Interesting take. About the movie, I would argue that is not simply an object, it's actually a depiction of another reality with its own set of limited objects and properties... other than than, I find the reasoning useful. Thanks for sharing.
Yeah. That’s a fair point. It’s sort of why Plato’s Socrates had such a problem with the poets. They were making poetry and talking about the poetry like it was real. Thanks
Your point on Plato's kept me thinking and here I am again...
It's true that Plato was concerned with poets — he saw them as conjurers of illusion. But here’s a nuance I’d add: a movie — a concept way beyond his imagination — isn’t just “talking about” reality. It recreates it through actors, sound, lighting, context, and even the writing process of the script — as some theoretical physicists might argue — was also “real.” It simulates a system that mirrors aspects of our shared world.
So while poetry evokes, film often embodies. That makes it more than just a projection of thought — it's an experiential model, grounded in the laws of perception and emotion. We might not treat it as “real,” but our nervous system does.
Even without entering metaphysics or quantum theory, we could say: what's perceived consistently, structured coherently, and emotionally engaging… holds a kind of reality worth considering.
Thanks again — loving the layers this conversation opens.
Plato (well, his presentation of Socrates) has definitely been criticized for his (seemingly inconsistent) views on poetry. I’m not so sure he couldn’t conceive of films. He attended plays and has his allegory of the cave that involves people looking at a shadow story. But all that said, there’s something in what Plato’s Socrates is on about.
Poetry comes from poiein in Greek. It means to make. But Socrates suggests you can’t make permanent things. You can make only physical representations that won’t last and won’t be true. On Friday, I have a chapter on platonism due up. I really hope to explore more of these ideas and express the ideas even more clearly.
The platonic sharp division between these two worlds was criticized as early as Plato’s students. Aristotle explicitly does so in the Physics!
Thanks for coming back and letting me know what’s on your mind. Glad it has stimulated some back and forth!
Interesting take. About the movie, I would argue that is not simply an object, it's actually a depiction of another reality with its own set of limited objects and properties... other than than, I find the reasoning useful. Thanks for sharing.
Yeah. That’s a fair point. It’s sort of why Plato’s Socrates had such a problem with the poets. They were making poetry and talking about the poetry like it was real. Thanks
Your point on Plato's kept me thinking and here I am again...
It's true that Plato was concerned with poets — he saw them as conjurers of illusion. But here’s a nuance I’d add: a movie — a concept way beyond his imagination — isn’t just “talking about” reality. It recreates it through actors, sound, lighting, context, and even the writing process of the script — as some theoretical physicists might argue — was also “real.” It simulates a system that mirrors aspects of our shared world.
So while poetry evokes, film often embodies. That makes it more than just a projection of thought — it's an experiential model, grounded in the laws of perception and emotion. We might not treat it as “real,” but our nervous system does.
Even without entering metaphysics or quantum theory, we could say: what's perceived consistently, structured coherently, and emotionally engaging… holds a kind of reality worth considering.
Thanks again — loving the layers this conversation opens.
Plato (well, his presentation of Socrates) has definitely been criticized for his (seemingly inconsistent) views on poetry. I’m not so sure he couldn’t conceive of films. He attended plays and has his allegory of the cave that involves people looking at a shadow story. But all that said, there’s something in what Plato’s Socrates is on about.
Poetry comes from poiein in Greek. It means to make. But Socrates suggests you can’t make permanent things. You can make only physical representations that won’t last and won’t be true. On Friday, I have a chapter on platonism due up. I really hope to explore more of these ideas and express the ideas even more clearly.
The platonic sharp division between these two worlds was criticized as early as Plato’s students. Aristotle explicitly does so in the Physics!
Thanks for coming back and letting me know what’s on your mind. Glad it has stimulated some back and forth!
A new question arises! What hasn't been criticized? —joke
Thanks again for taking the time to elaborate on points I'm just starting to grasp on. And I believe this is the whole point! To interact and learn.
I'll wait for that article on Friday.
100%! I know what my students ask about, but I imagine I’ll see many different questions and approaches on Substack.