Philosophers View On Art

Plato’s Theory of Mimesis with Aristotle contradicting Plato’s Theory

This post is in relation to my first post about ‘Art’. In there I mentioned about the theory of mimesis in relation to art which was introduced by a well known philosopher, Plato and its counterpart was done by Aristotle. So here is a new post that explains this theory of mimesis.


Plato was a Greek philosopher who lived in 2nd or 3rd BC. He spoke about truth. Two reasons Plato was known was for his Ideal and Perfection. Plato wrote a book called ‘The Republic’- The role of citizens, where he reasoned discussion of general principles of good and the means by which it is attained. According to Plato, poetry and philosophy are in ancient quarrel. He had no place for a poet. He had certain objection towards literature and he mainly believed literature was false trivial and harmful.

Plato, Classical Greek Philosopher

 (424/423 BC– 348/347 BC)

In Book II, Plato discussed about education of a good citizen. He insists that, ‘all stories told to children should provide moral or intellectual improvement and that speaks about the truth. They should not suggest wrong ideas, specially focusing on Homer’s poems, which was the chief medium in ancient Greece. These poems were based on Greek tragedy which included full of bloodshed and unnecessary deaths. They portray the God’s in bad light and one cannot distinguish between right or wrong and they are no good to be taught to children as it corrupts their mind. These poets tell bad lies and they show no interest in the truth. They talk about things that are imaginary and things that never existed. This brings about falsehood in literature.’

Plato believed that poets are three times removed from the truth, so we must not believe what they say or portray. According to Plato, ideas are created in Gods mind. According to Gods ideas there will be a maker and the maker might have some flaws and make something not that perfect comparing to Gods ideas and then it is used by the user and then observed by the painter. Painter only imitates what he sees and does not know how to make it or how to use it, hence he is neither a maker nor the user, and hence he is just an observer. A painter can paint a bed and not make one.

Plato has compared a painter to a poet, who imitates reality without understanding it and hence the art of imitation of imitations are three times removed from the truth and remains a product of pointless ignorance. The man who imitates, describes or represents without really knowing what he is imitating is known both for his lack of useful purpose and his lack of knowledge.

Plato says,” The real artist, who knew what he was imitating, would be interested in realities and not in imitations; and would desire to leave as memorials of himself works many and fair; and, instead of being the author of encomiums, he would prefer to be the theme of them.” And also discussed that if Homer had understood what makes men behave well instead of merely describing men behaving well, he would have been at second instead of the third removed from ideal truth and would have been much more useful citizen.
He calls literature to be harmful. According to Plato, poetry has the power of harming even the good. ‘Poetry feeds and waters emotion instead of drying them up.’ He brought this in relation to Homer’s poems or one of the tragedians in which he portray some pitiful hero who is drawling out his sorrow in a long oration or weeping and smiting his breast. At times in misfortunes when one feels the natural hunger and desire to relive ones sorrow by weeping and lamentation and kept under control in our calamities is satisfied and delighted by poets and erupts ones emotions easily. Young men cry and this brings them to be like a part of women within a manly nature and because of the use of emotion; they will forget about the truth and be away from reason and logical thinking and it’s harmful to mankind. These are the few objections brought about by Plato towards literature.

Aristotle, Greek Philosopher and Polymath 

(384 BC – 322 BC)

Aristotle examines the nature and differentiates the quality of imaginative literature with a view of demonstrating a different view towards literature as compared to Plato. Aristotle being a disciple of Plato, he opposes and challenges the belief that Plato argued about literature. According to Aristotle literature was true, serious and useful where as Plato believed that literature was false trivial and harmful. He also classified literature into two aspects one in which they were similar and other which they differed. His method consisted of observing phenomena with respect to its qualities and characteristics.
 Just like Plato, Aristotle also uses the example of the painter and the poet, but he totally on what Plato believed. According to Aristotle the painter uses the colour and form, the latter uses words in their denotative, connotative, rhythmic and musical aspects. In respect to an artist, according to Aristotle, his job is more difficult. He speaks only what is essential and universal. The artist can present the truth of human nature. Everything can change but human nature will never change. The artist does not intent to change the happenings. He also believed that an artist arranges things in such a way, order, form and regularity and self artist world and he have capability to keep up to meet that world.

When it comes to discuss the relationship between poetry and history that Aristotle deals Plato’s attack on poetry as an imitation of an imitation its most damaging blow. The poet does not simply imitate or represent particular events or situation which he happens to have invented, he handles them in such a way that he brings out their universal and characteristic elements, thus illuminating the essential nature of some event or situation whether or not, what he is telling is historically true. ‘The poet works according to the law of probability or necessity, not according to some chance observed or random invention. He is thus more fundamentally scientific and serious than the historian, who must restrict himself to what happened to have occurred and cannot arrange or invent his facts in order to present in term of human psychology and nature of things, is more inherently probable. According to Aristotle there are two notions involved. Firstly, ‘a historical falsehood may be the more ideal truth’ that a “probable impossibility may reflect more profound reality than an improbable possibility”, and secondly, there is a perception that a literary artist produces a work which has a unity and a formal perfection of its own, thus creates its own world of probability within which truth can be recognized and appreciated.

According to Plato, art corrupts by nourishing passions and Aristotle replies to Plato’s notion in simple and remarkable way. Far from nourishing the passion, he asserts, it gives them harmless or even useful purgation, by exiting pity and fear in us, tragedy enables us to leave the theatre, in calm mind, all passion spent. Tragedy gives new knowledge, yield satisfaction, produces a better state of mind. Aristotle brings about this ideology called Catharsis.


Plato and Aristotle ideologies have largely influenced our modern society and their philosophies are still greatly valued. This theory of mimesis has immensely helped me think more deeply and creatively to every work of art I come across, and hence I managed to do some research and put this post up!