If you ever get a chance, read his Republic. One of my majors as an undergrad was philosophy, so I've read him over and over again, so much so that some things have just become common knowledge.
In Republic, he outlines what he feels are the necessary traits for maintaining a long-lasting, successful society. He was very extreme. He felt all children should be removed from their homes after birth and raised collectively by society so none got shown favoritism, but were instead given professions based on their knowledge, skill, and merit. Plato also felt the arts were a distraction that did not contribute to society or to personal attainment of the Good. His world would be very serious.
To understand his view of the arts, you would have to know his view of the world. He saw there were two distinct realms; there was the world of the Forms and the Real World of man. The world of the Forms is the place where things are the ideal, ultimate versions of themselves. These versions are The Way Things Really Are. In our Real World, things Are as They Appear. They are not true in themselves, but imperfect copies of the forms. Because art is made by man, which is an imperfect copy of the concept of Man, it is a bastardization of whatever it is attempting to portray. Things in our world are once-removed from the world of the forms, but art- created by us and our imaginations- is twice-removed.
Plato may have felt this way because he interacted with many "learned" men and decided they knew nothing. Ultimately though, he feels that art is not a form of "remembering" the world of the forms, but it is something people just make up.
Showing posts with label Phaedrus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Phaedrus. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Plato's Phaedrus
Writing and painting are alike in that Plato felt no good could come from the production or study of either. In Phaedrus, this view of writing and art is expressed when Socrates says, “You’d think [written words] were speaking as if they had some understanding, but if you question anything that has been said because you want to learn more, it continues to signify that very same thing forever” (82 [end 275]). Socrates goes on to explain that the offspring of art and writing- the individual pieces, representations, or stories- cannot explain or defend themselves, support their own validity, or know who they should or should not engage. Plato introduces his low opinion of writing by exclaiming that the written word is just a tool for reminding, which only creates the illusion of wisdom but not the reality of it.
The illusion of wisdom created by writing and the arts makes interactions between people very difficult as each person will have their own perceptions and criteria of what makes a person falsely wise. In his ideal republic, Plato felt that the arts were an unnecessary distraction that would take away from the success of the society. Plato felt that everyone needed to intensely focus on their tasks and studies at all times to remember as much as one could about the world of the Forms. The arts were an obstacle to remembering Truth, the Good, etc. He expresses this via Socrates several times. The difference between writing and speech is pointed out as “the difference between dream-image and the reality of what is just and unjust, good and bad” (84 [mid 277]). This opinion is previously introduced when Socrates asks Phaedrus for a legitimate discourse. This legitimate discourse, the one that can be engaged discerningly, provide new knowledge when questions are asked, and support as well as defend its positions, is speech.
Speech is secondary to writing because a learned man can discern the appropriateness of his words and when to use them. Writing, according to Plato, is for one’s own amusement and to remind the author of some event later in life when memory is deteriorating. Plato, via Socrates, expresses the best method of working through discourse is the dialectic, which is a logical argument between two people to analyze and test theories. Via Socrates, Plato says, “The dialectician chooses a proper soul and plants and sow within it discourse accompanied by knowledge- discourse capable of helping itself as well as the man who planted it [277], which is not barren but produces a seed from which more discourse grows in the character of others” (83). Apparently, this seed of knowledge can only be passed on via speech, according to Plato.
People who write and recite do so, according to Plato, to produce conviction and have not imparted any type of knowledge into any souls. Via Socrates, Plato expresses that philosophers- lovers of wisdom- recognize the important differences between speech and the written word and value speech as discourse above the other. Socrates says, “…if a man has nothing more valuable than what he has composed or written…wouldn’t you be right to call him a poet or a speech writer or an author of laws?” (85 [end 278]). All poets, lovers, and madmen are grouped together because they write, according to Plato, without “the knowledge of the truth” (84 [mid 278). These people, as well as politicians, consider writing to be the thing they are pursuing instead of the thing itself; therefore, they write to convey a meaning rather than for amusement.
Issues I have with the Phaedrus:
1. It’s written. How serious does Plato expect to be taken when he is writing about trying to discredit writing?
2. The analogy about the farmer and the man who knows what is good, noble, and just (pg 83). Plato expresses over and over again via Socrates that we cannot know these concepts in their true Form. Why would he call them into his argument? He expresses that we can remember the world of the Forms and what concepts are in their true Form, but we cannot embody them. This must be an argument closer to his Politics than to The Death of Socrates.
3. Plato writes using the dialectic. Granted, it is a static argument, but it is in the form of the dialectic. Through this dialog, which is written in the form of a dialectic argument, I am getting new ideas and sharing them with my classmates.
Works Cited
Plato. “Phaedrus.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. Norton: New
York 2001. 81-85.
The illusion of wisdom created by writing and the arts makes interactions between people very difficult as each person will have their own perceptions and criteria of what makes a person falsely wise. In his ideal republic, Plato felt that the arts were an unnecessary distraction that would take away from the success of the society. Plato felt that everyone needed to intensely focus on their tasks and studies at all times to remember as much as one could about the world of the Forms. The arts were an obstacle to remembering Truth, the Good, etc. He expresses this via Socrates several times. The difference between writing and speech is pointed out as “the difference between dream-image and the reality of what is just and unjust, good and bad” (84 [mid 277]). This opinion is previously introduced when Socrates asks Phaedrus for a legitimate discourse. This legitimate discourse, the one that can be engaged discerningly, provide new knowledge when questions are asked, and support as well as defend its positions, is speech.
Speech is secondary to writing because a learned man can discern the appropriateness of his words and when to use them. Writing, according to Plato, is for one’s own amusement and to remind the author of some event later in life when memory is deteriorating. Plato, via Socrates, expresses the best method of working through discourse is the dialectic, which is a logical argument between two people to analyze and test theories. Via Socrates, Plato says, “The dialectician chooses a proper soul and plants and sow within it discourse accompanied by knowledge- discourse capable of helping itself as well as the man who planted it [277], which is not barren but produces a seed from which more discourse grows in the character of others” (83). Apparently, this seed of knowledge can only be passed on via speech, according to Plato.
People who write and recite do so, according to Plato, to produce conviction and have not imparted any type of knowledge into any souls. Via Socrates, Plato expresses that philosophers- lovers of wisdom- recognize the important differences between speech and the written word and value speech as discourse above the other. Socrates says, “…if a man has nothing more valuable than what he has composed or written…wouldn’t you be right to call him a poet or a speech writer or an author of laws?” (85 [end 278]). All poets, lovers, and madmen are grouped together because they write, according to Plato, without “the knowledge of the truth” (84 [mid 278). These people, as well as politicians, consider writing to be the thing they are pursuing instead of the thing itself; therefore, they write to convey a meaning rather than for amusement.
Issues I have with the Phaedrus:
1. It’s written. How serious does Plato expect to be taken when he is writing about trying to discredit writing?
2. The analogy about the farmer and the man who knows what is good, noble, and just (pg 83). Plato expresses over and over again via Socrates that we cannot know these concepts in their true Form. Why would he call them into his argument? He expresses that we can remember the world of the Forms and what concepts are in their true Form, but we cannot embody them. This must be an argument closer to his Politics than to The Death of Socrates.
3. Plato writes using the dialectic. Granted, it is a static argument, but it is in the form of the dialectic. Through this dialog, which is written in the form of a dialectic argument, I am getting new ideas and sharing them with my classmates.
Works Cited
Plato. “Phaedrus.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. Norton: New
York 2001. 81-85.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)