Aristotle's Objection to the Theory of Mimesis

~~~~~~~~~~
Aristotle's Objection
to the Theory of
Mimesis
~~~~~~~
#Aristotle
agrees with #Plato
in calling the
poet an imitator
and creative #art,
imitation. He
imitates one of
the three objects

– things as they
were/are, things
as they are said/
thought to be or
things as they
ought to be. In
other words, he
imitates what is
past or present,
what is
commonly
believed and
what is ideal.
Aristotle #believes
that there is
natural #pleasure
in imitation
which is an in-
born instinct in
#men. It is this
pleasure in
imitation that
enables the child
to learn his
earliest lessons
in speech and
conduct from
those around him,
because there is
a pleasure in
doing so. In a
grown-up child –
a poet, there is
another instinct,
helping him to
make him a poet
– the instinct for
#harmony and
#rhythm.
He does not
agree with his
teacher in –
‘poet’s #imitation
is twice removed
form #reality and
hence unreal/
illusion of truth',
to prove his point
he compares
poetry with
history. The poet
and the historian
differ not by their
medium, but the
true difference is
that the historian
relates ‘what has
happened’, the
poet, ‘what may/
ought to have
happened’ - the
ideal.
#Poetry,
therefore, is more
philosophical,
and a higher
thing than history
because history
expresses the
particular while
poetry tends to
express the
universal.
Therefore, the
picture of poetry
pleases all and
at all times.
Aristotle does
not agree with
Plato in the
function of poetry
making people
weaker and
emotional/too
sentimental. For
him, catharsis is
ennobling and it
humbles a
human being.
So far as the
moral nature of
poetry is
concerned,
Aristotle believes
that the end of
poetry is to
#please; however,
teaching may be
the byproduct of
it. Such pleasing
is superior to the
other pleasures
because it
teaches civic
morality. So all
good literature
gives pleasure,
which is not
divorced from
moral lessons.