Plato saw music as not just entertainment but a serious and important matter. His theory of musical education is connected with this. Plato built his system of public education based on music and gymnastics. Comparison of these seemingly heterogeneous phenomena served Plato as a means for a comprehensive, harmonious education of a person. If gymnastics affects the body, bringing up masculinity, courage, and strength in a person, then music affects the soul. Therefore, the task of education is to harmoniously and expediently combine music and gymnastics. Plato believed that music lessons should be the basis of the state education system. That is why they should be mandatory for all citizens. With music, Plato linked his utopian hopes for the revival of the old policy and the strengthening of statehood.
At the same time, Plato considers music to be a crucial means of social life-building. Plato repeatedly spoke with a moral interpretation of music. He demanded, in the name of strengthening morality and eliminating licentiousness, all sorts of restrictions and strict regulation in the field of musical practice, up to the prohibition of specific modes or musical instruments. In particular, Plato forbade using complex instruments such as trigons. Similarly, Plato opposed purely instrumental music.
Music is understood by Plato not only as a means of social and political control and regulation. Plato argues that musical education, in addition to purely moral and social goals, should pursue beauty as its goal and make a person “beautiful and good” (Hare & Russell, 304). Along with the state-political approach to music, he spoke about the aesthetic nature of music, the disinterestedness and purity of musical enjoyment, and the connection of music with love and beauty.
Lyman Sargent considers two definitions of utopia given by Joyce Oramel Hertzler and J. Max Patrick. Although both scientists based their reasoning on the ideas of More, each of them contributes distinctive features. At first glance, the definitions appear to be identical, but there is a critical difference between them. Hertzler bestows perfection on utopia, arguing that it is “purged of the shortcomings, the wastes, and the confusion” (Sargent, 155). In Hertzler’s ideas, utopia is idealized. In turn, Patrick’s utopia is an alternative to the usual, which is not a model of unrealistic perfection (Sargent, 155). Thus, the utopia in Patrick’s ideas is a picture of an imaginary society, a representation as opposed to an existing being. This point of view implies that utopia is built based on an alternative socio-historical hypothesis; that is, utopian ideas differ significantly from the existing structure of society. Thus, scholars have presented different views on the nature of utopia, as presented by More.
It is noteworthy that Sargent shares the opinion of Patrick and considers Hertzler not proper. This is because, according to Sargent, Hertzler misunderstands the definition of More. Sargent (2005) argues that More does not describe utopia as perfect in the sense of something finished, complete, and unchanging. Moreover, Sargent rejects Hertzler’s idea because of the sinfulness of human nature, which is contrary to the idea of a perfect society. Thus, the main difference presented by Sargent concerning the interpretations of utopia by Patrick and Hertzler is that the former opposes this concept to the existing reality, while the latter idealizes it. Notably, the author accepts Patrick’s idea and criticizes Hertzler.
References
Hare, M. and Russell, D.A. (1970). Volume four, the Republic in The dialogues of Plato. (Jowett, B., Trans.). Sphere Books Ltd.
Sargent, L. T. (2005). What is a utopia? [PDF document]. Web.