Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Definition of poetry.
Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Definition of poetry.
Aristotle was a pupil of plato. Plato had set up an accedmy where he taught philosophy. People eagerly went to this accedmy to learn wisdom. Philosophy for the Greeks didn't mean what it means today. It meant a rational study of everything. Whoever subject was expounded logically, it became philosophy. Among many people who went there, was a young man called Aristotle. He had great reverence for plato, but he was not like others. He was critical. He did not accept everything but found faults and came to conclusions different from plato. So when he grew up, he started his own school in which he expounded his views. His philosophy was very different, in fact opposite to Plato's. Plato was an idealist wheresas he is realist. He disagreed with plato. In his books, he has given a criticism of Plato's views and then expounded his own views. He has taken Plato's changes one by one and refuted them. But his replies are scattered in different contexts. For example, his answer to metaphysical change is found in the theory of Memesis. The second reply he gives when he is discussing his view of tragedy. Plato defined poetry as an imitation. The Greek word for this is Memesis. By imitation we imply an inferior imitation. But he gives it a new meaning. He refutes the view of plato and gives an answer to his charges but nowhere does he name plato, After all, he had been student of plato. According to the Greek view of relationship between a teacher and student, it would have been disrespectful for him to critisze his teacher. So he doesn't criticise his teacher plato but his views.
1) plato had said that art is an imperfect copy of an imperfect copy, hence twice removed from the reality and so it is false. Aristotle differs from this view. He says that poetry is an imitation of not what is or has been but what might be or ought to be. He totally rejects Plato's theory of ideas. He doesn't agree with plato that idea has an objective existence and tha world of ideas is absolute. He believes that idea is a mental abstraction born of observation. It has no existence outside the mind of man. According to him what exists is real. Plato used the words idea and thing and Aristotle uses the word( form=) for idea. Matter is the material and form is the force working within. Aristotle believes that there can be no matter without form and vice versa. Both are inseperable. Everything of this world,weather man, tree or mountain is a combination of matter and form. (Thing) is not a slavish copy of the metaphysical idea, but it is the combination of form and matter. "Matter" is the material of which we are made and "form" is the force working within the matter. This force is dynamic. It leads to activity. It is following a purpose. It operates within matter and leads towards an ideal. It is trying to mould the matter in the form of ideal thing_ideal man, state, law, etc, but do we find an ideal thing in this world? We don't find ideal things in this world. Aristotle gives the reason. He says that matter is obstructive. It can not be easily moulded. It would not allow itself to be moulded into an ideal things. The result is that what is produced falls very short of the ideal. There is no ideal man, woman, law etc, because matter obstructs the activity of this force. But the degree differs. It falls more in some cases, than others. There are degrees and grades of people, some are almost ideal and some fall short in some degrees. So we have pretty and ugly faces. In other words in some cases the force succeeds more than others, but complete success it never has. So there is no ideal in this world. Now the poets try to find out what was that ideal which the form was trying to achieve, Aristotle consider thinking to be the greatest force in man. The thinking process is the greatest process, so by to find out the ideal in each case and that is what the poet imitates. The imitates not the things but the ideal which can not be achieved. What the poet is imitating does not exists.
They imitate unrealized ideas, unrealize because the force was trying to achieve but failed. They are not imitating a particular thing as plato though but unrealized ideal, that which has not happened. So the poets can not be called copyist. Poet is a creator. What he gives is not just a things but the imaginative reconstruction of them. So what he is conveying is not falsehood. Poetry has its own truth. It is different from from scientific truth. It is also different from historical truth. The scientists imitate what is facts as they are. The historians imitate and what has been but poets imitate what might be or ought to be. Poetical truth is not factual truth but ideal truth. Art is not servile. It is not twice removed from reality. The artist is not an imitator but a creator. He gives a vision of unrealized things.
2) plato had said that poetry nourishes the emotions and feelings and weakness the reason. Aristotle agrees that poetry arouses feeling but he does not consider it to be harmful for the moral development of man. On the other hand, he believes that if feelings and emotions are kept locked up, then they become harmful for healthy moral development of man. He says that reason should be there but it should not be wipe out the emotions. If feelings are surpressed, this creates lots of problems, psychological and others. It leads to moral hypocrisy and all sorts of mental disorders. It completely destroys the moral personality of man. So the proper thing to do is to give these emotions a proper and socially accepted outlet. Both extremes are wrong. Poetry by exciting these ... gives a harmful outlet, expression to these emotions and In this way the effect of poetry is not bad but is healthy and good for the moral development of personality.
Aristotle says exactly what Freud said 2 100 years later. What creates problems in the life of man is not expressing desires but crushing them, said. Freud. If we suppress a wish, we do not get rid of it but we only, push it back (into subconscious). It is there and becomes more destructive. It distorts human personality. So the cause is not expression but suppression of desires.
Aristotle did not know about the subconscious but he says the same thing which was said by Freud later on. Freud used the word 'sublimation' and Aristotle uses the word 'catharsis'. Catharsis means first of all a pleasurable outlet to the pent up emotions. If they suppressed, a tension is created.So a way has to be found to give them an expression. Drama says Aristotle, gives a pleasurable outlet to pent up emotions. But Catharsis means something more. It also means artistic transmutation of the emotions. The lower form of emotions transformed to a high form. A nobler process takes place, so it is what he meant by catharsis. Aristotle's reply in a nutshell is that it is not the expression but suppression of feelings and emotions which is harmful for the moral development of personality.
3) Plato's third objection was that art leads to the weakening of personality. He said that when you watch a play or read an epic, you identify yourself with hero or that character. You think yourself to be that character and pretending to be someone else which you are not, leads to the weakening of personality which is harmful both morally and psychologically. Aristotle's answer is that for healthy development of man, it is necessary to forget ourselves and identify ourselves with others. We are too self centured and selfish and oblivious of the needs of others. Art and literature makes us realize the needs of others. In general dramas like Antigone, the doubtful fate of mankind. Similarly an epic we read of the fate of man like A chillies. When the audience identify themselves with these characters, they cease to think of their own petty desires, worries etc, they start sympathising with mankind and its problems. This should lead to the lessening of greed and selfishness, so poetry has morally purifying influence and not the opposite of it.
Buddha had asked what is the root cause of all moral and psychological ailments? He replied himself and said that the root causes of all these ailments is yoursellf. It is T. T want this, my desires, my ambitions, I, I and I is the cause of all ailments. Yourself is your greatest enemy. The remedy Buddha suggested was the doctrine of 'no self '. He went to the extent of declaring that the self is and illusion and has no reality. There is a beautiful story in the life of Buddha. There was a woman. She lost her only son. It was believed that holy men perform miracles. She asked Buddha to bring her son back to life somehow or the other. Buddha felt her sorrow as his own, her grief was his own. He compassionately assured her to bring her son to life if she would bring a few seeds from a house where no one ever died. But wherever she went, she was told that someone dear sister or husband had died. There was no house in which no one had died. She hoped to find at least one such house but wherever she went, she was told that death is the return of love. So she started thinking of the sorrows of others. She forget her own grief. She came to Buddha not to bring her son to life back, but show her the path of peace. The logic behind this story is that when you are obsessed with your own grief, it leads to self pity and morbidity. But when you draw your own sorrow, it leads you to the love of mankind. In other words, hatred is conquered not by hatred but love. Aristotle had a very different philosophy from that of Buddha, but on this point they are agree. Aristotle also thought that many of our problems are that we are thinking of ourselves. We must learn, somehow, at least to think of others and to forget ourselves, to identify ourselves with others and to feel what they feel and to maked their problems our own. So identifying one's self with others is not the cause of ailments as thought by plato.
4) plato fourth attack on poetry was not theoretical but was inductive. He took examples of particular teachers and found faults with the moral behaviour of their gods and heroes. For example, in Homer we have God's taking sides with Greeks and Trojans. He said that poets import teaching which is not morally wholesome. He says, is this t the kind of teaching which is going to make people morally good citizens and when Homer does this, what must the smaller poets be doing? So he draws the conclusion that poetry is bad and must be excluded.
Aristotle sees an immediate fallacy in the statement. He simply says that the charge that plato has leveled is not against poetry is such but against the poets. The fault is not that of poetry. If Homer is giving wrong teaching, the fault is not that of poetry but of homer. He does not agree with plato that poet is a teacher. Similarly, if Sappho in her poetry has talked of sensual delight and indulgence in pleasure, the fault is Sappho's and not poetry. He says that the very criterion of judgment is wrong. Poets function is not to teach or moralize. The function of poetry is to give pleasure. Art is not subject to morality, reason or politics. It is an independent activity. It has its own end if not he ends of ethics, to tells you what is good and bad, to build a good society. To make you a pious and God fearing man is the job of religion not of poetry.
Aristotle was a pupil of plato. Plato had set up an accedmy where he taught philosophy. People eagerly went to this accedmy to learn wisdom. Philosophy for the Greeks didn't mean what it means today. It meant a rational study of everything. Whoever subject was expounded logically, it became philosophy. Among many people who went there, was a young man called Aristotle. He had great reverence for plato, but he was not like others. He was critical. He did not accept everything but found faults and came to conclusions different from plato. So when he grew up, he started his own school in which he expounded his views. His philosophy was very different, in fact opposite to Plato's. Plato was an idealist wheresas he is realist. He disagreed with plato. In his books, he has given a criticism of Plato's views and then expounded his own views. He has taken Plato's changes one by one and refuted them. But his replies are scattered in different contexts. For example, his answer to metaphysical change is found in the theory of Memesis. The second reply he gives when he is discussing his view of tragedy. Plato defined poetry as an imitation. The Greek word for this is Memesis. By imitation we imply an inferior imitation. But he gives it a new meaning. He refutes the view of plato and gives an answer to his charges but nowhere does he name plato, After all, he had been student of plato. According to the Greek view of relationship between a teacher and student, it would have been disrespectful for him to critisze his teacher. So he doesn't criticise his teacher plato but his views.
1) plato had said that art is an imperfect copy of an imperfect copy, hence twice removed from the reality and so it is false. Aristotle differs from this view. He says that poetry is an imitation of not what is or has been but what might be or ought to be. He totally rejects Plato's theory of ideas. He doesn't agree with plato that idea has an objective existence and tha world of ideas is absolute. He believes that idea is a mental abstraction born of observation. It has no existence outside the mind of man. According to him what exists is real. Plato used the words idea and thing and Aristotle uses the word( form=) for idea. Matter is the material and form is the force working within. Aristotle believes that there can be no matter without form and vice versa. Both are inseperable. Everything of this world,weather man, tree or mountain is a combination of matter and form. (Thing) is not a slavish copy of the metaphysical idea, but it is the combination of form and matter. "Matter" is the material of which we are made and "form" is the force working within the matter. This force is dynamic. It leads to activity. It is following a purpose. It operates within matter and leads towards an ideal. It is trying to mould the matter in the form of ideal thing_ideal man, state, law, etc, but do we find an ideal thing in this world? We don't find ideal things in this world. Aristotle gives the reason. He says that matter is obstructive. It can not be easily moulded. It would not allow itself to be moulded into an ideal things. The result is that what is produced falls very short of the ideal. There is no ideal man, woman, law etc, because matter obstructs the activity of this force. But the degree differs. It falls more in some cases, than others. There are degrees and grades of people, some are almost ideal and some fall short in some degrees. So we have pretty and ugly faces. In other words in some cases the force succeeds more than others, but complete success it never has. So there is no ideal in this world. Now the poets try to find out what was that ideal which the form was trying to achieve, Aristotle consider thinking to be the greatest force in man. The thinking process is the greatest process, so by to find out the ideal in each case and that is what the poet imitates. The imitates not the things but the ideal which can not be achieved. What the poet is imitating does not exists.
They imitate unrealized ideas, unrealize because the force was trying to achieve but failed. They are not imitating a particular thing as plato though but unrealized ideal, that which has not happened. So the poets can not be called copyist. Poet is a creator. What he gives is not just a things but the imaginative reconstruction of them. So what he is conveying is not falsehood. Poetry has its own truth. It is different from from scientific truth. It is also different from historical truth. The scientists imitate what is facts as they are. The historians imitate and what has been but poets imitate what might be or ought to be. Poetical truth is not factual truth but ideal truth. Art is not servile. It is not twice removed from reality. The artist is not an imitator but a creator. He gives a vision of unrealized things.
2) plato had said that poetry nourishes the emotions and feelings and weakness the reason. Aristotle agrees that poetry arouses feeling but he does not consider it to be harmful for the moral development of man. On the other hand, he believes that if feelings and emotions are kept locked up, then they become harmful for healthy moral development of man. He says that reason should be there but it should not be wipe out the emotions. If feelings are surpressed, this creates lots of problems, psychological and others. It leads to moral hypocrisy and all sorts of mental disorders. It completely destroys the moral personality of man. So the proper thing to do is to give these emotions a proper and socially accepted outlet. Both extremes are wrong. Poetry by exciting these ... gives a harmful outlet, expression to these emotions and In this way the effect of poetry is not bad but is healthy and good for the moral development of personality.
Aristotle says exactly what Freud said 2 100 years later. What creates problems in the life of man is not expressing desires but crushing them, said. Freud. If we suppress a wish, we do not get rid of it but we only, push it back (into subconscious). It is there and becomes more destructive. It distorts human personality. So the cause is not expression but suppression of desires.
Aristotle did not know about the subconscious but he says the same thing which was said by Freud later on. Freud used the word 'sublimation' and Aristotle uses the word 'catharsis'. Catharsis means first of all a pleasurable outlet to the pent up emotions. If they suppressed, a tension is created.So a way has to be found to give them an expression. Drama says Aristotle, gives a pleasurable outlet to pent up emotions. But Catharsis means something more. It also means artistic transmutation of the emotions. The lower form of emotions transformed to a high form. A nobler process takes place, so it is what he meant by catharsis. Aristotle's reply in a nutshell is that it is not the expression but suppression of feelings and emotions which is harmful for the moral development of personality.
3) Plato's third objection was that art leads to the weakening of personality. He said that when you watch a play or read an epic, you identify yourself with hero or that character. You think yourself to be that character and pretending to be someone else which you are not, leads to the weakening of personality which is harmful both morally and psychologically. Aristotle's answer is that for healthy development of man, it is necessary to forget ourselves and identify ourselves with others. We are too self centured and selfish and oblivious of the needs of others. Art and literature makes us realize the needs of others. In general dramas like Antigone, the doubtful fate of mankind. Similarly an epic we read of the fate of man like A chillies. When the audience identify themselves with these characters, they cease to think of their own petty desires, worries etc, they start sympathising with mankind and its problems. This should lead to the lessening of greed and selfishness, so poetry has morally purifying influence and not the opposite of it.
Buddha had asked what is the root cause of all moral and psychological ailments? He replied himself and said that the root causes of all these ailments is yoursellf. It is T. T want this, my desires, my ambitions, I, I and I is the cause of all ailments. Yourself is your greatest enemy. The remedy Buddha suggested was the doctrine of 'no self '. He went to the extent of declaring that the self is and illusion and has no reality. There is a beautiful story in the life of Buddha. There was a woman. She lost her only son. It was believed that holy men perform miracles. She asked Buddha to bring her son back to life somehow or the other. Buddha felt her sorrow as his own, her grief was his own. He compassionately assured her to bring her son to life if she would bring a few seeds from a house where no one ever died. But wherever she went, she was told that someone dear sister or husband had died. There was no house in which no one had died. She hoped to find at least one such house but wherever she went, she was told that death is the return of love. So she started thinking of the sorrows of others. She forget her own grief. She came to Buddha not to bring her son to life back, but show her the path of peace. The logic behind this story is that when you are obsessed with your own grief, it leads to self pity and morbidity. But when you draw your own sorrow, it leads you to the love of mankind. In other words, hatred is conquered not by hatred but love. Aristotle had a very different philosophy from that of Buddha, but on this point they are agree. Aristotle also thought that many of our problems are that we are thinking of ourselves. We must learn, somehow, at least to think of others and to forget ourselves, to identify ourselves with others and to feel what they feel and to maked their problems our own. So identifying one's self with others is not the cause of ailments as thought by plato.
4) plato fourth attack on poetry was not theoretical but was inductive. He took examples of particular teachers and found faults with the moral behaviour of their gods and heroes. For example, in Homer we have God's taking sides with Greeks and Trojans. He said that poets import teaching which is not morally wholesome. He says, is this t the kind of teaching which is going to make people morally good citizens and when Homer does this, what must the smaller poets be doing? So he draws the conclusion that poetry is bad and must be excluded.
Aristotle sees an immediate fallacy in the statement. He simply says that the charge that plato has leveled is not against poetry is such but against the poets. The fault is not that of poetry. If Homer is giving wrong teaching, the fault is not that of poetry but of homer. He does not agree with plato that poet is a teacher. Similarly, if Sappho in her poetry has talked of sensual delight and indulgence in pleasure, the fault is Sappho's and not poetry. He says that the very criterion of judgment is wrong. Poets function is not to teach or moralize. The function of poetry is to give pleasure. Art is not subject to morality, reason or politics. It is an independent activity. It has its own end if not he ends of ethics, to tells you what is good and bad, to build a good society. To make you a pious and God fearing man is the job of religion not of poetry.
Comments