Does Poetry Matter
Can We Learn More From Verse Than Text?
History, as a whole, teaches us almost everything we need to know. Politics, literature, social issues and human improvement are all recorded so we learn from our past mistakes. A popular opinion is that one learns more from history than poetry –or any art form for that matter- and although this may be true, it can also be argued against it. Without poetry, our knowledge of ancient Greek, Chinese and other early civilizations would be minimal. Poetry allows us to understand the way people have thought and behaved. It allows us to look into their beliefs and learn from them. Poems can be universal, since they adapt forms, styles and techniques from diverse cultures and languages and so they teach us about subjects like human vulnerability.
In Poetics, Aristotle makes two claims about poetry: it is mimetic, or imitative in its use of language, rhythm, and harmony, separately or in combination; and he also claims that poetry is universal. He states, “Hence poetry is something more philosophic and of graver import than history, since its statements are of the nature rather of universals, whereas those of history are singulars”, (p. 2323). Aristotle believes that because poetry cannot only describe what has happened, but also what could or might happen, it teaches more than history. I agree with Aristotle’s opinion. The way he describes poetry being universal, something that we can all relate to and understand, makes perfect sense. Poetry lets us explore the different paths our lives can go through. It lets us imagine different scenarios and, because Aristotle mentions poetry imitating nature, we can learn from others actions and what consequences they might have.
On the other hand, Aristotle argues that history is singular. He goes on to say, “The distinction between historian and poet is not in the one writing prose and the other verse–you might put the work of Herodotus into verse, and it would still be a species of
History, as a whole, teaches us almost everything we need to know. Politics, literature, social issues and human improvement are all recorded so we learn from our past mistakes. A popular opinion is that one learns more from history than poetry –or any art form for that matter- and although this may be true, it can also be argued against it. Without poetry, our knowledge of ancient Greek, Chinese and other early civilizations would be minimal. Poetry allows us to understand the way people have thought and behaved. It allows us to look into their beliefs and learn from them. Poems can be universal, since they adapt forms, styles and techniques from diverse cultures and languages and so they teach us about subjects like human vulnerability.
In Poetics, Aristotle makes two claims about poetry: it is mimetic, or imitative in its use of language, rhythm, and harmony, separately or in combination; and he also claims that poetry is universal. He states, “Hence poetry is something more philosophic and of graver import than history, since its statements are of the nature rather of universals, whereas those of history are singulars”, (p. 2323). Aristotle believes that because poetry cannot only describe what has happened, but also what could or might happen, it teaches more than history. I agree with Aristotle’s opinion. The way he describes poetry being universal, something that we can all relate to and understand, makes perfect sense. Poetry lets us explore the different paths our lives can go through. It lets us imagine different scenarios and, because Aristotle mentions poetry imitating nature, we can learn from others actions and what consequences they might have.
On the other hand, Aristotle argues that history is singular. He goes on to say, “The distinction between historian and poet is not in the one writing prose and the other verse–you might put the work of Herodotus into verse, and it would still be a species of