Comparison I, point by point comparison between Plato and
Aristotle.
Admirers of Plato are usually lovers of literary art. It is so because Plato wrote dramatic
dialogues rather than didactic volumes and did so with rare literary skill. You would expect such
a philosopher to place a high value on literary art, but Plato actually attacked it, along with other
forms of what he called mimesis. According to Plato’s theory of mimesis (imitation) the arts deal
with illusion and they are imitation of an imitation. Thus, they are twice removed from reality.
As a moralist, Plato disapproves of poetry because it is immoral, as a philosopher he disapproves
of it because it is based in falsehood. He is of the view that philosophy is better than poetry
because philosopher deals with idea / truth, whereas poet deals with what appears to him /
illusion. He believed that truth of philosophy was more important than the pleasure of poetry. He
argued that most of it should be banned from the ideal society that he described in the Republic.
What objections did Plato have with mimesis or poetry or poet?
Do those objections apply to the sort of art we value today? Are they well-founded?
These are the questions that we shall be discussing in this unit.
1.3.1 What were his objections?
Plato objected to poetry on three grounds, viz., Education, Philosophical and moral view point.
1. Plato’s objection to Poetry from the point of view of Education:
a. In ‘The Republic’ Book II – He condemns poetry as fostering evil habits and vices in children.
Homer’s epics were part of studies. Heroes of epics were not examples of sound or ideal
morality. They were lusty, cunning, and cruel – war mongers. Even Gods were no better.
b. Plato writes: “if we mean our future guardians to regard the habit of quarreling among
themselves as of all things the basest, no word should be said to them of the wars in the heaven,
or of the plots and fighting of the gods against one another, for they are not true…. If they would
only believe as we would tell them that quarreling is unholy, and that never up to this time has
there been any quarreling between citizens…… these tales (of epics) must not be admitted into
our State, whether they are supposed to have allegorical meaning or not.”
c. Thus he objected on the ground that poetry does not cultivate good habits among children.
2. Objection from Philosophical point of view:
a. In ‘The Republic’ Book X: Poetry does not lead to, but drives us away form the realization of
the ultimate reality – the Truth.
b. Philosophy is better than poetry because Philosophy deals with idea and poetry is twice
removed from original idea.
c. Plato says: “The imitator or maker of the image knows nothing of true existence; he knows
appearance only …. The imitative art is an inferior who marries an inferior and has inferior
offspring.
3. Objection form the Moral point of view:
a. In the same book in ‘The Republic’: Soul of man has higher principles of reason (which is the
essence of its being) as well as lower constituted of baser impulses and emotions. Whatever
encourages and strengthens the rational principle is good, and emotional is bad.
b. Poetry waters and nourishes the baser impulses of men - emotional, sentimental and sorrowful.
Plato says: “Then the imitative poet who aims at being popular is not by nature made, nor is his
art intended, to please or to affect the rational principle in the soul; but he will prefer the
passionate and fitful temper, which is easily limited …. And therefore we shall be right in
refusing to admit him into a well-ordered state, because he awakens and nourishes and
strengthen the feelings and impairs the reason … Poetry feeds and waters the passion instead of
drying them up; she lets them rule, although they ought to be controlled, if mankind are ever to
increase in happiness and virtue.”
1.3.2 Why he objected to Poetry?
These are Plato’s principal charges on poetry and objection to it. Before we pass on any
judgement, we should not forget to keep in view the time in which he lived. During his time:
• There was political instability
• Education was in sorry state. Homer was part of studies – and Homer’s epics were
misrepresented and misinterpreted.
• Women were regarded inferior human beings – slavery was wide spread.
• Best time of Greek literature was over – corruption and degeneration in literature.
• Confusion prevailed in all sphere of life – intellect, moral, political and education.
Thus, in Plato’s time the poets added fuel to the fire. He looked at poets as breeders of falsehood
and poetry as mother of lies. And so the chief reasons for his objecting poets were:
• it is not ethical because it promotes undesirable passions,
• it is not philosophical because it does not provide true knowledge, and
• it is not pragmatic because it is inferior to the practical arts and therefore has no educational
value.
These were the reasons for Plato’s objections to poetry.
1.3.3 What is his Theory of Mimesis?
In his theory of mimesis, Plato says that all art is mimetic by nature; art is an imitation of life. He
believed that ‘idea’ is ultimate reality. Art imitates idea and so it is imitation of reality. He gives
an example of a carpenter and a chair. The idea of ‘chair’ first came in the mind of carpenter. He
gave physical shape to his idea and created a chair. The painter imitated the chair of the carpenter
in his picture of chair. Thus, painter’s chair is twice removed from reality. Hence, he believed
that art is twice removed from reality. He gives first importance to philosophy as philosophy
deals with idea. Whereas poetry deals with illusion – things which are twice removed form
reality. So to Plato, philosophy is better than poetry. This view of mimesis is pretty deflationary,
for it implies that mimetic art--drama, fiction, representational painting-- does not itself have an
important role to play in increasing our understanding of human beings and the human world.
This implication would not be rejected by every lover--or indeed every creator--of imaginative
literature. Ironically it was Plato's most famous student, Aristotle, who was the first theorist to
defend literature and poetry in his writing Poetics against Plato’s objection and his theory of
mimesis.
1.4 Aristotle: Introduction
‘Plato confused the study of ‘aesthetics’ with the study of ‘morals’. Aristotle removed that
confusion and created the study of aesthetics.’
Plato was a great poet, a mystic and a philosopher. Aristotle – the most distinguished disciple of
Plato was a critic, scholar, logician and practical philosopher. The master was an inspired genius
every way greater than the disciple except in logic, analysis and common sense. He is known for
his critical treatise: (i) The Poetics and (ii) The Rhetoric, dealing with art of poetry and art of
speaking, resp.
For centuries during Roman age in Europe and after renaissance, Aristotle was honoured as a
law-giver and legislator. Even today his critical theories remain largely relevant, and for this he
certainly deserves our admiration and esteem. But he was never a law-giver in literature and is
no longer held as such in our times. The Poetics is not merely commentary or judgment on the
poetic art. Its conclusion is firmly rooted in the Greek literature and is actually illustrated form it.
He was a codifier; he derived and discussed the principles of literature as manifest in the plays
and poetry existing in his own day. His main concern appears to be tragedy, which in his day was
considered to be the most developed form of poetry. Another part of poetics deals with comedy,
but it is unfortunately lost. In his observations on the nature and function of poetry, he has
replied the charges of Plato against poetry, where in he partly agrees and partly disagrees with
his teacher.
1.4.1 How did Aristotle reply to Plato’s Objection?
Aristotle replied to the charges made by his Guru Plato against Poetry in particular and art in
general. He replied to them one by one in defense of poetry.
1. Plato says that art being the imitation of the actual is removed from truth. It only gives the
likeness of a thing in concrete, and the likeness is always less than real. But Plato fails to
understand that art also give something more which is absent in the actual. The artist does not
simply reflect the real in the manner of a mirror. Art is not slavish imitation of reality. Literature
is not the photographic reproduction of life in all its totality. It is the representation of selected
events and characters necessary in a coherent action for the realization of artist’s purpose. He
even exalts, idealizes and imaginatively recreates a world which has its own meaning and beauty.
These elements, present in art, are absent in the raw and rough real. R.A.Scott-James rightly
observes: “But though he (Poet) creates something less than that reality, he also creates
something more. He puts an idea into it. He put his perception into it. He gives us his intuition of
certain distinctive and essential qualities.”
This ‘more’, this intuition and perception is the aim of the artist. Artistic creation cannot be fairly
criticized on the ground that it is not the creation in concrete terms of things and beings. Thus
considered it does not take us away form the Truth, but leads us to the essential reality of life.
2. Plato again says that art is bad because it does not inspire virtue, does not teach morality. But
is teaching the function of the art? Is it the aim of the artist? The function of art is to provide
aesthetic delight, communicate experience, express emotions and represent life. It should ever be
confused with the function of ethics which is simply to teach morality. If an artist succeeds in
pleasing us in aesthetic sense, he is a good artist. If he fails in doing so, he is a bad artist. There is
no other criterion to judge his worth. R.A.Scott-James observes: “Morality teaches. Art does not
attempt to teach. It merely asserts it is thus or thus that life is perceived to be. That is my bit of
reality, says the artist. Take it or leave it – draw any lessons you like from it – that is my account
of things as they are – if it has any value to you as evidence or teaching, use it, but that is not my
business: I have given you my rendering, my account, my vision, my dream, my illusion – call it
what you will. If there is any lesson in it, it is yours to draw, not mine to preach.” Similarly,
Plato’s charge that needless lamentations and ecstasies at the imaginary events of sorrow and
happiness encourages weaker part of soul and numbs faculty of reason. This charge is defended
by Aristotle in his Theory of Catharsis. David Daiches summarizes Aristotle’s views in reply to
Plato’s charges in brief: “Tragedy (Art) gives new knowledge, yields aesthetic satisfaction and
produces a better state of mind.”
3. Plato judges poetry now from the educational standpoint, now from the philosophical one and
then from the ethical one. But he does not care to consider it from its own unique standpoint. He
does not define its aims. He forgets that every thing should be judged in terms of its own aims
and objective its own criteria of merit and demerit. We cannot fairly maintain that music is bad
because it does not paint, or that painting is bad because it does not sing. Similarly, we cannot
say that poetry is bad because it does not teach philosophy of ethics. If poetry, philosophy and
ethics had identical function, how could they be different subjects? To denounce poetry because
it is not philosophy or ideal is clearly absurd.
1.4.2 How did Aristotle differ in his Theory of Mimesis from his Guru
Plato?
Aristotle agrees with Plato in calling the poet an imitator and creative art, imitation. He imitates
one of the three objects – things as they were/are, things as they are said/thought to be or things
as they ought to be. In other words, he imitates what is past or present, what is commonly
believed and what is ideal. Aristotle believes that there is natural pleasure in imitation which is
in-born instinct in men. It is this pleasure in imitation that enables the child to learn his earliest
lessons in speech and conduct from those around him, because there is a pleasure in doing so. In
a grown up child – a poet, there is another instinct, helping him to make him a poet – the instinct
for harmony and rhythm.
He does not agree with his teacher in – ‘poet’s imitation is twice removed form reality and hence
unreal/illusion of truth. To prove his point he compares poetry with history. The poet and the
historian differ not by their medium, but the true difference is that the historian relates ‘what has
happened?, the poet, what may/ought to have happened?- the ideal. Poetry, therefore, is more
philosophical and a higher thing the history, which expresses the particular, while poetry tends to
express the universal. Therefore, the picture of poetry pleases all and at all times.
Aristotle does not agree with Plato in function of poetry to make people weaker and
emotional/too sentimental. For him, catharsis is ennobling and humbles human being.
So far as moral nature of poetry is concerned, Aristotle believed that the end of poetry is to
please; however, teaching may be given. Such pleasing is superior to the other pleasure because
it teaches civic morality. So all good literature gives pleasure, which is not divorced from moral
lessons.
Comparison II, with key terms defined
Poetry's Emotional Effect: Detrimental as Plato Claims or Beneficial as Aristotle Concludes?
Speaking well about Homer; it's a divine power that moves you, as a "Magnetic" stone moves
iron rings. (That's what Euripides called it; most people call it "Heraclian.") This stone not only
pulls those rings, if they're iron, it also puts power in those rings-so that there's sometimes a very
long chain of iron pieces and rings hanging from one another. And the power in all of them
depends on this stone. In the same way, the Muse makes some people inspired herself, and then
through those who are inspired a chain of other enthusiasts is suspended. You know, none of the
epic poets, if they're good, are masters of their subject; they are inspired, possessed, and that is
how they utter all those beautiful poems.
--Plato (41)
Representation is natural to human beings from childhood. They differ from the other animals in
this: man tends most towards representation and learns his first lessons through representation.
Also (ii) everyone delights in representations. An indication of this is what happens in fact: we
delight in looking at the most detailed images of things which in themselves we see with pain,
e.g. the shapes of the most despised wild animal even when dead. The cause of this is that
learning is most pleasant, not only for philosophers but for others likewise (but they share in it to
a small extent). For this reason they delight in seeing images, because it comes about that they
learn as they observe, and infer what each thing is, e.g. that this person [represents] that one.
--Aristotle (93)
Plato and Aristotle critique poetry and the effect it has on poets and their audiences, as well as
society and humankind. Both men approach the critique from different perspectives-Plato from
an idealistic deductive viewpoint depicted in dialogue format, and Aristotle from a realistic,
practical and inductive viewpoint in essay format. Both men disagree on the emotional effects
poetry has on individuals and on society, but both agree that poetry does stimulate great emotion
which has a lasting impact on individuals and society, although if this impact is positive or
negative is also a concept of debate.
According to Plato, the basis for Ion's skill as a rhapsode is far removed from his individual
talents. Through a logical series of deductions, Plato argues that if Ion were in fact an expert
rhapsode of Homer's poetry, he would have to know the meaning behind Homer's words to
properly convey this meaning to his audience. As proof of this knowledge, Ion should be able to
compare and contrast Homer to other poets and determine how they are both similar and
different in subject and furthermore know which poetic depiction is superior or inferior.
However, Ion, although prized as a great rhapsode by the rest of society, can do none of these
things, and therefore Plato turns to a theory which abandons explanation based on knowledge.
Plato determines that Ion's talent is not one he possesses, but one by which he is possessed. Ion is
not an intellectual master, but he is rather, similar to poets themselves, "an airy thing, winged
and holy, and [...] not able to make poetry until he becomes inspired and goes out of his mind
and his intellect is no longer in him" (41). According to Plato, Ion's ability to speak the words of
Homer is an ability that comes to him only in moments of divine insanity.
Plato extends this idea yet further through metaphor, likening Ion to an iron ring moved by the
power of a "Magnetic" stone. This stone transfers its magnetic power to iron rings, which in turn
magnetically attract more iron rings, which in turn attract yet more. The consequence is "a very
long chain of iron pieces and rings hanging from one another. And the power in all of them
depends on this stone" (41). The stone itself represents the Muses which give divine power to the
poet, represented by the initial iron ring. This ring then attracts and transfers power to another
ring, representing the actor or rhapsode, who becomes possessed by the divine power through the
poet. This ring further attracts and transfers power to another ring, representing the spectator who
is then possessed by the divine power through the rhapsode. Divine inspiration is the sole source
of poetic genius and must be passed on to everyone involved in the depiction of the poetry, so
that "hung from that stone, there's an enormous chain of choral dancers and dance teachers and
assistant teachers hanging off to the sides of the rings that are suspended from the Muse" (43). If
the divine power fails at reaching an individual, the poetry fails, much as an unpossessed poet
cannot compose good poetry, an unpossessed rhapsode cannot deliver good performances, and
an unpossessed audience will be unmoved by any work.
In contrast, if visited by divine power, the rhapsode will be beside himself upon recitation,
becoming so involved in his story that he in fact envisions himself present at the scenes he
describes, and feels the emotions of sadness, happiness, and fear along with the characters he
depicts. His audience, furthermore, if he has properly transferred his inspiration, will perceive
themselves similarly linked to the places and people in his story. All which, according to Plato,
indicates that they are out of their minds because a logical man would not "when he's at festivals
or celebrations, all dressed up in fancy clothes, with golden crowns, [...] weep, though he's lost
none of his finery" (42). It is this strong emotion and detachment from self control and reality
that Plato later finds most objectionable about poetry in his work Republic.
In this work, Plato argues that poetry inspires undesirable emotions in society and should be
censored from adults and especially children for fear of lasting detrimental consequences. Plato
believes that since children have not yet acquired proper formation of character and knowledge
of the world around them, every new experience makes a profound impact upon them. Children
have no ability to know what emotions should be tempered and which should be expressed, and
certain expressed emotions can have lasting consequences later in life. Plato finds it necessary to
limit the types of poetry, works which he deems induce profound emotions in individuals, to
protect children and future society. He states that scary stories, such as gods coming to the world
in disguise and harming people, must be avoided to eliminate timidity, as such tales will induce
profound fear. Furthermore, children must not be told tales detailing the horrors of death for they
will then grow up to fear death and lack courage. Poetry inspiring laughter must be eliminated as
well, for "the stronger the laughter, the stronger the consequent emotional reaction too-that's
almost inevitable" (58). Strong emotions of every kind must be avoided, in fear of them spiraling
out of control and creating irreparable damage.
Plato attempts to cultivate the rational component of the children's minds, which is distinct from
the irrational component. Being that poetry is representational and two levels removed from the
truth, as can be seen from the stone magnet sending its influences to the poet and then the
rhapsode, representations can be deceiving and distorted, and must be approached rationally.
Plato states that representations in general not only "produce a product which is far from truth,
but it also forms a close, warm, affectionate relationship with a part of us which is, in its turn, far
from intelligence" (76). Similarly there are two parts of the mind, one which lets societal
conventions dictate emotions and another which urges inappropriate emotions to be expressed. In
poetry the logical side that listens to convention is hard to represent because it is constant, and
also hard to understand for the same reason. Therefore, a poet doesn't represent the logical calm
part of the mind "otherwise he'd lose his popular appeal. He's concerned with the petulant and
varied side of our characters because it's easy to represent" (77). He represents to the inferior part
of the mind that lacks control and is overly expressive.
Representational poetry allows people to get caught up in their emotions, the inferior part of their
undisciplined mind that sees things from a distorted irrational perspective. It is therefore that
when poetry is heard, according to Plato, "even the best of us, as I'm sure you're aware, feels
pleasure. We surrender ourselves, let ourselves be carried along, and share the hero's pain; and
then we enthuse about the skill of any poet who makes us feel particularly strong feelings" (78).
This is improper behavior because similar emotions seen on stage are avoided by individuals in
real life, and self-indulgence seen on stage should be avoided, not shared. In tragedy the good
part of the brain allows the inferior part of the brain to express itself with lasting consequence,
for the sadness of the tragedies encourages such feelings until they are expressed in real life.
Similarly, in comedy, an event might be humorous but never performed in real life for the risk of
personal shame. However, when it is seen on stage it gives people the opportunity to laugh
because they are then unrestrained by their reasoning. Consequences of this excessive emotionsadness or humor both affect personal lives, making people less able to restrain displays of grief
when sadness strikes or inappropriate mirth at a humorous situation encountered later in their
lives. Therefore, Plato decides to ban such poetry to prevent its adverse effect on citizens; "if you
admit the entertaining Muse of lyric and epic poetry, then instead of law and the shared
acceptance of reason as the best guide, the kinds of your community will be pleasure and pain"
(79).
Aristotle argues that representational poetry is pleasurable because it imparts beneficial
knowledge. In fact, he finds that harm is avoided to a certain extent through representation
because objects potentially harmful can be studied.
Aristotle disagrees with Plato's arguments that poetry is a corrupted form of representation far
from the truth and therefore that it can be readily dangerous to its audience. Aristotle instead sees
representation as an effective teaching method, consistent with how children naturally learn, not
as something that children should avoid. Plato suggested a method of education that immerses
youth in things closer to the truth and further from representation whereas Aristotle finds that
children naturally learn about the world through representations. Furthermore, where Plato
argues that representational poetry serves only to produce harmful pleasure in its audience,
Aristotle argues that representations are pleasurable because they impart beneficial knowledge.
Harm is, in fact, avoided to a certain extent through representation because objects potentially
harmful in nature can be depicted and studied in close proximity without fear. Therefore, people
"delight in seeing images, because it comes about that they learn as they observe, and infer what
each thing is, e.g. that this person [represents] that one" (93). Therefore, Aristotle has found a
positive impact that poetry has on human life-that it aids transition in children and adults alike
from ignorance to knowledge by seeing representations of things and then studying and learning
from these representations.
Aristotle goes further to explain the relative importance of poetry in comparison to other
subjects, namely history. He differentiates the two as poetry explaining situations that could
possibly occur and history as explaining situations that did already occur. Therefore, "the
difference is that the former relates things that have happened, the latter things that may happen.
For this reason poetry is a more philosophical and more serious thing than history; poetry tends
to speak of universals history of particulars" (98). Poetry involves probability and necessity
whereas history only involves what has already occurred, and therefore poetry has a general
encompassing message for all and any of society whereas history has a narrow specific scope.
This is a far different outlook from Plato, who deemed that poetry was purely pleasure and could
offer nothing meaningful to society. In contrast, here Aristotle equates poetry to a branch of
study that is philosophical in nature and that can be applied to all members of society.
Aristotle agrees with Plato that poetry does inspire great emotion, but instead of being an
enduring detrimental effect as Plato foretells, Aristotle finds that the sharing and expression of
emotion is a type of katharsis. A katharsis allows the flushing of emotion, for a type of release,
and can even result in the clarification of moral, ethical, and intellectual beliefs (88). Therefore,
the expression of emotion is an act of emotional liberation, not one of degradation and emotional
weakening. Emotional involvement in poetry causes people to become more moral, ethical, and
intellectual by the release of emotion, thereby improving their personal lives. Overall, Aristotle
believes that poetry improves the general society whereas Plato believes instead that poetry
harms society.
However, Aristotle agrees with Plato that the poet himself must be insane or else a genius to
produce proper work. In order to make sure diction and actions will appear appropriately and
without contradiction, a poet must be able to properly visualize these components. Gestures
should be an integral part of the plot, and are best represented by those who are actually
experiencing the emotions meant to be depicted. It is therefore that "he who is agitated or furious
[can represent] agitation and anger most truthfully. For this reason, the art of poetry belongs to
the genius or the madman; of these, the first are adaptable, the second can step outside
themselves" (104), meaning that the genius can experience these emotions when needed but
remain in conscious reality whereas the madman becomes totally lost to his rational self when
immersed in his emotions. By this reasoning, Aristotle leaves open the possibility that greatness
can be achieved without madness, that it can be a rational human accomplishment, and not
always an irrational divinely inspired one, as Plato believes.
Aristotle and Plato are both concerned with the beneficial elements that poetry offer individuals
and society. Plato found poetry to be a degraded form of representation far removed from truth
and therefore excluded it from his ideal society. In contrast, Aristotle found poetry to be
philosophical and to have a general theme that can benefit all of society since it is general and
inclusive in nature, unlike history. Both men also debated the effects that poetry has on
individuals and society. Plato sees the effect as detrimental by increasing unconventional and
unacceptable emotions, but Aristotle sees positive effects such as moral, ethic, and intellectual
clarification and purification. However, both men find poetry as stimulating great emotion for
both the poet and the audience, and this emotion effects their individual lives and overall society.
Source: The Norton Anthhology of Theory and Cricism by Leitch, Cain, Finke, Johnson,
McGowan, and Williams.
Background
Time chart:





Aeschylus:
Sophocles:
Euripides:
Plato:
Aristotle:
Great
525-455
496-406
486-406
428-348 (student of Socrates, founded the Academy)
384-322 (student of Plato, founded the Lyceum, tutor of Alexander the
Aristotle's Poetics, perhaps the most fundamental theoretical treatise on tragedy, must
however properly be understood in context: as a reply to a challenge issued by his teacher,
Plato, in the Republic
The Nature of Tragedy
The essential question to probe is: why do we enjoy, in some sense, watching tragedies, that is
the suffering of people onstage?


popular use of "tragedy" as "disaster" ("the plane wreck was a tragedy"): this is very
different from the technical sense of tragedy, which specifies a particular literary genre
of drama in which people suffer
what is different between the experience of watching tragedy and
o watching real suffering?
o
o


riding a roller coaster?
watching a horror film?
Fundamental to the view of tragedy in Plato and Aristotle (and indeed for me!) is the
human need for pathos ("suffering")
o pity (greek eleos) = compassion for the one undergoing the pathos
o terror/fear (Greek phobos) = identification with the one undergoing the pathos
Pathos (cf. "Passion" as in the "Passion of Christ"):
o a mysteriously agreeable sadness
o but also a vital moment in religion in art, cherished by many and feared by some
as enticement to the irrationality of deep emotion
 Chorus in Oedipus Rex: the revelation of a pathos makes one shudder and
want to turn away, even as it makes one yearn to look, to feast one's eyes,
and to try to understand: for abhorrence and fascination go hand in hand
with the sight of the blinded Oedipus
 Similarly, in early Christianity, Paul (Philippians 3) tells his readers to
concentrate on the cross, the terrible and utterly undeserved suffering of
the blameless Christ, a painful injustice ordered by God himself for us to
contemplate
Plato, Poetry, and Tragedy: Plato's Republic
The "Ancient Quarrel between Poetry and Philosophy"


Tradition has it that Plato wrote tragedies, epigrams, and songs called dithyrambs when
he was young, but burned them when he met Socrates
o Interesting since it suggests hostility by Socrates towards poetry: the "ancient
quarrel"
Traditional versus newfangled education is roughly the antithesis between poetry and
philosophy
o Traditionally, students studied Homer and the other poets
o The "new" education of Plato's Academy emphasized philosophy, rather than
inspired poetry, as the correct means towards the truth
o In Plato's view, poetry is the wrong method for trying to find the truth for any
number of reasons, which he explains in his great work, the Republic
Background to the Republic


The basic question posed is "What is justice?" or more specifically "What constitutes a
just state?" To answer this, Socrates and his friends try to infer logically what would
constitute the most just state, that is, what would constitute a political utopia
In constructing the ideal Republic, Plato explores broadly the question of what is "just"
and indeed what is "good", esp. what is the "good" ruler


But "good" in Plato's terms (which is linked to what is "just") is closely allied with pure
reason, and therefore the "emotional" part of the state, or of the man, must be "purified"
or eliminated if the state or the person is to be as "good" as possible
Ultimately, what is "good" is beyond this material world: for the best we can do is only a
striving towards the perfect goodness that exists in the changeless, eternal world of the
forms that lies beyond our material existence
Attack on Poetry



interestingly, Plato raises the fundamental question of whether the pleasure produced
by poetry is good for us
In books 2 & 3, Plato finds poetry unsuitable as a vehicle for understanding, and thus as a
means to approach or insure what is "good" or "just" because:
o the poet write not through understanding or reason but by inspiration
o poetry teaches the wrong stuff: for instance, "god" is by definition all that is
"good", thus the poets clearly do NOT represent the gods as they really are (poets
not only lie, says Plato, but "lie in an ugly fashion"!)
o poetry arouses emotions in a way that is not in accord with reason
 poetry such as that in tragedy often has music, and we all know how
irrationally affecting music can be: for the Greeks this was formalized in
their ideas of musical modes (e.g. the "mixo-Lydian mode", a kind of
musical scale, was associated by the Greeks with lamentation and dirges,
thus evoked sad emotions)
 poetry is inappropriate in the emotions it raises: we feel empathy for
Oedipus, for example, when he is inappropriately wailing in public
 "imitations practiced from youth become part of nature and settle
into habits of gesture, voice, and thought": so we want to avoid
imitations of bad actions!
 for a good man to imitate a bad action is uncomfortable, for he
"despises it in his mind, unless it's just done in play": what we
would abominate in ourselves, gives us pleasure through pity for
what is "on stage"!
In Book 10, Plato revisits the question of poetry in more detail, with astonishing results:
for he finds poetry unacceptable altogether in his ideal Republic, and feels compelled to
exclude poetry altogether
o Poetry, as an imitation of a material world that already imitates the "really real", is
at a second remove from the truth
o poetry doesn't teach us anything: no one is better governed, or knows more about
generalship, because of Homer: Homer conveys no practical or theoretical
information
o poetry is ignorant about the thing described (does the painter or smithy know the
proper quality of reins and bits for horses?)
o poetry is not only ignorant, but dangerous, because the spell of the rhythm and
song is so convincing that this description, which in fact holds no truth but is
simply an ignorant representation, seems like the truth itself
o



poetry is ignorant and dangerous to the soul, since it produces the wrong
emotions, and interferes with the striving towards pure reason that is the proper
conduct of the "good" soul
 For Plato, the experience of pity is directly pleasurable, and
inappropriately so in the context of tragedy
 poetry "waters and fosters these passions when
In sum, Plato's 4 arguments are:
1. Poets compose under inspiration, not by using reason
2. Poetry is ignorant about what it teaches, and thus teaches the wrong things
3. Poetry is a mimesis (imitation), at 2 removes from the "really real" (that is, from
the world of the Forms)
4. Poetry encourages the wrong emotions in the audience
Poetry is tossed out of the Republic, but with a challenge
o Plato has now raised clearly the question of why representations of people
suffering is a pleasurable experience
o Moreover, he has clearly linked this to the irrational side of one's being, thus
setting it in the context of the "ancient quarrel between poetry and philosophy"
o Since the irrational cannot be allowed into his utopian, philosophy-ruled state,
Plato tosses poetry (esp. tragedy) out of the Republic
o But at the same time, Plato issues a challenge to those who would care to make an
argument to find a rightful place for poetry in the philosophical utopian state (pp.
832f)
 "And we would allow [poetry's] advocates who are not poets but lovers of
poetry to plead her cause in prose without meter, and show that she is not
only delightful but beneficial to orderly government and all the life of
man. And we shall listen benevolently, for it will be clear gain for us if it
can be shown that she bestows not only pleasure but a benefit."
Aristotle, Plato's most famous student, now takes up this challenge, point by point!
Aristotle on tragedy: Aristotle's Poetics
Aristotle's answers to Plato's 4 principal arguments against tragedy:
(1) Poetry is a skill, with rational rules (like shipbuilding or any other skill), and not really a
process of inspiration

The principles of poetic composition, set forth in detail in the Poetics,
demonstrates that poetry is not simply inspired, but is a skill which can be
learned, and has rules comprehensible by reason
(2+3) Poetry represents reality in a useful way from which we can learn: poetry
represents universals (as opposed to history, which represents particulars); poetry
represents the actions of good men [see handout, passage #2]
o
o
Note how powerful an argument this is against Plato's objection that poetry does
not teach practical wisdom, and that, since the poet does not understand horse bits
and reins, he is two removes from the truth
Instead, for Aristotle, the poet is the one who approaches the truth more directly
by focusing on what is universal (rather than what is incidental or "particular")
about human experience
(4) Poetry arouses the emotions in such a way as to increase our ability to control them:
catharsis
o
Controversy over what is intended by catharsis, which in Greek means a
"purification"
 Old view: Bernays (Freud's uncle): catharsis is a process of psychological
healing: we all have build-ups of undesirable emotions like pity and terror,
which can be aroused and then released by watching tragedy
 New view: Janko and others (including me!): catharsis is a process
whereby you learn to control your emotions, thus "purifying" the soul of
bad emotions in the same way that (in Plato and Aristotle) the good soul is
"purified" of evil (that is, the good learns to keep evil under control)
 Nichomachean Ethics: moderation (sophrosyne!) in all things: thus
fear, for example, if we have too much of it we're cowards and if
we have too little of it we're fools
 tragedy provides a venue wherein people can experience in a
controlled way potentially overwhelming emotions, and learn
thereby to gain better control over these emotions
 essentially like homoepathic medicine (which ruled in antiquity):
in ancient medicine, for example, you pile on blankets to reduce a
fever
(2+3, revisited) A good man is represented, but one who commits an error
o
hamartia = "error, mistake" NOT "character flaw"
 the Greek does not mean this, and the context in any case is the plot: of the
good man who undergoes a change of fortune not because of vice or
wickedness but because of some error he has committed
 Note that there is nothing in the Poetics about hybris: thus the High
School English Teacher's version of tragedy, that of a hero who because of
hybris and a "character flaw" (his "tragic flaw" as it's sometimes termed)
suffers a reversal is a strange grab-bag of stuff from Aristotle, a couple of
plays of Sophocles, and thin air!
o
o
Note how poorly this idea -- of a "good man" (hero) who makes a "big
mistake" -- describes the tragedies we have read!
 What is particularly good about many of these characters?
 For those that are good men, is it really helpful to say that the downfall is
occasioned by a "great error"?
But Aristotle, as we now see, makes this argument in this way because it is an
essential part of his rebuttal to Plato: if we are not sympathizing with good
men, then clearly the experience of watching a tragedy cannot be allowed into the
ideal state
Comparison III with emphasis on the concept of mimesis
Views on Art (Mimesis)
Plato (L) holding the Timaeus and Aristotle (R) holding the Ethics, a painting by Raphael Sanzio at The
School of Athens
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
professes to imitate, the process of imitation, and the inherent strengths and weaknesses of
imitation as a form of artistic expression may lead to understanding how these conflicting views
of art could develop from a seemingly similar premise.
Both philosophers hold radically different notions of reality. The assumptions each man makes
about truth, knowledge, and goodness directly affect their specific ideas about art. For Plato, art
imitates a world that is already far removed from authentic reality, Truth. Truth exists only in
intellectual abstraction, that is, paradoxically, more real than concrete objects. The universal
essence, the Idea, the Form of a thing, is more real and thus more important than its physical
substance. The physical world, the world of appearances experienced through the senses, does
not harbor reality. This tangible world is an imperfect reflection of the universal world of Forms.
Human observations based on these reflections are, therefore, highly suspect. At best, the
tangible fruit of any human labor is "an indistinct expression of truth". Because knowledge of
truth and knowledge of good are virtually inseparable to Plato, he counsels rejection of the
physical in favor of embracing reason in an abstract, intellectual, and ultimately more human,
existence. Art is removed from any notion of real truth, an inherently flawed copy of an already
imperfect world. Art as an imitation is irrelevant to what is real.
Aristotle approaches reality from a completely different premise. While his ideas do stand in
sharp contrast to Plato's, they are not simply a refutation of his former mentor's views. To
Aristotle, the world exists in an infinitely diverse series of parts. These various parts are open to
human observation and scrutiny. Rather than an eternally regressing truth beyond the scope of
human apprehension, knowledge of truth and good are rooted firmly in the observable universe;
truth, or at least gestures toward it, lies in existence rather than essence. Aristotle encourages
embracing the particular in order to possibly gain a sense of the universal. There is, however, no
universal system of inquiry to investigate each part of the whole. Different parts require different
methods of discourse.
In The Poetics, Aristotle attempts to articulate a method of inquiry, not a rigid system or standard
of evaluation, applicable to tragedy. Tragedy attempts to imitate the complex world of human
actions, and yet tragedy is itself still part of a larger, more complicated world of human
existence. Tragedy is a manifestation of the human desire to imitate. Because he asserts that each
person "learns his lessons through imitation and we observe that all men find pleasure in
imitations", the self referential function of tragedy gives it inherent relevance to Aristotle's
concept of reality.
The actual process of imitation employed by the artist seems to underscore each philosopher's
vision of reality. A Platonic artist lacks any substantial knowledge of the subject that is imitated.
Three degrees of separation prevent the artist from providing an authentic representation or
insight: the ethereal Form of a thing, the physical manifestation of a thing, and knowledge of the
physical manifestation. An artist merely copies the surface, the appearance, of a thing without
the need for understanding or even awareness of its substance. The artist is "an imitator of
images and is very far removed from the truth". This fact is obscured, Plato claims, because the
artist is adept at manipulating the emotional responses of an audience. While it attempts to claim
truth as its domain, art as a process of imitation is a deceptive but essentially superficial and
imperfect enterprise.
Aristotle does not attempt to dispute the fact that imitation will not produce perfect copies of an
original. Instead, he describes imitation as a creative process of selection, translation, and
transformation from one media to another. Art attempts to imitate human action, not specific
individuals. The literary artist seeks to portray accurately the general actions of human life
(|happiness, misery) within the confines of a consciously constructed sequence of particular
events and characters. Poetry, for example, can thus be described as human action given new
form by language. Tragedy, as an act of imitation, implies more than the act of copying because
the artist is an active participant in the process. The artist is a maker, selecting certain details,
excluding others, giving a work its particular shape, not a deceitful scribe. Where the historian is
obsessed with absolute accuracy in cataloging events and actions, the artist attempts to transcend
individual details to provide an audience with fleeting glimpses, insights about the truth of
human existence.
To Aristotle, it is the attempt to point toward a broader sense of the truth of human existence, its
concern with "the universal", which makes tragedy valuable . Not that tragedy always (or ever)
succeeds completely (or at all). Tragedy's value, though, is inherently connected to the process of
imitating not only the world as it is known, but the world as it should be. The artist encourages
an audience to reconcile the actuality of existence with the human condition rather than ignoring
it. Aristotle, in developing a method of inquiry, helps others understand how a tragedy operates
(intellectually and practically) in its parts and as a whole. With tragedy as the catalyst, other
specific lines of inquiry may also begin to develop, leading ever so slightly closer to the goal:
knowledge in general and knowledge of good in specific. Tragedy, though an imperfect
imitation, is to Aristotle an inherently ethical endeavor.
It is precisely this conception of art which threatens Plato's pursuit of truth. Because artists claim
their imitations can speak to the true nature of things, circumventing the need for serious, calmly
considered intellectual inquiry, art should not be pursued as a valuable endeavor. Art widens the
gap between truth and the world of appearances, ironically by claiming to breach it. Whether in
Plato's idealized Republic or his actual society, the threat art poses to attaining knowledge and
becoming good is significant and ubiquitous. "The power which poetry has of harming even the
good (and there are very few who are not harmed) is surely an awful thing" .Art cannot promote
falsehood and remain neutral in this debate. A binary relationship exists. False imitations breed
false hopes by claiming to point toward the truth. Either/or: either art is perfect in its mimetic
process (in which case its claims are upheld) or art is flawed, and therefore not only worthless,
but a challenge to truth in general. Since the physical universe Plato describes is itself a pale
imitation of its true form, art is also imperfect and must be controlled and delegitmized.
Though both critics use the word mimetic to describe art, the definition derived by each
philosopher is profoundly different. In order to construct a coherent, wide-ranging philosophy,
art and its impact on society must be reckoned with, whether as an imitation of a system far
removed or a system in our midst. The process of imitation is used in both cases to promote the
particular version of reality espoused by each man. While such a study is beneficial in tracing the
philosophical conflict regarding the usage and importance of imitation in art, what is most
apparent, perhaps, is the discovery that language itself is an imperfect imitation of meaning,
capable of fostering such conflicts.
Contrast to diegesis
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Aristotle_vs_Plato
Statue of Aristotle in Thessaloniki (click to enlarge)
Though they conceive of mimesis in quite different ways, its relation with diegesis is identical in
Plato's and Aristotle's formulations; one represents, the other reports; one embodies, the other
narrates; one transforms, the other indicates; one knows only a continuous present, the other
looks back on a past.
It was also Plato and Aristotle who contrasted mimesis with diegesis (Greek διήγησις). Mimesis
shows rather than tells, by means of directly-represented action that is enacted. Diegesis,
however, is the telling of the story by a narrator; the author narrates action indirectly and
describes what is in the characters' minds and emotions. The narrator may speak as a particular
character or may be the invisible narrator or even the all-knowing narrator who speaks from
above in the form of commenting on the action or the characters.
In Book III of his Republic (c.373BCE), Plato examines the 'style' of 'poetry' (the term includes
comedy, tragedy, epic and lyric poetry): All types narrate events, he argues, but by differing
means. He distinguishes between narration or report (diegesis) and imitation or representation
(mimesis). Tragedy and comedy, he goes on to explain, are wholly imitative types; the dithyramb
is wholly narrative; and their combination is found in epic poetry. When reporting or narrating,
"the poet is speaking in his own person; he never leads us to suppose that he is any one else";
when imitating, the poet produces an "assimilation of himself to another, either by the use of
voice or gesture". In dramatic texts, the poet never speaks directly; in narrative texts, the poet
speaks as his or herself.
In his Poetics, Aristotle argues that kinds of 'poetry' (the term includes drama, flute music, and
lyre music for Aristotle) may be differentiated in three ways: according to their medium,
according to their objects, and according to their mode or 'manner' (section I); "For the medium
being the same, and the objects the same, the poet may imitate by narration—in which case he
can either take another personality as Homer does, or speak in his own person, unchanged—or
he may present all his characters as living and mo