Though Plato and Aristotle both share identical opinions in which that art is a form of imitation, both have different views towards whether art should be viewed from an educational standpoint in which it gives impartial truth of knowledge, or that it is a form of pleasure that allows for the learning through imitation. Towards Plato 's view of art, Plato believes that art is no more than a representation,a reflection in a mirror of what is reality. Furthermore, Plato disagrees with poetry for the fact that it teaches immoral lessons and for its falsehood. The pleasure that poetry brings cannot overcome the fact of truth from philosophy. Mentioning what is the ultimate reality, Plato breaks it down to three parts of Ideal, Reality, and …show more content…
This act of deceiving then brings out corruption as the imitation are brought from the worst parts of the original form. Which is to say, we are deceived into sympathizing with the worst form of souls in which they indulge in lust, sadness, and immaturity. We transfer these emotions into our lives without recognition that slowly our personal lives are no longer much different from those that we read about. To conclude Plato 's views on poetry is which that it brings unethical promotion of false passions, it is far from being realistic for it fails to share educational value, and last it is far from philosophical as it does not speak towards true knowledge but rather just an imitation of an imitation. Going into Aristotle 's view towards Plato 's view, Aristotle agrees with Plato regarding the fact that poets and create arts are imitation. Being that, they imitate of things as they are, as they are told, and how
...of a chair is only an illusion to trick the viewer into thinking that their seeing an actual chair. Plato argues that this is not useful in society, since it is not truth. His argument is very narrow minded in that it only sees value in objects which have a concrete practical use. Whereas, a painters work doesn’t have a function other than to provide beauty which can enhance one’s life experience.
Plato’s perception of the human world was described by Rubenstein as “discomfort and longing.” According to Rubenstein, the Platonic epoch is filled with humans that are not one with themselves; potentials of the intellectual integrity are disrupted by this distrust humans have against themselves that are driven by humanly desires and instincts. Unlike Aristotelian epoch where it would be seen that peace would be amongst human and nature, Plato’s universe seems like it is far from what it should be. Rubenstein described it as there is an idea
People can have many different opinions depending on a topic, but what is truly difficult is getting a complete level of understanding from every opinion, or understanding the point of view of each opinion. Even accepting the points of view can be difficult for some people, who believe that their opinions are right. Luckily, people can learn about the other person’s frame of reference, and at the very least understand the topic or the person a little better. This particular topic is art, which is known for its multiple possible perceptions or its many different messages that it can send a person or group of people. In this way, people can learn more about the thought processes and feelings of others. Unfortunately, with differing opinions,
Though Plato was Aristotle’s teacher, their ideas could not differ more in relation to Doryphoros. While Plato would feel that it is worthless, Aristotle would feel that it is very valuable to the process of learning more about our very natures. The duality of their opinions is very similar to the duality we can see in Doryphoros mentioned above. Plato was on a kind of warpath with creative expression, yet student Aristotle embraced it with calm analysis. In Doryphoros we see their opinions in juxtaposition to one another. If nothing else, Doryphoros expresses the masculine, logical side of human nature with near effortlessness.
Thirdly, Plato and Aristotle hold contrasting views on the mechanism of finding the truth. Plato relied on the ability to reason in his attempt to explain the world. He produced his ideal world based on reason since such a world lies beyond the realm of the five senses. Plato ignored his senses because he believed his senses only revealed the imperfect forms of the ordinary world.
Plato vs. Aristotle Plato and Aristotle, two philosophers in the 4th century, hold polar views on politics and philosophy in general. This fact is very cleverly illustrated by Raphael's "School of Athens" (1510-11; Stanza della Segnatura, Vatican), where Plato is portrayed looking up to the higher forms; and Aristotle is pointing down because he supports the natural sciences. In a discussion of politics, the stand point of each philosopher becomes an essential factor. It is not coincidental that Plato states in The Republic that Philosopher Rulers who possess knowledge of the good should be the governors in a city state. His strong interest in metaphysics is demonstrated in The Republic various times: for example, the similes of the cave, the sun, and the line, and his theory of the forms.
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.
...nses while Plato only trusted his reason. Plato felt that only with our reason could we understand and obtain true knowledge. We can only have ‘opinions’ about what we experience with our senses. He only trusted his reason because “we cannot always trust the evidence of our senses. The faculty of vision can vary from person to person.”(Gaarder 86) He also did not trust the sense because he felt we couldn’t have “true knowledge of something that is in constant state of change.”(Gaarder 85) He trusted reason because he felt reason was the same for every person. Plato only trusts his reason and does not believe what he experiences with his senses while Aristotle felt that experiencing things with our sense is the highest degree of reality and believed all our knowledge comes from what we experienced with our senses. Plato and Aristotle’s theories on metaphysical topics, of ‘forms’ and what is reality are very different and completely opposite.
Aristotle and Plato were both great thinkers but their views on realty were different. Plato viewed realty as taking place in the mind but Aristotle viewed realty is tangible. Even though Aristotle termed reality as concrete, he stated that reality does not make sense or exist until the mind process it. Therefore truth is dependent upon a person’s mind and external factors.
Socrates and Plato were some of the world’s most famous philosophers. Yet, they caused much trouble in the midst of their philosophizing. These philosophers, in the view of the political elites, were threatening the Athenian democracy with their philosophy. But why did they go against the status quo? What was their point in causing all of this turmoil? Plato and Socrates threatened the democracy as a wake-up call. They wanted the citizens to be active thinkers and improve society. This manifested itself in three main ways: Socrates’ life, his student Plato’s life, and their legacy in our modern age.
For Plato, there are three key objections to imitation (mimesis) which are demonstrated in books II and III, and then again in book X of The Republic. Plato believes that all art is imitative of life and in book II, he begins to explain what he considers to be the ideal way for a human to live, which involves living a life of reason and righteousness with guardians to protect us. These guardians are required to be good, honest and fair and therefore all children should be educated and trained with these qualities, to prepare them as our future guardians. Plato’s first objection to imitation (mimesis) is from the point of view of Theology and Education. He sugges...
For over two thousand years, various philosophers have questioned the influence of art in our society. They have used abstract reasoning, human emotions, and logic to go beyond this world in the search for answers about arts' existence. For philosophers, art was not viewed for its own beauty, but rather for the question of how art and artists can help make our society more stable for the next generation. Plato, a Greek philosopher who lived during 420-348 B.C. in Athens, and Aristotle, Plato’s student who argued against his beliefs, have no exceptions to the steps they had to take in order to understand the purpose of art and artists. Though these two philosophers made marvelous discoveries about the existence of art, artists, and aesthetic experience, Plato has made his works more controversial than Aristotle.
The relationship between art and society: Mimesis as discussed in the works of Aristotle, Plato, Horace and Longinus The relationship between art and society in the works of Plato are based upon his idea of the world of eternal Forms. He believed that there is a world of eternal, absolute and immutable Forms (the world of the Ideal) and thought that this is proven by when man is faced with the appearance of anything in the material world, his mind is moved to a remembrance of the Idea or an absolute and immutable version of the thing he sees. It is this moment of recollection that he wonders about the contrast between the world of shadows and the world of the Ideal. It is in this moment of wondering that man struggles to reach the world of Forms through the use of reason. Anything then that does not serve reason is the enemy of man. Given this, it is only but logical that poetry should be eradicated from society. Poetry shifts man’s focus away from reason by presenting man with imitations of objects from the concrete world. 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.
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.
It can create a bias in the evaluation of art, but can also add meaning. In the first instance, a picture drawn by a child of her family, scribbled with crayons on construction paper, would not be called fine art objectively. However, the child’s mother knows the intention of the girl, is aware of the home environment, and can gain enjoyment, if not from the art then from the mindset of the girl who produced the art. Personal background with art relates to John Dewey’s explanation of how art ought to be understood. In his discussion of Art as Experience, Dewey maintains that “to grasp the sources of esthetic experience it is . . . necessary to have recourse to animal life” (10). At a physical level, it is important to understand the environment, surroundings, and motivations in order to fully understand the meaning of a work. Even though the physical art is not a masterpiece, the affection and visualization of family which motivates the creation is understood by the parent, and imbues the work with meaning. It is personal understanding that guides an understanding of what is art on a personal level. Whether one knows the story behind the work or attempt to infer the meaning, the story behind the work is a large part of how an individual designates art that is pleasing. Aristotle understood the potential for art to be cathartic, which is another facet of a