This is the topic: The opening strophe of Holderlin’s Mnemosyne (Second Version) reads:

Ein Zeichan sind wir, deutingslos Schmerzlos sind wir und haben fast Die Sprache in der Fremde verloren.

The essay will be based on the poems ka and it should be about what do you think of the poems and how the two words (I bolded it out below) mean if you agree or disagree with the statement on the essay topic ka.

The writer of the poem name Friedrich Holderlln and maybe you can also write about his philosophy and understanding of the world then link it to the poem, the two main words, then link to your thought on the topic (presented below)

Anymore question let me know! It would be great if I can have it by next monday! (that’s when it due)

If you need more references or sources let me know

Poems
Ein Zeichan sind wir, deutingslos Schmerzlos sind wir und haben fast Die Sprache in der Fremde verloren.

TRANSLATED:
A sign we are, without meaning without pain we are and have nearly lost our language in the foreign.

In defining human nature Holderlin employs two megatively charged adjectives in direct sequence: ‘deutungslos’ (meaningless, without pointing, without interpretation) and ‘schmerloz’ (painless, without distress, indolent).

How do you read these paired designations, and how does the near loss if language relate to meaninglessness and painlessness? What are the implications for our understanding of the human condition? Can these lines be read as describing a certain kind of madness? Or do they somehow address a resistance to an imminent sense of madness?

TRANSLATED:
A sign we are, without meaning without pain we are and have nearly lost our language in the foreign.

In defining himan nature Holderlin employs two megatively charged adjectives in direct sequence: ‘deutungslos’ (meaningless, without pointing, without interpretation) and ‘schmerloz’ (painless, without distress, indolent). How do you read these paired designations, and how does tge near loss if language relate to meaninglessness and painlessness? What are the implications for our understanding of the human condition? Can these lines be read as describing a certain kind of madness? Or do they somehow address a resistance to an imminent sense of madness?