What do you think?
Rate this book
Ion
In Plato's Ion Socrates discusses with the titular character, a professional rhapsode who also lectures on Homer, the question of whether the rhapsode, a performer of poetry, gives his performance on account of his skill and knowledge or by virtue of divine possession. It is one of the shortest of Plato's dialogues
48 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 391
72 people are currently reading
1,454 people want to read
About the author
Plato
4,516books8,106followersPlato (Greek: ΠλάτӬν), born Aristocles (c.�427 � 348 BC), was an ancient Greek philosopher of the Classical period who is considered a foundational thinker in Western philosophy and an innovator of the written dialogue and dialectic forms. He raised problems for what became all the major areas of both theoretical philosophy and practical philosophy, and was the founder of the Platonic Academy, a philosophical school in Athens where Plato taught the doctrines that would later become known as Platonism.
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Plato's most famous contribution is the theory of forms (or ideas), which has been interpreted as advancing a solution to what is now known as the problem of universals. He was decisively influenced by the pre-Socratic thinkers Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Parmenides, although much of what is known about them is derived from Plato himself.
Along with his teacher Socrates, and Aristotle, his student, Plato is a central figure in the history of philosophy. Plato's entire body of work is believed to have survived intact for over 2,400 years—unlike that of nearly all of his contemporaries. Although their popularity has fluctuated, they have consistently been read and studied through the ages. Through Neoplatonism, he also greatly influenced both Christian and Islamic philosophy. In modern times, Alfred North Whitehead famously said: "the safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 317 reviews
November 27, 2017
Ion is a very short Platonic dialogue between Socrates and a rhapsode by the name of Ion who specializes in reciting the poetry of Homer. The dialogue explores the nature of poetic and artistic inspiration in a most playful way. If you are interested in literature and the arts, you will really enjoy. Likewise, if you haven’t read any Plato, this is a great place to start. To offer a taste, here are a few snatches of the dialogue along with my brief reflections. Sidebar: all of my statements are, in a way, questions, not to be taken as definitive answers; scholars and philosophers have been debating the details of Plato’s thought for over 2000 years. Available on-line:
SOCRATES: I often envy the profession of a rhapsode, Ion; for you have always to wear fine clothes, and to look as beautiful as you can is a part of your art. Then, again, you are obliged to be continually in the company of many good poets; and especially of Homer, who is the best and most divine of them; and to understand him, and not merely learn his words by rote, is a thing greatly to be envied. --------- A stroke of true Socratic irony. The idea of a philosopher envying someone preoccupied with wearing fine clothes and making sure they look beautiful. What a scream. And then to say such a person ‘understands� Homer. Too much. Plato must have had fun writing this dialogue since he adjudged the philosopher beyond concern with physical appearance and ascribed ‘understanding� to the realm of abstract, logical thinking.
SOCRATES: The gift which you possess of speaking excellently about Homer is not an art, but, as I was just saying, an inspiration; there is a divinity moving you, like that contained in the stone which Euripides calls a magnet, but which is commonly known as the stone of Heraclea. This stone not only attracts iron rings, but also imparts to them a similar power of attracting other rings; and sometimes you may see a number of pieces of iron and rings suspended from one another so as to form quite a long chain: and all of them derive their power of suspension from the original stone. In like manner the Muse first of all inspires men herself; and from these inspired persons a chain of other persons is suspended, who take the inspiration. ---------- What a crystal clear image! The divine muse is the magnetic stone and the poet is the magnetized ring pulled by the stone. And the poet inspires others in the same way: the magnetized ring magnetizes a 2nd and a 3rd ring, forming an entire chain of magnetized rings. Applying this to our ŷ site, Crime and Punishment is written by muse-inspired Dostoyevsky, the novel inspires members to write reviews and the reviews inspires comments and more readers of the novel. Thus, according to Plato, everyone in the chain is muse-inspired. How inspiring!
SOCRATES: For the poet is a light and winged and holy thing, and there is no invention in him until he has been inspired and is out of his senses, and the mind is no longer in him: when he has not attained to this state, he is powerless and is unable to utter his oracles. ---------- Anybody who loves music and has developed a degree of technical expertise in playing a musical instrument knows the experience of reaching a point, a zone, where the music flows naturally beyond the boundaries of the ordinary thinking mind. When a number of musicians play together and share this inspired state � sheer magic.
SOCRATES: Then, my dear friend, can I be mistaken in saying that Ion is equally skilled in Homer and in other poets, since he himself acknowledges that the same person will be a good judge of all those who speak of the same things; and that almost all poets do speak of the same things?
ION: Why then, Socrates, do I lose attention and go to sleep and have absolutely no ideas of the least value, when any one speaks of any other poet; but when Homer is mentioned, I wake up at once and am all attention and have plenty to say?
SOCRATES: The reason, my friend, is obvious. No one can fail to see that you speak of Homer without any art or knowledge. If you were able to speak of him by rules of art, you would have been able to speak of all other poets; for poetry is a whole. ---------- What a thought-provoking line of reasoning. Applying Socrates’s logic to lovers of novels, when someone can offer penetrating insight into a novel or novels written by one author, they should be able to provide insights into any novel. I sense a fallacy here but this is such an interesting question, I wouldn’t want to spoil it with an answer.
July 25, 2014
[A concourse in Athens. ION, SOCRATES, a PASSER-BY]
ION : Hi Socrates.
SOCRATES : What, you again? After the comprehensive verbal trouncing you received yesterday?
ION: Yeah, well, like I’ve thought about it some more. Wanna try a re-run?
SOCRATES: If that is what you wish. Where shall we start?
ION: Okay, we’ll skip the intro. For the benefit of people just joining our program, I am a rhapsode, that’s a kind of dramatic reciter of poetry, and I specialize in Homer. I told Socrates that I’m really good at interpreting Homer, like, better than anyone else I know, but other poets just make me go to sleep. And he started telling me that didn’t make sense and got me all confused.
SOCRATES: I only question. You got yourself confused, young Ion�
ION: Whatever. Let’s start at the bit with the leaden plummet. Okay?
SOCRATES: By all means. And when Homer says, “And she descended into the deep like a leaden plummet, which, set in the horn of ox that ranges in the fields, rushes along carrying death among the ravenous fishes� - will the art of the fisherman or of the rhapsode be better able to judge whether these lines are rightly expressed or not?
ION: That’s it. Well, yesterday I answered like a complete dork that it was the fisherman. I’d like to change my mind.
SOCRATES: You now aver that it is the rhapsode?
ION: See, I went and talked to one of my rhapsode friends who specializes in J.K. Rowling. And I tried out your arguments on him, I said, when J.K. describes Harry’s first encounter with platform 9¾, who will understand it best, you or the railway buff? And he said, me of course, it’s a fictitious incident that has nothing to do with the real architecture of Kings Cross Station. It’s all about the Potterverse, on which I’m a renowned expert whose blog is followed by�
SOCRATES: I fear, as usual, that my understanding is insufficient to grasp all the subtle points you make. Had I but been able to afford that 50 drachma course in sophistry! Nonetheless, if I grasp your meaning aright, you say that your knowledge of Homer is the essential thing, not anything about the technicalities of fishing.
ION: Exactly.
SOCRATES: Because Homer is using fishing in a poetic sense, rather than giving a lesson in how to maximize your catch?
ION: Quite so.
SOCRATES: Well, you might have a point there.
ION: So you’ll now concede that appreciation of poetry isn’t a mystic art, but just a matter of developing a good knowledge of the source material?
SOCRATES: Oh, I don’t know about that. Tell you what. I’ll give you this round, and then let’s make it best of three. With a doubled stake.
ION: You’re on.
PASSER-BY: [sotto voce] Sucker.
ION : Hi Socrates.
SOCRATES : What, you again? After the comprehensive verbal trouncing you received yesterday?
ION: Yeah, well, like I’ve thought about it some more. Wanna try a re-run?
SOCRATES: If that is what you wish. Where shall we start?
ION: Okay, we’ll skip the intro. For the benefit of people just joining our program, I am a rhapsode, that’s a kind of dramatic reciter of poetry, and I specialize in Homer. I told Socrates that I’m really good at interpreting Homer, like, better than anyone else I know, but other poets just make me go to sleep. And he started telling me that didn’t make sense and got me all confused.
SOCRATES: I only question. You got yourself confused, young Ion�
ION: Whatever. Let’s start at the bit with the leaden plummet. Okay?
SOCRATES: By all means. And when Homer says, “And she descended into the deep like a leaden plummet, which, set in the horn of ox that ranges in the fields, rushes along carrying death among the ravenous fishes� - will the art of the fisherman or of the rhapsode be better able to judge whether these lines are rightly expressed or not?
ION: That’s it. Well, yesterday I answered like a complete dork that it was the fisherman. I’d like to change my mind.
SOCRATES: You now aver that it is the rhapsode?
ION: See, I went and talked to one of my rhapsode friends who specializes in J.K. Rowling. And I tried out your arguments on him, I said, when J.K. describes Harry’s first encounter with platform 9¾, who will understand it best, you or the railway buff? And he said, me of course, it’s a fictitious incident that has nothing to do with the real architecture of Kings Cross Station. It’s all about the Potterverse, on which I’m a renowned expert whose blog is followed by�
SOCRATES: I fear, as usual, that my understanding is insufficient to grasp all the subtle points you make. Had I but been able to afford that 50 drachma course in sophistry! Nonetheless, if I grasp your meaning aright, you say that your knowledge of Homer is the essential thing, not anything about the technicalities of fishing.
ION: Exactly.
SOCRATES: Because Homer is using fishing in a poetic sense, rather than giving a lesson in how to maximize your catch?
ION: Quite so.
SOCRATES: Well, you might have a point there.
ION: So you’ll now concede that appreciation of poetry isn’t a mystic art, but just a matter of developing a good knowledge of the source material?
SOCRATES: Oh, I don’t know about that. Tell you what. I’ll give you this round, and then let’s make it best of three. With a doubled stake.
ION: You’re on.
PASSER-BY: [sotto voce] Sucker.
February 10, 2021
The first half of this dialogue is good,
Dealing as it does with inspiration,
Magnetic power beyond the conscious ‘should�.
But then it makes erroneous equations,
Equating conscious knowledge with the pearl
Of true rhapsodic passion in a whirl.
Directed inspiration is a thing:
A mean, between blind groping on the wing
And uninspired and hollow artifice;
But Plato never says a word of this.
Dealing as it does with inspiration,
Magnetic power beyond the conscious ‘should�.
But then it makes erroneous equations,
Equating conscious knowledge with the pearl
Of true rhapsodic passion in a whirl.
Directed inspiration is a thing:
A mean, between blind groping on the wing
And uninspired and hollow artifice;
But Plato never says a word of this.
January 9, 2021
Jedan od najkraćih Platonovih dijaloga, čitao sam prevod koji kod nas nozi naziv "O Ilijadi". Nije baš o tome, ali ok, jeste na temu poezije (i umetnosti generalno). Kako poezija nastaje i da li može biti "znanje"?
Volim Platona, najviše sam ga i čitao od filozofije. Prava je vežba za um, često iznenađujuće aktuelan, ali zna da priča gluposti. Jedna od većih je cenzura umetnosti iz , gde bi ih Platon jednostavno zabranio ili oterao iz grada.
Ijon je nastao ranije, tako da nije stigao do cenzure, ali vidi se ta klica alergije na umetnost. Ovde objašnjava "teoriju božanske inspiracije". Ukratko, poet (a i rapsod, koji ga interpretuje) ne poseduje znanje - ono što je poet napisao, nije napisao zato što nešto zna o tome, već je to jednostavno rezultat inspiracije višeg bića. Poeti su napisali poemu dok su bili opsednuti. Da li Homer govori dobro, da li zna stvari o kojima priča, da li ih razume? Da li je stručnjak za ratove, bogove, trke kočijama? Kako je moguće da zna toliko stvari, kad ih je prepričao dobro? Zar ne bi o tome trebalo da pričaju generali, teolozi ili kočijaši?
Dakle, umetnost je posledica nadahnuća. Imamo bogove (ili muze), koje su nekakav magnet. Taj magnet privlači prvi prsten, poeta, autora umetnosti. Na autora je prikačen drugi prsten, izvođač, koji takođe funkcioniše u nekakvoj ekstazi. I na kraju, poslednji prsten je publika koja oseti emocije i doživljava ih, naravno ako je umetnost dobra i izvođač dobro radi svoj posao. Inspira = udahnuti, muze su "udahnule" tu inspiraciju u umetnike.
"Ovde nema znanja," otprilike kaže Sokrat. A osim toga, čak i da poeti znaju nešto, nije to znanje umetnika. Sve što su napisali, napisano je na osnovu drugih umetnosti. Ako pišu o medicini, ratovanju, politici, sve su to znanja nekog drugog. Možda je jezik ipak njihovo znanje? Nije ni to, kaže Sokrat, i jezik se uvek tiče tih drugih "umetnosti", pošto priča o drugim znanjima.
Filozof u meni divi se racionalnom pristupu umetnosti, ali ljubitelj književnosti je jači. Nije Platon nešto razumeo kako treba.
Volim Platona, najviše sam ga i čitao od filozofije. Prava je vežba za um, često iznenađujuće aktuelan, ali zna da priča gluposti. Jedna od većih je cenzura umetnosti iz , gde bi ih Platon jednostavno zabranio ili oterao iz grada.
Ijon je nastao ranije, tako da nije stigao do cenzure, ali vidi se ta klica alergije na umetnost. Ovde objašnjava "teoriju božanske inspiracije". Ukratko, poet (a i rapsod, koji ga interpretuje) ne poseduje znanje - ono što je poet napisao, nije napisao zato što nešto zna o tome, već je to jednostavno rezultat inspiracije višeg bića. Poeti su napisali poemu dok su bili opsednuti. Da li Homer govori dobro, da li zna stvari o kojima priča, da li ih razume? Da li je stručnjak za ratove, bogove, trke kočijama? Kako je moguće da zna toliko stvari, kad ih je prepričao dobro? Zar ne bi o tome trebalo da pričaju generali, teolozi ili kočijaši?
Dakle, umetnost je posledica nadahnuća. Imamo bogove (ili muze), koje su nekakav magnet. Taj magnet privlači prvi prsten, poeta, autora umetnosti. Na autora je prikačen drugi prsten, izvođač, koji takođe funkcioniše u nekakvoj ekstazi. I na kraju, poslednji prsten je publika koja oseti emocije i doživljava ih, naravno ako je umetnost dobra i izvođač dobro radi svoj posao. Inspira = udahnuti, muze su "udahnule" tu inspiraciju u umetnike.
"Ovde nema znanja," otprilike kaže Sokrat. A osim toga, čak i da poeti znaju nešto, nije to znanje umetnika. Sve što su napisali, napisano je na osnovu drugih umetnosti. Ako pišu o medicini, ratovanju, politici, sve su to znanja nekog drugog. Možda je jezik ipak njihovo znanje? Nije ni to, kaže Sokrat, i jezik se uvek tiče tih drugih "umetnosti", pošto priča o drugim znanjima.
Filozof u meni divi se racionalnom pristupu umetnosti, ali ljubitelj književnosti je jači. Nije Platon nešto razumeo kako treba.
July 23, 2019
Jer pjesnici nam zaista kažu da oni s medonosnih izvora iz nekih Muzinih vrtova i dolova usisavaju svoje pjesme, te ih nama donose kao pčele, leteći kao i one same.
Ijon predstavlja dijalog Sokrata i Ijona koji raspravljaju o nadmoćnosti Homera nad ostalim pjesnicima, i uopšteno o pjesništvu. Njih dvojica su miljenici Homera. Ijon je helenski pjesnik, rapsod i mirnog karaktera. On je neko ko samo raspravlja o Homeru, dok na pomen drugih pjesnika zadrijema. I da, Ijon se često slaže sa Sokratom. Čime se kroz dijalog dobija osjećaj kao da je sluga Sokratov. Njihova polemika se isto tako vodi oko toga kako je moguće da Ijon tako dobro govori o Homeru, dok druge pjesnike zanemaruje i ne zna da ih tumači. Šta ga to vodi samo ka Homeru?
Po Platonu su pjesnici tumači bogova. Oni su božiji posrednici. Po njemu pjesnici pišu samo uz božije nadahnuće. Bog se odumizajući im snagu razmišljanja, služi njima kao slugama da bi smo mi slušaoci vidjeli da ta dragocjena otkrivanja ne govore oni u kojima nema razuma, nego da ih govori sam bog, i da preko njih govori nama.
Sokrat je taj koji je malo napregnutiji, naoštrenijeg uma i koji omogućuje da se izraze osobne misli kroz sam dijalog. Za nekoga Sokrat bi izuzetno bio naporan. Zamislite da s nekim razgovarate, i on vas pita šta radite i vi mu odgovorite, pa vas pita a što ste to radili, vi mu i tu odgovorite na pitanje, pa vas pita a zašto ste baš tako radili zašto niste drugačije, naravno, vi mu i tu date razlog zašto ste baš tako uradili, a on vam kaže pa moglo se ovako, vi kažete moglo se ali ja sam ovako, a onda on itd� Sokrat je ovdje jedan od onih koji postavlja pitanja.
U prilog tome kako Ijon sve potvrđuje što Sokrat kaže, osmislio sam jedan kraći dijalog
Sokrat: Ijon. Je li tako da si ti lud?
Ijon: Jesam.
Sokrat: To znači da nisi normalan?
Ijon: Tako je.
January 19, 2019
I loved this dialogue because it centers on a question that preoccupies me often ‘where does the inspiration/passion of the artist come from?� Incredibly short compared to other dialogues. Ion reminds me of so many people I know.
March 22, 2018
This lovely little dialogue, one of Plato’s shortest works, involves Socrates and the rhapsode, Ion. Ion is a rhapsode, which means that he recites, embellishes, and interprets poetry. In Ion’s case he is specialized in Homer, and admits that he knows nothing about any other poet. Socrates pounces upon this. How is it possible to master the best and most difficult of something, and leave the rest untouched? Also, how can Ion give sensible interpretations of the events of Homer’s poetry, when he does not have any of the skills—fishing, sailing, leading armies, and so on—mentioned in the poems?
Ion is not the brightest fellow, and is not able to give any sensible answer to these questions.
Socrates presses his point that Ion has no real knowledge and instead practices his art through inspiration. This, of course, is a famous Platonic assertion, which reappears many times throughout his works. However, I find his reasoning supremely unconvincing here. There is no absurdity in only understanding Homer and no other poet; poetry is not mathematics, with the more complex manifestations derived from the simpler. Further, there is no absurdity in being able to interpret a poetic passage about fishing while knowing fairly little about fishing itself. These ideas apparently did not occur to Ion (or Plato). But the simplicity of Ion, who is oblivious to Socrates� irony, is winsome enough to make this a delightful read.
Ion is not the brightest fellow, and is not able to give any sensible answer to these questions.
Socrates presses his point that Ion has no real knowledge and instead practices his art through inspiration. This, of course, is a famous Platonic assertion, which reappears many times throughout his works. However, I find his reasoning supremely unconvincing here. There is no absurdity in only understanding Homer and no other poet; poetry is not mathematics, with the more complex manifestations derived from the simpler. Further, there is no absurdity in being able to interpret a poetic passage about fishing while knowing fairly little about fishing itself. These ideas apparently did not occur to Ion (or Plato). But the simplicity of Ion, who is oblivious to Socrates� irony, is winsome enough to make this a delightful read.
September 14, 2019
Of what use are poets?
13 September 2019
So, this is one of Plato’s earlier dialogues and records a conversation that Socrates has with a rhapsody. Now, when we are talking about rhapsodies, we aren’t talking about one from Bohemia, but rather a class of poets in Ancient Greece who pretty much only ever focused on the works of . You could say that they are a specialist poet, but I’m not entirely sure if I can call them a poet either because in my mind poets are at least creative, the impression I get is that these guys simply see that Homer is the pinnacle of everything poetical, and since it is impossible to surpass him, they simply spend their lives reciting him to crowds of adoring fans � yeah, if anything, they are performers, but more so they are performers who perform somebody else’s work. A more modern example would be, well, a Beatles cover band who only ever performs Beatles songs because, as far as they are concerned, there is nothing better than the Beatles, and nobody can ever surpass them.
So, that probably sets the scene, and since the other participant in the discussion is Socrates, you can probably expect that Socrates is going to absolutely destroy him. Mind you, Ion does rock up and basically talk about how he won the grand prize for reciting Homer at a festival, so you can probably see that this guy was probably somewhat full of himself anyway. However, it sort of goes somewhat deeper than that because Homer isn’t just a pretty good author of some pretty good stories, his works were was also seen by the Greeks as a textbook on life. This goes way beyond simply enjoying the work, it is sort of like keeping a copy of Lord of the Rings with you, and consulting it for, well, for anything.
Okay, you could easily say that people use the Bible in that way as well. Want to know about cosmology � yeah, the Bible can tell you. What to know about differential calculus � well, the Bible doesn’t say anything about it, so I guess it isn’t important. Want to know how to cure somebody of cancer � yeah, the Bible can tell you that as well (and I should point out that I am ridiculing extreme interpretations of the Bible, and not the Bible itself, least I get burnt at the stake for heresy).
Anyway, the thing is that Socrates is effectively destroying guy. Basically, the crux of his argument is that Ion is not just useless, he is beyond useless. For instance, he completely ignores anything and everything that was not written by Homer. Then he claims to be an expert on pretty much everything because, well, he is an expert on Homer. Yeah, Socrates clearly thinks otherwise, as he points out � who is an expert on chariot racing: the chariot racer, or the guy that reads Homer because there is chariot racing in Homer? Who is an expert on sailing: the sailor, or the guy that reads Homer because there is sailing in Homer? Yeah, the answer is pretty clear, and it certainly isn’t the guy that reads Homer.
Mind you, Socrates may have pretty much destroyed this guy in our eyes, however, I don’t think he fully convinced Ion that a change in profession may be a good thing. You see, the topic of the discussion then comes to generalship, namely who is the better General. Well, Ion seems to think that it is he, because he reads Homer, and it doesn’t matter what Socrates says, he just cannot seem to destroy that argument. You see, the response simply comes does to ‘well, I could be a really good general but, well, I haven’t been given the opportunity to be a really good general because I’m not Athenian�.
Yeah, I could be a really good President but, well, I’m not American.
13 September 2019
So, this is one of Plato’s earlier dialogues and records a conversation that Socrates has with a rhapsody. Now, when we are talking about rhapsodies, we aren’t talking about one from Bohemia, but rather a class of poets in Ancient Greece who pretty much only ever focused on the works of . You could say that they are a specialist poet, but I’m not entirely sure if I can call them a poet either because in my mind poets are at least creative, the impression I get is that these guys simply see that Homer is the pinnacle of everything poetical, and since it is impossible to surpass him, they simply spend their lives reciting him to crowds of adoring fans � yeah, if anything, they are performers, but more so they are performers who perform somebody else’s work. A more modern example would be, well, a Beatles cover band who only ever performs Beatles songs because, as far as they are concerned, there is nothing better than the Beatles, and nobody can ever surpass them.
So, that probably sets the scene, and since the other participant in the discussion is Socrates, you can probably expect that Socrates is going to absolutely destroy him. Mind you, Ion does rock up and basically talk about how he won the grand prize for reciting Homer at a festival, so you can probably see that this guy was probably somewhat full of himself anyway. However, it sort of goes somewhat deeper than that because Homer isn’t just a pretty good author of some pretty good stories, his works were was also seen by the Greeks as a textbook on life. This goes way beyond simply enjoying the work, it is sort of like keeping a copy of Lord of the Rings with you, and consulting it for, well, for anything.
Okay, you could easily say that people use the Bible in that way as well. Want to know about cosmology � yeah, the Bible can tell you. What to know about differential calculus � well, the Bible doesn’t say anything about it, so I guess it isn’t important. Want to know how to cure somebody of cancer � yeah, the Bible can tell you that as well (and I should point out that I am ridiculing extreme interpretations of the Bible, and not the Bible itself, least I get burnt at the stake for heresy).
Anyway, the thing is that Socrates is effectively destroying guy. Basically, the crux of his argument is that Ion is not just useless, he is beyond useless. For instance, he completely ignores anything and everything that was not written by Homer. Then he claims to be an expert on pretty much everything because, well, he is an expert on Homer. Yeah, Socrates clearly thinks otherwise, as he points out � who is an expert on chariot racing: the chariot racer, or the guy that reads Homer because there is chariot racing in Homer? Who is an expert on sailing: the sailor, or the guy that reads Homer because there is sailing in Homer? Yeah, the answer is pretty clear, and it certainly isn’t the guy that reads Homer.
Mind you, Socrates may have pretty much destroyed this guy in our eyes, however, I don’t think he fully convinced Ion that a change in profession may be a good thing. You see, the topic of the discussion then comes to generalship, namely who is the better General. Well, Ion seems to think that it is he, because he reads Homer, and it doesn’t matter what Socrates says, he just cannot seem to destroy that argument. You see, the response simply comes does to ‘well, I could be a really good general but, well, I haven’t been given the opportunity to be a really good general because I’m not Athenian�.
Yeah, I could be a really good President but, well, I’m not American.
September 29, 2019
Nel febbraio 2002 - eh, sembra sempre ieri! - leggevo Jone, ovvero Del furore poetico, caposaldo e antichissimo reperto della teoria della letteratura, nella "classica" traduzione di Francesco Acri.
Mi interessava, in quel momento, soprattutto per cercare di capire qualcosa dei fondamenti del mondo letterario del Cinquecento europeo. Non l'ho più riletto per intero, ma alcune frasi e concetti continuano a risuonare.
L'attività del rapsodo non è una "arte" ma una "virtù celestiale", una forza divina, che muove gli animi, come il magnete attira anelli di metallo. E avanti a catena: la Musa attira i poeti, che attirano gli esecutori, che attirano gli ascoltatori...
Il poeta è quindi un essere leggero, alato e sacro, buono soltanto se ispirato da Dio, in furore e fuori di sé, non razionale.
Ragionando con coppie di figure contrastanti si potrebbe già costruire qui il primo dilemma costitutivo, nella comprensione della letteratura occidentale, opponendo a questo dialogo la Poetica di Aristotele. Ispirazione o tecnica? Divina Mania (dono di parole che attraversano chi le esprime ma non le possiede) o Artificio (oggetto di parole costruito con arte, con sapienza tecnica)?
E a questo punto, se proprio fossi costretto a schierarmi, credo che dovrei stare con la Poetica.
Ma per fortuna non dobbiamo sempre schierarci.
Mi interessava, in quel momento, soprattutto per cercare di capire qualcosa dei fondamenti del mondo letterario del Cinquecento europeo. Non l'ho più riletto per intero, ma alcune frasi e concetti continuano a risuonare.
L'attività del rapsodo non è una "arte" ma una "virtù celestiale", una forza divina, che muove gli animi, come il magnete attira anelli di metallo. E avanti a catena: la Musa attira i poeti, che attirano gli esecutori, che attirano gli ascoltatori...
Il poeta è quindi un essere leggero, alato e sacro, buono soltanto se ispirato da Dio, in furore e fuori di sé, non razionale.
Ragionando con coppie di figure contrastanti si potrebbe già costruire qui il primo dilemma costitutivo, nella comprensione della letteratura occidentale, opponendo a questo dialogo la Poetica di Aristotele. Ispirazione o tecnica? Divina Mania (dono di parole che attraversano chi le esprime ma non le possiede) o Artificio (oggetto di parole costruito con arte, con sapienza tecnica)?
E a questo punto, se proprio fossi costretto a schierarmi, credo che dovrei stare con la Poetica.
Ma per fortuna non dobbiamo sempre schierarci.
March 21, 2021
donc Socrate en plus d'être le Mec Chiant par excellence ne comprend strictement rien à la poésie
February 26, 2023
A short and entertaining dialogue where Socrates explores inspiration concerning the arts and poetry with a performer and interpreter of Homer named Ion.
September 21, 2019
Uhhh. Imam mnogo problema sa ovim delom. Prvo i osnovno moram da kažem da se po pitanju pesništva sa Platonom nikada nisam slagala. Njegovo "pesnici su samo nadahnuti od strane bogova" se sasvim sigurno dokazalo kao netačno, ali je i za to vreme, po meni, skroz nepravedno.
Odlično je prikazao Sokrata, samo on može biti ovako naporan... Moj problem sa Sokratom: Čovek mora da nauči kada je vreme da ućuti. Ja obožavam dobru debatu, ali sa Sokratom je to nemoguće. Nikada nisam videla ili pročitala nešto gde on vodi debatu sa drugima, to je uvek bilo njegovo neprestano pričanje (npr. njegovo suđenje).
Ijon je ovde em napravljen kao glup em kao takav sasvim nepotreban. Ovo je mogao da bude čist monolog.
Poenta nije napravljena, jer kada jedan čovek debatuje tako što priča sam sa sobom ne možemo dobiti obe strane i izabrati onu s kojom se slažemo. Samim tim, Platon je samo želeo da pokaže kako je on i samo on u pravu.
Odlično je prikazao Sokrata, samo on može biti ovako naporan... Moj problem sa Sokratom: Čovek mora da nauči kada je vreme da ućuti. Ja obožavam dobru debatu, ali sa Sokratom je to nemoguće. Nikada nisam videla ili pročitala nešto gde on vodi debatu sa drugima, to je uvek bilo njegovo neprestano pričanje (npr. njegovo suđenje).
Ijon je ovde em napravljen kao glup em kao takav sasvim nepotreban. Ovo je mogao da bude čist monolog.
Poenta nije napravljena, jer kada jedan čovek debatuje tako što priča sam sa sobom ne možemo dobiti obe strane i izabrati onu s kojom se slažemo. Samim tim, Platon je samo želeo da pokaže kako je on i samo on u pravu.
January 17, 2024
Sókrates er heimsins mesti besserwisser og gaslýsari. Loved it tho💅🏼
January 18, 2020
Jedan od najkraćih, a rekao bih i jedan od boljih dijaloga, bar kada je u pitanju "rani Platon". Nisam nikako mjerodavan u ocjenjivanju, ali neka bude 3.5.
Dvije su teme, odnosno vještine o kojima Sokrat i Ijon vode raspravu: jedna je rapsodska, druga je pjesnička (kojoj će se Platon naknadno vraćati i u nekim drugim djelima).
Sam Ijon je rapsod (profesionalni putujući izvođač epskih pjesama. Zanimanje vrlo popularno u antičkoj Grčkoj tokom petog i četvrtog vijeka p.n.e. Najpopularniji epski pjesnik čija su djela bila izvođena bio je Homer, ali su pojedini rapsodi izvodili i djela Hesioda i nekih drugih, ne toliko poznatih pjesnika). On sebe smatra vrhunskim poznavaocem Homerovih djela, ali ga ostali pjesnici apsolutno ne zanimaju. Sokrat pokušava da mu objasni da njegova vještina ne proizilazi iz zanatske umješnosti, nego iz božanskog nadahnuća, tj. da on recituje Homera srcem, a ne razumom. Jer kada bi to radio razumom, onda bi bio sposoban da tumači sve pjesnike, a ne samo jednog od njih. Na kraju se Ijon usaglašava sa njim.
Pjesnika Platon opisuje kao vrača, koji poput rapsoda svoje pjesme recituje u stanju božanskog nadahnuća. Kao što rapsod ne može da objasni zašto recituje baš tog i tog pjesnika, tako i pjesnik nije u stanju da racionalizuje nastanak svojih pjesama, odnosno razloge zbog kojih pjeva jednu određenu vrstu pjesama, a ne neku drugu.
Suština čitavog dijaloga jeste Platonov pokušaj objašnjenja iracionalnosti i magijske snage koju pjesništvo ostavlja na ljude. On nju vidi kao prstenasto uvezivanje pjesnika (kao prvog prstena u lancu), rapsoda (kao drugog) i publike (kao trećeg). Svi ti prstenovi započinju sa jednim bogom koji nadahnjuje pjesnika, dok se rapsod, a potom i recipijenti "kače na onaj prsten" koji najviše privlači njihove duše.
Preporuka svim ljubiteljima umjetnosti i filozofije!
Dvije su teme, odnosno vještine o kojima Sokrat i Ijon vode raspravu: jedna je rapsodska, druga je pjesnička (kojoj će se Platon naknadno vraćati i u nekim drugim djelima).
Sam Ijon je rapsod (profesionalni putujući izvođač epskih pjesama. Zanimanje vrlo popularno u antičkoj Grčkoj tokom petog i četvrtog vijeka p.n.e. Najpopularniji epski pjesnik čija su djela bila izvođena bio je Homer, ali su pojedini rapsodi izvodili i djela Hesioda i nekih drugih, ne toliko poznatih pjesnika). On sebe smatra vrhunskim poznavaocem Homerovih djela, ali ga ostali pjesnici apsolutno ne zanimaju. Sokrat pokušava da mu objasni da njegova vještina ne proizilazi iz zanatske umješnosti, nego iz božanskog nadahnuća, tj. da on recituje Homera srcem, a ne razumom. Jer kada bi to radio razumom, onda bi bio sposoban da tumači sve pjesnike, a ne samo jednog od njih. Na kraju se Ijon usaglašava sa njim.
Pjesnika Platon opisuje kao vrača, koji poput rapsoda svoje pjesme recituje u stanju božanskog nadahnuća. Kao što rapsod ne može da objasni zašto recituje baš tog i tog pjesnika, tako i pjesnik nije u stanju da racionalizuje nastanak svojih pjesama, odnosno razloge zbog kojih pjeva jednu određenu vrstu pjesama, a ne neku drugu.
Suština čitavog dijaloga jeste Platonov pokušaj objašnjenja iracionalnosti i magijske snage koju pjesništvo ostavlja na ljude. On nju vidi kao prstenasto uvezivanje pjesnika (kao prvog prstena u lancu), rapsoda (kao drugog) i publike (kao trećeg). Svi ti prstenovi započinju sa jednim bogom koji nadahnjuje pjesnika, dok se rapsod, a potom i recipijenti "kače na onaj prsten" koji najviše privlači njihove duše.
Preporuka svim ljubiteljima umjetnosti i filozofije!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 17, 2024
Sókrates þarf af back of greyji Jón sem er bara að reyna make an honest living.
May 18, 2023
In ancient Greece, myths were treated as sources of knowledge about the nature of the universe. They were familiar to the educated public in form of epic poetry, with Homer's Iliad and Odyssey serving as a cornerstone in the unifying self-conception as a people. I don't know the details � for instance, I don't know to what extent there was genuine belief in the gods and I don't know if there was an explicit dogma � but I think it's fair to say that, before the influence of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, there was no conceptual distinction between philosophy and literature.
Today there is again a general expectation that philosophy as well as certain classics of the literary canon teach us something about life and our place in the universe. Sadly, reading these works can be an exhaustive and often daunting experience. So I found it interesting to learn that in antiquity there were professionals called rhapsodes whose job it was to recite and interpret the famous poems and thereby render them accessible to an interested (and paying) audience.
In Plato's early dialogs, he presents his teacher Socrates as walking up to people and asking them what exactly it is they are doing. Secretly guided by his leading questions the conversations generally end up at a point where things aren't as obvious and innocent as they seemed initially. In Ion Socrates presents himself as full of admiration for the eponymous rhapsode � it must be a fulfilling occupation, does it not? � but asks of him to better explain to the layman what his life looks like. The two quickly end up pondering a rather unusual question.
The Main Question
Ion is very confident in his skills. He just came back from Epidauros where he stood victorious in a rhapsodic competition (I'm not sure exactly what they had to do there) and he's celebrated for his knowledge and eloquence when it comes to Homer. "But do you only talk about Homer?", Socrates asks, and the famous artist replies that to his mind that is quite enough. In fact, he admits –not without a certain pride � that he always falls asleep when people begin to talk about lesser poets like Hesiod.
If it's true that Ion is as great as he thinks he is � by his cunning questioning Socrates gradually leads him to reflect on the verisimilitude of his self-conception � the philosopher naturally asks: Why does Ion think he's only responsible for Homer? Well, of course it might just be a fact of individual psychology (i.e. he just has no interest in others), but can this attitude be justified?
Surprisingly (or not so surprisingly), Ion himself is not able to answer this simple question. In fact, Ion is perhaps only interested in talking to the disturber (something for which he was later executed, if you can believe that) because he expects of him to explain the matter. He wants Socrates to tell him why his understanding and performance of Homer is superior to that of all other rhapsodes (modesty is certainly not his virtue).
Socrates discusses two main theories that might account for the given situation. Neither of the two will convince Ion in the end. It's one of the many so-called aporetic dialogs that end without satisfactory answer on the main question at hand. But of course the suggestions and reflections might be just as stimulating as solving an issue once and for all.
Is Ion particularly knowledgable in the important topics discussed by Homer?
Let's assume Homer wrote philosophical treatises and Ion was a public speaker who reconstructed and evaluated the arguments put forth by the famous authority. Framed in this way it would be immediately obvious that Ion would himself have to be an expert to present the matters adequately. His preoccupation with Homer could then be explained by the fact that his teacher in spirit talks of exactly those topics that Ion too studied with patience and understanding. Maybe he's an expert on these matters because he knows Homer so well.
Socrates now asks him whether it's possible that Hesiod might talk of the same things as Homer talks about, which is of course possible. Ion reflects that in this case he might know Hesiod just as well. Socrates now wonders, what if the two say different things about the same matter? Of course for Ion it's Homer that would then prevail. The young Plato now puts the obvious question in his teacher's mouth, what if belief in authority isn't enough? How would (or does) he know that Homer talks well about the matters at hand? And how could he tell that Hesiod might be mistaken?
Socrates discusses two examples that seem to render the matter quite plainly. Doctors are experts who know how to avoid illness by knowing facts about the human body. Because of this knowledge they can decide whether someone talks well or badly about medical issues. Similarly, though with an abstract subject matter, a mathematician knows about arithmetical states of affairs. For instance, he know what numbers are prime or how to factorize a number. Due to this knowledge a learned mathematician is able to decide whether a pupil expresses a correct mathematical statement.
The obvious answer to the main question now seems to be: it's rational knowledge that enables Ion to talk so well about Homer and by which he's able to judge the quality of his work. In fact, the poets of his day appear to be talking about many of the same things, so Ion's particular interest wouldn't be well-founded if the topics were the only distinguishing factor; what matters is the quality of how well Homer talks about these topics.
Socrates discusses a worry that I find exemplary for the often confusing plain of thoughts in ancient texts. At first he observes that if someone can judge whether someone talks well about a topic, then this very same person could also judge whether someone talks badly about the same topic. Sure. But he then draws a conclusion that doesn't obviously follow from what was said. Assuming that he (as rhapsode) was the one to judge the good talker and the bad talker, then he would be responsible for Homer (an instance of the good talker) as well as for Hesiod (an example of the not-so-great talker).
Even if it was clear what this responsibility entailed, it's very surprising how readily Ion agrees with the statement. Let's take the example about the mathematician again. Does he have to care about what people say about arithmetic who don't really have a clue about the matter? Of course it would only be under special circumstances, like the mathematician being a teacher, that he would have any interest in what the non-experts would have to say. An interest certainly doesn't follow from his ability to judge.
It's only then that Socrates finally asks the pressing question about the subject matter that a rhapsode knows best. At first sight it appears kind of obvious that the text of Homer is the rhapsode's subject matter (in the abstract sense of a text). But then the analogy to the given examples isn't obvious. Through his rational knowledge the mathematician is an expert in respect to the field of arithmetic, but by what kind of knowledge is the rhapsode an expert in respect to Homer or his poetry?
Ion is led down a rabbit hole when Socrates asks him what things in Homer he knows best. Socrates probably left open what kind of aspect Ion wanted to highlight. At first Ion says confidently that he knows all there is to know, but pressed further he begins to talk about the matters addressed in Homer's text. That is, he doesn't discuss the style of the poetry nor does the praise the fact that he knows it by heart. Other than medicine or arithmetic the subject matter of the rhapsode is representational, i.e. it's about something. Socrates pushes him into the confusion that the subject matter of rhapsody would be found among these other matters that Homer talks about. Now the stage is set to make him look like a fool.
At some points in the conversation Ion offers to demonstrate his talents. When he's finally given the chance it's only to demonstrate his inaptitude. Socrates asks him to recite the passage where Homer recounts how Antilochos wants to participate in a chariot race and is given advice by his experienced father. He then asks, who would be a better advisor, an experienced charioteer or a doctor? To drive the point home Socrates asks similar rhetorical questions about other situations (including one about the art of divining). Of course the point is that for all these topics there are experts who know more about the matters at hand than the rhapsode would ever know. The lingering question remains, does he even have a field of expertise?
The situation is particularly bizarre because Socrates explicitly acknowledges that works of the fine arts can be judged in regard to their quality. Music is the prime example of an art form that is not about anything. There are many similarities. Poetry too is appreciated for its aesthetic beauty, it can be described in technical terms, and it can be performed. Of course that's Ion's job. Yet, he just goes along when Socrates likens poetry to the art of argumentation and the inquisitive endeavor.
As an embarrassing conclusion to the drama Ion eventually asserts that rhapsodes are great military strategists. Not only that, he declares himself to be the best military strategist. Socrates mercifully offers him a way out � maybe he acquired an additional art, like a rider can also be a musician � but Ion finally settled his mind. What makes him such a great rhapsode is the fact that Homer taught him all about the ways of war. Although persistent during the conversation, it's unlikely that the poor guy will later stand as firm to his newly found self-understanding.
Is Ion particularly susceptible to divine possession through the medium of Homer?
In the introduction above I implicitly likened the myths of the ancients to the book religions in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions. Their sacred texts are in some sense or another the product of divine interaction with human individuals. I didn't expect Socrates to reflect on a similar origin of their poetry.
The idea is again explained by analogy. Socrates observes that there are stones that are themselves magnetic and that can charge iron rings with magnetism. A ring transformed in this way can attract and in turn confer magnetic properties on other rings. In a state of euphoria the poets might be capable to receive the divine message and produce their works of poetry. They somehow interpret their muse. The rhapsode in turn is an interpreter of the interpreter, and his receiving audience is then the last link in the chain that is attracted to his beautiful performance.
Naturally, Ion is very enthusiastic about this picture. He probably feels himself understood when Socrates asks him whether it isn't true that he himself cries when performing a sad event or whether his heart doesn't beat faster when he passionately talks of characters in peril. But Socrates immediately exploits the established familiarity for further mockery. In his confidence he is able to extract from Ion the admission that his emotions are not genuine and that he constantly watches his audience during his performance. Only when they are genuinely moved does he receive his monetary reward, and only if he acts well is he able to trick them. But wait, how can this be true euphoria then?
Initially Ion was very keen on the new understanding of himself; now he's obviously more in doubt than before.
The Origins of Philosophy
Ion is a very unusual dialog because of Socrates's contentious behavior. It's full of misleading questions and subtle mockery. You often get the impression that he isn't so much concerned with answering the main question but to ridicule his interlocutor. But why would he hold a grudge?
I think in the given conversation he follows an agenda that teaches us something about the origin of philosophy as a profession. As I've said above, Socrates completely abstracts away from the poetic or aesthetic quality of poetry, the way how things are said. I think Plato's main concern is that we should free ourselves from past authorities. The works of tradition might serve as starting points but eventually we have to reflect by our own understanding. Of course this makes us think of the Enlightenment, if it wasn't for the remark that the philosopher distinguishes himself from the rhapsode by keeping in private.
This is reminiscent of a modern attitude towards literature. In the twentieth century the analytical tradition is perhaps defined by the idea that the propositional content of your arguments should be stated as clearly and uncolored as possible. A famous Wittgenstein quote very well exemplifies this stance: "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent." Personally, I believe we can learn much from literature and poetry about the things we cannot explicitly talk about. But still, it should be obvious that this is not their sole or even primary purpose. For one thing, they might be fun to read (gasp!).
Although it's not easy to date the dialog exactly � some scholars assume it had already been circulated during Socrates's lifetime � it feels very youthful and programmatic in spirit. But even if you don't share the agenda, I was amazed by the plethora of topics addressed in so short a text. In fact, with only a couple of pages it's Plato's shortest dialog and not only for that reason unusually accessible.
Today there is again a general expectation that philosophy as well as certain classics of the literary canon teach us something about life and our place in the universe. Sadly, reading these works can be an exhaustive and often daunting experience. So I found it interesting to learn that in antiquity there were professionals called rhapsodes whose job it was to recite and interpret the famous poems and thereby render them accessible to an interested (and paying) audience.
In Plato's early dialogs, he presents his teacher Socrates as walking up to people and asking them what exactly it is they are doing. Secretly guided by his leading questions the conversations generally end up at a point where things aren't as obvious and innocent as they seemed initially. In Ion Socrates presents himself as full of admiration for the eponymous rhapsode � it must be a fulfilling occupation, does it not? � but asks of him to better explain to the layman what his life looks like. The two quickly end up pondering a rather unusual question.
The Main Question
Ion is very confident in his skills. He just came back from Epidauros where he stood victorious in a rhapsodic competition (I'm not sure exactly what they had to do there) and he's celebrated for his knowledge and eloquence when it comes to Homer. "But do you only talk about Homer?", Socrates asks, and the famous artist replies that to his mind that is quite enough. In fact, he admits –not without a certain pride � that he always falls asleep when people begin to talk about lesser poets like Hesiod.
If it's true that Ion is as great as he thinks he is � by his cunning questioning Socrates gradually leads him to reflect on the verisimilitude of his self-conception � the philosopher naturally asks: Why does Ion think he's only responsible for Homer? Well, of course it might just be a fact of individual psychology (i.e. he just has no interest in others), but can this attitude be justified?
Surprisingly (or not so surprisingly), Ion himself is not able to answer this simple question. In fact, Ion is perhaps only interested in talking to the disturber (something for which he was later executed, if you can believe that) because he expects of him to explain the matter. He wants Socrates to tell him why his understanding and performance of Homer is superior to that of all other rhapsodes (modesty is certainly not his virtue).
Socrates discusses two main theories that might account for the given situation. Neither of the two will convince Ion in the end. It's one of the many so-called aporetic dialogs that end without satisfactory answer on the main question at hand. But of course the suggestions and reflections might be just as stimulating as solving an issue once and for all.
Is Ion particularly knowledgable in the important topics discussed by Homer?
Let's assume Homer wrote philosophical treatises and Ion was a public speaker who reconstructed and evaluated the arguments put forth by the famous authority. Framed in this way it would be immediately obvious that Ion would himself have to be an expert to present the matters adequately. His preoccupation with Homer could then be explained by the fact that his teacher in spirit talks of exactly those topics that Ion too studied with patience and understanding. Maybe he's an expert on these matters because he knows Homer so well.
Socrates now asks him whether it's possible that Hesiod might talk of the same things as Homer talks about, which is of course possible. Ion reflects that in this case he might know Hesiod just as well. Socrates now wonders, what if the two say different things about the same matter? Of course for Ion it's Homer that would then prevail. The young Plato now puts the obvious question in his teacher's mouth, what if belief in authority isn't enough? How would (or does) he know that Homer talks well about the matters at hand? And how could he tell that Hesiod might be mistaken?
Socrates discusses two examples that seem to render the matter quite plainly. Doctors are experts who know how to avoid illness by knowing facts about the human body. Because of this knowledge they can decide whether someone talks well or badly about medical issues. Similarly, though with an abstract subject matter, a mathematician knows about arithmetical states of affairs. For instance, he know what numbers are prime or how to factorize a number. Due to this knowledge a learned mathematician is able to decide whether a pupil expresses a correct mathematical statement.
The obvious answer to the main question now seems to be: it's rational knowledge that enables Ion to talk so well about Homer and by which he's able to judge the quality of his work. In fact, the poets of his day appear to be talking about many of the same things, so Ion's particular interest wouldn't be well-founded if the topics were the only distinguishing factor; what matters is the quality of how well Homer talks about these topics.
Socrates discusses a worry that I find exemplary for the often confusing plain of thoughts in ancient texts. At first he observes that if someone can judge whether someone talks well about a topic, then this very same person could also judge whether someone talks badly about the same topic. Sure. But he then draws a conclusion that doesn't obviously follow from what was said. Assuming that he (as rhapsode) was the one to judge the good talker and the bad talker, then he would be responsible for Homer (an instance of the good talker) as well as for Hesiod (an example of the not-so-great talker).
Even if it was clear what this responsibility entailed, it's very surprising how readily Ion agrees with the statement. Let's take the example about the mathematician again. Does he have to care about what people say about arithmetic who don't really have a clue about the matter? Of course it would only be under special circumstances, like the mathematician being a teacher, that he would have any interest in what the non-experts would have to say. An interest certainly doesn't follow from his ability to judge.
It's only then that Socrates finally asks the pressing question about the subject matter that a rhapsode knows best. At first sight it appears kind of obvious that the text of Homer is the rhapsode's subject matter (in the abstract sense of a text). But then the analogy to the given examples isn't obvious. Through his rational knowledge the mathematician is an expert in respect to the field of arithmetic, but by what kind of knowledge is the rhapsode an expert in respect to Homer or his poetry?
Ion is led down a rabbit hole when Socrates asks him what things in Homer he knows best. Socrates probably left open what kind of aspect Ion wanted to highlight. At first Ion says confidently that he knows all there is to know, but pressed further he begins to talk about the matters addressed in Homer's text. That is, he doesn't discuss the style of the poetry nor does the praise the fact that he knows it by heart. Other than medicine or arithmetic the subject matter of the rhapsode is representational, i.e. it's about something. Socrates pushes him into the confusion that the subject matter of rhapsody would be found among these other matters that Homer talks about. Now the stage is set to make him look like a fool.
At some points in the conversation Ion offers to demonstrate his talents. When he's finally given the chance it's only to demonstrate his inaptitude. Socrates asks him to recite the passage where Homer recounts how Antilochos wants to participate in a chariot race and is given advice by his experienced father. He then asks, who would be a better advisor, an experienced charioteer or a doctor? To drive the point home Socrates asks similar rhetorical questions about other situations (including one about the art of divining). Of course the point is that for all these topics there are experts who know more about the matters at hand than the rhapsode would ever know. The lingering question remains, does he even have a field of expertise?
The situation is particularly bizarre because Socrates explicitly acknowledges that works of the fine arts can be judged in regard to their quality. Music is the prime example of an art form that is not about anything. There are many similarities. Poetry too is appreciated for its aesthetic beauty, it can be described in technical terms, and it can be performed. Of course that's Ion's job. Yet, he just goes along when Socrates likens poetry to the art of argumentation and the inquisitive endeavor.
As an embarrassing conclusion to the drama Ion eventually asserts that rhapsodes are great military strategists. Not only that, he declares himself to be the best military strategist. Socrates mercifully offers him a way out � maybe he acquired an additional art, like a rider can also be a musician � but Ion finally settled his mind. What makes him such a great rhapsode is the fact that Homer taught him all about the ways of war. Although persistent during the conversation, it's unlikely that the poor guy will later stand as firm to his newly found self-understanding.
Is Ion particularly susceptible to divine possession through the medium of Homer?
In the introduction above I implicitly likened the myths of the ancients to the book religions in the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions. Their sacred texts are in some sense or another the product of divine interaction with human individuals. I didn't expect Socrates to reflect on a similar origin of their poetry.
The idea is again explained by analogy. Socrates observes that there are stones that are themselves magnetic and that can charge iron rings with magnetism. A ring transformed in this way can attract and in turn confer magnetic properties on other rings. In a state of euphoria the poets might be capable to receive the divine message and produce their works of poetry. They somehow interpret their muse. The rhapsode in turn is an interpreter of the interpreter, and his receiving audience is then the last link in the chain that is attracted to his beautiful performance.
Naturally, Ion is very enthusiastic about this picture. He probably feels himself understood when Socrates asks him whether it isn't true that he himself cries when performing a sad event or whether his heart doesn't beat faster when he passionately talks of characters in peril. But Socrates immediately exploits the established familiarity for further mockery. In his confidence he is able to extract from Ion the admission that his emotions are not genuine and that he constantly watches his audience during his performance. Only when they are genuinely moved does he receive his monetary reward, and only if he acts well is he able to trick them. But wait, how can this be true euphoria then?
Initially Ion was very keen on the new understanding of himself; now he's obviously more in doubt than before.
The Origins of Philosophy
Ion is a very unusual dialog because of Socrates's contentious behavior. It's full of misleading questions and subtle mockery. You often get the impression that he isn't so much concerned with answering the main question but to ridicule his interlocutor. But why would he hold a grudge?
I think in the given conversation he follows an agenda that teaches us something about the origin of philosophy as a profession. As I've said above, Socrates completely abstracts away from the poetic or aesthetic quality of poetry, the way how things are said. I think Plato's main concern is that we should free ourselves from past authorities. The works of tradition might serve as starting points but eventually we have to reflect by our own understanding. Of course this makes us think of the Enlightenment, if it wasn't for the remark that the philosopher distinguishes himself from the rhapsode by keeping in private.
This is reminiscent of a modern attitude towards literature. In the twentieth century the analytical tradition is perhaps defined by the idea that the propositional content of your arguments should be stated as clearly and uncolored as possible. A famous Wittgenstein quote very well exemplifies this stance: "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent." Personally, I believe we can learn much from literature and poetry about the things we cannot explicitly talk about. But still, it should be obvious that this is not their sole or even primary purpose. For one thing, they might be fun to read (gasp!).
Although it's not easy to date the dialog exactly � some scholars assume it had already been circulated during Socrates's lifetime � it feels very youthful and programmatic in spirit. But even if you don't share the agenda, I was amazed by the plethora of topics addressed in so short a text. In fact, with only a couple of pages it's Plato's shortest dialog and not only for that reason unusually accessible.
August 16, 2024
In order to look for Plato’s interpretation about poetry or art one has to consider his Republic. In Republic most of the Plato’s views expressed is in objection to poetry. Plato considers the value of the poet as nuisance and objects to it because of its dependency on the divine madness. Disbelief of Plato is expressed in very simple terms. According to him, poetry “feeds and waters the passion� which is responsible for the creation of division and unsteadiness in the heart of the reader. And such a thing is certainly against the civic value.
He says: “And therefore when any one of these pantomimic gentlemen (the poets) ... comes to us, and makes a proposal to exhibit himself and his theory, (we) will fall down and worship him as a sweet and holy wonderful being; but we must also inform him that in our State such as he are not permitted to exist; the law will not allow them. And so when we have anointed him with myth, and seta garland of wool upon his head, we shall send him away to another city. For we mean to employ for our souls� health rougher and severer poet or storyteller, who will imitate the style of virtuous only and will follow those models which we prescribed at first when we began the education of our soldiers.�
An apparent question could be about the reason of this. According to Plato, it is because of the nature of poetry that it produces immoral results. Poetry of course deal with a diverse range of feelings, and all the feelings might not be desirable. Some of the feelings may be good while other may be bad causing pleasure and pain respectively.
Another reason is that poetry takes many factious and impossible characters in consideration, Here Plato talks about Greek poets like Homer and Hesiod and also about other Greek dramatists who talk about God. But their gods are not always good, but are manlike: they are quarrelsome, deceitful and fallible. The heroes of these poets and dramatist are also emotional and un-heroic.
It is in this context Plato develops his theory of imitation or Mimesis, In different places in republic we can find this idea of Mimesis being developed. In the recent development of theory. Plato’s idea of love is considered� to be one of the earliest impulse of love between the human being and is given a term “Greek� Love�.
Herein lies the importance of Ion.
Plato in his Ion talks about the literary theories. The text is the dialogues between the Socrates and Ion, who was a rhapsode. What is a rhapsode, one might ask. Well, a rhapsode can be considered as something between the lecturer of modern day university or college and the actor.
We should understand the fact that Plato was the disciple of Socrates and under the light of this fact we can very well consider the dramatization of the literary criticism as historical rather than fictional. Some of the passages from Plato’s Ion have been considered as the evidence of the opposed view about the poetry.
One interesting point which comes from the Ion is that if someone has the rhapsodic view about poetry or literature then he/she is like a critic who does not have any break up of theory, and also he/she is supposed to make comments about any work of literature like “how touching� or “what an amazing and beautiful work�.
Give it a go, to understand the mind of a genius, which is not always coherent. Well, geniuses never are!!
He says: “And therefore when any one of these pantomimic gentlemen (the poets) ... comes to us, and makes a proposal to exhibit himself and his theory, (we) will fall down and worship him as a sweet and holy wonderful being; but we must also inform him that in our State such as he are not permitted to exist; the law will not allow them. And so when we have anointed him with myth, and seta garland of wool upon his head, we shall send him away to another city. For we mean to employ for our souls� health rougher and severer poet or storyteller, who will imitate the style of virtuous only and will follow those models which we prescribed at first when we began the education of our soldiers.�
An apparent question could be about the reason of this. According to Plato, it is because of the nature of poetry that it produces immoral results. Poetry of course deal with a diverse range of feelings, and all the feelings might not be desirable. Some of the feelings may be good while other may be bad causing pleasure and pain respectively.
Another reason is that poetry takes many factious and impossible characters in consideration, Here Plato talks about Greek poets like Homer and Hesiod and also about other Greek dramatists who talk about God. But their gods are not always good, but are manlike: they are quarrelsome, deceitful and fallible. The heroes of these poets and dramatist are also emotional and un-heroic.
It is in this context Plato develops his theory of imitation or Mimesis, In different places in republic we can find this idea of Mimesis being developed. In the recent development of theory. Plato’s idea of love is considered� to be one of the earliest impulse of love between the human being and is given a term “Greek� Love�.
Herein lies the importance of Ion.
Plato in his Ion talks about the literary theories. The text is the dialogues between the Socrates and Ion, who was a rhapsode. What is a rhapsode, one might ask. Well, a rhapsode can be considered as something between the lecturer of modern day university or college and the actor.
We should understand the fact that Plato was the disciple of Socrates and under the light of this fact we can very well consider the dramatization of the literary criticism as historical rather than fictional. Some of the passages from Plato’s Ion have been considered as the evidence of the opposed view about the poetry.
One interesting point which comes from the Ion is that if someone has the rhapsodic view about poetry or literature then he/she is like a critic who does not have any break up of theory, and also he/she is supposed to make comments about any work of literature like “how touching� or “what an amazing and beautiful work�.
Give it a go, to understand the mind of a genius, which is not always coherent. Well, geniuses never are!!
January 7, 2021
Ión 3 estrellas y media
Creo que lo que más me llamo la atención de este dialogo de Platón fue la idea de la inspiración divina en los poetas. La industria de los rapsodistas no es ni una ciencia ni un arte ¿Pues que es entonces lo que pone al poeta en tal delirio sobre si mismo? Según lo que entiendo que argumenta Sócrates (en palabras de Platón) se trata de una inspiración divina la cual se expande como una cadena (utiliza el ejemplo de un imán) de esta manera los poetas serán los intérpretes de los dioses y los rapsodistas como Ión intérpretes de intérpretes. Un diálogo corto pero enriquecedor y deja así un sin fin de preguntas. Sin embargo también existen la visión del desprestigiar a estos rapsodas, que luego continúa en la República en donde los poetas no formarán parte.
Creo que lo que más me llamo la atención de este dialogo de Platón fue la idea de la inspiración divina en los poetas. La industria de los rapsodistas no es ni una ciencia ni un arte ¿Pues que es entonces lo que pone al poeta en tal delirio sobre si mismo? Según lo que entiendo que argumenta Sócrates (en palabras de Platón) se trata de una inspiración divina la cual se expande como una cadena (utiliza el ejemplo de un imán) de esta manera los poetas serán los intérpretes de los dioses y los rapsodistas como Ión intérpretes de intérpretes. Un diálogo corto pero enriquecedor y deja así un sin fin de preguntas. Sin embargo también existen la visión del desprestigiar a estos rapsodas, que luego continúa en la República en donde los poetas no formarán parte.
January 18, 2024
2,5. Bleeeh. Leið smá eins og ég væri að lesa ófyndinn Harrý og Heimi skets. Gat ekki heyrt neinn annan en Harrý sem Sókrates og Heimi sem Jón. Set góðan skets hérna fyrir neðan:
Sókrates: en veit hann [kvæðaþulurinn] hvað manni, sem er hershöfðingi, hæfir að segja, þegar hann hvetur hermennina?
Jón: já, slíkt veit kvæðaþulurinn.
Sókrates: en hvað? Er list kvæðaþularins hernaðarlist?
Jón: að minnsta kosti myndi ég vita hvað hershöfðingja hæfir að segja.
Sókrates: nú kannski ertu bara líka vel að þér í hernaðarlist, Jón!
Sókrates: en veit hann [kvæðaþulurinn] hvað manni, sem er hershöfðingi, hæfir að segja, þegar hann hvetur hermennina?
Jón: já, slíkt veit kvæðaþulurinn.
Sókrates: en hvað? Er list kvæðaþularins hernaðarlist?
Jón: að minnsta kosti myndi ég vita hvað hershöfðingja hæfir að segja.
Sókrates: nú kannski ertu bara líka vel að þér í hernaðarlist, Jón!
October 23, 2021
This was my first complete Plato dialogue. I had read portions of Plato in Philosophy 101 in college (a gazillion years ago) and while I liked what I read, I had never taken the time to read more of Plato, so I decided to start this year.
I found a very good starter guide to read Plato here and the professor suggested that Ion was a good starting point, so here we are.
In this dialogue, Socrates has a discussion with a rhapsode about artistic inspiration. Ion is a rhapsode who recites Homer (more beautifully than anyone else according to him!) and Socrates questions him about the source of his talent. Ion says it’s based on knowledge, but Socrates says that it is because Ion is divinely inspired. He uses the analogy of a magnet that puts power into three rings, the first one being the poet, the second one the rhapsode and the third ring the audience. So, the poet inspires the rhapsode who in turn inspires the audience.
The dialogue ends with Socrates giving Ion two choices, that he’s either dishonest or divinely inspired. He chooses the latter to which Socrates responds: “Then that is how we think of you, Ion, the lovelier way: it’s as someone divine, and not as master of a profession, that you are a singer of Homer’s praises�. Ion takes this as a form of praise 😊
I found a very good starter guide to read Plato here and the professor suggested that Ion was a good starting point, so here we are.
In this dialogue, Socrates has a discussion with a rhapsode about artistic inspiration. Ion is a rhapsode who recites Homer (more beautifully than anyone else according to him!) and Socrates questions him about the source of his talent. Ion says it’s based on knowledge, but Socrates says that it is because Ion is divinely inspired. He uses the analogy of a magnet that puts power into three rings, the first one being the poet, the second one the rhapsode and the third ring the audience. So, the poet inspires the rhapsode who in turn inspires the audience.
The dialogue ends with Socrates giving Ion two choices, that he’s either dishonest or divinely inspired. He chooses the latter to which Socrates responds: “Then that is how we think of you, Ion, the lovelier way: it’s as someone divine, and not as master of a profession, that you are a singer of Homer’s praises�. Ion takes this as a form of praise 😊
March 8, 2023
Plato’s shortest dialogue. Filled with humor again at getting the point of a thing and making Ion think more than he maybe had previously.
Read along with the Literary Life Podcast and learned that Plato was originally a wrestler and the translator Benjamin Jowett was a contemporary of Florence Nightingale and at one point asked her to marry him. She wanted the relationship to stay, Platonic! 😉🤭
Read along with the Literary Life Podcast and learned that Plato was originally a wrestler and the translator Benjamin Jowett was a contemporary of Florence Nightingale and at one point asked her to marry him. She wanted the relationship to stay, Platonic! 😉🤭
April 9, 2021
Fun on two levels, both content wise, and the beauty of the original text. Always a pleasure to have Socrates inform the poet champion that he clearly has no skill ;)
January 18, 2024
This was just really really confusing. I am confused. Sokrates is an asshole, Ion is an idiot, and I never want to read this again.
May 5, 2023
Whilst this is certainly the shortest of Plato's dialogue, it is no less exciting. The rebuttals and arguments are impactful and very funny. Due to the length, Ion is portrayed as a real dud compared with other people Socrates argues with.
The main point I found interesting was the discussion about mastery. Ion is the self-proclaimed greatest Homer rhapsode that Ancient Greece has ever seen. Yet, Socrates asks why Ion can master Homer's work but not that of other poets, "But how did you come to have this skill about Homer only, and not about Hesiod or the other poets?" Why can Ion understand a single poet instead of the art of poetry?
This suggests people can be so obsessed with individual celebrities that the root of the field that the celebrity occupies loses its relevance. Because Ion elevates Homer to a poet akin to a divinity, he empowers Homer and diminishes Homer's field (poetry). It's an interesting consideration, and I think parrels could be made to different fields today.
I think that this may not be the best translation because the translator (a traditional British academic from the 19th century) attempts to imbue Christianity into Socrates's arguments about how divinity affects the poet. Jowett, the translator, has Socrates keep referring to "God" in the singular, whereas this would be unrealistic for someone from Ancient Greece to argue.
The main point I found interesting was the discussion about mastery. Ion is the self-proclaimed greatest Homer rhapsode that Ancient Greece has ever seen. Yet, Socrates asks why Ion can master Homer's work but not that of other poets, "But how did you come to have this skill about Homer only, and not about Hesiod or the other poets?" Why can Ion understand a single poet instead of the art of poetry?
This suggests people can be so obsessed with individual celebrities that the root of the field that the celebrity occupies loses its relevance. Because Ion elevates Homer to a poet akin to a divinity, he empowers Homer and diminishes Homer's field (poetry). It's an interesting consideration, and I think parrels could be made to different fields today.
I think that this may not be the best translation because the translator (a traditional British academic from the 19th century) attempts to imbue Christianity into Socrates's arguments about how divinity affects the poet. Jowett, the translator, has Socrates keep referring to "God" in the singular, whereas this would be unrealistic for someone from Ancient Greece to argue.
September 22, 2024
So in this episode of “Everyone Is Stupid Except Socrates�, the best rhapsode in town is shown how not only he is not an artist, he actually has no idea what he is talking about when he talks about his specialty � Homer!
So our φιλή κεφαλή Ion says he is only good at speaking about Homer - Hesiod, Archilocus, all others give our rhapsode the snores. But Ion and Socrates agree that “the same man will be a competent judge of all who speak on the same things, and that practically all poets treat of the same things.� (532b) It is because arts exist as a whole that someone who can speak about an artist must needs be equally qualified to speak about another. Since Ion can only speak on Homer, really, he can speak on no poet at all: “you are unable to speak on Homer with art and knowledge. For if you could do it with art, you could speak on all the other poets as well� (532c). Hence Ion is proved to have no art on Homer, since he cannot speak of the other poets, who “all speak about the same things, not only similarly� (531a).
Thus someone who can judge the sculptures of Daedalus will be equally capable of saying something about the work of any other sculptor. Writing or reciting poetry is not an art because the poet/rhapsode in not round in this art � the poet can only write a certain type of poetry (epic, lyric�) depending on what the god inspires him to do; the rhapsode can only speak on a certain poet, depending on which poet he is inspired by. Apparently, the sculptors, painters and musicians Socrates knew could sculpt, paint and play anything, as well as discuss any peer's work.
One of the critical premises of Socrates’s attack on Ion is that arts exist as a whole (532e), a statement described as simple/trivial/petty (φαῦλο�) and commonplace/vulgar (ἰδιωτικό�). But to me this statement does not seem trivial at all. Do we not see painters mastering watercolor but unable to paint with oil? Even within the same material � one may excel at sculpting angels but be unable to dominate the anatomy of a mermaid. Can we ever be trained to master all skills of an art? Socrates seems to have unrealistic standards.
Regardless, the fact that poetry is not considered an art as the others mentioned by Socrates � painting, sculpture, fluting, harping, minstrelsy � is revealing of at least two things: 1) how the immateriality of the process of poetical creation renders it obscure (since we cannot see a verse taking shape inside a poet’s mind as we see a block of marble being chiseled or a brush decorating a canvas); 2) Plato’s pet peeve regarding anyone skilled in manipulating words, from poets to sophists.
Socrates takes his demonstration a step further. Not only Ion has no art because he is only good in Homer, he can’t even discuss the contents of Homer. Wait, wasn't that his job, for which he was so well renowned? How does this go?
Socrates first has Ion admitting that someone who does not possess a particular art will be incapable of judging it (538a), ten that his art cannot know everything (540a). Thus he begins excluding from Ion’s competence Homeric passages about different skills � that of a charioteer, a doctor, a general �, and asks him what Homeric passages belong to the rhapsode after all (539e). Ion still tries to say all passages belong to him, but then concedes that all passages belong to him except those that concern other arts (540a). Socrates reminds him that a person may only speak of the arts he knows and repeats the question. Ion reduces the scope of his knowledge to those things “that it befits a man to say�, but Socrates shows him that men with the same professions will be more apt to judge what it befits them to say (540b). Ion still tries to defend he knows what a general should say, but Socrates tries to show Ion he is not a general and the conversation ends briefly.
The nucleus of Socrates’s argument strikes me as very little relevant. When Socrates’s speaks of poetry, its formal aspects ares nonexistent and its contents come down merely to métiers. The men depicted in the poems are reduced to their τέχναι, and stripped of what to most of us would constitute their main poetical interest � their internal complexity, their attitudes before life's challenges and the ethical dilemmas they face, not to mention formal or aesthetically pleasing aspects of poetry, and its effects on us � that one can start looking in real life for dawn’s golden sandals.
Ion cannot speak about poetry because he is not skilled on the arts of the poetical subjects, the charioteer, the doctor, the general? So what? Are we not hooked on the Iliad because of how all these characters are coping with the violence of war? Are we not interested in Achilles because in all his divinity he falls prey to lower human feelings? Are we not amazed that such an ancient text expounds in such detail the ambivalence of values? Or is the Iliad good because charioteering is well described? Because a medical recipe is well prescribed? Because cunning military strategies are employed? Hardly.
Socrates seems to acknowledge that Ion speaks well about Homer. How is that? Ion’s skill is no skill at all, but second-degree divine inspiration: “this is not an art in you, whereby you speak well on Homer, but a divine power� (533d), “the Muse inspires men herself, and then by means of these inspired persons the inspirations spreads to others� (533e). For Socrates, Ion is not an artist (τεχνικός), since he can speak on no art (τέχνη). He speaks “fully and finely� about Homer “without any knowledge but by a divine dispensation which causes you to be possessed by the poet� (542a). He is a divine and not an artistic praiser of Homer (θεῖο� εἶνα� κα� μ� τεχνικόν). (542b)
Still I wonder what is it after all that Socrates thinks is good (divine) in poetry.
You can always count on Plato for an entertaining read, if only for the sheer amount of Socratic sass.
Notes to self on the origin of poetry:
A poet is not an artist but a vehicle of the divine. “For a poet is a light and winged and sacred thing, and is unable ever to indite until he has been inspired and put out of his senses, and his mind is no longer in him: every man, whilst he retains possession of that, is powerless to indite a verse or chant an oracle.� (534b). The state of excitement, akin to that of the Corybantian or the bacchants, further proofs that poets and rhapsodes are not in their minds but possessed (κατεχόμενοι). It is under possession, and not in their senses, that the soul of the poet labours (ἐργάζετα�) � so the poets themselves say (534a).
“For not by art do they utter these things, but by divine influence; since, if they had fully learnt by art to speak on one kind of theme, they would know how to speak on all. And for this reason God takes away the mind of these men and uses them as his ministers, just as he does soothsayers and godly seers, in order that we who hear them may know that it is not they who utter these words of great price� (534c)
The poet is an interpreter of the gods, and the rhapsode interprets the utterances of poets � hence he is an interpreter of interpreters (535a). God’s inspiration being a sort of magnetic force, it moves through a chain � poets are the first link, inspiration moves directly to the poet; while the rhapsode or actor is the middle link, inspired through the poet and in turn inspiring its audience, which is the last ring in the chain.
So our φιλή κεφαλή Ion says he is only good at speaking about Homer - Hesiod, Archilocus, all others give our rhapsode the snores. But Ion and Socrates agree that “the same man will be a competent judge of all who speak on the same things, and that practically all poets treat of the same things.� (532b) It is because arts exist as a whole that someone who can speak about an artist must needs be equally qualified to speak about another. Since Ion can only speak on Homer, really, he can speak on no poet at all: “you are unable to speak on Homer with art and knowledge. For if you could do it with art, you could speak on all the other poets as well� (532c). Hence Ion is proved to have no art on Homer, since he cannot speak of the other poets, who “all speak about the same things, not only similarly� (531a).
Thus someone who can judge the sculptures of Daedalus will be equally capable of saying something about the work of any other sculptor. Writing or reciting poetry is not an art because the poet/rhapsode in not round in this art � the poet can only write a certain type of poetry (epic, lyric�) depending on what the god inspires him to do; the rhapsode can only speak on a certain poet, depending on which poet he is inspired by. Apparently, the sculptors, painters and musicians Socrates knew could sculpt, paint and play anything, as well as discuss any peer's work.
One of the critical premises of Socrates’s attack on Ion is that arts exist as a whole (532e), a statement described as simple/trivial/petty (φαῦλο�) and commonplace/vulgar (ἰδιωτικό�). But to me this statement does not seem trivial at all. Do we not see painters mastering watercolor but unable to paint with oil? Even within the same material � one may excel at sculpting angels but be unable to dominate the anatomy of a mermaid. Can we ever be trained to master all skills of an art? Socrates seems to have unrealistic standards.
Regardless, the fact that poetry is not considered an art as the others mentioned by Socrates � painting, sculpture, fluting, harping, minstrelsy � is revealing of at least two things: 1) how the immateriality of the process of poetical creation renders it obscure (since we cannot see a verse taking shape inside a poet’s mind as we see a block of marble being chiseled or a brush decorating a canvas); 2) Plato’s pet peeve regarding anyone skilled in manipulating words, from poets to sophists.
Socrates takes his demonstration a step further. Not only Ion has no art because he is only good in Homer, he can’t even discuss the contents of Homer. Wait, wasn't that his job, for which he was so well renowned? How does this go?
Socrates first has Ion admitting that someone who does not possess a particular art will be incapable of judging it (538a), ten that his art cannot know everything (540a). Thus he begins excluding from Ion’s competence Homeric passages about different skills � that of a charioteer, a doctor, a general �, and asks him what Homeric passages belong to the rhapsode after all (539e). Ion still tries to say all passages belong to him, but then concedes that all passages belong to him except those that concern other arts (540a). Socrates reminds him that a person may only speak of the arts he knows and repeats the question. Ion reduces the scope of his knowledge to those things “that it befits a man to say�, but Socrates shows him that men with the same professions will be more apt to judge what it befits them to say (540b). Ion still tries to defend he knows what a general should say, but Socrates tries to show Ion he is not a general and the conversation ends briefly.
The nucleus of Socrates’s argument strikes me as very little relevant. When Socrates’s speaks of poetry, its formal aspects ares nonexistent and its contents come down merely to métiers. The men depicted in the poems are reduced to their τέχναι, and stripped of what to most of us would constitute their main poetical interest � their internal complexity, their attitudes before life's challenges and the ethical dilemmas they face, not to mention formal or aesthetically pleasing aspects of poetry, and its effects on us � that one can start looking in real life for dawn’s golden sandals.
Ion cannot speak about poetry because he is not skilled on the arts of the poetical subjects, the charioteer, the doctor, the general? So what? Are we not hooked on the Iliad because of how all these characters are coping with the violence of war? Are we not interested in Achilles because in all his divinity he falls prey to lower human feelings? Are we not amazed that such an ancient text expounds in such detail the ambivalence of values? Or is the Iliad good because charioteering is well described? Because a medical recipe is well prescribed? Because cunning military strategies are employed? Hardly.
Socrates seems to acknowledge that Ion speaks well about Homer. How is that? Ion’s skill is no skill at all, but second-degree divine inspiration: “this is not an art in you, whereby you speak well on Homer, but a divine power� (533d), “the Muse inspires men herself, and then by means of these inspired persons the inspirations spreads to others� (533e). For Socrates, Ion is not an artist (τεχνικός), since he can speak on no art (τέχνη). He speaks “fully and finely� about Homer “without any knowledge but by a divine dispensation which causes you to be possessed by the poet� (542a). He is a divine and not an artistic praiser of Homer (θεῖο� εἶνα� κα� μ� τεχνικόν). (542b)
Still I wonder what is it after all that Socrates thinks is good (divine) in poetry.
You can always count on Plato for an entertaining read, if only for the sheer amount of Socratic sass.
Notes to self on the origin of poetry:
A poet is not an artist but a vehicle of the divine. “For a poet is a light and winged and sacred thing, and is unable ever to indite until he has been inspired and put out of his senses, and his mind is no longer in him: every man, whilst he retains possession of that, is powerless to indite a verse or chant an oracle.� (534b). The state of excitement, akin to that of the Corybantian or the bacchants, further proofs that poets and rhapsodes are not in their minds but possessed (κατεχόμενοι). It is under possession, and not in their senses, that the soul of the poet labours (ἐργάζετα�) � so the poets themselves say (534a).
“For not by art do they utter these things, but by divine influence; since, if they had fully learnt by art to speak on one kind of theme, they would know how to speak on all. And for this reason God takes away the mind of these men and uses them as his ministers, just as he does soothsayers and godly seers, in order that we who hear them may know that it is not they who utter these words of great price� (534c)
The poet is an interpreter of the gods, and the rhapsode interprets the utterances of poets � hence he is an interpreter of interpreters (535a). God’s inspiration being a sort of magnetic force, it moves through a chain � poets are the first link, inspiration moves directly to the poet; while the rhapsode or actor is the middle link, inspired through the poet and in turn inspiring its audience, which is the last ring in the chain.
November 6, 2016
Este texto foi a minha introdução a Platão e fiquei cativada, admito. É um pequeno diálogo entre Sócrates e Platão onde são discutidas as questões da inspiração artística e da interpretação.
É um texto simples que se lê numa manhã, mas dotado de uma grande densidade filosófica e teórica.
Para mim que estudo teoria literária acho sempre muito interessante quando estas questão relativamente à literatura são levantadas e, por isso, não deixei de ficar prendida a este simples e pequeno diálogo.
É um texto simples que se lê numa manhã, mas dotado de uma grande densidade filosófica e teórica.
Para mim que estudo teoria literária acho sempre muito interessante quando estas questão relativamente à literatura são levantadas e, por isso, não deixei de ficar prendida a este simples e pequeno diálogo.
May 16, 2016
a short story by Plato. I don't understand why he is "destroying" Ion like that claiming that his talent is not an art but inspiration. without that inspiration he wouldn't produce art but I guess the point here is that the artist had a bit of megalomania and Socrates drag him back on earth by showing him the power of deduction and logic. could be....
May 28, 2018
Compared to Euthyphro, Ion is definitely more lively, more realistic, thus more engaging. The topic of the dialogue also was a novelty for me. No matter how uninterested I am about "art" of poetry, though, Plato does not fail at capturing one's attention.
July 29, 2020
How does art affect its audiences?
The book consists of dialogues between Socrates and Ion arguing about the above question.
Socrates gives an example of serial chain rings to explain his answer in this regard.
The book consists of dialogues between Socrates and Ion arguing about the above question.
Socrates gives an example of serial chain rings to explain his answer in this regard.
December 30, 2021
A nice short dialogue on divine inspiration that links in well with Phaedrus. While Phaedrus is concerned with all forms of divine inspiration (otherwise known as madness), Ion is focused on poetry and rapsode.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 317 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.