Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Platos thought on the function of art
Plato's view on justice
Justice in platos republic book 1essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Platos thought on the function of art
Plato Banning Poetry
Plato in The Republic creates a debate by denouncing poetry. Plato has this vision of an ideal city that is genuinely just, Plato banishes poets from the city because they are imitative and under no circumstances do they portray justice. Consequently, poetry was not to be admitted into his ideal city. However if one could argue this debate with superb reasons as to why they should be de-banned from the city, Plato would be willing to allow them back. Plato has three reasons as to why he deems poets as dangerous and unqualified for his city.
The first reason for their refusal is that poets claim to have all this knowledge. This raises the question, do poets really know what they are talking about or are they imitators? He begins to demonstrate this by arguing the example of a bed. There are three beds; one that exists in nature that was created by God, one that the carpenter made, and then lastly the one that was made by the painter. Plato then says that, “God, then, whether he willed it or because he felt some constraint not to make more than one bed, did in fact make only one bed, the real bed.” (Plato 287) He goes onto explain that god should be considered the true and natural creator of the real bed. Furthermore even if he did make more than one bed those would merely be copies. Although the carpenter makes beds in similar quality it is an only an imitation of a particular bed. The painter’s bed is purely an imitation of the carpenter’s product. The painter is then accused to be the imitator of things that others create, because they are one who makes something at third removed from nature. Plato states that although this painting looks different it is not different, and it imitates illusion. Th...
... middle of paper ...
...n poetry according to Plato will make a person lose sight of ones self, making it hard to for one to avoid expressing emotions, and becoming unjust.
Plato being a philosopher acknowledges that poetry in regards to philosophy is of higher ranking, but one should not take it seriously when dealing with the truth. Also one who listens to it should remain fearful to poetry because of its capability to corrupt their soul, and must remember all of what we have said about poetry. Plato puts an emphasis on people knowing the importance of being just and seeking good and true knowledge when it comes to poetry. He wants us to be aware that even though at times poetry is charming, “we must not be guilty of impiety by betraying what we think is true.” (Plato 298)
Works Cited
Sterling, R. (1985). Plato the republic. (1 ed.). Canada: Penguin Books Canada.
Poetry is its own solid object” (Bad Poem, Great Song). To some, the dilemma is cut and dry, songs just can’t be poetry.
In review of both Plato and Mill’s arguments for and against censorship, I come to my conclusion that holds true to Mill. I could not have said it any better than Mill’s two main arguments against censorship. Humans make mistakes and making mistakes is entirely unavoidable because we are not perfect. Therefore, without being perfect, how can a human, like Plato, decide the perfect way to form a society? Plato makes sense in that he does not care about happiness he only cares about an ideal state with little or no issues. I understand that was his goal in forming the Republic but as I see it Plato leaves no room for growth. In his society, everything will be the same for generations and generations. His society is very well structured and extremely thought out but it essentially must be in order to thrive for many years because the workers only work, the guardians only guard, and the rulers only rule. Only what the rulers do, say, or think is important and they too are just as human as those they lead. My question to Plato is simply why? Why are the rulers, the philosophers, the ones ...
Poetry is often created by an author’s need to escape the logical, as well as expressing feelings and other expressions in a tight, condensed manner. Hundreds of poets have impacted society throughout history through phenomenal poetry that, even with dark tones can be emotionally moving.
In today’s modern view, poetry has become more than just paragraphs that rhyme at the end of each sentence. If the reader has an open mind and the ability to read in between the lines, they discover more than they have bargained for. Some poems might have stories of suffering or abuse, while others contain happy times and great joy. Regardless of what the poems contains, all poems display an expression. That very moment when the writer begins his mental journey with that pen and paper is where all feelings are let out. As poetry is continues to be written, the reader begins to see patterns within each poem. On the other hand, poems have nothing at all in common with one another. A good example of this is in two poems by a famous writer by the name of Langston Hughes. A well-known writer that still gets credit today for pomes like “ Theme for English B” and “Let American be American Again.”
Poetry is more than just a correlation of words; poetry contains power. Poetry works by sculpting the English language in such a way that it produces sound, while endeavoring to recreate experiences. I really grasped this concept when we read Dulcem Et Decorum Est, by Wilfred Owen. Among other things, this poem contains haunting imagery, and a rhythm that produces the sound of being in the trenches. While reading this poem, Wilfred Owen’s words made me fearful and paranoid. The slightest sound could hold my attention. I also noticed how silent the room felt after we finished the poem. We were all struck and disturbed by the old phrase Dulcem Et Decorum Est.
The definition of poetry, instead of becoming more selective and exact, has become a much more broad and open minded classification of literature. From It's beginning's in romanticist Puritan literature, to its more modernistic function on present society, poetry has become a way to blend the psychological side of human intellect, with the emotional side of human intuition and curiosity. Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman were two early poets from the late 19th century. Unlike Walt, Emily liked to write at home, she was a more secluded author who enjoyed to look out the window for inspiration. Walt on the other hand loved to travel. He found inspiration through nature and the diversity of thriving cultures throughout the world. Although these writers found inspiration from two different methods, their poems have distinct similarities in theme, images, and main ideas.
Plato and Sidney had some of the same ideas but yet different ideas for poetry at the same time. They may not have the same ideas because of the times that they each lived in. If you think about it, Plato’s time of living was 427-347 B.C. and Sidney lived in the 1500’s. Therefore, each philosopher had a different view of poetry and what it could possible do for their community. Neither one is right nor wrong but, if we, as people, took both of their perceptions to heart, we would probably live in a world that wasn’t so tainted and corruptive.
In conclusion, I feel poets mainly write poems to express feelings, thoughts, and messages to the world. It’s an easy approach for them to use this writing technique as a way to articulate different aspects which could be improved in this world. I think what attracts people to poetry is writing which relates to each person in their everyday life no matter how it could be portrayed by. For some people poetry could be a relaxing thing or it could be something which cheers someone up, but people look to poetry to get a deeper thinking in life rather than a simpler thinking. This is clearly evident through authors, William Wordsworth and William Blake, and their poems “The World is too Much with Us” and “The Tyger.” Both poems related to one another one way or another, and they depicted different messages and themes which do relate to real life situations.
When reading or listening to poetry, the main objective for me is to feel moved. Happiness, longing, sadness are some of the feelings that can be achieved just by listening to others’ words. It is within these words that creates another world, or separates us from our own. Words all have a certain kind of attachment to them, so if used properly an author can stimulate a reader beyond belief.
...milarly, Plato says that Poetry has the same effect on us when it refers to sex and violence, arousing an array of ‘desires and feelings of pleasure and pain… it waters them when they ought to be left to whither, and makes them control us when we ought, in the interests of our own greater welfare and happiness, to control them.’ What this indicates from a rational perspective is that imitation brings undesirable emotions to our surface, allowing it to cloud our judgement, weaken our psychological stability and change our outlook on life itself. This could therefore have a drastic effect, according to Plato, on the present and future guardians who are required by the rest of us to remain emotionally stable and in full control of their own irrational desires and fears.
I have hence suggested that it is possible Plato has relied on the entailment between these two terms; if rationality was innate to Kallipolis, there is reason to believe that Plato understood that the obliged role in the state is exactly what his rational citizens would have chosen autonomously, thus the argument against his being a feminist for the lack of attention on autonomy is incomplete. Having pointed this out, however, it remains true that Plato has never explicitly posed an argument for the sake of the autonomy of women – or for men, in any case – and hence his status as a feminist is still unlikely to be true.
to the larger world? But the idea that “poetry makes nothing happen” can be understood
Poetry, with its focus on mimesis or imitation, has no moral value. While Plato sees reality as a shadow of a realm of pure Ideas (which in turn is copied by art), Aristotle sees reality as a process of partially realized forms moving towards their ideal realizations. Given this idea by Aristotle, the mimetic quality of art is redefined as the duplication of the living process of nature and its need to reach its potential form. Art, then, for Aristotle, does not become the enemy of society if the artist is loyal to the representation of the process of becoming in nature. Horace, like Aristotle and Plato, also brings to view a theory of poetry as mimesis.
First, Plato believed that ideas are the realist things in the world. What we see in our daily life is not reality; sense perceptions are only appearances. And appearances are unreliable material copies of the immaterial pure ideas. Thus to him the world of the ideas is reasonable and fixed and holds the truth. While the world of physical appearances is variable and irrational, and it only bears reality to the extent that it succeeds in capturing the idea. To live the best life that you can and to be happy and do good, as a person you have to strive to understand and imitate the ideas as best as you can. So, with this philosophy in mind we can understand why Plato considered art as just a mindless pleasure. He viewed art as just an imitation.