Name> NADIA FAYAZ.

Page > 1-10

Plato’s Criticism of Poets Poetry.

Plato was the student of Socrates and the teacher of Aristotle. He was great, perhaps the greatest
philosopher. He was a poet among philosophers, not only he had sensibility of a
poet but he also wrote his philosophy in poetic manner. Literature deals not with
what has been or is but what might be or ought to be? If we talk of what might be
or ought to be, then we are poets. What Plato described, never happened. He was
not writing what had been, he was creating out of his imagination and so he was a
poet among philosophers. The irony of ironies is that this poet and philosopher
was the enemy of poets and poetry, not only of bad poets but of all. He considered
poetry to be to be heart full He confesses that some happiest moments of his life
have been spent with books of Homer. But Homer according to him was an
enemy of truth. Plato defines art is an imitation, the word which Aristotle took
from him. He says that poetry is an imperfect imitation of an imperfect imitation
twice removed from realty of world, of shadows and falsehood. This is his view
of poetry and art. He gives a number of arguments against poetry. They are
metaphysical, ethical and inductive.

1. The first argument he gives is on metaphysical grounds. He says that only idea is real and
the world of nature is an imperfect copy of the world of idea. He says that poets are
slavish copyists of the world of things. This world is a world things. All that we perceive
through our senses are things. What does an artist do? He imitates the things of this
world. For example, a painter paints things, he draws a portrait. It is an imperfect copy
which falls short of the thing. Poet does same thing through words and so does the
novelist. Poetry is concerned with word pictures. Pictures, within they are painted or
word pictures, are imperfect copies. Poets give us an imperfect copy of an imperfect
copy. So they go distant from realty. If the poet gives us an exact copy of a thing, it is
still imperfect. Why???? Because things have freshness, beauty which life gives to them,
the copy does not have that freshness, and beauty. Things a purpose and use. For
example, these have a use and purpose that the copy of a tree has no use. The men and
women we find in sculptures are the imperfect copies. They fall very short of the men
and women of this world. This world of things and not the world of art and poetry is itself
not real. This world is an imperfect copy of idea. The things we see with our eyes or
perceives through our senses – animals, trees, people etc. are in process of change. They
are in a flux. They are and are not at the same time some changes fall quickly while
others are very minute. For example we see a flower in the morning and then see it
evening with a change we meet a friend after six years. Who appears to us a changed
man.so a thing which is always in flux cannot be real. A thing which is today and is not
 tomorrow cannot be real. Now if things are unreal, then what is real? If we are unreal,
what can be real? Plato says that idea is real but we cannot see idea, about the existence
of things through reason. Senses are not perfect but reason tells as what is real and what
is not real, it tells us what idea is? We see that things come and go but the idea is always
there. For instance, the idea of man is always there. It does not contain anything
particular. The idea of a horse cannot be black because all horses are not black. The idea
a man cannot be stout, because all men are not stouts. Idea is that which is common to all.
It is the presence of things. We see trees and every tree is different from every other, yet
we call them trees. To the eye there is nothing common in them but reason tells us to call
them trees. So the idea is real and it does not undergo a process of change. Thus the
world of ideas is real. The things are unreal. They are the copies of ideas. Every horse is a
copy of the idea –an imperfect idea. Plato says that world of things is once removed from
reality and since the artist copy this world of things, therefore, their world is twice
removed from reality. This is his first argument regarding poetry and art. This is very
difficult to understand. This is the theory of ideas.
2. Plato’s second argument is on moral grounds. According to him every human being has
three aspects with regard to his personality. The first is ‘cognition’ which means the
power of thinking, reasoning and intellect of man. The second aspect is ‘conation’ which
means the will-power to do and act; the urge in man which makes him does something. It
is the active side of man. The third ‘affection’. it means the feeling aspect of man, the
emotional and sentimental aspect of man of those three Plato says, the first that is ration
part of human personality is the highest. Second comes the will-power. This is lower than
cognitive aspect. The lowest of all is affection and it is the worst aspect of man’s
personality. What part do they play in a good man? Who is morally a good man?
According to him a man is he in whom reason governs, whose deeds are directed by
reason. Reason must guide his will-power. If he disobeys reason, then he is doing
something bad. The will-power should carry the orders of reason. He says that emotions
and passions are evil and must be controlled. So if reason rules a man, then he is a good
man. This is his picture of a good man. But that man in whom emotions and passions
dominate, who is a creature of emotion is a bad man. Corresponding to this is his
definition of a good state and bad state. All of us have reason, will-power and emotions.
But in some reason is more powerful than others and which we call them philosophers.
There are others in whom the will-power is strong. They are man of action and we call
them soldiers. Then there is a last number of people who are ruled by passions and we
call them businessman, workers, traders and farmers. A philosopher is a highest in the
state. The soldiers are comes next and the businessman is the lowest of all. So in ideal
state would be that which is ruled by philosophers. The soldiers obey the orders of
philosophers. As in an ideal man reason rules, similarly in an ideal state philosophers
rule. As in an ideal man emotion are kept under control, so in an ideal state the traders,
businessman, etc. are kept under control by soldiers. Soldiers are the men of action and
they use their will-power to keep the businessman under chain and prevent them going
 out of the control. In his republic, we have the rule of philosophers and the soldiers are
there to carry out the orders of philosophers. if we have this pares tan it will be an ideal
state. Poetry appeals to the lowest aspect of man. Its appeal to emotion. To the words of
Plato, it feeds and nourishes the emotions and strengthens them. Passions become
stronger than reason and that leads to moral disharmony and degradation. So what poetry
is doing is good or bad? Plato says that stimulating the lowest part in man is not good so
poetry is morally harmful. Its influence is bound to be bad. It corrupts the society. It leads
to the destruction of the character of man.
3. Plato’s third argument against poetry is also on moral grounds. While reading poetry,
mostly by seeing a play, which is the highest kind of poetry, the audience identify
themselves with one of the characters. They forget themselves and consider themselves to
be someone else. In Greek drama one actor used to play many characters (parts). He used
a mask for different roles. Plato says that considering oneself to be someone else leads to
the weakening of personality. Forgetting one’s self and identifying and pretending to be
many other people are very harmful for the healthy development of personality. If has a
very bad influence on the audience and readers. The readers also identify themselves with
the hero. They are influenced by his style of talking, dressing and his mannerism. This
takes them away from reality and brings them close to the artificiality. For examples we
watch a movie either in cinema or on TV while watching the film we start identifying
ourselves with some character. We feel sympathy for him/her. As a result we dress in the
same manner etc. so we become someone else than ourselves. In watching one play we
imagine ourselves to be one man but in another play, we become another man so much so
that our personality is lost. According to Plato, this imitation is destructive. The same is
true of poetry. It has also characters e.g. in epic, people are fascinated by the hero and
want to be like him. So poetry is morally bad. It prevents the healthy development of the
self. So this is his third argument against art and poetry.
4. The forth argument is an inductive one. He draws a general conclusion from particular
facts. The Greeks believed that poet is a teacher. Plato says what do we find in the best of
poets? Homer was considered the greatest teacher and poet. But what do we find in his
poetry? We find gods fighting. They take sides. They show furious to some and vice
versa. They do all sorts of things which we considered wrong. The same is true of heroes.
They are higher than us we look up to them. They do not care for the nation concerned.
They become angry and try to harm the people. The gods get involved in human affairs.
The Greeks regarded poets as teachers. Aristophanes, the first literary critic, says this in,
THE FROG, the question was asked. What was the function of poetry? The answer was
that the function of poetry was to give good counsels, to impart wisdom and make people
better sons, fathers, husbands and better citizens. So poet is a teacher. This was traditional
Greek view. Plato says that from Homer we expect good poetry. If this is the kind of
teaching he gives, if this is the function of poetry we find in Homer, what must be the
teaching of inferior poets. So if this is the function of poetry, then we had better get rid of
poets, because they are bad teachers. The teaching we find in poetry is morally wrong.
Their practice is not conductive to heath. So he is no place for poetry and poets in his
ideal republic. He feels sorry to expel poets from it because he had great love for Homer.
He found great pleasure in reading him, but he says that truth and reason come first and
whatever his feelings should be secondary. He says that he would not insult the poets, he
would garland them but would not let them in his ideal republic, because their world is
twice removed from reality.