Summary:

Earlier it was established that represantational poetry must be close to banned from the moral community. This chapter further develeops the case against poetry and representation.

A much harsher tone is employed against poetry this chapter. It is directly harmful to it's audiences, of the irrational and rational parts of people's minds it nourishes the first one. Not only does poetry portray immoral behaviour, but it encourages the audience to lose control and be emotionally overwhelmed. Even good people are vulnerable to these effects, which is why poetry is so harmful.

A craftsmen can create things based on their knowledge while a painter can create any thing without knowledge of them. The creations of the painter are apperances. A joiner can create beds, but not the type of bed. Only God can create a type. There cannot be two of the same type, then they would both just be of a third type. Particulars and universals. The painters creations, representations, are two steps away from reality.

A good poest must understand what they write about. Homer is claimed to be wise in the numerous subjects that his works contain but that would be extraordinary for him to be wise in so many subjects. Is it wisdom or representation? Homer serves as an example of poets to examine. No great accomplishments are ascribed to Homer's expertise. No wars have been won due to his guidance, patients healed nor do any laws claim provenance from him. Poetry is made without knowledge of what it portrays. The works are embellished to flatter the senses of the audience.

The user of a thing has the ultimate knowledge of what makes it good or bad, not the maker. A maker is not intimate with function. «Deeper interpretation of user vs maker?»

Socrates is still open to reconcillation with poetry if it could be proven to be harmless or beneficial. Until then it is restricted to only representing and praising goodness.

Observations:

The previous chapter attacked false pain and pleasure, now false things, representations, are in focus.

I did not expect the Ion dialogue to be so relevant. The attitudes towards in Homer in that dialogue are very relevant to what Plato is arguing against here. Homer was taken to be genuinely wise in the subjects he portrayed in his works.

This is an attack on poetry and Homer, yet Plato clearly holds Homer in high regards as he quotes him constantly. Is there a deeper message on this being a fault of Plato, of compromise, or when logic is taken too far? Does Homer actually have a redeeming attribute? If so then why not tell us? Or perhaps it was only Socrates that quoted Homer frequently, while Plato disproves of him?