Reply to comment

I am loving Leaves of Grass.  I feel like it is just so true.  Other books we have read in this class have been so determined to prove a point that they almost force you to be on the lookout for mistakes and fallacies in logic, however Leaves of Grass doesn't try to prove something, Whitman is simply telling the reader his interpretation of life and its wonders.  It occured to me that Darwin, Dennet and Whitman are all talking about the meaning of life and the realities of life, yet in such different ways.  With Whitman however, I don't feel defensive or combative, even though he doesn't really offer up concrete proof besides his own somewhat vague experiences and beliefs.  Whitman might be the ultimate non-foundationalist because he doesn't try to base his experiences and beliefs in any one structured way of thinking.  Instead, he seems to take life as it comes at him and experience it with no thought of how he should be experiencing it, only with whatever emotions and feelings come to him at the time.  This idea also relates to "Against Interpretation" in the sense that it discourages analyzation (and especially over-analyzation).  Although the article doesn't seem practicle or possible to me, somehow Whitman seems to make it work.