A passage in Plato’s Laws (719c) offers a fresh look at Plato’s theory of poetry and art. Only here does Plato call poetry both mimêsis “imitation, representation,” and the product of enthousiasmos “inspiration, possession.” The Republic and Sophist examine poetic imitation; the Ion and Phaedrus (with passages in Apology and Meno) develop a theory of artistic inspiration; but Plato does not confront the two descriptions together outside this paragraph. After all, mimêsis fuels an attack on poetry, while enthousiasmos is sometimes (...) used to attack it, sometimes to praise it. The explanation evidently lies in Plato’s understanding of drama, which in the Laws has grown more precise, from simply the presentation of characters to the presentation of multiple characters engaged in dramatic conflict. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to introduce the concept of the mirror as a methodological tool, with which Plato discusses reflection and describes the mimetic phenomena. The notion of the mirror first presents Plato’s view on the metaphysical division of the world. It then accounts for Plato’s hostility towards the poets and reveals that the ideal polis is the product of a special kind of philosophical mimesis. I argue that Plato’s own mirror is the dialogues he writes, and the (...) perfection of his mimetic activity is juxtaposed to the hazardous imitations of the poets. (shrink)

Like many other Platonic dialogues, the Ion is richly ambiguous. It may be read simultaneously as praise for poetry and as a scathing critique of it. However, I contend in this paper that it is neither entirely favourable nor entirely unfavourable to poetry. Rather, the Ion seems to propose, albeit obliquely and with a generous amount of Socratic irony, a new, un-rhapsodic, philosophical model for the interpretation and evaluation of poetry. This model of poetic interpretation is presented as an alternative (...) to the model immanent in the well-established practice of rhapsody as presented or painted in the dialogue. (shrink)

Commentators of Plato’s Symposium rarely recognize the importance of traditional Greek conceptions of Eros, paideia and arête in understanding Plato’s critique of the various educational models presented in the dialogue. I will show how Plato contests these models by proposing that education should consist of philosophy. On this interpretation, ancient Greek pedagogy culminates in a philosophical education. For this new form of education, the dialogical model supplants the traditional practices of kléos and poetic mimēsis, inextricably bound to archaia paideia and (...) traditional forms of education. Plato’s Socrates is searching for knowledge and immortality through an application of the philosophical method, one that relies on a conception of Eros and propagation. For Plato’s Socrates, it is through Eros that ancient Greek paideia educates in matters of arête, but eros is not a passion for kléos or for a beautiful young man. Rather, eros is the passion for Beauty itself, a passion that is pursued through philosophical conversation with another, a life of arête. Thus, our investigation serves to define and criticize the various educational models and defend the claim that philosophy is best suited for educating the citizens of Athens. (shrink)