Should Art Be Banned? Plato’s Objection and Modern Examples

This blog is part of a task given by Prof. Dr. D. P. Barad, based on the ResearchGate article titled “Aristotle’s Poetics” and the attached YouTube videos. I chose this topic to explore Plato’s views on artistic freedom and how his ideas still relate to modern-day controversies around banned films, books, and other creative works.

• Plato and His Views on Art

Ancient mosaic of Plato teaching in his Academy

From circa 1st-century BCE Pompeii, this mosaic represents Plato surrounded by students, highlighting his role as a foundational teacher

Plato was one of the most important thinkers in the history of Western philosophy. He was born in ancient Athens around 427 BCE and was a student of Socrates, a well-known teacher who believed in questioning everything to reach the truth. Later, Plato became a teacher himself and founded The Academy, one of the earliest known institutions for higher learning in Europe. His most famous student was Aristotle. Plato wrote many philosophical texts in the form of dialogues, and in most of them, Socrates appears as the main speaker. One of his most influential works is The Republic, in which he talks about justice, politics, education, and the ideal state.

In The Republic, Plato also shares his strong opinions about art and literature. He believed that most forms of art, especially poetry and drama, were based on mimesis, which means imitation. According to him, artists do not create real truth , they only make copies of the physical world, which itself is already a copy of the ideal world of forms. So, for Plato, art is a copy of a copy, which makes it far from reality or truth. He was especially worried about how art could influence emotions and mislead people, especially the young. Emotional stories, heroic tales, and tragedies might look entertaining, but for Plato, they were dangerous because they could create false beliefs and distract people from reason and logic.

Because of this, Plato argued that in a well-ordered society, the government should carefully control or censor artistic works. He even suggested that poets and playwrights who create morally harmful or misleading content should not be allowed in the ideal state. His goal was not to destroy creativity, but to protect the minds and morals of citizens. These views might seem too strict today, but they come from his belief that the stability of society depends on truth, reason, and discipline ,not emotional illusions.

• Plato’s Objections to Artistic Freedom

Plato’s main objection to art, especially literature and drama, was that it did not promote truth or knowledge. He believed that poets and playwrights appeal more to our emotions than to our reason, which makes their work both powerful and dangerous. In his view, when people get carried away by emotional stories, full of heroes, tragedies, romance, and revenge, they stop thinking rationally. Instead of learning real philosophy or practicing self-control, they become influenced by illusions. That is why Plato considered art as something that should not be given complete freedom in society.

Another major concern Plato had was about the moral impact of art. He thought that many works of literature and drama show gods behaving badly, heroes acting without responsibility, or people making selfish choices. According to him, this can set a bad example, especially for children and young people, who might copy such behavior. In The Republic, he said that stories in the ideal state should only promote good values, discipline, and truth. If art teaches the wrong lessons, it should be censored or even banned. He believed that the purpose of education is to create a just and moral citizen, and for that, all forms of learning, including art, must serve a clear and positive purpose.

Plato’s idea of censorship was not limited to just bad language or violence, but also included stories that confuse people, challenge traditions, or emotionally manipulate the audience. For him, the state had the right to decide what kind of art should be allowed, and what should be rejected. He did not support artistic freedom in the way we understand it today. Instead, he wanted art to be used as a tool to shape ideal citizens, people guided by logic, truth, and moral discipline. This is why many modern thinkers see Plato as the first philosopher to argue in favour of censorship in art and literature.

• Plato’s View on Art: Key Concepts and Influences

One of the most important terms to understand Plato’s view on art is mimesis, which means imitation. Plato believed that all art is an imitation of the physical world, which is itself an imperfect copy of the higher world of ideal forms. So, for him, art is a copy of a copy, and therefore far from truth. For example, a painter who paints a bed is only copying the physical bed, which is already just a copy of the ideal bed that exists only in thought. This made Plato feel that art cannot give us real knowledge, only illusions.

Another key idea is that Plato thought art had a strong effect on emotions, which he believed could be dangerous if not controlled. He was deeply influenced by the tragic plays of his time, like those by Homer, Euripides, and Sophocles. These plays were extremely popular in Athens and were known to move people to tears, anger, or pity. Plato felt that when people watched such performances, they lost control over their reason and became emotionally unstable. He believed this kind of emotional excitement could lead people away from truth and wisdom, and even weaken the moral structure of society.

Plato’s personal experiences also shaped his thoughts. He saw his teacher Socrates sentenced to death by a democratic court, possibly influenced by the emotions and opinions of the public. This made Plato deeply suspicious of anything that could manipulate people’s feelings, especially art, poetry, and drama. In his ideal society, he believed that only art which supports truth and virtue should be allowed. As he famously wrote in The Republic,

"Poets must be banished from the ideal state".

This quote may sound harsh, but it reflects Plato’s strong belief that art should not simply entertain, it should serve a moral and educational purpose.

• Aristotle’s Rebuttal: The Philosopher Who Defended Art

Aristotle was one of the greatest thinkers of the ancient world. Born in 384 BCE in Stagira, a city in northern Greece, he later moved to Athens and joined Plato’s Academy at the age of seventeen. He studied there for nearly twenty years, learning from Plato but also slowly developing his own unique perspective. While Plato focused more on ideal forms and moral discipline, Aristotle became more interested in real-life observations, nature, and logic. After Plato’s death, Aristotle left the Academy and went on to found his own school in Athens, the Lyceum, where he taught and wrote on a wide range of subjects, including philosophy, science, politics, ethics, and literature.

One of his most important contributions to the world of literature is his work Poetics, where he discusses the nature and function of tragedy. This text is often seen as a response to Plato’s harsh criticism of poetry and drama. While Plato believed that art misled people and stirred dangerous emotions, Aristotle took the opposite view. He argued that tragedy is not harmful, it is healing. According to him, watching tragic plays helps people release built-up emotions like fear and pity in a safe and healthy way. He called this emotional process catharsis. As Aristotle writes in Poetics,

“Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude... through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation (catharsis) of these emotions.”

              -This quote is from Aristotle’s Poetics, Chapter 6 (Book VI) , where he defines tragedy.

A powerful example of this can be seen in Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, a play Aristotle deeply admired. The story follows a noble king who unknowingly fulfills a terrible prophecy and ends up facing tragic consequences. Even though the plot is painful, it leaves the audience with a deeper understanding of human weakness, fate, and personal responsibility. Instead of being corrupted by the story, the audience experiences emotional clarity. In this way, tragedy becomes both emotionally and morally enriching.

Aristotle also believed that a well-written story should have a clear and logical structure, what he called the Unity of Action. A good tragedy, according to him, should have a single, focused plot where every event is connected by cause and effect. He praised plays like Oedipus Rex and Antigono for their tight structure and emotional power. Another key idea in Poetics is that of the tragic hero, a character of noble status who possesses a hamartia, or tragic flaw, which leads to their downfall. This flaw is not evil, but a human weakness or error in judgment, making the character more realistic and relatable. As Aristotle writes,

“The tragic hero is not perfectly virtuous and just, yet whose misfortune is brought about not by vice or depravity, but by some error or frailty.”

- This idea is found in Chapter 13 of Poetics, where Aristotle discusses what kind of character a tragic hero should be.

Through all these ideas, Aristotle defended the value of poetry and storytelling. For him, art was not just entertainment, it was a way to understand life, emotions, and human nature. Instead of banning poets as Plato suggested, Aristotle believed that poetry could teach, heal, and connect us with the deeper truths of existence. In short, where Plato saw danger, Aristotle saw meaning.

• Plato’s Fear in Today’s World: When Art Still Gets Banned

Even though Plato lived in ancient Greece, his ideas about the dangers of art still feel relevant today. He believed that poetry and drama could stir strong emotions, spread false ideas, and lead people away from truth and reason. Looking at today’s world, especially in the context of films, books, and TV shows that face protests, bans, or censorship, we can clearly see that Plato’s fear of art influencing public emotions and morality hasn’t disappeared. In fact, it has taken new forms in modern societies, including our own.

Padmaavat and the Fear of Fictional Influence

Movie poster of Padmaavat (originally titled Padmavati) – its controversy over historical portrayal and violent protests makes it a perfect modern example of Plato’s fear that art can deeply disturb society.

One of the most well-known modern examples that reflects Plato’s concerns is the controversy around Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s film Padmaavat (2018). Even before the film was released, it faced massive backlash from groups like the Karni Sena, who believed it portrayed Rani Padmavati, a legendary Rajput queen, in an inappropriate or romanticized manner. Despite the filmmakers and censor board confirming that no such scenes existed, there were widespread protests, threats of violence, attacks on the film’s set, and even attempts to stop screenings across several states. Eventually, the title was changed from Padmavati to Padmaavat, and several cuts were made to the film. The fear that a fictional film could damage real history, mislead the public, or harm cultural pride, even without any factual distortion, strongly echoes Plato’s idea that mimesis (imitation) can emotionally disturb people and blur the line between truth and illusion.

Official poster of the film Udta Punjab (2016), which faced heavy censorship due to its portrayal of drug abuse in Punjab. The CBFC demanded over 40 cuts, including removal of the word “Punjab” reflecting modern fears that powerful art can damage a region’s image or influence public thought, just as Plato had warned.

This wasn’t the only case. Other films like Udta Punjab (2016), which exposed drug abuse in Punjab, faced major censorship issues due to fears it would “damage the state’s image.” Lipstick Under My Burkha (2016) was initially denied release for being “lady-oriented” and “too bold,” showing how stories about gender and freedom can be viewed as dangerous. More recently, Laal Singh Chaddha (2022) faced online boycotts for being “anti-national,” based on unrelated past comments by its lead actor Aamir Khan. In all these cases, fictional stories were judged not just for artistic quality but for their emotional and social impact, exactly what Plato warned about when he said art can confuse and corrupt if not strictly guided.

Salman Rushdie and the Global Reach of Offense

The cover of Salman Rushdie’s controversial novel The Satanic Verses, banned in India in 1988 for allegedly hurting religious sentiments. The book became a global symbol of the debate over freedom of expression in literature.

Another famous and much more serious example of artistic censorship is the case of Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses (1988). The book was banned in India within weeks of its publication, as many considered its portrayal of certain religious themes to be blasphemous. The controversy quickly spread worldwide, leading to protests, riots, and book burnings in various countries. In 1989, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for Rushdie’s death, forcing the author into hiding for years. Even decades later, in 2022, Rushdie was stabbed while preparing to speak at a literary event in New York, a chilling reminder of how deeply literature can provoke emotion and fear, just as Plato had warned.

This case is a striking example of what Plato feared most: the power of words to disturb public order, challenge traditional authority, and ignite uncontrollable emotional reactions. Despite being a work of fiction, the book was treated as a dangerous weapon, capable of influencing beliefs and behaviors on a massive scale. Similar controversies followed Taslima Nasreen’s Lajja, which was banned in Bangladesh and unofficially suppressed in India. Both authors faced exile and threats, proving that writers still suffer for their ideas, just as Plato feared when he argued that poets could mislead society and must be controlled.

When Books Are Silenced, Literature on Trial

Plato’s fear of emotionally powerful literature is not only seen in individual controversies, but also in the long history of banned or censored books, both in India and globally. Many important works of English literature have been challenged for being too bold, critical, or “immoral.” D. H. Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover was banned for decades for its sexual content. James Joyce’s Ulysses faced legal battles for obscenity. Even George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm were restricted or challenged in some countries for their political critiques.

In India, the pattern continues. Wendy Doniger’s The Hindus: An Alternative History was withdrawn from Indian bookstores in 2014 after legal pressure claimed it hurt Hindu sentiments. Rohinton Mistry’s Such a Long Journey was removed from the University of Mumbai’s syllabus in 2010 after protests from political groups. In many classrooms, works by Mahasweta Devi, Ismat Chughtai, and Saadat Hasan Manto have been avoided or censored because they address uncomfortable social realities, like caste, sexuality, or Partition violence. These bans and restrictions remind us that even today, literature can still make people uncomfortable, angry, or afraid, just as Plato believed it could.

• So... Was Plato Right ?

Plato’s concerns about the power of art can’t be dismissed easily. He feared that poetry, drama, and storytelling could mislead people, stir emotions, and even weaken society, and looking at the real controversies we've discussed, it’s easy to see where he was coming from. Sometimes, art really does provoke strong reactions. People feel hurt, angry, or threatened by what’s shown on screen or written in books. In such moments, Plato's call for censorship feels understandable, at least from the perspective of social safety and emotional stability.

But as a student of literature, I also find it difficult to fully agree with Plato. Art is not only about disturbing or misleading, it also educates, heals, and helps us think deeply. If every uncomfortable idea is banned, then how will we ever grow as individuals or as a society? Writers, filmmakers, and poets don’t always intend to offend, many of them are simply trying to hold up a mirror to society, or give voice to those who are usually silenced. Personally, as someone who enjoys writing and thinking creatively, I feel that too much censorship can kill originality. It can make artists afraid to speak, and that silence can be more dangerous than any work of art.

In the end, maybe the answer lies somewhere in between. Complete freedom without responsibility can be harmful, but controlling all art out of fear can be even worse. Art should challenge us, not just comfort us, and it should be protected, not punished, for doing so.

• Conclusion: Why Art Still Matters

From Plato’s deep mistrust of poetry to Aristotle’s passionate defense of it, the debate over the power of art has always been alive, and it still is. Today’s world may look different from ancient Greece, but the same questions remain: Should artists be allowed to express freely, even if it offends? Should society control what people can read, watch, or write? Through the controversies we’ve seen, from Padmaavat to The Satanic Verses, it’s clear that art still holds the power to move people, start conversations, and sometimes even spark outrage.

But maybe this is exactly what gives art its true value, it makes us feel deeply, think critically, and reflect on uncomfortable truths. Art brings hidden issues to the surface, speaks for those who are unheard, and often dares to say what many are afraid to. It can disturb us, yes but it can also heal, inspire, and bring clarity. That’s why art remains so important, even today. Whether we side with Plato’s caution or Aristotle’s trust in art’s power, one thing is clear: when we silence art, we silence voices, ideas, and even parts of ourselves.

Work Citation 

“Aristotle’s Poetics.” 

Questioning Like Socrates: A Timeless Guide to Truth

 This blog is a reflection based on videos shared by Prof. Dr. D. P. Barad about the life and philosophy of Socrates. The aim is to share what I learned from them and how his ideas still connect to the way we think, question, and live today.

Who Was Socrates?

A classical marble bust of Socrates, showing his contemplative gaze and rugged features , a timeless reminder of the philosopher who questioned everything.

Socrates was a classical Greek philosopher, born in Athens around 470 BCE. He is often called the father of Western philosophy, not because he wrote great texts , in fact, he wrote nothing at all ,but because of the way he lived and taught. Our knowledge of Socrates comes mainly from his students, especially Plato, who wrote dialogues featuring Socrates as a central figure. After watching the videos shared in the blog by Prof. Dr . D. P. Barad, I understood that Socrates was not a teacher in the traditional sense. He didn’t give lectures or claim to have all the answers. Instead, he believed in asking questions, deep ,uncomfortable, thought provoking ones  to help people examine their beliefs and values.

 He spent most of his time in the streets and public places of Athens, talking to ordinary citizens, including craftsmen, poets, and politicians. His goal was not to embarrass them, but to help them realise how little they actually knew. He believed that wisdom begins with self-awareness , knowing that we don’t know everything. What made his life even more meaningful was that he lived his philosophy. He didn’t change his ideas to please others or escape trouble. Even when he was put on trial for corrupting the youth and disrespecting the gods, he stood firm in his beliefs. He was sentenced to death but chose not to escape, proving that for him, staying true to one’s principles was more important than life itself. In today’s world, where people often change opinions just to fit in, Socrates’ life feels deeply inspiring.

The Trial of Socrates: When Questions Became Dangerous ;

Jacques‑Louis David’s painting The Death of Socrates captures the tension of his trial and ultimate choice ,peacefully embracing death rather than abandoning his principles.

One of the most eye-opening parts of the videos shared in Dr . D. P. Barad’s blog was the account of Socrates’ trial. As someone living in a democratic country like India, I always believed that freedom of speech and thought were basic rights. But the trial of Socrates made me realise that even in the world’s earliest democracy, ancient Athens ,truth could become uncomfortable, and uncomfortable truths could be punished. Socrates was brought to trial in 399 BCE, accused of corrupting the minds of the youth and of impiety, or disrespecting the gods worshipped by the state.

At first, these charges seem vague and almost symbolic. But when you dig deeper, it becomes clear that Socrates’ real “crime” was encouraging people , especially the younger generation , to question authority, challenge tradition, and think for themselves. He didn’t lead protests or break laws. All he did was ask questions that revealed the ignorance and hypocrisy of those in power. His method made people reflect, which not everyone liked. Some felt humiliated, others insecure. In the eyes of the powerful, Socrates had become dangerous , not because he knew everything, but because he showed them how little they knew.

As a student, this made me reflect on situations in our own society , when people are silenced for asking questions, when youth are told not to challenge traditions, or when emotional narratives are used to avoid facing hard realities. Socrates’ trial is not just ancient history; it’s a mirror we still need to look into. It reminds us that even in a democracy, critical thinking can be seen as rebellion, and that the courage to question is what truly keeps freedom alive.

The Socratic Method: Learning Through Dialogue ;

One of the most important contributions of Socrates to philosophy and education is what we now call the Socratic Method. After watching the videos linked in Dr . D. P. Barad’s blog, I realised that this method is not just about asking questions, it’s about creating a space where real thinking can happen. Socrates never claimed to be a teacher in the traditional sense. Instead, he saw himself as a midwife , helping others "give birth" to their own ideas by questioning them, step by step.

The Socratic Method works through conversation, a calm, logical back-and-forth where each answer is followed by a deeper question. This helps to uncover contradictions in thought and forces the person to think beyond surface-level understanding. Unlike debates, where the goal is to win, Socratic dialogue is meant to reach deeper truths. What I found interesting is that this method doesn’t require any books, technology, or classrooms , just two people, a question, and a willingness to think openly.

In today’s world, especially in classrooms or on social media, we often focus more on giving opinions than understanding them. The Socratic Method reminds us to slow down and ask: Why do I believe this? What assumptions am I making? What if the opposite is true? Even in literature, this method can help us go beyond the plot, to explore the author’s message, the reader’s interpretation, and the historical or political context. It’s not just a technique; it’s a mindset.

I’ve started trying this approach in my own conversations, not to challenge people aggressively, but to understand their thinking better. Sometimes it surprises them, sometimes it leads to meaningful discussion. And sometimes, it even helps me realise that my own views need rethinking. In that sense, the Socratic Method isn’t just about learning from others , it’s about learning with others.

Socrates in Today’s World: Still Asking the Right Questions

Even though Socrates lived in ancient Greece, his ideas feel surprisingly modern in today’s digital world. His way of questioning everything including politics, religion, and social values, challenges us even now. In an age where emotional appeals and viral content often replace verified facts, Socratic thinking teaches us to pause and ask, “Is this really true?” We often see people accepting WhatsApp forwards or YouTube rants without question, especially during elections or social unrest. Take, for example, how people believed exaggerated or false claims during recent protests or riots, such as the communal narratives pushed during the Delhi riots or the misinformation surrounding the hijab debate. In both cases, strong emotions shaped public opinion more than facts did. Socrates believed that a citizen’s duty is not to follow the crowd but to think independently, and that feels more relevant now than ever.

Socratic thinking also plays an important role in how we engage with education and culture today. In classrooms, students often hesitate to question what is being taught, fearing they might be wrong. But Socrates taught that questioning is not disrespectful  it is a form of learning. His method reminds us that true understanding doesn’t come from memorising facts but from examining and discussing them. I could relate this to the way many people blindly follow social media influencers, historians, or even teachers, without engaging critically with their ideas. The concept of “histofluencers”  people who simplify or twist historical facts to suit their agendas  is a perfect example. Socrates would have likely asked them, “How do you know this? What proof do you have?” In a time where loud opinions are mistaken for knowledge, his calm and honest inquiry remains deeply powerful.

What strikes me most is how Socratic thinking can be used not just in politics or education, but in everyday life. In conversations with friends or even family members, I’ve found that asking the right questions often opens minds more than making strong arguments. Instead of telling someone they’re wrong, just asking them why they believe something can lead to reflection. This is especially important in a society where many people feel offended or defensive when their views are questioned. Socrates didn’t argue to win, he argued to understand. And I think that’s something we can all learn from, especially in a time where truth is often lost in noise.

Personal Reflection: What Socrates Taught Me About Thinking

Before watching these videos, I only knew Socrates as a name from history, someone important in philosophy. But now, I see him differently. His courage to ask difficult questions, to stand by his truth even in front of death, and to accept that “I know that I know nothing” has left a deep impact on me. As someone who often overthinks things and tries to make sense of people’s behaviour and beliefs, I’ve realised how valuable this kind of questioning really is. Socrates didn’t just teach us to question others, but also ourselves, and that’s something I’ve started doing more consciously. I often find myself in situations where popular opinions are treated as facts, whether it's in discussions about religion, politics, or even simple everyday topics. Being a student of literature, I’ve learned to read deeply  but Socrates made me realize that thinking deeply is just as important. Sometimes in class or on social media, I hesitate to ask a question that goes against the flow, just to avoid arguments. But now I feel that honest questions are not a sign of disrespect , they’re a sign of engagement. Whether it's discussing a controversial poem or challenging a biased news clip, I now try to approach it with a Socratic spirit, not to prove someone wrong, but to understand what lies beneath the surface.

 His calm, thoughtful resistance against blind belief made me reflect on how easily we accept things just because everyone else does. That one line “The unexamined life is not worth living”  has stayed with me. It feels like a reminder not just for philosophers, but for all of us who want to live with awareness and honesty. Socrates didn’t just teach philosophy  he lived it. And through these videos and reflections, I feel a little closer to that idea of living thoughtfully too.

Videos Worth Watching

Here are some of the videos that helped shape my understanding of Socrates. If you're interested in exploring his life, method, and philosophy more deeply, these are a great place to start.

Conclusion :

Socrates may have lived centuries ago, but his thoughts continue to challenge and inspire us even today. In a world full of distractions, quick opinions, and emotional noise, his calm, questioning voice reminds us to slow down and think for ourselves. Whether it’s a political debate, a classroom discussion, or a personal belief, asking honest questions can lead us closer to the truth. For students, especially those in literature or humanities, Socratic thinking isn’t just an academic tool it’s a way of life. It helps us stay curious, stay humble, and stay open to learning, always. In the end, maybe that’s what makes Socrates timeless, not his knowledge, but his courage to keep searching for it.

Work Citation 

“A Lesson From Socrates That Will Change The Way You Think.” YouTube, youtu.be/yH86jaBQ0F4. Accessed 13 July 2025.

“The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology).” YouTube, youtu.be/5-gyTgFjuIg. Accessed 13 July 2025.

“This Tool Will Help Improve Your Critical Thinking - Erick Wilberding.” YouTube, youtu.be/vNDYUlxNIAA. Accessed 13 July 2025.

“Socrates .” YouTube, youtu.be/zo04J4l2fpk. Accessed 13 July 2025.

“Socrates .” https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2024/06/socrates.html.

 If you enjoyed reading, feel free to leave a comment, share your thoughts, and share this blog with others who might find it meaningful. Let’s keep the conversation going ,just like Socrates would have wanted.

            

                  —  Sejad  Chokiya , MA English, Department of English, MKBU, Bhavnagar

        

Seeing Through the Noise: A Student’s Take on Post-Truth

I am Sejad Chokiya, and this blog is written as part of the Sunday Reading Activity assigned by the Head of our Department, Prof. Dr . D. P. Barad. For this task, we were provided with two insightful blog posts authored by Dr . Dilip Barad as reference material: Post-Truth: Word of the Year 2016 and Beware of Histofluencers. These articles form the foundation of my understanding and reflection on the concept of post-truth and its influence in the digital age.

• Origin of The Word  'Post - Truth' 

The word post-truth was actually used for the first time way back in 1992 by a writer named Steve Tesich. He wrote about how people were starting to ignore the truth and instead believe whatever suited them emotionally. This was in the context of events like the Gulf War and some political issues in the United States. Tesich felt that people were no longer interested in what was true ,they were more comfortable believing what they wanted to believe, even if it wasn’t based on facts. That’s where the idea of a “post-truth” world began.

But the word became really popular in 2016, when Oxford Dictionaries selected it as the Word of the Year. That year, the world saw two major events , the Brexit vote in the UK and the US presidential election ,where people were clearly influenced more by emotions and social media campaigns than by actual facts. Oxford defined post-truth as a situation where feelings and personal beliefs become more powerful than facts in shaping public opinion. From that point on, the term started being used more in media, education, and even day-to-day conversations.

• Definition of the word 

The official and widely accepted definition of post-truth was given by Oxford Dictionaries in 2016, when they declared it the Word of the Year. According to them, post-truth refers to circumstances “in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” This means that people are more likely to believe something that feels right to them emotionally, even if it goes against logic or evidence.

Oxford chose this word because of how it reflected the political and social mood of that time. In 2016, two major global events , the Brexit referendum in the UK and the US presidential election ,showed how emotional campaigning, fake news, and social media had more impact on voters than facts or expert opinions. The term post-truth captured this shift in how truth was being treated in public discussions , not as something fixed and important, but as something people could ignore if it didn’t suit their feelings or beliefs.

To understand the idea more clearly, here are some images and cartoons that show what post-truth really means.

This cartoon hints at how political pressure can influence decisions more than truth or conscience ,a key feature of post-truth politics.

This image shows how difficult it is to fight fake news and misinformation in the digital age.

This image shows how religion, politics, and media mix to create emotional narratives that often ignore facts ,a strong example of post-truth in India.

• Major reason that it was the word of the year in 2016

The main reason why post-truth was chosen as the Word of the Year in 2016 was because of the way public opinion was influenced during two big political events , the Brexit referendum in the UK and the US presidential election. In both cases, it was observed that emotions and personal beliefs played a bigger role than facts or expert advice. Campaigns were full of emotionally charged speeches, misleading claims, and viral content on social media, which made people believe things that were not always true. The Oxford team noticed a sharp increase in the use of the word post-truth during this period, and felt it perfectly captured the mood of that time , where truth was no longer at the centre of political and public discussions.

• How Post truth affect peoples opinion.

In a post-truth world, people often form opinions based more on emotions than facts. This shift has made it easier for rumours, half-truths, and emotionally charged messages to influence public thinking. In India, we see this happening regularly, especially during sensitive times like elections, communal tensions, or national crises. Instead of looking for verified information, many people rely on viral WhatsApp forwards, social media posts, or influencers who often share content that supports their own views , whether true or not. When people repeatedly hear the same emotional narrative, they start believing it, even if there is no factual basis.

One major example was during the 2019 general elections, when many fake videos and edited speeches were shared online to create confusion or manipulate voters. Another case was the COVID-19 pandemic, where false claims about medicines, vaccines, and even religious blame-games spread widely through WhatsApp and Facebook. These messages created panic, mistrust, and even hatred among people. Similarly, during the CAA-NRC protests, a lot of misinformation was circulated to either support or oppose the movement, making it difficult for people to understand the real issues. In all these cases, post-truth narratives shaped opinions more than verified news or expert analysis, showing how dangerous emotional manipulation can be in a digital society.

• Role of Digital Platforms (WhatsApp, Social Media, Influencers) in Spreading Post-Truth Narratives

This section will explain why and how platforms like WhatsApp, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and even influencers help spread emotionally charged but misleading content. You can mention:

∆ The speed at which misinformation travels.

∆ How algorithms show people what they want to see (echo chambers).

∆ How influencers and viral content create trust even without truth.

∆ Some examples from Indian digital culture , like WhatsApp forwards during elections, or Instagram reels that oversimplify complex issues.

One of the biggest reasons behind the rise of post-truth thinking is the way digital platforms, like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and now even Telegram, function in our everyday lives. These platforms have made it extremely easy to share information instantly with a large number of people. But they also make it easier for misinformation, rumours, and emotionally charged content to spread faster than verified news. Most people don’t stop to check the truth behind a message or a reel before forwarding or sharing it , especially when it agrees with their personal beliefs or fears.

Unlike traditional media, social media doesn’t follow any standard rules of fact-checking or editorial control. Anyone can create and share content, even if it is completely false or manipulated. For example, a WhatsApp forward with communal claims, or a short video clip taken out of context, can go viral within hours, reaching thousands of people, especially in regional languages. Platforms often show us content similar to what we have already liked or searched, creating what is known as an echo chamber. In such a space, we only see content that confirms our views, and anything that challenges our opinion seems wrong or fake, even if it’s true.

A recent example is the 2023 Manipur violence, where videos were circulated showing brutal scenes and communal targeting. Many of these videos were either old or edited, but they were shared widely on Twitter, WhatsApp, and Instagram to provoke emotional responses and deepen hatred. Another case was the Chandrayaan-3 moon mission, where along with genuine pride, some fake scientific claims and superstitious beliefs were also circulated online, mixing fact with emotion. Similarly, during the farmers' protest (2020–2021), several photos and clips were wrongly labelled , either to paint the protestors as violent or to show the government in a bad light. People believed and shared these posts not because they were verified, but because they emotionally supported a certain viewpoint.

Influencers and content creators also play a major role in this post-truth culture. Many of them gain huge popularity by creating reels or vlogs with confident opinions, bold titles, and emotional appeal ,but without doing proper research. Audiences often trust these influencers more than news channels, especially when they speak in a relatable or entertaining way. This creates a dangerous mix of entertainment and misinformation, where the line between truth and opinion becomes blurred.

Overall, digital platforms have become a powerful tool in shaping people’s minds, but not always in the right way. They reward what gets views and engagement, not what is truthful or balanced. In the post-truth era, feelings spread faster than facts, and these platforms are perfectly designed to take advantage of that.

• My Personal Encounters with Post-Truth

Being a regular user of social media and a student of literature, I often find myself surrounded by information , not all of which is trustworthy. One thing I’ve noticed is that opinions are shaped more by trends and emotions than facts, especially during sensitive topics involving religion, politics, or celebrity culture. As a Muslim student, I’ve observed how political narratives around our community are often manipulated online to create fear or divide people. For example, during election seasons or after any national incident, social media is flooded with claims blaming minorities, especially Muslims, without evidence. A simple WhatsApp forward or a tweet, sometimes without a source, suddenly becomes “truth” in people’s minds. Sadly, such messages don’t just stay online , they can affect real interactions. I still remember an incident when, after some provocative speeches by politicians and fake claims about ‘Muslim threats’ circulating on local WhatsApp groups, a few of my fellow students began behaving differently with me. There were uncomfortable remarks and attempts to isolate me , not because they knew the facts, but because they were reacting to what they had seen online. That experience made me realise how dangerous unchecked misinformation can be, especially when it targets someone’s identity.

One such experience I remember was during the Nuh violence in Haryana (2023). There were many videos and messages circulated across WhatsApp, Facebook, and news channels claiming Muslims had planned large-scale attacks , but later, fact-checks revealed that many of the viral clips were either old, taken out of context, or fake altogether. Yet, people had already made up their minds based on what they first saw. Similarly, debates around issues like hijab bans, love jihad, or the Bulldozer politics have often been presented in a way that targets Muslim identity, especially by certain news channels. I’ve noticed how news anchors on some popular media platforms , like Republic TV or Sudarshan News , present information with strong bias and dramatic language, often without giving space to real discussion. The headlines themselves are enough to influence public mood.

Even in Bollywood, I saw how post-truth shaped public opinion during the Sushant Singh Rajput case. After his death, there was an emotional storm on social media. While people had genuine concerns, many conspiracy theories were pushed without facts , blaming certain celebrities, calling it murder, or even connecting it to religion and politics. The media turned the case into a spectacle. Channels ran continuous debates without solid evidence, and people began to hate actors purely based on rumours. Many educated people around me believed these stories, not because they had proof, but because they “felt true.”

All these examples made me realise that in the post-truth era, facts are often ignored if they don’t match emotions. Now, I try to be more mindful. I’ve stopped blindly believing viral messages, no matter how confidently they’re shared. Instead, I take a moment to reflect, research, and check platforms like Alt News or The Quint’s WebQoof before forming an opinion. I’ve learned that being educated isn’t just about reading books ,it’s also about learning to think critically, especially in a time when emotions can easily replace truth.

• Conclusion

In  today’s digital world, where we are surrounded by information every second, it has become very important to think carefully before believing or sharing anything. The post-truth era shows us that facts can easily be ignored when emotions and personal beliefs take over. As students, we must stay aware of how social media, news platforms, and even influencers can shape our opinions in the wrong way. By thinking critically and staying alert, we can protect ourselves from false information and help others do the same. Only with media literacy and an open mind can we hope to understand the truth in a time when truth is often hidden behind loud opinions.

If you're still curious about post-truth, these videos helped me understand it better ,and they might help you too!

1.

2. 

         

Work Cited ;

1.https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2017/01/post-truth-word-of-year-2016.html.

2.https://blog.dilipbarad.com/2023/11/beware-of-histofluencers.html.

3.Vox. (2017). The rise of post-truth politics [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QeJ9IMeCwY

If you found this blog helpful or thought-provoking, feel free to share it with others and drop your thoughts in the comments below , I’d love to hear your perspective!

          — Sejad Chokiya , MA English, Department of English, MKBU, Bhavnagar

 How Much Land Does a Man Need? – A Blog on Tolstoy’s Timeless Lesson

I am writing this blog as part of my learning from this paper. This story deeply impressed me because it teaches a meaningful lesson about human greed, desire, and the importance of contentment. Through this blog, I want to share what I understood from the story in a simple and reflective way.

Introduction

“How Much Land Does a Man Need?” is a famous moral short story written by Leo Tolstoy, one of the greatest literary figures in Russian and world literature. Tolstoy wrote this story in 1886, and although it is set in a simple rural village, it contains a profound message about human nature. The story explores the dangers of greed through the life of Pahom, a peasant who believes that owning more land will bring him happiness, peace, and security.

Tolstoy uses ordinary life, simple language, and relatable characters to show how human desires grow slowly and silently, until they finally destroy a person’s inner peace. Even though more than a hundred years have passed since this story was written, the message remains timeless. Today, people still chase wealth, status, and possessions, often forgetting that life’s real value lies in contentment and balance. In this blog, I discuss the story in detail, explain its themes, describe Tolstoy’s writing style, and reflect on the moral lesson it teaches.

About Leo Tolstoy

Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910) was a Russian novelist, philosopher, and moral teacher. He is widely regarded as one of the greatest authors in world literature. Tolstoy wrote masterpieces such as War and Peace, Anna Karenina, and many short stories that explore moral questions, social issues, and human psychology.

Tolstoy was deeply influenced by spiritual and ethical ideas. As he grew older, he became more interested in questions about human purpose, greed, suffering, and the meaning of life. Many of his short stories—including this one—reflect his belief that:

• True happiness comes from simplicity and kindness

• Human beings suffer because of desire, pride, and greed

• Material wealth cannot bring peace

• Moral values are more important than social success

In “How Much Land Does a Man Need?”, Tolstoy uses a simple rural setting to teach a deep moral lesson through the tragic downfall of one man. His ability to turn ordinary events into philosophical reflections is what makes him a legendary writer.

Summary of the Story 

The story begins with two sisters arguing about whether town life or village life is better. Their conversation amuses the devil, who decides to test a poor peasant named Pahom. Pahom proudly says that if he had enough land, he would not be afraid of anything in life.

Soon, Pahom gets his first piece of land. At first, he is happy, but after some time he starts arguing with neighbours and feels he still does not have enough. He buys more land in another village. For a while life seems better, but soon the desire for even more land grows in him like a silent disease.

One day he learns about the Bashkirs, a tribe who offer land very cheaply. He travels far to meet them. The Bashkirs offer him an unusual deal:

For a small price, Pahom can have as much land as he can walk around in one day, but he must return to the same starting point before sunset.

Greed fills Pahom’s mind. He wants to cover as much land as possible. He walks from morning to afternoon, taking large circles, climbing hills, crossing fields, and marking huge territories. As the day passes, he realises he has gone too far. The sun begins to set, and the race for land becomes a race for his life.

Exhausted and struggling to breathe, Pahom runs with all his strength to reach the starting point before sunset. The Bashkirs cheer as he approaches, but the moment he reaches the finish, he collapses and dies.

In the final line, Tolstoy delivers the unforgettable truth:

“Six feet of land was all he needed.”

After all his ambition, the only land Pahom truly needed was the land required for his grave.

Themes 

1. Greed and Endless Desire

The central theme of the story is greed, which grows inside Pahom little by little. Tolstoy shows how desire has no natural limit. Even when Pahom has enough land to live comfortably, he feels restless and unsatisfied. His greed pulls him away from peace and finally leads him to death.

2. Illusion of Happiness

Pahom believes that more land will solve all his problems and give him complete happiness. But every new piece of land brings more stress, disputes, and loneliness. Tolstoy teaches that external things cannot create permanent happiness.

3. Human Foolishness and Pride

Pahom underestimates nature, time, and his own physical limits. He thinks he can conquer everything by desire alone. This overconfidence becomes the cause of his tragedy.

4. The Role of Temptation (The Devil)

The devil in the story symbolises temptation and human weakness. He does not force Pahom into greed—he only gives him opportunities to reveal what already exists inside him.

5. Irony of Life

The ultimate irony is that Pahom spends his life chasing land, but in the end, the only land he gets is his grave. Tolstoy uses irony to make the moral unforgettable.

6. Spiritual and Moral Insight

Tolstoy believed that true joy comes from inner peace, not from possessions. The story reminds readers to question what truly matters in life.

Writing Style of Leo Tolstoy 

Leo Tolstoy’s writing in this story is simple yet powerful. He avoids complicated language and focuses on storytelling that anyone can understand. His descriptions of village life, land, and human behaviour feel real and relatable.

Tolstoy uses:

• Clear, direct narration that makes the story easy to follow

• Symbolism, where land represents human desire

• Irony, especially in the ending

• Moral clarity, without sounding preachy

• Smooth movement, showing how Pahom’s greed grows step by step

• Realistic characters, who behave like ordinary people

Through this style, Tolstoy turns a simple story into a deep reflection on life.

Conclusion

“How Much Land Does a Man Need?” is a timeless story that teaches one of the most important lessons of life: greed destroys peace. Through Pahom’s journey, Tolstoy shows how easily human beings fall into the trap of wanting more, believing that more wealth will bring happiness. But the story proves that desire only creates more problems, more stress, and more loss. Pahom’s tragic end shows that when greed takes control of our mind, we forget our limits, our needs, and even our own well-being. In the end, he receives only six feet of land—the land needed for his burial. Tolstoy’s message is simple but profound: contentment is the true wealth of life, and the person who knows how to be satisfied is the one who is truly rich.

 A Retrieved Reformation 

I am writing this blog as a part of my learning from this paper. Through this story, I want to explore how literature represents human emotions, personal change, and moral choices. “A Retrieved Reformation” teaches me that transformation is possible for anyone when they receive trust, love, and an opportunity to rebuild their life. This blog helps me record what I learned in a simple and organised manner.

 Introduction

“A Retrieved Reformation” is a well-known short story written by O. Henry (William Sydney Porter), one of America’s most beloved storytellers. O. Henry is famous for his gentle humour and unexpected twist endings, but underneath the entertainment, his stories often explore deep human values. This story focuses on Jimmy Valentine, a talented safe-cracker, who transforms himself after finding love and a purpose in life.

The story carries a powerful message: people are not permanently defined by their past mistakes. They can grow, change, and create better futures when given compassion and a chance to prove themselves. In this blog, I discuss the story in a simple, student-friendly way, exploring its meaning, themes, characters, and literary features.

 Summary of the Story 

Jimmy Valentine is released from prison after serving his sentence for safe-cracking. Although he promises to reform, he immediately returns to his old habits. A series of professional burglaries occur in different towns, and the police begin to suspect Jimmy again. A determined detective, Ben Price, starts tracking him.

Jimmy’s life changes completely when he arrives in the small town of Elmore. He originally goes there intending to rob a bank, but something unexpected happens—he sees Annabel Adams, the banker’s daughter. Her beauty, innocence, and kindness touch him deeply. For the first time, he feels the desire to live an honest life.

Jimmy decides to leave crime permanently:

• He stops cracking safes

• He opens a shoe business and works sincerely

• He becomes respected in the community

• He becomes engaged to Annabel

His transformation is so genuine that he even writes to a friend, asking him to return his burglary tools because he no longer needs them.

However, life tests Jimmy in the most unexpected way. One day, Annabel’s niece accidentally gets locked inside the bank vault. No one knows the combination, and the child is in danger. The entire family panics.

Jimmy now faces a painful choice:

If he cracks the safe to save the child, everyone will know he was once a criminal. His new life, his respect, and his marriage will be lost. But if he does nothing, the child may die.

Jimmy chooses humanity over self-protection. He uses his old skills and breaks open the vault with speed and mastery. The child is saved—but Jimmy’s secret is exposed.

Just then, Detective Ben Price appears. Jimmy quietly prepares to surrender, accepting whatever punishment comes next. But Ben Price, seeing Jimmy’s true reformation and selfless act, decides to show mercy. He pretends not to recognize Jimmy and lets him walk free, giving him a chance to continue his honest life.

This powerful ending shows that compassion can sometimes achieve what punishment cannot.

 Character Analysis: Jimmy Valentine 

Jimmy Valentine is one of O. Henry’s most memorable characters because he represents the possibility of change.

● A gifted but misguided criminal

Jimmy is clever, skilled, and confident. His talent for opening safes is almost artistic, but he uses it for the wrong purpose. His intelligence becomes his weakness until he learns to use it for good.

● A man capable of deep love

Jimmy’s love for Annabel is sincere and life-changing. It is not just attraction—it becomes the motivation behind his complete transformation. O. Henry shows that love can inspire people to break old habits and choose a better life.

● Honest effort toward change

Jimmy opens a business, works hard, and earns respect. His change is not a momentary emotional decision; it is a steady, committed transformation. This makes his reformation believable and meaningful.

● True courage and selflessness

Jimmy’s greatest act is not cracking safes—it is risking everything he has built to save a child’s life. This moment proves that he has truly reformed. He is willing to sacrifice his freedom and happiness to do what is right.

● A symbol of redemption

Jimmy represents the idea that people deserve second chances. Everyone has the potential to become better when they receive trust, kindness, and a new beginning.

 Themes 

1. Redemption and Personal Transformation

The central theme of the story is that people can change from within. Jimmy’s reformation is genuine and emotional. O. Henry suggests that no one is beyond saving if they are given encouragement and hope.

2. Love as a Transforming Power

Love is the force that turns Jimmy away from crime. Annabel represents purity, goodness, and stability. Through her, Jimmy discovers a new version of himself—one he is proud of.

3. Conflict Between Past and Present

Even after Jimmy reforms, his past follows him through Detective Ben Price. This theme shows how difficult it is for reformed individuals to escape their old identities, even when they try honestly.

4. Justice with Compassion

The story suggests that justice should not only punish wrongdoing but also recognise goodness. Ben Price’s final decision shows that mercy can sometimes achieve more than strict law.

5. Sacrifice and Moral Choice

Jimmy’s decision to open the vault is the most important moral moment in the story. He chooses the right thing even though it may destroy his future. This sacrifice proves the truth of his reformation.

6. Identity and Reinvention

Jimmy creates a new life, a new reputation, and a new identity. The story encourages readers to believe that reinvention is possible for anyone willing to put in the effort.

 Writing Style of O. Henry 

O. Henry’s writing is known for its charm, warmth, and emotional depth. His style in this story includes:

● Simple, clear language

The story is easy to read but still powerful. O. Henry writes in a way that appeals to both ordinary readers and literature students.

● Natural dialogue

The conversations between characters feel real, which brings the story to life and makes the emotions believable.

● Humour and irony

O. Henry uses gentle humour, especially when describing Jimmy’s confidence or the detective’s approach. Irony appears when Jimmy’s criminal skill becomes the tool that saves a child.

● Strong emotional connection

Readers feel sympathy for Jimmy because O. Henry shows both his weaknesses and strengths. The story is touching without being sentimental.

● Surprise ending

The twist—Ben Price letting Jimmy go—is unexpected but deeply satisfying. It completes the theme of redemption perfectly.

● Smooth storytelling structure

The story moves from Jimmy’s past, to his transformation, to his final test, and finally to the resolution. This structure makes the narrative engaging from start to finish.

 Conclusion 

“A Retrieved Reformation” is a beautiful and meaningful story about the power of personal change. O. Henry shows that a person’s past does not define their future, and even someone with a criminal history can become a good and caring human being. Jimmy Valentine’s journey from a safe-cracker to a responsible, loving individual is inspiring because it feels authentic. His moment of heroism—saving a child even though it risks his entire new life—proves that he has truly transformed. The ending becomes even more powerful when Ben Price recognises Jimmy's goodness and chooses mercy over punishment. This compassionate act completes the circle of redemption. The story teaches us that reformation is possible when society offers trust and understanding. It also reminds us that kindness has the power to change lives in ways that strict justice sometimes cannot. “A Retrieved Reformation” remains timeless because it speaks to the human heart and encourages the belief that everyone deserves a second chance.