Question 2

My second question was, why is a painting of a couch worth so much less than a real couch in Plato's world? Isn't a picture of a couch more like the idea of a couch than an actual real couch would  be?

The answer to this question lies in the period when Plato was working. From a modern perspective, it seems like a strange statement, but in his time, the arts were not considered the same creative force that they are today. Painting was seen as purely observational and involved only in the surface of matters, rather than as something that could be used to change and comment on a subject. Because a painting of a couch would have to copy an existing couch at some point, it used an imitation of a form as a basis, making it an imitation of an imitation, just as Plato says.

While it can be helpful on some level to apply a modern sensibility to ancient philosophers, it doesn't make sense to continually toss the same criticisms at them, especially when based on their time in history, they are saying something accurate to the modern views of that time. Plato may have an outdated view of art, but no criticism or questioning will change that. Instead, his views on the world should be taken seriously, with the consideration that it was written in a very different time always held in mind.

Open post

We talked in class about the nature of evil and whether an evil person can be truly happy. First of all, there is a difference between an evil person and a person who commits evil actions. A person who feels remorse for an evil action is not as bad as a person who feels no remorse, but at the same time, some of the greatest atrocities in history have been committed by people who felt they were objectively doing no wrong, or even that they were being brave by doing the right thing, when we would today say that they were unquestionably evil. Take, for example, the Christian crusades, a particularly bloody period in our history when Christianity was forced on many people and those who would not accept it were killed. At the time, the knights on the crusade felt that they were doing something not only good but holy. They felt that they were saints and saviors, bringing people into enlightenment and saving them from the fires of hell. From an entirely objective standpoint, they were murderers, but the Pope absolved them of the murders on the basis that they were doing God's work. Was every knight involved necessarily unhappy, sadistic, or not in his right state of mind?  After all, they murdered people in cold blood. It's hard to ignore the reality that you are causing another human being pain when they're literally dying on your sword. Their belief that they served a higher calling cannot excuse what they did, only explain it. Would these knights, then, never be able to find true happiness, or would they feel that they had fulfilled a higher purpose through their objectively evil actions?

My Questions

1. On page 26, when he says that the painter may convince "children and silly people" that he has created a real carpenter, does Plato mean to say that the arts are deceptive, or just that they have the potential to deceive?
   
   
   Having discussed this in class, I feel that Plato means only to say that the arts have the potential to deceive. A good artist may create an accurate replica of something, but only someone silly would take it for reality. Does Plato also suggest that artists are silly or childish in the respect that they take images seriously -- that is, they see an image of something as something real? Perhaps, but Plato ignores in this the potential art has to bring unseen, unobserved things to light. He calls art a mirror, deriding it as shallow, but even that statement contains implicitly the possibility of reflection,  as in meditation or self-contemplation, and also as in a bad pun. 
   To finish answering my original question, to say that the arts are deceptive would be to ascribe malicious intent to all artists as a whole, which I think is far from Plato's intention. However, I think it is interesting that he believes artists live an unexamined life or a life of appearances, when it seems to me that good artists are constantly examining themselves, their lives, and the world around them. The ability to observe is essential to good art and good artists.

via braden: My question is, what about inventors? The person who came up with the couch, wheel, table, iPod? Does an "inventor" as such even exist?

Plato suggests that inventors and artisans pull the idea of an object, such as the couch, out of a world of ideals that exists on some other plane, or in the gods' world. In his philosophy, there would be no real invention. I think it would be more along the lines of divine inspiration, or even, to give humanity a little more credit, divine discovery. Instead of inventing, they tap into something greater. This doesn't necessarily devalue their talent. They're explorers instead of inventors, but the two are very close together in the first place. Both discover new things and bring people into new territory. An artisan has to hone his skill to get closer and closer to the goal of the best thing he can make, the divine form. Isn't this what all good artisans and creators do -- try to get better and better to create some kind of magnum opus?

Philosophy Toolkit

The section on informal fallacies was one of the most interesting in the entire Toolkit because so many of these fallacies are employed by people trying to sell us things, whether that's a political candidate or a brand of toothpaste. You only have to turn on the TV to hear about the latest slippery slope America's youth is on. Often, it's more fear marketing for the television station than an actual helpful piece of journalism. For example, the idea that using shorthand in texting is destroying the English skills of the average American teen is massively overblown. The way it's portrayed in the media, it seems like the language itself is about to come crashing down around our ears. Arguments against the person are also a clearly faulty tactic, but are used openly and obviously in the media. Smear campaigns that bring the personal lives of politicians into the political arena are not attacking the candidate's views or competency in the job, they are changing how voters see the candidate.

I also enjoyed the part about false dichotomies. My roommate and I have had a recurring argument over the course of the entire last semester, and I just realized her side of it is a false dichotomy.

Introduction

Hi, I'm an English major with a focus in creative writing. I am very interested in this class from an art perspective, but my experience with philosophy is limited. I hope to apply myself and learn to think about art in new ways, as well as give some more consideration to my personal philosophies and method of thinking. Outside of school, I am very interested in books, especially sci-fi and fantasy, which I am always happy to talk about. Currently, I'm reading House of Leaves. My goal this year is to read more and expand my experiences, so I hope to have a good time in class and get to know some people.