Plato/Aristotle Rant

I had intended to express this in plate form, but I left the magic markers in my office on Monday, so you are spared a demonstration of my (lack of) artistic skill.

Speaking of which, check out the plates that your classmates made... we'll be looking at these on Wednesday.

If I recall correctly, my objective was to link some of last quarter's philosophical concepts to the issues we're going to discuss in Winter quarter, in particular Shakespeare's MND. Here goes:

As you may have discussed with your instructor last quarter, there are many different areas or branches in philosophy, including ethics ("what is the good life?"), ontology ("what is everything made out of?"), and epistemology ("what do we know and how do we know it?"). Most philosophers deal with all of these areas (Aristotle is a good example), though some have particular concentrations or avoidances (note Descartes' concentration on epistemology and avoidance of ethics). And obviously these areas relate together; for instance it makes sense that Aristotle views ethics as developing oneself towards a telos just as he views physics (sub-branch of ontology) as a system in which non-human objects develop towards a telos, or that he views biology (sub-sub branch of physics) in terms of which things are more or less self-sufficient and also politics (sub-branch of ethics) in terms of which people are more or less self-sufficient. And furthermore, you can look at a writer like Austen or Morrison and see them exploring issues of ethics, epistemology, ontology, etc. even though they don't use the typical forms of philosophical expression.

There is one particularly tricky branch of philosophy that relates to these others, called aesthetics, which is the study of art, or as some philosophers put it, the study of beauty (Western art stopped trying to be beautiful about 100 years ago, so one has to be careful using this term.) You can go back to all of the major philosophers and they will have something interesting to say about aesthetics. Indeed in many cases it's what they say about aesthetics that either helps them clarify some of their other ideas or kind of screws up some of their other ideas. Think about Morrison's version of aesthetics in Bluest Eye, for instance, and how it relates to her ideas about ethics, politics, and epistemology. Are the little blonde-haired, blue-eyed girls in the 1940s movies really beautiful? Why? To whom? Etc. That's an aesthetic question.

In Shakespeare's time, many of the classic Greek and Roman books were being reintroduced into Europe (a.k.a. the Renaissance... many of these books were preserved by Arabs during the Middle Ages which is an interesting story in and of itself). And you know from reading Descartes that Aristotle, and to a lesser degree Plato, were read by intellectuals (i.e. Catholic clergy) all along anyway. So the point being, people be loving their Plato and their Aristotle in Shakespeare's time (circa 1600 A.D.). These two philosophers were still considered authorities on a wide variety of topics, including aesthetics.

What does Plato say about aesthetics? The Symposium gives you a bit of a clue because it provides a theory of ethics. He argues (through Socrates and Diotima) that to be a good lover, you must move from concrete, physical objects of love (like hot young boys) to abstract, philosophical objects of love (like philosophical concepts). Thus you lead a better life. But this is also a theory of ontology, because he's implying that IDEAS are more real than OBJECTS. Which is an odd way of looking at things, but he has his reasons. This is Plato's ontology, more or less, and you will recognize that it fits with the idea of a "ladder of love" ascending upwards.

Real: concepts/ideas/forms (e.g. "love," "justice," "truth," "courage," the treeness of trees, the dogness of dogs, the chairness of chairs)
Almost Real: mathematical figures and forms (e.g. "six," "eleven," "triangle," "oval")
Not that Real: physical objects (e.g. this table, that chair, this tree, that dog)
Fake Fake Fake: art (painting, sculpture, theater, etc.)

Art is the furthest thing from reality to a Platonist. It's like making a copy of a copy of a copy. It's just a way to manipulate stupid people, more or less. If philosophers are doing the manipulating, that's probably OK. Some people are just hopeless anyway, like sheep. But if non-philosophers are doing the manipulating, that's bad. Even sheep need to follow true ideas rather than false ones, and if the only place they're getting their ideas is art, then those sheep are going to graze in the wrong direction. That's why Plato proposes that all artists be thrown out of Athens. They're good for nothing, or perhaps worse. Plays, for instance, merely excite people's emotions with images of sex and violence. (Sound familiar? This is a common argument against Hollywood, video games, etc.) Plato is OK with music, but only because he considers it a sub-category of math. (If you know anything about music theory, this will probably make sense to you.)

Aristotle disagrees with Plato's view of aesthetics. You might expect this, given his disagreements about ontology. He doesn't believe in pure ideas or concepts, but rather that the idea must be embodied and that the body must be animated by the idea (soul, telos). Potentiality plus actuality. Hylomorphism. So likewise for an art form like theater, the body here is the actors and the stage, the costumes, the lighting, the dialogue, etc. etc. And the soul, the telos, is the plot. The idea that animates and actualizes the whole thing. So in that way, art can be educational... an indirect method of conveying ideas. Even if it deals with irrational images of sex and violence, at the very least it provides an emotional release for those impulses so that people can think more clearly afterwards. So art isn't good in and of itself, like philosophy is, but it is fairly good if it can be kept within certain boundaries.

As you know from reading Morrison, there are other views of aesthetics, some which question the distinction between the body and the spirit that Plato proposes and Aristotle kinda sorta preserves. Some philosophers have even argued that anything people do is "art," even philosophy. (Friedrich Nietzche is a good example of this position, or the playwright Oscar Wilde.)

In Shakespeare's time, though, it's Plato vs. Aristotle. And this isn't just some intellectual debate. It has real political consequences. Who's in London, or in England more generally? To make things really simple, five groups of people. The monarchy, the aristocracy, the middle class, the urban laborers, and the rural peasants. The middle class is gathering power... you see what this trend looks like 200+ years later in Persuasion. One of the main factions in the middle class is the Puritans. Remember them from American history class? They are trying to reform British religion and British politics, and so far as art goes, they are Platonists. They want to close down the theaters, for instance. They think they're a health hazard (fire and disease transmission). But they also think they're morally dangerous (again, sex and violence).

It makes some sense to see plays as hazardous in this way... most of them are performed on the outskirts of town, in the area known as the "liberties" (i.e. red light district). Where some of the other artistic entertainments include prostitution and bear-baiting. And where much of the audience is urban laborers. Classes even mix together. The horror.

Shakespeare, as an artistic professional, a theater writer, director, and performer, obviously has a vested interest in defending his profession from this attack. (How would you feel if someone called you a "caterpillar of the commonweal" and threw recycled arguments from Plato at you? I'd be pissed, personally.) One way he can do this is by aligning his professional interests with those of the upper classes, especially the monarchy. Which is why his company of actors is basically the queen's house band. It may seem strange that the queen is down with this illicit activity that usually takes place in the bad part of town, but that just goes to show you the rising influence of the Puritan middle class (who have major issues with the monarchy). This is a fight over zoning, in effect. (We'll study this notion in more detail when we read Jacobs.) So you might think of Theseus & Hippolyta as representations of monarchs. They're equivalent to the audience that the play was first performed for (at an upper class wedding).

The faeries are more complicated. Because as Lupton is showing us, they also relate to "the old England," the ancient traditions, and so on. But they're also kind of sexy and magical and live in the outskirts of town. In the liberties. Where there are no rules. So that's another way Shakespeare can try to make his profession more legitimate, is to appeal to ancient folk traditions.

What's another way? Why am I writing this rant?

Aristotle. He can, and does appeal to Aristotle as an answer to the Puritan attack on art, which is an attack on his very livelihood.

So as you read the play, see if you can detect places where this intellectual debate between Platonists and Aristotleans is peeking through, and places where the political debate about who should control the city, and what kind of art is permissible, creeps through. I'll point to some examples in class.