 |
| Plato is interested in creating a perfect (or at least relatively advanced) society. He believed that certain members, who were to be the guardians, or soldiers, should have the most care taken in their upbringing. Because they were the soldiers/protectors, it seemed vital that they be interested in patriotism, loyalty and honesty. So Plato proposed certain rules for their youth and education. He pin-pointed something which he called 'imitative art'. This he found to be so dangerous because of its removed nature from the truth of things/the forms. If a carpenter were to build a bed, he would already be imitating the form 'bed'. However, this sort of imitation is necessary. But if a painter were to paint that same bed, they would be able to do so without knowing anything of the form 'bed' and would likewise be imitating the bed, not 'bed'. Beyond the removedness of art, Plato thought certain types of art could cultivate bad traits in individuals. If a person were to act the part of a fool or of an antagonist in a play, he would be prone to becoming like that character. In order to portray those emotions or sentiments one would have to take them on, in some respect. This gave very little credit to the human mind. Plato also felt that no good man should be depicted as having an ill-fate, and no bad man as having a desirable one. He thought that the guardians should be nourished by stories conveying ideas of the desired state of martyrdom. One big problem with his society is that invariably one of those censored stories would leak out into the guardians possession. Plato suggested that possibly strong physical barriers should be used to seperate the guardians and the common citizens. Another problem is choosing the right group to do the censoring. That surely is a job in which one holds a great deal of power in the form of control. Since Plato suggested that the guardians should have an idea of death as a desirable state, combined with the fact that they were without the knowledge of (or at least examples of) fear, one would think Plato's guardians rather naive and poorly suited for the terrible acts they are to do. If they knew nothing of fear and desire martyrdom, all would soon be dead, and likely without having exacted many soldierly duties. Plato's entire theory seems a bit fascist, but applicable only in the desire for censorship in a normal society. |
| Plato's thoughts on Censorship |
| ~I received an A- on this essay for my first test in Aesthetics. |
| Aristotles thoughts on Fear and Pity in Tragedy |
| Fear and pity were two emotions which Plato felt should be kept out of his 'luxurious' society. However, Aristotle thought that they were necessary and inevitable. Theatre, for example, Aristotle believed to be a source of purgation for such emotions. Such purgation occurred on two levels. Initially, fear and pity (and the like) would be within a person already, under the surface, very likely to be released. If one went to the theatre and these emotions came out, they were purged, and the person rid of them 'bubbling beneath the surface'. At the same time, it caused them to have a learning experience in an indirect manner, which was very safe and productive for them. Aristotle wrote a great deal on tragedy in particular. He thought there had to be a ceratin 'unity' to it, a conciseness which we see in "Oedipus Rex". The entire play takes place within 24 hours. One inconsistency in this play in comparison with Aristotle's views ib fear abd pity in theatre is the fact that Oedipus is a king. Likewise in all of Shakespeare's tragedies, the tragic figure is of a high class within society. This is because the effects of his discovery happen on a much larger scale. However, Aristotlle wrote a great deal about the viewers ability to see himself in the tragic figure. We identify with characters of similar gender, age, disposition, and most definately, position. We feel fear and pity because we understand that if such tragedy can befall someone like ourself, it can likewise reach us. What Aristotle was likely saying about the kingly figure was that if tragedy could strike someone in so high a place, we, the common people, are much more ceceptable. So he really suggested that fear and pity were displayed rather selfishly, or at least in a self-interested manner. It seems like Aristotle is right in suggesting that we can learn from tragedy remotely. That certainly seems the point of tragedy ancient and contemporary. However, the purgation of such emotions seems a bit ridiculous. Emotions are not something we have in ceratin levels. They aren't (if not purged) bubbling under the surface. So Aristotle is right to an extent, and on the more sophistocated level. |
| ~I received an A on this essay. |
 |
 |