Assignment #2: Greek Humanism

Plato and Aristotle!

My goal here is to read and write out my own summary of the main principles governing Book 10 of the Republic, and Poetics (specifically chapters 1-15 and 26).

Texts:
James Hutton's 1982 Aristotle: Poetics.
Peter Burian's 1986 Plato and Aristotle on Poetry.


Summary:
I must say, I'm a geek about the classics. If it weren't for the funky alphabet, it'd be cool to learn Greek... oh well.

Anyway, I've read through and written my synopses, and am collecting some critical commentary to frame my reading. What surprised me was how much I enjoyed Plato - Plato!!! The one who wants to banish all poets and their rebellious ways. I did see somewhere that Plato shouldn't be confused with his speakers, Socrates and Glaucon; that in fact Plato wasn't stated categorical, heavy-handed philosophical truths - rather, by walking readers through his process of inquiry and response, he is simply encouraging us to think through our assumptions, and perhaps emulate a bit of his critical approach. Plato wasn't necessarily anti-poet - he was, in fact, a poet, or at least as a writer of prose was often so lumped. Nonetheless, the text is frustratingly teleological about the goals of poetry, and wildly conservative in its preoccupation with its moral and social duties.

What redeemed Book 10, a bit, was not only its delightful style - he even makes jokes about Homer! - but the ending allegory of Er, a poor schlub of a soldier who makes it into the afterlife, acting as a witness, and being resurrected a week later in order to share the bad news with us all.

The bad news being, actually, quite mystical and fun-to-read news: in short, we're responsible for the creation of our own lives. Literally. Departed souls get to frolic in a meadow for one week, before pondering what new guise to take on in their next incarnation. Lusty, cocky Er nearly chooses a tyrant's life, for sadly, his "virtues are a matter of mere habit" rather than something he thought critically about during his lifetime. Another sheep in the herd, as it were.

But I'm off topic; poetry is therefore contextualized as yet another peril for the soul, and we need to live good, honorable lives because otherwise, we're just perpetuating a shit-show in heaven.

It'll be delightful to see what the next 1K years of philosophers and writers made of this.

---

Aristotle Summary

Oh, scientific observation. Oh, categorization, analysis, definition. You are the bones of Aristotle's approach, and although I found you intriguing in many points, I did not have the boatload of fun I'd anticipated.

He gives poetry back some of the dignity Plato denied it, but overall I was thrown by how incomplete and jumpy the text actually is - he touches only briefly on epic poetry, and the majority of this essay - likely a compilation of his lectures for the Lycaeum - is devoted to tragedy and its superiority. Plot rules all, I guess. I actually feel that I learned a great deal of why Greek tragedy is what it is, so... controlled, cool, violent, and self-congratulatory. I mean, the standards for its criticism were so precise; Aristotle seems happy to fault even Homer - "damn his complex plots and their pandering to the ignorant audience"!

Anyway. I can see why this essay matters. It's devoted to the art of poetry, not poems. It's like describing the toolbox in an excruciatingly dry and high-handed way. I discovered that this text somewhat disappeared until the Renaissance; it did not influence folks in antiquity or the Middle Ages. It's only been a staple of higher ed for 200 years. Good to know!