https://www.online-literature.com/forums/blog.php?8954-dilipbarad The largest classic literature discussion forum on the Internet. Read Write Teach Share. en Fri, 05 Jun 2026 07:57:41 GMT vBulletin 10 https://www.online-literature.com/forums/images/misc/rss.jpg https://www.online-literature.com/forums/blog.php?8954-dilipbarad https://www.online-literature.com/forums/entry.php?6208-Plato-s-Objection-to-Poetry Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:34:31 GMT He was the first systemic critic who inquired into the nature of imaginative literature and put forward theories which are both illuminating and... He was the first systemic critic who inquired into the nature of imaginative literature and put forward theories which are both illuminating and provocative. He was himself a great poet and his dialogues are full of his gifted dramatic quality. His Dialogues are the classic works of the world literature having dramatic, lyrical and fictional elements.
According to him all arts are imitative or mimetic in nature. He wrote in The Republic that ‘ideas are the ultimate reality’. Things are conceived as ideas before they take practical shapes. So, idea is original and the thing is copy of that idea. Carpenter’s chair is the result of the idea of chair in his mind. Thus chair is once removed from reality. But painter’s chair is imitation of carpenter’s chair. So it is twice removed form reality. Thus artist/poet takes man away from reality rather than towards it. Thus artist deals in illusion.
1. Plato’s objection to Poetry from the point of view of Education:
a. In ‘The Republic’ Book II – He condemns poetry as fostering evil habits and vices in children. Homer’s epics were part of studies. Heroes of epics were not examples of sound or ideal morality. They were lusty, cunning, and cruel – war mongers. Even Gods were no better. (Troy-Achilles beheding Apollo’s statue, oracles molested… insults of Gods, Gods fight among themselves, they punish instead of forgiveness…Ahaliya-Indra, Kunti’s children, Narad’s obsession to marry, Hercules son of Zeus and Alcmene, Hera’s jealousy-snakes-fenzy to kill children…)
b. Plato writes: “if we mean our future guardians to regard the habit of quarreling among themselves as of all things the basest, no word should be said to them of the wars in the heaven, or of the plots and fighting of the gods against one another, for they are not true…. If they would only believe as we would tell them that quarreling is unholy, and that never up to this time has there been any quarreling between citizens…… these tales (of epics) must not be admitted into our State, whether they are supposed to have allegorical meaning or not.”
c. Thus he objected on the ground that poetry does not cultivate good habits among children.
2. Objection from Philosophical point of view:
a. In ‘The Republic’ Book X: Poetry does not lead to, but drives us away form the realization of the ultimate reality – the Truth.
b. Philosophy is better than poetry because Philosophy deals with idea and poetry is twice removed from original idea.
c. Plato says: “The imitator or maker of the image knows nothing of true existence; he knows appearance only …. The imitative art is an inferior who marries an inferior and has inferior offspring.”(Dorothea’s ideal in Middlemarch shattered, Kshtriya dharma – not to hit enemy without weapon, Tess’s providence, evil wins & God is silent, unrewarded virtue…)
3. Objection form the Moral point of view:
a. In the same book in ‘The Republic’: Soul of man has higher principles of reason (which is the essence of its being) as well as lower constituted of baser impulses and emotions. Whatever encourages and strengthens the rational principle is good, and emotional is bad.
b. Poetry waters and nourishes the baser impulses of men - emotional, sentimental and sorrowful.
c. Plato says: “Then the imitative poet who aims at being popular is not by nature made, nor is his art intended, to please or to affect the rational principle in the soul; but he will prefer the passionate and fitful temper, which is easily limited …. And therefore we shall be right in refusing to admit him into a well-ordered state, because he awakens and nourishes and strengthen the feelings and impairs the reason … Poetry feeds and waters the passion instead of drying them up; she lets them rule, although they ought to be controlled, if mankind are ever to increase in happiness and virtue.” ]]> dilipbarad https://www.online-literature.com/forums/entry.php?6208-Plato-s-Objection-to-Poetry https://www.online-literature.com/forums/entry.php?6207-Spellings-in-English-Language-To-spell-or-not-to-spell-correctly Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:11:03 GMT Spellings in English Language: To spell or not to spell correctly. Language grows. It has accreting quality. It flows like river. It goes on... Spellings in English Language: To spell or not to spell correctly.


Language grows. It has accreting quality. It flows like river. It goes on changing its shape and flow in harmony with its levee. Change is the only permanent feature of language. Language which does not change with flux of time, give up the ghost.


The Spelling is one of the vital components of a language. From time and again, like language, spellings of the language also undergo a change. From Geoffrey Chaucer – the father of English language – down the line, if you read writings of Shakespeare, Edmund Spencer, Milton, Dryden or any of the 18th, 19th century English literary hulks, you will find how modern English spellings were 'misspelled' by these great man of English letters.


If the history of English language tells us that language and its spellings can't be static; it must constantly evolve to keep up with changing times and remain relevant; then why should Pundits of the language cling steadfastly to the correctness of spelling?


Ken Smith, lecturer at the Bucks New University in Britain has added fuel to the debate over 'to spell or not to spell correctly'. "Don't let students' howlers drive you mad, says Ken Smith. Accept their most common mistakes as variant spellings ... and relax." He further argues that "…instead of complaining about the state of the education system as we correct the same mistakes year after year, I've got a better idea. University teachers should simply accept as variant spelling those words our students most commonly misspell". Several of British English spellings are already accepted as American variants and people have easily assimilated them in their daily usage. Thanks to Bill Gates and MS Office. 'U' is omitted from 'colour', 'favour', 'endeavour' etc. This software programme has changed 'programme' to 'program', 'judgement' to 'judgment'. Ken Smith asks, "The spelling of the word "judgement", for example, is now widely accepted as a variant of "judgment", so why can't "truely" be accepted as a variant spelling of "truly"?" To begin with, he listed top 10 spellings of simple words which are commonly misspelled by the students.


Of course, such proposals have been made in the past. The dawn of SMS-text messaging turned many students into spelling Neanderthals as phrases such as "wot r u doin 2nite?" became socially, if not academically, acceptable.


Despite Smith's suggestion, language pundits are unconvinced. John Simpson, the chief editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, says rules are rules and they are there for good reason. "There are enormous advantages in having a coherent system of spelling," he told the Times newspaper. He added, "It makes it easier to communicate. Maybe during a learning phase there is some scope for error, but I would hope that by the time people get to university they have learnt to spell correctly."


But still the point is: Is it really necessary to spell correctly to fulfill basic function of language – which is to 'communicate'? If we can communicate without correct spellings, is it essential to learn how to spell correctly? If you have a million dolor (check meaning of this word) doubt regarding how to communicate without spelling correctly, read following paragraph:


Cna yuo raed tihs? Suteids sohw taht olny aoubt 55 prcenet of plepoe can (atculley trheer is no scuh sudty). I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. Tihs sohws us the phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are in, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset of the txet can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but isntaed raeds the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? Yaeh and we awlyas tghuhot slpelnig was ipmorantt!


Yet even some of Britain's greatest wordsmiths have acknowledged it's a language with irritating quirkiness. Playwright George Bernard Shaw was fond of pointing out that the word "ghoti" could just as well be pronounced "fish" if you followed common pronunciation: 'gh' as in "tough," 'o' as in "women" and 'ti' as in "nation."


Isn't Ken Smith's idea worth accepting? Isn't it the time to adopt humanistic approach and free students from the atrocities of spellings? Technology has changed the way we live and think. It has initiated change in the way we spell our spellings. Isn't it a good idea to simplify obsolete and confusing spellings? Isn't it an idea whose time has come? ]]> dilipbarad https://www.online-literature.com/forums/entry.php?6207-Spellings-in-English-Language-To-spell-or-not-to-spell-correctly