Republic by Plato Analysis Essay

📌Category: Books, Philosophers, Philosophy, Plato, Writers
📌Words: 911
📌Pages: 4
📌Published: 14 January 2022

In the book Republic, Plato states that “the gravest charge against poetry still remains”, as “it has the terrible power to corrupt even the best character” (605c). Throughout the book Republic, Plato's distaste for poetry in his ideal republic was a major theme, and he made that very clear. In that dialogue specifically, Plato argues that we should be wary of the art of poetry in the ideal state, as it has the capabilities to make good men bad, insane. 

But to understand Plato's dislike for poetry in his idealized state, it is first important to comprehend what that state is in the first. In his ideal state, Plato argues that philosophers should control the education system of the state, they should be the rulers of such a state as they should be as “Philosopher-Kings' '. Their philosophical knwoldege and rationale should be enough to end what he calls “troubles of states' '. Basically the systemic struggles one’s state faces due political conflicts and inadequate foundation. Justice is also a major player in Plato's envisioned ideal state, believing that it is the chain that connects every member of society, forming a strong union among citizens. But Plato's idealized state isn’t one without an enemy, and that enemy is of course none other than the art poetry and the poets he banished. He’s against poetry in his idealized state as he believes it is against the crucial principles that make up his state. 

Throughout the dialogues in the Republic, Plato makes a few arguments about poetry and poets in an ideal society. The first argument is that poetry is irrational and interrupts clear thinking by targeting one’s emotions. Plato was a great believer in rationality, and the idea of interpreting reality as it is. He won’t accept anything that is not revocable knowledge. Poetry and poets were not rational, and topped too much into emotions. Their knowledge of society in Plato's mind is revocable, therefore has no place in his ideal state. On page 350 of his book, line 606d, Plato states that “[Poetry] waters [our emotions] when they ought to be left to wither, and makes them control us when we ought,.... to control them”. He also goes on to say on page 351, line 607a that when poetry is left to rule, “ pleasure and pain become your rulers instead of law and the rational principles commonly accepted at best”. Basically what Plato is saying here, is that not only does poetry not allow us to leave our emotions behind dead and dry, it gives authority for those same emotions to dictate us, when in actuality, we should be the ones dictating them. When emotions are left to run the minds of men, what you have is pain and pleasure, encompany by the irrationality of those men that have no respect for the rule of law and rational principles that come with it. When this happens, men become junjust. And to Plato, an art that causes such chaos, is not welcome in his ideal state. 

“All poets from Homer downwards have no grasp of truth but merely produce a superficial likeness of any subject”, (The Republic, 600e) said Plato.  When it came to poetry, this was Plato's second argument against known art. As he was obsessed with truth, Plato believed that poetry had no real capabilities of producing truth, instead of the superficial likeness it did produce. So in the eyes of Plato, poetry is without the truth, therefore imitative of truth due to the superficial likeness it produces. When something is imitative of truth, it is not truth as it distorts that same truth. In the same context, Plato expands on this idea of truth and imitation by stating that:

Hence, we have to look to see whether those who tell us this have encountered these imitators and have been so deceived by them that they don't realize that their works are the third remove from that which is and are easily produced without knowledge of the truth (since they are only images, not things that are), or whether there is something in what these people say, and good poets really do have knowledge of the things most people think they write so well about. (Republic, 598e-599a)

What Plato is saying here in this passage is that poets have zero knowledge of the functionality of the human mind, hence, that is why their work is third removed from reality. They are not in touch with people as poets are, something in Plato's mind would probably help them become better truth seekers. But they are not rational people, they fake experts who just write who are sp

As influential as Plato is, I personally believe there’s no validity to his arguments against poetry and poets in his ideal state. In my view, creativity is a form of truth that, when expressed, has the capabilities to open intellectually intriguing doors for a society that hopes to advance into the future. The immense values that can be found in a society that appreciates and respects such a form of art, are simply too great to lose, even in a platonic ideal state. Because as much as Plato himself opposed poetry and banished poets, even he wasn’t completely and firmly against the art. In one of his many dialogues in the book, he stated that “if drama and poetry written for pleasure can prove to us that they have a place in a well-run society, we will gladly admit them” (Republic, 607c). So as we can see here, as opposed to him, poetry fascinates him. He sees the potential lasting benefits of poetry in an ideal state, and is willing to be open minded about such possibilities. But only if such statements can be defended, but if not, then they should “follow the example of the lover who renounces a passion that is doing him no good” (Republic, 607e).

+
x
Remember! This is just a sample.

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Order now
By clicking “Receive Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails.