Philosophy, while fun to philosophize, gives me a headache. I play out a situation in my head of a dinner part from hell, where all the basic rules of dinner party conduct are violated by talking about religion or politics. Before this class started, I never thought we would be digging through works by Plato and the word Gorgeous only was something I blurted out in pseudo pretentiousness. I'll put this down as my own lack of knowledge of the subject and continue forth.
Gorgias's Encomium of Helen was an interesting piece that attempted to question the public sentiment around the reputation of Helen of Troy. The beautiful Helen of Troy that started the great Trojan War that Homer wrote about in The Iliad. Gorgias works on changing the negative public sentiment about Helen into one where we are supposed to forgive her, or in the dictionary definition of encomium, praise her. The piece is a perfect example of the power of rhetoric to shape public ideology. In following the content and context of time that the encomium was, I have to agree with Gorgias, although my knowledge of how life revolved in those times is misinformed at best. In the context of its time, and without a contemporary mindset, we all but have to forgive Helen. She was merely a puppet to forces much stronger than herself. Whether these forces be a god's influence, a stronger and more persuasive human being, or even a human emotion, we shall be forgiven and praised. Although one line stands out strong that makes me question the intent that Gorgias actually had. When he ends the encomium he states that he “wished to write this speech for Helen's encomium and my amusement” (41). Did Gorgias just write this to show the power of persuasion or was he like many other philosophers who just liked to ask questions for the sake of asking questions? It's in the pursuit of knowledge! All I know is that I intend to use his examples to absolve myself of all responsibility for my actions, since I am merely subject to influence more powerful than myself.*
Then it we have Plato. The man behind the words that formed The Republic, which later went on to influence ideas that are prevalent in many contemporary and modern pieces of literature. Dystopian or utopian, that is the question. Many themes that Plato recommends the republic take up are found anywhere from novels like Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451 to movies like Equilibrium or more obviously, The Matrix. Plato pushes for the banishment of all poetry because of it's inaccurate portrayal of life. It is merely a reflection of a reflection. Plato never once mentions what would happen to poetry if people knew they were just mere reflected reflections. I wonder what Plato would think of movies based off of literature. A reflection of a reflection of a reflection. Are we taking into account the screen play adaptation? Plato deems that there is a universal understanding of what qualifies as good people, and this entails stripping people of the nature we contemporary people see as individual freedoms and human nature. Tom Hanks echoes Plato's ideology in A League of Their Own when he says, “There's no crying in baseball!” In the eyes of the republic, the perfect citizen is a docile and mouldable citizen who does not read misleading literature, practices discipline from animalistic instinct, and has no emotions.
Plato takes on a stance that literature is mimetic, in that it reflects real life. In an age where the purpose of life is questioned in order to gain a better and deeper understanding of it, it makes sense that literature is then questioned to validate it's existence. From this idea, Plato could be considered the great grandfather of literary criticism and theory. He could possibly go down as the worst dinner party guest in history too.
*Disclaimer – If there are any fallacies in this post, the author should not be blamed or punished for it because he was misinformed by more persuasive and powerful beings.
No comments:
Post a Comment