Month: February 2020

Art is a philosophically controversial subject, and many extreme perspectives on it have been expressed over the centuries. However, until reading Book X of Plato’s Republic, I would have been hard-pressed to believe that an influential philosopher had seriously argued that art is almost entirely bad and should therefore be effectively banned. This unusual position arises from Plato’s rigidly ordered conception of truth. He believes that true reality is contained within a set of forms, general categories or rules which are self-evidently true throughout the universe. The “idea of a bed” falls within this category. All physical beds that we encounter in the world, then, are mere simulacrums of this pure, ideal form of a bed. Even lower on the ladder of truthfulness, in Plato’s opinion, are the “imitations” produced by art. A painting of a bed is not really a bed in the world, and a bed in the world is not really the idea of a bed, so the painting is doubly removed from the truth and thus deceptive.

Leaving aside for the moment its application to art, this concept of truth is flawed. Plato asserts that “if any one were to say that the work of the maker of the bed, or of any other workman, has real existence, he could hardly be supposed to be speaking the truth.” In fact, truth is derived in the other direction. The physical world exists on its own, and by observing patterns in its existence sentient beings can group its instances into unified concepts. There is no eternal “idea of a bed” which preceded humanity and inspired all physical beds. Rather, humans built structures on which to sleep, and then invented the concept of “beds” to describe and categorize these objects. The conceptual arises from the physical, not the other way around.

Plato operates from the assumption that art should be judged on its ability to communicate truth about the world, and given its position in his epistemological hierarchy he believes it fails entirely at this. He also offers several more practical arguments in support of the idea that art deceives people and thus harms society. First, he contends that “the real artist, who knew what he was imitating, would be interested in realities and not in imitations.” A person who truly has a useful insight into reality should put it into practice, rather than merely writing about it. Because few great authors have also been renowned for their material achievements, Plato concludes that they must not really possess such insight. However, this is merely a form of the tu quoque fallacy. Plato is arguing that the content of the artists’ work must be false because their actions do not seem to match it, rather than directly disproving the content itself.

Another of Plato’s important premises is that human reason should dominate over human emotion, which leads him to argue that art is damaging because it encourages the emotional part of the soul over the logical part. Even if this premise is granted, the argument fails to hold up. Following reason over emotion is an arduous task which requires complex understanding of that emotion, and recognition that sometimes it needs to be expressed. Experiencing art and having strong emotional reactions to it is an excellent way of coming to this understanding. If one attempts to suppress emotion entirely it will always burst its confines and end up interfering with important decision-making, but by experiencing and learning about it in the relatively harmless context of art we can discover how to better master it when doing so is truly necessary.

While Plato’s anti-art absolutism is ridiculous, he is correct that art can be used to deceive. It is not inherently false, but all art is shaped by the society in which it is produced, and it has the potential to convey damaging ideas and reinforce oppressive norms. We should certainly not attempt to oppose art as a whole, it is reasonable and even necessary to examine the messages that art is delivering and support art that expresses true and beneficial ideas.

(681 words)

1. All beliefs, even seemingly inconsequential ones, have a significant effect on the believer’s decision-making and on their society.

2. If the beliefs are false, this effect is likely to be negative.

3. Basing one’s beliefs on strong evidence gathered through fair, skeptical investigation reduces the likelihood that they will be false.

C: All humans have a moral obligation to strive to only hold beliefs which are based on strong evidence acquired through fair, skeptical inquiry.

This is a fairly strong argument, though it is missing an important premise: namely, that humans have a moral obligation to try to have a positive effect on the world. Clifford does not state this premise or argue for its truthfulness, but without it his argument is invalid. However, this premise is widely assumed to be true, and it could even be argued that not having a negative effect on the world is definitionally moral (though the obligation part is less clearly implied). It is reasonable for Clifford to focus on the other aspects of his argument which are more likely to be controversial, particularly given the difficulty of making sweeping moral arguments. The premises which he does state are all true, and when the unstated one is added the conclusion does necessarily follow.

Practically, Clifford’s thesis calls on us to take responsibility for our own beliefs. They are extremely important to our identity and actions, so every precaution must be taken to ensure that they are true. We may think that we can escape this obligation by relying on wiser authorities for our beliefs, but our conviction that these authorities are in fact wiser and should be trusted is itself a belief which we must come to hold somehow. Under these circumstances, we have no choice but to struggle to uncover the truth ourselves. One of the most consequential opportunities to apply this principle is in voting, and more broadly in choosing one’s political alignment within society. Before using the power vested in us by democracy, we have a responsibility to independently seek out evidence and form our own assessments of the options available. However, it is insufficient to simply do research immediately before participating in an election, because by this point we will already have some political beliefs, even if they are not immediately obvious. We must keep in mind our empirical responsibilities during any engagement with politics, verifying the sources of information we are exposed to and searching our own thought processes for bias. Our beliefs will never be entirely accurate, but making them closer to the truth will allow us to have a more positive effect on the world.

Clifford’s argument seems free of significant fallacies, except arguably of the fallacy of presumption with regard to moral obligation discussed above. However, due to the relatively uncontroversial nature of the premise he presumes, this is an unimportant omission.

(475 words)

1. Green objects are blue.

2. Oranges are green.

3. Oranges are objects.

Conclusion: Oranges are blue.

Sound

1. If I did not receive nourishment for a year, I would die.

2. If I died, I would not be alive.

3. I am alive.

Conclusion: I have received nourishment in the last year.

Weak Inductive

1. Once, I saw a blue car.

2. Another time, I saw a different blue car.

Conclusion: All cars are blue.

Strong Inductive

1. Almost all humans have skin.

2. I am a human.

Conclusion: I probably have skin.

(89 words)