Die Figur des Dialektikers erscheint in Platons Dialogen unter verschiedenen Namen: 'Sokrates' oder 'Diotima', 'Parmenides' oder 'Gast aus Elea', 'Timaios' oder 'der Athener'. Ungeachtet des Unterschieds der Temperamente, der Rollen und der Situationen führt die Analyse der Art der Gesprächsführung in den späten Dialogen auf ein einheitliches Bild des Dialektikers, das durchaus dem Bild entspricht, das die Analyse der frühen und mittleren Dialoge ergab. Der Dialektiker ist dem aktuell geführten Gespräch stets weit voraus. Er entscheidet souverän, welche Fragen weiterverfolgt, welche (...) bewusst aus dem Gespräch herausgehalten werden. Sein Vorauswissen der Lösungen im aktuellen Gespräch macht es sicher, daß er auch die ausgesparten Fragen mit gleicher Überlegenheit behandeln könnte. Das Ausgesparte aber weist immer auf den Bereich der Prinzipien. Der Sinn dieser meist verkannten Figurenkonzeption ergibt sich aus Platons Kritik der Schriftlichkeit im Phaidros: der Dialektiker ist der Denker, hinter dessen Ausführungen eine weiterführende Prinzipienlehre steht. (shrink)

This article outlines a conception of emotions as mediopassive processes based on an understanding of the affective as situated felt-body phenomena. On these grounds, in the second part of the text, a form of emotional ability is introduced. It is described as the subject’s ability to mindfully feel and perceive her emotions in such a way that it allows her to both attend and subtly conduct the unfolding of the emotions’ dynamic gestalt. A philosophical grasp of this ability can illuminate (...) the vast middle ground between affect suppression and being overwhelmed by emotions, foregrounding a balance between mindfully controlling and surrendering to emotions. (shrink)

A compreensão platônica da philia, seja no âmbito da comunidade política, seja no da relação amorosa, inclui também a relação com o divino. O artigo mostra que a philia divina se dirige tanto para o homem que vive de modo justo e devoto, como para aquele que é capaz da visão das idéias, isto é, o dialético. Portanto, para Platão, não subsistem dois diferentes significados de theophiles, dos quais um seria ético e o outro teórico.

The different world views of the authors of the Iliad and the Odyssey are illustrated by selection of verses used by both poets. The role of the gods in the Odyssey precludes the tragic conception of human life that is characteristic of the Iliad.

L' « École de Tübingen » de l'interprétation de Platon a fait ces quinze dernières années beaucoup d'émules hors d'Allemagne. On commence à reconnaître que le rejet antérieur de la position « ésotérique » a eu pour prix une entorse massive aux règles fondamentales méthodologiques reconnues et une critique insuffisante des sources. En outre, l'interprétation « ésotérique » et le travail de ses représentants ont fait l'objet de beaucoup de dés-information, à laquelle il sera ici remédié. On insiste ici sur (...) la différence par rapport à la position de Leo Strauss. On montre ici que Platon avait une conception particulière de l'ésotérisme; et la critique que Frédéric Nietzsche a faite dès 1891 de la conception fautive (anti-ésotérique) de Schleiermacher fait l'objet d'une brève discussion. In the last fifteen years, the so-called « Tübingen School » of platonic interpretation has found not a small number of sympathizers in several countries. Platonic scholars begin to realize that the reasons for opposing the « esoteric » view are far less well-founded than hitherto assumed. Some of the current misconceptions about the nature of the « esoteric » interpretation are discussed in this paper, some of the popular misinformations are corrected. It is shown that Plato does have an own concept of esoterism. Nietzsche's criticisms of Schleiermacher's mistaken approach is discussed briefly. (shrink)

Segundo Platão, o homem não é responsável pelo breve tempo de sua vida, mas por todo o tempo. As encarnações da alma imortal dependerão da conduta do indivíduo na vida. Essa responsabilidade “escatológica” exige o uso do tempo para a homoiósis theoi . Passagens relevantes de Platão serão estudadas para entendimento do conceito de verdadeira vida filosófica, caracterizado pela scholé, e pelo comportamento responsável. Especial atenção será dada à estrutura temporal do estudo da dialética.In Plato's view man is not only (...) responsible for the short time of his present life, but for all time. The successive incarnations of the immortal soul depend on the conduct of the individual in this life. This 'eschatological' responsibility makes it necessary to use one's time for achieving homoiósis theoi . Relevant passages in Plato are analysed to get a better understanding of his concept of a truly philosophical life as characterized by scholé and responsible behaviour. Special attention is given to what the dialogues say about the temporal structure of dialectical studies. (shrink)

Are we really at the point of being able to come to terms with Plato’s oral philosophy?

The present paper deals with eight charges that are frequently leveled against any research that focuses on the agrapha dogmata. The charges are demonstrated to be completely unfounded and, therefore, duly dismissed. In particular, it is argued here that the phrase ta legomena is by no means to be understood as ironic. Consequently, the article rejects the very common picture of Plato as some sort of dogmatist and author of a fixed philosophical system. However, Plato’s philosophy is presented as rather (...) ‘overt’ and ‘straightforward’ in its nature. With the situation being as it is, thorough knowledge of the agrapha dogmata is shown to be an absolute prerequisite for understanding Plato’s dialogues. The paper concludes with an observation that while investigating the issue is completely warranted and does not in any way entail any devaluation of the dialogues, Aristotle’s testimony must also be taken into account. (shrink)

Die durch ,Dialektik' ermöglichte Erkenntnis der Ideenwelt ist die Voraussetzung der von Platon als Ziel der philosophischen Existenz geforderten ,Angleichung an Gott' . So klar die grundlegende Bedeutung der Dialektik ist, so deutlich wird auch die Entscheidung Platons, sie dem Bereich der Mündlichkeit vorzubehalten. Eine zusammenfassende Orientierung über Eigenart, Wege und Arten der Dialektik wird im Dialogwerk nur einmal vom Gesprächspartner gefordert und vom Gesprächsführer sogleich abgelehnt . Gleichwohl erlauben die verstreuten Hinweise der Dialoge, in aller Vorsicht ein Gesamtbild der (...) Dialektik zu entwerfen, was hier in zehn Punkten versucht wird, die u.a. ihre Methodik, ihre Teildisziplinen, ihre Durchführbarkeit und schließlich ihre Selbsttranszendierung in der Ideenschau thematisieren. (shrink)

[T. 1] Interpretationen zu den frühen und mittleren Dialogen -- T. 2. Das Bild des Dialektikers in Platons späten Dialogen.

El concepto central de la critica de la escritura (Fedro 274b-278e). Numerosos pasajes de los diálogos mismos muestran lo que ello significa: no una justificación del primer lagos por medio de más argumentos en el mismo nivel (como sostiene aún Vlastos), sino el recurso decidido a argumentos de un nivel superior que nos acerquen al ápxfÍ. Que el filósofo platónico sea siempre capaz de acudir verbalmente en ayuda de llagos escrito, mostrándolo así inferior (278bc), implica que él no expresa toda (...) su filosofía en la escritura, sino que reserva para el habla lo que le es"más valioso" (su c¡¡.uwcepcx). (shrink)

La frase sobre el logos escrito como “reflejo” del discurso vivo y animado del que sabe (cf. Fedro, 276a8-9) hay que referirla al diálogo platónico: “el que sabe” es el dialéctico, que gracias a los conocimientos a los que ha accedido por medio de la teoría de las Ideas, “sabe cómo es la verdad” (ibid., 278c4-5). Tres capacidades tiene, según Platón, solo el discurso vivo del “que sabe”: puede responder las preguntas que se le planteen, puede buscar el receptor adecuado (...) o quedar en silencio ante aquellos que no tienen que ver con filosofía y, en caso de un ataque, puede acudir en ayuda de su argumento con cuestiones que pertenecen a un nivel superior (cf. ibid., 275d4-276a9, 278c4-e3). El análisis de estas expresiones de Platón en su contexto muestra que la interpretación usual que, desde hace casi 200 años, le atribuye estas capacidades de “el que sabe” al diálogo escrito, no hace justicia al texto de la crítica de la escritura y va en contra de su sentido. Esta constatación exige una orientación radicalmente nueva de la hermenéutica de los diálogos platónicos. Hay que reconocer que Platón concibió sus diálogos (cada uno en particular y todos en conjunto) como unidades literarias y filosóficas que no tienen un carácter autárquico. Los diálogos apuntan consistentemente más allá de ellos mismos hacia la doctrina oral de Platón. --- “Reflection of the living discourse. ¿What is a Platonic dialogue and what does it pretend?”. Plato’s word in the Phaedrus about the written logos as an “image” of the living logos of the man who knows (cf. Phaedrus, 276a8-9) has to be referred to his own dialogues: the “man who knows” is the dialectician, who “knows the truth” (cf. ibid., 278c4-5) thanks to the insights he has gained by way of his use of the Theory of Ideas. There are three things, according to Plato, which can be achieved only by the living logos of “the man who knows”: his logoscan give answers to new questions, can choose the right sort of recipient and remain silent to those who have nothing to do with philosophy, and, in case it should be attacked, it can help its argument with “things of higher importance” (cf. ibid., 275d4-276a9, 278c4-e3). An analyse of these views and concepts of Plato in their context shows that the conventional interpretation, current since almost 200 years, according to which the written Platonic dialogue can do the same three things as the “man who knows”, is contrary to the wording of Plato’s “Criticism of Writing” and incompatible with its sense. This result leads to a new orientation regarding the hermeneutics of the Platonic dialogue. We have to acknowledge that Plato did not mean his dialogues (each one by itself, and their entirety as a whole) to be autarchic of self-sufficient literary entities. The dialogues point consistently beyond themselves to Plato’s oral teaching. (shrink)

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, which he does not communicate. Such passages are briefly analyzed from five dialogues. 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. (shrink)