Plato's Ion develops a concept of fiction distinct from the mimetic accounts of poetry found in the Republic and Aristotle's Poetics. Wiseman, Even so, the extensiveness of the practice among young people does not justify barring all drama from the city and from the sight of each citizen, and that is what Plato's concluding ban comes to: If a man were to arrive in the city whose wisdom [ sophia ] empowered him to become everything and to mimic all things—together with the poems he wanted to perform [ epideixasthai ]— we would worship him as someone holy [ hieron ] and wonderful and pleasant, but tell him there is no man like him in our city, nor by our traditional law [ themis ] can come to be here; and we would send him off to another city after pouring myrrh on his head and crowning him with wool. Volume 39 Issue 4 Dec , pp. The emphasis on Ion's loss of senses is a little worrying but is consistent with Socrates' double-edged conception of inspiration as mindless possession.
Google Scholar. Janaway, C. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ledbetter, G.
Poetics before Plato: Interpretation and authority in early Greek theories of poetry. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Liebert, R. American Journal of Philology, 2 , — CrossRef Google Scholar. Pappas, N. Philosophy, 64 , — The collected dialogues edited by Hamilton and Cairns.
New York: Pantheon Books.
The Ion. Classical literary criticism edited by P. Dorsch pp.
In Plato's Ion Socrates discusses with the titular character, a professional rhapsode who also lectures on Homer, the question of whether the rhapsode. Plato's Ion, despite its frail frame and traditionally modest status in the corpus, that, in the Ion, Plato has Socrates assume the existence of a techne~ of poetry.
London: Penguin Books. Shelley, P.
Using either name, problems arise from this assertion. Socrates is pre-supposing the existence of a divinity, and whether or not it does exist is a separate field of philosophy. It applies here, and it will come into play later. How about this, to sidestep another equivocation — art comes from a difference part of the brain than rational thought. Socrates poses that the skill of the poet and rhapsode, due to the "knowledge" they seemingly possess in regards to other professions, is divinely inspired.
With this emerging as the stance of the argument, we now are forced to look beyond equivocation fallacies. Most of his arguments instead must be ignored. The point Socrates is making runs aground as an ad nauseam. Yet, despite the belligerent ferocity at which Socrates questions Ion, it can still be summed up rather easily when stripped of its frills:.
It is through divine inspiration that the poet writes and the rhapsode performs. One could also conclude that this divine inspiration thesis is applicable to all fields of art, though for what is given in the piece, to say that would be to pose a strawman. Socrates asks Ion if his performances are genuine.
How can he cry after having lost nothing in reality? Does he actually know if what he says in regards to charioteering is true of charioteering? If the piece calls for tears, it is up to the actor to weep. If the piece calls for extensive knowledge of chariots, it is up to the writer to make sure that what they write is accurate. Clifton once posed that a painter does not paint a tree, only a painting of a tree — an aesthetic interpretation of reality, much like an actor portraying a realistic character.
And whether or not the actor does — as Socrates said — go out of his mind or if the actor remains in complete cerebral control throughout the performance or the poet remaining in complete cerebral control throughout his writing, the painter throughout his painting, and so on is not indicative of ability, only of style. Once again, the same goes for the poet, the painter, and so on.
What Friedrich Nietzsche posed in his Apollonian-Dionysian thesis holds even more application to the artistic realm than it does the nature of humankind in general. Though the specifics of what Nietzsche postulated and their implications are best left for another discussion.
I mean, if you look at it, absolute capitalism is really a liberal ideal. Capitalists oppose the state, which we all know exists in its present tense only as a tool of top-tier. Society rewards the disingenuous. I think this fact is undeniable. And then I'm only left with the question "Why?
My initial reaction is to blame it on capitalism. It certainly seems probable. After all, what is capitalism but the left-over of feudalism? I could wax on and on about the same things. What are the traits that god is said to hold, by definition? Which brings us to the problem: Could god change his mind on.
Nature is chaotic, but the human mind likes order. I'd argue that's what make us human: our disposition towards organization, order, structure. The organizing atheist movement is a product of this. It should be noted that not wanting to be a part of a religion isn't the same as not wanting to be a part of any organization.