What are the ‘tokens’ that the poet says he may have dropped long ago, and which the animals have kept for him? Discuss this in class.(Hint: Whitman belongs to the Romantic tradition that includes Rousseau and Wordsworth, which holds that civilisation has made humans false to their own true nature. What could be the basic aspects of our nature as living beings that humans choose to ignore or deny?

Open in App

Solution

The token that the poet says he might have dropped long ago, and which the animals have kept for him, is his true nature as a human. While humans came close to civilisation, they gradually moved away from their true nature. The natural instincts that humans had and the innocence with which they lived and helped each other have been left behind somewhere. As they got near civilisation, they chose to leave behind the virtues of kindness, sincerity, unselfishness, joy, satisfaction, respectability, and sharing. They took to vices such as greed, selfishness, desire to capture everything, and other suchinhuman characteristics. Animals have carried forward the real instincts and characteristics, which the poet looks at and tries to remember where he had negligently lost his true nature.

Suggest Corrections

Similar questions

The nub of the restorationist critique of preservationist is the claim that it rests on an unhealthy dualism that conceives nature and humankind as radically distinct and opposed to each other. Dissatisfaction with dualism has for some time figured prominently in the unhappiness of environmentalists with mainstream industrial society, as in the writings of Carolyn Merchant and Theodore Roszak. However, the writings of the restorationists themselves— particularly, William Jordan and Frederick Turner—offer little evidence to support this indictment. In their view, preservationists are imbued with the same basic mind-set as the industrial mainstream, the only difference being that the latter exalts humans over nature while the former elevates nature over humans. While it is perhaps puzzling that Jordan and Turner do not see that there is no logic that requires dualism as a philosophical underpinning for preservation, more puzzling is the sharpness and relentlessness of their attack on preservationists, accentuated by the fact that they offer little, if any, criticism of those who have plundered the natural world.

The crucial question, however, about the restorationist outlook has to do with the degree to which the restorationist program is itself faithful to the first principle of restoration: that nature and humanity are fundamentally united rather than separate. Rejecting the old domination model, which sees humans as over nature, restoration theory champions a model of community participation. Yet some of the descriptions that Jordan and Turner give of what restorationists are actually up to—for example, Turner's description of humans as "the lords of creation," or Jordan's statement that "the fate and well being of the biosphere depend ultimately on us and our relationship with it"—do not cohere well with the community participation model. Another holistic model—namely, that of nature as an organism—might be more serviceable to the restorationists. As with the community model, the "organic" model pictures nature as a system of interconnected parts. A fundamental difference, however, is that in an organism the parts are wholly subservient to the life of the organism. If we could think of the biosphere as a single living organism and could identify humans with the brain (or the DNA), or control center, we would have a model that more closely fits the restorationists' view.

However, to consider humans as the control center of the living earth is to ascribe to them a dominating role in nature. Is this significantly different from the old- fashioned domination model? In both systems humans hold the place of highest authority and power in the world. Also, neither view recognizes any limits to the scope and range of legitimate human manipulation in the world. This does not mean that there are no constraints; only beneficial manipulation should be undertaken. But it does not mean that nothing is off-limits. A further parallel is that, because the fate of the world rests on humans, they must have a clear idea of what needs to be done.

Q. Which of the following best expresses the author's primary criticism of the restorationists?

Read the passage to answer the question:
The nub of the restorationist critique of preservationism is the claim that it rests on an unhealthy dualism that conceives nature and humankind as radically distinct and opposed to each other. Dissatisfaction with dualism has for some time figured prominently in the unhappiness of environmentalists with mainstream industrial society, as in the writings of Carolyn Merchant and Theodore Roszak. However, the writings of the restorationists themselves— particularly, William Jordan and Frederick Turner—offer little evidence to support this indictment. In their view,preservationists are imbued with the same basic mind-set as the industrial mainstream, the only difference being that the latter exalts humans over nature while the former elevates nature over humans. While it is perhaps puzzling that Jordan and Turner do not see that there is no logic that requires dualism as a philosophical underpinning for preservation, more puzzling is the sharpness and relentlessness of their attack on preservationists, accentuated by the fact that they offer little, if any, criticism of those who have plundered the natural world.

The crucial question, however, about the restorationist outlook has to do with the degree to which the restorationist program is itself faithful to the first principle of restoration: that nature and humanity are fundamentally united rather than separate. Rejecting the old domination model, which sees humans as over nature, restoration theory champions a model of community participation. Yet some of the descriptions that Jordan and Turner give of what restorationists are actually up to—for example, Turner's description of humans as "the lords of creation," or Jordan's statement that "the fate and well being of the biosphere depend ultimately on us and our relationship with it"—do not cohere well with the community participation model.Another holistic model—namely, that of nature as an organism—might be more serviceable to the restorationists. As with the community model, the "organic" model pictures nature as a system of interconnected parts. A fundamental difference, however, is that in an organism the parts are wholly subservient to the life of the organism. If we could think of the biosphere as a single living organism and could identify humans with the brain (or the DNA), or control center, we would have a model that more closely fits the restorationists' view.

... However, to consider humans as the control center of the living earth is to ascribe to them a dominating role in nature. Is this significantly different from the old- fashioned domination model? In both systems humans hold the place of highest authority and power in the world. Also, neither view recognizes any limits to the scope and range of legitimate human manipulation in the world. This does not mean that there are no constraints; only beneficial manipulation should be undertaken. But it does not mean that nothing is off-limits. A further parallel is that, because the fate of the world rests on humans, they must have a clear idea of what needs to be done.

The author of the passage would probably agree that preservationists:

The crucial question, however, about the restorationist outlook has to do with the degree to which the restorationist program is itself faithful to the first principle of restoration: that nature and humanity are fundamentally united rather than separate. Rejecting the old domination model, which sees humans as over nature, restoration theory champions a model of community participation. Yet some of the descriptions that Jordan and Turner give of what restorationists are actually up to—for example, Turner's description of humans as "the lords of creation," or Jordan's statement that "the fate and well being of the biosphere depend ultimately on us and our relationship with it"—do not cohere well with the community participation model.Another holistic model—namely, that of nature as an organism—might be more serviceable to the restorationists. As with the community model, the "organic" model pictures nature as a system of interconnected parts. A fundamental difference, however, is that in an organism the parts are wholly subservient to the life of the organism. If we could think of the biosphere as a single living organism and could identify humans with the brain (or the DNA), or control center, we would have a model that more closely fits the restorationists' view.

Which of the following models would the author most likely agree is least like the other models listed below?

Q. The question of what rights animals should enjoy is a vexatious one. Hundreds of millions of animals are put to death for human use each year. It can be argued that slowing down scientific research would retard discovery of antidotes to diseases such as cancer which kill humans and animals alike (……) What if super intelligent beings from Alpha Centuar landed on earth and decided to use us for their experiments, arguing that they could save far more of their and our lives by doing so?

Join BYJU'S Learning Program