An Analysis of Ion by Plato

The Ion, by Plato is a short yet meaningful discussion between Socrates and of course, Ion, about interpretation of poetry. The dialogue is essentially about epistemology. Now, it does not directly talk of the core issue that the field presents which is - who has true knowledge - though it most certainly meanders across both plains in this field - the core question, and on the other side, matters that are derived and descend from the core. So, this field, that the Ion primarily resides in (or rather the portion of that field that will be focused on) is the relationship between knowledge and inspiration, with art.

As for a little summary of the dialogue, Ion is a rhapsode who has come from Epidaurus where the festival of Asclepius is held. He runs into Socrates, and they start talking. Socrates lauds Ion and rhapsodes in general, and thus begins the long span of questions that penetrate deep into the consciousness and subconscious that is the Socratic Method. The dialogue covers many epistemological topics, but where the dialogue covers the subject to be discussed today, is when Ion says that he prefers Homer to all other poets.

Now, to begin:

The Art of Painting in its Entirety

If one can understand where two things agree, where something is superior, compared to where two things disagree, where it is inferior, it is effectively the use of knowledge. Because it is the all-encompassing lexical power that spans realms of the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’, a learned person can assess, and assert valid opinions and valid judgements. Ion agrees with Socrates over this. Because, if Homer and another poet had similarities over the subject of prophecy, then not only would a prophet be the most apt interpreter, but the prophet would be able to see where there are similarities and differences.

Ion is artistically biased to Homer, thinking him to be ‘incomparably better’ to other poets, In addition, Ion thinks that he can interpret Homer ‘better than anyone else can’. Ion thinks Homer to be so good, that when anybody else speaks of some other poet, Ion ‘lose[s] attention’, has ‘absolutely no ideas of any value at all and practically falls asleep’. All of this, defies the characteristics of behaviour that is the result of knowledge. Having scientific knowledge is the understanding of everything in one’s chosen subject, and that field is bound to comprise of the good, the bad, the superior, the inferior, and everything in between. But if one only indulges in the upper echelons, in this case poetry which according to Ion, would only include Homer, then that person is not a student of knowledge. Moreover, in art, it is arguable that ‘the inquiry into its good and bad realisations is one and the same’. So, if Ion was a student of this art, enlightened with the knowledge of art of poetry, then he would be able to speak equally well of both Homer, and some other obscure poet. Even if that obscure poet were objectively bad, Ion could speak of what led to the poet’s downfall, except Ion cannot. He falls asleep at the word of another poet. Thus, Ion does not have knowledge, at least it is not knowledge that has made it so that Ion has an affinity not for poetry, but only for Homer.

Stone of Heraclea

Socrates knows this, and hence suggests that it is not knowledge that is leading to Ion’s rhapsodies and desire to interpret only homer, but it is inspiration that has taken hold up Ion, there is a divinity in him. Socrates takes this further by using the example of the ‘Stone of Heraclea’ - a magnet that attracted rings and whatever got attracted would be imbued with some magnetic power. Hence, the magnet, is the Muse who attracts people through poetic inspiration, leading to a chain.

This logic makes sense, with the example of movies. There is the main field of making movies, and the more peripheral field of critiquing movies. However, they both have a symbiotic relationship - without movies, there is no critique, and without any criticism movies will not get better, for critiques (good ones at least, for bad criticism which incessantly lambasts with no ways given on how to improve are, to some degree, of no use) are essentially suggestions for amelioration. In order to improve, one must have knowledge of the field, of the technicalities of film and understanding of the craft so that it can be accurately assessed. It could be argued that a work of criticism is the product of inspiration, motivation to improve movies. However, it could also be argued that critics feel it their sense of duty, that with their knowledge they should help the subject matter they have dedicated their lives too. But, considering both fields, at their core it is the art of movies. So, is the product of knowledge, which is criticism adding to the field in the same way making movies are? The answer is likely no. It is not creating more art. And, how is more art made? Through inspiration. There must be some impetus to write and direct movies that have the potential to change people’s lives. There is no point to being learned, if there is not inspiration to create (unless one has other objectives). That is the point that Socrates makes. That inspiration leads to art.

It could be asked that without knowledge, of what use is inspiration. If there is no knowledge, no skill, could the resultant product be good? Well, another example could also be used - one of two brushes. The brush that is wise and learned, has an elegant and more lithe stroke. The one that is inexperienced, has rough bristles that are out of place resulting in a broad and jagged stroke. The lithe brush, has the capacity to make intricate and detailed work. However, without inspiration, some vision, it will never create a beautiful painting. It might be too lost in technique, such that it evokes no feeling, no emotion. On the other hand, even with the ‘worse’ brush, if there is inspiration, then it could still come out as a striking and bold portrait. One that revolutionises the art with a refreshing new take, that leaps over bounds, and directly questions the audience of their own morality. The point is that, whether or not one is well-versed in the technical jargon or not, it is inspiration that truly matters.

To conclude, an interpretation of Plato can never be definite for tracing his wisdom is akin to tracing a strange type of labyrinth. Each turn in the maze, represents a conclusion, a final judgement and at the end of each turn there is an exit. And so, one may be satisfied with the view outside this exit, but knowing that there is a different scene at the end of all the other endless exits, the mind will never sated and countless interpretations will grow. This dialogue was very interesting, and the topic covered gave some progress to the question of ‘what is art’?. But there is still much to explored within this short dialogue of about 20 pages about the relationship between art and object, who has the right to speak, and epistemology.

By Advik Lahiri

Image Credit: https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/images/1717-the-9-muses-of-greek-mythology