on history, poetry, and philosophy.
“The difference between the historian and the poet is not
merely that one writes verse and the other prose…the essential difference is
that the one tells us what happened and the other the sort of thing that would
happen. This is why poetry is at once more like philosophy and more worth while
than history, since poetry tends to make general statements, while those of
history are particular. A ‘general statement’ means one that tells us what sort
of man would, probably or necessarily, say or do what sort of things, and this
is what poetry aims at, though it attaches proper names; a particular statement
on the other hand tells us what Alcibiades, for instance, did or what happened
to him.”
Aristotle, Poetics 1451b3-1
I like how Aristotle likens the poet to the philosopher—so
much for the alleged war between them. However, I’m puzzled by Aristotle’s
reason for thinking that the poet is more like the philosopher than the
historian. Is it really the case that the poet’s business is to tell us what a
certain sort of person would do? Is this what the philosopher is in the
business of doing? Furthermore, the historian does tell us what has happened,
as opposed to what would happen, but the historian also gives us an account of
what happened—viz. an explanation. And isn’t part of the point of learning
history is to know what we would most likely do in similar circumstances?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home