Plato: Ethics

In this paper, I question a widespread reading of a passage in the last part of the Phaedrus dealing with the science of dialectic. According to this reading, the passage announces a new method peculiar to the later Plato aiming at defining natural kinds. I show that the Phaedrus itself does not support such a reading. As an alternative reading, I suggest that the science of dialectic, as discussed in the passage, must be seen as dealing primarily with philosophical rhetoric (...) and knowledge of human souls. (shrink)

The “battle” between corporealists and idealists described in Plato’s Sophist 245e6–249d5 is of significance for understanding the philosophical function of the dramatic exchange between the Eleatic guest and Theaetetus, the dialogue's main interlocutors. Various features of this exchange indicate that the Eleatic guest introduces and discusses the dispute between corporealists and idealists in order to educate Theaetetus in ontological matters. By reading the discussion between Theaetetus and the Eleatic guest in the light of these features, one comes to see that (...) the primary audience for the proposal advanced by the Eleatic guest in this passage, namely that being is power, is not any of the participants in the “battle,” as has been commonly assumed, but Theaetetus himself—a fact to bear in mind in any viable interpretation of the passage. (shrink)

This article explores the motif of psychic nourishment in Plato’s Protagoras. It does so by analyzing what consequences Socrates’ claim that only a physician of souls will be able adequately to assess the quality of such nourishment has for the argument of the dialogue. To this purpose, the first section of the article offers a detailed analysis of Socrates’ initial conversation with Hippocrates, highlighting and interpreting the various uses of medical metaphors. Building on this, this section argues that the warning (...) Socrates utters against sophistry is much more complex than commonly assumed, and further that Socrates demonstrates his own skill as a physician of souls during this conversation. The second part analyzes the first half of Socrates’ discussion with Protagoras, arguing that Socrates here demonstrates another aspect of his expertise as a physician of souls by making Protagoras participate, although against his will, in bringing the unhealthy character of his teachings to light. (shrink)

English title: Phenomenology of the pólis and torsion of Dasein: dialectic and hermeneutics in the early Gadamerian interpretation of Plato's ethics. Abstract: The aim of this paper is to present and analyse the main hypotheses of Hans-Georg Gadamer in his 1931 book Platos dialektische Ethik. Phänomenologische Interpretationen zum Philebos regarding the notions of pólis, aretḗ, tó agathṓn y Dasein. Then, it will be attempted to show that in this early book of Gadamer is his first relevant philosophical-political work, expressed in (...) the form of a critical dialogue with Martin Heidegger, departing from the new interpretative possibilities that philology and phenomenology opened to Gadamer’s studies on Plato’s philosophy. This early work, moreover, would have laid the foundations for the future developments of philosophical hermeneutics, in particular, regarding the characterization of the dialectical-dialogical structure of understanding and the relationship among éthos, práxis and lógos. -/- /// -/- Resumen: El objetivo de este artículo es presentar y analizar las principales hipótesis de Hans-Georg Gadamer en su libro de 1931 Platos dialektische Ethik. Phänomenologische Interpretationen zum Philebos en relación con las nociones de pólis, aretḗ, tó agathṓn y Dasein. Luego, se intentará demostrar que en este trabajo temprano de Gadamer se formula la primera producción filosófico-política de relevancia del autor, expresada en forma de diálogo crítico con Martin Heidegger, a partir de las nuevas posibilidades interpretativas que la filología y fenomenología le abrieron para el estudio de Platón y su filosofía. Esta obra temprana, además, habría sentado las bases de los futuros desarrollos de la hermenéutica filosófica, en particular, con relación a la caracterización de la estructura dialógico-dialéctica de la comprensión y al vínculo entre éthos, práxis y lógos. (shrink)

Like human existence itself, our enduring legacies—whether poetic, ethical, political, or philosophical—continually unfold and require recurrent communal engagement and (re)enactment. In other words, an ongoing performance of significant works must occur, and this task requires the collective human activity of re-membering or gathering-together-again. In the Symposium, Diotima provides an account of human pursuits of immortality through the creation of artifacts, including laws, poems, and philosophical discourses that resonates with Gadamer’s account of our engagement with artworks and texts. This essay explores (...) common places among Gadamer and Plato; however, it does so through the complex character of Diotima the philosopher-priestess. Diotima’s teaching on the processive character of human existence and her understanding of knowledge as dynamic has been largely ignored. Given Gadamer’s historically oriented philosophical hermeneutics, not to mention his creative and critical engagement with Platonic themes such as beauty, recollection, and art, Diotima makes for an especially fruitful dialogue partner. (shrink)

This essay addresses the role of aporetic thinking and aporetic dialogue in the early “Socratic” dialogues of Plato. It aims to provide a new angle on why and how puzzlement induced by Socrates should benefit his interlocutors but often fails to do so. After discussing criteria for what is to count as an aporetic dialogue, the essay explains how and why Socrates’ aporia-inducing conversations point to a conception of virtue as grounded in a form of self-transparent wisdom. In combination with (...) a knowledge criterion that requires the ability to articulate and successfully defend one’s views under critical examination, this conception of virtue entails that failure under Socratic examination is an indication of not just intellectual but also ethical deficits. I then show (against a still prevailing view among scholars) that at least the grown-ups among Socrates’ interlocutors in these dialogues fail to realize that their aporia is a proof of ignorance. Laches, for instance, thinks that his failure under Socratic examination has been caused by his inexperience with debates, while Meno blames it on Socrates’ alleged trickery. In the Euthydemus, Plato aims to blunt the charge of sophistry by contrasting “sophistic” trickery with Socrates’ philosophical exhortation. Yet, as I argue, the most important difference between sophistic and Socratic examination lies in the underlying ethos, not in the argumentative techniques, as these are partly similar. The final section of the essay analyses the intellectual and ethical benefits of aporia-inducing discourse for those who do fully acknowledge their ignorance and follow the urge to overcome ignorance. (shrink)

This essay argues that Plato in the Republic needs an account of why and how the three distinct parts of the soul are parts of one soul, and it draws on the Phaedrus and Gorgias to develop an account of compositional unity that fits what is said in the Republic.

The dominant Greek and Roman ideology held that the best human life required engaging in politics, on the grounds that the human good is shared, not private, and that the activities central to this shared good are those of traditional politics. This chapter surveys three ways in which philosophers challenged this ideology, defended a withdrawal from or transformation of traditional politics, and thus rethought what politics could be. Plato and Aristotle accept the ideology's two central commitments but insist that a (...) few exceptional human beings could transcend the good of human activities. Epicurus argues that the human good is private, not shared. Socrates and some of his followers, including especially the Stoics, argue that the activities central to the shared human good are not those of traditional politics. (shrink)

In recent years there has been a surge of interest among Plato scholars in the tripartition of the soul in the Republic. Particular attention has been devoted to the nature of the soul-parts, and whether or not each part is agent-like. A key element in this debate has been the question whether or not the non-rational parts have access to significant cognitive and conceptual resources. That this is the case, and that appetite cannot be entirely unreasoning, is the widely accepted (...) view, shared by Annas, Bobonich, Cooper, and Irwin among others. A number of scholars – most notably Lorenz and Stalley – have recently criticized this reading of Plato’s tripartition, and argued that the text does not in fact support such a reading. I believe that the weight of evidence remains in favour of the mainstream view, despite the interesting objections raised by the critics. I argue that these critics fail to appreciate the variety of ways in which the non-rational parts employ cognitive and conceptual resources. I also explain that their alternative interpretations of the relevant passages are unconvincing. (shrink)

At the heart of Plato’s theory of erōs is the ‘ascent’ of love for an individual body, through several stages, to love of Beauty itself (Symposium 210a-212b). I argue that our understanding of the psychology of this transformation would benefit especially from bringing in Plato’s views on pain from the Republic. For erōs is presented in the Symposium as including sexual desire (207b) as well as love of wisdom (210d), but the Republic takes the former to be a painful desire, (...) whereas the latter is apparently treated as painless. The ‘ascent’ of love, then, seems to involve the transformation of a painful desire into a painless one. I conclude that this transformation is best understood as a rechanneling of desire within the tripartite soul. (shrink)

Jesus and Socrates shared a remarkable gift; a channel of inner spiritual communication, to afford them truthful guidance in their respective religious discourse. Jesus is part of the Trinity; he is the Son, the Son of God. In mortal life he is the son of a carpenter. He called on all peoples to repent of their sins but fell foul of the authorities and was crucified. Socrates was an ancient Greek philosopher and the son of an artisan. His mission is (...) to drive the Athenians to investigate truth, but he too incurs the displeasure of fellow citizens, to the extent of execution. The accusations made against them centre around, in Jesus’ case, proclaiming himself the Son of God, with the means to pardon, and in Socrates’, that a daimonion, an inner voice, speaks to him in his heart. Jesus talks with God directly through prayer, as the pneuma of God, i.e. to pneuma to hagion, or Holy Spirit, is with him. Socrates seems to enter what we would now think of as a trance-like condition, wherein he communicates with his inner daimonion, who directs him to take courage on the righteous path. (shrink)

Plato’s theory of virtue in the Laws could be striking for someone who is more familiar with Aristotle’s ethics for conceptual complementarity between the two positions (contrary emotions, the ordering element of reason, virtue as a mean which lies between two forms of vice, typically linked to excessive actions, etc.). Plato’s theory, however, still differs from that of Aristotle in two crutial points. First, the source of emotional dynamism is, according to Plato, supraindividual as far as the psyche is a (...) cosmological principle. Only if it comes to be formed and ordered, it separates from the universal cosmic context and make up the emotional nature of an individual soul. But the soul is not, and this is the second point of difference, ordered by some external element (training or education, organized by a rational agent). Plato counts on a pre-arranged order of emotions at a particular ontological topos of the individual soul into which reason eventually descends. Emotions, on their part, seem to include a nexus between formable and forming that is chronologically and methodocally prior to that between the biological substratum and its rational organization, as assumed by Aristotle. (shrink)

The paper claims that we cannot understand properly Platonic conception of love and friendship unless we read the Lysis in the light of the Symposium and vice verse. Dealing with the crucial question of what made Plato write two different dialogues on the same topic, it advocates an alternative intertextual reading that does not deny progress of Plato’s thinking. Though the Symposium offers, in comparison to the Lysis, a more developed philosophical theory of love, Plato still has good reasons to (...) articulate the dilemmas presented in the Lysis. Combining the contrast in dialogue endings with the similarity in structure and in argumentation, Plato makes clear that, between the Lysis and the Symposium, there is progress and constancy at the same time: while the Symposium gives a philosophical account of what we can call “divine love”, it accepts and even emphasizes the insight of the Lysis that philosophical love can imply lack of what we usually consider worth loving. Plato in the Symposium does not discard “human love” and does not conceal possible troubles of philosophical, i.e. divine love. Therefore, the critique of Plato as being champion of impersonal or “ideal” love is unpersuasive. (shrink)

This study examines Plato's dialogue on the good life and argues, most centrally, that the "pleasures of learning" exemplify, for Socrates, the possibility of good becoming or change.

By considering carefully Socrates' invocations of 'compulsion' in Plato's Republic, I seek to explain how both justice and compulsion are crucial to the philosophers' decision to rule in Kallipolis, so that this decision does not contradict Socrates' central thesis that it is always in one's interests to act justly. On my account, the compulsion is provided by a law, made by the city's lawgivers, that requires people raised to be philosophers take turns ruling. Justice by itself does not require the (...) philosophers to rule, but it does require them to obey just laws. I also consider the implications of this view for Plato's politics. (shrink)

Plato’s teaching about the Good is sometimes blamed for denigrating particular goods. By contrast, this article argues that for Plato pleonexia is at the heart of disordered relationships to particular goods. In turn, the psychic root of pleonexia is spiritedness, the aspect of the soul that enables it to love what is “one’s own.” Plato employs Kallipolis as a heuristic device to diagnose these psychic roots of our attraction to pleonexia. Kallipolis’ reforms are ascetic practices that seek to transform his (...) interlocutors’ spiritedness by reorienting the soul’s love away from pleonexia to the good. This love for the good turns out to be the condition for a renewed and healthy devotion to particular goods, rather than the cause of their denigration. (shrink)

This paper corrects the common misconception that Meno's slave (in Plato's dialogue of that name) is a boy. The first part of the paper shows how long-standing and widespread that misconception is. The description of Meno's slave as a "slave-boy" goes back at least to Benjamin Jowett, and the phrase is still commonly seen today in books and journal articles in philosophy and classics generally, even in presses and journals with the highest reputation. The paper then shows that the Greek (...) term pais, often translated as "boy", is when addressed to slaves used to indicate their condition, not their age. When the text of the Meno is examined carefully, it is clear that there is no evidence that Meno's slave is a boy. In fact, it is clear that the expression "boy" is used in relation to his condition, not in relation to his age. It thus demeans us to refer to Meno's slave as a "slave-boy" or just "boy", since it either displays our ignorance about the use of the term pais or, worse, makes us complicit in using a term of condescension. The paper concludes by suggesting that the proposed correction is philosophically significant, since it opens an investigation into Plato's depiction of slaves that is otherwise blocked by supposing the slave to be a boy. (shrink)

Nicolai Hartmann, in an interesting discussion of Aristotle’s account of moral virtue, has called attention to the difference between the contrariety of opposed vices and the contrast of certain virtues. The äκρa or extremes, somewhere between which Aristotle thought that any morally virtuous disposition must lie, are not conciliable. The same man cannot combine or reconcile, in the same action, cowardice and bravery, intemperance and insensibility, stinginess and thriftlessness, passion and lack of spirit. These are pairs of contraries, between which (...) a virtue lies; but the virtue is not a synthesis of the extremes in a pair. (shrink)

This study of Plato's ethics focuses on the concept of virtue. Based on detailed readings of the most prominent Platonic dialogues on virtue, it argues that there is a central yet previously unnoticed conceptual distinction in Plato between the idea of virtue as the supreme aim of one's actions and the determination of which action-tokens or -types are virtuous. Appreciating the 'aiming/determining distinction' provides detailed and mutually consistent readings of the most well-known Platonic dialogues on virtue as well as original (...) interpretations of central Platonic questions. Unlike most examinations of Plato's ethics, this study does not take as its centrepiece the 'eudaimonist framework', which focuses on the relationship between virtue and happiness. Instead, it argues that the dialogues themselves begin with the idea of the supremacy of virtue, examine how that claim can be defended, and address how to determine what constitutes the virtuous action. (shrink)

Celem artykułu jest przedstawienie i analiza kształtowania się pojęcia woli w starożytnej filozofii pogańskiej. W kontekście poglądów Sokratesa, Platona i Arystotelesa autor przedstawia wiele greckich intuicji dotyczących psychologii aktów moralnych i ludzkiego działania. Po pierwsze artykuł przedstawia doktrynę intelektualizmu etycznego, przypisywaną Sokratesowi, według której kognitywne elementy są głównym motywem naszych działań. Z tego powodu trudno znaleźć pojęcie wolnej woli w sokratejskiej antropologii. Po drugie artykuł prezentuje interpretację platońskiej antropologii, według której sferę thymos można nazwać proto-wolą. Ostatecznie autor ukazuje, jak trudno (...) jest znaleźć pojęcie woli w arystotelesowskiej etyce i antropologii, pomimo że Arystoteles bardzo szczegółowo wyjaśniał relacje między przekonaniami, pragnieniami i działaniem. Ani pro- airesis, ani boulesis nie mogą pełnić funkcji woli, szczególnie gdy wola ma być władzą, która pragnie, może wybierać ijest samodeterminującą się władzą. (shrink)

Jest to wybór z pracy Gadamera "Idea dobra..." Zawiera Przedmowę, Zakres problemu, Rozdział I (Sokratejska wiedza i niewiedza) oraz Posłowie tłumacza. This is the opening part of the Polish translation of Gadamers' The idea of the good... with the Translator's afterword.

This is the translation and interpretation of the Gorgias' speech from Plato's dialogue Gorgias (456A1-457C3). In the commentary it is argued that the Gorgias' speech in the dialogue is based on the philosophical and rhetorical motives which can be found both in Gorgias' epideictic speeches ("Helen" and "Palamedes") and doxographical accounts.

One of the more attractive features of Greek moral philosophy and its medieval dependents is that it provides an obvious motivation for being moral: rational self-interest. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas are all rational egoists, and each argues that acting only for the sake of one's own happiness is compatible with treating other people morally. Each bridges the gap between egoism and altruism by arguing that a rational person has sufficient reason to care about other people. This raises two main (...) problems: can egoistic or "selfish love" count as genuine love, and even if it can, can "selfish love" insure that an egoist will have the proper moral respect for all who are worthy of moral respect? ;Socrates believes that nothing can be loved or desired both as an end and as a means, and so he cannot justify any but an exploitative love which cares for the other not for the other's own sake, but only for the instrumental benefits he, she or it provides the lover. ;Plato succeeds in justifying love for another for the other's own sake by arguing that one's beloved is a constituent of and not just an instrumental means to one's own happiness. Nevertheless, Plato does not justify respect for the other as an independent end-chooser, and this prevents him from justifying moral respect for the autonomy of the other. ;Aristotle makes up for this deficiency of Plato's by founding the best sort of love on the mutual respect required by co-operation in deliberation, decision and action in mutually valued projects. This solution, however, prevents Aristotle from justifying moral respect for anyone who is not sufficiently virtuous, and this threatens to limit severely the number of people for whom Aristotle can justify proper moral respect. Aristotle can disarm this threat, even in the form in which it is posed by Christian charity. ;Aquinas argues that Aristotelian love is insufficient for justifying Christian charity. The difference between them, however, does not concern the theory of what love consists in, but in how to apply the theory of love. (shrink)

This dissertation discusses the moral psychology presented in Plato's early and middle dialogues. Chapters I and II examine the moral psychology developed in the early dialogues to support the Socratic paradoxes that virtue is knowledge and that all virtues are one. Chapter III argues that Plato rejects this early moral psychology in the middle dialogues. Chapters IV and V examine the moral psychology developed in the middle dialogues to replace it. ;Specifically, Chapter I discusses the early Plato's contention that the (...) good is the only object of desire through an examination of passages from the Lysis, Meno 77-78 and Symposium 199-206. Chapter II discusses the related view that persons always choose the action they think is best through an examination of Protagoras 352-358 and Gorgias 467-468. ;Chapter III traces Plato's rejection of his early moral psychology in the middle dialogues, particularly in the Phaedo and at Republic 437-439. ;Chapter IV then discusses the doctrine of parts of the soul developed in the Republic, with particular attention to the arguments of Republic 436-441. Chapter V discusses Plato's views about the role of these parts of the soul in the moral development of the individual, through a discussion of Plato's ideal educational scheme at Republic II to III, Plato's views on love in the Phaedrus and Plato's views on the development of different types of characters at Republic VIII to IX. (shrink)

Melissa S. Lane, Method and Politics in Plato's Statesman , xiii + 229 pp., ?40, ISBN 0 521 58229 6.

In accordance with Leo Strauss's ingenious suggestion, the Athenian Stranger of Plato's Laws is best understood as an alternative 'Socrates', fleeing from the hemlock to Crete. Situated between Crito and Phaedo, Laws effectively tests the reader's loyalty to the real Socrates who obeys Athenian law and dies cheerfully in Athens. Having separated Plato from the Stranger, a nuanced defence of Karl Popper's suspicions about Laws confronts the apologetic readings of both Strauss and Christopher Bobonich. As hinted by his preference for (...) wine, the antidote for hemlock, the Athenian Stranger repeatedly proves himself the opposite of Socrates, particularly with respect to piety. Once the Stranger is recognized as 'an unreliable narrator', this apparently ponderous product of Plato's senility becomes the taut thriller of an innovative teacher at the peak of his powers. (shrink)

Review of Plato: Statesman, ed. with an Introduction, Translation & Commentary by C.J. Rowe , pp. vi + 248, ?35.00, ISBN 0 85668 612 3 ; ? 14.95, ISBN 0 85668 613 1.

This paper presents a political reading of the Phaedrus. It is argued that the dialogue's speeches on love describe types of political leadership and that, using the Socratic account of the statesman as someone who promotes moral improvement, political relations are not bound by institutions. Political relations become those in which one person affects the moral development of another and, thus, political 'space' is between people, not in specific locations. As a result, this new kind of forum must affect the (...) way we think of critical Socratic citizenship. (shrink)