It's a tragedy the section on comedy is lost (see what I did there?). I've always thought comedy was cathartic too. I wonder why he didn't (comedy's had a reputation since), and what he thought comedy contributed.
Nicely played! I agree about comedy. I've always enjoyed how Eco embedded the lost treatise on comedy into *The Name of the Rose* but always thought that he could have made more of it.
I agree. But he did a good job of showing the power of comedy. There's little that scares people more than being made the butt of a joke. One of the great fears of the powerful and political is satire.
Plato: Most esteemed pupil Aristotle, I fear you confuse yourself with talk of “things as they ought to be. “ For the eternal world of the Forms is timeless and perfect: it has no future and contains no LACK, to entail an “ought to be.” Beware that you tarry too long analyzing instances in the world of appearances and illusion. Perhaps it’s this young student you now tutor – Alexander? – with all his talk of conquest and empire . . . .
Arisotle: Yo, Prof, I hear what your sayin’. But dig it – if the world of the senses is just some, you know, senseless realm of misleading illusion, then why is it, you know, like. HERE? I mean, is this all just some kind of, what do you call it, Matrix? And if it is – wow – then who created it? Some kinda, like, evil dude, I’d have to say. I know you think you’re red-pilling it – RESPECT – but let me try this on ya – see if it fits. Put aside for a sec the Form of “the Good.” I know you think we can deduce that. It’s an idea. But what about an apple, an ordinary apple. Sure, there’s, like, some (quotation marks) PERFECT (quotation marks) idea of an apple (heh – I’m just gammin’ ya) but can we deduce that without ever having seen an ACTUAL apple? Anybody ever do it? I’m asking for – no offense – an empirical example. And if not, if we come to understand the perfect idea of an apple through experience of actual, imperfect apples, then maybe poetry CAN lead us to some kind of truth? Whaddya think? Whaddya think?
Plato: That’s all we have time for this week, class. Remember, for next week, your dialogues are due – and don't forget to read Thales on water, pages 0-0.
Did not realize we were missing so much Aristotle! Thanks for the interesting insight and the little jokes. :) Very cool you managed to get an Ortiz reference in here! Go Sox.
Good questions. I wonder that too, especially when we read them in translation (which I must do, since I don’t read Ancient Greek). I know that there is a lot of scholarly debate, for example, about “Socratic irony.” It’s clear that Socrates is sometimes being ironic in the dialogues, but the trick is figuring out when he is doing so--which is clearly vital for our interpretation!
Restacked and added this: Love this Substack. And Aristotle in the _Poetics_ had much to say about story too. Did you know that Flannery O’Connor’s great line in _Mystery and Manners_ that a story’s end must be “surprising and inevitable” for the writer and the reader is based on a passage in the Poetics? xo ~ Mary
John, thanks for reminding Aristotelian me that I am an Aristotelian observer and transformer of reality - your Aristotle quotes about mimesis as being inherently human also jogged my memory and relate to something I’m working on now. And I love the funny photo captions 😉
Warning: Post may require laughter breaks. And that's funny, given that Aristotle's guidance for comedy is missing. By golly, Halbrooks is the man (after Eco) to write it!
I second Aristotle (and you, John) for believing that the best way of learning and knowing is through the close study of the concrete world and a reliance on our senses!
It's a tragedy the section on comedy is lost (see what I did there?). I've always thought comedy was cathartic too. I wonder why he didn't (comedy's had a reputation since), and what he thought comedy contributed.
Nicely played! I agree about comedy. I've always enjoyed how Eco embedded the lost treatise on comedy into *The Name of the Rose* but always thought that he could have made more of it.
I agree. But he did a good job of showing the power of comedy. There's little that scares people more than being made the butt of a joke. One of the great fears of the powerful and political is satire.
Yeah I was just thinking about Name of the Rose. Interesting.
Plato: Most esteemed pupil Aristotle, I fear you confuse yourself with talk of “things as they ought to be. “ For the eternal world of the Forms is timeless and perfect: it has no future and contains no LACK, to entail an “ought to be.” Beware that you tarry too long analyzing instances in the world of appearances and illusion. Perhaps it’s this young student you now tutor – Alexander? – with all his talk of conquest and empire . . . .
Arisotle: Yo, Prof, I hear what your sayin’. But dig it – if the world of the senses is just some, you know, senseless realm of misleading illusion, then why is it, you know, like. HERE? I mean, is this all just some kind of, what do you call it, Matrix? And if it is – wow – then who created it? Some kinda, like, evil dude, I’d have to say. I know you think you’re red-pilling it – RESPECT – but let me try this on ya – see if it fits. Put aside for a sec the Form of “the Good.” I know you think we can deduce that. It’s an idea. But what about an apple, an ordinary apple. Sure, there’s, like, some (quotation marks) PERFECT (quotation marks) idea of an apple (heh – I’m just gammin’ ya) but can we deduce that without ever having seen an ACTUAL apple? Anybody ever do it? I’m asking for – no offense – an empirical example. And if not, if we come to understand the perfect idea of an apple through experience of actual, imperfect apples, then maybe poetry CAN lead us to some kind of truth? Whaddya think? Whaddya think?
Plato: That’s all we have time for this week, class. Remember, for next week, your dialogues are due – and don't forget to read Thales on water, pages 0-0.
I just did an enormous spit take--thankfully in the privacy of my office. Thanks for the best laugh of the week!
Did not realize we were missing so much Aristotle! Thanks for the interesting insight and the little jokes. :) Very cool you managed to get an Ortiz reference in here! Go Sox.
Thanks! Yes, I miss Ortiz, with his big smile and his little between-pitches rituals.
I wonder how our modern image of both Plato and Aristotle would be different if we had all their work.
I wonder, too, how accurately they would feel their beliefs are represented in modern discussions
Good questions. I wonder that too, especially when we read them in translation (which I must do, since I don’t read Ancient Greek). I know that there is a lot of scholarly debate, for example, about “Socratic irony.” It’s clear that Socrates is sometimes being ironic in the dialogues, but the trick is figuring out when he is doing so--which is clearly vital for our interpretation!
Restacked and added this: Love this Substack. And Aristotle in the _Poetics_ had much to say about story too. Did you know that Flannery O’Connor’s great line in _Mystery and Manners_ that a story’s end must be “surprising and inevitable” for the writer and the reader is based on a passage in the Poetics? xo ~ Mary
John, thanks for reminding Aristotelian me that I am an Aristotelian observer and transformer of reality - your Aristotle quotes about mimesis as being inherently human also jogged my memory and relate to something I’m working on now. And I love the funny photo captions 😉
Thanks--so glad that you enjoyed it, Martha!
Warning: Post may require laughter breaks. And that's funny, given that Aristotle's guidance for comedy is missing. By golly, Halbrooks is the man (after Eco) to write it!
Love the ice cream cone tragedy picture. That is certainly what comes to my mind.
Oh good lord, it's devastating!
I second Aristotle (and you, John) for believing that the best way of learning and knowing is through the close study of the concrete world and a reliance on our senses!
I suppose, then, that poets and painters do have something in common!
Absolutely! The best of both create images that are forever etched in their readers'/viewers' minds.