We can; except to say, firstly, that you didn't tackle my challenge at all, and secondly to observe that you denied my interpretation by giving your own whimsical interpretation of an already whimsical text. That is, you say of my position "it doesn't say that in the poem", and then, to prove it, you say things that aren't in the poem.This is how I approach the poem and why I interpret it in the way I do. Can we leave it at that?
Now, for me this isn't a problem. My central point is that the 'poem' is vague and useless. But it will assist you in future debate if you recognise the double standard of allowing to yourself interpretive caprice, but denying a sensible or literal use of it to others. If it wasn't for your reluctance to continue (and I can't blame you), your lit crit is easily discredited. The more you widen the context the more ammunition you provide. I'm spoilt for choice. (We are the way and the wayfarer but not the stumbling stone? But the stumbling stone is part of the way, is it not? So part of us? But not all of us stumble? Why not? Are we different ways or different wayfarers? Or both? But if we are, the stumbling stone is different. Argh. We could go on. The simple fact that you find definite meaning in 'we are the way and the wayfarer' - and that something so vague and impossible always means what you want it to - is breathtaking)
This has been a tiring one, and a break is probably due, as you say. However, I'll take the implied challenge and, when I get chance, I will post a new topic interpreting that entire chapter (or sufficient context).
Your suggestion, that a punishment is only justified if the person to be punished accepts it, is based on a mountain of wild assumption (and makes it in everyone's interest to deny guilt to avoid punishment). But let's pretend it is a sensible position. You still have problems: society has not accepted guilt for any punishment or 'retribution' from the 'hardened criminal', so as such it is an unjustified 'attack' on society, and society is permitted to lash out in the way the criminal does. The criminal must see that society cannot wrong him without his own secret will. The worst and best of society is within him too. He should seek to understand society and get it to think differently. And if he can get society to think differently, there will be no need for retribution. But our poor criminal doesn't do this, does he?..So for you, conscience is enough 'punishment' to prevent you from committing crimes. In which case, this discussion is not about you but about those 'some people'.In that case, in order to find effective ways to 'suppress their iniquity', we need to understand how they think, not how we think.
If we are already full of guilt, then we will see punishment as punishment - we may even welcome it as a way of expiating our internal feelings of shame and guilt. But if we don't feel guilty, then we will not experience punishment as such - it will instead be an unjustified assault - something that makes us want to get our own back. I would suggest that the phrase 'hardened criminal' is a description of somebody locked into a cycle of 'eye for an eye' retribution against society.
So I see this as a purely practical matter. Few people think of themselves as bad - they would say they act the ways they do because they think they have no choice, or because life is like that. Until we can get them to think differently, then we cannot 'punish' them, only attack them. (And if we can get them to think differently, then there will be no need to punish them.)
Society promises a punishment for anyone who commits a crime. The criminal (you claim) in some way feels wronged by society: instead of trying to understand why society works the way it does and convince it of its wrongs, the criminal attacks it unjustly (society hasn't admitted guilt). Now when society carries through the punishment it promised, the criminal complains: "but you haven't tried to understand me and change my mind!"
Do you see the problem here? So many regresses. So many hazy assumptions. So many double standards. So little substance.
I agree with you that society should attempt to arrange itself so that it does not create the criminals it must then deal with. But Gibran doesn't get you to that destination safely. He is too vague. Too open-ended. It is open to abuse. There are better ways to argue for your goal.
