H2 Summary: Plato's Assault of Artists

Plato was questioned in the seminar on his attitude towards artists. Most fervently, he seemed to assert that being an expressive artist does not qualify one as an intellectual, however, the implication that the other panelists construed was that artists are not intellectuals. I would concur that artists, regardless of the intensity or integrity of their expression, aren't inherently intellectuals. I disagree with modernity's assault on modern art, however, I disagree with the assertion that all art is brilliant in its expression, no matter how concrete or how abstract. There is a particular personality associated with an artist. A specific and liberally-engaged concoction of political positions and social perspectives that many regard with sincere derision, and while I support the defense of them as equally capable of artistic endeavors, I would not inherently defend one whose art is so abstract that it is easily misunderstood. One must remember the context of Plato's involvement in the universe of Plato at the Googleplex. Rather than an ancient philosopher whose innovations as a philosopher is recognized as being among the quintessential trinity of Greek philosophers, Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle, Plato is a modern writer, philosopher, and teacher, who, judging by the responses and attitudes of his colleagues around the panel, still has an expansive influence on the field. His brilliance may not be the universal quantifier of contemporary issues that we would assume it is, and Goldstein shines in her integrity in her willingness to suggest the distinction between modern general consensus and Plato's political and social positions on numerous issues. Firstly, it is ostensible that he takes issue with democracy, the bedrock of the government America has adopted, and it is undeniable that many of his positions would align with progressive stances taken my the general public in modern Western culture.