The assigned readings are fostering a growing appreciation in me for Plato and Aristotle. I found the text regarding Islamic and eastern thought very interesting, but I feel like the sheer number of different worldviews I’ve surveyed over the last two weeks has made it hard for me to settle my mind and evaluate the “truthiness” of each one. (To steal a word from the Colbert Report.)
Plato’s Theory of Forms has been occupying my thoughts as of late. I initially dismissed the theory because it sounded so farfetched: Outside of space and time exist words and objects in perfect forms. These forms are discernable to our souls.
If I am following the philosopher’s thoughts correctly, humankind can recognize the relative goodness of a particular action because the soul can access the perfect Form of the Good. I have a harder time swallowing his example of a slave boy who was able to do geometry in his soul. (I wish I had a soul like that in junior high--it would have made math period a much more pleasant experience!
It was an interesting enough theory, but it just seemed a little “far out” for me. But something about it continued to nag at me. Then it finally occurred to me this morning--archetypes!
In creative writing and literature classes I learned about archetypical types: the traits and motivations that define characters. Whether you analyze the latest Hollywood blockbuster or an ancient epic poem, you’ll find that a hero fits a particular template, as do villains, mentors, sidekicks, etc. (Plots also follow similar patterns.)
Are archetypes in literature just another example of Plato’s Forms?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment