Some Remarks on Aristotle's Concept of Mimesis
In: Revue des Études Anciennes, Jg. 82 (1980), Heft 1-2, S. 31-40
academicJournal
Zugriff:
This renewed interpretation of some Aristotelian texts suggests that the Philosopher- in a quite original manner - conceived mimesis : 1) as an activity in itself and as a processual modality, 2) as a specific determination or characteristic of a particular type of techne/poiesis, namely the artist's poiein, 3) as in function of the " objects " it " mimesises ", i.e. physis and praxis which are neither given data nor Platonically transcendent and separate entities. Mimesis may also mean imitation, copying and miming, in the sense of actually re-presenting or picturing a given state of affairs (Poetica, 1460b 8). But this is not the primary, specific and essential meaning of this concept. Aristotle draws a clear distinction between techne/poiesis and praxis, on the one hand (Etnica Nie, 1 140a 1 ff.), and between techne/poiesis and physis, on the other (Physica, 1 92b 27-32). But although - unlike both physis and praxis - it is a transient and extrinsic activity, technë mimeitai ten phvsin (Phvsica, 194a 22). Physis is the process of self-unfolding from itself to itself {Physica, 192b 10 ff.). It is not a thing nor a complex of things, it is not a static datum nor a fixed object. It is not, therefore, given to be copied and imitated. Techne/poiesis does not imitate nature, in the sense of re-producing and copying its appearances and individual manifestations. In the light of Physica, 199a 8-19 - where Aristotle reflects on the teleological structure of every activity and on the analogy between techne/poiesis and physis - we suggest that the translation : art imitates nature, is inadequate and misleading. It would be more accurate to understand Physica, 194a 22 in the following terms : art produces by making-as- nature-does. Furthermore, the opposition drawn between poiësis and historia (Poetica, 1451a 36 ff.) and the places (Poetica, 1451b 27 and 1451a 16 ff, in particular), where Aristotle states that the poet " mimesises " praxeis and mian praxin, make it quite impossible to understand mimesis as copy and imitation. The possible, the probable, the necessary, what could be and what ought to be are not given ! And praxis is not a datum either, but rather an immanent process and activity. They cannot, therefore, be copied and imitated. Mimesis is a way of bringing to light and of manifesting or pro-ducing man's being. Aristotle's reflections on the concept of mimesis show, once more, the difference obtaining between his doctrine and that of his great predecessor Plato.
Titel: |
Some Remarks on Aristotle's Concept of Mimesis
|
---|---|
Autor/in / Beteiligte Person: | Santoro, Liberato |
Link: | |
Zeitschrift: | Revue des Études Anciennes, Jg. 82 (1980), Heft 1-2, S. 31-40 |
Veröffentlichung: | nL: PERSEE, 1980 |
Medientyp: | academicJournal |
ISSN: | 0035-2004 (print) |
DOI: | 10.3406/rea.1980.4073 |
Sonstiges: |
|