skip to main | skip to sidebar
Home » , » Aristotle's concept of catharsis

According to Aristotle, tragedy's purpose is to affect these emotions' Katharsis and arouse feelings of pity and fear. The term "Katharsis" has only been used once by Aristotle, but no other phrase has been used so frequently by poets and critics. We do not receive any assistance from Poetics, and Aristotle has not explained exactly what he meant when he used the word. As a result, one must draw inspiration and direction from his other works. Additionally, Katharsis has three meanings. It has been used in various senses to refer to purgation, purification, and clarification by critics. Although everyone agrees that tragedy evokes pity and fear, there are stark differences in how these feelings are evoked and how they are satisfied.

Katharsis has been used as a medical term for "purgation," which refers to a pathological effect on the soul that is similar to how the medicine affects the body. This view is supported by a passage in Aristotle's Politics that says that certain tunes that cause religious fervor can calm religious fervor. Another group of critics thought that tragedy helped to "temper" the emotions during the Renaissance. Witnessing tragedies hardens spectators to the pitiful and terrifying events of life. Humphrey House strongly supports the "purification" theory, which emphasizes moral education and instruction, rather than the concept of "purgation." It's like "moral conditioning" in a way. "Purgation means cleansing," he asserts. Katharsis, according to "the purification" theory, implies that our emotions are reduced to an intermediate state, trained, and directed toward the appropriate objects at the appropriate time. By witnessing tragedy, the audience learns how to appropriately express pity, fear, and other similar emotions. Writes Butcher: "The tragic Katharsis involves not only the idea of emotional relief but also the idea of purifying the emotions so relieved," according to the author. The purgation and purification theories both have the fundamental flaw of being overly preoccupied with the psychology of the audience. Aristotle was writing a treatise on poetry rather than psychology. He connects "Catharsis" to the events that form the tragedy's plot, not the spectators' emotions. The "clarification" theory is the outcome. Additionally, there is the paradox of pleasure being sparked by the repulsive and ugly. Tragic events are pitiful and frightening. They produce pleasure rather than repel us, such as a man blinding himself, a wife killing her husband, or a mother killing her children. According to Aristotle, "only the pleasure proper to it" is the only type of pleasure we should seek from tragedy. The tragic variety of pleasure is referred to as catharsis. As a result, the Catharsis clause defines the function of tragedy rather than its emotional effects on the audience.

In general, imitation does not produce pleasure; rather, it only produces the pleasure of learning and the unique pleasure of tragedy. Finding the connection between the action and its universal elements is the first step toward learning. Although the poet may borrow material from tradition or history, he chooses and arranges it according to probability and necessity and portrays what "might be." He shifts from the specific to the general, becoming more philosophical and universal. The events are presented without incident or chance, which obscures their true significance. The spectator is brought "face to face with the universal law" when tragedy occurs.

Thus, according to this interpretation, "catharsis" refers to a better understanding of the universal law that governs human life and destiny, which in turn leads to the pleasure of tragedy. This understating leads to an enhanced understanding of the universal law. According to this viewpoint, catharsis is merely an intellectual concept rather than a medical, religious, or moral term. The tragedy's events and the poet's presentation of their universal significance are the subjects of the term.

There are many advantages to the clarification theory. First of all, it is a tragedy technique, not the audience's psychology. Besides, the hypothesis is given what Aristotle says in Poetics and needs no assistance and backing from what Aristotle has said in Governmental issues and Morals. Thirdly, it links Catharsis to the discussion of necessity and probability as well as the theory of imitation. Fourthly, the theory is in complete agreement with existing aesthetic theories.

Pity and fear, according to Aristotle, are fundamental tragic feelings that are painful. Pity and fear must be eliminated in some way if tragedy is to be enjoyed. When we see someone suffering and imagine that we might suffer similarly, we feel fear. The sight of other people's suffering for which they are not being helped brings on pity. The hero's tragic error, or Hamartia, is what causes the hero to suffer, and the audience learns something about the universal connection between character and destiny.

In conclusion, the majority of Aristotle's concept of catharsis is intellectual. Although it may still contain a theological component, it is neither theoretical nor didactic. Aristotle's Catharsis is not a moral doctrine that requires the tragic poet to demonstrate that bad people end up in bad places. Nor is it a kind of theological relief that comes from discovering that God's laws work invisibly to make everything work out in the best possible way.


Post a Comment

Back To Top