Oh Divine Poetry Essay Research Paper Oh

Oh, Divine Poetry Essay, Research Paper

Oh, Divine Poetry In his Republic, Plato seems to condemn art, especially written art, as evil and does not allow its presence in his ideal polis. Plato writes that art has the power to corrupt and teach its audience ignoble ways. He writes that it can only ever be an imitation of reality and thus is far from the true and the ‘Good’. Interestingly, however, in his Phaedrus, Plato seems to speak opposite this view of art as evil. In fact, he proclaims inspiration by the Muses divine – actually closer to God and closer to the ‘Good’. Keeping this seeming contradiction in mind while rereading the Republic, one might develop a different interpretation of Plato’s philosophy towards art, and specifically, to the written art of poetry. Plato seems to decry the misreading of art, not the art itself. Plato’s objections towards art seem to spring from his belief that most people are unable to read art deeply enough or to understand it fully. His rejection of art in a perfect polis comes from this belief and not from a sincere condemnation of art. One of the main difficulties in accepting Plato’s antagonistic view towards the written art is his own aptitude for it. Of course one need not cherish all one is good at but then there is the problematic sprinkling of Homeric quotes throughout the work – Plato using them as evidence of his arguments or rhetoric to illustrate his points. Plato confesses his own weakness for the written word but is quick to point out that pleasure and beauty are less important than the truth. [T]he love and respect I’ve always had from a boy for Homer makes me hesitate -for I think he’s the original master and guide of all the great tragic poets. But one must not respect an individual more than the truth. (X, 595c) Having mentioned truth, perhaps we ought to first consider Plato’s views on truth. As a moralist, Plato’s primary goal as a philosopher was to discover the best way to live. Therefore, whatever role art may play in Plato’s philosophy, it is considered only as far as it will add to or detract from the best way to live. Plato felt that if everyone lived life in search of truth, otherwise known as the ‘Good’, then everyone would be living the best possible life. Within Plato’s philosophy of forms, reality itself is merely a poor imitation of the ‘Good’. Therefore, art, being an imitation of what is already only imitation, must only draw one further from the ‘Good’. “[T]he dramatic poet . . . . encourag[es] the unreasoning part of [the mind of the individual] . . . . by creating images far removed from the truth” (X, 605c). Really, however, to strive towards the ‘Good’ is to try to understand the world and then transcend it, level by level, until the ultimate ‘Good’ is reached. Once the ‘Good’ is reached, one sees that it is simple and pure, but the slow, blind climb of one seeking the ‘Good’ is arduous and complicated. In the cave allegory, for instance, there are different levels of comprehension inside the cave and then a separate level occupied by the very few who have enough understanding to emerge, rubbing their eyes, into the real and the good. To emerge from the cave, however, is a difficult end to reach. Plato prescribes understanding all in the world around us as the way towards understanding the ‘Good’. Mere ignorance of evil is not the ‘Good’. Understanding all, both the pure and the sullied, is the way to the ‘Good’. [It is not] until we can recognize the qualities of discipline, courage, generosity, greatness of mind, and others akin to them, as well as their opposites, in all their many manifestations . . . . [w]e must be able to perceive both the qualities themselves wherever they occur and representations of them. (III, 402d) [italics mine] Art can, in fact, help one to understand the world; it can help lead one out of the cave. Plato himself employs art to try and guide others towards the ‘Good’. He, himself, wrote art, in the form of dialogues, for others to discover through it a clearer understanding of the world and how best to live. There is, however, a difference between good art and bad art. Bad art can only lead to bad ways while good art, if comprehended correctly, might lead to good ways. Bad art is primarily the art of ignorance. “[A] good poet must, if he’s to write well, know all about his subject, otherwise he can’t write about it” (X, 598e). The danger of bad art, or even the misinterpretation of good art, which I will address later on, is its poor influence on its audience. Art carries with it a certain air of authority, possibly acquired through the masterful manipulation of artists. “[A] stick will look bent if you put it in water, straight when you take it out . . . our minds are clearly liable to all sorts of confusions of this kind. It is this natural weakness of ours that [artists] exploit with magical effect” (X, 602d). As a result, people often relate whole-heartedly with characters or dogmas expressed in art. It can therefore be dangerous to portray wrong- doing in artwork because people might emulate these actions or thus excuse their own behavior. “[T]hose who hear [that gods do wicked things] will be lenient towards their own shortcomings” (III, 391e). There are moments, however, when Plato outrightly praises good art, and it is these praises that call for a different interpretation of Plato’s views on a whole. It is doubtful that as thorough or as deep a thinker as Plato did not