Socrates False Authority In Poetry

Poetry is a powerful medley of rhythmical turns and vibrant imageries that stroke and shake the soul. It is no surprise that the best poets attract masses of followers who hang onto every word they say. When Socrates attempts to construct an ideal city in Plato’s Republic, he looks beyond the beauty of poetry to consider its potentially destructive impact on society. Poets like Homer have false knowledge and false authority to teach city values. Socrates wishes to exclude poets from his city for this reason: they threaten the authority of the philosophers to define city values, without having the authority to establish order.
First of all, poets support incorrect ideas about justice. Socrates defines justice as “a kind of good [one] likes …show more content…
It is essential for citizens to see the divine as totally perfect and inculpable, because as beings higher than mortals, they serve as staunch models of good behavior as well as objects of worship. However, Homer creates false stories of the gods, which highlight their apparent faults. Violence, meanness, and vengeance are all put on display. Cronus punishes Uranus and Zeus punishes Cronus (II.378a1). Theseus and Pirithous engage in “terrible kidnappings” (II.391d1). Due to their inexperience and undeveloped judgment, it is more likely for youth to misinterpret these “both impious and untrue” tales as truth (II.391e1). In turn, they will respect the gods less. This kind of impiety clearly goes against Socrates’s ideal city values. Homer’s excessive “lamentations and pitiful speeches of famous men” in the Iliad are also destructive to order in the city (II.387c11). Achilles unravels “lying now on his side, now on his back, now again on his belly” (II.388a6-7). Zeus grieves openly about Sarpedon’s death. Socrates criticizes Homer’s tragic tones as “playing and jesting with [the public] as if [they] were children” (VIII.545e2-3). When Homer infantilizes his readers in this way, he not only encourages their cowardice, but also further ruins divine reputation. When gods and heroes indulge in their emotions, they …show more content…
In The Republic, it is fine for philosophers to tell their city guardians and citizens that the gods mix gold or silver or bronze into their souls to represent their natural social classes, because they know higher truth. Philosophers are enlightened about the form of the good. So they have the authority to tell falsehoods “for the good of the city”, to encourage community stability and belonging (III.389b7-8). On the other hand, Homer does not have this authority to take liberties with the truth or offer his own interpretation of it. First, he is not a model for good behavior like the gods are. His poetry does not bring any real practical benefits for Athens. Homer does not “pass on a Homeric way of life to those who came after him” (X.600b1). Neither does his writing lead to better-governed cities or better-fought wars. Second, and most importantly, Homer is just an imitator. He even imitates the reality of his characters when he reproduces their speeches and dialogues in his narrative. Homer is not any of his characters, but we read his words as if they were someone else’s. He is also imitating higher forms by assuming understanding of them. In the end, a poet is merely a maker, like a painter who paints tables without understanding the essence of tables. Poets are third removed from the