The Significance of Art in The Republic of Plato
The Significance of Art in The Republic of Plato
Artist and philosophers alike have criticized The Republic of Plato as praising the justice of a censored society which, in reading The Republic as a philosophical treatise, is not surprising. Quotes abound in The Republic supporting this claim, such as “we must supervise the makers of tales; and if they make a fine tale, it must be approved, but if it’s not, it must be rejected. We’ll persuade nurses and mothers to tell the approved tales to their children and to shape their souls with tales more than their bodies with hands. Most of those they now tell must be thrown out.”(Bloom, 377b)¹ Through-out the education of the guardians of the city within The Republic, Socrates restricts the poets and story tellers more and more, tossing out what ever would seem to harm his perfectly just city or diminish the patriotism of those living within. It comes as no surprise that the casual reader may have qualms with this extreme censorship of the artist and what they are permitted to create. A closer reading and an idea of the social significance of the artist 2500 years ago, seems to reveal a different intent to Socrates seemingly stubborn opinion of art.
Plato was an artist himself, writing beautiful dramatic dialogues, which are most unlike the more modern philosophers like Kant or Hegel who write philosophical treatise. This distinction becomes important in how Plato is read in comparison to other philosophers. In the mainstream philosophy of our time the most common way to read a philosopher’s writing is through a collection of excerpts from many writers on a certain topic. These books are great for getting a lot of different views but unfortunately they destroy the messages contained in non philosophical treatise type writing, such as Plato’s. Plato’s writing can not be taken out of context with excerpts. It would be like taking Macbeth’s speech from Shakespeare’s play Macbeth and saying that is Shakespeare’s
Artist and philosophers alike have criticized The Republic of Plato as praising the justice of a censored society which, in reading The Republic as a philosophical treatise, is not surprising. Quotes abound in The Republic supporting this claim, such as “we must supervise the makers of tales; and if they make a fine tale, it must be approved, but if it’s not, it must be rejected. We’ll persuade nurses and mothers to tell the approved tales to their children and to shape their souls with tales more than their bodies with hands. Most of those they now tell must be thrown out.”(Bloom, 377b)¹ Through-out the education of the guardians of the city within The Republic, Socrates restricts the poets and story tellers more and more, tossing out what ever would seem to harm his perfectly just city or diminish the patriotism of those living within. It comes as no surprise that the casual reader may have qualms with this extreme censorship of the artist and what they are permitted to create. A closer reading and an idea of the social significance of the artist 2500 years ago, seems to reveal a different intent to Socrates seemingly stubborn opinion of art.
Plato was an artist himself, writing beautiful dramatic dialogues, which are most unlike the more modern philosophers like Kant or Hegel who write philosophical treatise. This distinction becomes important in how Plato is read in comparison to other philosophers. In the mainstream philosophy of our time the most common way to read a philosopher’s writing is through a collection of excerpts from many writers on a certain topic. These books are great for getting a lot of different views but unfortunately they destroy the messages contained in non philosophical treatise type writing, such as Plato’s. Plato’s writing can not be taken out of context with excerpts. It would be like taking Macbeth’s speech from Shakespeare’s play Macbeth and saying that is Shakespeare’s