Book Ten

There are many things I agree with Plato on. For example, I agree with his view that Poets (and really all artists) influence people to be irrational, and to have a more dramatic response to situations and emotions that they typically wouldn't have if they think clearly and behave rationally. However, in this book there are quiet a few things I strongly disagree with.

For one, he says that artists have no real knowledge to give. They paint a cobbler, but don't know a thing about cobbling and therefore do not teach anyone about cobbling even though they spent so much effort painting the cobbler. He says that Homer wrote of courage and virtue, imitating through his writing how they are in life, but that he had no true understanding of it. Let me just start off by saying that no matter who you are, artist or not, philosopher or not, you have something to teach because no two people view the world in the same way, and no two people share the exact same life experiences. You can always teach and enlighten people on what you have experienced and how you experienced it. Even the most ignorant person can teach you something if you are willing to listen and learn, instead automatically demeaning them. Also, perhaps not so much in Plato's time, but in our modern times, art is almost always informative, including abundant facts, or a commentary on polotics, society, or all of these things at the same time. I almost feel that art is viewed as "bad" if it does not address those topics. Some artists in all fields of art, are working hard in various ways to find solutions to life's questions and problems. Do philosophers not act in the same way?

Two: When an artist is depicting something they don't completely understand or know many facts about, they are typically expressing an appreciation for it. Homer writes about courage and virtue because he clearly appreciates those characteristics based on the way he wrote about them. What evidence did Plato provide to prove that Homer did not understand them? What, because Homer didn't write a book defining and explaining courage and virtue, he doesn't really know what they are? Plainly if he was able to use them so effectively in his epic, he knew more than enough about the subjects.

Three: Plato limits the artist. He never even stops to think that maybe, just maybe, an artist can be more than just an artist. Who's to say that the artist is not a philosopher who just uses their skill with a brush, instead of words, to speak of what they think and know. I mean just look at Michelangelo, he was an inventor, a scientist, and an artist. I know crazy right?!

Maybe in the case of the artist, Plato is stuck in the cave of his time period.