Have you ever expressed an opinion strongly, eloquently, perhaps even drunkenly, then when you sat down and began to write, you realize that your elegant construction was as full of holes as a paper snowflake cut with a dull child's scissors? This is an extraordinarily painful moment and a society that doesn't encourage the discipline to work through this pain and work out the truth, whatever it is, will swim in lies and fantasies.
I struggle constantly with trade-offs in this space. Not in terms of censorship, which I deplore, but in terms of finding the most productive ways of tuning in to my positions and then expressing them. Non-written modes of expression (like visual arts) can be so much healthier in that they are less reductive and abstract than language. And turning to the written word can so easily lead to the words choosing themselves, in which case no real insight occurs. I'm not sure what the optimal balance is between embodiment and clarity of communication, but we should all have the freedom to explore these questions with one another.
in general, I appreciate Liza's writings and work but this time I cannot emphasize just how reductionistic her interpretation of Plato is. her reading of Plato's judgment against the poets is too simplistic and therefore misses the subtlety of Plato's thought. Plato "condemns" the poets, sure, but notice that he also is guilty of the exact same thing in his own discourses by creating his own myths (the myth of atlantis, the myth of the cave, the myth of Er, etc.). in fact, his entire corpus, written as a series of imagined discourses rather than strict didactic treatises, are inseparable from a poetic form. this shows, at the very least, that Plato is acutely aware of the poet's narrative powers and acknowledges that even philosophical discourse must pass through the medium of poetry (and in this, we see the distance between Plato and Aristotle). his philosophy is essentially an attempt at rehabilitating the form of poetry by "purifying" it through philosophy. Plato's other discourse, Ion, thematizes this exact tension. Socrates is presented as clearly revering the poets, and even admits that they are inspired by the gods. Consider this passage:
"For it is not art in you that makes you able to speak well about Homer, as I just said, but a divine power which moves you (θεία δὲ δύναμις ἥ σε κινεῖ)… In this way also the Muse makes some men inspired herself, and through these inspired men, others are gripped with enthusiasm and form a chain. All the good epic poets speak all their fine poems not from art but by being inspired or possessed (ἔνθεοι ὄντες καὶ κατεχόμενοι πάντα), and it is the same for the good lyric poets." (533c–533e)
the work of art (techne), according to Plato, is to unveil the truth--in other words, to "communicate" the invisible by making it visible. art, in this sense, is inherently a spectacle. but isn't that also true of Plato's philosophy? he communicates the invisible by way of the visible (speech). Plato condemns the poets, but he doesn't condemn poetry itself, for his own works, all things considered, are nothing less than a sublime *image*. Art and philosophy, then, are not inherently antithetical, but can work in a harmonious relation to further articulate the truth in its richest modes.
Have you ever expressed an opinion strongly, eloquently, perhaps even drunkenly, then when you sat down and began to write, you realize that your elegant construction was as full of holes as a paper snowflake cut with a dull child's scissors? This is an extraordinarily painful moment and a society that doesn't encourage the discipline to work through this pain and work out the truth, whatever it is, will swim in lies and fantasies.
I struggle constantly with trade-offs in this space. Not in terms of censorship, which I deplore, but in terms of finding the most productive ways of tuning in to my positions and then expressing them. Non-written modes of expression (like visual arts) can be so much healthier in that they are less reductive and abstract than language. And turning to the written word can so easily lead to the words choosing themselves, in which case no real insight occurs. I'm not sure what the optimal balance is between embodiment and clarity of communication, but we should all have the freedom to explore these questions with one another.
Writing helps you discover what you’re actually thinking
in general, I appreciate Liza's writings and work but this time I cannot emphasize just how reductionistic her interpretation of Plato is. her reading of Plato's judgment against the poets is too simplistic and therefore misses the subtlety of Plato's thought. Plato "condemns" the poets, sure, but notice that he also is guilty of the exact same thing in his own discourses by creating his own myths (the myth of atlantis, the myth of the cave, the myth of Er, etc.). in fact, his entire corpus, written as a series of imagined discourses rather than strict didactic treatises, are inseparable from a poetic form. this shows, at the very least, that Plato is acutely aware of the poet's narrative powers and acknowledges that even philosophical discourse must pass through the medium of poetry (and in this, we see the distance between Plato and Aristotle). his philosophy is essentially an attempt at rehabilitating the form of poetry by "purifying" it through philosophy. Plato's other discourse, Ion, thematizes this exact tension. Socrates is presented as clearly revering the poets, and even admits that they are inspired by the gods. Consider this passage:
"For it is not art in you that makes you able to speak well about Homer, as I just said, but a divine power which moves you (θεία δὲ δύναμις ἥ σε κινεῖ)… In this way also the Muse makes some men inspired herself, and through these inspired men, others are gripped with enthusiasm and form a chain. All the good epic poets speak all their fine poems not from art but by being inspired or possessed (ἔνθεοι ὄντες καὶ κατεχόμενοι πάντα), and it is the same for the good lyric poets." (533c–533e)
the work of art (techne), according to Plato, is to unveil the truth--in other words, to "communicate" the invisible by making it visible. art, in this sense, is inherently a spectacle. but isn't that also true of Plato's philosophy? he communicates the invisible by way of the visible (speech). Plato condemns the poets, but he doesn't condemn poetry itself, for his own works, all things considered, are nothing less than a sublime *image*. Art and philosophy, then, are not inherently antithetical, but can work in a harmonious relation to further articulate the truth in its richest modes.