overview
In Plato’s Republic 2 and 3, Socrates discusses censorship with Adeimantus. Here, he argues that the only stories that should be allowed in the city are stories of good, virtuous men who know justice. Other myths of gods, heroes, and monsters encourage immoral acts that do not represent a perfect, ideal citizen, and therefore shall not be taught to children. In Republic 2, they discuss what should be said, while they discuss how it should be said in Republic 3. Poets shall only imitate good men whose acts they would not be ashamed of, and merely narrate indecent acts. So while a skilled poet brings pleasure by his ability to imitate everything, there is no place for him in the city. For the people’s good, a less pleasing poet who imitates good men is better and can educate the people well.
But what is an imitator? In Republic 10, Socrates defines one with Glaucon. Forms are imitations of the Truth, or of something’s essential nature. Manufacturers are removed to the second-degree from the nature, while people on the third degree of the chain, such as poets and painters, are imitators, creating mere images of appearance. He knows nothing of reality. Imitations are deceiving. Imitators appeal to the irrational part of the soul. The soul is separated into the reasoning part, the spirited part, and the desiring part. The superior part of the soul is that of reason, discipline, and virtue. Poetry can corrupt men by feeding the parts of them that ought to be repressed by drawing out madness and immersion. It can tempt people away from justice and virtue.
thoughts
So is Plato saying that the bad parts of men shall forever be repressed? Is he really saying that poets must not appeal to the emotions and less savory nature of man? Is he actually for banning mimetic poetry? Ion - Plato makes me think otherwise. In it, Socrates says that poetry is not a skilled art, but rather, divine. Then, is divinity bad? Is poetry truly imitation, or is it in touch with another aspect of truth not represented by tangible Forms?
Given the trend of Socratic irony, it doesn’t seem like Socrates is having a one-sided dialogue, but rather inviting the reader to take the place of his interlocutors.
The discussion on imitation reminds me of Criticism of photorealism or hyper-realism.