While Plato’s aesthetics fundamentally focuses on moral questions of art, Aristotle’s examines the rhetorical form and structure of tragedy and highlights the cathartic function of art. Again in contrast to Plato, Aristotle is not negatively disposed toward the poets. The literary arts in fact are revered in part as getting at philosophic truths in a way that history, for example, does not, even if it does get at them in a more convoluted, less clear way than philosophy itself. While Aristotle’s work, On Comedy, was lost, his writing, the Poetics, can be read in part as a critique of Plato that outlines the what poetry is and the elements constituting poetic tragedy.
In contrast to Plato, who is largely skeptical of poets for the poets lack of understanding of what they themselves are doing, their playing on the emotions of the crowd in a way that prevents logical thinking and their morally corrupting influence, Aristotle sees poetry as conveying the poets’ knowledge, as making universal (philosophic) claims, and as providing the possibility for education in virtue. Tragedy in particular is thought to mimic actions of some magnitude. But it expresses itself in dramatic rather than narrative form. In this, it provides the possibility for a catharsis, a cleansing of emotions. As Aristotle notes: “tragedy is the mimesis of a serious and complete action of some magnitude; in language embellished in various ways in its different parts; in dramatic, not narrative form; achieving, through pity and fear, the catharsis of such passions” (Poetics 1449b24-8)
Though Aristotle only mentions catharsis twice in the Poetics, an emphasis on the cathartic effect of art has been one of his major legacies. In a rather typical depiction building on his few comments, the idea is essentially that rather than corrupting individuals, immoral and questionable scenes in tragedy can allow individuals a cleansing of sorts so that they do not need to engage in negative actions themselves such as are depicted by the characters of the tragedy. Living such things out in the imagination, vicariously, is thus not a bad thing that twists one’s desires making it more likely than one in fact will cultivate an appetite for vice. Rather, at least if not done in excess, it may well have the opposite effect, providing a release from negative emotions that might otherwise lead to viciousness. Aristotle’s own view, however, seems to be that such a positive cathartic affect will only occur if this is not overdone. Otherwise, the opposite effect might result after all, and rather than easing the emotions the imaginative enactment of bad behavior might strengthen the resolve to do it after all.
Aristotle, with a different metaphysics than Plato, having rejected the world of the forms, also has a less negative view about memesis in art. Though Aristotle like Plato does take the Greek representationalism as indicative of art generally — something spurious when we consider the multiple non-representational forms of art in many cultures — he does not think that this memesis is negative. Rather, it provides the possibility of learning. By copying, but with variation, tragedy also shows a kind of superiority to history. History, which just chronicles facts, lacks the philosophic element of the creative copying in art. Here life is depicted, but to make points about universals and truth, moral and otherwise.
One of the main points of the Poetics is to describe what a tragedy ought look like. Though the work had impressive influence, it was not in fact followed by Shakespeare and other Renaissance tragedians. It did however provide a form or structure that would have been accepted by many Greeks. In part, we might see something like this as a format for writing successful works of the genre. But the focus is also on how to do so in order to have the positive philosophic and moral affect that Aristotle also thinks is desirable of the art form: “Pity and fear are aroused by the right presentation of characters and their adventures, a presentation that whips those emotions up to the highest pitch they can reach” (Poetics, 1453a10). The is why heroes must be decent enough to win a spectator’s pity, but not so splendid that misfortune falls on them undeserved (Poetics, 1452b34-6). That would disgust the audience and moral disgust distracts from pure fear and pity (Pappas, 17).
Fear and pity are natural emotions. Instead of being overpowered by such emotions, as Plato fears we will be, Aristotle thinks that we can learn to control them. Contemporary authors influenced by Aristotle, like Martha Nussbaum, suggests this can be important for moral education: through the experience of literary enactments of situations that give rise to fear and pity, we can learn to express these emotions correctly in real life contexts. Literature proves to be a kind of simulator for life, which allows us to hone our skills.
Those who write tragedy can benefit from operating with an awareness of the positive role it can play. They should focus not so much on the depiction of character as on the development of plot, which allows general lessons to be drawn with universal philosophical and moral importance. The tragedian is not a passive copier of reality, but an active creator of plot with philosophical and moral purpose.
In Aristotle’s further depiction of the form of tragedy, Aristotle notes that tragic action should be serious. Its characters ought to be superior human beings, who do not suffer meaninglessly. The tragic character’s action ought be morally relevant, and their suffering ought not to be viewed as punishment for bad behavior, even though it will follow from a fundamental moral weaknesses of the tragic character. The tragedy plays on a mistake of a serious protagonist that normally does not lead to such moral travesty, but that unravels in ways that are philosophically and morally instructive, even though chance plays a role in the plot development. As N. Pappas notes: “A good tragedy hones the emotions, details the nature of life-straying error, shows how people insist on acting” (Pappas, 24).
Aristotle’s depiction of the form of tragic poetry can be viewed as separate from his views on beauty more generally. Again, in contrast to Plato, on the question of beauty as well, Aristotle does not think of it as a pure form that many beautiful things participate in. Rather, beauty is context dependent and differs for different objects as well as people at different times in their lives and so on. Here the focus has not been on that view of beauty, but on Aristotle’s general view of art. On this score, we see in him a much greater appreciation for the creative role and rational role of the artist in the creation of art and the value of art for moral education than we tend to see in Plato’s explicit statements on the subject.
Go to chapter 10 on Philosophy during Hellenism and the Rise of Rome
Wakati aesthetics ya Plato kimsingi inazingatia maswali ya maadili ya sanaa, ya Aristotle inachunguza fomu ya usemi na muundo wa msiba na inasisitiza kazi ya cathartic ya sanaa. Kwa kutofautiana tena na Plato, Aristotle hakuwa na maoni mabaya kuhusu washairi. Kwa kweli, sanaa za fasihi zinaheshimiwa kwa sehemu kwa sababu zinapata ukweli wa kifalsafa kwa njia ambayo historia, kwa mfano, haifanyi, hata kama inapata kwa njia iliyofichika zaidi, isiyo wazi kama falsafa yenyewe. "Wakati kazi ya Aristotle, ""On Comedy,"" ilipotea, maandishi yake, ""The Poetics,"" yanaweza kusomwa kwa sehemu kama ukosoaji wa Plato, ambayo inaelezea nini mashairi ni na mambo yanayounda msiba wa mashairi." Tofauti na Plato, ambaye alikuwa na shaka sana juu ya washairi kwa sababu ya ukosefu wa uelewa wa kile wanachofanya, kucheza kwa hisia za umati kwa njia inayozuia kufikiri kwa mantiki, na ushawishi wao wa uharibifu wa maadili, Aristotle anaona ushairi kama njia ya kuwasiliana na maarifa ya washairi, kama kufanya madai ya ulimwengu, na kama njia ya kutoa elimu ya wema. Hasa msiba hufikiriwa kuwa huiga matendo ya ukubwa fulani. Lakini hujieleza kwa njia ya kuigiza badala ya kusimulia. Katika hili, hutoa uwezekano wa catharsis, kusafisha hisia. "Aristotle anasema: ""Migogoro ni mimesis ya hatua kubwa na kamili ya ukubwa fulani; katika lugha iliyopambwa kwa njia mbalimbali katika sehemu zake tofauti; katika namna ya kuigiza, sio ya hadithi; kufikia, kupitia huruma na hofu, catharsis ya shauku kama hizo"" (Poetics 1449b24-8), ingawa Aristotle anataja catharsis mara mbili tu katika Poetics, msisitizo juu ya athari ya cathartic ya sanaa imekuwa moja ya urithi wake kuu." Katika picha ya kawaida ya ujenzi juu ya maoni yake machache, wazo ni kimsingi kwamba badala ya kuharibu watu, matukio ya maadili na ya kutiliwa shaka katika msiba inaweza kuruhusu watu kusafisha aina ya hivyo hawana haja ya kushiriki katika vitendo hasi wenyewe kama ilivyoonyeshwa na wahusika wa msiba. Kuishi mambo kama hayo katika mawazo, kwa njia ya kuwakilisha, kwa hivyo si kitu kibaya ambacho kinapotosha tamaa za mtu na kuifanya iwe ya uwezekano zaidi kuliko mtu kwa kweli kukuza hamu ya uovu. Badala yake, angalau ikiwa haifanyiwi kupita kiasi, inaweza kuwa na athari kinyume, ikitoa ukombozi kutoka kwa hisia hasi ambazo vinginevyo zinaweza kusababisha uovu. Hata hivyo, maoni ya Aristotle mwenyewe yaonekana kuwa athari kama hiyo nzuri ya cathartic itatokea tu ikiwa hii haitafanywa kupita kiasi. Vinginevyo, athari kinyume inaweza kusababisha baada ya yote, na badala ya kupunguza hisia, kuunda kwa mawazo ya tabia mbaya inaweza kuimarisha azimio la kufanya hivyo baada ya yote. Aristotle, akiwa na metafizikia tofauti na ya Plato, baada ya kukataa ulimwengu wa fomu, pia ana maoni mabaya kuhusu memesis katika sanaa. Ingawa Aristotle kama Plato inachukua uwakilishi wa Kigiriki kama kiashiria cha sanaa kwa ujumla - kitu cha uwongo tunapozingatia aina nyingi zisizo za uwakilishi za sanaa katika tamaduni nyingi - hafikiri kwamba memesis hii ni hasi. Badala yake, hutoa uwezekano wa kujifunza. Kwa kuiga, lakini kwa tofauti, msiba pia huonyesha aina ya ubora wa historia. Historia, ambayo huandika tu mambo ya hakika, haina sehemu ya kifalsafa ya kunakili kwa ubunifu katika sanaa. Hapa maisha yanaonyeshwa, lakini ili kufanya pointi kuhusu ulimwengu na ukweli, maadili na vinginevyo. Mojawapo ya mambo makuu ya Poetics ni kueleza jinsi msiba unavyopaswa kuonekana. Ingawa kazi hiyo ilikuwa na uvutano mkubwa, kwa kweli haikufuatwa na Shakespeare na waandishi wengine wa masikitiko wa Enzi ya Renaissance. Hata hivyo, ilitoa fomu au muundo ambao ungekubaliwa na Wagiriki wengi. Kwa sehemu, tunaweza kuona kitu kama hiki kama muundo wa kuandika kazi za mafanikio za aina hiyo. "Hata hivyo, Aristotle pia alitoa maoni yake ya kifalsafa na ya kimaadili kuhusu jinsi ya kuvutia hisia za watu kwa njia ya ""maonyesho sahihi ya wahusika na vituko vyao, maonyesho ambayo huchochea hisia hizo hadi upeo wa juu zaidi ambao zinaweza kufikia.""" "Kwa hiyo, mashujaa lazima wawe wenye heshima ya kutosha kushinda huruma ya watazamaji, lakini sio nzuri sana kwamba bahati mbaya inawakuta bila haki. - Poetics, 1452b34,6." "Hiyo ingemchukiza wasikilizaji na kuchukiza kiadili huondoa hofu safi na huruma. """ Hofu na huruma ni hisia za kawaida. Badala ya kuathiriwa na hisia kama hizo, kama vile Plato anavyohofu, Aristotle anafikiri kwamba tunaweza kujifunza kuzidhibiti. "Wanafunzi wa Aristotle, kama vile Martha Nussbaum, wanasema kwamba ""kwa njia ya uzoefu wa kuigiza hali zinazosababisha hofu na huruma, tunaweza kujifunza kuelezea hisia hizi kwa usahihi katika muktadha wa maisha halisi.""" Fasihi inathibitika kuwa aina ya simulator kwa ajili ya maisha, ambayo inaruhusu sisi kusafisha ujuzi wetu. Wale wanaoandika msiba wanaweza kufaidika kutokana na kufanya kazi wakiwa na ufahamu wa fungu zuri ambalo waweza kucheza. "Hawapaswi kuzingatia sana juu ya kuelezea tabia kama juu ya maendeleo ya njama, ambayo inaruhusu masomo ya jumla kuchukuliwa na umuhimu wa kifalsafa na maadili ya ulimwengu. """ Mwigizaji wa msiba si mkalimani wa hali halisi, bali ni muumbaji wa njama mwenye kusudi la kifalsafa na la maadili. Katika ufafanuzi zaidi wa Aristotle wa fomu ya msiba, Aristotle anasema kwamba hatua ya msiba inapaswa kuwa mbaya. Wahusika wake wanapaswa kuwa wanadamu wa hali ya juu, ambao hawapatwi bila sababu. "Hatua ya mhusika wa msiba inapaswa kuwa na umuhimu wa kimaadili, na mateso yao hayapaswi kuonekana kama adhabu kwa tabia mbaya, hata kama itafuata kutoka kwa udhaifu wa msingi wa kimaadili wa mhusika wa msiba.""" "Tamasha hilo linacheza kwenye kosa la mhusika mkuu, ambalo kwa kawaida halisababishi ""madhara ya kimaadili"" kama hayo, lakini linafunuliwa kwa njia ambazo ni za kifalsafa na za kimaadili, hata ingawa bahati ina jukumu katika maendeleo ya njama." Kama N. Pappas anavyosema: "Mshtuko mzuri huongeza hisia, hufafanua asili ya makosa ya maisha, inaonyesha jinsi watu wanavyosisitiza kutenda" (Pappas, 24). Maonyesho ya Aristotle ya namna ya mashairi ya msiba yanaweza kuonwa kuwa tofauti na maoni yake juu ya uzuri kwa ujumla. "Kama ilivyo kwa Plato, Aristotle aliona ""urembo"" kuwa ni kitu cha kawaida ambacho kinaweza kuonekana kwa njia ya kawaida." Kwa kweli, uzuri hutegemea muktadha na hutofautiana kwa vitu tofauti na watu katika nyakati tofauti katika maisha yao. Hapa lengo halikuwa juu ya mtazamo huo wa uzuri, bali juu ya maoni ya jumla ya Aristotle ya sanaa. Kwa upande huu, tunamwona akithamini sana jukumu la ubunifu na jukumu la busara la msanii katika uumbaji wa sanaa na thamani ya sanaa kwa elimu ya maadili kuliko tunavyoona katika taarifa za wazi za Plato juu ya mada hii. "Kumbuka sura ya 10 ya kitabu cha ""Filosophy in the Age of Hellenism and the Rise of Rome"" (Falsafa katika Enzi ya Ugiriki na Kuinuka kwa Roma)."