A comprehensive discussion of Plato's treatment of techne, which shows that the final goal of Platonic philosophy is nontechnical wisdom. The Greek word "techne," typically translated as "art," but also as "craft," "skill," "expertise," "technical knowledge," and even "science," has been decisive in shaping our "technological" culture. Here David Roochnik comprehensively analyzes Plato's treatment of this crucial word. Roochnik maintains that Plato's understanding of both the goodness of techne, as well as its severe limitations and consequent need to be supplemented (...) by "nontechnical" wisdom, can speak directly to our own concerns about the troubling impact technology has had on contemporary life. For most commentators, techne functions as a positive, theoretical model through which Plato attempts to articulate the nature of moral knowledge. Scholars such as Terence Irwin and Martha Nussbaum argue that Plato’s version of moral knowledge is structurally similar to techne. In arguing thus, they attribute to Plato what Nietzsche called "theoretical optimism," the view that technical knowledge can become an efficient panacea for the dilemmas and painful contingencies of human life. Conventional wisdom has it, in short, that for Plato technical, moral knowledge can solve life's problems. By systematically analyzing Socrates’ analogical arguments, Roochnik shows the weakness of the conventional view. The basic pattern of these arguments is this: if moral knowledge is analogous to techne, then insurmountable difficulties arise, and moral knowledge becomes impossible. Since moral knowledge is not impossible, it cannot be analogous to techne. In other words, the purpose of Socrates' analogical arguments is to reveal the limitations of techne as a model for the wisdom Socrates so ardently seeks. For all the reasons Plato is so careful to present in his dialogues, wisdom cannot be rendered technical; it cannot become techne. Thus, Roochnik concludes, Plato wrote dialogues instead of technical treatises, as they are the appropriate vehicle for his expression of nontechnical wisdom. (shrink)

An urgent, contemporary defense of Aristotle.

The arithmetical -- Tripartite city, tripartite soul -- The one, the two, and the three -- The arithmetical character of Kallipolis -- Eros -- Intimations of Eros -- The three waves -- Kallipolis v. The republic -- Democracy, psychology, poetry -- Democracy -- Narrative psychology -- Psychological narrative -- Appendix -- The meaning of "dialectical" -- The technical meaning of "dialectic" -- The non-technical of "dialectic" -- Dialectic in The republic.

This work makes a case for the Platonic idea of logos as an option for interpreting the role of reason in our lives, as opposed to the roles assigned to reason by Descartes and the Cartesians.

Two Reasons to Study Ancient Greek Philosophy Ancient Greek philosophy began with Thales, who correctly predicted an eclipse that occurred in 585 BCE, and culminated in the monumental works of Aristotle, who died in 322.1 (Unless otherwise noted, all dates in this book are BCE.) The simple fact that these thinkers lived over 2,000 years ago should provoke a question: in the age of the microchip and the engineered gene, why bother with them? One good answer immediately springs to mind: (...) to become educated. The Greeks were the intellectual ancestors of western culture. They laid the foundations for all future developments in the natural sciences, medicine, mathematics, history, architecture, sculpture, tragic and comic drama, lyric and epic poetry, as well as philosophy. To the extent that one must know one's heritage in order to know oneself, it is imperative to study the ancient Greeks. (shrink)

In Doing What Comes Naturally, Stanley Fish argues on behalf of rhetoric and against philosophy. The latter assumes an independent reality that can be perceived without distortion and then reported in a transparent verbal medium. The former insists that this is impossible. As Fish acknowledges, this debate is a version of the?old quarrel? that has raged since the dialogues of Plato and the orations of the sophists. The present paper first examines how the Greek sophist Isocrates actually formulated the terms (...) of the debate. Then it turns to Plato in order to demonstrate that his treatment of the old quarrel is superior to Fish 's postmodern update. (shrink)

Good teaching requires not only an acute sensitivity to one’s students but also a kind of flexibility enabling one to respond appropriately in concrete situations. This paper analyzes the pedagogical strategy that Socrates employs with Callicles and Theaetetus, arguing that Socrates exhibits the kind of flexibility required of a good teacher. In articulating the pedagogical flexibility that Socrates's exhibits, the paper also provides an overview of the divided line, the mathematical curriculum that Socrates proposes in the “Republic,” and a discussion (...) of how mathematical education relates to philosophy. (shrink)

In this book philosophers, scholars of religion, and activists address the theme of responsibility. Barbara Darling-Smith brings together an enlightening collection of essays that analyze the ethics of responsibility, its relational nature, and its global struggle.

The Cleitophon has recently been discovered to be Plato's dialogue introducingThe Republic. In this volume of essays, Editor, Translator, and Author Mark Kremer introduces seminal work that understands The Cleitophon as an ancient discussion of what scholars today refer to as posthumanism and postmodernism. Thoroughly original, this volume is an invaluable resource to all disciplines that attempt to come to terms with our emerging global society.

This latest volume of BACAP Proceedings contains some innovative research by international scholars on Plato, Aristotle, and Sophocles. It covers such themes as Plato on the philosopher ruler, and Aristotle on essence and necessity in science. This publication has also been published in paperback, please click here for details.

lecture 1. A dialectical approach to Greek philosophy -- lecture 2. From myth to philosophy, Hesiod and Thales -- lecture 3. The Milesians and the quest for being -- lecture 4. The great intrusion, Heraclitus -- lecture 5. Parmenides, the champion of being -- lecture 6. Reconciling Heraclitus and Parmenides -- lecture 7. The Sophists, Protagoras, the first "humanist" -- lecture 8. Socrates -- lecture 9. An introduction to Plato's Dialogues -- lecture 10. Plato versus the Sophists, I -- lecture (...) 11. Plato versus the Sophists, II -- lecture 12. Plato's Forms, I -- lecture 13. Plato's Forms, II -- lecture 14. Plato versus the Presocratics -- lecture 15. The Republic, the political implications of the Forms -- lecture 16. Final reflections on Plato -- lecture 17. Aristotle, "The" philosopher -- lecture 18. Aristotle's Physics, What is nature? -- lecture 19. Aristotle's Physics, The four causes -- lecture 20. Why plants have souls -- lecture 21. Aristotle's hierarchical cosmos -- lecture 22. Aristotle's teleological Politics -- lecture 23. Aristotle's teleological ethics -- lecture 24. The philosophical life. (shrink)

This paper argues that the account of friendship (philia) present in Plato's dialogue the Lysis is rife with the disruptive and maddening force of eros. By its end it is no longer clear whether the familiar sorts of personal relationships that we typically count as friendships, and which Aristotle discusses with great sensitivity and appreciation in the Nicomachean Ethics, can be meaningfully sustained. To support this thesis, the paper analyzes each of the seven, relatively self-contained arguments Socrates offers. In addition, (...) it shows how the dramatic context in which these arguments are embedded foreshadows the dialogue's principal objective: to blur the distinction between philia and eros by allowing the latter to infect the former. (shrink)

Ronna Burger’s Aristotle’s Dialogue with Socrates argues that the Nicomachean Ethics is a unified whole. Her reading runs against the tide of most contemporary scholarship. In particular, Book X.7–8, Aristotle’s valorization and near apotheosis of the “contemplative life,” has been taken to be a Platonic intrusion in a work otherwise characterized by a resolute “anthropocentrism,” as Nussbaum puts it. To account for such an apparent fracture commentators have attributed both chronological development and later editorship to the corpus. Burger, by contrast, (...) offers a “Talmudic reading.” She treats the Nicomachean Ethics as a work of integrity that dialectically culminates in, rather than is interrupted by, X.7–8. This essay situates her argument in a larger context that explores the nature of philosophical reading as such. (shrink)

Minimally, Aristotle's account of the 'city' is isomorphic with his metaphysical doctrine of substance and teleological conception of nature. Maximally, his political theory depends on it. Part I explains what this means. Part II discusses the significant consequences the notion of a 'substantial city' has for Aristotle's political theory. Part III suggests how this notion can be deployed to address the notorious question of whether the Politics forms a unified whole, or whether Books 4, 5 and 6 -- the 'realist' (...) or empirical books -- simply cannot be reconciled with Books 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8, the more 'idealist' or even 'Platonist' side of the work. (shrink)

Minimally, Aristotle’s account of the ‘city’ is isomorphic with his metaphysical doctrine of substance and teleological conception of nature. Maximally, his political theory depends on it. Part I explains what this means. Part II discusses the significant consequences the notion of a ‘substantial city’ has for Aristotle’s political theory. Part III suggests how this notion can be deployed to address the notorious question of whether the Politics forms a unified whole, or whether Books 4, 5 and 6 — the ‘realist’ (...) or empirical books—simply cannot be reconciled with Books 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8, the more ‘idealist’ or even ‘Platonist’ side of the work. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

Plato stands as the fount of our philosophical tradition, being the first Western thinker to produce a body of writing that touches upon a wide range of topics still discussed by philosophers today. In a sense he invented philosophy as a distinct subject, for although many of these topics were discussed by his intellectual predecessors and contemporaries, he was the first to bring them together by giving them a unitary treatment. This volume contains fourteen essays discussing Plato's views about knowledge, (...) reality, mathematics, politics, ethics, love, poetry, and religion. There are also analyses of the intellectual and social background of his thought, the development of his philosophy throughout his career, the range of alternative approaches to his work, and the stylometry of his writing. (shrink)

Thinking Philosophically: An Introduction to the Great Debates presents a highly accessible introduction to five of the most fundamental debates in world philosophy. Introduces five fundamental philosophical debates in a highly engaging and accessible manner that invites readers to enter the discussion themselves Features chapters that each consider a central philosophical question dialectically by exploring the conflicting approaches of different philosophers Argues that the work of philosophers like Plato and Rousseau is just as relevant today as it was in their (...) own time Provides a structure that encourages readers to apply philosophical principles to their everyday lives. (shrink)

Thinking Philosophically: An Introduction to the Great Debates presents a highly accessible introduction to five of the most fundamental debates in world philosophy. Introduces five fundamental philosophical debates in a highly engaging and accessible manner that invites readers to enter the discussion themselves Features chapters that each consider a central philosophical question dialectically by exploring the conflicting approaches of different philosophers Argues that the work of philosophers like Plato and Rousseau is just as relevant today as it was in their (...) own time Provides a structure that encourages readers to apply philosophical principles to their everyday lives. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 39.4 (2001) 581-582 [Access article in PDF] Gerald A. Press, editor. Who Speaks for Plato? Studies in Platonic Anonymity. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publisher, Inc., 2000. Pp. vi + 245. Cloth, $63.00. Who Speaks for Plato? contains sixteen essays, each apparently composed specifically for this volume, which challenge what its editor, Gerald Press, identifies as the basic assumption implicit in the "modern" (1) (...) or "traditional" (5) interpretive approach to Plato's dialogues: "that the words and arguments of some character in a Platonic dialogue can be taken to state Plato's (or the historical Socrates') own beliefs and arguments" (5). Throughout the volume this is refered to as the "mouthpiece" theory.The essays in Part I are general methodological pieces, which aim to dismantle the assumptions operative in the mouthpiece approach. So, for example, D. Nails reminds us that "we have no uncontroversial statement from Plato that Socrates is his mouthpiece" (17). Press looks for the hermeneutical argument that would justify "an interpreter in quoting or referring to the words of a named character in a Platonic dialogue and attributing the words or their meaning to Plato as his own opinion," (28), and he finds none in traditional scholarship. J. Waugh and H. Tarrant bring in historical considerations to bolster the antimouthpiece position.The essays in Part II treat individual dialogues, but do so with the general theme in view. E. Benitez offers a brief reading of the Laches, P. C. Smith and R. Blondell take up Book I of the Republic, G. Scott and W. Welton address the Symposium, F. Gonzalez looks at the Sophist and the Statesman, H. Ausland suggests a way of reading the Timaeus. Each aims to disconnect the words stated by the principal speaker of the dialogue from Plato himself.Part III begins with a dissenting view. L. Gerson begins by arguing against using the Phaedrus or the Seventh Letter on behalf of the antimouthpiece view. More interestingly, he describes how "arguments have a life of their own," and as a result are "not character bound" (205). As such, it is permissible, indeed it is incumbent upon the philosophical reader, to attribute arguments found in the dialogues to Plato himself. He concludes his essay thus: "If Plato is intentionally hiding himself, he is a philosopher either with no views or with views diverging from those easily derived from the dialogues." The former alternative Gerson finds "preposterous," the latter "perverse" (210).E. Ostenfeld conceives of Plato's views as in a process of continual development and self-criticism. As a result, he concludes, almost paradoxically, that "everyone" in the dialogues speaks for Plato. In other words, precisely because they were not homogeneous or definitively formulated, a wide variety of characters express the wide variety of views Plato himself held. [End Page 581]J. Mulhern gets the final word in this book, presumably because it was he who coined the phrase "Mouthpiece Fallacy" in a 1971 article. Surveying the literature of the past 30 years, he sees little improvement. In other words, commentators still regularly make the illicit transition between "what an interlocutor says to a similar sentence reporting what Plato says by stating the interlocutor is Plato's mouthpiece" (223).Who Speaks for Plato? is an interesting book that takes up an important issue. Its several hundred footnotes provide a useful guide to the enormous amount of literature on the hermeneutics of the dialogue form.While it is unquestionably valuable, this collection of essays is also frustrating. For the sake of argument, assume that a reader cannot legitimately attribute any views expressed by a character in a dialogue to Plato himself. What, then, counts as the philosophical result of a Platonic dialogue? The volume contains answers like these: Ostenfeld tells us that the dialogues "make us think for ourselves" (212). Nails says that, "The dialogue form provides a means of encouraging readers and listeners to reason dialectically to defensible positions of their own" (16). Waugh adds that the dialogues are "teaching how to philosophize" (49).The problem with these... (shrink)