In my opinion, I believe that Plato has some strong ideas about the connection between literature and society, but I disagree on some other points. First, I believe that the arts are no more damaging to character than any form of literature. The arts are a form of literature, and like all literature, they evoke emotions. To support my claim, I am using the reference of Wordsworth in his Preface to Lyrical Ballads when he states, "Poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings; it takes its origin from emotions recollected in tranquillity" (Wordsworth 34). .
Wordsworth's poetry is not based on imitations but on past memories. He remembers events of the past "and comes under the impact of past impressions with a high degree of emotions and feelings" (Dubey 84). This suggests that poetry, like all forms of literature, does in fact evoke emotions. My point is that all literature evokes these emotions, meaning that no form of art is more harmful than another. I believe that Plato despised art and wanted it censored because it was a common thought during his time period. Plato was not the first to suggest the threatening nature of art and he was not the last. Although he openly opposed art, he seemed to talk about it constantly. In my opinion, literature makes one evoke emotions, question previous theorists, and develop one's own thoughts. Plato has issues with these suggestions because he believes that it is the role of society to educate and inform people. These socially educated people will then create the ideal republic he dreams of. Although Plato had just intentions, I agree with the need for an ideal republic, but I know it is impossible. I believe this is impossible because people today are not ranked by how valuable they are to society. Most people do not work, but yet they still eat. Although Plato's ideal republic is well thought out and could be beneficial, I do not believe it would work in today's world.