Part II - The Quarrel Between Philosophy and Poetry
Poetry is like a picture in words, a representation of life. However skilfully executed, it is no evidence that the poet really possessed the knowledge required for the 'right conduct of actual life'. Plato's interest was in 'right conduct'. Socrates' examination of the poets had convinced him that they worked, not with conscious intelligence, but "from inspiration, like seers and oracle-mongers who do not understand the meaning of the fine language they use "(Apology, 22B).
Plato considered the tragic poets and their master, Homer. The society was sometimes told that poets understood not only all technical matters but also about human conduct, good or bad, and about religion. To write well, a good poet, so it was said, must know his subject; otherwise, he would not write about it. Plato's contemplation about the poets' work questioned if people failed to see that it is at the third remove from reality - semblances that are easy to produce with no knowledge of the truth? Or is there something in what they say? Have the good poets a real mastery of the matters on which the public thinks they write so well? The art of representation, then, is a long way from reality, and apparently the reason why there is nothing it cannot reproduce, is that it grasps only a small part of any object, and that only in image. Prof. Kuin discussed this "seeing only a small part" in the lecture on November 15th.
Plato had questions to propose to Homer and other poets. He reasoned that when "Homer undertakes to tell us about matters of the highest importance, such as the conduct of war, statemanship, or education, we have a right to inquire into his competence. 'Dear Homer', we shall say, 'we have defined the artists as one who produces images at the third remove from reality. If your knowledge of all that concerns human excellence was really such as to raise you above him to the second rank, and you could tell what courses of conduct will make men better or worse as individuals or as citizens, can you name any country which was better governed thanks to your efforts?'
There are three arts concerned with any object - the art of using it, the art of making it, and the art of representing it. And the excellence or beauty or rightness of any implement or living creature, or action, has reference to the use for which it is made or designed by nature. It follows then, that the user must know most about the performance of the thing he uses and must report on its good or bad points to the maker.
So what about the artist? Has he either knowledge or correct belief? Does he know from direct experience of the subjects he portrays whether his representations are good and right or not? Has he even gained a correct belief by being obliged to listen to someone who does know and can tell him how something should be represented? If the artist has neither knowledge or even a correct belief about the soundness of his work, what becomes of the poet's wisdom in respect of the subjects of his poetry? It will not amount to much. And yet, he will go on with his work, without knowing in what way any of his representations is sound or unsound. Plato concluded that he must, apparently, be reproducing only what pleases the taste or wins the approval of the ignorant multitude.
If wisdom is to be gained only through knowledge of the real world of Forms disclosed by Dialectic, the claim that the poet could educate mankind to virtue was thought to be as hollow as the pretence that the artists knew all about shoemaking because he could paint a life-like picture of a shoemaker. The artist's picture is three stages removed from Plato's essential Form i.e. it is only a mirror-image of a sensible think, which itself (the mirror image) is only one embodiment (with many accidental features) of the real Form, the object of knowledge. (Prof. Kuin also mentioned this difference between Form and image as it was discussed by Aristotle, in the lecture of November 15th).
We may conclude then, said Plato, that all poetry, from Homer onwards, consists in representing a semblance of its subject, whatever it may be, including any kind of human excellence, with no grasp of the reality. The poet, knowing nothing more than how to represent appearances, can paint in words his picture of any craftsman so as to impress an audience which is equally ignorant and judges only by the form of expression. The inherent charm of metre, rhythm, and musical setting is enough to make the audience think the poet had spoken admirably about a technical subject. Strip what the poet has to say of its poetical colouring, and Plato thought what was seen was what it came to in plain prose.
The main object of attack, however, was the claim, made by sophists and professional reciters of the Homeric poems, that Homer in particular, and to a lesser degree the tragedians, were masters of all technical knowledge, and also moral and religious guides to the 'right conduct' of life. The poet, then, became the rival of the philosopher as conceived by Plato, and the study of poetry an alternative to the severe intellectual training of the Academy.
Plato considered the tragic poets and their master, Homer. The society was sometimes told that poets understood not only all technical matters but also about human conduct, good or bad, and about religion. To write well, a good poet, so it was said, must know his subject; otherwise, he would not write about it. Plato's contemplation about the poets' work questioned if people failed to see that it is at the third remove from reality - semblances that are easy to produce with no knowledge of the truth? Or is there something in what they say? Have the good poets a real mastery of the matters on which the public thinks they write so well? The art of representation, then, is a long way from reality, and apparently the reason why there is nothing it cannot reproduce, is that it grasps only a small part of any object, and that only in image. Prof. Kuin discussed this "seeing only a small part" in the lecture on November 15th.
Plato had questions to propose to Homer and other poets. He reasoned that when "Homer undertakes to tell us about matters of the highest importance, such as the conduct of war, statemanship, or education, we have a right to inquire into his competence. 'Dear Homer', we shall say, 'we have defined the artists as one who produces images at the third remove from reality. If your knowledge of all that concerns human excellence was really such as to raise you above him to the second rank, and you could tell what courses of conduct will make men better or worse as individuals or as citizens, can you name any country which was better governed thanks to your efforts?'
There are three arts concerned with any object - the art of using it, the art of making it, and the art of representing it. And the excellence or beauty or rightness of any implement or living creature, or action, has reference to the use for which it is made or designed by nature. It follows then, that the user must know most about the performance of the thing he uses and must report on its good or bad points to the maker.
So what about the artist? Has he either knowledge or correct belief? Does he know from direct experience of the subjects he portrays whether his representations are good and right or not? Has he even gained a correct belief by being obliged to listen to someone who does know and can tell him how something should be represented? If the artist has neither knowledge or even a correct belief about the soundness of his work, what becomes of the poet's wisdom in respect of the subjects of his poetry? It will not amount to much. And yet, he will go on with his work, without knowing in what way any of his representations is sound or unsound. Plato concluded that he must, apparently, be reproducing only what pleases the taste or wins the approval of the ignorant multitude.
If wisdom is to be gained only through knowledge of the real world of Forms disclosed by Dialectic, the claim that the poet could educate mankind to virtue was thought to be as hollow as the pretence that the artists knew all about shoemaking because he could paint a life-like picture of a shoemaker. The artist's picture is three stages removed from Plato's essential Form i.e. it is only a mirror-image of a sensible think, which itself (the mirror image) is only one embodiment (with many accidental features) of the real Form, the object of knowledge. (Prof. Kuin also mentioned this difference between Form and image as it was discussed by Aristotle, in the lecture of November 15th).
We may conclude then, said Plato, that all poetry, from Homer onwards, consists in representing a semblance of its subject, whatever it may be, including any kind of human excellence, with no grasp of the reality. The poet, knowing nothing more than how to represent appearances, can paint in words his picture of any craftsman so as to impress an audience which is equally ignorant and judges only by the form of expression. The inherent charm of metre, rhythm, and musical setting is enough to make the audience think the poet had spoken admirably about a technical subject. Strip what the poet has to say of its poetical colouring, and Plato thought what was seen was what it came to in plain prose.
The main object of attack, however, was the claim, made by sophists and professional reciters of the Homeric poems, that Homer in particular, and to a lesser degree the tragedians, were masters of all technical knowledge, and also moral and religious guides to the 'right conduct' of life. The poet, then, became the rival of the philosopher as conceived by Plato, and the study of poetry an alternative to the severe intellectual training of the Academy.
posted by maggiesong at 5:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home