Ion

One purpose of Plato’s “Ion” is to explore the distinction between knowledge and creativity. One of Plato’s goals is to understand what knowledge is, what can be known, and what it means to know. In “Ion,” Plato juxtaposes truth and knowledge with creativity and inspiration (which he assumes do not require knowledge) to understand more about the nature of both.

Socrates argues that divine inspiration is distinct from knowledge using the Socratic method. When used properly, the Socratic method necessitates that the interlocutor agrees with the conclusion because they agreed with all the premises that preceded it. If they do not, it implies there is a contradiction in the person’s views.

Socrates uses this method throughout his conversation with Ion. First, when Ion suggests that he can only interpret Homer’s poetry because Homer is the best poet, Socrates proposes to Ion that he ought to be capable of interpreting other poets even when their writing is not as good as Homer’s. He gives examples of other professionals who are capable of judging and speaking about both the good and the bad of their craft. Socrates concludes that the source of Ion’s knowledge cannot be craft or skill, because if it were, he would understand all poetry and not just Homer. Socrates also uses the Socratic method to get Ion to agree that different professions use different skills and knowledge and that the person who would be the best judge of Homer’s verses is not a rhapsode but someone who is an expert in the profession Homer describes. Ion stubbornly maintains that as a rhapsode he knows everything Homer writes about. This ends up being a contradiction because Ion previously agreed that the best judge of Homer’s descriptions of a profession like horse training would be horse trainers—not rhapsodes. In ancient Greece, divine inspiration was commonly understood to involve ecstasy or possession. In one scholar’s description,

The inspired poet takes no conscious part in the process of composition, but is merely the passive instrument of some overwhelming force. An important consequence of this assumption is that inspiration and craft or technique are seen as incompatible (Murray, Penelope. “Poetic Inspiration in Early Greece.” Journal of Hellenic Studies, Volume 101, 1981, p. 87)

This view of divine inspiration takes away human agency and responsibility when it comes to creative acts.

If creative inspiration is an instance of the gods communicating with people, why does Plato seem so opposed to it? While the poet or other divinely inspired individual may channel the gods, the poetry or other artwork that they produce must be interpreted by people who hear it or see it. Plato is concerned about this extra layer of interpretation. Plato does not have faith that most people can interpret the word of the gods correctly. Because Plato wants art to be used for moral instruction, he thinks it is too dangerous to let the average person interpret it on their own.

Socrates concludes that despite Ion’s prowess at reciting Homer’s poetry, Ion does not know anything about the subjects Homer discusses such as horses, war, and leadership. Socrates suggests there is nothing artists (poets, rhapsodes, etc.) do that someone else cannot do better because they only imitate expertise. Ion is more beautiful and superficial than he is intelligent or practical, suggesting that art is vapid and ornamental at best. While art seems to get one closer to the truth by showing what the world is like, it takes one further from the truth by imitating or representing life, which itself is an imitation or representation of the Forms.

Socrates assumes, however, knowledge and inspiration are mutually exclusive. But this may not be the case. Many scientific discoveries come in flashes of insight that scientists cannot explain any better than Ion can explain poetic inspiration. Socrates also does not consider Ion’s ability to memorize and recite poems to be knowledge or skill possessed by rhapsodes, but perhaps he should. He seems to assume that only domains of knowledge that are explicitly mentioned in Homer can be judged. Socrates does not consider that the domains of knowledge he examines are not as separate as he makes them out to be. There are several premises in Socrates’s argument that are false or based on other assumptions with which readers may not agree. There are avenues for refuting some of the larger claims he makes.