There was a discussion that went on in class on propaganda in the state and whether or not it should exist as art and be removed from ideal society of Plato. Personally, I don't see propaganda as a real art, it may be presented through art media but it is most definitively no art. Also, I feel propaganda would have no place in Plato's society as it goes against the idea of free thinking and that there would not have to be any justification for any war as the philosopher king would be making the most sound judgments he could as he would be the epitome of kings and any war brought on or defended against would be only for the just reasons.
Plato's world is an ideal world with humanity at its peak. There would be no need for such trifles as manipulation.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Q+A: Plato #2
He mentions art not being true but doesn't art have meaning of its own, projected by those who see it? What about the individual truth?"
This is more of a question of whether art has one meaning, no meaning, or am individual meaning. According to Plato, most art will have no meaning at all. It is simply the reflection of nature put into form. He saw it as useless and noneducational. A more modern look at art says that art has meaning in some emotional, personal sense. An artist will put a meaning into art, but others may draw upon more personal connections and attempt to apply them to the art. It can be an fulfilling to search through yourself and finding something to connect to. Plato's view of art is quite ignorant of that. There is unlimited worth in the paintings of artists when applied to the idea that they hold meanings for everyone to better understand themselves and the human condition better.
Also, another thing that Plato doesn't bring up is the concept of individual truth. Something that may be true and part of my everyday life for me may not be true to someone else in the world. He may argue that there is only one truth and our individual truths are skewed versions of the actual truth inside our souls, but I believe that truth in personal sense is brought on by the society and needs to match a person's individual needs.
This is more of a question of whether art has one meaning, no meaning, or am individual meaning. According to Plato, most art will have no meaning at all. It is simply the reflection of nature put into form. He saw it as useless and noneducational. A more modern look at art says that art has meaning in some emotional, personal sense. An artist will put a meaning into art, but others may draw upon more personal connections and attempt to apply them to the art. It can be an fulfilling to search through yourself and finding something to connect to. Plato's view of art is quite ignorant of that. There is unlimited worth in the paintings of artists when applied to the idea that they hold meanings for everyone to better understand themselves and the human condition better.
Also, another thing that Plato doesn't bring up is the concept of individual truth. Something that may be true and part of my everyday life for me may not be true to someone else in the world. He may argue that there is only one truth and our individual truths are skewed versions of the actual truth inside our souls, but I believe that truth in personal sense is brought on by the society and needs to match a person's individual needs.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Q+A #1
"Is it an issue of art being this source of decay, or is it that people cannot put meaning into art?"
I feel Plato is putting too much support behind the innate ability of humans to learn and appreciate knowledge. Plato, in the book, states how corrosive art and other not-so-useful things are and how they have no place in society. However, is this the arts fault, or the people's?
For Plato's day, yes, most art was made to depict something held important at the time. However, there were many cases of art that depicted ephemeral things, like deities and events that they were not there for. There exists imagination. That is something beyond the visual world. There is always a story behind those paintings, a meaning, a moral, somethings. It is in the hands of people to find that meaning. To apply it themselves and try to learn from it. There is a lot to be learned from artists and poets and the like. From them, you learn about the human condition and how could one remove something so vital from the world? Plato does leave room for art if they prove themselves worthy. I believe they have.
I feel Plato is putting too much support behind the innate ability of humans to learn and appreciate knowledge. Plato, in the book, states how corrosive art and other not-so-useful things are and how they have no place in society. However, is this the arts fault, or the people's?
For Plato's day, yes, most art was made to depict something held important at the time. However, there were many cases of art that depicted ephemeral things, like deities and events that they were not there for. There exists imagination. That is something beyond the visual world. There is always a story behind those paintings, a meaning, a moral, somethings. It is in the hands of people to find that meaning. To apply it themselves and try to learn from it. There is a lot to be learned from artists and poets and the like. From them, you learn about the human condition and how could one remove something so vital from the world? Plato does leave room for art if they prove themselves worthy. I believe they have.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
On Inventors
Nicole brought up an excellent point. Plato would probably say something along the lines that the person has reached a level of better understanding and can reach into the world of forms. When they reach that point they can access deeper things within the realm of forms. So, from what I know, I believe that Plato believes that the inventor is simply taping into the power of the world of forms and using it to create something from that image he/she receives. It then fits Plato's description of the imitation that he purposes in the book.
However, all this is dependent on how people interact with the World of Forms. Is it an interaction where we pull the ideas out of the form, or does the World inspire inventors to create? Thinkers don't stop and mentally try to reach out into this realm of truth, so there clearly is no conscious manipulation of the zone on the human end. So my theory on what Plato would say is that through the use of logic and proper thinking, one begins to stir the innate knowledge and receives information through the souk. It would have to be the realm of forms throwing the correct ideas into the minds of inventors and that seems to be very illogical. I feel that there are innate ways for people to learn, but know way for people to find an absolute truth through their soul.
However, all this is dependent on how people interact with the World of Forms. Is it an interaction where we pull the ideas out of the form, or does the World inspire inventors to create? Thinkers don't stop and mentally try to reach out into this realm of truth, so there clearly is no conscious manipulation of the zone on the human end. So my theory on what Plato would say is that through the use of logic and proper thinking, one begins to stir the innate knowledge and receives information through the souk. It would have to be the realm of forms throwing the correct ideas into the minds of inventors and that seems to be very illogical. I feel that there are innate ways for people to learn, but know way for people to find an absolute truth through their soul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)