I get a bit fascinated and unsettled by how blunt Plato is about removing poets — it's like he wants to quarantine narrative so the polity's mind stays clear. His worry breaks down into two quick ideas: poets imitate and so are distant from truth, and their emotional impact undermines rational governance. In short, poetic imitation manipulates feelings rather than educates the intellect.
He also cares about moral exemplars; if stories teach kids that gods deceive or heroes behave shamefully, the city's moral fabric unravels. That said, he doesn’t ban all storytelling wholesale — his stricter measures are targeted at tales that glamorize vice. I find it a provocative stance: it forces you to ask whether some cultural speech should be curated for the common good, or whether plural expression is more important. For me, it's a dilemma that still matters whenever we debate censorship versus civic responsibility.
If I had to explain this over coffee to a friend who binge-watches morally grey shows, I’d say Plato feared emotional persuasion more than meter. He saw poets as master manipulators: they mimic appearances and stir passions, which for him is dangerous because passions override reason. In a city where rulers are supposed to be guided by knowledge of Forms and the Good, emotions whipped up by tragic tales or heroic bragging can make citizens act irrationally.
Another practical bit: poets were public educators in ancient Greece. Their narratives shaped kids’ imaginations. So Plato proposes strict storytelling rules — only tell myths that model the virtues the city needs. He isn’t naively attacking all art; he’s trying to keep moral education consistent. These days we talk about media literacy instead of outright bans, but the core fear is familiar: stories shape people, and not always for the better. I still find it interesting that Plato trusts reason so fiercely that he'd rather limit tales than risk pandemonium in the soul.
Looking back at the passage with a more technical eye, the ban makes sense as an extension of Plato's epistemology and political psychology. His Forms are ultimate realities; the material world is their imperfect manifestation; and poets, who craft images and narratives, are an extra remove from truth. Thus poetry, by Plato's lights, cannot produce true knowledge (episteme), only belief or imitation (doxa and mimesis). If guardians are to rule wisely, they require stable knowledge and a character disciplined by rational principles, not volatile emotions prompted by mythic examples.
He adds a normative layer: poetry teaches and models behavior. Stories where gods lie, quarrel, or act based on appetite provide bad role models. Plato isn’t categorically opposed to creative expression — he allows certain educative stories and musical modes that cultivate courage or temperance — but he privileges the city's moral coherence over aesthetic freedom. Many scholars suggest part of this is rhetorical: Plato intentionally pushes to the extreme to provoke examination of how culture shapes souls. For anyone concerned with education or media's civic role, his argument still resonates and challenges us to think about what narratives we endorse and why.
On a muggy evening when I was halfway through a re-read of 'The Republic', Plato's ban on poets hit me with the same jolt it always does. He isn't just grumpy about bad rhymes — he's aiming at the soul's education. For Plato, poets are imitators: they paint copies of copies. A sculptor copies the Form of a horse imperfectly; a poet then copies the sculptor's copy, so the poetic product is two steps removed from Truth. That matters because his whole political project is to shape citizens by guiding them toward knowledge and the Good, not toward seductive illusions.
He also worries about moral influence. Many poets in his day — think 'Iliad' and 'Odyssey' material — depict gods and heroes doing ugly, selfish things. Those stories teach by feeling, not reason, and incite desires that conflict with the rational harmony Plato wants in his guardians. So he proposes censoring or excluding poetry that corrupts virtue, while allowing stories that promote courage, temperance, and reverence. Reading it now, I find it a provocative mix of rigorous metaphysics and social engineering — part urgent moral pedagogy, part rhetorical move to spark debate.
2025-09-04 22:54:11
9
View All Answers
Scan code to download App
Related Books
The Loyal Spartan
Bryant
10
1.9K
Hypatos
My life has always belonged to House Ares. Every battle, every scar, even the arm I lost, was given in its name. Loyalty forged me into a weapon, and I never questioned it… until I loved the one woman I could never claim. Losing her left me hollow, a man shaped by duty and nothing more. Then Saea steps into my world, sharp-tongued and fearless, seeing through every wall I’ve built. She doesn’t belong in my world, and I shouldn’t want her. But for the first time, I do. Even if choosing her means betraying everything I’ve ever sworn to protect.
Saea
I’ve always known my place, pouring drinks in an Olympian tavern where warriors and gods look right through me. Men like Hypatos don’t see women like me, even when I’ve been quietly watching, quietly caring, learning the weight of his grief from a distance. Wanting him is reckless. Believing he could ever want me back is worse. But when fate pulls us into the same fight, something changes. For the first time, I’m not invisible to him. For the first time, I dare to want more. A future where we stand as equals… if Olympus doesn’t destroy us first.
Michelle, an omega everyone looked down on, was rejected by the Alpha she thought was her fated mate, broken and humiliated before her pack. But pain planted a hunger – a desperate desire to become powerful. One night, beneath the moonlight, everything changed.
A figure emerged – tall, pale, ancient. Her crimson eyes glowed like dying embers. “Who are you?” Michelle stammered. “Someone who can give you power,” the woman said. Michelle froze, torn between fear and temptation. “What do you want?” “Your trust. Come with me to my realm. You’ll never be weak again.” The world dissolved. Michelle’s soul was torn from her body, and she opened her eyes in another world. Skies shimmered crimson and gold. Black castles floated above glowing rivers. Armored beings bowed. A Golren in obsidian armor knelt. “Queen Erin,” he said. “We’re glad to have you back.” Michelle blinked. “I’m Michelle, not Erin.” The Golren’s eyes gleamed with reverence. “You are Erin – our creator, our goddess.” Michelle’s breath caught. Creator? Goddess? Something ancient stirred....
My wife, Cassia, was a wood nymph. A cursed one. Forbidden to love mortals.
But she fell for me anyway. Every time her heart fluttered for me, the gods struck her down with agony.
She willingly endured that torture ninety-nine times just for a chance to be with me.
Then, demons dragged me to Tartarus. Hellfire and whips became my sun and moon.
Right as I was about to break, I remembered a prayer Cassia taught me—a desperate whisper to the gods.
It finally worked. But instead of help, I heard Cassia talking to her patron goddess, Hecate.
"Cassia, how could you bargain with the Furies? You let them drag Aiden to Tartarus!"
Cassia's voice choked with desperate tears. "Adonis was supposed to suffer this fate. But he's a fragile mortal. This would destroy his soul! I had no choice if I wanted to save him."
"Aiden is a child of prophecy. His soul is strong. The Fates watch over him. He'll survive."
"Once I save Adonis, I can stay in the mortal realm forever. Then, I'll use my eternal life and all my love to repay the hell he's enduring for me."
My heart shattered.
As the monsters closed in on me, I stopped fighting. I gave up.
I was Apollo’s most devoted follower, the lover he handpicked from a sea of worshippers.
With me, he’d always shed his divine arrogance. He was so tender, so attentive. I actually thought he loved me to the bone.
Until seven days before our Consort Ceremony, when I used my gift of prophecy to peek into our future together.
I expected to see a lifetime of blinding love. Instead, I saw him violently tangled in the sheets with my adopted sister, Cassandra.
Wrapped around him, Cassandra giggled. "You're so good to me, my Lord. Thanks to you, I'll finally get my sister's Sight and take her place as High Priestess."
And Apollo—my god, my lover—smiled down at her with pure adoration. "Whatever makes you happy, little bird. If it weren't for you, I wouldn't have played pretend for this long, let alone allow her to become a god's consort."
In that split second, my heart turned to ash. My faith shattered into a million pieces.
With seven days left until the ceremony, I didn't confront them. Instead, I fell to my knees before the altar of Hades, Lord of the Underworld.
"I offer you my gift of prophecy. I will be your most loyal follower in exchange for your sanctuary."
"Please. Take me away from here. Take me somewhere Apollo can never find me."
Existing on an era where women has less priviledge than men, Utopia strived to show the people of her world the importance of their existence. Yet before she can even shine and outlive such ridiculous belief that her world has, her fate was sealed by a decree.
Fighting love and the enivitable, Utopia finds herself tangled in the mysterious secret of her existence and riot the dark side of her world has.
Once there was a king and a queen with three lovely daughters. The youngest, Psyche, was so beautiful, so fair of face and form that she was revered throughout the land, and the people of her kingdom reached out to touch her as she passed. No suitors dared to cross her doorstep. So highly was she worshiped that Psyche was deeply lonely. Her beauty became legend, far and wide, and it was not long before words reached the ears of Venus. Tales of the young princess enraged the jealous goddess, and she made plans to dispose of her. Venus called upon her own daughter, Cupid to do her bidding. It was meant to be a quick mission except Cupid did not expect to find herself entranced by the same passion she inflicted on others.
|Note: This is a lesbian retelling of the Roman Mythology, not Greek|
I’ve always been fascinated by how Plato’s 'The Republic' tackles the role of art in society, especially in Book 10. His critique of poetry is brutal but thought-provoking. Plato argues that poetry is a mere imitation of reality, making it twice removed from the truth. He compares poets to painters who create copies of physical objects, which are themselves copies of the ideal Forms. This makes poetry deceptive, as it distracts people from seeking genuine knowledge.
Plato also attacks poetry’s emotional appeal, claiming it stirs up irrational passions that weaken the soul. He fears tragic poetry, for example, encourages audiences to indulge in grief or anger instead of cultivating reason. For him, a just society must prioritize philosophy over poetry because only philosophy leads to true understanding. While I adore poetry’s beauty, I can’t ignore Plato’s point about its potential to mislead. His ideas make me question whether art should serve truth or just entertain.