Today, I'll begin a series of lecture posts in reading key authors and works in philosophy. In this entry, I'll begin with Plato's Aesthetics (Philosophy of Art) in The Republic.
The Republic—the magnum opus of Plato, that quintessential greek thinker of whom everything else in the history of ideas is a mere footnote of—is an excursion into the merit and meaning of Justice. It’s starting point—“what is justice?”—is, until today, a philosophical conundrum that permeates all forms of philosophising of any philosopher from any persuasion.
But what is striking in the Republic is its scope. It addresses fundamental questions about Politics, Ethics, Psychology, Ontology, Education, and Art, among others, while, at the same time, paying homage to the ideals of his master, Socrates, that martyr of philosophy, the protagonist of all of Plato’s Dialogues.
Hence, the Republic is a personal enterprise—an attempt to rectify the injustice that his master, Socrates, succumbed into in the hands of Athenian democracy. In so doing, Plato envisions an alternative, prescribes a better state other than greek democracy, suggests a Utopia, a perfect state where wisdom rules through a philosopher-king.
On its own, Plato’s Republic is a literary masterpiece—an art form par excellence—a grand narrative of a philosophical enterprise embodied in the figure of Socrates, the philosopher par excellence. This is why, among its varied themes, I find Plato’s views on Art as peculiar and worthy of insight. This lecture explores this peculiarity in the Aesthetics of The Republic vis-a-vis an art movement known as Neo-plasticism, that postmodern persuasion led by the Dutch painter Piet Mondrian.
In particular, I would like to exploit this possibility: had Plato encountered Mondrian’s art form, would he relieve art of its exile from the republic?
Art in Exile
The project of The Republic can be seen as an extended analogy between individual cases of justice and collective (state) justice. The latter, as exemplar, should provide justification for why justice is better than injustice, thereby suggesting a correct definition of “justice”.
This agenda led Plato to outline an ideal organic state comprised of three classes: that of the common folks (hunters, fishermen, slaves, and artists) leading lives of moderation, that of warriors or guardians capable of virtue, and lastly that of the philosopher king endowed with wisdom. This, to me, is a striking outline in that it places art among the lowest human pursuits pursued only in moderation. Books III and X of the Republic explains why…
Book III provides a critique of Art (poetry and literature in particular) as detrimental to the formation of the guardian classes. Art, to Plato, is Imitation or Mimesis. Elsewhere in Plato’s dialogues, Socrates is always critical of expressions that simply imitate. Hence, Plato’s utopia, the systematic visions of the great imaginative art must be censored in order to preserve the “ideal” (Idealism) thrust of the guardian’s education. Beauty, pleasure, and even laughter were disallowed. Art— be it plastic, literary, or musical—must be pursued in moderation so as not to disturb the ideal formation of the guardians.
Book X justifies this critique by exploring the “epistemological status” of artistic expressions. Accordingly, as mimesis, they are only capable of “conjecture” (opinion), the lowest level of truth. Socrates exploits an analogy known as “bed-imagery” to prove this point—First, God creates the real bed as idea. Second, the carpenter imitates God’s idea by making a particular (sensible) bed. Lastly, an artist creates an image (mimesis) of the sensible bed, an image that, in essence, is a mere copy of a copy (sensible bed) of the real bed (ideal). That artist should concern themselves with the lowest form of appearance is, for Plato, a cause for caution against artistic influence. For this reason, Plato urges that artists be banished from the republic.
Abstract Art as Reprieve
Postmodern artistic expressions, however, may qualify as exception to Plato’s critique. The De Stijl movement of the 1860s until the 1970s produced a radical artistic insight called “Neo-Plasticism” that highlights “abstraction” as technique. Mondrian explains it as follows:
It consisted of a white ground, upon which was painted a grid of vertical and horizontal black line and the three primary colors. It proposes pure abstraction and universality by reducing art to the essential form of colour (only primary colours along black and white) and simplifying visual compositions to the vertical and horizontal directions.
Mondrian describes his technique as one that “ignores the particulars of appearances, of natural form and color, in order to find its expression in the abstraction of form and color”.
At the close of book III, Socrates, after a stifling critique of hitherto existing art forms in ancient Greece, endorses an alternative, a simple, but not simplistic, artistic expressions capable of representing the ideal forms of the intelligible world. Among those he mentioned are solemn hymns and praises for the gods. Could the simplicity of Mondrian’s abstract art qualify as well?
I can only assume that had Mondrian been with Plato at that time of his political excursion, He would have had an honored place in Plato’s republic and art would find its rightful place: beside the philosophical king, gazing at the perfection of the ideal eternal form of the “Good”.
I very well remember the day when we had Plato's allegory of the cave in our school philosophy class. Anyone else remember reading him as a young kid?
hi @siberg. the third photo in my post is a depiction to the allegory of the cave found in book VII of the Republic. A real beautiful imagery crafted by Plato to convey his ontology, that our world is a mere shadow compared to the ideal world of forms. That's why, to me, the Republic really is a work of art! Thanks for spending time to read.
Great post! Plato also believed that there had to be assigned roles in a perfect polis (city). Where people are divided into 1 of 3 groups, workers, soldiers, guardians/philosopher kings. Where Guardians are at the top with the highest epistemological status, they were philosophers dedicated to making decisions for the polis. He was also very against democracy, like most of our fathers of philosophy and politics.
Exactly! Which is why his aesthetics is predicated on the agenda of "clarifying justice" by prescribing what a just state is. This agenda is, at the same time, a critique of then existing form of government, the original Greek demoncracy, which most philosophers of that time are critical of. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were all critical of Greek democracy. Thanks for the input. @jefft
@tiancilao rightly pointed out that I did not offer substantial support for my claims, so here is a lecture on Plato and the Good. Keep in mind this is for an introductory course, within the first two weeks of class. I build upon this argument throughout the course, so many claims are better unpacked over the duration of the semester.
That said, those who claim that Plato is providing "his" philosophy, have clearly not read Plato's entire corpus; especially the Phaedrus, the ONLY story where Socrates is outside the city walls of Athens, and they are talking about the failings of WRITING!! The most human of all endeavors . . . Enjoy!
thank for this @gigantomachia. I will find time to finish this and I will get back to you once I do. Also, please send me the links for Heidegger and Gadamer's rereading of Plato. I will give you a response to that too in due time. Appreciate the effort to initiate a discourse.
Hey @tianiclao, no worries. It is easy to get sucked into the tradition for sure. I was "lucky" to have a professor that studied with Gadamer, albeit briefly. That said, most of Heidegger and Gadamer's work is still copyrighted, i.e., you have to actually buy the books. Here is a list of where to start:
Heidegger: "Being and Time", "Contributions to Philosophy", "Plato's Sophist", and "The Origin of the Work of Art". (I think you might really enjoy that last one).
Gadamer: "Truth and Method", "The Enigma of Health", and "Plato's Dialectical Ethics".
Enjoy!
Thanks! I have only finished Heidegger's Being and Time and Contributions to Philosophy. For Gadamer, I only came across "Truth and Method". I will surely find time to read the rest. When I finish, we can engage in a better discourse. I'm looking forward to that, @gigantomachia.
A lot depends on your opinion about Plato's Letters. Many argue they are not authentic, but then these are the same people that want to argue Plato IS giving us his philosophy. I am in the camp that understands them as authentic, in large part because having read all of Plato's works, with a background in reading attic Greek, shows me that there are a LOT of contradictions within what Plato writes if one attempts to suggest there is a consistent philosophy therein.
Good stuff!
I would argue you are making a common mistake, i.e., taking Plato too literally. Another way of reading Plato is to see him as challenging how his fellow Athenians understand their own history/laws. This is the path opened up by Heidegger and Gadamer, and I highly recommend at least entertaining the idea. Seriously.
exactly what do you mean @gigantomachia? I understand Plato's context. Which is why, at the onset, I indicate that the Republic is a critique of Greek Democracy. I understand too that his Critique of art is a critique of the excesses of Greek art. But that is not the thesis and focus of this write-up. What i intend to do is to exploit a possible convergence between Plato's prescription on art and the essence of abstract art, which I think is quite striking. Had my focus been Plato's political philosophy, I would have touched on in detail about his critique of greek worldview and practice of his time. thanks for dropping by. Appreciate the input, Seriously.
The point is that you appear to simply assume the traditional account of Plato, regardless of how you use said account. My point was that if you rethought your thesis in light of the possibility that the traditional view was perhaps mistaken, it might push your account of art as well. It has nothing to do with politics per se, it is about to what extent what Plato makes Socrates say can be attributed to what Plato actually believed. I get this requires pushing what it easily read in most history of Philosophy texts, but again, there is a strong and solid argument against that traditional reading. Are you aware of this challenge to the traditional reading of Plato? If not, I believe it would behoove you to check it out.
@gigantomachia, Can you please elucidate exactly how a traditional reading of Plato is "mistaken"? To judge that it is mistaken is a serious evaluation. Worse, you did not provide qualification. Are you pointing out a hermeneutic problem in approaching the text, which is resolvable only by philologists? But I am supposing here (since you did not qualify your objections) that the "challenge to the traditional reading" that you are referring to considers a split between Socrates and Plato, whether what Socrates says in the Republic are authentic expressions of what Plato believes. I am aware that there's still a long-standing study whether Socrates was sheer mouthpiece to Plato in the Dialogues. BUT, I DO NOT think that such an inconsequential and trivial historical distinction would readily render the traditional reading as ultimately mistaken. Personally, I don't make distinctions even between Socrates and Plato. To me, Platonic Philosophy is embodied in the figure of Socrates in the Dialogues of Plato. Yet, that does not stop me from appreciating the value of the traditional reading (which you have yet to define btw). Also, I don't see it as a genuine philosophical undertaking to split hairs and to judge that a particular and long-standing reading of a philosophical text is just, without qualification, mistaken. It think it would behoove us both if you will qualify your objections, define your terms, and explain them clearly.
Are you not aware of Plato's Seventh Letter? There Plato is pretty darn clear, "No where is my philosophy written".
As to qualifying, I did actually by citing Heidegger and Gadamer, who give a DETAILED account of how the tradition took way too many liberties in assuming exactly what you assume. If you have not read them, then I am not sure you are in a position to challenge the claim. I did my Masters Thesis on Heidegger and my Dissertation discusses how William James embodies similar tendencies as we see in rereading Plato through the lenses of the anti-traditional view. I can give you links to them if you want to read them.
ETA: and I find it somewhat ironic that you have a quote from Nietzsche in your profile, since he and Jacob Burckhardt really started the movement to reread Plato in light of the possibility that Plato was NOT writing down HIS philosophy per se. In fact, as Plato argued, philosophy is not something that can be captured by writing in the first place. Paging Phaedrus . . .
The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.
- Albert Einstein
Great insight @wise-old-man appreciate you droppin by every now and then! thanks for reading.
It's always good to read ancient philosophical thought such as Plato amd Aristoteles. My favorite theme is metaphysic. They put metaphysic as the fundamen of their idea for other topics. Plato also argue that intuition is the true knowledge that differs from the knwledge we get from sensible experiences.
Yes, indeed. Among the contributions of the Greek civilization is that inquiry into Being (ontos), hence ontology or metaphysics. They were first to ask that fundamental question in philosophy, ti to on, or "what is Being?". Even before Plato, the presocratics already managed to touch on the merit of this question but they were only focused on defining being as "urstoff", as the "fundamental stuff" that serve as origin of everything. Plato and Aristotle, however, provided a system that responded to this inquiry, one which we now call Platonism and Aristotelianism respectively. However, what I find interesting about Plato is the method by which he developed his system. He crafted first a narrative about a utopia. His metaphysical claims were then predicated on this agenda. To me, this method of expression is an art form on its own. Thanks for taking the time to give your insight, @sabjabal.
Nice post,knowledge able,your writing also good,upvoted
thanks for reading
always welcome
Great post! Love the way the post was organized!
Thank you for reading and the evaluation. Appreciated, @oscargon1234
This post recieved an upvote from minnowpond. If you would like to recieve upvotes from minnowpond on all your posts, simply FOLLOW @minnowpond
Awesome! Awesome! And nice to see you powering up. You have a chance to ask every question. Please visit my last post
my stint here has been great so far @surpassinggoogle. Yes, I will visit your page for questions in the coming days. thanks!
Wow.... @tianiclao
Thanks for reading, @miracle-ic. Any insight on Plato? 😀
Wiithdraw na yan... lunch tayo. Hahah
Libre mo, @islandprincess? Go! 😂😂😂
great article!
Thanks for reading! @gergelykovacs any insight on Plato? 😀
Congratulations @tianiclao! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPThis post recieved an upvote from minnowpond. If you would like to recieve upvotes from minnowpond on all your posts, simply FOLLOW @minnowpond
I don't think this belongs on the #steemgigs tag. Could you explain what service/product you're offering or requesting?
Can you please enlighten me as to what qualifies as steemgigs? Thank you
The #steemgigs tag is a place for steemians to offer or request products/services from one another. A service can be just about anything. You do something for them, and they pay you in STEEM/SBD. Or you pay someone to do something 😃 It's a great alternative to freelancing sites like Fiverr.
interesting... l like your post.
Good luck
Thanks for reading @funnyquotes. Any insight on Plato? 😀