1.
What
is the bearing of these lectures in the education of the humanities?
First we have to
attempt to interpret what mimesis is and we shall go with what Christopher
Janaway that “at most general level it tends to mean something which is like
something else in some way. Often, though not always, this will be a copy or
likeness which is less real than an original of which it is the likeness”. For Plato
he allowed some form of poetry in his ideal state such that dramatic
characterization was deemed necessary as
it was beneficial in enabling one behave
like a good person and in so doing imbue the soul with
gracefulness. This understanding already
establishes some sort of difficulty in education in humanities since the person
who is the best imitator is deemed the best. In book 3 he is against poetry that appeals to
the senses as its impersonation and never attends to the individual actors
souls. There is no motivation to be good as what is important is pleasure. This
is what Plato sets out by banishing tragic poets such as Homer in his ideal
state.
In book 10 he
says that mimetic art is a dim reflection of the truth. As he states in 595b8:
“Mimetic art is far removed from the truth and that is why …..It can make
everything because it touches only a small part of each thing, and that an
image. Mimesis comprises of some forms poetry and paintings. Modern day artists
make a representation of arts, in which the artists represents something by
making appearance of it. In education of humanities Plato would accept that
future artists can be taught to make an appearance which by the intention resembles
things of some kind but is not really one of them. This understanding means that
there is disconnect between the artist and art.
Artists can produce something which is a representation and they far
removed from the produced item. This is what is prevalent in the education of
arts such that musicians produce music that is just imitation of certain
western cultures and have no bearing to them.
The mimetic art
is concerned with what delights their eyes and ears but the philosopher is
concerned with beauty itself. This is the situation we find ourselves that
modern buildings by architects is defined by what is appealing to the eyes and
not beauty in itself. This situation can be related to the education in
humanities which calls for redefining what art as a philosopher is would do. For
Plato people who are not able to comprehend the Forms mistake the likeness for
the real and have no knowledge but belief. As we know belief is what shaky and
has no philosophical grounding hence everyone can produce anything and call it
art.
Reasoning leads
philosophers to the highest principles, and from it shall be able to deduce the
relationship between a thing and its likeness. Anyone who is unable to understand the Forms
cannot have knowledge. Likeness is contrasted with their originals as being
mere shadows and reflections of them. Forms cannot be viewed as likeness of
something as they are the real thing itself. In education of humanities we have
to strive for students to know the Forms as they are most real and proper
objects of knowledge. Allowing students to dwell on likeness will be
propagating falsehoods or counterfeits.
While discussing painting of the couch, he
says the carpenter does not produce a couch but something in the likeness of a
couch. The couch is a likeness of a couch made by the carpenter which in turn
is a likeness of the Forms. From this we can conclude that the painting is at
the third level in reference to reality. He is concerned with what kind of person is
the practitioner of mimesis is. There is some sort of hierarchy in his
understanding of various persons who practice mimesis. The originator of Forms
and in our context is God has to be recognized within the education of
humanities, that all mans creations are nothing but imitations of God’s
creation. The recognition of this hierarchy means students of humanities of
humanities have to be humble and submit that their works is a reflection of the
real thing who is God. The more they imitative the closer they will be to God,
but can never replace God. Likewise for scientists who want to play God, and
forget that their art is nothing but mimesis of Forms or could be at second
level (what has been made by others).
Plato in 598b6-8
alludes to his contention that mimetic art is far removed from truth, and that’s why it can make everything
, because it touches only a small part
of each thing, and that an image. Such
an understanding can be applied in education of humanities in that the
education can pretend to offer everything but in reality could just be touching
only a small part of each thing. Rarely do schools offer holistic education
though there could be some allusions to it since it tries to mimic the truth
about reality. Such an education presents the way an educated person should
appear, as its viewed differently. The eternal realities cannot be represented
hence within the realm of educationist to judge point at possible direction
where its students can find the truth. Forms
don’t have an appearance; since they belong to the realm of the intellect, not
sensible hence cannot subject it to the rules of science which requires
sensible proofs. The painters do not make something which has substance but is
an imitation of something hence important for students of humanities to have a
clear distinction of this phenomenon otherwise they will live in a world of
illusions.
In conclusion
mimesis can give the impression of comprehensive knowledge and lead people
astray with regard to what is good. The danger is to allow mimesis those
masqueraders falsely as knowledge and corrupts moral judgments by the appeal it
makes to emotions.
No comments:
Post a Comment