The effect of being exposed to poetry: one tries to be many things, instead of
one thing.
Background: Plato + Aristotle
both believed a good human life is unified
A single goal, so you could say what it was about
(they happened to think the best goal was contemplation of eternal
truths).
We share this intuition, though now we also praise people for having a
variety of interests.
How can you be a mother and a working professional at once?
We would rather try to make the two identities compatible, rather than
try to argue that people should be comfortable/adept at having
multiple identities.
What is the distinction between unity and diversity:
A single person does many things (shoemaker has to cut leather, sew,
negotiate, …) and these are all ways of expressing a single identity
(illusory multiplicity).
Plato objects to the multiple identities.
Also note: Plato not opposed to all poetry, since he thinks it is valuable
in early moral development as a form of play.
Rather, we should reform poetry to prevent it from encouraging
multiplicity.
Example
First you are Homer narrating, then you are Achilles, then you are Helen,
etc.
We come to enjoy being many people by being exposed to this.
When you seek to be many things, you are no particular thing at all.
The single identity of ‘a poet’ is not a real identity.
We have lots of fleeting/meaningless pleasure that is not actually satisfying
(we have to keep varying things to keep interested). Was Plato predicting the
emptiness of contemporary society and shallowness of popular culture?
Plato’s remedy is austere: the only goal capable of having the stability of
unifying a life is pursuit of reason. (Not incompatible with modern
conceptions of the good life, for theists or academic-minded people).
Plato offers valid criticism of entertainment and high culture, but he
underestimates the value of certain kinds of play. He didn’t see that we play
not at things we want to become, but also things we’re afraid of or want to
learn about.