An Argument Against Platos Mimesis - Essay Example

An Argument Against Plato’s Mimesis The philosopher Plato argued that poetry and literature in general leads people to an unhappy life. His conception of mimesis meant that literature was merely an imitation of true forms, and it therefore could not lead to any sort of knowledge. However, I am going to argue that literature can lead to knowledge and under no circumstances will it lead people to an unhappy life. I have chosen Homer’s The Iliad to illustrate my argument. To Plato, literature was immoral because it appeals to the emotional side of people. When people read a piece of literature, it causes an emotional response within them, and Plato felt that this was an undesirable result because he felt that only a life that was led by reason could possibly be a happy life. In order to only cultivate the rational side of people’s minds, they must adhere to not engaging the emotions, which meant avoiding literature. Another reason Plato did not appreciate the value of literature was because it could not supply us with knowledge. Plato believed in what he referred to as true forms. Every object or idea had a true form counterpart, and all people had some innate sense of these forms. This was how Plato explained how we knew what a tree was. In other words, somewhere in the universe exists the true form of a tree in its most pure form, and we as humans all had some innate sense of what a tree is, and because we have an innate sense of what a tree is because of the true form, we are able to recognize a tree when we see it. The idea of true forms also pertained to notions such as justice, honor, beauty, and other intangibles. The way he applied this to literature was that he felt that literature merely was able to create a reflection, an imitation, of something like justice. Because it was merely creating an imitation, it was inferior to the true form, and because of this it was not able to supply us with true knowledge. Also, Plato argued against poets having any real knowledge of the true forms because of their actions. According to this argument, Plato stated that if poetry were to have a real sense or representation of, for instance, justice, then the poet would have to have real knowledge of the true form of justice. If, according to Plato, these poets had a real sense of the true form of justice, then they would not write poetry, which appeals to the emotions and leads people to an unhappy life. Rather, they would choose a course of action in their lives that would lead to this sense of the true form of justice being carried out in the world. Therefore, since poets create these immoral works as opposed to doing something good, then they necessarily must not have a sense of the true forms. In this way poetry wouldn’t exist if all people understood the true forms, so since poetry does exist, these poets do not understand the true forms. Taking all of these arguments into consideration, Plato felt that literature had no real value. The main aspect of my argument against Plato’s views toward literature stems from the idea of the true forms. He felt that these were eternal and unchanging, so according to Plato’s view, the conception of honor found in The Iliad should be the same as our modern conception of honor. To the Greeks, honor and glory were the most valued virtues amongst heroes. This is because of the Greeks’ perception of the afterlife; once people died, they went to the underworld where they became mere shadows of their former selves. In order to earn some sort of immortality, the Greeks felt that their heroes had to become so honored and earn so much glory for their own name that their names would be remembered for all time. This can be seen played out in the greatest of all of the Greek warriors of the Trojan War, Achilles. However, modern audiences often find Achilles’ actions to be less than heroic at times. When Agamemnon takes Achilles’ woman, Achilles refuses to fight because he feels his honor has been insulted by Agamemnon. Even though many of his fellow Greek warriors are dying because he is refusing to take part in the war, he chooses to not fight because his honor and personal glory are more important to him than the lives of his fellow Greeks. In today’s modern society, a soldier would be court-marshaled and severally disciplined for the kinds of actions that the Greeks found heroic about Achilles. Also, if we were to examine texts from other culture from this time, we would probably find even more contrasting examples of heroism, honor, and the concept of glory. In a more communal, less individualistic society, for instance, the entire idea of personal glory would be seen as dishonorable. What we have learned from this example is that Plato’s argument falls apart because one of the foundations it was built upon, true forms, seems so obviously erroneous. This idea obviously didn’t take into consideration other cultures, or if he did, he must have simply felt that the Greek perception of an idea was right and another culture’s perception of this same idea was wrong if it did not match. This is generally referred to as a grand narrative, any view point that excludes any other possible point of view. Also from this example we can see that we can gain knowledge through literature. While it might not lead us to an absolute truth, regardless of whether absolute truths are even possible, it can show us a particular view of the culture that it comes from. As I mentioned earlier, different cultures are going to have a widely ranging views of the same ideas expressed through the literature that each individual culture produces. The knowledge that we gain is the knowledge of what the views of that particular culture was at the time that it was written. Even if a particular piece is expressing views that are contrary to the views of that particular culture, it is still a reaction against these ideas, and these ideas could not be rebelled against if they did not exist in the first place. So in this way we can see that we can gain a certain kind of knowledge from literature Another aspect of Plato’s argument against the value of literature comes from his view of the emotional response that it evokes. Here Plato has set up a dichotomy between the terms emotion and reason. He views them as opposing terms; where one exists the other cannot. This is generally referred to as a binary opposition. This promotes the view that for one term to exist, there must be an opposite, contrasting view that also exists, such as black/white, up/down, good/bad. However, emotion and reason do not seem to fall into this pattern. This sort of view turns emotion into an automatic response. Seeing a fallen comrade will make anyone sad, and there doesn’t seem to be any sort of logical conclusions obviously required for a person to feel sad about seeing a fallen comrade, such as was an everyday occurrence for the people fighting in the Trojan War. However, there are obviously many thoughts that run through a person’s head upon seeing something like what I described. What will happen to the family? Who will provide for them? What can I do to prevent this from happening to me? Even though there might be an initial emotional response, there are all sorts of rational trains of thought that will also take place. Another way to consider this is to consider if rational thoughts are possible without emotional responses. A major philosophical question is what is the meaning of life? One way to view this is to consider if why we need to know this. Often times, people say that their is a natural fear of the unknown. Because of this fear, an emotional response, we respond by using rational methods to supply ourselves with answers. In this way we can see that both reason and emotion are dependent upon each other, and they really aren’t contradictory, conflicting terms that cannot coexist. They seem more like two sides of the same coin than anything else. In this way Plato’s argument for the immorality of literature cannot be taken seriously because his argument relies on reason and emotion being contradictory methods of thought. Another argument against Plato’s negative response towards the emotions caused by literature is to consider that it can also evoke an intellectual, rational response. The Iliad definitely encourages emotional responses; Homer seems to be encouraging them with scenes such as Patroclus’ death. It is obvious that we are meant to feel Achilles’ pain at the loss of his friend and to understand the rage fills him as he screams so loud that twelve men are trampled to death because of the panic caused by his voice. These are very real emotions that we can grasp to a certain extent. However, are we not also intellectually stimulated by certain aspects of Homer’s tales? Take for instance the Trojan horse. This is a tactic that has made Odysseus so famous that this sort of sneak attack is still referred to by this name. While Achilles was known for his fierceness in battle, Odysseus was known more for his wit and intelligence, which he relies upon throughout The Odyssey in order to survive his journey. Though there might be more obvious examples of emotionally charged scenes created by Homer, there is no doubt that many of the scenes he crafted also stimulate the intellect, which will develop our reasoning skills. Considering the problems associated with considering emotion and reason as two separate things, and considering that there literature is just as capable as being intellectually stimulating as it is emotionally stimulating, it is difficult to agree with Plato’s views towards the immorality of literature. By this time Plato’s argument against the value of literature seems hardly defensible with its main foundations having been removed. It might seem extraneous to consider it from more aspects, but the objection Plato made regarding the actions of a poet raises some interesting questions. Plato felt that for any poet to create a work that could teach the reader about justice, then that poet would have to be in possession of real knowledge of justice. And, if that poet was really in possession of that knowledge, then the poet would spend time performing deeds that reflected the knowledge of the truth about justice. However, there is no further explanation as to why a person would be compelled to act upon receiving this sort of knowledge. Plato seems to take it as a given, and so he fails to bother to mention why this would necessarily be so. Also, Plato states that the true forms of these intangibles might not be possible to have a full knowledge of. If this is so, then how could any pursuit, which would never reveal the full knowledge of something like justice, be worthy of attention? In all of his writings, Plato never claimed to have achieved the full knowledge of any of these true forms; he merely felt that they existed. And since this is the case, then how could he claim that his chosen pursuit was any more or less moral than that of a poet. Since Plato’s time nobody has ever been able to figure out these true forms, and the idea has been discarded as outdated by modern philosophers. Since knowledge of any kind is not an impetus to act on its own, Plato’s argument against literature seem even more so to have no relevance. Though many of Plato’s views do seem outdated to modern readers, he still raised many interesting questions and helped form the basis for philosophy throughout the ages. Even if a particular philosopher is arguing against Plato, the argument is in part possible because Plato’s body of work exists and can be argued against in the first place. Even ideas that are a response against partially are due to Plato. Read More