Incredibly interesting line of thought. I guess the equivalent form of what he was talking about today would be movies, television, and novels. Instead of Poets, it would be the Screenwriters and Authors he would be at war with. Plato said that it was impossible for drama to interact with the higher rational part of humans minds, but it almost feels like it just has to. Entertainment is not going anywhere. There are billions and billions of humans on this planet, and 99% of them are going to want to watch a movie or a show at least every now and then. To say that it's absolutely impossible for the arts to communicate with the rational part of the mind, and it must always be a corrupting and poisionous thing even, well...if that's the case it's really just hopeless then. There has to be a way. Even if it's not perfect, a storyline, or a movie, or a novel can at least aim to try to achieve some kind of understanding and clarity within the mind of reason. Even Plato would have to agree that some plays or poems are much more elevated and enlightened than others. Obviously. So, if there is some kind of gradient along these lines, where one story and character can be much more in line with reason and the rational part of the mind, a story that seeks to have some message and some kind of character development where there is psychological growth and emotional breakthroughs and maturation of some kind, however limited, while another storyline and group of characters can obviously be hopelessly base, irrational, and just downright stupid. If there is this clear gradient, than obviously some dramas, and even comedies, that are very thoughtfully and consciously made can at the very least not do any damage or corruption to the soul. Plato was an incredible thinker, but I don't necessarily agree with him. I do however agree in the topic of how important and influential drama and the arts are on society and human minds, and I don't think most people consider that nearly enough. But I don't agree that all art and poetry is hopelessly corruptive and poisionius. I think it's incredibly powerful, and oftentimes, most times, used for evil. But I think it can, and very rarely actually does, do some good for the human soul and condition. I can tell that if I met Plato in person that he was very, very intense and uncompromising person. He was definitely a perfectionist. Everything was very black or white to him, and while I can't deny his genius, I feel like I disagree with much of what he says, and especially considering this. Extremely interesting talk. Thank you.
@@RobertF- Think about YOUR sentence. Obviously I wouldn't have written what I did if there wasn't some point to it. Think through what you wrote, rather than just trying to find some way to be right about something
I can see Plato's point when we find the early philosophers trying to diverge their ideas from mythology. We can also agree that imitative art stimulates our low passions, perhaps in some cases, more than our rational mind. Even so, I wonder if Plato saw poetry as a teaching method that could compete with his own system.
I think it's pretty clear Plato saw poetry as able to compete in the low sense - people will pay attention to it - but not in a higher sense - it communicates a truth that is known
Thank you Dr. Sadler, I really enjoyed this. Here is my attempt at an argument for allowing the poets back into the city. Poetry appeals to the lower part which creates greater conflict which (here's my leap) drives a person via great suffering of conflict to the higher part which confronts the conflict with reason causing the person to rise from one who is focused on the lower part of themselves to a person who is aware of and maybe focused on the higher part. In other words, can Plato be certain that his ability to reason and become a great teacher was not influenced by Homer's works; they obviously meant a great deal to Plato.
...and yet just before his death, Socrates writes poetry or at least tries his hand at poetry (setting an Aesop fable and creating a prelude to Apollo), listening to (or giving into) his inner daemon... What does this say about philosophy and poetry? Why at this point in his life, fully aware of his impending death, does he finally succumb to the very act he criticizes as that which is in some sense opposed to (or at least beneath) the philosopher’s life? It reminds me of Heidegger. Later in his life, he also turns to poetry for insight into the possibility of an experience of the being of language and the language of being.
How do you think Plato viewed his own works? His dialogues aren't poetic, but in the sense of established characters and their thoughts in conflict, as well as the use of theme, metaphor and other literary devices they are close to plays. Did Plato consider his works imitative of life?
What is more accurate? To have one interpretation from a piece of art or infinite amounts? Can you interpret non-art in an infinite way? Maybe there's a finite amount of valid interpretations and the rest is just art imitating art. What is actually corrupting the youth? I think there should be such a thing since those same youths should have interesting lives.
Few poets have ever reached Plato's rational way of thinking! Poets who have really tried to leverage people's minds through the most "unknown and challenging paths of rationality" are few and far between..... Many thanks!!
Incredibly interesting line of thought. I guess the equivalent form of what he was talking about today would be movies, television, and novels. Instead of Poets, it would be the Screenwriters and Authors he would be at war with.
Plato said that it was impossible for drama to interact with the higher rational part of humans minds, but it almost feels like it just has to. Entertainment is not going anywhere. There are billions and billions of humans on this planet, and 99% of them are going to want to watch a movie or a show at least every now and then. To say that it's absolutely impossible for the arts to communicate with the rational part of the mind, and it must always be a corrupting and poisionous thing even, well...if that's the case it's really just hopeless then. There has to be a way.
Even if it's not perfect, a storyline, or a movie, or a novel can at least aim to try to achieve some kind of understanding and clarity within the mind of reason. Even Plato would have to agree that some plays or poems are much more elevated and enlightened than others. Obviously. So, if there is some kind of gradient along these lines, where one story and character can be much more in line with reason and the rational part of the mind, a story that seeks to have some message and some kind of character development where there is psychological growth and emotional breakthroughs and maturation of some kind, however limited, while another storyline and group of characters can obviously be hopelessly base, irrational, and just downright stupid. If there is this clear gradient, than obviously some dramas, and even comedies, that are very thoughtfully and consciously made can at the very least not do any damage or corruption to the soul.
Plato was an incredible thinker, but I don't necessarily agree with him. I do however agree in the topic of how important and influential drama and the arts are on society and human minds, and I don't think most people consider that nearly enough. But I don't agree that all art and poetry is hopelessly corruptive and poisionius. I think it's incredibly powerful, and oftentimes, most times, used for evil. But I think it can, and very rarely actually does, do some good for the human soul and condition.
I can tell that if I met Plato in person that he was very, very intense and uncompromising person. He was definitely a perfectionist. Everything was very black or white to him, and while I can't deny his genius, I feel like I disagree with much of what he says, and especially considering this.
Extremely interesting talk. Thank you.
"Everything was very black or white to him" That's a misreading.
@@GregoryBSadler Saying ALL poetry is corruptive, that's not black or white thinking?
@@RobertF- Think about YOUR sentence. Obviously I wouldn't have written what I did if there wasn't some point to it. Think through what you wrote, rather than just trying to find some way to be right about something
I can see Plato's point when we find the early philosophers trying to diverge their ideas from mythology.
We can also agree that imitative art stimulates our low passions, perhaps in some cases, more than our rational mind. Even so, I wonder if Plato saw poetry as a teaching method that could compete with his own system.
Luckely we have rap and pop music these days.
I think it's pretty clear Plato saw poetry as able to compete in the low sense - people will pay attention to it - but not in a higher sense - it communicates a truth that is known
Thank you Dr. Sadler, I really enjoyed this. Here is my attempt at an argument for allowing the poets back into the city. Poetry appeals to the lower part which creates greater conflict which (here's my leap) drives a person via great suffering of conflict to the higher part which confronts the conflict with reason causing the person to rise from one who is focused on the lower part of themselves to a person who is aware of and maybe focused on the higher part. In other words, can Plato be certain that his ability to reason and become a great teacher was not influenced by Homer's works; they obviously meant a great deal to Plato.
Who are you making this case to?
@@GregoryBSadler hahahaha! Great point.
...and yet just before his death, Socrates writes poetry or at least tries his hand at poetry (setting an Aesop fable and creating a prelude to Apollo), listening to (or giving into) his inner daemon...
What does this say about philosophy and poetry? Why at this point in his life, fully aware of his impending death, does he finally succumb to the very act he criticizes as that which is in some sense opposed to (or at least beneath) the philosopher’s life? It reminds me of Heidegger. Later in his life, he also turns to poetry for insight into the possibility of an experience of the being of language and the language of being.
Yep. Discussed by Socrates in the Crito
How do you think Plato viewed his own works? His dialogues aren't poetic, but in the sense of established characters and their thoughts in conflict, as well as the use of theme, metaphor and other literary devices they are close to plays.
Did Plato consider his works imitative of life?
That's a paradox of Plato's writings, one that I've talked about at times in some of my online events
Thank you sir
You're welcome!
What is more accurate? To have one interpretation from a piece of art or infinite amounts? Can you interpret non-art in an infinite way? Maybe there's a finite amount of valid interpretations and the rest is just art imitating art. What is actually corrupting the youth? I think there should be such a thing since those same youths should have interesting lives.
Well, infinite interpretations aren't really feasible, so that's a non-starter question in my view.
shukran from Yemen
You're welcome!
whats the name of that book you are holding ?
Plato, Collected Dialogues.
@@GregoryBSadler thanks for your replying...whose author .sir
@@moviesclipsandsongs5949 That's in the reply
How would Plato feel about someone like Sophocles?
He's a poet
Gregory B. Sadler Oh you’re right!
Nice work done
Thanks
Is today's game developer yesterday's poet?
Kinda. . .
Stop corrupting the youth man. :)
Few poets have ever reached Plato's rational way of thinking! Poets who have really tried to leverage people's minds through the most "unknown and challenging paths of rationality" are few and far between..... Many thanks!!
Well, I tend to think myself that Plato is a bit too hard on the poets. I just don't say it in the video!