To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Platonic dialogues.
Journal articles on the topic 'Platonic dialogues'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Platonic dialogues.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
O’Brien, Carl S. "Platonic Dialogues and Platonic Principles." International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 15, no. 1 (May 3, 2021): 90–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18725473-12341490.
Full text
2
Wolfsdorf, D. "The historical reader of Plato's Protagoras." Classical Quarterly 48, no. 1 (May 1998): 126–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cq/48.1.126.
Full textAbstract:
The popular question why Plato wrote dramatic dialogues, which is motivated by a just fascination and perplexity for contemporary scholars about the unique form of the Platonic texts, is confused and anachronistic; for it judges the Platonic texts qua philosophical texts in terms of post–Platonic texts not written in dramatic dialogic form. In comparison with these, the form of Platos early aporetic dialogues is highly unusual. Yet, in its contemporary milieu, the form of Platonic literature is relatively normal. Dramatic dialogue was the most popular form of Attic literature in the late fifth and fourth centuries. This explains why Plato wrote dramatic dialogues.
3
Kenyon, Erik. "Platonic Pedagogy in Augustine’s Dialogues." Ancient Philosophy 34, no. 1 (2014): 151–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/ancientphil20143419.
Full text
4
Michelini, Ann N. "THE STRUCTURE OF PLATONIC DIALOGUES." Classical Review 52, no. 2 (September 2002): 251–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cr/52.2.251.
Full text
5
Griswold, Charles L. "Irony in the Platonic Dialogues." Philosophy and Literature 26, no. 1 (2002): 84–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/phl.2002.0012.
Full text
6
Osborne, Catherine. "Socrates in the Platonic Dialogues." Philosophical Investigations 29, no. 1 (January 2006): 1–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9205.2006.00272.x.
Full text
7
McCoy, Marina. "Perspectivism and the philosophical rhetoric of the dialogue form." PLATO JOURNAL 16 (July 5, 2017): 49–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.14195/2183-4105_16_5.
Full textAbstract:
In this paper, I support the perspectivist reading of the Platonic dialogues. The dialogues assert an objective truth toward which we are meant to strive, and yet acknowledge that we as seekers of this truth are always partial in what we grasp of its nature. They are written in a way to encourage the development of philosophical practice in their readers, where “philosophical” means not only having an epistemic state in between the total possession of truth and its absence, but also growing in selfknowledge as being that kind of a being. I take up three particular qualities of the dialogue: they are multilayered, multivocal, and mimetic. Devices such as Platonic irony, multiple characters’ voices, and a reformulated notion of mimesis that encourages the development of rationality and autonomy are central to Platonic rhetoric and philosophy.
8
Press, Gerald A. "The Play of the Platonic Dialogues." Ancient Philosophy 18, no. 2 (1998): 477–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/ancientphil199818243.
Full text
9
Lönborg, Sven. "The Chronology of the Platonic Dialogues." Theoria 5, no. 2 (February 11, 2008): 141–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.1939.tb00451.x.
Full text
10
Goncharko, Oksana, and Dmitry Goncharko. "The Dialogue On Aristotle Categories by Porphyry as a Platonic Dialogue." ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition 13, no. 1 (2019): 83–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.25205/1995-4328-2019-13-1-83-93.
Full textAbstract:
The paper focuses on interactive dialogue-form strategies in the framework of the late antique Greek and early Byzantine logical traditions. The dialogue by Porphyry On Aristotle Categories is a perfect example of the Neoplatonic approach to build logic in a Plato style. The main protagonistresses of the dialogue are The Question and The Answer, who act as collocutors do in traditional Platonic dialogues. It is proposed to consider the dialogue in the context of three perspectives: in accordance with the tradition of the Platonic dialogue; in the light of Aristotle’s education system; in its relation to the late antique and medieval Greek logical dialogue experiments.
11
Hyland, Drew A. "Heidegger’s (Dramatic?) Dialogues." Research in Phenomenology 45, no. 3 (November 11, 2015): 341–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15691640-12341316.
Full textAbstract:
Taking my cue from the richly dramatic character of the Platonic dialogues and how that dramatic character informs the thought therein, I attempt a reading of Heidegger’s dialogue on a country path that takes similar account of the dramatic themes of that dialogue. Accordingly, I address such themes as the fact that the characters of the dialogue are not given personal names, the fact that it is and must be a dialogue that occurs on a country path, and the strange interactions of the three characters. The paper culminates in a discussion of the role of “night,” which, I argue, functions as our guiding image of Ereignis.
12
Tarrant, Harold. "On Hastily Declaring Platonic Dialogues Spurious: the Case of Critias." Méthexis 31, no. 1 (April 12, 2019): 47–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/24680974-03101003.
Full textAbstract:
This paper takes issue with the thesis of Rashed and Auffret that the Critias that has come down to us is not a genuine dialogue of Plato. Authors do not consider the style of the Critias, which should be a factor in any complete study of authorship. It observes the widespread consensus that the style of the Timaeus and Critias are virtually inseparable. It surveys a wide range of stylistic studies that have tended to confirm this, before answering a possible objection that cites the similarity of style between the genuine Laws and Philip of Opus’ Epinomis. Since the main argument used by Rashed and Auffret relies on an inconsistency between Timaeus and Critias consideration is given to the types of inconsistency found within Platonic dialogues and sequences of dialogues, particularly the hiatus-avoiding dialogues including Timaeus itself and Laws. Finally, alternative explanations of the alleged inconsistency are offered.
13
Bobonich, Chris, and Diskin Clay. "Platonic Questions: Dialogues with the Silent Philosopher." Philosophical Review 111, no. 2 (April 2002): 297. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3182632.
Full text
14
Dybikowski, J. "Finitude and Transcendence in the Platonic Dialogues." Ancient Philosophy 16, no. 2 (1996): 481–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/ancientphil199616256.
Full text
15
Tejera, V. "Finitude and Transcendence in the Platonic Dialogues." International Studies in Philosophy 31, no. 2 (1999): 149–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/intstudphil199931242.
Full text
16
GERSON, LLOYD P. "DEFINITION AND ESSENCE IN THE PLATONIC DIALOGUES." Méthexis 19, no. 1 (March 30, 2006): 21–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/24680974-90000491.
Full text
17
Bobonich, C. "Platonic Questions: Dialogues with the Silent Philosopher." Philosophical Review 111, no. 2 (April 1, 2002): 297–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00318108-111-2-297.
Full text
18
Filler, Elad. "Platonic and Stoic Dialectic in Philo." Elenchos 37, no. 1-2 (December 1, 2016): 181–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/elen-2016-371-208.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract In this paper, dealing with Platonic and Stoic dialectic in Philo, I wish to make a proposal that may offer some solution to the problem of the surprising absence of a proper use of the dialectic of the late Platonic dialogues in Philo’s works. Philonic scholars have not, to the best of my knowledge, raised this question; but Philo’s very rare allusions to Plato’s later dialogues were noted in David T. Runia’s comprehensive study on Philo and Plato’s Timaeus.
19
Rheins, Jason G. "The Arrangement of the Platonic Corpus in the Newly Published Compendiosa Expositio Attributed to Apuleius of Madaura." Phronesis 62, no. 4 (September 1, 2017): 377–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15685284-12341333.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The Middle Platonist Compendiosa Expositio gives dialogue-by-dialogue summaries of doctrines allegedly expounded in Plato’s works. According to Justin Stover, the principle of division used by the work for arranging Plato’s dialogues is the dominant philosophical influence in each case. I argue that there is no principle of division, and that the dialogues are arranged, not on the basis of influence, but according to their main speaker. One thing this allows, I suggest, is for the author of the ce to assert the dependence of the Stoics on Plato.
20
Proimos, Constantinos V. "The Politics of Mimesis in the Platonic Dialogues." International Studies in Philosophy 34, no. 2 (2002): 83–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/intstudphil200234245.
Full text
21
Gish, Dustin A. "Platonic Dialogues, Socratic Inquiries: A Symposium onPlato's Philosophers." Perspectives on Political Science 40, no. 4 (October 2011): 179–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2011.611699.
Full text
22
KURKE, LESLIE. "Plato, Aesop, and the Beginnings of Mimetic Prose." Representations 94, no. 1 (2006): 6–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/rep.2006.94.1.6.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACT This paper traces out the lineaments of a popular Aesop tradition behind and within Plato's characterization of Socrates in his dialogues. It attempts thereby to expose the mimetic origins of philosophic prose writing (at least partly) in the lowly and abjected fabular discourse of Aesop, which Platonic dialogue strategically appropriates and disavows to constitute ““philosophy”” as an autonomous, transcendent domain of inquiry.
23
Соловьёв, Роман Сергеевич. "«Euthyphron» in the System of Dialogues of Plato’s Definition." Theological Herald, no. 1(36) (March 15, 2020): 298–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.31802/2500-1450-2020-36-1-298-321.
Full textAbstract:
В данной статье автор стремится переосмыслить хронологию диалога «Евтифрон», который обычно считают ранним диалогом Платона. показав в предыдущих статьях несообразности традиционной ранней датировки диалога, автор, исходя из представления о жанровой эволюции творчества Платона, помещает диалог в число школьных, написанных на фоне составления «Законов». для подтверждения тезиса автор обращается к поздним диалогам Платона и показывает, как с точки зрения методологии (формализация определения, диэреза, математические ходы мысли) «Евтифрон» сближается с такими текстами, как «Теэтет», «Парменид», «Послезаконие» и др. сходство установок с «Меноном» и «Послезакониями», сюжетная близость «Теэтету», наличие школьных штампов, а также сходной с поздними платоновскими диалогами тематики показывают вовлечённость «Евтифрона» в проблематику диалогов определения. приведённые свидетельства и переклички с поздними диалогами показывают, что рассуждение «Евтифрона» действительно должно было опираться на развитую технику ведения бесед. Это позволяет фундировать новую хронологию диалога «Евтифрон»: поздний школьный диалог, отражающий практику школьных диспутаций платоновской академии. In this article, the author seeks to rethink the chronology of the dialogue «Euthyphro», which is usually considered an early dialogue of Plato. Having shown in the previous articles the incongruities of the traditional early dating of the dialogue, the author, based on the idea of the genre evolution of Plato’s works, places the dialogue among the school ones written against the background of the compilation of the «Laws». To confirm his thesis, the author refers to the late dialogues of Plato and shows how, in terms of methodology (formalization of the definition of diaeresis, the mathematical passages of thought) «Euthyphro» approaches to such texts as «Theaetetus», «Parmenides», «Epinomis» etc. The similarity of the approaches with the «Meno» and «Epinomis», narrative proximity to «Theaetetus», school clichés, and similar to the later Platonic dialogues themes show involvement of «Euthyphro» in the problematic of the dialogues of definition. The evidence given and the affinity with the later dialogues show that the argument of «Euthyphro» really had to rely on the developed technique of conducting debates. This allows us to ground a new chronology of the dialogue «Euthyphro»: the late school dialogue, reflecting the practice of school debates of the Platonic Academy.
24
Gordon, Jill. "Colloquium 4 Commentary on Hyland." Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium of Ancient Philosophy 30, no. 1 (May 7, 2015): 118–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/22134417-00301p12.
Full textAbstract:
In response to, but in keeping with, Hyland’s attention to specific dramatic features of Platonic dialogues, the commentary explores the issue of temporality in these dialogues and its role in their portrayal of the philosophical life. The explicit discussion and portrayal in these dialogues of diachronic time, in particular, reveals important aspects Socrates’ practice of philosophy.
25
Ross, Ronald. "A Doctor and a Scholar." Stance: an international undergraduate philosophy journal 2, no. 1 (September 9, 2019): 67–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.33043/s.2.1.67-74.
Full textAbstract:
Too often critics ignore the philosophic significance of Eryximachus, the physician from Plato’s Symposium, and mistakenly dismiss Eryximachus’ presence in the text. However, this paper argues that a review of the role of medicine in the Platonic dialogues, coupled with a close reading of the Symposium’s structure and language reveals how the physician’s emphasis on love as a harmonizing force is analogous to Socrates’ emphasis on balance and harmony throughout the dialogues. Also, the description of the good physician is reflective of the way a good philosopher operates. By employing the medical trope, Eryximachus’ speech allows the reader greater insight into Platonic philosophy.
26
Mickevičius, Tomas Nemunas. "HEIDEGGERIS IR PLATONAS: TIESOS SAMPRATA." Problemos 83 (January 1, 2013): 62–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.15388/problemos.2013.0.833.
Full textAbstract:
Šiuo straipsniu įsiterpiama į diskusiją Heideggerio ir Platono filosofijų santykio nustatymo klausimu. Straipsnyje trimis pagrindiniais argumentais parodoma, kad Platono dialogų korpuse galima aptikti tokią tiesos sampratą, kuri atitinka heidegeriškąją. Parodoma, pirma, kad tiek Platonas, tiek Heideggeris panašiai aptarė klaidingos kalbos genezę bei tokios kalbos reikšmę ne-tiesai; antra, kad tiek Platonas, tiek Heideggeris tiesą supranta kaip – Heideggerio terminu tariant – nepaslėptį su jai priklausančia paslėptimi; ir, trečia, kad Platono tekstuose galima aptikti vėlyvojo Heideggerio apmąstomų tiesos kaip nepaslėpties „galimybės sąlygų“ struktūrinius atitikmenis.Heidegger and Plato: The Concept of TruthTomas Nemunas Mickevičius SummaryThis article interferes into the discussion regarding the relationship between the philosophies of Heidegger and Plato. It argues for the thesis that in the corpus of Platonic dialogues it is possible to find a concept of truth which corresponds to the Heideggerian one. First, it is shown, that both Plato and Heidegger similarly describe the genesis of false language and it’s connectedness with un-truth. Secondly, it is shown that both Plato and Heidegger understand truth – to use a Heideggerian concept – as unconcealedness with concealednessbelonging to it. And finally, it is shown that in the works of Plato one can find structural equivalents of later Heidegger’s attempt to think over the “conditions of possibility” of truth as unconcealedness.
27
Turner, John. "The Gnostic Sethians and Middle Platonism: Interpretations of the Timaeus and Parmenides." Vigiliae Christianae 60, no. 1 (2006): 9–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157007206775567898.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractOne may construe the Sethian Gnostic picture of the world and its origins as an interpretation of the biblical protology of the book of Genesis in the light of the Platonic distinction between an ideal, exemplary realm of eternal stable being and its more or less deficient earthly and changeable copy, in which the principal Platonic dialogues of reference are the Timaeus and the Parmenides. Various Sethian treatises offer us accounts of the origin and generation of both these realms; while their portrayal of the origin and deployment of the earthly realm is unmistakably influenced by their readings of Plato's Timaeus, their account of the origin and deployment of the ideal realm is noticeably influenced by readings of Plato's Parmenides. This article attempts to show that the shift from the Timaeus as the primary Platonic dialogue of reference for the Middle Platonic thought of the first two centuries to the Parmenides as the primary dialogue of reference for the emerging Neoplatonism of the third century is also visible in the Sethian treatises. In mid- to later second-century Sethian treatises, the cosmology of the Timaeus serves as an exegetical template to interpret the Genesis protology, but with the turn to the third century, the Sethian trestises that circulated in Plotinus' circle have abandoned all interest in the Genesis protology in favor of a theology of transcendental ascent.
28
Rossetti, Livio. "Where Philosophy and Literature merge in the Platonic dialogues." Argumentation 6, no. 4 (1993): 433–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00155981.
Full text
29
Roig Lanzillotta, Lautaro. "A Way of Salvation: Becoming Like God in Nag Hammadi." Numen 60, no. 1 (2013): 71–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15685276-12341253.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Contrary to general belief, ethical progress as a means to attain the divine and thereby achieve salvation occupies a central place in the Nag Hammadi writings. Plato’s conception of the homoiosis theo or “likeness to god” fits very well this dynamic view of man, since it optimistically claims the possibility of human development and progress. Plato’s dialogues are far from offering a univocal exposition of how this progress was fulfilled, but later Platonists show a rather systematizing tendency. The present paper provides an overview of the homoiosis theo in the Platonic dialogues and evaluates its appropriation by both Middle Platonism and the world of Gnosis. It also offers an exposition and analysis of those Nag Hammadi writings that may allow a proper understanding of the meaning and goal of the homoiosis theo in this collection of texts.
30
O'Dwyer, Shaun. "The Unacknowledged Socrates in the Works of Luce Irigaray." Hypatia 21, no. 2 (2006): 28–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2006.tb01092.x.
Full textAbstract:
In Luce Irigaray's thought, Socrates is a marginal figure compared to Plato or Hegel. However, she does identify the Socratic dialectical position as that of a ‘phallocrat’ and she does conflate Socratic and Platonic philosophy in her psychoanalytic reading of Plato in Speculum of the Other Woman. In this essay, I critically interpret both Irigaray's own texts and the Platonic dialogues in order to argue that: (1) the Socratic dialectical position is not ‘phallocratic’ by Irigaray's own understanding of the term; (2) that Socratic (early Platonic) philosophy should not be conflated with the mature Platonic metaphysics Irigaray criticizes; and (3) that Socratic dialectical method is similar in some respects with the dialectical method of Diotima, Socrates’ instructress in love and the subject of Irigaray's “Sorcerer Love” essay in An Ethics of Sexual Difference.
31
Byrd, Miriam. "Colloquium 6: When The Middle Comes Early: Puzzles And Perplexeties In Plato’S Dialogues." Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 28, no. 1 (2013): 187–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/22134417-90000017.
Full textAbstract:
In this paper I focus on the problem of accounting for apparent inconsistencies between Plato’s early and middle works. Developmentalism seeks to account for these variances by differentiating a Socratic philosophy in the early dialogues from a Platonic philosophy in the middle. In opposition to this position, I propose an alternative explanation: differences between these two groups are due to Plato’s depiction and use of middle period epistemology. I argue that, in the early dialogues, Plato depicts Socrates’ use of the “summoners” described in Book 7 of the Republic, and that Plato uses Socrates’ failed attempts to summon interlocutors for the purpose of summoning readers. In conclusion, I suggest that the hypothesis that Plato uses summoners provides a framework for addressing the wider problem of inconsistencies within the Platonic corpus.
32
Szlezák, Thomas Alexander. "The Dokounta of the Platonic Dialectician. On Plato’s distinction between the insufficient "present discussion" and a satisfactory future one." Peitho. Examina Antiqua, no. 1(6) (February 9, 2016): 13–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/pea.2015.1.1.
Full textAbstract:
It is a recurring pattern in Plato´s dialogues that the dialectician leads the discussion to a certain point where he identifies further, more fundamental problems, on which he claims to have his own view (to emoi dokoun, vel sim.), which he does not communicate. Such passages are briefly analyzed from five dialogues (Timaeus, Sophist, Politicus, Parmenides, Republic). It is shown that this seemingly strange behaviour of the dialectician corresponds exactly to the way a philosopher should behave according to the Phaedrus. The recurring cases of reticence of the leading figure in dialogue have to be understood as Plato´s written reference to his own unwritten philosophy.
33
Wallach, John R. "THE PLATONIC ACADEMY AND DEMOCRACY." Polis 19, no. 1-2 (July 19, 2002): 7–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/20512996-019-01-90000004.
Full textAbstract:
From the days of Plato's Academy, academic life and discourse have operated in tension with political life, and often the political life of democracy. Since World War II, this tension has been read as essentially antagonistic. In this survey of the relationship of the original and subsequent incarnations of the Academy to ancient Athens, republican Rome, and the Florentine city-state, it becomes clear that the tension was, in fact, potentially as much of an asset to democracy as an assault upon it—even as the tension forever remained real. Readings of Plato and vers ions of the Academy become antagonistic to civic life only when their intellectual posture takes refuge in metaphysical doctrines or political ideologies that bear only marginal connections to the effective argument of Plato's dialogues or the initial political postures of Academic life.
34
Wallach, John R. "The Platonic Academy and Democracy." Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought 19, no. 1-2 (2002): 7–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/20512996-90000037.
Full textAbstract:
From the days of Plato’s Academy, academic life and discourse have operated in tension with political life, and often the political life of democracy. Since World War II, this tension has been read as essentially antagonistic. In this survey of the relationship of the original and subsequent incarnations of the Academy to ancient Athens, republican Rome, and the Florentine city-state, it becomes clear that the tension was, in fact, potentially as much of an asset to democracy as an assault upon it—even as the tension forever remained real. Readings of Plato and versions of the Academy become antagonistic to civic life only when their intellectual posture takes refuge in metaphysical doctrines or political ideologies that bear only marginal connections to the effective argument of Plato’s dialogues or the initial political postures of Academic life.
35
Соловьёв, Роман Сергеевич. "On the Relative Chronology of the Dialogues “Euthyphron” and “Protagoras”." Theological Herald, no. 2(33) (June 15, 2019): 239–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.31802/2500-1450-2019-33-152-164.
Full textAbstract:
В статье рассматривается проблема датировки двух диалогов Платона: «Евтифрона» и «Протагора», которые традиционно относятся к числу ранних произведений автора. На основании анализа жанра, различия образа Сократа, особенностей трактовки понятия «благочестие», а также сопоставления с другими произведениями платоновского корпуса автор приходит к выводу, что исследуемые произведения не могли быть написаны одновременно, а именно: «Протагор» относится к ранним произведениям Платона, а «Евтифрон», вероятно, является поздним произведением платоновского корпуса. The article discusses the problem of dating the two dialogues of Plato: “Euthyphron” and “Protagoras”, which traditionally are among the earliest works of the author. Based on the analysis of the genre, the differences in the image of Socrates, the features of the interpretation of the concept of “piety”, as well as comparison with other works of the Platonic Corpus, the author concludes that the studied works could not be written at the same time, namely: “Protagoras” refers to the early works of Plato, and “Euthyphron” is probably a late work of the Platonic Corpus.
36
Motta, Anna. "Plato and ‘the Birdhunters’: The Controversial Legacy of an Elusive Swan." Peitho. Examina Antiqua, no. 1(6) (February 9, 2016): 93–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/pea.2015.1.6.
Full textAbstract:
The aim of this paper is to discuss some features of the doctrines of the agrapha dogmata in Neoplatonism, starting from the reading of an anecdote, presented in the Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy, in which Plato dreams that close to death he becomes a swan which hunters are unable to catch. In fact, the dream is an explanation of the development of the Platonic tradition, and, more precisely, it presents a story of several exegetical disagreements that have survived till the present day. Compared to modern interpretation of the Aristotelic testimony on the “so-called unwritten doctrines”, we can state that the late antique interpretations of them focus and depend on what Plato has left us in his written dialogues, which are the best living images of his oral dialogues. This conclusion is, then, a consequence of a study carried out on Ancient and Neoplatonic texts that leads to the acknowledgement of a Platonic philosophical system as well as to an overview of modern secondary bibliography produced by the esoteric interpretation of Plato and various views of scholars who are against this account.
37
Terezis, Christos, and Lydia Petridou. "The metaphysical “monistic” approach of the Platonic Timaeus by the Neo-Platonist Proclus." Journal of Ancient Philosophy 14, no. 1 (May 22, 2020): 116–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v14i1p116-160.
Full textAbstract:
In this article, we focus on Proclus' commentary on Plato's Timaeus (30a3-6) about how the divine Demiurge intervenes in matter. It is an interesting extract due to the fact that Proclus manages to combine philosophical perspective with theological interpretation and scientific analysis. In the six chapters of the article, we present the theory on dualism established by the representatives of Middle Platonism, we approach the question of the production of the corporeal hypostases, we examine limit and unlimited as productive powers, we explain production in the sense of co-production as well as why matter without qualities is excluded from the entire procedure, and we discuss the principle of the supremacy of the supreme Principle. The most important conclusion drawn according to Proclus, who adopts moderate skepticism, is that, although in his early dialogues Plato tends to dualism, he does this for methodological purposes, for Plato's views are actually connected with ontological monism.
38
Palumbo, Lidia. "I dialoghi di Platone come figure della coerenza tra pensiero e vita." Rhetorica 37, no. 4 (2019): 333–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/rh.2019.37.4.333.
Full textAbstract:
The aim of this paper is to show how the dialogical form is an essential structure of the Platonic texts in which the interrogative form is the very form of philosophy. According to the intentio auctoris, the dialogues can change the lives of their readers and this can only happen thanks to the readers' internalization of the dialogical form as an interrogative structure. Like Socrates' interlocutors in the dialogues, readers with the dialogues, can change their live making it coherent with their own thoughts examined through the philosophical discourse. This form of coherence is the only possibility of virtue, and therefore of happiness.
39
Castagnoli, Luca. "Philosophy." Greece and Rome 64, no. 2 (October 2017): 207–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0017383517000134.
Full textAbstract:
As A. K. Cotton acknowledges at the beginning of her monograph Platonic Dialogue and the Education of the Reader, ‘the idea that a reader's relationship with Plato's text is analogous to that of the respondent with the discussion leader’ within the dialogue, and ‘that we engage in a dialogue with the text almost parallel to theirs’, ‘is almost a commonplace of Platonic criticism’ (4). But Cotton has the merit of articulating this commonplace much more clearly and precisely than is often done, and of asking how exactly the dialogue between interlocutors is supposed to affect the dialogue of the reader with the text, and what kind of reader response Plato is inviting. Not surprisingly, her starting point is Plato's notorious (written) concerns about written texts expressed in the Phaedrus: ‘writing cannot contain or convey knowledge’, and will give to the ‘receiver’ the mistaken perception that he or she has learned something – that is, has acquired knowledge – from reading (6–7). She claims that the Phaedrus also suggests, however, that a written text, in the right hands, ‘may have a special role to play in awakening the soul of its receiver towards knowledge’ (17). I have no doubt that Plato thought as much, but Cotton's reference to the language of hupomnēmata at 276d3, and to the way in which sensible images act as hupomnēmata for the recollection of the Forms earlier in the dialogue, fails to support her case: Socrates remarks in that passage that writings can serve only as ‘reminders’ for their authors (16). The book's central thesis is that the way in which writing can awaken the reader's soul ‘towards knowledge’ is not by pointing the reader, however indirectly, implicitly, non-dogmatically, or even ironically, towards the right views, but by developing the reader/learner's ‘ability to engage in a certain way’ in dialectical inquiry (26). The familiar developments between ‘early’, ‘middle’, and ‘late’ dialogues are thus accepted but seen as part of a single coherent educational project towards the reader's/learner's full development of what Cotton calls ‘dialectical virtue’. Plato's reader is invited to treat the characterization of the interlocutors within the dialogues, and the description of their dialectical behaviour, ‘as a commentary on responses appropriate and inappropriate in the reader’ (28). Cotton's programme, clearly sketched in Chapter 1, is ambitious and sophisticated, and is carried out with impressive ingenuity in the following six chapters (the eighth and final chapter, besides summarizing some of the book's conclusions, introduces a notion of ‘civic virtue’ which does not appear to be sufficiently grounded on the analyses in the rest of the book). An especially instructive aspect of her inquiry is the attention paid to the ‘affective’ dimension of the interlocutor's and reader's responses: through the representation of the interlocutors in his written dialogues, and the labours to which he submits us as readers, Plato teaches us that ‘the learner's engagement must be cognitive-affective in character; and it involves a range of specific experiences, including discomfort, frustration, anger, confusion, disbelief, and a desire to flee’ (263). Perhaps because of her belief that what the Platonic dialogues are about is not philosophical views or doctrines but a process of education in ‘dialectical virtue’, Cotton has remarkably little to say concerning the psychological and epistemological underpinnings of the views on, and methods of, education which she attributes to Plato. The Cave allegory in the Republic, which is unsurprisingly adopted as an instructive image of Plato's insights on learning and educational development in Chapter 2, is discussed without any reference to the various cognitive stages which the phases of the ascent in and outside the Cave are meant to represent. Two central features of Plato's conception of learning identified by Cotton – the individual learner's own efforts and participation, and the necessity of some trigger to catalyse the learning process (263) – are not connected, as one might well have expected, to the ‘theory of recollection’ or the related imagery of psychic pregnancy or Socratic midwifery. Even Cotton's laudable stress on the ‘affective’ aspects of the learning process could have been helpfully complemented by some consideration of Platonic moral psychology. Despite these reservations, and the unavoidable limitations and oversimplifications involved in any attempt to characterize Plato's corpus as one single, unified project, I believe that readers with an interest in Platonic writing and method will benefit greatly from Cotton's insightful inquiry.
40
Tomin, Julius. "Dating of the Phaedrus and Interpretation of Plato." Antichthon 22 (1988): 26–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0066477400003609.
Full textAbstract:
Two hundred years ago, at the very dawn of modern Platonic studies, W.G. Tennemann built his System of Platonic Philosophy around the assumption that the Phaedrus belongs to Plato’s later works. His name and his opus may have been forgotten, yet the shadow of his picture of Plato still hangs over current interpretations. For example, it was he who excised the historical Socrates from the dialogue and deprived of its Socratic character the discussion of the relative merits of the spoken and the written word. In the dialogue the spoken word is a proper vehicle for philosophy, for moral and intellectual growth and elevation, and the written word is its pale derivative with nothing truly positive to offer; stripped of its Socratic ‘veneer’, this view of the relative merits of language and writing had to be reinterpreted. Tennemann understands the criticism of the written word as an indication that Plato must already have published dialogues which had encountered a negative response: an important point for him, since he was the first to dismiss the ancient tradition that viewed the dialogue as Plato’s first. In the second half of the twentieth century G.E.L. Owen similarly deduces from it the dating of the dialogue, but he takes the disparagement of the written word as Plato’s self-criticism.
41
Eckert, Maureen. "This Site is Under Construction: Situating Hegel's Plato." Hegel Bulletin 27, no. 1-2 (2006): 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0263523200007515.
Full textAbstract:
In this paper, I examine broad features of Hegel's interpretation of Plato from his Lectures on the History of Phihsophy, noting how these features resonate with current views of Platonic philosophy. Hegel formed his interpretation of Plato under very different circumstances than those of today. Serious study of the Platonic dialogues had come to the forefront in German Idealist philosophy. As Rüdiger Bubner notes: ‘It was this tradition of thought that discovered, in an original way of its own, the authentic Plato in place of the various mediated substitutes of before, and indeed saw him as a thinker who was to provide continuing inspiration to the needs of post-Kantian philosophy’. We find Hegel holds Plato in high esteem, most famously as a ‘teacher of the human race’ alongside Aristotle. His Plato is one who is fundamentally significant in the development of philosophy, raising it to the status of science, although not in a fully systematic manner. At the same time, Hegel distinguishes his Plato from the projects of his contemporaries, Tennemann's esoteric Plato and Schleiermacher's aesthetic Plato. Hegel also forms his view of Plato at a time just prior to the development of stylometric studies of the dialogues, begun in its earliest form by K. F. Hermann (1839) and pushed forward by Lewis Campbell and Friedrich Blass in the later half of the 19th century. (This is not to claim that questions regarding the ordering of the dialogues did not arise earlier than 1839, but that they became scientific and central in Platonic interpretation with Hermann.) The pressures Hegel negotiates in his interpretation are quite distinct, especially in this last respect, yet not altogether alien. There are, I think, interesting reasons for this. (One might think that given Hegel's strong opposition to Schleiermacher (and Hegel's disposition towards development), he might have been inclined towards a developmental reading of Plato. One also might think that given his opposition to Tennemann's esotericism, he might have had more doubts about discerning a system within Plato's unsystematic dialogues. But one would be wrong on both counts.)
42
Von Uexküll, Jakob, Thure Von Uexküll, and Edgar Vögel. "The Eternal Question: Biological variations on a Platonic dialogue." Sign Systems Studies 32, no. 1/2 (December 31, 2004): 329–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.12697/sss.2004.32.1-2.15.
Full textAbstract:
The reinterpretation of Nature by biology, which will prevail in spite of all obstacles, has brought our thinking closer to antiquity, giving us the chance to reinvigorate our perused terminology with the help of the resources to be found in the thoughts of the greatest minds of mankind. The way to Plato thus being cleared, I perceived the idea to seek enlightenment on pressing biological questions from the great Sage. As means to this end, I chose to make Socrates continue one of his dialogues, with the adjustment of giving him the knowledge of our contemporary biological problems. Thus some kind of interaction between the Ancients and ourselves is created, to our considerable benefit.
43
Prior, William J. "The Historicity of Plato’s Apology." Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought 18, no. 1-2 (2001): 41–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/20512996-90000031.
Full textAbstract:
Scholars who seek in Plato’s early dialogues an accurate account of the philosophy of the historical Socrates place special weight on the Apology as a source of historical information about him. Even scholars like Charles Kahn, who generally reject this historicist approach to the early dialogues, accept the Apology as a ‘quasi-historical’ document. In this paper I attempt to raise doubts about the historical reliability of the Apology. I argue that the claims used to support the historicity of the Apology (that it was composed close to the trial, that Plato was an eyewitness, and that the large audience at the trial would have inhibited Platonic invention) fall far short of establishing the Apology as an historically accurate record of the trial, and that this conclusion is affirmed even in the words of those scholars who defend the historicity of the dialogue. I urge an interpretation that treats the Apology primarily as a philosophical, not as an historical, document
44
Basili, Cristina. "After Sócrates. Leo Strauss and the Esoteric Irony." Anales del Seminario de Historia de la Filosofía 37, no. 3 (September 21, 2020): 473–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/ashf.69785.
Full textAbstract:
Throughout the philosophical tradition that stems from Plato, Socratic irony has represented an enigma that all interpreters of the Platonic dialogues have had to face from different points of view. In this article I aim to present the peculiar Straussian reading of Socratic irony. According to Leo Strauss, Socratic irony is a key element of Plato’s political philosophy, linked to the «logographic necessity» that rules his texts. I will therefore examine the genesis and the main features of Straussian hermeneutics. I will end the article by highlighting the relevance of the esoteric interpretation of Platonic thought as a conceptual tool that responds to the crisis of modern political philosophy.
45
Vasilakis, Dimitrios. "From Writing to Philosophizing: A Lesson from Platonic Hermeneutics for the Methodology of the History of Philosophy." Conatus 5, no. 2 (December 31, 2020): 133. http://dx.doi.org/10.12681/cjp.23490.
Full textAbstract:
In this paper, I try to exploit some lessons drawn from reading Plato in order to comment on the methodological ‘meta-level’ regarding the relation between philosophizing and writing. After all, it is due to the medium of written word that we come to know past philosophers. I do this on the occasion of the ostensible conclusion in Plato’s Meno. This example illuminates the ‘double-dialogue’ hermeneutics of Plato and helps to differentiate Plato’s dialogues from dialogical works written by other philosophers, such as Berkeley. As a result, it becomes clear that, like with Plato’s case, a historian of philosophy must not only have a philosophical training, but also a subtle philological background, when attempting to come into dialogue with dead philosophers.
46
Tarrant, H. A. S. "Myth as a Tool of Persuasion in Plato." Antichthon 24 (1990): 19–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0066477400000514.
Full textAbstract:
Much is said in the text-books about Plato’s hankering after answers to moral questions which would offer scientific accuracy and absolute truth. It is to dialectic it seems that Plato turns in the hope of finding such accuracy. The Republic values Platonic dialectic rather higher than mathematical procedures, if only because the mathematician fails to explain the ultimate terms through which he conducts his inquiry. But the epistemologica! status of mathematics is at least as high as that of physical inquiry, whereas it is certainly higher than that of all this-worldly images. The images of the imitative artist were criticised for their distance from Platonic reality in Book X of the Republic, and it is not at all clear that they differ in this respect from the stories which Plato believes should be used at the commencement of his city’s education programme in Republic II (376e ff.). If myths are images, and images are low in epistemological status in the Republic and related middle period dialogues, then why does Plato use myths so prominently in precisely these dialogues?
47
Соловьёв, Роман Сергеевич. "Methods for Establishing a Chronology of Dialogues in Corpus Platonicum." Theological Herald, no. 4(39) (December 15, 2020): 279–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.31802/gb.2020.39.4.016.
Full textAbstract:
В статье автор критически рассматривает методы установления хронологии диалогов платоновского корпуса. Описав античные методы организации корпуса (каноны Аристофана Византийского и Трасилла), автор показал, что принцип организации диалогов - сюжетно-смысловой, а не хронологический. Далее разбираются основные методы определения хронологии, а именно: анализ литературной формы, анализ философского содержания, внешние и внутренние свидетельства, данные стилометрического анализа. Указав на субъективность оценок литературных свойств диалогов, порочность подхода, исходящего из априорного представления о постепенном философском развитии Платона, недостаточность внешних и внутренних свидетельств, автор специально останавливается на стилометрическом методе, основанном на допущении, что на протяжении жизни язык и стиль Платона сознательно и бессознательно изменялся, что можно проследить на языковом материале диалогов. Проследив развитие метода и описав его результаты, автор приходит к выводу, что стилометрия не дает никаких определенных данных для хронологии т. н. ранних диалогов. Наконец, автор анализирует выдвигавшиеся исследователями основания относить диалог Евтифрон к числу ранних и приходит к выводу о неосновательности такой оценки. Результаты подробного исследования места Евтифрона в Corpus Platonicum были опубликованы в предыдущих номерах Богословского вестника. In the article, the author critically examines methods of establishing a chronology of dialogues in Corpus Platonicum. After the description of ancient methods of the organization of the Corpus Platonicum (Platonic Canon of Aristophanes of Byzantium and Thrasyllus), the author has shown that the principle of the organization of dialogues is thematic but not chronological. The principal methods of determining chronology, namely the analysis of the literary form, the analysis of philosophical content, external and internal evidence and the stylometric analysis, are then discussed. Pointing out the subjectivity of assessments of the literary properties of the dialogues, the viciousness of the approach based on the a priori idea of Plato’s gradual philosophical development, and the insufficiency of external and internal evidence, the author specifically stops at the stylometric method based on the assumption that Plato’s language and style have changed consciously and unconsciously throughout his life, which can be traced back to the language and style of the dialogues. Having traced the development of the method and described its results, the author concludes that stylometry does not provide any specific data for the chronology of the so-called early dialogues. Finally, the author analyses the reasons put forward by researchers for including Euthyphro in the early dialogues and concludes that this assessment is not grounded. The results of a detailed study of Euthyphro’s place in Corpus Platonicum have been published in previous issues of the Theological Herald.
48
Moore, Kenneth Royce. "Erôs, Hybris and Mania: Love and Desire in Plato’s Laws and Beyond." Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought 24, no. 1 (2007): 112–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/20512996-90000110.
Full textAbstract:
The themes of hybris, erôs and mania are interconnected in Plato’s final opus, the Laws, regarding his narrator’s construction of sexually accepted norms for his ‘second-best’, utopian society. This article examines this formulation, its psychological characteristics and philosophical underpinnings. The role and function of his social programme are considered in the context of the Laws and the hypothetical polis outlined therein. However, this particular formulation is not a new development in later Platonic thought. It is, rather, a logical extension of earlier Platonic ideas, expressed in a number of previous dialogues, and brought to bear in the peculiar circumstances of the ‘second-best’ polis. This can be especially observed in relation to the Symposium and Phaedrus. Instead of regarding the construction of sexuality in the Laws as a work in isolation, these earlier ideas are here considered intertextually as part of a broader Platonic continuum.
49
Sajdek, Wiesława. "Recalling of Recalling. Platonic Doctrine of Anamnesis." Philosophical Discourses 1 (2019): 157–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.16926/pd.2019.01.10.
Full textAbstract:
The objective of the article is to recall the European philosophical basis of the philosophical culture, inextricably connected with ancient Greece and its language. Plato’s philosophy is in the very core of the culture and its salient component is the doctrine of anamnesis. The elements of the doctrine are dispersed in numerous dialogues, particularly in Meno, Phaedo, Phaedrus, therefore they are given more attention. Platonic reflection on anamnesis is related to his view on the soul whose development is associated with the process of cognizing, being essentially tantamount to recalling of what the soul saw before its imprisonment in the body. The role of myth in Plato’s philosophy, as well as in European culture as a whole, has been discussed, along with the main subject. On the background of the Platonic thought, examples of its reception in Polish Renaissance philosophy and in the poetry of the Romantic period has been presented.
50
Robertson, David. "Plato on Conversation and Experience." Philosophy 84, no. 3 (June 5, 2009): 355–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0031819109000369.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractPlato's dialogues show discourse strategies beyond purely intellectual methods of persuasion. The usual assumption is that linguistic understanding depends on a match of inner experiences. This is partly explained by an underlying engagement with the historical Gorgias on discourse and psychology, as well as Parmenides on philosophical logos. In the Gorgias and the Symposium, speakers cannot understand alien experiences by philosophical conversation alone. There is no developed alternative model of understanding in the Platonic dialogues. The difficulties in bringing ‘philistine souls’ into Socratic alignment are the result of possessing an inferior soul, suffering misdirected passions, or missing the philosophy bug.