Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gwathagor
OF COURSE IT'S REAL! Do you think Homer just MAKES STUFF UP?
|
Well, if you look at it from the Aristotle perspective of literary critique, that could be easily supported. Considering that Homer was said to be 'blind', which symbolistically gives of the impression of a developed 'inner eye/sight', Aristotle's method could argue on the behalf of his poetics and epics by saying they emphasis the 'universal' (nature of everything, human nature...) which is seen as something nearer to the 'ideal' of Greek philosophy (according to only Aristotle, of course). So, unlike Plato, he's fine with showing the flaws of heros and gods, as long as it furthers the underlying message of character improvement and polishing the coal into diamond, etc.
Sort of like this: "writers of great dignity imitated the noble actions of noble heroes; the less dignified sort of writers imitated the actions of inferior men."
On the other hand, if you had Plato take a gander at it, he might take Homer's works and stomp them into oblivion because poetic works are the 'flit of imagination' and thus the threat of a 'state and ideal completely of logic morality and reason'. As long as the poets 'behave' and celebrate only the completely falseless of the Platonic state of reason, then Plato seems okay.
Sorry, I have a slight amusement in playing devil's advocate.
Though, that is a good topic to bring up reguarding familiar works.
Particularly though,
The Odyssey is an amazing work. Lovely use of puns and development, plus the wit. I admire the Cyclops scene most of all, and the brief adventures of 'Nobody'.
~ Ramble for rambling Ka