Summary:
Hegel traces the progression of man's ability to represent his ideas concerning the divine in three stages: symbolic art, Classical art, leading to Romantic art. Romantic art, Hegel argues, shows the "union of matter and form" because man now has the "divine within" (III p.4), making art a reconcilliation between man (internal) and god (external). To do this, man no longer needs to represent symbols of the absolute, but now may represent the external form of the absolute: nature. Painting, music, and poetry are the best modes to represent this unity.
Assumed Values:
Like Kant, symbols combine mind and sensory info.
Absolute (sublime) = formless
Greek represents the former ideal
Christian (European) purer artform than others (Asian)
Art = Unity of material (external) and ideas (internal)
New Values:
Myths are religion's equals (Christianity) though an earlier stage of progress.
Man's ideas have progressed; thus, art progresses.
Sculpture no longer the ideal artform.
Divine (Absolute) within
Romantic ideals supreme.
Questions:
How did the divine get "within"? I missed this step.
In what ways do Hegel and Kant overlap?
Links:
If I did understand Hegel, I'm not sure I could have without my art history background. I could really see his ideas present in the paintings of the Hudson River School and in the poems like "Ode to the West Wind" (Shelley). The landscapes where man is dwarfed by nature, but still a part of it, reminded me of this "reconciliation." When Shelley asks the wind to "make [him] thy lyre" and "Be thou me," this marks the change from (but also reminds me of) Homer's "Sing in me, Muse." Both claim inspiration from something outside of themselves that they, in turn, internalize. However, Homer is paying respects to the divine rather than to the forces of nature, and Homer isn't claiming to become "one" with the divine.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Kant's Critique of Judgement
First of all, I hope this guy never married.
Summary of Analytic of the Beautiful (far more than 50 words, but far less than the original):
Kant articulates the first leg of his argument on aesthetic judgement, which first involves a "taste for the beautiful" (27). Beauty, he claims, is judged by the imagination; thus, taste is judged by subjective thought. Beauty pleases without concern for purpose (45), and it provides universal satisfaction (45). He also points out that different cultures must have different concepts of beauty because they have a different set of norms (71). The fact that aesthetical judement of taste is universal presupposes and confirms the existence of a "common sense" (74,76). Ultimately, Kant notes, beauty must involve a balance between freedom and regularity (79).
Summary of Analytic of the Sublime:
Kant continues his arguement, first noting how beauty and the sublime are related, though he calls the sublime "formless" (86). He then notes two types of sublime experiences: mathematical, which evokes a sense of "infinity" through size and dynamic, which excites a sense of fear, as in the case of war or a hurricane (99). Kant clearly links the sublime to the natural world, which he claims is superior to artificial beauty (142). Kant then goes on to describe the differences between art (free play) and craft (work) as well as shows the contrast between genius, which combines imagination and understanding, versus the "bunglers," who aspire to art but fail (163). In addition, Kant describes the value of various art forms in terms of "freedom." He concludes by saying that sensitivity combined with with morality beyond the private experience would help a culture develop taste (202).
Old values:
Balance necessary (in this case sensibility with morality rather than body and mind). Emotion and reason seem to be the opposing forces rather than the physical body and mind.
Kant's sense of the mathematical "infinity" suggests Plato's "eternal."
Greeks no longer rule the art world, but different cultures have strengths (English for sublime; French for beauty).
New values:
Nature over nurture -- genius is born, not made. Kant says, " no science can teach; no industry can learn" (160). This counters the Greek scholars who suggest that one can learn great art through imitation.
I'm not sure where common sense fits in -- this seems to be a new idea.
Nature as supreme. Nature superior to art in all cases, according to Kant.
Questions:
What is the morality Kant speaks of?
Am I getting any of this right? I'm not sure.
Was Goethe a key factor in how influential Kant became? I can't imagine many people reading this!
Links:
I'm very reminded of William Blake in Kant's discussion of the sublime both as a printer and a poet. I'm also reminded of Thomas Cole's "Course of Empire" series (19th century landscapes).
Mary Shelley might be one of the three people to read Kant. In Frankenstein, her chapters where the creature and Victor meet on Mont Blanc and later at the North Pole suggest her attempt to relate to the sublime awe/fear. I'm also reminded of the story of Jonah and the Whale in terms of a sublime experience.
Summary of Analytic of the Beautiful (far more than 50 words, but far less than the original):
Kant articulates the first leg of his argument on aesthetic judgement, which first involves a "taste for the beautiful" (27). Beauty, he claims, is judged by the imagination; thus, taste is judged by subjective thought. Beauty pleases without concern for purpose (45), and it provides universal satisfaction (45). He also points out that different cultures must have different concepts of beauty because they have a different set of norms (71). The fact that aesthetical judement of taste is universal presupposes and confirms the existence of a "common sense" (74,76). Ultimately, Kant notes, beauty must involve a balance between freedom and regularity (79).
Summary of Analytic of the Sublime:
Kant continues his arguement, first noting how beauty and the sublime are related, though he calls the sublime "formless" (86). He then notes two types of sublime experiences: mathematical, which evokes a sense of "infinity" through size and dynamic, which excites a sense of fear, as in the case of war or a hurricane (99). Kant clearly links the sublime to the natural world, which he claims is superior to artificial beauty (142). Kant then goes on to describe the differences between art (free play) and craft (work) as well as shows the contrast between genius, which combines imagination and understanding, versus the "bunglers," who aspire to art but fail (163). In addition, Kant describes the value of various art forms in terms of "freedom." He concludes by saying that sensitivity combined with with morality beyond the private experience would help a culture develop taste (202).
Old values:
Balance necessary (in this case sensibility with morality rather than body and mind). Emotion and reason seem to be the opposing forces rather than the physical body and mind.
Kant's sense of the mathematical "infinity" suggests Plato's "eternal."
Greeks no longer rule the art world, but different cultures have strengths (English for sublime; French for beauty).
New values:
Nature over nurture -- genius is born, not made. Kant says, " no science can teach; no industry can learn" (160). This counters the Greek scholars who suggest that one can learn great art through imitation.
I'm not sure where common sense fits in -- this seems to be a new idea.
Nature as supreme. Nature superior to art in all cases, according to Kant.
Questions:
What is the morality Kant speaks of?
Am I getting any of this right? I'm not sure.
Was Goethe a key factor in how influential Kant became? I can't imagine many people reading this!
Links:
I'm very reminded of William Blake in Kant's discussion of the sublime both as a printer and a poet. I'm also reminded of Thomas Cole's "Course of Empire" series (19th century landscapes).
Mary Shelley might be one of the three people to read Kant. In Frankenstein, her chapters where the creature and Victor meet on Mont Blanc and later at the North Pole suggest her attempt to relate to the sublime awe/fear. I'm also reminded of the story of Jonah and the Whale in terms of a sublime experience.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Baumgarten's Reflections on Poetry Notes
Summary:
During the Enlightenment, Baumgarten shows the connections between poetry and philosophical thought. He describes how profound philosophical discourse involves intellect and the senses just as good poetry does. To make his points, Baumgarten uses syllogisms to show the logic of certain choices in order to make writing more or less "poetic." He also relies heavily on the work of Horace to illustrate his points.
Assumed values (shared):
Poetry like philosophy
Clarity over obscurity
Poetry should excite "power affect" -- meaning it should not be concerned with the ordinary
Choose familiar over novel subjects - stick to the possible
Consider your audience
New Ideas:
Poetry can/should be approached in a scientific, logical manner
Pleasure and displeasure (discord) are equally poetic (70)
The measure of the verse (iambs) gain attention
Questions:
Where did idea of displeasure come in to this discussion of the aesthetic? Plato describe opposing ideas, with love at the center, but Baumgarten suggests that discord is equally aesthetic. Is this a modern idea? (see below).
Where the aesthetic experience in so many syllogisms? (I realize I am not the intended audience.)
Links:
I've never read anything quite like this. I was put off at first by his use of syllogisms. However, I found his point about pleasure and discord being equally poetic to be an interesting idea. Many of the initial blogs regarding an aesthetic experience addressed the pleasure of discord, yet few of our first reads had much to do with it. It seems related to those Socratic opposites, yet doesn't suggest the same balance. Did I miss something in my readings or is this a more modern idea?
This pleasure of discord reminds me especially of my own musical aesthetic experiences with pieces like Ravel's Sonata for Violin and Cello, or Tom Waits songs with Marc Ribot's dissonant guitar, or bands like X. The discord provides a kind of magnetic resistance, a push and a pull.
I disagree with the idea that poetry shouldn't reflect the ordinary. I think great writers make the common world uncommon, they often shed new light on what could seem mundane.
During the Enlightenment, Baumgarten shows the connections between poetry and philosophical thought. He describes how profound philosophical discourse involves intellect and the senses just as good poetry does. To make his points, Baumgarten uses syllogisms to show the logic of certain choices in order to make writing more or less "poetic." He also relies heavily on the work of Horace to illustrate his points.
Assumed values (shared):
Poetry like philosophy
Clarity over obscurity
Poetry should excite "power affect" -- meaning it should not be concerned with the ordinary
Choose familiar over novel subjects - stick to the possible
Consider your audience
New Ideas:
Poetry can/should be approached in a scientific, logical manner
Pleasure and displeasure (discord) are equally poetic (70)
The measure of the verse (iambs) gain attention
Questions:
Where did idea of displeasure come in to this discussion of the aesthetic? Plato describe opposing ideas, with love at the center, but Baumgarten suggests that discord is equally aesthetic. Is this a modern idea? (see below).
Where the aesthetic experience in so many syllogisms? (I realize I am not the intended audience.)
Links:
I've never read anything quite like this. I was put off at first by his use of syllogisms. However, I found his point about pleasure and discord being equally poetic to be an interesting idea. Many of the initial blogs regarding an aesthetic experience addressed the pleasure of discord, yet few of our first reads had much to do with it. It seems related to those Socratic opposites, yet doesn't suggest the same balance. Did I miss something in my readings or is this a more modern idea?
This pleasure of discord reminds me especially of my own musical aesthetic experiences with pieces like Ravel's Sonata for Violin and Cello, or Tom Waits songs with Marc Ribot's dissonant guitar, or bands like X. The discord provides a kind of magnetic resistance, a push and a pull.
I disagree with the idea that poetry shouldn't reflect the ordinary. I think great writers make the common world uncommon, they often shed new light on what could seem mundane.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Friedrich Von Schiller's Letters Upon the Aesthetic Notes
Summary:
My initial summary was a page and a half long. This is my summary of my summary:
During the revolutionary period of the late eighteenth century, Schiller describes man as between extremes: barbarity (lower classes) and lethargy (upper classes). Schiller notes that the Greeks represent the ideal in terms of balancing heart (soul?) and mind. When faced with these opposing forces, can the State in such flux attain the harmony achieved by the Greeks? Schiller says it can if enobled by art and beauty, which temper the extremes by "remov[ing] the opposition" (27). When our culture develops that ability to "enjoy the beautiful without desiring it," the Greek ideal of harmony will govern (44,43).
Assumed Values:
Two opposing factions exist. Are there really only two?
Greeks Rule - the idea that the Greeks achieved the ideal (though no mention of slavery)
Lower classes barbaric; Upper classes lethargic
Love = male + female
New Values:
Male love not harmonious
State can be ruled by "aesthetics" like beauty
Greeks as ideal "forms" to modern age
Questions:
Specific question regarding page 35 (Part V Letter XXIII)
I didn't understand the part about passive or active determination. How does it help a person become aesthetic?
Where did the Greek concept of male love go? Did Western culture become more homophobic as Christianity developed or was it more complicated than that?
It's interesting how slavery existed so invisibly in both the Greek and the European/American culture during these periods where such lofty ideals were discussed. This omission was present in the American novel Macaria by Augusta Jane Evans as well. In the novel, written and set at the start of the American Civil War, Evans does not mention slaves at all except when speaking of the South's "bondage" to "Lincolndom."
Links:
To Schiller, Greek model becomes a Platonic "form" to modern cultures although Schiller avoids the male love so central to the Greeks.
Socrates via Plato describes love as the "mean"between extremes. For Schiller, beauty is the mean.
I am continually reminded of Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen. Her title and book suggest both are necessary. Marianne lacks Elinor's sense while Elinor needs to confide her emotions more to her sister. In addition, Romeo and Juliet also keeps coming to mind in terms of this same imbalance, although I'd add more layers to the imbalance. Like in the revolutionary period of Schiller, Verona's upper classes fail to represent the ideal (and fail to exert any control), leading to a world dominated by violence and emotion.
My initial summary was a page and a half long. This is my summary of my summary:
During the revolutionary period of the late eighteenth century, Schiller describes man as between extremes: barbarity (lower classes) and lethargy (upper classes). Schiller notes that the Greeks represent the ideal in terms of balancing heart (soul?) and mind. When faced with these opposing forces, can the State in such flux attain the harmony achieved by the Greeks? Schiller says it can if enobled by art and beauty, which temper the extremes by "remov[ing] the opposition" (27). When our culture develops that ability to "enjoy the beautiful without desiring it," the Greek ideal of harmony will govern (44,43).
Assumed Values:
Two opposing factions exist. Are there really only two?
Greeks Rule - the idea that the Greeks achieved the ideal (though no mention of slavery)
Lower classes barbaric; Upper classes lethargic
Love = male + female
New Values:
Male love not harmonious
State can be ruled by "aesthetics" like beauty
Greeks as ideal "forms" to modern age
Questions:
Specific question regarding page 35 (Part V Letter XXIII)
I didn't understand the part about passive or active determination. How does it help a person become aesthetic?
Where did the Greek concept of male love go? Did Western culture become more homophobic as Christianity developed or was it more complicated than that?
It's interesting how slavery existed so invisibly in both the Greek and the European/American culture during these periods where such lofty ideals were discussed. This omission was present in the American novel Macaria by Augusta Jane Evans as well. In the novel, written and set at the start of the American Civil War, Evans does not mention slaves at all except when speaking of the South's "bondage" to "Lincolndom."
Links:
To Schiller, Greek model becomes a Platonic "form" to modern cultures although Schiller avoids the male love so central to the Greeks.
Socrates via Plato describes love as the "mean"between extremes. For Schiller, beauty is the mean.
I am continually reminded of Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen. Her title and book suggest both are necessary. Marianne lacks Elinor's sense while Elinor needs to confide her emotions more to her sister. In addition, Romeo and Juliet also keeps coming to mind in terms of this same imbalance, although I'd add more layers to the imbalance. Like in the revolutionary period of Schiller, Verona's upper classes fail to represent the ideal (and fail to exert any control), leading to a world dominated by violence and emotion.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Horace's Ars Poetica Notes
Summary:
In Ars Poetica, Horace advises poets/playwrights on how to become respected writers. In addition to his strict rules regarding length and purpose (comedy or tragedy), Horace also makes suggestions concerning character development, urging these students to stick to the "truth" and to the familiar, lest they lose the audience's respect. Clearly, Horace admires the Greek traditions over that of the Romans. Throughout the piece, Horace's vivid, concrete analogies illustrate his points with humor.
Assumptions/Shared Values:
Greeks rule.
Tradition over innovation.
Roman culture/art is more materialistic than that of the Greeks.
Changes/Additions:
Consider your audience. They can spot a fake.
Talent and experience matter more than hard work when creating art.
Style and substance both matter -- Horace suggests that Roman poets value style over substance.
Unlike Plato, Horace suggests each genre (tragedy/comedy) should remain distinct.
Plato says the two are related.
Questions and links:
Do you agree with Horace? This question applies to all readings.
Plato suggests that comedy and tragedy are related. Clearly, Shakespeare agrees. Horace seems to say that they should remain distinct. Am I misreading this?
I enjoyed the concrete examples in this. I find abstract ideas without concrete details difficult to understand.
In my own work as a high school English teacher, I also find that most students fall in love with their drafts and find revision difficult.
I prefer Archibald MacLeish's "Ars Poetica"to Horace.
"A poem should be equal to:
Not true."
"A poem should not mean
But be."
These lines connect with several of the readings. Horace would say that you should try to approximate reality by carefully observing your own experiences. Aristotle agrees with this to a points, for he also advises authors to create characters who are believable but better than reality. MacLeish suggests this isn't the point, that the poem exists as its own reality.
In Ars Poetica, Horace advises poets/playwrights on how to become respected writers. In addition to his strict rules regarding length and purpose (comedy or tragedy), Horace also makes suggestions concerning character development, urging these students to stick to the "truth" and to the familiar, lest they lose the audience's respect. Clearly, Horace admires the Greek traditions over that of the Romans. Throughout the piece, Horace's vivid, concrete analogies illustrate his points with humor.
Assumptions/Shared Values:
Greeks rule.
Tradition over innovation.
Roman culture/art is more materialistic than that of the Greeks.
Changes/Additions:
Consider your audience. They can spot a fake.
Talent and experience matter more than hard work when creating art.
Style and substance both matter -- Horace suggests that Roman poets value style over substance.
Unlike Plato, Horace suggests each genre (tragedy/comedy) should remain distinct.
Plato says the two are related.
Questions and links:
Do you agree with Horace? This question applies to all readings.
Plato suggests that comedy and tragedy are related. Clearly, Shakespeare agrees. Horace seems to say that they should remain distinct. Am I misreading this?
I enjoyed the concrete examples in this. I find abstract ideas without concrete details difficult to understand.
In my own work as a high school English teacher, I also find that most students fall in love with their drafts and find revision difficult.
I prefer Archibald MacLeish's "Ars Poetica"to Horace.
"A poem should be equal to:
Not true."
"A poem should not mean
But be."
These lines connect with several of the readings. Horace would say that you should try to approximate reality by carefully observing your own experiences. Aristotle agrees with this to a points, for he also advises authors to create characters who are believable but better than reality. MacLeish suggests this isn't the point, that the poem exists as its own reality.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Longinus On the Sublime Notes
Summary:
Longinus offers writers advice on how to aspire to write so as to "take men out of themselves" through imitation, images, and figures of speech (I). He also notes how the use of dialogue and the use of the present tense adds energetic drama. In addition, he warns against "flourishes" (XXXVIII) as well as the superficiality of his own wealthy age.
Assumptions - Shared Values:
Art takes work/effort.
Dialogue helps clarify ideas.
Writers should be readers first.
Greeks rule (over Romans).
New Values:
Tradition takes precedence over novelty.
Larger cultural shifts affect artists (wealthy society lessens the quality of art).
Questions:
What is the critic's role in a pre-printing press society? Because this writing is new to me, I had considered criticism a newish field. Apparently not.
Links:
First of all, I found it somewhat funny that in teaching key elements of narrative writing this past week, I talked about "the big 5." Longinus writes of "five principal sources" from which "all sublimity is derived" (VIII). Though not exactly the same, our lists have some overlap.
Because of his style and clear examples, I found Longinus to be an easier read and more concrete than the others (especially Aristotle). Like Aristotle, Longinus believes that the "pursuit of novelty" lessens the quality of writing (V).
As with Plato's portrayal of Socrates in Symposium, Longinus argues that passions should be tempered by reason (II). This suggestion reminds me again of Romeo and Juliet as well as Sense and Sensibility, where characters without balance pay a price (well, in Romeo and Juliet, everyone pays a price).
Longinus offers writers advice on how to aspire to write so as to "take men out of themselves" through imitation, images, and figures of speech (I). He also notes how the use of dialogue and the use of the present tense adds energetic drama. In addition, he warns against "flourishes" (XXXVIII) as well as the superficiality of his own wealthy age.
Assumptions - Shared Values:
Art takes work/effort.
Dialogue helps clarify ideas.
Writers should be readers first.
Greeks rule (over Romans).
New Values:
Tradition takes precedence over novelty.
Larger cultural shifts affect artists (wealthy society lessens the quality of art).
Questions:
What is the critic's role in a pre-printing press society? Because this writing is new to me, I had considered criticism a newish field. Apparently not.
Links:
First of all, I found it somewhat funny that in teaching key elements of narrative writing this past week, I talked about "the big 5." Longinus writes of "five principal sources" from which "all sublimity is derived" (VIII). Though not exactly the same, our lists have some overlap.
Because of his style and clear examples, I found Longinus to be an easier read and more concrete than the others (especially Aristotle). Like Aristotle, Longinus believes that the "pursuit of novelty" lessens the quality of writing (V).
As with Plato's portrayal of Socrates in Symposium, Longinus argues that passions should be tempered by reason (II). This suggestion reminds me again of Romeo and Juliet as well as Sense and Sensibility, where characters without balance pay a price (well, in Romeo and Juliet, everyone pays a price).
Aristotle Poetics Notes
Summary:
In Poetics, Aristotle presents structural, stylistic, and narrative elements writers should include when creating a great play or poem. He notes that all writers rely on imitation, whether instinctive or cultivated. He then lays out in order of importance many key elements to the plot, which he places over character development, such as “recognition,” as well as which types of plot devices will render the “best” outcome.
Assumptions-Shared Values:
Aristotle assumes that there are rigid rules regarding the writing of “the perfect” comedy or tragedy, and that he knows what they are.
He also assumes what is “best” can be defined by one person.
Men hold more value than women (XV).
New Values:
When writing a play, consider your audience (XVII).
When creating characters, make the “likeness…true to life…yet more beautiful” (XV).
Questions:
Why does Aristotle try to define one type of play as “superior” to another? Why is it important to classify tragedy as “superior to epic poetry” (XXVI)? Why must one be better?
Links:
I am amazed at how long Aristotle’s “rules” lasted. I realize that there is a gap between the author’s period and the Renaissance when his works were rediscovered. Still, many writers through first half of the nineteenth century followed his concepts regarding the “unity of plot” (VII, VIII). Not all followed his rigid ideas. Shakespeare clearly breaks some of these rules, especially in Romeo and Juliet where he mixes comedy with tragedy.
Later, Ibsen breaks the tradition of the five act play. Imagine a modern critic having that kind of reach!
In Poetics, Aristotle presents structural, stylistic, and narrative elements writers should include when creating a great play or poem. He notes that all writers rely on imitation, whether instinctive or cultivated. He then lays out in order of importance many key elements to the plot, which he places over character development, such as “recognition,” as well as which types of plot devices will render the “best” outcome.
Assumptions-Shared Values:
Aristotle assumes that there are rigid rules regarding the writing of “the perfect” comedy or tragedy, and that he knows what they are.
He also assumes what is “best” can be defined by one person.
Men hold more value than women (XV).
New Values:
When writing a play, consider your audience (XVII).
When creating characters, make the “likeness…true to life…yet more beautiful” (XV).
Questions:
Why does Aristotle try to define one type of play as “superior” to another? Why is it important to classify tragedy as “superior to epic poetry” (XXVI)? Why must one be better?
Links:
I am amazed at how long Aristotle’s “rules” lasted. I realize that there is a gap between the author’s period and the Renaissance when his works were rediscovered. Still, many writers through first half of the nineteenth century followed his concepts regarding the “unity of plot” (VII, VIII). Not all followed his rigid ideas. Shakespeare clearly breaks some of these rules, especially in Romeo and Juliet where he mixes comedy with tragedy.
Later, Ibsen breaks the tradition of the five act play. Imagine a modern critic having that kind of reach!
Plato's Symposium Notes
Summary:
Through seven characters , Plato discusses differing philosophical views on love. These philosophers discuss how love can better society by promoting self-sacrifice as well as cause harm if rooted in bodily desire. Aristophanes, for one, thinks of love as both a form of punishment for human transgressions as well as a way to reconnect with our "missing" selves. Socrates, however, describes love as a balancing force, a "mean" between the mortal world and the eternal.
Assumptions:
Through discourse, one comes closer to reaching the truth.
Multiple voices add to understanding.
Men valued more than women.
Love between men is normal.
Artists are creators of a higher quality than human creators.
Reinforcing or New Ideas:
Greek scholarship valued. Many voices past and present contribute to current scholarship.
Thus, Homer, Herodotus, Socrates all cited.
Humor at the end with the entrance of the drunk could suggest that this subject or any philosophical discussion shouldn't be taken too seriously, or it could act to connect the aforementioned ideas.
Humor and the base instincts coincide with lofty ideals.
Questions:
What is the purpose of the drunk?
Why does Plato speak through others? Where is Plato in all this?
Links:
John Updike died recently. An obituary quoted something he told Life Magazine in 1966: "I like middles. It's in the middle that extremes clash, where ambiguity restlessly waits." This reminds me of what Socrates says about love existing between extremes, between the fair and the foul, as the "intermediate between the divine and the mortal" (160). In mythology, at the beginning of the Greek creation myth, Eros brought together earth and sky out of Chaos. This, too, suggests that Eros exists between the extremes. This concept of balance is present in Shakespeare (where most characters lack the necessary balance) as well as Jane Austen novels, where the heroine has to learn to balance opposing forces within herself.
I also was reminded of the art the Roman leader Hadrian had created in memory of his lover, Antinous after his death (suicide).
Through seven characters , Plato discusses differing philosophical views on love. These philosophers discuss how love can better society by promoting self-sacrifice as well as cause harm if rooted in bodily desire. Aristophanes, for one, thinks of love as both a form of punishment for human transgressions as well as a way to reconnect with our "missing" selves. Socrates, however, describes love as a balancing force, a "mean" between the mortal world and the eternal.
Assumptions:
Through discourse, one comes closer to reaching the truth.
Multiple voices add to understanding.
Men valued more than women.
Love between men is normal.
Artists are creators of a higher quality than human creators.
Reinforcing or New Ideas:
Greek scholarship valued. Many voices past and present contribute to current scholarship.
Thus, Homer, Herodotus, Socrates all cited.
Humor at the end with the entrance of the drunk could suggest that this subject or any philosophical discussion shouldn't be taken too seriously, or it could act to connect the aforementioned ideas.
Humor and the base instincts coincide with lofty ideals.
Questions:
What is the purpose of the drunk?
Why does Plato speak through others? Where is Plato in all this?
Links:
John Updike died recently. An obituary quoted something he told Life Magazine in 1966: "I like middles. It's in the middle that extremes clash, where ambiguity restlessly waits." This reminds me of what Socrates says about love existing between extremes, between the fair and the foul, as the "intermediate between the divine and the mortal" (160). In mythology, at the beginning of the Greek creation myth, Eros brought together earth and sky out of Chaos. This, too, suggests that Eros exists between the extremes. This concept of balance is present in Shakespeare (where most characters lack the necessary balance) as well as Jane Austen novels, where the heroine has to learn to balance opposing forces within herself.
I also was reminded of the art the Roman leader Hadrian had created in memory of his lover, Antinous after his death (suicide).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)