Analysis One

Philosophy or Poetry: A Classical Struggle between Censorship and Free Art



Although both Plato and Aristotle are both part of the classical school of literary criticism, both individuals seem to have almost opposing views in poetry and the various arts associated in literature. In the short film, “Goodbye to the Normals, ” “Magnus” is a child displays almost mature adult behavior in his interaction with his parents as he decides to leave home (Smith). The singularly disturbing, yet also comical side of this event is that the child is clearly very young, prepubescent in fact. But his vocabulary and behavior could be considered deplorable by a parent’s standards. Should this form of artwork be censored in order to develop proper behavior and a singularly uniform foundation from which children should not have any other form of exposure, so as to prevent corruption?

Although the interaction with Magnus and his parents is fictional and meant for comedic purposes, such exposure to children and even young adults is questionable, as they could very possibly attempt to imitate such behavior. It is Plato’s firm argument that if poetry is not properly censored and monitored, an individual or group would be influence by their passions and emotions to control their behavior, or contrarily, lose their overall control. “If you allow the sweetened muse of lyric or epic, pleasure and pain will rule in the city instead of custom and…rational principles (Murray 54). Plato’s argument is that a child “cannot distinguish between what is allegorical and what is not,” therefore any media with a potential negative message must be censored (Murray 17). Indeed, certain language used by the child and behavior, such as calling his father’s statements, “ridiculous” and shortly questioning his mother, “is that what I asked you” would be unfathomable in a child so young (Smith).

However we must also consider its comedic contribution, as such behavior although deplorable, is outright unheard of, and very effective in its humor. Aristotle’s argument in favor of such art, would clearly state that the “history of comedy…is obscure, because it was not taken seriously” (Murray 63). Furthermore “comedy represents the worse types of people…not in the sense that it embraces any and every kind of badness, but in the sense that the ridiculous is a species of ugliness or badness” (Murray 63). Through tragedy and comedy, all of which are forms of poetry, individuals can find a release for emotions in a healthy manner, and with proper guidance it should not affect the morality of the individual. It is human nature to mimic; humans have an “instinct to enjoy works of imitation…as learning is a very great pleasure…they enjoy seeing images because they learn as they look at them” (Murray 60-61). Not only would this clip provide dark humor, but it could also be appreciated as therapeutic.

Indeed, if Plato represents a system of rigid philosophy, and Aristotle represents a school of open poetry, then perhaps the only accord, which can be reached, is upon“[a continuing] ancient quarrel between philosophy and poetry.” No stalemate can be reached, as long as different levels of media are present in society, and enlightenment, pleasure, and entertainment are sought by the masses (Murray 55).

Works Cited

Murray, Penelope and T.S. Dorsch. Classical Literary Criticism. London: Penguin Books LTD.,1965.

Goodbye to the Normals. Dir. Jim Field Smith. Perf. Alfie Field, Steve Furst, and Juliet Cowan. Idiot Lamp Films, 2006. Short Film. 16 July 2009 < http://goodbyetothenormals.com