|
BenevolentM -> RE: Is Love Inconvenient? (1/30/2011 11:15:41 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Twoshoes
And on a side note, you've crossed the fine line between poesis and a trying too hard. Glorifying oneself is incredibly lame, and quoting clichés ("Amore, amore...", "All is fair in love and war") is like having a runway show with pieces of clothing from someone else's collection.
Artists often have people known as critics who don't know a thing about anything for that matter, but know enough where they think they know it all. Just look at your own words. You speak as if you were an automaton. Clichés? What criteria did you use? A keyword search? Are you saying it can be reduced to an algorithm? You are a hypocrite. Do not preach your trash to me minister. Instead be entertained.
I noticed your use of the word poesis. See http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/introser/republic.htm. What trash might I find here I wonder. Look at these ridiculous words
quote:
One way to interpret what Socrates is saying in Book X and elsewhere in the text is to claim that he is trying to insist that lovers of the truth and seekers after the good life must abandon a traditional language (the language of poetry, whose essence is metaphor) and embrace a new language (the language of philosophy, whose essence is reason as manifested in geometry).
As manifested in geometry? The text goes on and says
quote:
The text makes this clear in the repeated attempts to dethrone Homer. Socrates ridicules the trust people have in Homer, ...
Maybe Homer was a little more human.
quote:
To this objection to poesis on the ground that it is a misrepresentation of the truth of things, Plato adds a second obvious objection which arises from his psychology of the human soul. Poesis, by its very nature, must appeal to and arouse the most dangerous part of the human personality, the sensual part. Since, at the very best of times, the human psyche is in a state of tension, any incitement to the lowest part of it (the emotions) threatens psychological harmony and thus the balance necessary to virtue and happiness. Hence, poetry not only corrupts the understanding by misrepresenting the truth of things; it also destabilizes the individual human psyche, encouraging various kinds of unwelcome destructive and self-destructive feelings and actions.
Sounds like the Catholic church. The Jesuits have a saying, What is white is black and what is black is white.
quote:
Plato and Censorship
One solution presented by The Republic is very well known: poesis must be strictly censored. While we may honour poets, like Homer, we escort them to the borders and tell them that we have no place for them in our ideal community. We have a different understanding of the truth and a different language for exploring it than that made available though poesis. Though we honour poetry, we don't want it.
I have spoken on rational design. Are my ideas dangerous? Should they be censored?
|
|
|
|
