♠Plato´s “Ion” and Aristotle´s “Poetics”: “On the Concepts of Mimesis and Catharsis”:
________________________________________________________________________________________________
1) →Plato´s “Ion”: ” On the Concept of Mimesis as “The representation of nature”.
And of Poetry as “A virtue of divine possession”:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Both Plato and Aristotle saw in mimesis the representation of nature. Plato wrote about mimesis in both in “Ion” and “The Republic” (Books II, III, and X).
It is in “Ion” where this topic is more developped, Socrates discusses with Ion, a professional rhapsode who also lectures on Homer, the question of whether the rhapsode, a performer of poetry, gives his performance on account of his skill and knowledge or by virtue of divine possession.
Socrates engages Ion in a philosophical discussion. Ion admits when Socrates asks, that his skill in performance recitation is limited to Homer, and that all other poets bore him.
Socrates says that the god speaks first to the poet, then gives the rhapsode his skill,and thus, gods communicate to the people. Socrates posits that Ion must be out of his mind when he acts, because he can weep even though he has lost nothing, and recoil in fear when in front of an admiring audience. Ion says that the explanation for this is very simple: it is the promise of payment that inspires his deliberate disconnection from reality. In says that when he looks at the audience and sees them weeping, he knows he will laugh because it has made him richer, and that when they laugh, he will be weeping at losing the money (535e).
Socrates offers the metaphor of a magnet to explain how the rhapsode transmits the poet’s original inspiration from the muse to the audience.This argument is supposed to be an early example of a so-called genetic fallacy since his conclusion arises from his famous lodestone (magnet) analogy.
According to Koeppe this argument can be summarized as follows: (a) Ion is inspired whenever he encounters Homer’s works; (b) Ion lacks the higher-order mental states needed for epistemic-justification while being inspired (c) Ion has no other relevant source of justification besides Homer’s works.
Socrates says that the rhapsode is not guided by rules of art, but is an inspired person who derives a mysterious power from the poet; and the poet, is inspired by the God. The poets and their interpreters may be compared to a chain of magnetic rings suspended from one another, and from a magnet. The magnet is the Muse, and the ring which immediately follows is the poet himself; from him are suspended other poets; there is also a chain of rhapsodes and actors, who also hang from the Muses, but are let down at the side; and the last ring of all is the spectator.
Through Socrates, Plato argues that “Ion’s talent as an interpreter cannot be an art, a definable body of knowledge or an ordered system of skills,” but instead must come from the divine madness or inspiration of the Muse.
The old quarrel between philosophy and poetry, which in “The Republic” leads to their final separation, is already working in the mind of Plato, and is embodied by him in the contrast between Socrates and Ion. Yet here, as in the Republic, Socrates shows a sympathy with the poetic nature. Also, the manner in which Ion is affected by his own recitations affords a lively illustration of the power which, in the Republic, Socrates attributes to dramatic performances over the mind of the performer.
Because the poet is subject to this divine madness, it is not his/her function to convey the truth. As Plato has it, only truth is the concern of the philosopher.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
2) →Aristotle´s “Poetics”: On The Concepts of Mimesis as “the perfection and imitation of nature”
And Catharsis as “a purification and purgation of emotions”:
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Similar to Plato’s writings about mimesis, Aristotle also defined mimesis as the perfection and imitation of nature. Art is not only imitation but also the use of mathematical ideas and symmetry in the search for the perfect, the timeless, and contrasting being with becoming. Nature is full of change, decay, and cycles, but art can also search for what is everlasting and the first causes of natural phenomena
Aristotle’s “Poetics” is often referred to as the counterpart to this Platonic conception of poetry.
Aristotle considered important that there might a certain distance between art and life. Hence, we draw knowledge and consolation from tragedies only because they do not happen to us. Without this distance, tragedy could not give rise to catharsis.
Catharsis (from the Greek κάθαρσις katharsis meaning “purification” or “cleansing”) is the purification and purgation of emotions—especially pity and fear—through art or any extreme change in emotion that results in renewal
Catharsis can only be achieved if we see something that is both recognisable and distant. Aristotle argued that literature is more interesting as a means of learning than history, because history deals with specific facts that have happened, and which are contingent, whereas literature, although sometimes based on history, deals with events that could have taken place or ought to have taken place.
Aristotle thought of drama as being “an imitation of an action” and of tragedy as “falling from a higher to a lower estate”. He held the characters in tragedy were better than the average human being, while those of comedy were worse.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________
♠Quotes on Aristotle´s “Poetics”:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
♠Links Post:
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2010/07/31/plato-ion-whats-the-problem-with-poets
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1635/1635-h/1635-h.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poetics_(Aristotle)
http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/cs6/poetics.html
http://www.novelguide.com/aristotles-poetics/novel-summary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis
________________________________________________________________________________________________
♠Last but not least: Thanks Salvela for the nomination:
The Cracking Chrispmouse Bloggywog Award:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Great article with excellent insight and for me it highlights the basic challenge of the Greeks and ultimately a flaw that all of western philosophy has been dealing with ever since and that is that there are universals. For example, by objectifying thus they lose the beauty and harmony of catharsis.
Objectifying not only debies catharsis but in a general way feelings… That´s why Nietzsche sympathized with Dionysus… Drunkenness and sensory waste promoted catharsis by then. I think that we are so much more inhibited to show emotions nowadays…
Thanks for dropping by, Carl, best wishes,
Aquileana 😉
Love to read your wonderful articles.
Thanks for sharing with us.
And Congratulations for that award.
Kisses and hugs. 🙂
Thanks a lot for your comment dear Rotze.
It is always a pleasure to have you here.
Many hugs & kisses… Aquileana 😉
Thanks @rotzemardini for sharing this post at Twitter. Aquileana 😉
Aquileana, qué bueno el diseño del post, con el inglés soy bastante mala; pero me gustó la parte de la tragedia y las frases. Besos, Mariu!
Muchísimas gracias, me alegro de que te haya gustado la presentación del post y también las citas de Aristóteles.
Saludos, Aquileana 😉
Thanks @Maxima003 for sharing this post at Twitter. Aquileana 🙂
https://twitter.com/Maxima003/status/444434779933405184
El aspecto de la Katharsis de Aristóteles me pareció congruente con algunos preceptos o métodos del psicoanálisis. Nunca se me había ocurrido pensarlo así; tu post me permitio hilar alguna que otra analogía entre disciplinas quizás afines. Saludos, Eva.
Eva;
Es un aspecto muy interesante el que destacabas. De alguna manera las sesiones de terapia pueden llevar a la catarsis, y eso dependerá tanto del psicoanalista como del paciente. O sea en definitiva del vínculo (“proyección”) que exista. Vale decir, del grado de confianza y por ende de apertura del paciente. Has destacado un buen punto con la cuestión “interdisciplinaria”, gracias por plantearlo.
Muchos saludos, Aquileana 😉
A pesar de los inconvenientes del traductor (i do not speak english), encuentro en tus artículos algo que no sabía me faltaba tanto: el análisis y la comparación. Ahora vuelvo a buscar con ansia en los textos de Platón, con más esperanza, una idea que siempre me ha torturado, quizás una locura sin fundamento: realmente Sócrates al hablar del dios, de los dioses, de las musas, lo hacía creyendo en ellos, o lo hacía porque era la mejor aproximación a la verdad que sus contemporáneos eran capaces de asimilar, y lo políticamente correcto. Siempre he tenido la sensación de que Sócrates hablaba a los demás como si fuesen niños.
Excelente artículo,
Misantropíaco
Hola Misantropíaco…
Te agradezco mucho por el docto comentario… Lamento lo del traductor, en cierta manera los mandatos implícitos del cyber- espacio “me determinan libremente” a elegir escribir en inglés porque la blogósfera tiene un idioma universal y es éste…
En fin respecto a tu comentario coincido en la aproximación a Sócrates que hacías. Creo, siendo un poco más precisa, que aquéllo de “sólo sé que no sé nada” era solamente un dictum para rebajar sus dotes oratorias y filosóficas, o sea para convencer al interlocutor de que estaban en plano de igualdad. Cuando evidentemente éste no era el caso.
En cuanto a la invocación a las musas o la inspiración divina, es cierto que la justificación es absolutamente convencional y circunstancial. El rapto poético explicaba que el poeta no era el hombre más adecuado (menos impetuoso) para regir los asuntos de la polis… Y por el contrario el filósofo era idóneo para ello, como destacaría Platón en “La República”.
En definitiva, tampoco es ingenuo el planteo porque responde a un propósito mayor, que es el de la legitimación de una elite gobernante de filósofos.
Un gran saludo y los mejores deseos para vos, Aquileana 😉
Thanks @HernandoDelaRos for sharing this post at Twitter. Aquileana 🙂
Someone essentially help to make seriously articles I might state. This is the first time I frequented your web page and to this point? I am surprised with the research you made to make this particular submit incredible. Wonderful job!
Thanks for dropping by…
I am glad to know that you like the blog, cheers, Aquileana 😉
Thanks @LosSentidosVida for sharing this post at Twitter 🙂
we love your posts as we learn new stuff all the time,takes a little while to understand full but we do love the challenge,xx Rachel and Speedy
Thanks Rachel and Speedy for stopping by to read and comment. Thanks for joining me here with the “challenge”.. Wishing you a great weekend ahead, best wishes, Aquileana 😉
When ever I come here Aquileana, I have to put my grey matter to work… 🙂 In a positive way that is 🙂 big smiles… You see although I know of these fine scholars I had not until reading your posts given them much thought… Your posts have a way of holding me spell bound… As I reach deep within my brain lol, to decipher your wonderful concepts you portray Between these great thinkers…
I can only speak as a Poet myself… When I write my poetry it comes very fast, often I do not pause as my pen flows across the page.. Its very rarely I alter any verses… So I have to agree with this statement~
“Socrates says that the rhapsode is not guided by rules of art, but is an inspired person who derives a mysterious power from the poet; and the poet, is inspired by the God. ”
I think Aquileana, we tap into that Divine thought/Energy which we with our drifting minds transcribe … I think we have to feel some of those emotions we write about.. But often we have to be detached from them.. Or we would be consumed by emotion….
Catharsis ~ a cleansing.. I can well understand…. as we need balance… both in tragedy and Comedy….
I enjoyed reading this post twice.. lol, … I am sure I have missed your point!.. But I enjoyed giving my own interpretation upon it .. 🙂
Wishing you a very enjoyable weekend… Much love Sue xox
Hello dear Sue…
Great comment… You didn´t miss any point here, on the contrary I think you have perfectly caught the main ideas of Both Plato and Aristotle…
Thanks for highlighting Socrates´ point of view and for linking it to your own personal experience as a poet…
Worth saying however that his idea was a little bit derogative… As he was trying to prove that nor poets neither rhapsodes had an innate talent… Their poetic skils were a result of God´s inspirations (through Muses)…
As to Aristotle I think his idea of catharsis is “lofty”… Truly meaningful to understand tragedy and empathic reactions of the audience…
I am wishing you a great weekend ahead; Sue, thanks agian for dropping by.
Many hugs !!!, Aquileana 🙂
As Aristotle mentions, art really does search for the everlasting. I think that is why artwork has such a timeless nature about it; Picasso and many other painters have created items we still enjoy today. Writing is another form of art and you showcase it well here with this post.
The comparisons between Aristotle and Plato really are interesting and you tie them together well here. Another magically enticing post from AP, xoxo
Love, Christy ♥
~You keep writing and we’ll keep reading! 🙂
Thanks @christybis for sharing this post at Twitter. Aquileana 🙂
Thanks Christy Birmingham for sharing this post at Google Plus, Aquileana 😉
Dear Christy…
I am glad that you liked the post… I agree with you; art is an attempt to catch the essential feelings and Ideas. We try to reach the “unattainable” along with the creative process, meaning as we create…
I think that Aristotle´s idea of Catharsis is suggestive in this sense. Audience´s empathy with the plot comes from the same need to express the inexpressible
Thanks for dropping by. Love and all the very best for you;
Aquileana 😉
“The poets and their interpreters may be compared to a chain of magnetic rings suspended from one another, and from a magnet. The magnet is the Muse…; and the last ring of all is the spectator.”
I like the way Socrates imagines the connection between the creator of a work of art and the spectator. Without the spectator, as I see it, art would be dead, art needs feedback to come to life.
The concepts of Mimesis and Catharsis are well explained. Thank you so much, Aquileana, for this instructive post. I’m looking forward to your next post.
Love to you. Have a nice weekend!
Cheers 🙂 Irina
Thanks Irina for your thoughtful comment…
I agree with your statement about the argument…
Despite being considered a falalcy I think it is meant to be a great deductive analogy…
Best wishes and it is always a pleasure to read your comments and insights.
Love & hugs to you;
Aquileana 😉
Thanks @kookadim for sharing this post at Twitter. Aquileana 😉
This very blog is no doubt entertaining as well as informative. I have found a lot of helpful posts in this amazing blog. I’d love to come back every once in a while. Cheers!
Thanks Carol… Great to know that you like the blog. Cheers, Aquileana 😉
Siempre he admirado cómo a través de los tiempos, pensadores y políticos han utilizado los argumentos de los filósofos griegos para su causa. Como estos han pervivido a través voces que se apoyaban en estas autoridades o las pervertían para su uso ideológico.
Es muy cierto lo que subrayabas, Josep…
Los aportes de la filosofía clásica no sólo abarcan cuestiones metafísicas, sino tecnicismos de lógica, sofismas, silogismo y, claro, hasta falacias.
El canon del legado es amplio y rico.
Un abrazo y gracias por el comentario;
Aquileana 🙂
Gracias @JosepGarcife por compartir este post en Twitter; Aquileana 😉
Hi to everybody, it’s my first go to see of this webpage; this website
carries remarkable and really excellent stuff designed for visitors.
Thanks for your comment and kind words; Nathaniel.
Cheers, Aquileana 😉
Thanks @gypsyles for sharing this post at Twitter. Aquileana 🙂
Mm. So according to Socs, my poems come from god speaking directly to me, he then provides me with the skill to share them with an audience (my readers) who are in turn touched by the poem through divine inspiration. Is that right?
Well it is correct Kev, that was Socrates held in Plato´s dialogue “Ion”…
Just divine inspirations, acting through Muses… Therefore, according to Socrates, there weren´t innate poetic skills…
Best wishes and thanks for dropping by, Aquileana 😉
Felicidades!!! 😀
Gracias Ava… Los mejores deseos para vos, Aquileana 🙂
Las entradas de tu blog cumplen para mí dos funciones muy importantes: la primera es la profundización en la filosofía clásica -en el sentido más amplio de la palabra-, y por tanto, hacer pensar.
La segunda es que leerlas en inglés constituye todo un reto para la mente y para mantenerlo en forma -aunque no tanta como para hacer todos los comentarios en inglés… ya me gustaría.
Estupendo post, que me ha hecho pensar mucho en mi favorito Chesterton, cómo discreparía de Platón. Ya hemos visto algunas veces que sintoniza más con el realista Aristóteles…
Gracias Chestertoc por tu muy buen comentario aquí…
Respecto a los dos objetivos que señalabas arriba, creo que para mí uno lleva al otro, digamos: están enlazados causal y cronológicamente.
Cuando escribo en inglés, cuando me documento sobre el tema en un idioma que no es el nativo.
Sobre todo, cuando lo hago de una manera frecuente, mejoro notablemente mis conocimientos del inglés, a la vez que profundizo los temas de filosofía, porque me encuentro con mucha información que generalmente es más reducida en castellano …
Así que en definitiva un propósito lleva al otro, lo “guía”, digamóslo así..
En cuanto a Chesterton, agradezco siempre tus post porque me permiten conocerlo con mayor detalle. Ya tengo en claro que es realista y constructivista.
Y seguro que me informaré mucho más con lecturas futuras…
Abrazo para vos, Aquileana 🙂
This is a great article and so detailed. Thanks a lot for sharing.
Stefy.
Thank you Stefy… I much appreciated your comment… Wishing you a great week ahead, cheers, Aquileana 😉
A wonderful argument, are we congenitally predisposed to imitation, which is the basis of poetry is it not, or are we divinely inspired when writing a poem, in which case our genetic predisposition is not all that important in the process of writing poetry. Hmmm. My personal take is that our genetic predispositions are divinely inspired, therefore our fate as poets is to write divinely inspired poetry.
;^) a truly divine discussion, dearest Aquileana! Thanks very much for sharing!
Hello Aisha.. I share your point of view as regard to art and imitation…
“My personal take is that our genetic predispositions are divinely inspired, therefore our fate as poets is to write divinely inspired poetry”: This is a very interesting statement as it is a good way to link different theories based on origins of talents and other skills, such as art and particularly poetry.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comment. It is a pleasure to read your words, as per usual.
Cheers, Aquileana 🙂
Yes, thanks for your beautiful perception! Put in more common terms, if we accept the notion of a Creator, then we accept that this Creator created even our DNA, the code of all our genetic predispositions. This is another way of defining our Fate, which our Creator “wrote” to us at the moment of our conception/creation. So, in this way of thinking, when we write poetry, for example, we are in fact following our devinely written Fate. Certainly our Creator knows what we were born to do, every moment of our life! Thanks again for such stimulating conversation!
Hi Aisha…
I loved your insights…
Particularly these lines:
“So, in this way of thinking, when we write poetry, for example, we are in fact following our devinely written Fate. Certainly our Creator knows what we were born to do, every moment of our life!”
I think you are right in the sense that Fate is a Divine construction,a sort of plan that God defines for us as you have well held above…
Maybe that quote that says: “If It is meant to be, It will be” is true, then… Yes, I guess it is.
Thanks for dropping by… I am sending you my best wishes. Aquileana 😉
How beautiful! Que sera sera! xoxo ;^)
Hoy, excelente amiga filósofa, Aquileana, me decanto vivamente por aquella parte de tu trabajo que nos adentra en el pensamiento de Aristóteles: me es cercano, conocido y desde luego más conforme con mis opiniones; en esta lid me gana el realismo sobre el idealismo… ¡a veces, pasa! Comprenderás un cierto interés propio por aquellos asuntos que toman acentos literarios, poéticos, teatrales o históricos, educativos también, porque me atraen con fuerza.
Aliño con nada, como ves, de modo que puesdes salvar la contestación lindamente y así ganarás tiempo para disertar con mejores iguales en tus estudios; tiempo o energías. 🙂
Siempre son felices tus trabajos. Todo un buen abrazo.
Hola Al;
Decía un profesor de Filosofía muy conocido por estas lindes que había una pregunta clave que definía si uno era aristotélico o platónico, vale decir, realista o idealista…
Ésta era: ¿Existe la Amistad porque existen los amigos o existen los amigos porque existe la Amistad ?
Si te pronunciás por la primera opción eres aristotélico (los amigos, empíricamente hablando, definen la Idea de Amistad).
Si por el contrario, optás por la segunda opción (La Amistad Idea- define a los amigos-entes empíricos ; eres Platónico.
Como verás lo del realismo y el idealismo es bastante relativo, en mi caso puedo coincidir filosóficamente con una posición digamos platónica/idealista; pero esto no me lleva a descartra de plano la primera opción… Ni tampoco a pronunciarme indubitablemente a favor de la segunda…
En fin, luego de este paréntesis hermeneútico te mando un fuerte abrazo y agradezco tus comentarios en el blog, así como tus cálidas líneas en Google Plus…
Aquileana 🙂
Thanks @themikekeating for sharing this post at Twitter, Aquileana 😉
It is interesting Aristotle believed though art and life worked hand in hand, one had to observe the realities of life. Yet there is a phrase, ‘life imitates art’ which contradicts his observations.
I haven’t finished Plato’s Republic but that is also an interesting dialogue, perhaps a more idealised form of the arts?
A thought provoking post Amalia, thank you! 😀
cheers
Luciana
Thanks @ClucianaLuciana for sharing this post at Twitter, Aquileana 🙂
Hello Luciana…
Thanks for sharing your insights here … When you made reference to that quote above ‘life imitates art’ you made me think of Oscar Wilde.
I think that quote appears in The Portarit of Dorian Gray… I will have to check that out…
As to Plato´s Republic I didn´t read the whole book either…
Just for the record; I´ll soon publish a new post related to the idea of Justice in Plato´s Republic and in Aristotle´s “Nicomachean Ethics”…
It is a pleasure to read your comment and posts on your blog.
Thanks for dropping by… Best wishes, Aquileana 🙂
A very interesting post. I really enjoyed the reading. Thank you.
Thank you… Cheers Aquileana 🙂
Lovely post, Aquileana! Really made me ponder. It’s nice to know how the great philosophers saw the world from their own perspective and context. And it’s also amazing to know how their insights still apply to all of us today.
Thanks a lot for your insights on this topic mockingbird… Best wishes, Aquileana 🙂
Hey there, You have performed an incredible job. I’ll definitely digg it and in my view recommend to my friends. I’m sure they will be benefited from this website.
OZZY
I am really glad to read your kind words. Thank you very much for dropping by and commenting.
Cheers; Aquileana 😉
Great post! I came upon ‘mimesis’ though René Girard’s ‘scapegoat mechanism’ which is the origin of sacrifice and the foundation of human culture, and religion was necessary in human evolution to control the violence that can come from mimetic rivalry. It’s amazing how you pick these concepts from the classics, I’ve discovered these with more modern philosophers. Girard is a bit complex but he has this very interesting concept of language: “One great characteristic of man is what they [the authors of the modern theory of evolution] call neoteny, the fact that the human infant is born premature, with an open skull, no hair and a total inability to fend for himself. To keep it alive, therefore, there must be some form of cultural protection, because in the world of mammals, such infants would not survive, they would be destroyed. Therefore there is a reason to believe that in the later stages of human evolution, culture and nature are in constant interaction. The first stages of this interaction must occur prior to language, but they must include forms of sacrifice and prohibition that create a space of non-violence around the mother and the children which make it possible to reach still higher stages of human development. You can postulate as many such stages as are needed. Thus, you can have a transition between ethology and anthropology which removes, I think, all philosophical postulates. The discontinuities would never be of such a nature as to demand some kind of sudden intellectual illumination”-Wikipedia
Tropical Flowering Zone/María;
Thank you very much for taking time to read and comment in depth…
I have never read René Girard´s work but those ideas you have highlighted with regard to what he called “scapegoat mechanism” sounds truly interesting and they do make sense…
The way you linked Girard´s ideas on origin of language and mimesis are remarkable.
Thanks for sharing your insights on this topic. I much appreciate it…
Best regards; Aquileana 😛
Girard’s theory is sometimes criticised because some people say he turned to religion to solve the ‘mimetic rivalry’ which culminates in the scapegoating mechanism (scapegoat= chivo expiatorio); whereas other philosophers do believe the scapegoat mechanism in society does not necessarily have to entail ‘scapegoating’ as a solution. The political ‘pluralists’ are the one’s that have criticised Girard because they advocate that there must be some form of political moderation and dialogue, particularly between countries, that can mediate conflictive situations in a more reasonable manner. Yet, Girard’s theory does prove to be correct, again and again, in that society, unfortunately, does need to have the scapegoat mechanism to fulfil the mimetic desire. The political pluralists, however, insist that a dialogue is possible, and does not necessarily have to entail a human sacrifice (either physically or juridically).
In another words, someone eventually does need to be killed. I believe the theory is correct in a philosophical manner, but personally I’m a pacifist and I do not even believe in the death penalty (heated debate, eh?), but I see that Girard has pinpointed in a very precise manner what has happened in modern society as a whole.
Tropical Flowering Zone/María;
Hi dear María.. Thanks for clarifying the whole issue. Yes I know what scapegoat … But I bet Girard was talking in a figurative sense.
Even though we still need nowadays to fulfil the mimetic desire I am not sure that a sacrifice would be necessary.. Even more I think it would be reprobated and avoided in a stict sense.
I am more in the side of the political ‘pluralists’ as they tend to trust moderation and dialogue above all…
Violence is an extreme too derived from the coercive mechanisms of power as I see it… But Girard ´s theory does make sense if we think in the Holocaust, The World wars, The multiple genocides that have taken place since 1900´s and so on…
As to the implications of his theory in the anthropological scope I think they might be related with initiatory ceremonies and religion…
Best wishes and thanks for dropping by…
It is always a pleasure to read your witty insights,
Aquileana 😛
Yes, thanks, and I was also about to add that Girard himself did not believe the scapegoat mechanism was necessary, and could be prevented. This is when he uses Christ’s crucifition as an example as how far human have gone. He definitely believes in the prevention of the scapegoat mechanism by learning from previous mistakes. Yet again, the political pluralists criticised him for using too many religious examples for proving his philosophy, and was probably misinterpreted in philosophical terms.
Thanks for the upates as Regard to GIrard and why he Washington critized by the political pluralists… I guess Many antrophologists have had to use religious and simbolic explanations to justify their theories and so on… So in his favour I’ ll say he was not the only one…
I hope you have a great weekend. Best wishes, Aquileana 😉
Wonderful post and an amazing blog Thanks.
Anne
Thanks for dropping by and for your nice words, cheers, Aquileana 😛
[…] “Poetics” he added another essential, namely, a certain magnitude, it being desirable, for a synoptic and […]
[…] The account tells that Zeus and Mnemosyne slept together for nine consecutive nights, thus birthing the nine Muses (3). […]
[…] To Aristotle, Tragedy is the “imitation of an action” (mimesis) according to a certain “law of probability or necessity”. […]
[…] idea of time as Indefinite Present could be linked to Aristotle. Aristotle argues that the essence of time is the now, to nun. The “now” is given […]
[…] Πηγή: Plato´s “Ion” and Aristotle´s “Poetics”: “On the Concepts of Mimesis and Catharsis”.- … […]