The first verse is an attack on FDR's assertion that there is nothing to fear but fear itself. Neil Peart has some rhetorical answers.
It talks about how those who try to control us/ make demands of us come up with forms of "jut knowing" so that we have to surrender our minds to them, live in fear of the unknown, and just succumb:
"He's not afraid of your judgement
He knows of horrors worse than your Hell
He's a little bit afraid of dying --
But he's a lot more afraid of your lying"
When he says "Can any part of life be larger than life," he is specifically attacking God/faith/all forms of mysticism. This is clear if you are familiar with Peart's philosophy.
The final stanza is perhaps the most pregnant with meaning:
"Like a steely blade in a silken sheath
We don't see what they're made of
They shout about love, but when push comes to shove
They live for the things they're afraid of"
The religious who offer us their philosophy come up with convoluted systems that amount to not much more than baseless claims (Kant's noumenal/phenomenal dichotemy, or the threat of hell, perhaps?)
They shout about love (preach goodwill, kindness, self-sacrifice/immolation, "taking up a cross," "dying to be born into eternal life"). But when push comes to shove, they literally live for the things they're afraid of, namely the groundless claim that you will burn in hell. This is the "weapon" with which others hold against you to sacrifice your own mind and judgement to their irrational control over you.
Finally, when Peart says "the knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them," he is encouraging you to fight back with your own certainty and rational judgement and to hold them accountable for their unfounded assertions. True knowledge is what can be used against them, because behind the curtain, they are intellectually bankrupt.
Those familiar with Peart's philosophy know where I came from with this one, and it makes perfect sense. So, no, I don't think I took it too far. I believe this is exactly what the intended meaning was and is.
PapaSmurf is SPOT ON. I was a little disheartened when I read all the posts before it that so many did not get it. Notice too that all of the opening lines are questions -- rhetorical "answers" as Papa points out.
PapaSmurf is SPOT ON. I was a little disheartened when I read all the posts before it that so many did not get it. Notice too that all of the opening lines are questions -- rhetorical "answers" as Papa points out.
Neil is unloading a "sermon" of his own -- a pretty righteous and intellectually sound one too -- which can not be said for the subjects he is dealing with in this masterpiece. This theme can be found in quite a number of their songs.
Neil is unloading a "sermon" of his own -- a pretty righteous and intellectually sound one too -- which can not be said for the subjects he is dealing with in this masterpiece. This theme can be found in quite a number of their songs.
Anyway, thanks Papa for setting the record straight.
Anyway, thanks Papa for setting the record straight.
The first verse is an attack on FDR's assertion that there is nothing to fear but fear itself. Neil Peart has some rhetorical answers.
It talks about how those who try to control us/ make demands of us come up with forms of "jut knowing" so that we have to surrender our minds to them, live in fear of the unknown, and just succumb:
"He's not afraid of your judgement He knows of horrors worse than your Hell He's a little bit afraid of dying -- But he's a lot more afraid of your lying"
When he says "Can any part of life be larger than life," he is specifically attacking God/faith/all forms of mysticism. This is clear if you are familiar with Peart's philosophy.
The final stanza is perhaps the most pregnant with meaning:
"Like a steely blade in a silken sheath We don't see what they're made of They shout about love, but when push comes to shove They live for the things they're afraid of"
The religious who offer us their philosophy come up with convoluted systems that amount to not much more than baseless claims (Kant's noumenal/phenomenal dichotemy, or the threat of hell, perhaps?)
They shout about love (preach goodwill, kindness, self-sacrifice/immolation, "taking up a cross," "dying to be born into eternal life"). But when push comes to shove, they literally live for the things they're afraid of, namely the groundless claim that you will burn in hell. This is the "weapon" with which others hold against you to sacrifice your own mind and judgement to their irrational control over you.
Finally, when Peart says "the knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them," he is encouraging you to fight back with your own certainty and rational judgement and to hold them accountable for their unfounded assertions. True knowledge is what can be used against them, because behind the curtain, they are intellectually bankrupt.
Those familiar with Peart's philosophy know where I came from with this one, and it makes perfect sense. So, no, I don't think I took it too far. I believe this is exactly what the intended meaning was and is.
PapaSmurf is SPOT ON. I was a little disheartened when I read all the posts before it that so many did not get it. Notice too that all of the opening lines are questions -- rhetorical "answers" as Papa points out.
PapaSmurf is SPOT ON. I was a little disheartened when I read all the posts before it that so many did not get it. Notice too that all of the opening lines are questions -- rhetorical "answers" as Papa points out.
Neil is unloading a "sermon" of his own -- a pretty righteous and intellectually sound one too -- which can not be said for the subjects he is dealing with in this masterpiece. This theme can be found in quite a number of their songs.
Neil is unloading a "sermon" of his own -- a pretty righteous and intellectually sound one too -- which can not be said for the subjects he is dealing with in this masterpiece. This theme can be found in quite a number of their songs.
Anyway, thanks Papa for setting the record straight.
Anyway, thanks Papa for setting the record straight.
I hate to use the phrase (sort of) ... but ... AMEN! Spot on, my friend. +1
I hate to use the phrase (sort of) ... but ... AMEN! Spot on, my friend. +1