Plato and Aristotle
For this essay I am going to to discuss Plato and Aristotle's approach to what literature or art represents, should represent and what this representation leads to. I will take the first two of these three questions and answer them from the perspective of both thinkers and then conclude with an answer to the third question from the perspective of today.
Plato argues that literature and art take us away from the truth and further into a world of deception and illusion. The basis of his argument is founded on a conception that there is a seemingly separate world of immutable and timeless ideas called Forms, organised beneath the Form of Good. Plato says that all art and literature are merely copies (mimesis) of the Forms. Direct access to the Forms is only available through intense philosophical discussion and thought rather than through the senses. Aristotle, on the other hand, rejects Plato's idea of Forms altogether and, instead, works from induction. Unlike Plato, instead of inventing a theory and then trying to fit the rest of his thinking around that theory, Aristotle looks at what is already in the world by studying its component parts through differentiation and classification. As such he is credited with inventing the scientific method of analysis.
In terms of what both men think art and literature should represent, their comments on poetry help to reveal that direction. Plato considers poetry a divine madness and not art. Poetry is not a craft that can be taught and learned. It is a copy of a copy. The poet does not access the world of Forms but looks at the mutable real world and copies those objects. The objects in the real world, according to Plato, are copies of the timeless Ideas or Forms. As such the poet is leading us further away from true understanding of the Forms and should therefore be persecuted. As before, Aristotle argues the opposite, advising us that poetry is indeed a craft. Aristotle does make similar distinctions to Plato within his own realm of thinking though, describing how objects in the real world do need to be distinguished from those that are natural, such as a tree, and those that are humanely made, such as a table. It is from this conception that he is able to class poetry as a craft (the Greek word for poetry is based on the verb "to make"). A further differentiation between Plato and Aristotle on poetry is Aristotle's view that poetry is a source of universal knowledge of human behaviour. Poetry gives these universal human behaviours an outlet as oppose to something such as history, that deals in specifics, and therefore does not. Most importantly, according to Aristotle, poetry allows catharsis of human emotion, a positive effect for its audience.
As with Aristotle's differentiation between poetics and rhetoric it is important, in my view, at this point and before discussing what Plato and Aristotle's ideas on art and representation lead to, to keep in mind the external culture of the time around the two thinkers while they were alive and active and not just their internal thoughts. The focus on poetry and as to whether it is a good or bad thing seems to relate to the importance and prevalence of poets at the time and the view within the culture that poets were all knowing. While Aristotle doesn't overtly attack poets his focus on poetry makes sense given the culture of the time. The reasoning behind his teacher's more openly hostile attitude towards poetry also becomes clearer when attributed to an evening out of perceived political and cultural imbalances.
From today's perspective it is difficult to pin down conclusively what both thinkers' ideas are on what representation in art and literature should lead to. Firstly, taking into account the age of their texts, the likely changes in meaning through translation and especially, in Aristotle's case, the fact the second half of, for example, Poetics is completely missing means that a lot of filling in and presumption has and is taking place. Perhaps, presciently predicting this, Plato opts to use the dialogue style so that we are never certain that the words he is writing are his own thoughts or those of the names they bear. Plato's arguments don't always present a straight forward conclusion and go somewhat against his own objection to writing and how, if an author is really serious, he should not write down his best thoughts. Regardless of these objections though it is undoubtable that both Plato and Aristotle were, importantly, the first to write down some of either theirs' or their compatriots' best thoughts and the influence this recording of those thoughts has had is indisputable right up to the present day.
Plato argues that literature and art take us away from the truth and further into a world of deception and illusion. The basis of his argument is founded on a conception that there is a seemingly separate world of immutable and timeless ideas called Forms, organised beneath the Form of Good. Plato says that all art and literature are merely copies (mimesis) of the Forms. Direct access to the Forms is only available through intense philosophical discussion and thought rather than through the senses. Aristotle, on the other hand, rejects Plato's idea of Forms altogether and, instead, works from induction. Unlike Plato, instead of inventing a theory and then trying to fit the rest of his thinking around that theory, Aristotle looks at what is already in the world by studying its component parts through differentiation and classification. As such he is credited with inventing the scientific method of analysis.
In terms of what both men think art and literature should represent, their comments on poetry help to reveal that direction. Plato considers poetry a divine madness and not art. Poetry is not a craft that can be taught and learned. It is a copy of a copy. The poet does not access the world of Forms but looks at the mutable real world and copies those objects. The objects in the real world, according to Plato, are copies of the timeless Ideas or Forms. As such the poet is leading us further away from true understanding of the Forms and should therefore be persecuted. As before, Aristotle argues the opposite, advising us that poetry is indeed a craft. Aristotle does make similar distinctions to Plato within his own realm of thinking though, describing how objects in the real world do need to be distinguished from those that are natural, such as a tree, and those that are humanely made, such as a table. It is from this conception that he is able to class poetry as a craft (the Greek word for poetry is based on the verb "to make"). A further differentiation between Plato and Aristotle on poetry is Aristotle's view that poetry is a source of universal knowledge of human behaviour. Poetry gives these universal human behaviours an outlet as oppose to something such as history, that deals in specifics, and therefore does not. Most importantly, according to Aristotle, poetry allows catharsis of human emotion, a positive effect for its audience.
As with Aristotle's differentiation between poetics and rhetoric it is important, in my view, at this point and before discussing what Plato and Aristotle's ideas on art and representation lead to, to keep in mind the external culture of the time around the two thinkers while they were alive and active and not just their internal thoughts. The focus on poetry and as to whether it is a good or bad thing seems to relate to the importance and prevalence of poets at the time and the view within the culture that poets were all knowing. While Aristotle doesn't overtly attack poets his focus on poetry makes sense given the culture of the time. The reasoning behind his teacher's more openly hostile attitude towards poetry also becomes clearer when attributed to an evening out of perceived political and cultural imbalances.
From today's perspective it is difficult to pin down conclusively what both thinkers' ideas are on what representation in art and literature should lead to. Firstly, taking into account the age of their texts, the likely changes in meaning through translation and especially, in Aristotle's case, the fact the second half of, for example, Poetics is completely missing means that a lot of filling in and presumption has and is taking place. Perhaps, presciently predicting this, Plato opts to use the dialogue style so that we are never certain that the words he is writing are his own thoughts or those of the names they bear. Plato's arguments don't always present a straight forward conclusion and go somewhat against his own objection to writing and how, if an author is really serious, he should not write down his best thoughts. Regardless of these objections though it is undoubtable that both Plato and Aristotle were, importantly, the first to write down some of either theirs' or their compatriots' best thoughts and the influence this recording of those thoughts has had is indisputable right up to the present day.
Comments
Post a Comment