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. (shrink)

In this paper I examine how Brailas conceives of Modern-Greek identity. After an introduction, I look at Brailian texts where it is emphasized that Hellenism and Christianity are the two components of Greek national identity. Does this mean, though, that for Brailas these two elements express a similar mode of being? There are passages that can support this claim. Still, Brailas’ reader should not suppose that the Corfiote philosopher uncritically assumes a linear transition from Hellenism to Christianity. But if Christianity (...) denotes the emergence of something new in history, how can it be compatible with Hellenism? Brailas’ answer is that as with the Mosaic Law, Christianity did not come to abolish Hellenism, but to fulfill it. Furthermore, the association of Christianity with Hellenism enabled the latter to survive throughout history both in the West and the East. Besides, for Brailas variety has always constituted the “harmony of Hellenism”. (shrink)