“we delight in contemplating the most exact likenesses of things which are in themselves painful to see”
“a persuasive impossibility over an unpersuasive possibilityâ€
what does he mean with these two quotes?
References please?
Hi Sciencewiz,
I think it’s best that you give some reference about your quotes, in order to better place them in context. The way they are, I think they provide examples about the Aristotelian view of how tensions are struck between separate parts of the soul.
The first one reminds me of that passage in Plato’s Republic about a guy called Leontios, who saw a bunch of dead bodies once while walking outside the city. Plato tells us how at the sight of those corpses Leontios felt two distinct urges simultaneously harrying him: one compelling the man to move away in disgust, the other to stand and watch the gruesome show. As I remember, Plato used Leontios to illustrate how desires and passions sometimes conflict with reason and determine, for a period of time, some inner struggle. Seeing it this way, I think kevconman is right to assume that the thrill of a horror-show is appealing at guts-level.
The second quote I googled and found that it’s actually something along the lines of Aristotle argues that the dramatist should choose “a persuasive impossibility over an unpersuasive possibility”. (my underlining).
This is the first site that came up in the search list
pathways.plus.com/questions/answers_28.html
and it said:
"[i]Does he mean that it’s better to tell a compelling story than a boring one, even if it is untrue? Do you think he would encourage us to alter facts of a “true account” if it served the story?
============
The compelling factor of a story has nothing to do with the persuasive impossibility. What is important for the persuasive impossibility is that the structure of the story and the details suit the story you are trying to create. In other word, make the impossible come to life through the use of logic. You cannot have monkeys fly in space ships, because they are monkeys. However, if they have a civilization, and science and whatnot then it would not be impossible for them to reach the advancement of space flight. The unpersuasive possibility is the possible that cannot be established through a coherent strategy of development. For example, if you were to have flying cars but not set forth the reasoning behind the flying cars, just say, well my car flies, but everyone else’s car does not, then you have a problem. However, if the car was “magical” or whatever then it would be feasible. "[/i]
I thought of a horror movie also in reponse to the first quote. I have an inkling of an idea, but I wish I could express it better. I would point to art and film. People are fickle and would indulge in anything (say, in a way that increases understanding, i.e. “contemplative”) if presented to them in the right way, or avoid indulgence in something if not presented in the right way, so i wouldn’t surprise me if his quote is correct. oh, also people might enjoy the buffer provded by something being a likeness rather than the real thing, so that they may harmlessly indulge in it and therefore increase understanding.
the second quote is more obvious to me. it seems to be like Einstein’s saying that common sense is the set of prejudices acquired by the age of 18. I.e., aristotle will be willing to embrace he hitherto believed to be impossible with a persuasive argument (like the earth being a sphere hanging in space, for example?) than something that’s already common wisdom but no so persuasive.