I’d like to try to discuss Plato’s views in a way that might appeal to more people, in a way that allows some leeway for emotion while still honoring the importance of logic and reason in society. Plato does allow that emotions exist but that we should take emotions them and instead of acting out based on only our emotion, we should use logic and reason to channel our emotions to create something constructive that leads to truth. He argues that art will often write the emotion and create an emotional response in a reader, but this is not healthy because it doesn’t lead to logic and reason. “It feeds and waters the passions instead of drying them up; she lets them rule, although they ought to be controlled if mankind are ever to increase in happiness and virtue.” *Controlled* not repressed, as we talked about in class today.
This perhaps can make more sense if put into an example. Let’s say a person is very angry and he writes a poem about how angry he is. Other people read this poem and respond such that they are angry as well about this situation though they perhaps weren’t angry before. Or, maybe you're angry and you listen to an angry song, does it make you feel better? Sometimes, yes, but oftentimes don't you just end up wallowing in the emotion? This is not constructive. Anger will only perpetuate more anger if reason and logic are not called upon – the emotions will build up too much and we will not be able to understand why we have these emotions. The angrier we get, the less rational our thought becomes. However, if we have the emotion of anger and then use our logic and reason to understand why we are angry, then the anger can often dissipate through the understanding of how we came to that emotion – perhaps not at first but eventually. We change our view to something that is constructive. Thus, emotions (even those destructive ones) can be constructive if logic and reason are employed to lead one to a deeper understanding and truth.
6 comments:
"We should use logic and reason to channel our emotions to create soemthing constructive that leads to the truth." I thought this is the type of idea that we were moving towards in class, which I really thought interesting. I believe that the combination of emotion and logic is a powerful tool. Perhaps we can use emotion - channel it, analyze it even - and this could help use to understand the truths of the world. The quote "Anger will only perpetuate more anger if reason and logic are not called upon" indicates that we need one to develop the other. I don't know if logic can truly be independant from emotion. Do truths evoke emotion or vice versa? Mary Kate
Although I completely agree with Michelle I'm going to raise a few questions. I believe Frued was trying to say that fiction is an outlet through which we can express our emotions. So is that Plato's argument is better than Frued's or just different? How do we determine what is better, logic or reasoning?
I think that everyone thus far is twisting what Plato is actually saying in his essay. We must remember that, in Plato’s view, “we must remain firm in our conviction that hymns to the gods and praises of famous men are the only poetry which ought to be admitted into our state” (37). He also asserts over and over again that “The imitator or maker of the image knows nothing” (33). Before we begin a major-league discussion of Kim’s question of “Is [it] that Plato’s argument is better than Freud’s or just different?”, we need to make sure that we are accurately summarizing each argument. I think that Michelle might be watering down Plato’s argument and making it a little more unrealistically appealing to more people. We must remember that Plato’s view on emotion in literature (except to the gods and about famous men) is that it would cause “pleasure and pain to be the rulers of our State” (37). If we should “use logic and reason to channel our emotions to create something constructive that leads to truth” as Michelle says, what type of literature would fit into this that Plato would accept?
~ Kristen
Maybe reason and logic do not have to be the polar oposites of emontion. When we read something emotional that affects us, we might "wallow" in that emotion as Michelle puts it, but this might help people deal with their emotions. When you have already learned how to deal with an emotion through a story which is neccessarily removed from you and your experiences, it will be easier to deal calmly and rationaly when the same emotion when it appears in your own life. No matter what the literature, people cannot get rid of their emotions entirely. Then, reading about emotions is an exercize in how to cope in real life.
I think that Plato would say that reading about other emotions would be an exercise in the imitation of a someone else's response to an event which will elicit emotion-- but not really an exercise in coping with a situation.
Yes, Plato does argue that "hymns to the gods and praises of famous men are the only poetry whih ought to be admitted" but it seems as though he was more concerned with keeping out epics and lyric verse which tend to have exaggerated behaviors and are tales of extremes, which Plato would have wanted to avoid. He supports "law and the reason of mankind" to be the rulers of the state- he wants the society's rules based in reality instead of the world of the fantastic.
After examine a couple of of the blog posts in your website now, and I actually like your means of blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark web site checklist and can be checking back soon. Pls try my web page as well and let me know what you think. free online casino slots
Post a Comment