This edition of Martin Ostwald's revised version of J. B. Skemp's 1952 translation of _Statesman_ includes a new selected bibliography, as well as Ostwald's interpretive introduction, which traces the evolution in Plato's political philosophy from _Republic_ to _Statesman to Laws_--from philosopher-king to royal statesman.

In his celebrated masterpiece, Symposium, Plato imagines a high-society dinner-party in Athens in 416 BC at which the guests - including the comic poet Aristophanes and, of course, Plato's mentor Socrates - each deliver a short speech in praise of love. The sequence of dazzling speeches culminates in Socrates' famous account of the views of Diotima, a prophetess who taught him that love is our means of trying to attain goodness. And then into the party bursts the drunken (...) Alcibiades, the most popular and notorious Athenian of the time, who insists on praising Socrates himself rather than love, and gives us a brilliant sketch of this enigmatic character. The power, humour, and pathos of Plato's creation engages the reader on every page. This new translation is complemented by full explanatory notes and an illuminating introduction. (shrink)

"This edition, which replaces the original Loeb edition..., offers text, translation, and annotation that are fully current with modern scholarship"--Front flap of dust jacket, volume 1.

DigiCat Publishing presents to you this special edition of "Socratic Discourses" by Plato, Xenophon. DigiCat Publishing considers every written word to be a legacy of humankind. Every DigiCat book has been carefully reproduced for republishing in a new modern format. The books are available in print, as well as ebooks. DigiCat hopes you will treat this work with the acknowledgment and passion it deserves as a classic of world literature.

The present essay grew out of an inte:rest in exploring the relationship be tween "imagination" and "reason" in the history of naturalistic thinking. The essay tries to show something of the spirit of naturalism coming to terms with the place of imagination and reason in knowing, making, and doing as activities of human experience. This spirit is discussed by taking as its point of departure the thinking of five writers: Plato, Aristotle, Giam battista Vieo, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Keats. (...) Plato and Aristotle are considered as spokesmen of reason in a world which appeared to be dominated by non-reason. They found it essential for human beings to try to learn how to distinguish between the work of imagin ation and the work of reason. In trying to make such a distinction, it becomes clear that imagination has its legitimate place, along with reason, in human activity. Or we might say that determining the place which each has is a continuing problem when human beings take seriously what is involved in shaping mind and character. (shrink)

It is a pleasure for me to give this opening address to the Royal Institute of Philosophy Conference on ‘Explanation’ for two reasons. The first is that it is succeeded by exciting symposia and other papers concerned with various special aspects of the topic of explanation. The second is that the conference is being held in my old alma mater, the University of Glasgow, where I did my first degree. Especially due to C. A. Campbell and George Brown there was (...) in the Logic Department a big emphasis on absolute idealism, especially F. H. Bradley. My inclinations were to oppose this line of thought and to espouse the empiricism and realism of Russell, Broad and the like. Empiricism was represented in the department by D. R. Cousin, a modest man who published relatively little, but who was of quite extraordinary philosophical acumen and lucidity, and by Miss M. J. Levett, whose translation of Plato's Theaetetus formed an important part of the philosophy syllabus. (shrink)

It is a pleasure for me to give this opening address to the Royal Institute of Philosophy Conference on ‘Explanation’ for two reasons. The first is that it is succeeded by exciting symposia and other papers concerned with various special aspects of the topic of explanation. The second is that the conference is being held in my old alma mater, the University of Glasgow, where I did my first degree. Especially due to C. A. Campbell and George Brown there was (...) in the Logic Department a big emphasis on absolute idealism, especially F. H. Bradley. My inclinations were to oppose this line of thought and to espouse the empiricism and realism of Russell, Broad and the like. Empiricism was represented in the department by D. R. Cousin, a modest man who published relatively little, but who was of quite extraordinary philosophical acumen and lucidity, and by Miss M. J. Levett, whose translation of Plato's Theaetetus formed an important part of the philosophy syllabus. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 41.2 (2003) 265-266 [Access article in PDF] Plato. Alcibiades. Edited by Nicholas Denyer. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Pp. xi + 254. Cloth, $64.95. Paper, $22.95. This volume is a new addition to the Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics series. It offers an introduction (twenty-nine pages), a revised Greek text with apparatus criticus (fifty pages), a commentary (167 pages), and indices (...) (general, proper names, and Greek words together taking just over four pages).The editor acknowledges his dependence on the manuscripts and indirect evidence as reported by Carlini. The apparatus is second order: rather than identifying a reading to a manuscript or other source by name, the author indicates that the reading is the only one found in the manuscripts, that it is one among two or more found in the manuscripts, that it is found in the indirect evidence, or that it is conjectural. Thus the textual support is given, as he says, in a "ruthlessly summary form."The apparatus includes sixty-eight line references underneath the text. Of the passages corresponding to these references, thirty-six differ from Burnet's Oxford Classical Text, especially by deletion, rearrangement, and addition. Deletions make up a third: two of Burnet's additions to the text in acute brackets are dropped, including all of 133C8-17, and material that Burnet had printed in the text in square brackets disappears entirely in three cases; five pairs of acute brackets are dropped where Burnet's text is retained, with four of these items marked as conjectures; and finally, Burnet's unbracketed text simply is dropped in two places. The rearrangements vary in character: at one place, three lines of text are moved down "to ease the flow of the argument," and at another place a line that Burnet assigns to Alcibiades is given to Socrates. The editor's additions sometimes are presented as matters of linguistic or other intuition: at 115D2 (in his lineation), for example, an addition adopted by Burnet is dropped in favor of the author's own conjectural addition as "the easiest way to break up the very awkward double question that the manuscript tradition ascribes to Socrates"; at 128E10 the editor replaces the reading of "all the manuscripts" with a word which "was often abbreviated" and whose abbreviation "was easily misread as some shorter word beginning with alpha"; and at 131A2 the editor conjectures the addition of a word supported by neither the direct nor the indirect tradition in order to make it "possible to derive the conclusion of 131A5-6 that the professional knowledge of doctors and trainers is not knowledge of themselves." These arguments, though less than airtight, are thought provoking, even if they leave one's view of the text largely intact.The commentary offers historians of philosophy food for thought in other ways, too, since it goes beyond arguing for changes to the text. It makes extensive use of observations on grammar, style, usage, and other literary materials to shed light on the argument of the dialogue and on the dramatic elements which overlay the argumentative material and make the dialogue a coherent whole.The introduction offers something else again, especially in its twelve pages on authenticity. The editor does not prove that the dialogue is authentic, but he does show that the modern arguments against its authenticity are weak. Because of Schleiermacher's influence, he suggests, subsequent writers have not bothered to argue the case seriously against authenticity; he labels their arguments "frivolous." He notes that some argue for inauthenticity on the grounds that the Alcibiades lacks parallels with the other dialogues, [End Page 265] some on grounds that it is too similar to the other dialogues, and some ("weakest of all") on both grounds at once. He then goes on to argue that "stylometric studies cannot tell us whether or not Plato wrote the Alcibiades" and to challenge the standard chronology of the dialogues so far as it bears against authenticity. "If," he concludes, "the Alcibiades is authentically Platonic, then we need of course to abandon the conceptions, or misconceptions... (shrink)

In 1484, humanist philosopher and theologian Marsilio Ficino published the first complete Latin translation of Plato's extant works. Students of Plato now had access to the entire range of the dialogues, which revealed to Renaissance audiences the rich ancient landscape of myths, allegories, philosophical arguments, etymologies, fragments of poetry, other works of philosophy, aspects of ancient pagan religious practices, concepts of mathematics and natural philosophy, and the dialogic nature of the Platonic corpus's interlocutors. By and large, Renaissance readers (...) in the Latin West encountered Plato's text through Ficino's translations and interpretation. -/- In Plato's Persona, Denis J.-J. Robichaud provides the first synthetic study of Ficino's interpretation of the Platonic corpus. Robichaud analyzes Plato's works in their original Greek and in Ficino's Latin translations, as well as Ficino's non-Platonic writings and correspondence, in the process uncovering new aspects of Ficino's intellectual work habits. In his letters and works, Ficino self-consciously imitated a Platonic style of prose, in effect devising a persona for himself as a Platonic philosopher. Plato's dialogues are populated with a wealth of literary characters with whom Plato interacts and against whom Plato refines his own philosophies. Reading through Ficino's translations, Robichaud finds that the Renaissance philosopher seeks an understanding of Plato's persona(e) among all the dialogues' interlocutors. In effect, Ficino assumed the role of Plato's Latin spokesperson in the Renaissance. -/- Plato's Persona is grounded in an extensive study of scholarship in Renaissance humanism, classics, philosophy, and intellectual history, and contextualizes Ficino's intellectual achievements within the contemporary Christian orthodox view of Platonism. Ficino was an influential figure in the early Italian Renaissance: the key intermediary between Greek and Latin, and between manuscript and print, giving voice to Plato and access to the ancient frameworks needed to interpret his dialogues. (shrink)

Editors display an amazing versatility in producing "new and different" series. While the selections in this volume on Plato and Aristotle present nothing novel, the series adds a new twist by concentrating on only two thinkers in each period. Volume One of a twelve-volume set offers two chapters introducing the times and the men. A third chapter contains selections from eight of Plato's dialogues ranging from the Apology to the Timaeus. Chapter four has usual selections from Aristotle. The (...) concluding chapters make a bold attempt at novelty by presenting modern commentaries of Platonic and Aristotelian scholars. Unfortunately, these critiques are so severely edited that they may be beyond comprehension apart from the original work. What is most misleading, however, is the claim in the chapter introducing ancient philosophy that there are only two significant commentaries on Presocratic thought: John Burnet's Early Greek Philosophy, and Cornford's Principium Sapientiae.--J. J. R. (shrink)

The aim of this index of pre-1500 Platonic manuscripts is to prepare for a complete reediting of a new edition of Plato's works. The project, which began over ten years ago, brings together in one collection microfilms of all the older extant manuscript material. The index first lists the manuscripts according to the libraries in which they are found, including the library shelf number. The second half of the index lists the manuscripts by dialogue. The need for a new (...) edition of the Platonic text is based--for the most part--on the findings of E. R. Dodds in his work on the Gorgias. Dodds discovered that the nineteenth-century textual scholars oversimplified matters by assuming that the extant manuscripts were handed down by scribes. Dodds has shown that as much editing was done as transcribing; hence, the manuscripts could include "extensive possible unsystematic contamination." Also, the nineteenth-century scholars erred in assuming a "fixed rule of evidence." Thus--of three manuscripts-two having similar readings would be accepted and the third considered erroneous. However, probability theory shows that the agreement of two against one will work seven out of eight times. But the eighth instant will have the single reading as the right one--with no way of telling which out of the eight instances will have the single reading as the original. This new and convenient index should enhance Platonic scholarship.--J. J. R. (shrink)

Knowledge has been a subject of philosophical study since ancient times. This is not surprising since knowledge is crucial for humans to control their actions and the appetite for acquiring it seems innate to the human race. Philosophy, therefore, has always occupied itself with the question as to the nature of knowledge. This area of philosophy is generally referred to as epistemology from the Greek word for knowledge: episteme. Plato defined knowledge as “justified true belief,” and this definition has (...) influenced philosophers ever since; cf. Gettier and Pollock. Although sensible, this definition does not yet explain the nature of knowledge, since all of the three notions of ‘justification’, ‘truth’, and ‘belief’ are not yet clear and still subject to discussion. It would go beyond the scope of our purposes here to go into this at this moment, but it is touched on later in this chapter. (shrink)

Aristotle had accused the Presocratic philosophers of constantly turning up the wrong set of principles as explanations of physical reality. To speak of the archai as if they were physical entities was, according to Aristotle, to confuse the notion of archai with that of stoicheia. This volume by Sinnige, however, traces the notion of "matter" through Presocratic thought and reveals a non-tangible, indeterminate view of matter that is sometimes identified with that of infinity. The author shows how Anaximander carried over (...) the mythical concept of Chronos as the ruling power of the universe into a more rational notion of apeiron. Sinnige's conclusion here is that "matter" for Anaximander is not a sensible substance at all, but rather the infinite and divine expanse of the universe. Each of the Presocratic views on matter and infinity is considered in its turn. Sinnige maintains that with the Pythagoreans the notion of the apeiron became more fully identified with that of instability and indeterminateness. The author also takes issue with the traditional interpretations of the doxographers who make Zeno's paradoxes nothing more than arguments against the reliability of sensory knowledge. Rather, Sinnige claims, Zeno's view of infinity marks a turning point in which mathematical dimensions are irrevocably associated with that term. Basically the author shows that early notions of matter and infinity vacillate between corpuscular theories on the one hand and mathematical views on the other.--J. J. R. (shrink)

Het Leids-Haags Allegorieënlexicon toont nieuwe perspectieven op de maatschappelijke werkelijkheid met een actuele duiding van vijftig kernthema’s uit de wetenschap. De auteurs zijn de duale promovendi en hun promotores van Leiden University Dual PhD Centre The Hague. Ze worden daarbij geïnspireerd door de metafoor van de grot van Plato: Waar ben ik? Waar sta ik? Welk beeld zie ik? Hoe kan ik dat begrijpen? Er ontstaan beeldende voorstellingen van begrippen waarin op zoek wordt gegaan naar de centrale gedachten die (...) ten grondslag liggen aan die begrippen. Zo wordt de veranderende wereld waargenomen met het besef dat we nooit kunnen weten of we de gehele werkelijkheid kunnen zien of begrijpen. De waarneming is afhankelijk van de zichtpositie die de waarnemer inneemt. Zo ontstaan verbeeldingen van waarnemingen van ons menselijk bestaan. Zoals: assimilatie, creativiteit, gender, kunstenaarschap, magistraat, participatie, regels, tragedie en verzorgingsstaat. Eerst wordt actuele literatuur besproken. Daarna volgt discussie. Tenslotte neemt de auteur positie in. Met bijdragen van promotores Wilfried Admiraal, Ingrid van Biezen, Hans Borgman, Paul Cliteur, Jaap van den Herik, Rikki Holtmaat, Willem Otterspeer, Jos Raadschelders, Robert Tijssen, Wim Willems en promovendi. (shrink)

In this international and interdisciplinary collection of critical essays, distinguished contributors examine a crucial premise of traditional readings of Plato's dialogues: that Plato's own doctrines and arguments can be read off the statements made in the dialogues by Socrates and other leading characters. The authors argue in general and with reference to specific dialogues, that no character should be taken to be Plato's mouthpiece. This is essential reading for students and scholars of Plato.

This edition of Aristotelian scholarship contains the proceedings of the third Symposium Aristotelicum. Choosing to discuss one work of Aristotle, the Topics, the participants were thus able to center their discussions around Aristotle's notion of dialectics. Owen has arranged the papers into interesting categories, some of which contain critical analyses of the text. There is also a valuable index of sources. One especially interesting chapter deals with the question of the relationship between Aristotelian thought and Platonic thought. Under the specific (...) scrutiny of the Symposium, the question is: to what extent do the dialectics of Aristotle rely upon Plato's theory of Forms and the method of diaeresis that leads up to the Forms? Friedrich Solmsen, the most emphatic of all the writers on this point, claims that the dialectics of the Topics ignore any ontological reference. According to Solmsen, Aristotle accepted the logical structure of Plato's dialectic and diaeresis but then prescinded from any commitment to the Forms. C. J. De Vogel agrees with Solmsen insofar as Aristotle begins to see the theory of Forms as "problematic" due to the immaturity of Aristotle's own theory. De Vogel cites several passages that would seem to counter the position of Solmsen. For example, in defining "justice" as a virtue, Aristotle prefers the abstract term δικαιοσύνη as properly falling under the category ἀγαθόν, rather than the concrete δίκαιον. In a paper by Gilbert Ryle it is claimed that Aristotle never formally learned dialectical philosophy at Plato's academy, so that questions of how and why Aristotle broke from his master are unreal. Ryle suggests that the second part of Plato's Parmenides was written to exemplify the categories of the Topics and to school the more advanced students in the art of dialectics which was not taught to those under thirty years of age. How much Aristotle's dialectical philosophy is indebted to Plato is still a debatable point; but it is debated very well in these papers.--J. J. R. (shrink)

Almost every aspect of Aristotle's philosophy is touched upon in this book. Part One deals with the intellectual development of Aristotle and repeats Jaeger's claim that Aristotle's thought was a continual process of development and not a static system of concepts. The "First Athenian Period" finds Aristotle as Plato's pupil. The "Period of Travel" embraces the formulation of his theory of causes and substance. The "Second Athenian Period" includes the work at the Lyceum and its contribution to systematic investigation. (...) In this First Part, Lloyd suggests that the greatest enigma surrounding the development of Aristotle's thought is the latter's relation with Plato's philosophy. Lloyd sees Aristotle as more than "Plato's pupil." He sees Aristotle in reaction to Plato; inasmuch as the former rejects the notion of Forms as central to philosophy, introduces the principle of potentiality as an explanation of change, and distinguishes "substance" in a primary sense which gives concrete ground to reality. Yet, while Aristotle is critical of Platonism, certain Platonic notions are retained, e.g., that intelligibility is gained only through universals; that the basic world-view is teleological. The Second Part of the book is concerned with the fundamentals of Aristotle's thought, in which all of the highlights of his thought are outlined and commented upon. Logic, metaphysics, physics, psychology, ethics, poetics, politics--all are given a brief but accurate analysis. The author does not claim to write this book for the Aristotelian scholar; rather, it is directed toward the undergraduate or other interested reader who may want more knowledge of the philosopher from Stagira.--J. J. R. (shrink)

This reconstruction of Empedocles' thought for the most part depends upon how the notions of rest and movement are related to the elements. Many traditional interpretations have both the love and strife forces of Empedocles as moving causes which combine and separate the elements respectively. O'Brien claims, however, that there is really only one moving cause: strife; and therefore there is only one time of rest in the cosmos, when love unites the elements into the Sphere. Strife is seen as (...) Empedocles' explanation of diversity in the world, and love as his explanation of unity. O'Brien's reconstruction, then, would rank Empedocles as a serious metaphysician coping with the problem of the one and the many; rather than as a naive pre-scientist explaining the genesis of animals by the combining of "separated limbs." O'Brien suggests that Empedocles is attempting to save the Parmenidean notion of unity without relegating movement to the realm of illusion. In this way, Empedocles also appears to anticipate Plato's attempt to explain the spatial and temporal world in terms of what is non-spatial and timeless. Roughly speaking, as Plato's Forms are to the physical world, so love and strife are to the elements. O'Brien's reconstruction project is carefully done with a rather thorough analysis of all the sources. Appended to the work is a 61-page bibliography which includes every book and article exclusively on Empedocles written from 1806 to 1965.--J. J. R. (shrink)

Fifteen essays, which rarely go much below the surface, on Plato's moral and political thought. For the most part, the author contents himself with remarking that Plato's dualism finds a place for moral values, which materialism denies, and that he was an opponent of unhealthy, but not of healthy, democracy.--J. J.

This is a translation of a tenth century Arabic work that purports to be Aristotelian but is obviously written by one who prefers Plato's philosophy. In fact, the Phaedo is apparently the model after which this dialogue is fashioned. Aristotle is on his deathbed surrounded by his disciples. He periodically sniffs at an apple in his hand in order to sustain his failing breath while urging his followers toward philosophy that will reject this world and lead them to salvation. (...) The Aristotle of The Apple wants at least two points clear: the soul is immortal and the world is not eternal. The book might well be called, "The Recantation of Aristotle." The Apple was introduced to European philosophers in 1235 in Barcelona where it was translated from Arabic to Hebrew. In 1255, a Latin translation was made and it was pretty much accepted as part of the Aristotelian corpus for several centuries. This English translation is part of a series of "Medieval Philosophical Texts in Translation." The translator admits that The Apple contributes little to the development of philosophy. From an historical point of view, however, she thinks it is a "semiprecious document." It is interesting to see how concerned certain Moslem, Hebrew, and Christian thinkers were to get Aristotle on God's side.--J. J. R. (shrink)

Some will wonder why this book was ever written, thinking perhaps that there is nothing more to be said about "proofs" for the existence of God. Others of a more traditional inclination might be surprised at some of the conclusions drawn by the author. Kenny carefully scrutinizes the five ways of St. Thomas and concludes that they do not constitute rational proofs for God's existence. Kenny's chief criticism is that the arguments of Aquinas are too closely wedded to a cosmology (...) that cannot stand up under a modern critique. The value of this book rests precisely in its use of contemporary philosophy in evaluating the five ways. Perhaps the author's most serious criticism is directed against the Thomistic concept of esse and the notion of God as ipsum esse subsistens. These metaphysical notions of Aquinas have long been acclaimed as extensions of Aristotelian thought. Kenny, however, claims that they are Platonic in nature and hence subject to the centuries of criticism leveled against Plato's Ideas. Under a logical analysis, the notion of God as ipsum esse subsistens "turns out to be the Platonic Idea of a predicate which is at best uninformative and at worst unintelligible."--J. J. R. (shrink)