To preface my thoughts on critical theory, I strongly believe that the most important element in analyzing a text is the background/context about both the author and the text itself. As a reader, it is important that we consider what the author it trying to say by writing the piece. What are his/her beliefs and how did he/she compose them? We must also consider the context of the time period-what political, social, and historical conflicts surrounded this time? By framing the text, we can further analyze its constructions, symbols, and metaphors.
In Plato’s Ion, Socrates expresses the belief that it is not skill but a divine experience in which art is enjoyed and created. Socrates speaks with Ion about his love and interest in Homer. Because Ion does not have any interest in poets other than Homer, he dismisses this characteristic as somewhat of a skill. Socrates explains that poetry is “not a skill, but divine dispensation that enables them to comprise poetry and say many things on the fine deeds of men,” (Murray, 6). Throughout the rest of the text, Socrates details the idea that the experience of poetry, as well as the experience of a rhasode, creates a relationship where emotions and thoughts are conveyed through both the creator and the audience. It is this experience which strengthens the interest and desire for art, thus proving the divinity of art rather than it being an acquired skill.
Another theory in Plato’s Republic 2 poses the question-What material is appropriate for our children to be exposed to? The text claims that when children are exposed to songs (which are predominantly the first material they encounter) they are exposed to stories that are both true and false. Republic 2 continues to discuss whether or not stories, such as that of Kronos who suffered at the hands of his son, are appropriate lies that young children should be familiar with. I can see this issue as a prominent conflict that will continue on throughout generations. As decades have passed, the material that is put in front of young children has become increasingly provocative and deceiving. Whether it comes from television shows to books on library shelves, children grow infatuated with these stories, gaining a sense of a “false” reality. However, one may argue that children deserve to be exposed this material at a young age to perpetuate the “naïve bliss” of childhood. Without even considering the material, should we take this supposed naivety away from these children? Was your “bliss” taken away early on? Perhaps I am misinterpreting the material, but these particular ideals were the most intriguing.
