Abstract

Techne and praxis are the most useful and appropriate terms with which one can approach the larger question of theory and praxis in the Platonic dialogues, and it is this question which is the principal theme of this dissertation. Since the issue of theory, praxis, and, it must be added, production is made most explicit as a philosophical issue by Aristotle, Chapter II attempts to delineate exactly how he understands and divides these three terms. Particularly, how and why he divides knowledge into three branches, the theoretical, practical, and productive, is discussed. ;Chapter III argues that the Aristotelian division of knowledge is prefigured partially in the Platonic dialogues. An extended series of "division passages" is studied to show that such a division is present in Plato but that a glaring difference obtains between him and Aristotle. For Plato the division is consistently twofold and is between theoretical and productive knowledge, or techne as he will usually call it. There is no mention in these passages of a correlate to Aristotle's practical knowledge, namely an "ethics" or a "politics." ;Chapter IV begins to ask why this is the case and what significance this fact has for Platonic thinking in general. It is argued that there is no possibility of a Platonic version of practical knowledge. There is no possibility, as there is for Aristotle, of a theory of praxis. This is essentially a result of the Platonic conception of both techne, the word in his vocabulary most significant of theory, and praxis. Given the conceptual structure of the former, it is impossible for the latter to become an object of a genuine techne. ;Chaper V discusses portions of the Republic. Here, more than anywhere else, Plato does seem to posit a theory of praxis. That such a theory is present is certainly the basis of many, if not most, of the readings of this dialogue. It cannot be denied that a theory of praxis is, in some sense, put forth in the Republic. It is argued here, however, that it is not present as an actual theoretical accomplishment or even as a projection of a future or possible accomplishment. For reasons discussed at length the thesis is maintained that even in the Republic praxis, despite appearances to the contrary, remains an illegitimate object of techne. ;Throughout Chapters IV and V the implications and significance of this thesis are discussed. There is both a negative and a positive pole to this discussion. As mentioned, it is argued that a theory of praxis is impossible for Plato. More positively, the manner in which praxis is prior to and conditions or "surrounds" techne is considered. Techne emerges and is never fully independent from praxis