philosophy have the same object, the {233} apprehension
of the Absolute, or the Idea. Philosophy apprehends it as
it is in itself, that is to say, as thought. Art apprehends
it in a merely sensuous form. Philosophy apprehends it in
its truth, art in a comparatively untrue way. Philosophy,
therefore, is the higher. But while any true philosophy of
art must recognize this, it must not interpret it to mean
that art is to be made merely a means towards philosophy.
It must somehow find room for the recognition of the truth
that art is an end in itself, and it is in this that Plato fails.
Aristotle, who had no spark of artistic capacity in his com-
position, whose own writings are the severest of scientific
treatises, did far greater justice to art than Plato, and pro-
pounded a far more satisfactory theory. Plato, himself a
great artist, is utterly unjust to art. Paradoxical as it may
appear, the very reason why Aristotle could be just to art
was that he was no artist. Being solely a philosopher, his
own writings are scientific and inartistic. This enables him
to recognize art as a separate sphere, and therefore as hav-
ing its own rights. Plato could not keep the two sepa-
rate. His dialogues are both works of art and of philoso-
phy. We have seen already that this fact exercised an evil
influence on his philosophy, since it made him substitute
poetic myths for scientific explanation. Now we see that it
exercised an equally evil influence on his views of art. As
a philosopher-artist his own practice is to use literary art
solely as a means towards the expression of philosophical
ideas. And this colours his whole view of art. It is, to him,
nothing but a means towards philosophy. And this is the
tap-root of his entire view of the subject.
{234}
- Critical Estimate of Plato’s Philosophy,
If we are to form a just estimate of the value of Plato’s
philosophy, we must not fritter away our criticism on the
minor points, the external details, the mere outworks of the
system. We must get at the heart and governing centre of it
all. Amid the mass of thought which Plato has developed,
in all departments of speculation, that which stands out
as the central thesis of the whole system is the theory of
Ideas. All else is but deduction from this. His physics, his
ethics, his politics, his views upon art, all flow from this
one governing theory. It is here then that we must look,
alike for the merits and the defects of Plato’s system.The theory of Ideas is not a something sprung suddenly
upon the world out of Plato’s brain. It has its roots in
the past. It is, as Aristotle showed, the outcome of Eleatic,
Heracleitean, and Socratic determinations. Fundamentally,
however, it grows out of the distinction between sense and
reason, which had been the common property of Greek
thinkers since the time of Parmenides. Parmenides was the
first to emphasize this distinction, and to teach that the
truth is to be found by reason, the world of sense being il-
lusory. Heracleitus, and even Democritus, were pronounced
adherents of reason, as against sense. The crisis came with
the Sophists, who attempted to obliterate the distinction
altogether, and to find all knowledge in sensation, thus call-
ing forth the opposition of Socrates and Plato. As against
them Socrates pointed out that all knowledge is through
concepts, reason: and Plato added to this that the concept