kipling's most anthologized and popular poem. It's jingoistic. Kipling was essentially a story-teller, and his story poems are often very good. "If" is purely philosophical (if that's the right word) and although high school teachers love it (and so do some high school students) it lacks the charm of Kipling's story poems (in my opinon). The sentiments edxpressed in "If" are retold as a story in poems like "The Ballad of East and West", and find a better home there.

"If" does support my notion that Kipling worshipped professionalism. He likes those who "force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone," He likes professionals "with worn-out tools."

My high school teachers liked "If", too. For some reason they also liked (aslmost worshipped) "O Captain, My Captain", which turned me off of Walt Whitman's poetry until I started reading his better poems later on.

I defer to your assessment of Kipling's literary gifts, Ecurb. And I'm glad you weren't turned off to Whitman by high-school English. Now there's a poet that deserves attention in a philosophy forum!

But I hope the larger issue, duty v right, gets picked up by other members as I see there a potential measure of our times. Future historians will likely call this the Age of Entitlement.

[h_k_s]

Few famous poets, novelists and short story writers have felt the scorn of time more than Rudyard Kipling. He is reviled for his moral failures and for being the “poet of Empire”.

There's more than a grain of truth in these complaints, but Kipling (who was, after all, a Nobel Prize winner) was the poet of profession more than of Empire. His stories are about gaining entry into the various exclusive clubs of professionalism, and soldiers, sailors, railway workers, and journalists go through initiation after initiation.

Now rights and duties are clearly flip sides of the same coin. The right to life simply states that other people have a duty not to kill you. The right to liberty means others have a duty not to imprison or enslave you.

We like to think of “rights' as something WE have, but they are really something other people have: a duty to respect our so-called rights.

What does this have to do with Kipling? Kipling repeatedly scorns “rights”, and emphasizes duty. I think that this – more than his affiliation with the Raj – that confuses and disappoints modern readers.

In “Private Honor” Ortheris gets in a fist fight with an officer who hit him.

‘It was your right to get him cashiered if you chose,’ I insisted.

‘My right!’ Ortheris answered with deep scorn. ‘My right! I ain’t a recruity to go whinin’ about my rights to this an’ my rights to that, just as if I couldn’t look after myself. My rights! ’Strewth A’mighty! I’m a man.’

In the poem ”That Day” about a military disaster a verse near the end reads:

We was rotten ’fore we started—we was never disciplined;
        25
  We made it out a favour if an order was obeyed.

Yes, every little drummer ’ad ’is rights an’ wrongs to mind,

  So we had to pay for teachin’—an’ we paid!

For Kipling, emphasizing “rights' is for whiners, emphasizing duty – duty for which one must be trained and prepared – is for men (no apologies to the women, of course).

This is not brand new – it is an important facet of chivalry. But in literature, before Kipling, professional life was limited to battles and adventures. Kipling brought us into the barracks and the City Rooms. Even Mowgli must be initiated into the Law of the Jungle, and the duties of the Pack.

“Rights”, says Kipling, are for whiny recruits who need to be taught a lesson. Duty. Perhaps it is a lesson modern readers don't want to learn.

Rudyard Kipling was a British pro war propagandist during WW1 who ironically got to experience his own only son dying on the Western Front of that war and the body was never recovered.

For being pro war during a nonsensical useless mindless war such as WW1 turned out to be, he is a shame and embarrassment on society and on history.

Just wanted you to know that. Your positive ad hom versus my negative one thus cancel out.

You can now proceed with your more logical philosophical analysis, sans emotion, sil vous plait. After all, this is a philosophy forum and not the Sunday morning editorials of the local newspaper.

[h_k_s]

Few famous poets, novelists and short story writers have felt the scorn of time more than Rudyard Kipling. He is reviled for his moral failures and for being the “poet of Empire”.

There's more than a grain of truth in these complaints, but Kipling (who was, after all, a Nobel Prize winner) was the poet of profession more than of Empire. His stories are about gaining entry into the various exclusive clubs of professionalism, and soldiers, sailors, railway workers, and journalists go through initiation after initiation.

Now rights and duties are clearly flip sides of the same coin. The right to life simply states that other people have a duty not to kill you. The right to liberty means others have a duty not to imprison or enslave you.

We like to think of “rights' as something WE have, but they are really something other people have: a duty to respect our so-called rights.

What does this have to do with Kipling? Kipling repeatedly scorns “rights”, and emphasizes duty. I think that this – more than his affiliation with the Raj – that confuses and disappoints modern readers.

In “Private Honor” Ortheris gets in a fist fight with an officer who hit him.

‘It was your right to get him cashiered if you chose,’ I insisted.

‘My right!’ Ortheris answered with deep scorn. ‘My right! I ain’t a recruity to go whinin’ about my rights to this an’ my rights to that, just as if I couldn’t look after myself. My rights! ’Strewth A’mighty! I’m a man.’

In the poem ”That Day” about a military disaster a verse near the end reads:

We was rotten ’fore we started—we was never disciplined;
        25
  We made it out a favour if an order was obeyed.

Yes, every little drummer ’ad ’is rights an’ wrongs to mind,

  So we had to pay for teachin’—an’ we paid!

For Kipling, emphasizing “rights' is for whiners, emphasizing duty – duty for which one must be trained and prepared – is for men (no apologies to the women, of course).

This is not brand new – it is an important facet of chivalry. But in literature, before Kipling, professional life was limited to battles and adventures. Kipling brought us into the barracks and the City Rooms. Even Mowgli must be initiated into the Law of the Jungle, and the duties of the Pack.

“Rights”, says Kipling, are for whiny recruits who need to be taught a lesson. Duty. Perhaps it is a lesson modern readers don't want to learn.

The concept of rights originates in philosophy, specifically political philosophy, with John Locke.

We learned about John Locke in high school and middle school in social studies and history.

Hopefully you learned about him too, and then it rang a bell for you when his name got mentioned in your first philosophy history class. Did it? Do you remember that moment?

[Ecurb]

Here in the U.S. everyone learned about John Locke because of his influence on the Declaration of Independence. We learned less (back when I went to school) about Sally Hemmings, her children, and her parents. Did you know she appears to have been Thomas Jefferson's dead wife's half sister? Jefferson's father in law also had a slave mistress who bore his daughter, Sally Hemmings.

Since I never took any philosophy history courses, I never heard Locke's name mentioned in any of them.

[Angel Trismegistus]

The concept of rights originates in philosophy, specifically political philosophy, with John Locke.

We learned about John Locke in high school and middle school in social studies and history.

Hopefully you learned about him too, and then it rang a bell for you when his name got mentioned in your first philosophy history class. Did it? Do you remember that moment?

Do you mean to say that the concept of rights originates in Locke or do you mean to say that the concept of rights with the most influence on Western political institution is Locke's? I mean, was there no concept of rights before Locke? In Hobbes perhaps? And even before Hobbes perhaps?

[Steve3007]

It's jingoistic.

It's strange how "If" is so often seen as jingoistic. The last line is sometimes even misquoted as "you’ll be an Englishman, my son!" or something similar, to make it jingoistic. It isn't jingoistic any more than the songs "My Way" or "Je Ne Regrette Rien" are. But the kinds of personal character traits celebrated by these kinds of songs and poems are often associated with nationalism.

[Sculptor1]

Few famous poets, novelists and short story writers have felt the scorn of time more than Rudyard Kipling. He is reviled for his moral failures and for being the “poet of Empire”.

There's more than a grain of truth in these complaints, but Kipling (who was, after all, a Nobel Prize winner) was the poet of profession more than of Empire. His stories are about gaining entry into the various exclusive clubs of professionalism, and soldiers, sailors, railway workers, and journalists go through initiation after initiation.

Now rights and duties are clearly flip sides of the same coin. The right to life simply states that other people have a duty not to kill you. The right to liberty means others have a duty not to imprison or enslave you.

We like to think of “rights' as something WE have, but they are really something other people have: a duty to respect our so-called rights.

What does this have to do with Kipling? Kipling repeatedly scorns “rights”, and emphasizes duty. I think that this – more than his affiliation with the Raj – that confuses and disappoints modern readers.

In “Private Honor” Ortheris gets in a fist fight with an officer who hit him.

‘It was your right to get him cashiered if you chose,’ I insisted.

‘My right!’ Ortheris answered with deep scorn. ‘My right! I ain’t a recruity to go whinin’ about my rights to this an’ my rights to that, just as if I couldn’t look after myself. My rights! ’Strewth A’mighty! I’m a man.’

In the poem ”That Day” about a military disaster a verse near the end reads:

We was rotten ’fore we started—we was never disciplined;
        25
  We made it out a favour if an order was obeyed.

Yes, every little drummer ’ad ’is rights an’ wrongs to mind,

  So we had to pay for teachin’—an’ we paid!

For Kipling, emphasizing “rights' is for whiners, emphasizing duty – duty for which one must be trained and prepared – is for men (no apologies to the women, of course).

This is not brand new – it is an important facet of chivalry. But in literature, before Kipling, professional life was limited to battles and adventures. Kipling brought us into the barracks and the City Rooms. Even Mowgli must be initiated into the Law of the Jungle, and the duties of the Pack.

“Rights”, says Kipling, are for whiny recruits who need to be taught a lesson. Duty. Perhaps it is a lesson modern readers don't want to learn.

Did he ever mention the duties imposed upon and the rights taken away by the millions of Indians that the imperial powers forced upon India and across the globe?

White man's burden - what a croc of sh1t.

[Ecurb]

It's strange how "If" is so often seen as jingoistic. The last line is sometimes even misquoted as "you’ll be an Englishman, my son!" or something similar, to make it jingoistic. It isn't jingoistic any more than the songs "My Way" or "Je Ne Regrette Rien" are. But the kinds of personal character traits celebrated by these kinds of songs and poems are often associated with nationalism.

"Jingoistic" isn't quite the right word. I agree. I think your comparison with "My Way" is apt. That song expresses American's infatuation with individualism -- the "each and every byway" through which Sinatra has travelled is less important to him than that he "did it my way". The music, like the lyrics, swells in a sort of maudlin paeon to doing things My Way (which in Franks case apparently included bullying and profiting from Mafia connections). So, like "If', "My Way" does express some sort of jingoistic patriotism toward national ideals, but that's not the essence of either.

"If" is (if not jingoistic) a little trite and sappy. I don't want to be too critical: both "If" and "My Way" are well worth reading or listening to. It's interesting, however, that "My Way" became Sinatra's signature song, when he sang many superior to it, and "If" became Kipling's signature poem, when he wrote many better.

Sculptor

Did he ever mention the duties imposed upon and the rights taken away by the millions of Indians that the imperial powers forced upon India and across the globe?

Well, yes he did. Over and over and over again. Haven't you read "Gunga Din", or "Without Benefit of Clergy", or any one of dozens of other poems or stories?

Kipling gets blamed for supporting "The White Man's Burden" , and I don't know much about his political opinions (although I did know about his support for WW1 and his change of opinion after his son's death). In his most famous novel , "Kim", the blame is justified. In much of his other poetry and fiction, I don't really see it. Gunga Din dies heroically in the service of the British Army, doing his duty. This is consistent with Kipling's support for duty instead of rights, which he seems to hold without respect to race and nationality.

By the way, I'm not suggesting that I agree with Kipling. Heaven forfend! I'm like the whiny recruit who loves his rights (although, of course, I always hope to do my duty, when I know what it is).

[Sculptor1]

Kipling gets blamed for supporting "The White Man's Burden" , and I don't know much about his political opinions (although I did know about his support for WW1 and his change of opinion after his son's death). In his most famous novel , "Kim", the blame is justified.

White Man's Burden was his absurd idea. You should read the poem.
As for his son. Kipling was exaclty the whiny little rights moaner that he so decried.

His life proves how easy it is for a newspaper hack to lead thousands of young boys to their deaths, whilst he sat on the sidelines in his office in safety. Offering the world jingoistic poetry in safety is hypocritical.
When his own son spurned on by his father's patriotic fervour joined up to die in the trenches, you have to ask if Kipling ever took responsibility for his propaganda?
His son had to pay for Kiplings folly.

[Ecurb]

I just read "White Man's Burden". Its message is morally reprehensible, but it demonstrates Kipling's jingoistic skill with words.

Here's the poem Kipling wrote about his son's death, which, once again, emphasizes duty over rights:

My Boy Jack (1916)

Have you news of my boy Jack?'
Not this tide.
'When d'you think that he'll come back?'
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.

'Has any one else had word of him?'
Not this tide.
For what is sunk will hardly swim,
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.

'Oh, dear, what comfort can I find?'
None this tide,
Nor any tide,
Except he did not shame his kind -
Not even with that wind blowing, and that tide.

Then hold your head up all the more,
This tide,
And every tide;
Because he was the son you bore,
And gave to that wind blowing and that tide!

[Sculptor1]

I just read "White Man's Burden". Its message is morally reprehensible, but it demonstrates Kipling's jingoistic skill with words.

Here's the poem Kipling wrote about his son's death, which, once again, emphasizes duty over rights:

My Boy Jack (1916)

Have you news of my boy Jack?'
Not this tide.
'When d'you think that he'll come back?'
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.

'Has any one else had word of him?'
Not this tide.
For what is sunk will hardly swim,
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.

'Oh, dear, what comfort can I find?'
None this tide,
Nor any tide,
Except he did not shame his kind -
Not even with that wind blowing, and that tide.

Then hold your head up all the more,
This tide,
And every tide;
Because he was the son you bore,
And gave to that wind blowing and that tide!

Kipling was an utter hypocrite.
He was paid by the government in WW1 to write propoganda to lure young boys to their deaths.
Worst still, although Jack was deemed unfit, and twice rejected, for service. Kipling used his influnce to get his son a commission in the Irish Guards desite his poor eyesight.
So he contributed to his son's death in multiple ways.

[Ecurb]

I don't get it. How was Kipling a "hypocrite" for supporting the war effort and also bemoaning his son's death.? He contributed to his son's death, he felt badly about it, he changed his mind about the conduct of the War, but he remained supportive of the British war effort and I don't see hypocrosy. Maybe you know something I don't (as you did with the poem).