Plato and More Definitive Understanding of Art and Philosophy - Essay Example

Plato and More Definitive Understanding of Art and Philosophy Within the Plato’s republic, many definitions are put forward with regards to what can be defined as virtuous, good and beneficial form of art and/or artistic expression. Plato based his argument upon several highly subjective and controversial premises, that is; art in the republic should first be didactic with the purpose of inculcating the virtues of being a good person, those who merely seek the reflection of the forms and not the forms themselves are not artists and also most people view illusions as reality. Naturally, these statements not only represent a great range of issues, they encourage distractors to focus upon the inherent the flaws and weaknesses that are therein represented. In this way, the following essay will seek to provide the reader with informed understanding of the inherent weaknesses of Plato’s approach to the issue of art/philosophy (Jowett & Benjamin, 2000). Naturally, the first level of argument which can be discussed with regards to how Plato defines virtue. As one might expect, many pages are indeed entire pages of Plato’s work have been concentric on defining virtue in the means through which it can be maximized within our world. However, with that being said, it must be understood that virtue within the specific delineation of what defines art and how it should be represented to the populace is ultimately a subjective understanding. In such a way, by promoting the belief that art should be exhibited if it entails possibilities of fostering virtue and promoting the goodness of the person in something that cannot be defined by a single understanding and should not be presented as the benchmark by which art should be manifested. By providing something of a tangential analysis, the author can point to the fact that Nazi German fostered what they understood to be a virtuous society that fosters the goodness of the stakeholder that they deemed fit to be included within such a definition. Moreover, the totalitarianism of the third Reich was not only visited upon the way in which political ideology, philosophy, and indeed art itself was presented. It does not take a great deal of historical analysis to point to the fact that the third right was heavily involved in the promoting its own version of what art and artistry should entail. So much was the Third Reich interested in this specific understanding if redefining art that they even presented their own populace a travelling art exhibit which was dubbed as degenerate art. The ultimate purpose of referencing the third right within this understanding of Plato’s virtuous and good definition of art is with respect to the fact appointed to the ultimate subjectivity that a society or an individual may ascribe with regards to the way that art can and should look. Such inherent weakness point to the fact that an all-inclusive and simplistic definition of how art should be manifested should be shined and the individual should seek a more realistic delineation of the way in which art is defined and represented within a particular society (Nemahas & Alexander, 1998) Another noted shortcoming with regards to Plato’s definition of art/ philosophy and the means by which it should be integrated with the populace is with respect to the fact that he denotes that those who merely seek the reflection of the form and not for themselves are not artists. Although it is with great respect that this author approaches the writing an understanding of Plato, it must also be understood that what is being referenced within this particular definition of what art should and should not be is highly personal view upon what defines the genre. Ultimately the definition of who is responsible for reflecting these forms and not focusing upon the form itself is a definitive right of the philosopher to represent the subject matter in the way he/she sees it (Jowett & Benjamin, 2000). Though the ambition of philosophy is to attain authentic information of “the good” and other forms, the word-images concluded which the philosopher speaks are eventually imitations of objects that possess certain qualities of such forms. Like the demonstrations shaped by poesies, speech too is an imperfect mode of communication, thrice-removed from reality. The mortal soul “is perplexed and cannot adequately grasp” the measures, and so it discourses not about reality itself, but about the imperfect exhibitions of reality, which are necessarily inferior. Henceforth, words are doubly imitations, because they define objects that are themselves less real than the forms. Thrasymachus implies that words are inadequate to transmit truth when he says that Socrates has been talking “nonsense” and asks the philosopher to define justice “clearly and exactly”. After Socrates shows Thrasymachus that injustice is not more lucrative than justice, the latter retaliates, “Enjoy your banquet of words!”. He implies that he has been tricked by mere technicalities, explanations, into a concession. His statement hints not only at the insufficiency of words, but also at the aesthetic seductiveness of dialogue. Furthermore, since speech fundamentally misrepresents the truth to some degree, so too does the philosopher, who, though he may try to explain the forms, inevitably fails and remains an imitator. Plato makes Socrates confess that he has “no adequate knowledge of it, but that he is willing to explain “what is apparently an offspring of the good and most like it”, despite Socrates’ disclaimer that it is not right “to talk about things one doesn’t know as if one does know them”. Nevertheless, the simple act of trying to explain the good without complete knowledge of it makes him an inexact imitator. The philosopher may even, consciously or otherwise, distort words for the purpose of persuading his audience and thereby make his imitation of reality only more inaccurate. Thrasymachus claims that the Socratic method of disputation lends itself to manipulation when he hostilely remarks, “You disgust me, Socrates. Your trick is to take hold of the argument at the point where you can do it the most harm”. He implies that, through the distortion of an argument for means of persuasion, Socrates can insidiously impose his views on his disciples (Jowett & Benjamin, 2000). Still, Plato himself uses word images to convey his ideas and, accepting the philosopher’s status as an imitator, even depend on on imitation as an effective means by which to attain knowledge. For example, the dialogical form allows Plato to manipulate each of his characters, including Thrasymachus, who may voice beliefs that are not necessarily Plato’s own. Subsequently, Plato overthrows reality to some degree in order to accomplish reality. Moreover, the story told by Glaucon about the ring of Gyges, the noble falsehood about the origin of humans from gold, silver, and bronze, the metaphor of the cave, and the myth of Er, all serve as allegorical stories that are meant to aid Socrates’ disciples in understanding his scheme for a just society. Thus, although word-image examples are inherently imitations, Plato does not hesitate to employ them, though this is his primary objection to the similar use of art (Nemahas & Alexander, 1998) Finally, Plato’s final argument with regards to the way in which art should be produced and interpreted is with regards to the way in which people view illusions that the philosopher produces. Plato said that most individuals view the illusions as reality; thereby only the philosopher is able to see the light. This in and of itself is a rather elitist standpoint. Although it is true that some of the finer point of art and/or philosophy have oftentimes been lost upon the majority of society, it is not fair to categorically state that only the philosopher is able to see ultimate truth and reality within the representations that are present. Oftentimes, and in arguable aspect of art is to represent a new way of thinking and/or rejection of failed approaches to key issues. Naturally, the same can be said with regards to the way in which philosophy has changed and warped over the years. If it were not for the fact individuals were able to integrate with reality and the illusion that the philosopher represent, it is doubtless that human society women not have evolved in the way that it has over the past several centuries and millennia. Whereas it is true that Plato has a definitive understanding of the fact that many individuals within society are able to grasp the true significance of art and the difference between reality and illusion that exist, seeking to categorically state that all of it is only understood by the philosopher necessarily diminishes the impact that such level of communication can have within the society as a whole (Nemahas & Alexander, 1998) Consistently, the procedure of relating imitation to transcend to advanced orders of truth is the similar for art. Though the images of visual art and verses of poetry are imitations, and the artist an imitator because of his use of symbols and lack of true knowledge of the forms, the comprehension of poesis employs the medium of art and the action of the realization in the quest for understanding. When Socrates summaries the education of the guardians in his ideal city, he identifies “calculation and arithmetic” as subjects that, by inspiring the soul to utilize its proficiency in measurement, “lead us towards the truth”. Though, symbols of poesis also fit the definition of such “summoners” of understanding. Because they are imitations that are inherently less than real, they could cause “opposite insights at the same time” that could in turn provoke the “puzzled” soul to summon “calculation and understanding” in “the study of that which is’. Thus, the ambiguity of art as imitation could actually lead the soul to contemplate the nature of being and reality (Jowett & Benjamin, 2000). However, representations of poesis surpass even the power of summonses and cover to that of the dialectic of philosophy. Different calculation and arithmetic, which “cannot reach beyond [their] hypotheses” or travel “up to the first principle”, the process of comprehending art, like that of practicing philosophy, involves the consideration of “hypotheses...as stepping stones to take off from...to reach the unhypothetical first principle of everything”. Contemplation, “having grasped this principle,” and “requiring making use of anything visible at all, but only of forms themselves,” moves “on from forms to forms,” and ends in knowledge of the forms. Though skill in numbers can only help in the initial study of reality, art provokes the viewer to think about its meaning in somewhat similar to dialogue, and, therefore can bring the perceiver closer to the forms. Just as the dialectic of philosophy allows one to discuss several objects of truth to arrive at an ultimate principle, so too can the awareness of art awaken in one the desire to grasp that which is closest to reality. One who stands before a painting sees not only the entire image, but also discrete lines and shapes that strike him differently and produces both an emotional and a rational response. He speaks not to, but with the painting on a level beyond mere sense perception. He sees an apple whose color and contours question his conception of redness and roundness, and as his thoughts jump from chromaticity to luminosity and from circularity to symmetry, he wonders at the form of beauty itself (Nemahas & Alexander, 1998) Naturally it must also be understood that what Plato was saying was that not only the philosophers that was responsible for representing the given piece of art, or the philosopher responsible for communicating a given approach, with the ones who would understand the difference between reality and illusion (Jowett & Benjamin, 2000). Rather, Plato is of the opinion that a society of citizens that were both philosophers and artists within the most effective means of integrating the differential between these two. However, when one stops to realize that the society of the 18th, 19th and 20th century was not comprised entirely of artists and philosophers it is still clear that key differentials with respect to which human thought and philosophy were conducted were able to be integrated within broader society; thereby casting a level of doubt with respect to the approach that Plato is thus are defined. Art thus, like philosophy, both expenditures and transcends imitation in order to comprehend the truth. Poesis is, thus, as useful as philosophy in the growth of moral beings in Plato’s ideal and just polis. Art, whether good or bad, has the capability to summon deliberation of what is closest to authenticity, for the understanding of poesis, like the preparation of philosophy, contains both the faculties of emotion and motive. Consequently, meanwhile Plato himself realizes that “education in music and poetry” allows “rhythm and harmony” to “permeate the inner part of the soul..., bringing it grace”, poesis merits, alongside philosophy, an exalted position in the ideal polis (Nemahas & Alexander, 1998) From the analysis that is that is thus far been presented, it can definitely be stated that even though Plato had a clear and definite level of understanding with respect to the way in which society operated, the way in which art was represented, and the means through which philosophy should be conducted, the nuance of seeking to detach oneself from a subjective view of each of these elements and the importance of striving a level of non-elitism to the way in which the world operations was lacking. Accordingly, by integrating the approach that is thus far been put forward, it is the view of this author that a more definitive approach to understanding art and philosophy can be integrated (Jowett & Benjamin, 2000). Reference Jowett, Benjamin. Selected dialogues of Plato: the Benjamin Jowett translation. Modern Library ed. New York: Modern Library, 2000. Print. Nehamas, Alexander. The art of living Socratic reflections from Plato to Foucault. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Print. Read More