So, I just read the first chapter in my philosophy book, and It was mostly an excerpt from Plato's piece "Republic,"and really, for a philosopher that has had such a huge impact on western culture, I have to say that I am disappointed in the solutions he poses for many great questions. One of my main points of dissent is that Plato argues that art actually corrupts the logical mind because it encourages people to use their emotions in everyday society. And Plato believes this is bad because emotions are inferior to logic and reason.
Actually, this reminded me in a way of the whole debate of whether or not video games cause violence or not. Many people say that by playing videogames, you are exposed and desensitized to violence, thus you are more likely to commit an act of violence. Plato is suggesting something equally ridiculous, if not, more ridiculous in my opinion: He believes that by experiencing art, one is more prone to rely on his emotions because in order to enjoy art, you need to use your emotions. Which sort of draws the parallel between Plato's view of art and the videogame conflict.
Now, I might be able to understand that one might use their emotions more if constantly exposed to art, but he then goes on to say that due to this, that person has been corrupted, because as everybody knows, logic is far more important than emotions to the everyday person. Now that, I view as just completely wrong. The emotional and creative mind indeed has much value. Emotions are what causes people to experience life! Logic may be able to analyze life and the universe, but what use are they if one has no passion in life, or drive, or why would you want to live a life without expression?
No comments:
Post a Comment