Ramsey's Reliance on "Nonsense"

In chapter VIII Mr. Ramsey considers the fleeting nature of human presence and unavoidability of human ignorance. While weighing these lofty ideas in his mind, he is guiltily lead off topic to consider the “trifles” of his own life that give him genuine happiness. The narration begins to list off the many seemingly trivial sources of this happiness: “he had his wife; he had his children; he had promised in six weeks’ time to talk ‘some nonsense’ to the young men...all had to be deprecated and concealed under the phrase ‘talk nonsense,’ because, in effect, he had not done the thing he might have done” (44-45). Mr. Ramsey’s reliance upon this concealment leads to a questioning of his character: whether the criticisms of William Bankes and Lily Briscoe are properly founded. The OED provides two primary definitions for “nonsense” and suggests that both have existed concomitantly with little historical precedence given to one or the other. “Nonsense” can be defined as either that which is lacking sense or absurd; or as foolishness, silliness, lacking proper behavior. Thus Mr. Ramsey’s use of “nonsense” may either instill the reader with a sense of pity, insofar as Ramsey is unable to reconcile his philosophical life with his corporeal life and is forced to rely on the deprecation of his philosophy, or merely as William and Lily see him as too “timid in life” to do “the thing he might have done”. The former reading is undoubtedly the more generous, as the narration presents him as an eminent philosopher that is just short of greatness. Perhaps it is his unavoidable reversion to the absurd form of “nonsense” that both enables him his familial happiness and hinders his advancement in thought. If, however, “nonsense” is read as silliness or foolishness, then Ramsey is no longer foregoing what he may indeed have been capable of for the appreciation of his family, but is rather mentally unequipped to deal with the unconcealed “all”.