Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
What Is Imitative Poetry and Why Is It Bad
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Moss, Jessica Ferrari, Gisela F. |
| Copyright Year | 2007 |
| Abstract | Plato’s argument against poetry in Republic 10 is perplexing. He condemns not all poetry, but only “however much of it is imitative (hosê mimêtikê)” (595a). A metaphysical charge against certain works of poetry – that they are forms of imitation, “at a third remove from the truth” – is thus used to justify an ethical charge: that these works cripple our thought and corrupt our souls. Unfortunately, it is not at all clear how to understand the connection between the two charges. We can see how they are related in a loose way: imitators are concerned with images far removed from the truth about what they represent (596a-598b); many people are too foolish to distinguish imitation from reality and thus accept ignorant imitators as experts and guides (598c-602b); imitation appeals to and thereby strengthens an inferior part of the soul unconcerned with truth (602c ff); worst of all, the charms of imitation can seduce even those who generally know better (605c-607a). But when we try to make Book 10’s argument more precise, trouble ensues. Plato certainly never spells out the connection between the metaphysics of imitation and the charge of ethical harm. Moreover, he seems in the end (603c ff) to abandon metaphysical considerations and give a straightforward argument against tragedy and the works of Homer based on their content – they represent people behaving immoderately – and psychological effect: as audience we weep and wail and behave as immoderately as the characters, and this undermines the order of our souls. This argument makes no mention of imitation or ignorance or removes from truth; what, then, is the relevance of the metaphysical charge, to which Plato devotes so much discussion? The worry gains more force when we ask how the metaphysical charge could do any work in the argument – when we notice, that is, how difficult it is to apply Plato’s definition of imitation to poetry. Plato illustrates what he means by “imitation” with a discussion of painting: the painter is an imitator because he copies material objects like beds instead of Forms, and copies them not as they are but “as they appear” (598a) – that is, as they look. What is the relevant analogy for the poet? What corresponds to the painter’s bed? And in what sense can the poet, an artist working in a non-visual medium, copy things “as they appear”? Plato’s answers to |
| Starting Page | 415 |
| Ending Page | 444 |
| Page Count | 30 |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| DOI | 10.1017/CCOL0521839637.015 |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/moss/WhatisImitativePoetry.pdf |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521839637.015 |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Poetry |
