Why do your subscribers love your videos? Because they are replete with high production values, fascinating topics and incisive analysis and interpretation. Overjoyed at the release of your latest video and enjoyed watching it! Thank you.
Another interesting video, thank you. I believe poetry was incredibly important to these cultures and those preceding them as it allowed for more reliable oral transmission of information due to its rules and meter, plus they often contained sacred truths and the retelling of myths, key stories in a cultures identity. And so I find it interesting to more deeply understand why the role of the poet demised in Greece, was it like music today... too much of it, and very little memorable... or was it the rise of the written word and scientific thinking, alongside a rejection of the sacred truths that the myths were said to carry, that resonated with the philosophers? Certainly your thoughts on what logos and mythos meant to the Greeks would be interesting, and how they were perceived in the time of Plato.
Wonderful comment and I very much enjoy your videos, Mr. White. Amongst other things, poets and philosophers have long shared a deep desire to meaningfully communicate in descriptive and normative ways to their respective audiences, which often overlap or intersect. Perhaps the differences in their respective methodologies might've led the ancient philosopher to deem their "way to a truth" as being superior to that of the poet. This interpretive observation is certainly not meant to be overarching in scope; but perhaps it is of some value in helping to answer this video's thought-provoking question.
I think it was mostly a rejection of the myths and sacred traditions which poetry conveyed. And THAT was primarily because these myths became fossilized and institutionalized by the government (do the rituals THIS way and you'll be rewarded). The tragedians' interpretations of the myths are extremely variable and borderline blasphemous with the orthodox views--they understood myth is emotionally and symbolically complex, not some simplistic dogma. Which gets us also to the bottom line--poetry is MORE difficult to understand than discursive philosophy, because it requires BOTH logical AND metaphorical thinking. Most people are literal-minded and afraid of metaphor (e.g. that Jesus didn't come to open blind eyes and raise dead bodies but to provide SPIRITUAL seeing and eternal life--and everything he is supposed to have said is in metaphorical parables--he ain't talkin' about real vineyard laborers, either). And poetry ain't a simplistic pragmatic tool--that's an abuse of its function. As Auden says, "Poetry makes nothing happen"--it's counterproductive if didactic; its primary function is empathetic, as Wordsworth would say, it carries love and relationship into whatever knowledge science or other discursive means produce.
The Syrian father of Church history, Eusebius mentions that a neo-Pythagorean named Numenius made a remark to the effect that Platon was a Greek Moses. This is very interesting and a fundamental analysis of the respective grounds and directions of Mosaic and Platonic logoi would be illuminative with regard to Platon’s criticism of the Homeric poets.
Im very thankful Crecganford recommended your channel! Its good stuff! I know itd be crass to request something but is there any chance youd talk about greek painters in the future, such as Apelles of Kos and Zeuxis? Ever since I glanced their mention on Naturalis Historia ive been looking as far as i could on info on them and their contemporaries.
I think there’s still some truth to the general sentiment. Artists may be remarkably adept at communicating their beliefs, but that doesn’t mean an artists’ beliefs are particularly accurate. Just that they’re presented in a remarkably entertaining way.
I am a philosopher and I do not hate poetry. What I hate instead, is pseudo - science. I cannot understand why some people advertise a product as safe and effective and then treat those who criticise it like conspirators who are conspiring against their interests when in reality all they are doing is merely criticising them. Pseudo - science is much, much, much more dangerous than the declining state of contemporary poetry. All you can do about that state, is to improve poetry. There is a ton of philosophers who absolutely love poetry and who are huge admirers of famous and lesser known poets. Back in the day I mistook pseudo - science as some kind of a rebellion and realised later on that the reason people hate it, is because it is standardised. The quest for a standardised mind is over. There is no such thing as a standardised mind and all pseudo - science is based on standardised thinking. The idea of a successfully marketable Trump vaccine that is 110 per cent safe, is not a godsend but a pseudo - science based on nothing but bias. As a philosopher, I would like to see more poets in the world and not just more mathematicians and just more physicists and just more politicians and that´s it - more diversity is needed and ergo new poets are required to create a greater vision of what the 21st century should be like to future generations. Hating poets is like hating moon landing sceptics - it is a futile battle. Thanks for your video!! Best wishes all the way from Reykjavik, Iceland!!
I would suggest to consider the Greek terms used in the Platonic dialogues. The English word “copy” is a very poor translation; both as a term of linguistic translation and as a term of philosophical interpretation. What did Platon mean by ‘mimesis’? This is not very easy to understand. Why did he write Platonic dialogues, which are themselves examples of ‘imitation’? The Platonic problematic about writing is likewise not very easy to circumvent. Elsewhere in one of the dialogues, we read that a carpenter, in his craft, does not look at the “material form” of a table to produce another; but rather, the carpenter “looks” at the ‘eidos’ (idea) of a table in order to craft a table. Together with the cosmogonic premise that Platonic ‘eide’ (ideas) are not producible as themselves but only as units of speculative activity (e.g. "table" is not a physical object but a speculative object that we bind to the physical world), this complicates the picture. To clarify further the preceding note; “table” is not a physical object, it is an object of language and teleological concern. The question is, how is a carpenter able to craft a material form which can act as a place where the idea of table can be seen? In the end, it is good to interrogate the fundamental experiential questions which led Platon to his philosophical and theological system. Without a proper propaedeutic of the experiential, even everyday basis of Platonic questions, what are answers and comments but poor attempts to rejuvenate what has been lost? Some have argued that Platonic concerns within the Platonic dialogues are not reducible to the particular canon of conclusions that one can infer from them. Certainly, while it is good to compare, it is also besides the point whether Aristotelian concerns about poetry are "better" or "worse" than Platonic concerns - i.e. what is important is whether there is a Platonic concern about poesy which is fundamentally distinguishable from any other speculative orientation. For example, I would argue that modern conceptual art (e.g. Cubism) is very Platonic in the sense that "mimetic" and "eidetic" essences of art have been pursued to the extreme, to a point where art is an attempt to bridge the gap between the sensible world and the eide (=forms of speculative, theoretic activity). Likewise, painting is not merely about "sensible representation" or "creative expression"; it is more fundamentally an attempt to capture "pathogenic idea" of an object of speculation.
Plato was a failed playwright. THAT's why he hated poetry--he couldn't do it. Hypocrite. Aristotle, on the other hand, basically laid out almost everything necessary to say about how poetry actually works. He just doesn't sufficiently appreciate "diction" because he's talking only about poetry which emphasizes plot and character, not lyric poetry which emphasizes the texture and rhetorical structure of language. Otherwise you don't need anything more to understand why "poetry is more philosophical than a history of facts."
In Plato, the Ion and the Phaedrus go in depth as to how divine and beautiful poetry is, and Socrates quotes poetry constantly. This video is misinforming. The expulsion of the poets from the republic is a fairly specific issue and a sacrifice of sorts, it assumes that everything short of philosophy is an inferior form of fulfillment anyways so there is no need of compromises (like poetry) in a controlled setting. The Poets also played a role in the demise of Socrates so it is partly a political issue.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
Why do your subscribers love your videos? Because they are replete with high production values, fascinating topics and incisive analysis and interpretation. Overjoyed at the release of your latest video and enjoyed watching it! Thank you.
We love them because they go deep into things and everything is explained coherently and simply.
Another interesting video, thank you. I believe poetry was incredibly important to these cultures and those preceding them as it allowed for more reliable oral transmission of information due to its rules and meter, plus they often contained sacred truths and the retelling of myths, key stories in a cultures identity. And so I find it interesting to more deeply understand why the role of the poet demised in Greece, was it like music today... too much of it, and very little memorable... or was it the rise of the written word and scientific thinking, alongside a rejection of the sacred truths that the myths were said to carry, that resonated with the philosophers? Certainly your thoughts on what logos and mythos meant to the Greeks would be interesting, and how they were perceived in the time of Plato.
Wonderful comment and I very much enjoy your videos, Mr. White. Amongst other things, poets and philosophers have long shared a deep desire to meaningfully communicate in descriptive and normative ways to their respective audiences, which often overlap or intersect. Perhaps the differences in their respective methodologies might've led the ancient philosopher to deem their "way to a truth" as being superior to that of the poet. This interpretive observation is certainly not meant to be overarching in scope; but perhaps it is of some value in helping to answer this video's thought-provoking question.
Food for thought. Also good to see you here. Love your work.
@@swordsmen8856 Thank you, Aaron's work is so well done it's a pleasure to watch.
@@thomasharlan7356Thank you, and it is great to see people who like my work here, Aaron makes some superb quality videos.
I think it was mostly a rejection of the myths and sacred traditions which poetry conveyed. And THAT was primarily because these myths became fossilized and institutionalized by the government (do the rituals THIS way and you'll be rewarded). The tragedians' interpretations of the myths are extremely variable and borderline blasphemous with the orthodox views--they understood myth is emotionally and symbolically complex, not some simplistic dogma. Which gets us also to the bottom line--poetry is MORE difficult to understand than discursive philosophy, because it requires BOTH logical AND metaphorical thinking. Most people are literal-minded and afraid of metaphor (e.g. that Jesus didn't come to open blind eyes and raise dead bodies but to provide SPIRITUAL seeing and eternal life--and everything he is supposed to have said is in metaphorical parables--he ain't talkin' about real vineyard laborers, either).
And poetry ain't a simplistic pragmatic tool--that's an abuse of its function. As Auden says, "Poetry makes nothing happen"--it's counterproductive if didactic; its primary function is empathetic, as Wordsworth would say, it carries love and relationship into whatever knowledge science or other discursive means produce.
This is a very interesting way to think about creative arts, disturbing, but interesting.
Many people starting with Plato's student Aristotle thought he was missing the point badly
Hi from Crecganford !:)
Welcome!
The Syrian father of Church history, Eusebius mentions that a neo-Pythagorean named Numenius made a remark to the effect that Platon was a Greek Moses. This is very interesting and a fundamental analysis of the respective grounds and directions of Mosaic and Platonic logoi would be illuminative with regard to Platon’s criticism of the Homeric poets.
interesting
Im very thankful Crecganford recommended your channel! Its good stuff!
I know itd be crass to request something but is there any chance youd talk about greek painters in the future, such as Apelles of Kos and Zeuxis? Ever since I glanced their mention on Naturalis Historia ive been looking as far as i could on info on them and their contemporaries.
very interesting idea
I think there’s still some truth to the general sentiment. Artists may be remarkably adept at communicating their beliefs, but that doesn’t mean an artists’ beliefs are particularly accurate. Just that they’re presented in a remarkably entertaining way.
I am a philosopher and I do not hate poetry. What I hate instead, is pseudo - science. I cannot understand why some people advertise a product as safe and effective and then treat those who criticise it like conspirators who are conspiring against their interests when in reality all they are doing is merely criticising them. Pseudo - science is much, much, much more dangerous than the declining state of contemporary poetry. All you can do about that state, is to improve poetry. There is a ton of philosophers who absolutely love poetry and who are huge admirers of famous and lesser known poets. Back in the day I mistook pseudo - science as some kind of a rebellion and realised later on that the reason people hate it, is because it is standardised. The quest for a standardised mind is over. There is no such thing as a standardised mind and all pseudo - science is based on standardised thinking. The idea of a successfully marketable Trump vaccine that is 110 per cent safe, is not a godsend but a pseudo - science based on nothing but bias. As a philosopher, I would like to see more poets in the world and not just more mathematicians and just more physicists and just more politicians and that´s it - more diversity is needed and ergo new poets are required to create a greater vision of what the 21st century should be like to future generations. Hating poets is like hating moon landing sceptics - it is a futile battle. Thanks for your video!! Best wishes all the way from Reykjavik, Iceland!!
But isn't everything in this world merely a copy of the real thing in the world of ideas, according to Plato? Thus everything is merely a bad copy?
And art is even worse because it is a two-fold copy! A bit harsh in my view :)
I would suggest to consider the Greek terms used in the Platonic dialogues. The English word “copy” is a very poor translation; both as a term of linguistic translation and as a term of philosophical interpretation. What did Platon mean by ‘mimesis’? This is not very easy to understand. Why did he write Platonic dialogues, which are themselves examples of ‘imitation’? The Platonic problematic about writing is likewise not very easy to circumvent. Elsewhere in one of the dialogues, we read that a carpenter, in his craft, does not look at the “material form” of a table to produce another; but rather, the carpenter “looks” at the ‘eidos’ (idea) of a table in order to craft a table. Together with the cosmogonic premise that Platonic ‘eide’ (ideas) are not producible as themselves but only as units of speculative activity (e.g. "table" is not a physical object but a speculative object that we bind to the physical world), this complicates the picture. To clarify further the preceding note; “table” is not a physical object, it is an object of language and teleological concern. The question is, how is a carpenter able to craft a material form which can act as a place where the idea of table can be seen?
In the end, it is good to interrogate the fundamental experiential questions which led Platon to his philosophical and theological system. Without a proper propaedeutic of the experiential, even everyday basis of Platonic questions, what are answers and comments but poor attempts to rejuvenate what has been lost? Some have argued that Platonic concerns within the Platonic dialogues are not reducible to the particular canon of conclusions that one can infer from them. Certainly, while it is good to compare, it is also besides the point whether Aristotelian concerns about poetry are "better" or "worse" than Platonic concerns - i.e. what is important is whether there is a Platonic concern about poesy which is fundamentally distinguishable from any other speculative orientation. For example, I would argue that modern conceptual art (e.g. Cubism) is very Platonic in the sense that "mimetic" and "eidetic" essences of art have been pursued to the extreme, to a point where art is an attempt to bridge the gap between the sensible world and the eide (=forms of speculative, theoretic activity). Likewise, painting is not merely about "sensible representation" or "creative expression"; it is more fundamentally an attempt to capture "pathogenic idea" of an object of speculation.
🌻
This is one of the main reasons why I hate Hollywood celebrities.
My man, the AI art lends a cheap and unserious tone to an otherwise nice video
lol point noted
@@Keimelia haha no worries, man. Tons of cool public domain paintings out there of philosophers too
Plato was a failed playwright. THAT's why he hated poetry--he couldn't do it. Hypocrite. Aristotle, on the other hand, basically laid out almost everything necessary to say about how poetry actually works. He just doesn't sufficiently appreciate "diction" because he's talking only about poetry which emphasizes plot and character, not lyric poetry which emphasizes the texture and rhetorical structure of language. Otherwise you don't need anything more to understand why "poetry is more philosophical than a history of facts."
good points
In Plato, the Ion and the Phaedrus go in depth as to how divine and beautiful poetry is, and Socrates quotes poetry constantly. This video is misinforming.
The expulsion of the poets from the republic is a fairly specific issue and a sacrifice of sorts, it assumes that everything short of philosophy is an inferior form of fulfillment anyways so there is no need of compromises (like poetry) in a controlled setting. The Poets also played a role in the demise of Socrates so it is partly a political issue.
Agree to disagree
I hate Plato and Socrates