Name: Sana Ayub

Pages: 11-20.
Aristotle's Criticism Of Plato's;
(Definition of Poetry):
Aristotle was a pupil of Plato. Plato had set up an academy where he taught Philosophy. People
eagerly went to his academy to learn wisdom, philosophy for the Greeks did not mean it means
today. It meant a rational study of everything. Whatever subject was expounded logically, it
became philosophy. Among many people who went there, was a young man called Aristotle. He
had great reverence for Plato, but he was not like others. He was critical .He did not accept
everything but found faults and came to conclusions different from Plato. So when he grew up,
he started his own school in which he expounded his views. His view was very different, in fact
opposite to Plato's. Plato was an idealist whereas he was a realist. He dissagreed with Plato. In
his books, he has given a criticism of Plato's views and then expounded his own views. He has
taken Plato's charges one by one and refuted them. But his replies are scattered in different
contexts. For example, his answer to the metaphysical charge is found in the theory of Nemesis.
The second reply he gives when he is discussing his views of tragedy. Plato defined poetry is
an imitation. The Greek word for this is Nemesis. By imitation we imply an inferior copy.
Aristotle uses the same word for art, literature and poetry and defines art as Nemesis or imitation.
But he gives it a new meaning. He refutes the view of Plato and gives an answer to his charges
but nowhere dies, he name Plato. After all he had been a student of Plato. According to Greek
view of relationship between a teacher and student, I would have been disrespectful for him to
criticize his teacher. So he does not criticize Plato but his views.

(1) Plato had said that art is an imperfect copy of an imperfect copy, twice removed
from reality and so it is false. Aristotle differs from this view. He says that poetry is an
imitation of not what is or has been but what might be or ought to be. He totally rejects Plato’s
theory of ideas. He does not agree with Plato that idea has an objective existence and the world
of ideas is absolute. He believes that idea is a mental abstraction born out of observation. It has
no existences outside the mind of man. According to him what exists is real. Plato uses the
words idea and things and Aristotle uses the word firm for idea. Matter is the material and firm
is the force working within it. Aristotle believes that there can be no matter without form and
vice versa. Both are inseparable. Everything of this world, whether man, tree or mountain is a
combination of matter and form. ''Thing'' is not a slavish copy of the metaphysical idea, but it is
the combination of form and matter. ''Matter'' is the material of which we are made and ''form'' is
the force working within the matter. This force is dynamic. It leads to activity. It is following a
purpose. It operates within matter and leads towards an ideal. It is trying to mound the matter
(material) in the form of an ideal thing- ideal man, state, law, etc. But do we find an ideal thing
in this world? We do not find ideal things in this world. Aristotle gives the reason. He says that
matter is obstructive. It cannot be easily molded. It would not allow itself to be molded into an
ideal thing. The result is that what is produced falls very short of the ideal. There is no ideal man,
woman, law, etc. Because matter abstracts the activity of this force. But the degree differs. It
fails more in some cases, than others. There are degrees and grades of people. Some are almost
ideal and some fall short in some degree. So we have pretty and ugly people. In other words in
some cases the force succeeds more than others, but complete success it never has. So there is no
ideal in this world. Everything has fallen short of the ideal in some respects to some degrees.
Now the poets try to find out what was that ideal which the form was trying to achieve. Aristotle
considers thinking to be the greatest force in man. The thinking process is the greatest process.
So by thinking, a poet tries to find out the ideal in each case and that is what the poets imitate.
They imitate not the things but the ideal which cannot be achieved. What the poet is imitating
does not exist. They imitate unrealized idea. Unrealized because the force was trying to achieve
but failed. They are not imitating a particular thing as Plato thought but unrealized ideal, that
which has not happened. So the poets cannot be called copyists. Poet is a creator. What he gives
is not just the things but the imaginative reconstruction of them. So what he is conveying is not
falsehood. Poetry has its own truth. It is different from scientific truth. It is also different from
historical truth. The scientists imitate what are- facts as they are. The historians imitate what has
been but poets imitate what might be or ought to be. Poetical truth is not factual truth but ideal
truth. Art is not servile. It is not twice removed from reality. The artist is not an imitator but a
creator. He gives a vision of unrealized things.

(2) Plato had said that poetry nourishes the emotions and feelings and weakness the
reason. Aristotle agrees that poetry arouses feeling but he does not consider it to be harmful for
the moral development of man. On the other hand, he believes that if feelings and emotions are
kept lacked up, then they become harmful for healthy moral development of man. He says reason
should be there but it should not wipe out the emotions. If feelings are suppressed, this creates
lots of problems, psychological and others. It leads to moral hypocrisy and all sorts of mental
disorders. It completely destroys the moral personality of man. So the proper thing to do is to
give these emotions a proper and socially accepted outlet. Both extremes are wrong. Poetry by
exciting these emotions gives a harmless outlet, expression to these emotions and in this way the
effect of poetry is not bad but it is healthy and good for the normal development of personality.

Aristotle says exactly what Freud said 2100 years later. What creates problem in the
life of man is not expressing desires but crushing them, said Freud. If we suppress a wish, we do
not get rid of it but we only push it back. In the subconscious it is there and becomes more
destructive. It distorts human personality. So the cause is not expression but suppression of
desires.

Aristotle did not know about the subconscious but he says the same thing which was
said by Freud later on. Freud used the word ‘‘Sublimation’’ and Aristotle uses the word
''Catharsis''. Catharsis means first of all a pleasurable outlet to the pent up emotions. If they are
suppressed tension is created. So a way has to be found to give them an expression. Drama, says
Aristotle, gives a pleasurable outlet to the pent of emotion to the pent up emotions. But
Catharsis means something more. It also means artistic transmutation of the emotions. The
lower firm of emotions transformed to a high firm. A nobler process takes place. So it is what he
meant by Catharsis. Aristotle's reply in a nutshell is that it is not the expressions but suppression
of feelings and emotions which is harmful for the moral development of personality.

(3) Plato's third objection was that art leads to the weakening of personality. He said
that when you watch a play or read an epic, you identify yourself with that character. You think
yourself to be that character and pretending to be someone else which you are not; leads to the
weakening of personality which is harmful both morally and psychologically. Aristotle's answer
is that for the healthy development of man, it is necessary to forget ourselves and identify
ourselves with others. We are too self-centered and selfish and oblivious of the needs of the
others. Art and literature makes us realize the needs of others. In great dramas like Antigone, we
read in the fate of Antigone, the doubtful fate of mankind. Similarly in an epic we read of the
fate of man like Achilles. When the audience identify themselves with these characters, they
cease to think of their own petty desires, worries , etc. They start sympathizing with mankind and
their problems. This should lead to the lessening of greed and selfishness. So poetry has morally
purifying influence and not the opposite of it.

Buddha had asked what is the root-cause of all moral and psychological ailments? He
replied himself and said that the root-cause of all these ailments is ''yourself''. It is I. 'I' want this,
my desires, my ambitions’, I and I is the cause of all ailments. Yourself is your greatest enemy.

The remedy Buddha suggested was the doctrine of ''no self''. He went to the extent of
declaring that the ''self'' is an illusion and his no reality. There is a beautiful story in the life of
Buddha. There was a woman. She lost her only son. It was believed that holy men perform
miracles. She asked Buddha to bring her son back to life somehow or the other Buddha felt her
sorrow as his own, her grief was his own. He compassionately assured her to bring her son to life
if she would bring a few seeds from a house where no one ever died. She hoped to find at least
one such house but wherever she went, she was told that death is the return of love.

So she started thinking of the sorrows of others. She forgot her own grief. She
came to Buddha not to bring her son to life back, but to her the path to peace. The logic behind
this story is that when you are obsessed with your own grief, it leads to self-pity and morbidity.
But when you draw your own sorrow, it leads to the love for mankind. In other words, hatred is
conquered not by hatred but by love. Aristotle had a very different philosophy from that of
Buddha, but on this point they agree. Aristotle also thought that many our problems are that we
are thinking of ourselves. We must learn, some time, at least to think of others and to forget
ourselves, to identify ourselves with others and to feel what they feel and to make their problems
our owns. So identifying one’s self with others is not the cause of ailments as thought by Plato.

(4) Plato's fourth attack on poetry was not theoretical but was inductive . He took
examples of particular teachers and found faults with moral behavior of their gods and heroes.
For example, in homer we have gods taking sides with Greeks and Trojans. He said that poets
impart teaching which is not morally wholesome. He says, is this the kind of teaching which is
going to make people morally good citizens and when Homer does this, what must the smaller
poets be doing? So he draws the conclusion that poetry is bad and must be excluded.

Aristotle sees an immediate fallacy in this statement. He simply says that the charge
that Plato has leveled is not against poetry as such, but against the poets. The fault is not that of
poetry. If Homer is giving wrong teaching, the fault is not that of poetry but of Homer. He does
not agree with Plato that poet is a teacher. Similarly, if Sappho in her poetry has talked of sensual
delights and indulgence in pleasure, the fault is Sappho’s and not of poetry. He says that the very
criterion of judgment is wrong. Poets function is not to teach or moralize. The function of poetry
is to give pleasure. Art is not subject to morality, reason or politics. It is an independent activity.
It has its own end and if not the end of ethics, to tell you what is good and bad, to build a good
society. To make you a pious and god-fearing man is the job of religion not of poetry.