Plato's Indictment

“However, poetry might accuse us of insensitivity and lack of culture, so we’d better also tell her that there’s an ancient quarrel between poetry and philosophy…I mean, haven’t you ever fallen under the spell of poetry, Glaucon, especially when the spectacle is provided by Homer?”

When I think about The Republic I don’t really concern myself with Plato’s arguments. This is perhaps a mistake. But I, like many others who read his masterpiece, see the glaring issues and let philosophers quibble over the details. I’m concerned with the bigger picture; the fundamental meaning of the book. The painstaking construction of each institution and law isn’t as exciting at the finished utopia.

But there are certain arguments Plato makes I cannot ignore, particularly his verdict to exile literature from the city. Well, not so much exile, as heavily censor. He believes literature that doesn’t extol state-approved virtues is toxic to the character of the individual, and by extension the entire regime.

Here are his main points:

1. Assuming metaphysical idealism is true, then art as an imitation of life, which is an imitation of Forms, makes it three times removed from Truth. Art leads us away from, not to, divine Goodness.
2. Stories educate our young. If they hear tales that promote corrupt values then they may adopt them. It’s imperative the state monitors which stories children hear.
3. Such literature may even undermine the entire community by promulgating falsehoods.
4. The pleasurable allure of art distracts from the philosophical pursuit of Goodness.
5. If art portrays Gods, the world, and humans as doing evil things, people may feel less guilty at their own sins, and even find them acceptable.
6. Art has no practical application in people’s lives. People are unable to demonstrate how literature has made a positive impact on their decisions, thoughts, and community.
7. Art flirts with and encourages the part in people that enjoy falsehood and emotions—enemies of philosophy.

I trust I’ve done Plato justice. Before I address these points, let me first decline from highlighting their impracticality. This is an old and useless criticism of The Republic. The text itself acknowledges it (and provides an adequate response) so I’ll leave it at that. To begin:

1.) Plato doesn’t seem to grasp that much of art isn’t interested in imitation. It uses reality as material for its purpose. Homer isn’t providing a historical account of the Trojan War; he’s adopting the War as the platform for his story. The fiction he creates then becomes its own idealism, with its own rules. In response Plato would probably question the integrity of the fiction: why attempt to forge your own world when it won’t be as perfect as divine Goodness? Here we would challenge Plato’s idealism directly, having freed art from its imitative label.

2.) Sure, there’s legitimate concern here. But that means we must monitor what children are exposed to, not censor an entire community. Unlike children, adults have the facility to distinguish between right and wrong (see next point).

3.) I agree with John Milton’s view on this matter: freedom of speech allows ideas to debate and compete with one another. If we’ve succeeded in educating our community, good and ethical ideals will rise to the top while idiotic and evil ideas will be defeated. By not allowing “falsehoods” to spread you’re preventing people from questioning their pre-conceived ideas, trapping them with their opinions. It’s odd that Plato makes this point, as it completely ignores the sacrifice of Socrates.

4.) I agree it’s concerning how much entertainment distracts people from confronting reality. But entertainment also helps people by providing them with rest in which to pursue goodness afterwards. Certain excellent forms of entertainment also educate, which is a classic definition of literature (and applies to Plato).

5.) Plato doesn’t have a very high opinion of humanity does he? I can enjoy, hell I can even sympathize with villains without condoning their actions or views. This fear shouldn’t exist if people are educated and ethical, which is the real objective here. Not to mention stories generally punish characters for their vices. We should also note that even if Plato is correct, it may not be a bad thing, as it helps people accept being human and making mistakes. It’s how the story handles those mistakes that determine our response.

6.) Entertainment and education are measureable and significant effects of art. Just because these effects are not quantifiable doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Look at Plato’s own dialogues, Republic included. Don’t these stories have a positive and demonstrable influence on people? This is one of the great ironies of Plato’s argument here: under his own criteria his dialogues wouldn’t be allowed in the utopia.

7.) Plato’s obsession with truth and logic is severely diminutive. Fiction doesn’t equate to falsehood; it empowers imagination and facilitates logical thinking by challenging convention and mental sterility. And emotion is not a bad thing; in fact it’s one of the supreme reasons for living. It’s good to point out the spheres of life where unchecked emotion is unhealthy. But to deny it altogether—to reduce all of life to mechanical thought that ignores intuition and feeling—this would be a grave mistake. Philosophy is paramount for living a good and happy life, but it is one ingredient among many.

I enjoyed Plato’s consideration of art at the end of this argument: if someone is able to provide an adequate defense of literature, then he would happily admit it back to his republic. But from it we see the man’s real fear: he loves art, and it terrifies him. To dedicate your life to philosophy and clear thinking, only to find yourself swept away by the charm and power of artistic creation is worrisome. It puts everything he believes into question. After reflecting on it, Plato finds this persuasion too harmful to allow, outside of neutered exception. He needs a city where logic and mental clarity reign supreme, and art challenges that. Art obscures the truth; philosophy seeks it. Art creates fictions; philosophy destroys them. Art allows for multiple worlds; philosophy, just the one. The former is playful, and the latter is serious.  To Plato, a man like Homer could shatter his entire utopia. The irony is that Plato himself is a supreme artist, and will be remembered because of it. It’s not his philosophy, but how he presented it that lets his ideas live on.