Plato concludes his critique of poetry in book X of the Republic with the following pronouncement:
"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. For if you go beyond this and allow the honeyed muse to enter, either in epic or lyric verse, not law and the reason of mankind, which by common consent have ever been deemed best, but pleasure and pain will be the rulers in our State."
Keeping in mind that Plato leaves the door open for poetry to " prove her title to exist in a well-ordered State," respond to Plato's argument.
Prompt for Saturday 3/12 (Case's class):
In this class we've looked at a wide range of writings across several different disciples (psychology, philosophy, poetry, literary criticism). Even within the same discipline, the writers' styles have varied greatly. Consider the stylistic distance between Plato and Peirce, or Stevens and Stein, for example. Though it's true that the elements that make up a writer's style aren't always a matter of choice, let's imagine, for a moment, that they are. What is gained, and what is lost in the choice of a particular style of writing? What (if anything) can Stein do that James can't? What can James do that Peirce can't? How does a writer's style open or foreclose possibilities of expressing meaning?
Prompt for posts due Wed 3/2 (Cohen's class):
In what ways is the process of interpreting and commenting on a poem different from interpreting and commenting on a narrative such as Symposium, and in what ways are both of those, in turn, different from interpreting and commenting on a philosophical essay?
Prompt for posts due Wed 2/16 (Case's class):
In class, we've been kicking around several possible formulations of the difference(s) between philosophy and poetry. How do you understand the relationship between these disciplines? Refer to one or more of the works we've read in your response.
Prompt for posts due Wed 2/9 (Cohen's class):
Why do you think Plato chose to express his views on love in the literary form of the Symposium? Consider at least some of the following features (you need not address all): the use of narrative, multiple speakers, the absence of Plato’s own voice, speeches rather than dialogue, dialogue rather than speeches (Soc w/Agathon, Diotima w/Soc), story rather than speech (Alcibiades), myth (Aristophanes), the “distancing” effect of having someone tell us about someone else’s account of someone else’s account (in which, to top things off, a further conversation is reported), etc., etc., etc.
Prompt for posts due Wednesday 2/2 (Case's class):
In our joint class, we talked about two possible effects of the literary -- or, if you wish, the poetic -- use of language:
1. the seduction effect: the literary elements may seduce the reader, making her more willing to accept, or at least engage, the ideas being presented. (Think Lysis)
2. the "experience" effect: poetic language, in particular, may allow a reader to experience, rather than simply understand cognitively, the problem or issue the text presents. (Think "The Snow Man").
Find an instance of one of these two effects in the reading we've done so far, and demonstrate how you think it's working. OR, describe a third possible effect of literary language, and show us how you think it works.
