Q: Compare and contrast Plato’s views on imitative art in Republic Book X with his views on Eros and artistic creativity in the selection read from the Symposium? While there appear to be great differences between Plato’s criticism of imitative art in Book X of the Republic and his account of artistic creativity in the Symposium, I believe that most of these can be reconciled by a careful attention to the theory of Forms and the distinct purposes of the two works.
In Book X of the Republic, Plato infamously banishes the tragic poets from his ideal city as a threat to justice and order. Here it is helpful to know something about Plato’s theory of Forms. For Plato, the world of appearances is deceptive. The material objects we come to know
…show more content…
Socrates speaks just after Agathon, who heaped lavish praise on Love for his youth and beauty. He begins by cross-examining the young Sophist and drawing out the faults in his speech. Love, Socrates forces Agathon to admit, is always love of something, in the same way that a father is always the father of someone. Love desires what is beautiful and good, and we always desire that which we do not possess. Love, therefore, must be neither good nor beautiful in …show more content…
Plotinus’ account in On Beauty is nearly identical to plato’s, except that it is predicated on a monist rather than a dualist ontology. According to Plotinus the world consists in a single principle, the One, of which lower species of being are merely gradations. While Plotinus recognized the One in Plato’s Form of the Good, he denied that such a form was transcendent. The objects of the world are emanations of the One and not distinct instantiations. Just as as light is refracted into a rainbow of lesser constituents by passing it through a prism, the One is refracted into lesser lights as one descends into the material world. The first emanation of the One is Intellect, which contains Platonic Forms such as Beauty. When we see “beautiful” objects our souls recognize the form of Beauty, which is a higher emanation of the One, and there is a resonance between the beauty within ourselves and the beauty without. In a manner similar to Plato, Plotinus traces a hierarchy of beauty from material objects (e.g. faces) to the form of beauty itself to ultimate source of the
Again, by exploiting the dichotomy between East and West and between mind and spirit, Hamilton explains the defining character of Greek artistic achievement. Again, by returning to the theme of balance and proportion, she demonstrates how the Athenians' unique worldview changed all civilizations to follow.
Throughout different time periods and civilizations come many different types of art that would never be comparable to those of another time or place. There are also the pieces that come from a completely different time and place, but yet they can still be compared to one another. The Torso of a God (Egyptian, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, last decade of the reign of Amenhotep III, Granodiorite, 1359-1349 B.C.) and the Statue of Asklepios (Greek, Hellenistic period, Pentelic Marble, 2nd century B.C.) are two sculptures made hundreds of years apart, yet they both display many similarities and show how art is constantly changing whilst keeping the same core ideas.
Within this essay, I am going to argue that the simple soul is a more plausible conception than the idea of multiplicity within the soul within Plato’s work. This is due to the multiplicity of the soul resting on a circular argument of Plato’s ideal city which in turn rests back upon his idea of the tripartite soul. However, it can also be argued that neither conceptions of the soul are plausible due to them both relying on Plato’s theory of the Forms. Throughout Plato’s works of the Phaedo and the Republic, his account for the soul is conflicting as Plato’s two accounts cannot be reconciled. I will also refer to Plato’s work in the Phaedrus to aid my explanation of the multiplicity within the soul.
Plato, being a Socratic apprentice, followed and transcribed the experiences Socrates had in his teachings and search of understanding. In Plato’s first work, The Allegory of the Cave, Socrates forms the understanding between appearance vs. reality and the deceptions we are subject to by the use of forms. In the cave, the prisoners’ experiences are limited to what their senses can tell them, the shadows on the walls, and their shackles; these appearances are all that they have to form their ideas. When one of the prisoners begins to question his reality he makes his way out of the cave and into the day light. This prisoners understanding of his reality has now expanded, thus the theory of forms; when he returns to the cave to spread the news, the others do not believe him. They have been deceived by their reality and what
Plato's views on Forms, Ideas, and Knowledge are all expressed beautifully in the allegory of
Having settled this discrepancy, I will go on to answer the prompt as it refers to Platonism.
As literary critics, Plato and Aristotle disagree profoundly about the value of art in human society. Plato attempts to strip artists of the power and prominence they enjoy in his society, while Aristotle tries to develop a method of inquiry to determine the merits of an individual work of art. It is interesting to note that these two disparate notions of art are based upon the same fundamental assumption: that art is a form of mimesis, imitation. Both philosophers are concerned with the artist's ability to have significant impact on others. It is the imitative function of art which promotes disdain in Plato and curiosity in Aristotle. Examining the reality that art
In this essay I shall explicate and critically evaluate Plato 's response to the problem of the One and the Many. To do this, I will outline briefly the emergence of this problem in Greek thought in order to further understand and contextualise Plato 's theory of the Forms. I shall then offer criticisms of his theory, both positive and negative, with particular regard for the ontological, epistemological, and cosmological consequences of subscribing to the Forms. I shall then conclude whether or not the metaphysical system constructed by Plato is a convincing and wholesome answer to the One and the Many.
Plato’s Theory of Forms is discussed in several of his dialogues but the Republic is most well known for being written during what people call the “peak of his genius”. Plato believed that the things we normally experience on the day to day with our five senses; sight, hearing, taste, touch and smell, are not truly real. He believed “real
In Book VI of the Republic, Socrates builds upon the view of the forms, drawing from the themes discussed in the preceding text. He reminds Adeimantus and Glaucon that many particulars are visibly beautiful, but that there also exists a “beautiful itself” - likewise with good things and “the good itself” (507b). He claims that “the former are seen but not thought, while the ‘looks’ in turn are thought but not seen” (507c). Here, Socrates is alluding to the distinction between the intelligible and the visible. The realm of the intelligible is not manifested in the visible and is in fact an ontological category above the visible. Here, the forms reside and are not able to be seen, only thought of. For one to truly know the forms one needs to
Throughout Plato's ideal Republic, he stands firm on his disregard for poetic imitation, however his reasons seem to be preventing people from discovering the absolute truth of an object. Plato believes that the knowledge of poetry is based off of appearances only, because poets mainly focus on imagery or imitations. In order for a poet or an artist to successfully complete a masterpiece, he or she
I intend to show the validity of Plato's arguments about his theory of Forms. Aristotle, along with others, cross-examines Plato's proposals. Yet, I happen to see the potential of his point of view and would like to take a deeper look into his theory. The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze the theory of Plato's Forms from his perspective and that of several others, including Aristotle.
In The Republic, Plato argues that poetry and certain art forms including painting and drama, are mimetic and merely representations of various truths, which exist only in an abstract state he describes as “Forms” . In order to understand his repudiation of art and poetry, it 's important to grasp the fundamental idea of Forms, and how they relate to truth in his view.
He tactfully proves his idea on love by questioning Agathon, who holds a different opinion with him. In the previous speech, Agathon describes the quality of god and praises love to be young, beautiful, sensitive and wise. He identifies love as the most wonderful god who gives people courage and motivation to pursue good. However, Socrates is acutely aware of the logic loophole hidden behind Agathon’s argument. Not to argue with Agathon directly, Socrates questions Agathon. Based on his rational answer, Socrates successfully convinces everyone present at the drinking party of two things: love is “first, of something, and, secondly, of something that he lacks”. As nobody denies Agathon’s idea: “Love is love of beauty and not of ugliness”. Combining those two conclusions together, Socrates reasonably presents his idea: “…the conclusion is that what Love lacks and does not have is beauty”, which absolutely means that love is not
In Plato’s text “The Republic” his ideal nation is one without poetry. Plato makes the assertion that poetry imitations reality and it takes us further, instead of closer, to the forms (i.e. truth), thus leading to falsehood (142). Platonism in relation to Milton’s “L’Allegro” and “IL Penseroso” are what makes these two poems in opposition of one another. The poem “L’Allegro” affirms Plato belief about poetry because it offers readers an illusionary and sensationalize approach to reality. Whereas, “IL Penseroso” refutes this notion by bestowing on the readers a rational view, which in turn leads to the truth.