Plato, truth, and art.

[ascanius]

So I just finished Plato's republic and in book 10 he brings up an interesting point about art. A lot of paraphrasing to follow.

His basic premise is this. Art is three orders removed from the truth. The example he used was a table. First there is the truth of what a table is, it's essence if you will, the universal truth of what a table is. 2nd there is the table created by the craftsman, it is a table but not the truth of a table. Lastly there is the painting of the table Wich is simply a representation of a table, it's not a table but a painting first and table second. So it's three orders removed from the truth.

He goes on to talk about the poets how they make us feel emotions that don't exist. We indulge in these emotions filling up the vessel to where we respond with these emotions in life. It gives us a false sense of knowing or understanding.
I think the best way to look at it is war. We write about war, most of us without any actual experience, thinking we understand and at the same time impart understanding, and the emotions to the audience. However the truth is we will never understand until we experience it. So it is three orders removed from the truth of war, it's a painting of a war, it's not the actual war, nor is it the truth of war. It feeds the emotions without truth.

I paraphrased a lot, I recommend reading the book for a better understanding, or spark notes. I can't argue with Socrates premise, what he says it true.

I do think there is value in art, poetry, and fiction, I can't think of a counter argument though.

I'm really curious to know what you think. Do you think your writing imparts truth? Socrates says he would change his opinion if someone can make the argument.

 

[Insolent Lad]

This assumes there is an 'essence' of a table. I say our idea of a table is, rather, an extrapolation from the physical tables we have seen and, yes, even pictures of tables. There is no ideal table, only physical existence and its perception by our minds. And of course this has been argued back and forth by Platonists and Aristotelians and all the philosophers since.

 

[skip.knox]

Writing doesn't impart anything, imo. I write and, having written, move on. (you can quote me <g>)

That is to say, once I have published a story, it's its own entity, which then gets encountered by readers. In this respect, I'm no different from the artisan who made the table. How the readers perceive my story is their own experience. This is why readers so often find meaning or interpretations never intended by the author. Even in cases where the author is moralizing or preaching, there's no predictable way to say how it's received or even to know how it's received.

So, for a work of art like a story, I diverge strongly from the Platonic argument. It's not like there's an ideal form of Goblins at the Gates of which my printed story is a secondary reflection. There's no truth there to be portrayed correctly or incorrectly. There's just the story. White clouds, blue mountains.

 

[nck]

A couple things worth keeping in mind about this argument: (1) Socrates' argument doesn't actually concern art in general, it concerns "imitative poetry," and there's a lot of debate in the Plato literature about what, ultimately, that covers. It arguably doesn't even apply to visual art, since he just uses the whole painting thing as an analogy for poetry.

2) The argument arguably hinges on endorsing the "theory of forms," which most of us probably don't (and which it's not even clear *Plato* does, if you read the corpus as a whole, and keep in mind that we never actually get any arguments from Plato himself, only characters).

3) Many scholars don't think Plato himself can be endorsing this argument, or at least not straightforwardly since it arguably condemns the Platonic dialogue as an imitative form which cannot communicate truth.

 

[Finchbearer]

I think this is pretty much where Pablo Picasso got his ideas around art from.

 

[Devor]

So it is three orders removed from the truth of war, it's a painting of a war, it's not the actual war, nor is it the truth of war. It feeds the emotions without truth.

.....

I do think there is value in art, poetry, and fiction, I can't think of a counter argument though.

I think the logic holds up well enough. The thing is...

... so what?

The statement can be true without being impactful.

Does it follow that being three steps removed from the source mean it has no value? Taking war for example - I think an intimate first-hand experience may be too much to convey to someone safely. Three steps removed? Sounds okay to me.

Though I've read some books that seem quite a bit more than three steps removed....

 

[Queshire]

Well now, that argument hinges on the acceptance of the idea of platonic forms; the said universal truth of what a table is. Of course in the 2,400 or so years since Plato's time other philosophical ideas have come up including those which directly contradict Plato's forms.

I prefer Sartre's, "existence preceeds essence," personally. The universal truth of tables did not exist before a table was ever invented. Rather, it is built up through the sum total of every table ever crafted and the nature of tables is forged from the idea of tables.

To that end, art contributes to the universal truth rather than descends from it.

 

[Jackarandajam]

The emotions portrayed by someone who has been to war and then written a book about it COULD be more accurate than someone in the act of experiencing war.
Obviously the thirdhand experience of me reading an account of what it feels like to be in battle would be inaccurate (probably for the best), because im processing it based only on what i know, but the information gleaned from an account could certainly be more accurate than the information being first-hand recieved during the incident.

If I were to write about a drunken night I regret with every cringing pore of my entire sometimes worthless existence, for example, the overarching truth of what I should have been feeling at the time and would years later feel like an occasional open-handed slap from my guardian angel when I'm trying to fall asleep at night would pervade the memory, and what you would have is not only a rough account of what was going, or not going, through my head AT THE TIME, but also the much more important foreshadowing and ultimate reveal of how contradictory reality actually was in comparison to my rum-distorted motivations.

So while I couldn't accurately put you in whichever of the shoes I was still wearing, I could give you a deeper, fuller, more meaningful truth.

Instead of a table, think "sadness," or "honor."
There are lots of people paid good money to help us understand our emotions, because oftentimes we don't naturally understand them ourselves.
In the same way, art is there to help us understand things, not just experience them.

He goes on to talk about the poets how they make us feel emotions that don't exist. We indulge in these emotions filling up the vessel to where we respond with these emotions in life. It gives us a false sense of knowing or understanding.

When I was a child, I often felt that way reading about love or hate in books. They were too dramatic, too far fetched to be real. As an adult, I now understand that even the most extreme cases apply to someone, though often it isn't me. I can see it everywhere. I understand the motivation behind unbelievable acts of love or hate, as far as they may be from anything I've personally experienced, because of books.

Now people do often allow art, particularly books, to recalibrate their emotional expectations to the most extreme examples in human existence, which is certainly detrimental, but I don't think humans are capable of INVENTING emotions that don't exist, or even exaggerating them beyond the pale of humanity.

So while this sort of reasoning applies to something like a table, you and I could look at the same table and you could hate it and I could love it. Why? THAT'S the truth art explores. The object is for the objective world. Art goes deeper.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

I think I'd stick with that great intellectual philosopher Neil Gaiman on this: "Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten."

There is truth in art, and it's not always three orders removed from the essence. Sometimes it's right there in front of you on the page. But it may not be written in a literal way that just comes out and hits you in the face with it. I mean just think of a work like Catch 22. Does it simply say in a few words that war is wrong and crazy and the people who indulge in it are all insane or mentally defective? That the only sane option is to escape it? No. It shows you instead in a way that is even more powerful.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[pmmg]

Hi,

I think I'd stick with that great intellectual philosopher Neil Gaiman on this: "Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten."

There is truth in art, and it's not always three orders removed from the essence. Sometimes it's right there in front of you on the page. But it may not be written in a literal way that just comes out and hits you in the face with it. I mean just think of a work like Catch 22. Does it simply say in a few words that war is wrong and crazy and the people who indulge in it are all insane or mentally defective? That the only sane option is to escape it? No. It shows you instead in a way that is even more powerful.

Cheers, Greg.

I hate to say, cause the post is well presented, but that's not actually Gaimon's quote...or maybe it is, but he was borrowing it from someone else.

I think the sentiment extends beyond art, but art is not a bad place to look for things.


As for Plato....I mean...He did what he could a long time ago, and a lot of people have built and expanded a bit on what he was grasping at. Has anyone found what was true?.... I think we are still asking questions. And probably only by whatever comes after, can we know if we found it.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

As far as I know it is a quote from Gaimon, taken from his work "Coraline". (I just double checked it.)

Meanwhile as for Plato, his allegory of the cave clearly shows his position on whether we can actually know the truth. He says no. We can't know what's beyond the cave - and that includes essences as far as I can see - since they are a notional truth. Something we can only derive from an understanding of forms. (Not really a scholar of Plato, and the very concept of essences has been bastardised by philosophers and religious scholars over the millennia, but that's my take on it.)

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Devor]

The Gaimin quote: He claimed he was quoting GK Chesterton, except it was a placeholder for a quote to look up later … and was published like that. He has said he doesn’t know whether you should consider it his or Chesterton’s.

 

[Ban]

Gaiman

Gaimon

Gaimin

But what does Neil Gaimun think of all of this?

 

[Devor]

Yeah, sorry, I did an unusual thing for me and posted that from my phone. Everyone knows it's Gaimen.

 

[pmmg]

But what does Neil Gaimun think of all of this?

Obviously, Mr. Gaimen is not my goto for author names.

Maybe he would think he's taking the alphabet by storm.

 

[Finchbearer]

No no no no no. It’s Giaman

 

[Ban]

Obviously, Mr. Gaimen is not my goto for author names.

Maybe he would think he's taking the alphabet by storm.

No, no, these are all different writers I assure you. I personally prefer Neil Gaimyn.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Damn, I think I feel guilty having misspelled his name after having spelled it correctly. And I wouldn't have even realized it if it wasn't for all the other posts. Apologies to Neil - and love his work.

Cheers, Greg.