Plato, Aristotle, and the Nature of Poetry

Posted on Oct 16, 2024 in Philosophy and ethics

Unit VI: Greek Tradition

Previously you can find allusions to literary art, but can not talk about literary theory up to arrival of Plato. Plato uses part of his theory to reflect on poetry. In his allusions are important to worry as much about aesthetics as beauty. Before there was literary disciplines of philosophy, in charge of thinking about poetry.

We also find allusions in his works as the ability to properly interpret a text.

The speeches in which we find more references to the poetic field are Ion and Phaedrus, beauty, Gorgias, and rhetoric, Republic. Of all these, Phaedrus is especially important, since the stands at an historic moment when the writing starts to spread as a form of communication between men. This event to which Plato takes a position equally distant from the more traditional and more openness.

First, as a good disciple of Socrates who was long for the age of dialectics, which viewed knowledge as something linked closely to the rules of dialogue.

In the Gorgias, Plato describes that “our agreement of opinion will undoubtedly be a test of truth.” So the truth is closely tied to the rules of argumentation. To the extent that we can only say something is true when we present all the arguments pro and con on the part of individuals who interact, they reach an agreement. The writing appears, then, to Plato, such as a distorting factor in the search for truth, because you can not talk to the written or countered, as written is invalid. But on the other hand, Plato accepts the undisputed fact the generalization of writing as a means of communication among men, and therefore, the problem he poses is to issue those rules that allow them to cultivate not distancing too much of the proper construction of the truth. The problem is therefore among the different types of writing.

At the end of Phaedrus, Plato distinguishes between two main types of speech. On the one hand, the compounds ‘with knowledge of the truth’ which are the work of the ‘friends of wisdom’, ie the philosophers. On the other hand, compounds ‘to force change from top to bottom and turning for a long time hitting things with others or suppressing it,’ which are the works of poets and orators and rhetoricians.

The conflict is now therefore, between philosophy and rhetoric, and in relation to this, Plato explains his theory of beauty moralistic discourse, declaring those beautiful speeches being properly compounds that are more concerned about their outward appearance, by the truth to be broadcast. But despite everything, the problem is not so much content as form, Plato’s rhetoric radically different philosophy because one is the true and the other not, but because one does not seek and the other yes.

Place of poetry between philosophy and rhetoric

We can say that the place of poetry is somewhat ambiguous, although the one hand Plato praises the existence of certain poetic genres such as might be the dithyramb. However, in his dialogue Gorgias says, literally, ‘poetic activity is thus a sort of popular oratory. “So the poetry to not seek the improvement of the souls of the citizens, is concerned more plead and produce pleasure in the audience. Poetry is located by Plato on the negative side of rhetoric.

In any case, what is really interesting is that Plato speaks of poetry as a specific discourse, different from other types of speech. That specificity Plato situates the linguistic mechanisms, and that philosophy holds it better, but in the way of speech production. According to Plato, what actually characterizes the poetry is the fact of being the result of divine inspiration.

It is easy to see how Aristotle, much less a moralist than his teacher Plato, and rejects the mythical concept of poetry as divine inspiration, and acts in a much more natural to the existence of poetry. To this we must add the radical difference that exists in that both give the explanation to the existence of artistic activity in man.

So strict is the natural contrasts Aristotle, for whom the copy is something inherent to human beings since childhood. In fact, when Aristotle wants to determine what must be called poetry in the universe of discourse known at the time, specify a $ property are not the language nor the functional elements, even the supposed usefulness of this speech, but only and exclusively the mimesis (Imitation).

Of all his ideas about poetry are some that stand in fundamental ways, which are known as structural linguistic and pragmatic criteria. According to Aristotle, the fundamental element of tragedy is the organization of the facts, so that its demand that ‘the parties consist of facts so that placed out of place in any part or deleted, change and disruption to the whole. ” That demand is telling us that every text responds to a closed structure and follows a plan in which the beginning and end are pre-determined.

Moreover, the specificity is also important that Aristotle gives the poetic language from the normal, the distinction between odd name and common name and its belief that the employee is the first in poetry, witness the range of the particular language Aristotle gives the poetic language.

Finally, we must take into account the pragmatic usefulness or Aristotle gives the poetic text. According to him, whether a story should be well written, is for the sole purpose of producing certain effects on the public, specifically refers to the feelings of pity and fear, so that this art that Aristotle was imitative poetry Plato challenged by demonstrating its usefulness to the city government.