Making vs. Discovery: Art vs. Philosophy?

Plato’s attack on art, particularly on poetry, is obvious on his dialogue, Republic, wherein he stated that it is third from the truth (will be discussed later). His line stating that there is a “quarrel between philosophy and poetry” (607b5-6) apparently discriminates poetry. However absurd it may seem, Plato himself wrote poetically. His works are in form of dialogues that narrate a number of allegories and myths. In defense of this, it may be argued that Plato wrote in this manner in order to better persuade the readers. He probably wanted to remain loyal to the philosophical inquiry, that’s why he narrated what happened in the form of dialogues and not in the form of treatises. However, it would again seem absurd that he, who was attacking poetry and/or art for being imitative, wrote of dialogues that are themselves imitations of the philosophical inquiries. If pure philosophizing is not about reiterating, and rather searching for the truth, then Plato’s method could be considered as the negation of pure philosophizing. This may be the reason why Socrates, if he really existed, wrote nothing. In order to understand Plato’s remark regarding the “quarrel”, we have to understand what he meant by poetry. Would his critique on poetry apply only to Homer’s works? Or would it also apply to William Shakespeare’s, to Edgar Allan Poe’s or to Percy Bysshe Shelley’s? Would it apply to the works of the modern day poets who consider themselves as lovers of both philosophy and literature? If we are to examine clearly Plato’s philosophy, we could say that this quarrel is not restricted to the battle between philosophy and poetry per se, but could also be extended to the battle between philosophy and other forms of art. Plato is not saying that poetry is contradictory with philosophy because it is poetry. One reason why Plato was against poetry is probably because it is a form of rhetoric. So the quarrel is not just about the professional jealousy between the philosophers and poets of the ancient times. If there was a professional jealousy, it must be between philosophers and sophists. It just so happened that there were poets that Plato considered as sophists. Rhetoric, which refers to the persuasive use of language to influence the thoughts of the audience, has been often disapproved by those who consider themselves as lovers of philosophy. Rhetoric is mere persuasion. Often times, it is insincere. To better understand this, consider as an example the art of debating. I call debate as an art as it needs skills and cleverness more than knowledge (in Plato’s terms, skills and cleverness are to art, while knowledge is to philosophy). In debate, the debater must persuade his audience and adjudicators through defending his side of the house (or his position) whether he believes it or not. In a debate tournament, you do not search for truth. Defending a position in debate does not necessarily mean defending one’s own view. Debaters defend their position because they want their house to win, not because they really hold the position. Though argumentation is important in a debate tournament, this sort of argumentation is used only to support an already existing claim, not in order to search for truth. The “ability to argue well” in a debate, if we will speak in Plato’s (or Socrates’) terms, is not part of philosophizing. It is a part of persuading, or of rhetoric. This is one contemporary example of the quarrel between philosophy and rhetoric. For the purpose of this essay, it is good not to restrict the term rhetoric to speeches (as it is technically limited to speeches). Let me extend rhetoric to persuasive writings as such writings capture the essence of rhetoric. The only difference is that rhetoric in its technical sense refers to speeches. This rhetoric that which I am referring to is better not to be given to professors of Philosophy, rather to professors of English (of Speech Communication and Literature) for Philosophy professors are for the pursuit of knowledge while English professors are for teaching the persuasion techniques. If what Plato means with poetry (in quarrel with philosophy) is this rhetoric that I am talking about, then he was probably arguing against sophists (and not against mere poets). Surely rhetoric and sophistry are not one and the same. A sophist, in the ancient times, is “a scholar or thinker, especially one skillful in devious argumentation”[1]. It is derived from the Greek word, sophos[2] meaning skilled or clever. Plato was against sophists because they were mere rhetoricians, and, like the poets whom he was referring to, sophists are clever in explaining the “is” (appearance), deceiving the audience that the “is” they were talking about is the real “Is” (Form). Yet, they do not really know the “Is”. The poets Plato spoke of (or the sophists) teach only the appearances that are third from the truth. At this point, we may ask which, between the rhetorician and the sophist, is harmful. The rhetorician is the clever one; the sophist, the deceiver (as he is a teacher). With this, we may say, that it is the sophist that is more harmful. How about the rhetorician? Is his being clever harmful? If he is harmful due to his cleverness in persuading (that means he can also deceive), would that mean that all of rhetoric is a bad thing? If the answer is “yes” then this essay is harmful as this tends to persuade the readers. However, is this merely rhetoric? I would say no. This essay aims to search and explain for the true quarrel between philosophy and art (if there really is one). With this, I can say, that not all of rhetoric are harmful. There are also those that are in pursuit of knowledge (just like Plato’s dialogues that though poetical and rhetoric, aim at the pursuit of knowledge). If this is so, the quarrel Plato was referring to was not only about philosophy vs. art of rhetoric. We have a reason now to extend the discussion on other forms of art (or on art as a whole), so as to say that the quarrel is between philosophy and art per se. It is obvious in the Republic that Plato was against art as it is an “imitation” (mimesis). As previously discussed, poets, as well as other artists, do not know the Form/s and thus, when they create something, their creation will not be in accordance to the Form/s, rather only to (or an imitation of) the appearance of the Forms. What they can grasp is only the image of the Form (that they can grasp through their senses). And knowing only this, this image is the only thing they can imitate (making their creation third from the truth). With this, we could say that the artist is only using the lowest part of his soul – the appetitive part that merely uses the senses. Such is also the reason why Plato (through Socrates) stated in the Republic that poets (artists) must not be admitted to the kallipolis. They, through their cleverness (or rhetoric skills), can deceive the guardians. As aforementioned, artists make or create something. The quarrel between philosophy and poetry must also refer to the quarrel between philosophy and art (or making). The word “poetry” came from the Latin word, poēta, which means poet. “Poet” came from the Greek word, poiein, which means to make or to create[3]. For this reason, we could say that Plato was referring to art as a whole or to the process of making itself. This disapproval to the process of making is due to the reason that the artists (or the makers) only make appearances that are only based on appearances of the Form/s, not on the Form/s itself. If we would look at it clearly, this is contradictory with Plato’s (and/or Socrates’) notions of philosophy and of Truth. For Plato, the Truth is to be discovered, not to be made. It exists outside our minds, and hence, philosophy is the search for (or the discovery of) this Truth. There’s a good reason to believe that the quarrel is about the differences in terms of processes and of views between philosophy and art. Art is a process of making while philosophy is a process of discovery. Such art vs. philosophy or making vs. discovery can also be expressed as appearance vs. Form, imagination vs. rationality, creative thinking vs. critical thinking, and expression of ideas vs. search for Truth. Plato’s disapproval of the rhetoric is due to its focus more on the exhibition of cleverness (in persuasion) than on the pursuit of knowledge. Such “old quarrel” that Plato was referring to roots from this difference in art and philosophy: art is focused on making; philosophy, on search or discovery of Truth. If this is the case, then the quarrel must exist until now since art is still a process of making, and philosophy, of discovery. Look around us and we can see different forms of exhibition of cleverness. Surely, not all exhibition of cleverness (or persuasion) are apart from the discovery or search for Truth. As I aforesaid, this essay might be an exhibition of cleverness or of persuasion, yet, this aims to search for Truth (the truth regarding the “old quarrel”). If Plato were alive today, he will go against those that are exhibited in our television. Certainly, he will not disapprove of the shows that aim at True knowledge such as those in the Discovery Channel or Knowledge Channel. His critique on art is not restricted to mere exhibition of cleverness. Plato is against those that exhibit cleverness but does not aim at knowledge. Examples of such are shows that exhibit “tsismis” (gossips), pornography etc. That is the reason is why Plato is in want of censorship in the kallipolis. It is not the mere cleverness in art that made Plato disapprove of it. Art, for him (based on my analysis), will tend to mislead us. Art has a tendency to merely satisfy the pursuits of our body, not of our souls (though there are philosophers who think differently). As for Plato, since art is more of a process of making than of discovery, it corrupts our soul. Art’s process of making involves imagination or creating an idea that appears to be the “Is”. Philosophers do not create ideas this way. They search for the Idea (Truth). [1] Reader’s Digest Universal Dictionary, First Edition, 1987. [2] Ibid. [3] Ibid.