Art, for Art's Sake

Plato seems to be against art with no new value, deeming them, an "imitation of an imitation."  He does not mention that one could simply enjoy the aesthetic value of viewing art.  Why? I personally think that one reason Plato opposed imitative art was not only because he did not think that art had core value, but also because he was worried about the way that art could subliminally influence the viewer.  He gives this example in The Republic, when he notes the analogy of a stick thrust in water.  The stick seems bent, although upon extracting it from the water, one can clearly see the illusion that took place.  I think that observation has even more merit today.  Whether or not the subliminally influential media arts have a positive or negative effect on viewers, there is no doubt that in this day and age, we are completely surrounded by it.  From television, internet,  newspapers, radio, and our pop culture, I think Plato's warning has more significance now than ever before.

My question is, what about inventors? The person who came up with the couch, wheel, table, iPod? Does an "inventor" as such even exist?

I think Plato accredits inventors with the ingenuity to look inside their own soul.  Plato says in The Republic that by looking into our souls, we can see and grasp ideas from the world of forms.  While Plato may not actually call those people inventors, I would say that those people and their work would be the type of professions he valued the most, simply because they introduced products and ideas with original value, as far as the real, physical world is concerned.  However, I would say that he would not refer to them as inventors.  If Plato believed that every original idea came from the world of forms than that would imply the preexistence of everything created in the real, physical world.  While he may not acknowledge these inventors as actual "inventors," I think he certainly would speak highly of their productive nature and their valuable contributions to society.

How accurate was Plato’s assertion that painters “take a mirror, and turn it round in every direction” ?

When Plato makes his assertion that painters "take a mirror, and turn it round in every direction," how much credit can we give him for his words?  On one hand, the view that artists simply hold a mirror to whatever they are trying to depict is a somewhat shallow understanding of their trade.  On the other, I think Plato is trying to convey the sense that it takes little ingenuity to replicate the physical image of, say, a person, landscape, or anything else of that matter.  It would also be helpful to consider the art in that period of time.  Abstract art is a relatively new concept, so one would think, that perhaps a good deal of art in Plato's time was in fact simple portraits of scenes that already existed in the real, physical world.  While his mirror analogy is definitely a jaded view of art, perhaps the reader can see where Plato is coming from, and interpret his message in a more charitable light.

How did Plato regard certain “valuable,” forms of art, such as epics or Greek tragedies?

Plato expresses his concern that the arts, because they imitate an imitation, hold no individual value themselves.  How then does he feel about the art he was raised on, such as Greek tragedies and epics, most notably from Homer?  These forms of the arts were often used to set the moral and educational standards for the general public.  One would think that works of art that set moral and ethical codes would indeed have value, and Plato does acknowledge that to some degree.  In short, saying, that while we ourselves would never behave with the shameless lamentation demonstrated by a tragic hero, we can still learn from the overall value of the work as a whole, which is something he feels that most paintings and poems lack.

Philosophy Toolkit: Interpretive Charity

Interpretive Charity:  A preparedness to give others the benefit of the doubt, interpreting their statements in the best possible light and on the working assumption that their thoughts are valuable.  To interpret charitably is not to read or listen uncritically, but to be disinclined to condemn others' views except as a last resort.  It is the practical basis for civility in discourse, as well as prerequisite for grasping unfamiliar texts and approaches.

One Intellectual virtue I feel that is neglected the most by philosophy students is Interpretive Charity.  Interpretive  charity is essential to philosophers in many ways.  In philosophy, and logic especially, the words used and the order they are put in can radically change the conclusion of an argument.  Because of this delicate balance, it is important to follow the basic rules of an argument.  In short, resorting to presumptuous conclusions or strong emotive discourse can ruin the validity or integrity of an argument.

That being said, I feel that the incredible range of topics that students have at the tips of their fingers (via the internet) can leave them prone to, for example, the radical or reactionary opinions of a bitter journalist or blogger, or simply limited, stereotypical knowledge about a vast number of topics;  I think it is human nature to attempt to simplify and organize knowledge within our brains, and this has become increasingly difficult in a very complex  society.

 In conclusion,  I found interpretive charity an interesting topic in the Toolkit, for the following reasons:  In a subject that requires the arguer to abstain from emotive and personal (in a biased or contemptuous way) discourse,  the world we live in today surrounds us with influential media aimed to capture interest, not inform, and leads many simplified and unsubstantiated opinions about some of the world's most complex problems.  I think it is very important to use interpretive charity more often, as we are often ignorant of the value of a statement we do not understand.  We need to resist the urge to dismiss ideas we do not care for simply because they are complicated, or contradictory to our own.  

About Me

I am a freshman at MCLA, entering my second semester, and I am majoring in Political Science and History.  I very much enjoy baseball, playing the trumpet, snowboarding, lifting weights, and am blessed with a wonderful family and friends I enjoy spending time with.