Plato: Aesthetics, Misc

O objetivo deste estudo é propor um modelo explicativo ao problema da beleza desenvolvido no diálogo Hípias Maior de Platão. É um lugar-comum entre os estudiosos defender o senso aporético do diálogo, ressaltando como todas as hipóteses formuladas são descartadas pelos interlocutores, tese que é geralmente endossada pela afirmação final de que as coisas belas são difíceis (304e8). No entanto, no epicentro deste emaranhado de hipóteses, algumas conclusões importantes surgem e serão, conforme se espera demonstrar, fortemente incorporadas em outros lugares (...) daquilo que chamamos de corpus platônico. Assim, a partir desta condição fragmentária, inerente ao próprio texto, e através dela mesma, a presente dissertação visa propor um senso de unidade ao diálogo. Para cumprir tal intento, defende-se que a estrutura do diálogo repousa em três características centrais, sendo estas responsáveis por qualificar o belo em si, são elas: a ordem (kalós é identificado com o kósmos, a ordem, à medida em que estabelece um principio estético de organização, garantindo a ordem harmônica dos seres); a admiração (isto é, o objeto perseguido tem uma validade permanente e universal de estima e, neste sentido, aparece conectado àquilo que é genuinamente bom (agathós), embora a ele não se limite); e, por fim, o comum (kalós é identificado com o koinós, o comum, pois é apresentado como aquilo que é compartilhado pelas coisas belas). A partir destas atribuições, espera-se alcançar uma designação apropriada do belo, de modo a conferir uma certa dignidade e prestígio a um diálogo pouco abordado nos estudos platônicos. (shrink)

Plato’s theory of mimesis is expressed clearly and mainly in Plato’s Republic where he refers to his philosophy of Ideas in his definition of art, by arguing that all arts are imitative in nature. Reality according to him lies with the Idea, and the Form one confronts in this tangible world is a copy of that universal everlasting Idea. He poses that a carpenter’s chair is the result of the idea of chair in his mind, the created chair is once (...) removed from reality and since a painter’s chair is imitation of a carpenter’s chair, it is twice removed from reality. Thus, the artist deals in illusion. Plato thus rejected imitative art on the foundation that it is a copy or imitation of the unreal. We may ask; if the Carpenter makes a chair, what does he imitate? And if he imitates reality, can we call him an artist of a kind? This article therefore argues following Plato’s analogy that carpentry is an art of a kind and a carpenter is capable of knowing reality as against the notion that only philosophers are suitable for such a task. (shrink)

Ancient Chinese and Greek thinkers alike were preoccupied with the moral value of music; they distinguished between good and bad music by looking at the music’s effect on moral character. The idea can be understood in terms of two closely related questions. Does music have the power to affect the ethical character of either listener or performer? If it does, is it better as music for doing so? I argue that an affirmative answers to both questions are more plausible than (...) it might seem at first. (shrink)

A long chapter for The War of Appearances: Transparency, Opacity, Radiance (V2_Publishing, 2016) building on the findings of “Charis and Radiance,” an essay published two years earlier. It discusses the inherent connection between visibility and radiance within the framework of Plato’s sun model as the source of reality. The argument develops a system where transcendent verticality and earthly horizontality together construct an “arena of presence” in which things flood each other with light, absorbing and returning portions of it in a (...) circular economy similar to gift exchange. (shrink)

Although recent commentators have attended to dramatic and ironic aspects of Plato’s Republic, a more sustained examination of the relation between irony and the exchanges of Socrates and Glaucon is required because a crucial purpose and presentation of the irony have largely gone unnoticed. This paper argues that Socratesemploys irony in part to parody Glaucon’s extremism and that he does so to exhort Glaucon to think critically. First, it examines how Socrates uses the term makaria primarily ironically and pedagogically. Then, (...) a possible reason for this use of makaria is advanced: aspects of Kallipolis are a parody of Glaucon and that the parody aims to instruct Glaucon intellectually. This paper hopes to show that such a reading deserves further articulation and examination. (shrink)

In Plato’s dialogues we often find Socrates talking at length about poetry. Sometimes he proposes censorship of certain works because what they say is false or harmful. Other times we find him interpreting the poets or rejecting potential interpretations of them. This raises the question of whether there is any consistent account to be given of Socrates’ practice as a literary critic. One might think that Plato himself in the Ion answers the question that I have raised. Rhapsody, at least (...) in the Ion , is portrayed as the activity of interpreting and evaluating the works of the poets. At first glance at least, Plato seems to conclude that this activity cannot meet the standards of a τέχνη. Rhapsodes are divine madmen. Thus, there cannot be a systematic Platonic account of literary criticism because this activity is inherently irrational and, subsequently, not something that one could engage in in a systematic way, guided by a theory of any sort. In the first part of the paper I argue that the Ion does not simply consign the Interpretation of poetry to the irrational and, as a result, does not pose an obstacle to the possibility of a Platonic literary criticism. In the second part of the paper I turn to the task of finding an account of the purpose of reading poetry and strategies for fulfilling this purpose that make systematic sense of Socrates’ multifarious remarks about poetry. (shrink)