This is the first dialogue I’ve read by Plato! After watching many philosophy videos, I was convinced that reading Plato was essential to any philosophical inquiry because he is the foundation of Western philosophy. Sure there were the pre-socratics, but it’s not until one reads the Platonic Dialogues that philosophy becomes interesting.
I wasn’t exactly sure which dialogue to read first, but according to Gregory B Sadler (an academic philosopher on YouTube) Ion and Meno were good places to start, then say Symposium or Republic. If you’re not used to reading such texts, it might take a while to get used to it. I had to read Ion multiple times over to get a sense of what was going on. But even if the text was easy, it’s still necessary to read the text multiple times over. Philosophical texts should be read over and over because they’re densely rich with meaning.
Summary
Ion is a pretty short dialogue between two people: Socrates, and of course, Ion. Socrates, as I’ve started to notice, is a common character or even a mouthpiece for Plato’s own ideas. In the case of this dialogue, Socrates questions a rhapsode named Ion regarding poetry. Do poets actually possess any knowledge? If not knowledge, then what is it about poetry that moves people? This dialogue ultimately asks epistemological questions in relation to aesthetics.
The dialogue starts out with Ion winning a prize for being the best rhapsode in Greece. A rhapsode is someone who recites poetry of other poets. So they don’t write poetry of their own, but they’re an expert in expressing poetry that they’ve mastered. Rhapsodes helped spread poetry that otherwise wouldn’t be interesting to normal people. Socrates starts questioning this because a rhapsode or poet speaks about things without having any knowledge of the things they speak about. Ion can only discuss the poetry of Homer (and Homer is the most famous poet of Ancient Greece), but not of other poets. While a true professional or craftsman, like a doctor for example, can discuss on all things related to their respective profession.
How is it that Ion can talk passionately about Homer, but nothing else? While a craftsman can talk at length on anything of their respective craft? Socrates gives a Platonic view, in which Gods have given Ion a divine power to be able to speak passionately with Homer’s poetry.
“[Poetry is] not a subject you’ve mastered––speaking well about Homer; it’s a divine power that moves you, as a ‘Magnetic’ stone moves iron rings.’ This stone not only pulls those rings, if they’re iron, it also puts power in the rings, so that they in turn can do just what the stone does––pull other rings–– so that there’s sometimes a very long chain of iron pieces and rings hanging from one another. And the power in all of them depends on this stone. In the same way, the Muse makes some people inspired herself, and then through those who are inspired a chain of other enthusiasts is suspected. You know, none of the epic poets, if they’re good are masters of their subject; they are inspired, possessed, and that is how they utter all those beautiful poems.”
Socrates
In other words, the reason rhapsodes can’t figure out a good or bad poet from another is because they haven’t learned an actual craft, they’ve received a divine power from the Gods. In Socrates’s analogy, the magnetic rock in the center that represents the Gods and the source of all power, with the next ring representing the poet, and the next ring representing the rhapsode. It’s a clever analogy for this power.
The other piece of this power transfer is that the poet or rhapsode loses their “intellect” or mind. Have you noticed that when people are poetic they’re emotional. They feel things that, honestly, really shouldn’t be felt because really poems are just words being said without true knowledge of a subject. And as Socrates pointed out, these words don’t demonstrate mastery, but a divinity passed on from person to person. Ion says that he feels sad when he recites something sad, or he feels scared when he recites something scary, and he notices the same feelings in the audience he presents the poetry to.
By the middle of the dialogue, Socrates makes another point: poetry doesn’t pass on any real knowledge. Just because someone has poetry on war and being a general, does not mean someone actually knows how to be a general. Ion claims that he would know everything about being a general since the poetry of Homer talks at length about a subject, but Socrates says this can’t be because if Ion actually did know anything about being a general he would’ve actually been a general.
Analysis
I think the rhapsodes in Ancient Greece are like actors in our modern world. Or any kind of artist. How is it that an actor, who doesn’t really know anything about the role they’re playing, somehow convinces and moves people when they watch them? For example, one of my favorite shows is House M.D., which is about doctors. None of the actors in this TV show know anything about medicine, yet, the entire show gives the illusion that they know what medicine is. The same way Ancient Greeks got information on war by reading Homer, many Americans get information on medicine by watching House M.D.
This presents a major problem if it’s true. What is the purpose and value of art if it’s not to spread knowledge? And isn’t poetry or acting more of a fraud rather than a real occupation? Do the rhapsodes and actors even deserve the rewards they receive if they don’t actually know anything? I would say that they do deserve rewards, but not because of the knowledge they present, but the emotions they evoke. I think Socrates is mixing epistemology and art. Art isn’t about presenting some kind of knowledge of something, but to evoke feelings. The other thing is that artists do have knowledge; they are a master of showing the most important things in reality.
Shortly after Socrates presents his magnet analogy, he says:
“Just as Bacchus worshippers when they are possessed draw honey and milk from rivers, but not when they are in their right minds–the soul of a lyric poet does this too, as they say themselves. For of course poets tell us that they gather songs at honey-flowing springs, from glades and gardens of the Muses, and that they bear songs to us as bees carry honey, flying like bees. And what they say is true. For a poet is an airy thing, winged and holy, and he is not able to make poetry until he becomes inspired and goes out of his mind and his intellect is no longer in him. As long as a human being has his intellect in his possession he will always lack the power to make poetry or sing prophecy.”
Socrates
Bacchus worshippers are people who danced so much they they found streams of honey and milk. If you took this metaphorically, I think it means that you find the beauty or ecstasy in what you intuitively express, that’s what makes art so wonderful, and not something to be judged on the basis of knowledge, but values. It’s not supposed to be rational or intellectual; it’s intuitive. Plato would explain that it’s from the Gods, but I think it’s people who are tapping into their intuition and are very good at expressing that intuition. I hear all the time of creatives or artists who aren’t exactly sure how they do something, they just do it. They just feel it.
I think Socrates/Plato makes a really interesting point when a rhapsode isn’t in their right mind. An actor, on command, can express any emotions or feelings they want to convey to the camera. But they express these emotions without any real knowledge of anything. An actor doesn’t know anything about medicine or war, so how do they feel those emotions? Where is this coming from?
When Ion only responds to Homer, and only recites poems by Homer, it’s because he intuitively responds to it. He doesn’t respond on the basis of knowledge, but that’s not a bad thing as Socrates would say, it’s a good thing. People should respond to what moves them.
The other thing is that Socrates is too rigid in with his categorizations of mastery. He seems to think that if someone is not a master of a subject, then they can’t say anything or know anything on the subject. But that’s clearly not the case. Someone doesn’t need to be a doctor to judge the quality of a doctor. If a doctor doesn’t heal you, but lets you get sicker, then that’s a bad doctor. You don’t need to know medicine to get a general sense of your health. The other thing is that no one will ever attain mastery. Everyone is at different levels of understanding for different subjects. People who have a greater understanding than most people are seen as masters. They are only masters in relation to other people. But on the whole, there is always more to be discovered.
Ion may not know how to be an actual general, but reading Homer certainly gives him an edge on the topic of war than someone who hasn’t read Homer at all. House M.D. may not be an accurate representation of how medicine works, but the fact that it fools the public, that people buy into the show, demonstrates that there is a level of knowledge in the making of the TV show. If the show demonstrated zero knowledge of medicine, then the show wouldn’t be convincing.
Ultimately, I think art is about expressing our fundamental values or morals. It teaches us about what matters and what doesn’t matter, which is why it’s okay if the artist doesn’t have a true knowledge of the subject he’s talking about. Of course, if one were to make art on a subject, they should do their best to be knowledgable on that subject. And those that are masters of a subject should probably try to add more aesthetic or emotional appeal rather than presenting it dryly in a matter-of-fact way. Maybe the real question to this dialogue is: should art and knowledge be combined or separated? Should knowledge look aesthetically pleasing, or should the aesthetic remain blissfully stupid? Or should we just be aware that when we consume art, we’re not learning knowledge.
On YouTube for example, or the News, or media in general, there’s a real battle between presenting actual knowledge of a subject and appealing to the emotions of an audience. If one focuses too heavily on presenting the truth, it doesn’t do well for views. On the other hand, if someone focuses too much on evoking emotions by stretching and diluting the truth, at what point do people become misinformed? Perhaps we should have a balance of the three. We should consume a combination of boring textbooks and lectures; edutainment videos on YouTube or movies in the theater; and pointless, shocking, entertaining clips on Tiktok.