About the relationship of the two traditions of Platonic interpretation the indirect and the direct traditions, the written dialogues and the unwritten doctrines.

In der vorliegenden Aufsatzsammlung wird die Forschungsgeschichte des „Tübinger Platon“ anhand aller zentralen Äußerungen seines Hauptvertreters dargestellt. Dabei wird die prinzipientheoretische Dimension des Platonismus zwischen Vorsokratik und Neuplatonismus sukzessiv herausgearbeitet. Die Verflechtungen mit der gesamten gegenwärtigen Platonforschung machen das Buch zur Summa, zu einer Einführung in Platon überhaupt.

Krämer untersucht weitere mögliche Funktionen Philosophischer Praxis v.a. unter dem Gesichtspunkt angewandter Ethik; Beiträge zu Legitimierung und Methoden, Nähe zur akademischen Philosophie, Praktische Philosophie als Ethik, Verhältnis zu anderen beratenden Berufen, Beraterethos, interdisziplinäre Kooperativität in einer Praxis.

Ever since the proposal of Giovanni Reale, it has been useful to distinguish three “paradigms,” or models of “normal science,” in Thomas Kuhn’s sense, in the history of Platonic scholarship, each of which are relatively distinct from the others in their historical succession: the Neoplatonic model which persisted into modern times; the “Romantic” model which replaced it and whose foundations were formulated around 1800 by Friedrich Schlegel and Friedrich Schleiermacher, and which was until recently the guiding model for history, philology (...) and philosophy; and lastly the model that takes both the literary and indirect Platonic traditions, integrates them, uses them to supplement one another, and so in part preserves and in part modifies the second model by a perspectival “paradigm shift”. The new research program justified itself in view of the surplus of anomalies left by the old program, which had to leave certain central portions of the tradition unexplained or else forcefully reinterpret them. Meanwhile, the new program promised to progressively work off the explanatory deficit. The new program was also able to emerge as an alternative because the explanatory abilities of the old program had visibly declined into a state of stagnation and exhaustion. That program had not achieved the hoped-for explanatory goals: neither the extraction of the philosophical content of Platonic dialogues by an analysis of form, nor the evaluation of the relative chronology of the dialogues for the inner development of their philosophical thought. (shrink)

Summary This article analyzes the possibility of cooperation between philosophy and the history of philosophy. It approaches this task more precisely than has been the case in the discussion heretofore, seeing in this relationship an ideal case, typifying the relationship of systematic to historical disciplines in general. To begin with, a distinction must be made between a naively received history of philosophy and the critical study of philosophy's history. Further distinctions to be made are among receivedcontent, receptionprocesses and the five (...) main categories of the history of philosophy'sfunctions for systematic philosophy (primary information, hermeneutics, heuristics, genetic reflexion and validity tests). Heuristics and validation may be subsumed under the category ofintegration and be brought into relation to the truth criteria of coherence and consensus. The hermeneutical and reflective functions may be understood as proto-heuristics and proto-validation and thereby receive secondorder functionalization. (shrink)