A Defense of Poetry, against Plato

This is a paper analyzing the arguments made by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato in Book
X of The Republic. Additionally, it surmises my own defense of poetry and references the work
of Emerson, Aristotle, and others. Happy reading!

Submitted as the midterm for my university elective: “Poetry makes nothing happen: poetry in
the age of artificial intelligence.”

~ Moatasim bin Hisham Sayyid

19701
 “Your reason and your passion are the rudder and the sails of your seafaring soul.
If either your sails or your rudder be broken, you can but toss and drift, or else be held at a
standstill in mid-seas.
For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns
to its own destruction.
Therefore let your soul exalt your reason to the height of passion, that it may sing;
And let it direct your passion with reason, that your passion may live through its own daily
resurrection and like the phoenix rise above its own ashes.”

-Khalil Gibran, The Prophet 1923

“Round face, Moon face,

How they describe her face,
Nay, tis the Moon that has
Her face.
She is the Moon, shining
Light and
Bright, Waves in deepest night.”

-Yours truly, 2024 (an amateur attempt at poetry)

Plato. The end and the beginning of all philosophers (Emerson, Plato; Or, the Philosopher). The
Ancient Greek titan of intellectual thought had many misgivings about poetry. In Book X of ‘The
Republic’, Plato highlights his main arguments against poetry, delving deeply into a harsh
critique, which over the years, not many have been able to counter. He gives us
thought-provoking philosophical, moral, and psychological reasons as to why poetry, and by
extension, all art, has no place in his perfect society. In this paper, we will attempt to establish
grounds for refuting Plato’s claims. We will examine his arguments, reflect upon personal
experiences of the arts, and address whether Plato’s criticism withstands modern scrutiny in the
context of contemporary engagement with different art forms.

Ever the philosopher, Plato’s greatest argument was made through the Allegory of the Cave.
The prisoners in the cave who had only ever known the shadows, Plato implies, are much like
the average enjoyers of poetry. Twice removed from truth, poetry is a shadow of reality, which in
itself is a shadow of a higher truth, a higher Form. Thus Plato emphasizes that poetry cannot
contain truth, as it is an imitation of an imitation. Consequently, poetry distorts the populace’s
idea of truth, and impedes the people’s ability of achieving true understanding of the world.

Epic poetry was at its peak in Plato’s life, and considered the highest truth by many in Ancient
Greece. Plato’s arguments in the context of morality played out as concerns over poetry’s
potential to influence the soul. Particularly, epic poetry such as Homer’s Odyssey or the Iliad,
often had glorifying references to base and negative emotions, venerating the gods’ emotions of
lust, cruelty, and wrath. Plato feared poetry’s ability to indulge these emotions, which he argues
should be subdued and controlled instead.

Lastly, Plato’s psychological foundations for banishing the poets, were linked to his misgivings
from a moral and ethical perspective. Though blessed by the poetic powers of diction and
beautiful wordplay, Plato was foremost a philosopher, and as such, gave paramount importance
to reason and logic, as opposed to passion and emotion. Poetry, literary art, painting, sculpting,
theater; all of these art-forms emphasize moving the viewer to be past their usual serene state
of mind, influencing them in some way or another to allow their emotions greater control over
their mind and their actions. In Plato’s perfect society, with its philosopher-king, such art has no
place.

Contemporary art takes many various forms. In today’s day and age, all of us experience art on
a daily basis. Be it prose in the form of blog posts, novels, articles, be it poetry in the form of
music, amateur poetry that we experience online, or classical poetry. Be it theater in the form of
plays, movies, or short films, be it static paintings or digital art. Our experience of art is
multifaceted and vast. Before we venture into deeper waters and begin trying to contradict
Plato’s beliefs regarding the arts, I would like to state the very culmination in which our
discussion, as discussed in this paper from my perspective, must end. Poetry, the arts, and
hence, poets and artists themselves, are necessary for life. They are necessary for the sake of
beauty, they are necessary for the sake of love, they are an irrevocable necessity for the sake of
happiness. Now let us work our way towards this very conclusion.

We begin with a cursory look at Khalil Gibran’s words which I have included at the start of this
essay, where Mr. Gibran likens Reason and Passion to the rudder and the sails of one’s life. The
point he is trying to make here is one of harmony. An individual can never achieve anything
meaningful in life unless they first achieve a balance between their own heart and mind. When
one learns to direct oneself according to the logic of the rational mind, and lets one’s emotions
and passions be their drive, that then, is the pinnacle of purpose, implies Mr. Gibran.
The second poem in the introduction is inspired by one close to my own heart. It spawned as I
was contemplating the structure and composition of this very essay, as I was thinking upon the
causality of emotion, and one emotion in particular. In the number of hours it has taken for me to
refine this poem, to refine this essay, I have observed a curious effect within myself. Though the
poem was a product of my passion, rather than my passion being the product of this poem, the
converse is no less true. Every time I sat down to try and improve it, to enhance the form, to
better the imagery used, I was struck by incrementally sweeter thoughts about the subject
herself. Is it the poem I wrote that is causing these emotions in me to blossom further and
mature? Or is it the emotions that are making the poem seem like honey to me? Which is the
objective truth? This seems a problem concerned with philosophy, but at the same time, seems
to be beyond the capacity of the philosopher. For what can Plato say about the truth of the
linkage between my internal workings and the art I experience? Can he then say the same
about any and every other person? Can he generalize the love of all lovers ever? Never having
experienced that particular flavor of love for himself, can Plato satisfactorily explain away these
feelings? Neither passion, nor reason, exists in isolation. This is realized in my own personal
journey which serves as a testament to art's transformative power, blurring the lines between
creator and creation, emotion and thought.

Aristotle, in his poetics, agrees with Plato’s categorization of poetry as an imitative art,
‘mimesis’. However, Plato’s assertion that poetry is the mother of all lies, is refuted by his very
own disciple. Aristotle asserts, in his defense of poetry, that the artist does not simply reflect the
real in the manner of a mirror, he adds to it. One may argue that this validates the exact point
that Plato is making, but once we look at it with an introspective lens, it becomes clear what
Aristotle’s meaning is: the artist, upon adding the extra, does not distort reality, but creates a
different one. And this is not a reality that is necessarily untrue, it is just one that is viewed from
a different lens, a different perspective, delivered to realize the artist’s purpose of imparting a
new world, with its own truth, its own beauty. While the poet creates something less than reality,
he simultaneously creates something more as well.

The emotional resonance that art invokes is not merely a by-product of its creation, but rather, a
fundamental bridge between individuals and societies, fostering greater collective empathy and
understanding. Despite Plato's claim that feelings derived from art are harmful, these kinds of
interactions frequently develop a complex understanding of the human condition and create
bonds that go beyond simple intellectual recognition. People can grow more empathetic and be
able to see and interact with the world in a more meaningful and caring way by being exposed
to the wide range of emotions that art conveys. Whether it be the widely used example of
Allama Iqbal’s poetry which served to unite and uplift the muslim population of the subcontinent,
or whether it be Martin Luther King’s poetic speeches which served the same purpose for the
African-american youth, the emotional journey that art facilitates can actually strengthen virtue,
fostering a society more attuned to the virtues of understanding and compassion.

Building on this foundation, the praises sung for poetry and art by thinkers like Aristotle,
Emerson, and Philip Sidney shine a light on the profound and virtuous impact artistic expression
can have. Aristotle, in his "Poetics," delves into the philosophical richness and the universal
truths that poetry can reveal, showing us how it reaches beyond the mundane to touch what is
timeless and universal. Emerson, in his reflective essays, reveals how art, and by extension
artists, transcend ordinary existence, holding the power to mirror and mold society's moral
landscape while fostering deep self-reflection and moral courage. Similarly, Philip Sidney in his
"Defense of Poesy" passionately argues for the nurturing and enlightening capacity of poetry,
which, he suggests, does more than entertain—it educates, instilling virtue in its audience.

Far from stripping life of its essence as Plato might argue, art infuses it with depth, touching the
profound, the sublime, and the essence of our humanity. Thus, our conclusion isn't just a
counterargument to Plato but an appeal to broaden his perspective. Art, in its most authentic
form, isn't an escape but a passage to deeper understanding, a bridge linking the concrete to
the mysterious, reason to passion. By embracing this broader perspective, we don't merely
dispute Plato's critique; we underscore a more profound recognition of art's vital place in the
shared human experience.