Plato versus Aristotle on Poetry

In his master work The Republic, Plato attempts to create a hypothetical perfect society through discussion between his teacher Socrates and other Greeks. In the course of this discussion, Plato decides poets should be banned from his republic, and goes on to detail why poetry and poets are harmful to humanity. Years later, Plato’s student Aristotle wrote Poetics, a work that defends poetry as a valuable resource. Though these two competing works were written over 2,000 years ago, there is still debate over the danger and value of art. A more thorough analysis of Plato and Aristotle’s views will reveal how these works on poetry apply to today’s realm of popular entertainment.

Plato finds poetry and poets unsavory for two reasons he details in Book X of The Republic. Firstly, he takes issue with the imitative aspect of poetry. He demonstrates how far from reality poetry is by making an analogy to a bed. Socrates defines the most real bed as “the nature of things, bedhood, which we would say God made” (396). From this ideal bedhood comes beds made by craftsmen; Plato believes these are one step from reality. Finally, a painter who paints this bed is labeled “the imitator in the third generation from nature” (397). Socrates and Glaucon chide this painter, who represents the poet in their analogy, for creating “appearances, but not things really existing anywhere” (395) and not having a true grasp on reality. Socrates then directly attacks Homer himself, questioning Homer’s worth because he never helped govern a nation or participated in education.

Plato’s second criticism of poetry deals with the way humans respond to poetry emotionally. Plato describes humans as having two warring parts within them: one that is lead by pure emotion and one that is rational and “ready to obey the law” (404). He gives an example of a man who has lost a son. One half of this man wishes to lament endlessly, while the other half wants to “keep calm and endure.” Plato believes it is this latter half that is “manly” and praiseworthy, but that poets instead favor those who “[chant] and [beat] their breasts,” (406) in order to provoke an unrealistic and fake emotional response, playing on the pity and fear of the audience. He warns that if the men poets praise were in power, “pleasure and pain will be kings in your city, instead of law” (407).

Despite being Plato’s student for twenty years, Aristotle came to have very different opinions than his teacher on a number of issues. In his Poetics, Aristotle takes the defense of the poetry Plato so harshly criticized. He does this particularly in a chapter entitled “The origin and development of poetry.” While he does not argue with Plato’s assertion that poetry is imitative, he draws wholly different conclusions about imitation. Aristotle states, firstly, “the habit of imitating is congenital to human beings from childhood,” and that man in fact “learns his first lessons through imitation” (20). In other words, imitation is not three layers removed from reality, but is an essential part of human existence.

Secondly, Aristotle asserts that humans take pleasure from imitation. He points out that “least favored animals,” while causing pain and fear in reality, are enjoyable when rendered in some form of art. This aspect of art, wherein the audience is able to feel intense emotion without experiencing real danger, is known as catharsis, a cleansing of the emotional palette Aristotle finds healthy. This is in direct opposition to Plato, who believes the emotions experienced through poetry are not in sync with reality, and cause lawlessness.

The debate started by these great minds regarding poetry, the popular entertainment and art of their day, has only increased in intensity since their original writings. Though poetry has been replaced as the dominant form of entertainment, today’s Homers are still beset with wildly divergent opinions on their works. Today’s primary concerns are still twofold: the role of imitation and emotional impact in art. In these matters, my allegiance lies with Aristotle.

At the time of this writing, many lawmakers, officials, and parents are concerned with a relatively new type of art form: the video game. They believe the imitative aspect of games, i.e. the fact players help their onscreen counterparts cause mayhem and destruction, causes these players to recreate their actions in reality. Plato would likely take the side of these concerned citizens. The Grand Theft Auto series, with its car crashes, gang beatings and polygonal prostitutes, practically brings to life Socrates’ remark: “pleasure and pain will be kings in your city, instead of law.” However, Aristotle (and I) would argue for the cathartic aspect of these games; their players take out their frustrations onscreen, and not in the real world. In the year 2004, 5.1 million copies of the latest Grand Theft Auto sequel were sold1. The PC game Doom, which inspired controversy after it was discovered the Columbine shooters were devoted players, was estimated to be installed on 10 million computers in 19952. Though tragedies like Columbine make a lasting impression on the minds of the world, the ratio of supposed video game-inspired incidents of violence versus the number of video game players simply does not favor Plato’s stance. Rather, this ratio points out a public ripe for Aristotle’s catharsis; experiencing an imitation of reality and taking pleasure in releasing emotion. A generation from now, young people will scoff at the notion of video games as dangerous, just as mine scoffs at the idea of rock and roll as subversive devil’s music.

Aristotle also showed more foresight than his teacher in the matter of poetry’s worth to future generations. Plato dismisses poets like Homer, likening them to a holder of a mirror, who creates only appearances, but nothing with true form. He also chides Homer for never having help run a government or an educational facility. In both these matters, Plato shows a stunning lack of prescience. Today, uncountable numbers of classes dealing with forms of literature fill the academies Plato himself helped found. When we say a certain work of art “holds up a mirror to society,” we are praising it for its insight, not scorning it for being a copy of a copy. One can derive a certain amusement to think of Plato’s hypothetical reaction to the recent film Troy – would he consider it an imitation of an imitation of an imitation? Humor aside, we can see in films like Troy the legacy Plato claimed Homer lacked. It is now evident Homer’s contribution is far greater than helping govern one Greek city: he has inspired art, something Aristotle had the foresight to recognize as innate and essential, for over two millennia.

In Plato’s The Republic and Aristotle’s Poetics, we see two great minds of Greece come to different conclusions about two aspects of poetry. Plato regards the imitative property of poetry with dismay, citing its unreal aspects. Aristotle finds this imitation a necessary part of human life. Plato feels the emotional impact of poetry plays on the human psyche, and breeds unlawfulness. Aristotle contends this very emotional impact helps us relieve our tensions in a healthy way. When these views are transposed to a modern context, I cannot help but side with Aristotle.