In poetics Aristotle claims that poetry is higher and more philosophical thing than history. He argues this because poetry sets out to express the universal by creating a plot, and then inserting characters, relating to what may happen that is possible according to the law of probability. On the other hand, history is only the particular, who write about particular individuals and relate to what has already happened. He says that a poem start off first with a plot, which should not be written to please others or for competition or it will break its natural continuity, and consist of many elements. Many different elements could be in simple or complex plots including; reversal of the situation, recognition, scene of suffering, the prologue, episode, exode, choric part, stasimon and commos.The best tragedy is a complex plot, consisting fear and pity, change of fortune from good to bad, and is single in its issue. Furthermore, Aristotle would claim that poetry is higher than history because it is an art, needing much thought and effort to carefully plan it out, and is more than simply just writing in verses. He then explores tragedies versus epic poetry, concluding that tragedies are higher than epic poems.
Aristotle makes a valid point and good reasons when he says that poetry is more philosophical than history, however I think that saying it is higher is kind of a different story. They are different things all together. History is simply recording what happened in the past. Therefore when Aristotle says poetry is higher, it is completely opinion based with no convincing evidence to back it up. Although he does make good argument on why tragedies are better than epics, explaining them in detail discussing the different elements which goes into each.
Question: Why would he consider poetry to be higher than history, when they have different purposes?
No comments:
Post a Comment