"The unexamined life is not worth living." Socrates's ancient words are still true, and the ideas sounded in Plato's Dialogues still form the foundation of a thinking person's education. This superb collection contains excellent contemporary translations selected for their clarity and accessibility to today's reader, as well as an incisive introduction by Erich Segal, which reveals Plato's life and clarifies the philosophical issues examined in each dialogue. The first four dialogues recount the trial execution of Socrates--the extraordinary tragedy that (...) changed Plato's life and so altered the course of Western though. Other dialogues create a rich tableau of intellectual life in Athens in the fourth century B.C., and examine the nature of virtue and love, knowledge and truth, society and the individual. Resounding with the humor and astounding brilliance of Socrates, the immortal iconoclast, these great works remain powerful, probing, and essential. (shrink)

Cotton examines Plato 's ideas about education and learning, with a particular focus on the experiences a learner must go through in approaching philosophical understanding.

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Styles of Reading and Conceptions of Philosophy The Dialogue Form and Periodization A Maieutic Response to the Question of Periodization Bibliography.

The present paper is primarily concerned with the application of the transformative approach within the Western philosophical context. My aim is to show how the idea of a transformation is present in Platonic thought based on John Taber’s work on transformative philosophy. According to Taber, transformative thinkers tell us that the unreflecting mind lives in a dream and, if it is to know the truly real, one “must awaken from the dream, enliven slumbering faculties, make a transition to a (...) new state of awareness.” I will use the Platonic dialogue to illustrate how some of the main features of transformative philosophy developed by Taber are exhibited there, if only to emphasize the transformative aspect of Platonic philosophy, although not dismiss the systematic reading of Platonic texts. (shrink)

This book rethinks Plato's creation and use of myth by drawing on theories and methods from myth studies, religious studies, literary theory and related fields. Individual myths function differently depending on cultural practice, religious context or literary tradition, and this interdisciplinary study merges new perspectives in Plato studies with recent scholarship and theories pertaining to myth. Significant overlaps exist between prominent modern theories of myth and attitudes and approaches in studies of Plato's myths. Considering recent developments in myth studies, this (...) book asks new questions about the evaluation of myth in Plato. Its appreciation of the historical conditions shaping and directing the study of Plato's myths opens deeper philosophical questions about the relationship between philosophy and myth and the relevance of myth studies to philosophical debates. It also extends the discussion to address philosophical questions and perspectives on the distinction between argument and narrative. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Direct Conversations Frames and Framed Fiction and Reporting Socrates on Question and Answer Socratic Aporia The Paradox of Writing Drama and the Ethical Dimension Limitations of the Ethical The Soul's Silent Dialogue Reflection and its Content.

In this paper I offer a reading of one of Plato's later works, the Sophist, that reveals it to be informed by principles comparable on the face of it with those that have emerged recently in the field of critical thinking. As a development of the famous Socratic method of his teacher, I argue, Plato deployed his own pedagogical method, a ‘mid‐wifely’ or ‘maieutic’ method, in the Sophist. In contrast to the Socratic method, the sole aim of this method is (...) not to disabuse the reader or learner of her false opinions. Rather, its purpose is to supply her with the skills and dispositions as well as the claims and counter‐claims she needs to critically evaluate a view, and so facilitate knowledge acquisition, for herself. But the text does not merely teach critical thinking in this indirect manner. One of the strategies its author employed was to encourage the reader/learner to consider under what conditions a claim or idea would be false. To the extent that it achieves this, the Sophist provides both a model and an application of that particular kind of critical thinking in the learning environment that Jonathan Baron has described as ‘active open‐mindedness’. (shrink)

In this paper I offer a reading of one of Plato’s later works, the Sophist, that reveals it to be informed by principles comparable on the face of it with those that have emerged recently in the field of critical thinking. As a development of the famous Socratic method of his teacher, I argue, Plato deployed his own pedagogical method, a ‘mid-wifely’ or ‘maieutic’ method, in the Sophist. In contrast to the Socratic method, the sole aim of this method is (...) not to disabuse the reader or learner of her false opinions. Rather, its purpose is to supply her with the skills and dispositions as well as the claims and counter-claims she needs to critically evaluate a view, and so facilitate knowledge acquisition, for herself. But the text does not merely teach critical thinking in this indirect manner. One of the strategies its author employed was to encourage the reader/learner to consider under what conditions a claim or idea would be false. To the extent that it achieves this, the Sophist provides both a model and an application of that particular kind of critical thinking in the learning environment that Jonathan Baron has described as ‘active open-mindedness’. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy and Literature 26.1 (2002) 84-106 [Access article in PDF] Irony in the Platonic Dialogues Charles L. Griswold, Jr. I INTERPRETERS OF PLATO have arrived at a general consensus to the effect that there exists a problem of interpretation when we read Plato, and that the solution to the problem must in some way incorporate what has tendentiously been called the "literary" and the "philosophical" sides of Plato's (...) writing. The problem is created by the fact that Plato wrote in dialogue form, indeed a specific type of dialogue form. The solution must somehow combine into a coherent theory of the "meaning" of the dialogues, the ways in which these texts work (such as the use of imagery, metaphor, myth, allusion, irony, as well as argument). At the same time, there exists enormous disagreement about how one ought to move from these general observations to interpretation of a particular text. 1The problem of interpretation lies not merely in the fact that Plato wrote dialogues. That alone would not necessarily present any hermeneutical issues of unusual difficulty. Plato's distinctive use of the dialogue form creates the difficulties. The genre that we might call "the Platonic dialogue" is distinguished by several relevant characteristics.First, there is no character called "Plato" who speaks in any of the dialogues; indeed, "Plato" is mentioned twice in the entire corpus, once as being absent (Pho. 59b10), and once as being present (Apol. 38b6). Authorial anonymity is thus an important feature of the dialogues. 2 At least ab initio, we are not justified in identifying Plato with any one of his characters. Indeed, there are positive reasons why he cannot be identified even with Socrates, as I will discuss below. 3 Plato is absent from his own texts; no simple act of reading them will allow us to ascertain what his views are. 4 It does not follow that Plato's views are [End Page 84] entirely absent from the dialogues—say, in the form of some mysterious "esoteric teaching"—and that they cannot be elicited by a complex act of reading. Just how Plato's views are to be extracted has been, again, the subject of a very long debate. 5 I myself think that Plato's views can be so elicited. 6 But the fact of his anonymity as author means that "Plato's meaning" is not ascertainable in the way that, say, "Kant's meaning" may be ascertainable in the Critique of Pure Reason.A second feature of Plato's dialogues contributes to the interpretive puzzle. The dialogues are clearly fictional in character. They are not—they could not be—transcriptions of conversations which took place. Some dialogues could not have taken place even when the interlocutors were historical figures (for example, at the Phaedrus' ostensible dramatic date the real Phaedrus was not in Athens). Not only are many of the characters entirely fictional, there is clear evidence that even "Socrates" is very much a fictionalized version of the historical character. I am referring not just to the famous statement in the (possibly inauthentic) Second Letter, 7 but to the fact that the Socrates of Plato's dialogues is presented as being a super-human character. This is evident from Alcibiades' description of him in the Symposium as well as from a number of subtle fictions. For example, Plato has Socrates narrate the entirety of the Republic from memory, without a single moment of hesitation or (so far as the reader can tell) any lapse of memory. This fantastic feat is complemented by Socrates' equally fantastic stamina in conversation. The lengthy Protagoras, for example, is narrated in its entirety by Socrates immediately after the dialogue itself has occurred. Socrates never shows any fatigue of any sort. It is not just hyperbole to say that Plato's Socrates is heroic; he is carefully compared, in passages I cannot examine here, to both Achilles and Odysseus. Socrates' absolute calm and self-control before death also evidence his superhuman character. The relation between the historical Socrates and the Platonic Socrates is the source of much fruitful controversy. It suffices for... (shrink)

La République de Platon est peut-être le texte le plus connu, le plus traduit et le plus commenté de toute l’histoire de la philosophie. Mais comment restituer la vérité de cette œuvre aujourd’hui, 2500 ans après sa rédaction? Alain Badiou a choisi d’inventer un genre nouveau pour rendre au texte de Platon son universalité et sa vivacité sans passer par un commentaire critique. Il a traduit l’œuvre à partir de l’original grec et a procédé à quelques changements afin de l’adapter (...) à notre temps. Tout d’abord, il a supprimé toute référence aux particularités de la société grecque antique, des interminables développements sur la valeur morale des poètes aux considérations politiques destinées par Platon à la seule élite aristocratique (les mesures révolutionnaires que Platon réserve aux seuls « gardiens » de la cité valent, sous la plume de Badiou, pour tous les habitants du pays). Il a élargi les références culturelles : la philosophie fait feu de tout bois, ainsi Socrate et ses compagnons connaissent-ils Beckett, Pessoa, Freud et Hegel. Ils réalisent l’actualité intemporelle de toute philosophie véritable, propre à s’ajuster à son époque. Enfin, Badiou, par ailleurs dramaturge, a fait du dialogue socratique une véritable joute oratoire : dans cette version de la République, les interlocuteurs de Socrate ne se contentent pas d’approuver ce qu’énonce le Maître. Ils lui tiennent tête, le mettent en difficulté et livrent ainsi une pensée en mouvement. Grâce à ce travail d’écriture, d’érudition et, avant tout, de philosophie, Alain Badiou donne à lire pour la première fois une version absolument contemporaine, vivante et stimulante du texte de Platon. (shrink)

At first russell thought (p) that whatever a proposition is about must be a constituent of it. Then, Around 1900, He discovered denoting concepts and realized that a proposition could be about something and have only its denoting concept as constituent. However, A number of remarks that he made through the years can only be understood as inspired by (p). In particular, The arguments offered in "on denoting" against the doctrine of denotation of "principles" are grounded on (p).

Play resides at the heart of the Platonic dialogues, shaping their insights as well as informing their style. "The Play of the Platonic Dialogues" traces the prominent role of play, both as a general philosophical characteristic and as influencing the treatment of key issues. The nature of the forms, of the city, of virtue, of the soul and its immortality - these and others have been shaped by play. This book shows how Platonic playfulness is joined with (...) the deepest seriousness throughout the dialogues. (shrink)

: The Republic is notorious for its attack against poetry and the final eviction of the poets from the ideal city. In both Book III and Book X the argument focuses on the concept of mimêsis, frequently rendered as ‘imitation’, which is partly allowed in Book III but unqualifiedly rejected in Book X. However, several ancient authors view Plato’s dialogues as products of mimêsis and Plato as an imitator. Plato himself acknowledges the mimetic character of his enterprise and invites us (...) to compare and contrast his own mimêsis with the imitations of painters and poets. The main issue addressed in this paper is both systematic and historical: just what sort of mimêsis occurs in Plato’s dialogues and, moreover, whether and why, by the criteria that Plato’s Socrates sets out in the Republic, Platonic mimêsis may not be subject to the very same criticisms directed against Homer and the tragedians. There will emerge a radical and systematic contrast between the works of the poets, as they are assessed in the Republic, and Plato’s own writings, as they present themselves to their readers. That contrast appears to be deliberate and suggestive of the view that Plato’s dialogues ought to replace poetry as elements of proper education and civic cohesion. (shrink)

The purpose of this essay is to elucidate certain difficulties in the text of the Eryxias and to make the author's position as a thinker clearer than it has hitherto been. The Eryxias is a work which has suffered severely from excessive partisanship. While German and Dutch scholars of the eighteenth century appear to have valued it highly—a great deal too highly—as a work of enlightened ethical purpose, the scholarship of the nineteenth century was almost unanimous in condemning it as (...) an inept imitation of Plato's early writings. It soon became apparent, however, that it was not a mere imitation. The economist Hagen recognized in it traces of Stoic doctrine and proceeded somewhat hastily to the conclusion that the author was ‘a Stoic … who expressed the sentiments of his school in the form of a Platonic dialogue.’ Otto Schrohl of Göttingen, whose thesis is the most considerable work on the subject, is less emphatic in claiming the author as a Stoic, but nevertheless traces most of his ideas to Stoic and Cynic origins. This view is modified but retained in its essentials by Professor Souilhé in the Budé edition of Plato. While stressing the importance of the Platonic element, he agrees that the author's point of view has been influenced by Stoic and Cynic teaching, the influence of Cynicism being in his opinion predominant. (shrink)

Its power to illuminate the text..., its ecumenicity of inspiration, its methodological rigor, its originality, and its philosophical profundity—all together make it one of the few philosophical interpretations that the philosopher will ...

“Witty and profound” musings on questions of art and religion from a celebrated novelist known for her philosophical explorations (Library Journal). For centuries, the works of Plato, featuring his mentor and teacher Socrates, have illuminated philosophical discussions. In Acastos: Two Platonic Dialogues, acclaimed philosopher, poet, and writer Iris Murdoch turns her keen eye to the value of art, knowledge, and faith, with two dramatic conversations featuring Plato and Socrates. “Art and Eros”: After witnessing a theatrical performance, Socrates and his (...) pupils—Callistos, Acastos, Mantias, Deximenes, and Plato—undertake a quest to uncover the meaning and worth of artistic endeavors. “Above the Gods”: The celebration of a religious festival leads to a lively discussion of the gods and their place in society, as Socrates, along with several of his followers, talk about the morality of religion, wisdom, and righteousness. Told through vivid characterizations and lively discourse, Acastos is at once a “profound and satisfying” exploration of the Socratic method and an enjoyable example of theatrical writing from a Man Booker Prize–winning novelist known for her studies with Ludwig Wittgenstein and her philosophy lectures at Oxford University, as well as for such works of fiction as The Sea, The Sea and The Black Prince (Kirkus Reviews). (shrink)

If Socrates is portrayed holding one view in one of Plato's dialogues and a different view in another, should we be puzzled? If (as I suggest) Plato's Socrates is neither the historical Socrates, nor a device for delivering Platonic doctrine, but a tool for the dialectical investigation of a philosophical problem, then we should expect a new Socrates, with relevant commitments, to be devised for each setting. Such a dialectical device – the tailor-made Socrates – fits with what we (...) know of other contributions to the genre of the Sokratikos Logos, to which Plato was neither the first nor the only contributor. (shrink)

C'est la question de la parole qui est ici en jeu, telle que Heidegger l'a méditée pour préparer la pensée à un commencement autre que le commencement grec. A cette fin, Heidegger a mené à l'époque de "Etre et temps" un dialogue très intense avec Aristote. Ce qu'a d'exceptionnel cette rencontre, qui a marqué toute une génération d'élèves, est ici présenté de manière générale. Mais certains axes sont précisés, à travers notamment la découverte que fait Heidegger du sens que (...) recèle la quotidienneté pour l'existence humaine. A partir de cette dimension immédiatement concrète qui a toujours échappé aux grandes visées métaphysiques, Heidegger voit poindre, en dialogue avec Aristote, une entente de la parole comme modalité éminente du rapport à autrui. Quant au débat que Heidegger a mené avec Platon, il est aussi présenté dans ses grands traits, à travers la notion de dialogue, si chère à l'un et l'autre penseur. C'est ici le sens de la parole philosophique qui est en question, à la lumière de la tâche que Heidegger lui confère, en notre époque de nihilisme accompli, d'un voisinage avec la parole poétique. S'appuyant sur de nombreux cours de Heidegger désormais publiés, mais peu connus, le présent livre offre également plusieurs extraits inédits en français d'un texte appartenant au corpus - encore inconnu des lecteurs français - que constituent les "Traites impubliés" rédigés par le penseur pendant la guerre, à l'abri de toute publicité. Ce texte sur les rapports entre poésie et philosophie permet de mesurer toute la portée éthique de l'habitation qu'aura ménagée Heidegger pour être poétiquement humain. (shrink)

This book reconstructs the impact of Plato's words for the modern reader. In the Republic, Plato presented his schematization of human intellectual development, and called for collaboration between writer and reader. The response presented in this book results in a new theoretical framework for engaging with Plato's dialogues. Susanna Saracco analyzes the epistemic function of Plato's written words and explores Plato's higher order pedagogy, in which students are not mere learners and teachers are not the depositories of the truth.

The primary function of the Platonic dialogue is not the communication of philosophical doctrines but the transformation of the reader's character. This article takes up the question of how, or by what means, the Platonic dialogue accomplishes its transformative goal. An answer is developed as follows. First, the style of reading associated with analytical philosophy is not transformative, on account of its hermeneutical attachment and epistemic equality in the relationship between reader and author. Secondly, the style (...) of reading associated with the genre of commentary is transformative because it is governed by a principle of authority. When the commentary model is applied to the Platonic dialogue, it can be seen that the dialogue mimics the function of the authority principle in transforming the reader into a commentator, that is, someone who reads from a position of detachment and accepts responsibility for himself as moral and epistemic agent. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Klio Jahrgang: 99 Heft: 1 Seiten: 342-349.

"Being and Logos" is... a philosophical adventure of rare inspiration.... Its power to illuminate the text..., its ecumenicity of inspiration, its methodological rigor, its originality, and its philosophical profundity—all together make it one of the few philosophical interpretations that the philosopher will want to re-read along with the dialogues themselves. A superadded gift is the author's prose, which is a model of lucidity and grace." —International Philosophical Quarterly "Being and Logos is highly recommended for those who wish to learn how (...) a thoughtful scholar approaches Platonic dialogues as well as for those who wish to consider a serious discussion of some basic themes in the dialogues." —The Academic Reviewer. (shrink)

Despite increasing interest in the figure of Socrates and in love in ancient Greece, no recent monograph studies these topics in all four of Plato's dialogues on love and friendship. This book provides important new insights into these subjects by examining Plato's characterization of Socrates in Symposium, Phaedrus, Lysis and the often neglected Alcibiades I. It focuses on the specific ways in which the philosopher searches for wisdom together with his young interlocutors, using an art that is 'erotic', not in (...) a narrowly sexual sense, but because it shares characteristics attributed to the daimon Eros in Symposium. In all four dialogues, Socrates' art enables him, like Eros, to search for the beauty and wisdom he recognizes that he lacks and to help others seek these same objects of erôs. Belfiore examines the dialogues as both philosophical and dramatic works, and considers many connections with Greek culture, including poetry and theater. (shrink)

This book explains how to read Plato, emphasizing the philosophic importance of the dramatic aspects of the dialogues, and showing that Plato is an ironic thinker and that his irony is deeply rooted in his philosophy.

With this book Professor Weingartner has added to that portion of Plato-interpretation which attempts to illuminate the fact that "Plato wrote dialogues." His central claims are two: 1) Plato’s argumentation cannot be understood outside the dialogue form within which Plato himself never appears; and 2) the unity which suffuses each of the dialogues can render potent the argumentation which would be otherwise either inaccurate or inadequate. Correlative to these theses, he argues, perhaps too briefly, against those who would try (...) to ignore the dialogue genre altogether. For such interpreters, Weingartner’s argument goes, "... questions and objections that are interjected by the other participants in the conversation... are seen as mere literary devices which provide Plato’s prolocutor with plausible opportunities for stating and clarifying his own views." On the other hand, he criticizes those who would make of Plato nothing but a literary figure, and of Socrates a "god of refutation." Fittingly, though, Professor Weingartner also clarifies the more subtle mistake of reading the dialogues "... as tranches de vie philosophique, in which the character of Socrates plays the leading role...". Having stated what he takes to be improper interpretive devices, he selects the Cratylus, Protagoras, and Parmenides and "... attempts to show, in some detail, that each of them can, and therefore should, be understood as a unified whole.". (shrink)

I develop a form of explanation that justifies exegetic monism, Viz., The view that the platonic dialogue as work of philosophy and as artwork are in essence one. The explanation is developed in four stages: plato's conception of products of image-Craft, Plato's uses of models in philosophical inquiry, Micro-Dialogues within the finished macro-Dialogues, And the emergence of the macro-Dialogue itself as a model and a constraining frame. I further argue that no weaker explanation than the one offered (...) could justify exegetic monism. (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)

Does a τέχνη, qua τέχνη, need to be good-directed? On the basis of the Gorgias, many scholars have thought the answer is yes; I argue here to the contrary. There are, of course, many beneficial τέχναι, such as medicine and weaving; and there are even unconditionally good τέχναι, like the πολιτικὴ τέχνη; but Plato also happily construes piracy as a τέχνη in the Sophist, and, more normally, all sorts of neutral practices as τέχναι. In order to make this argument, I (...) provide a taxonomy of the different kinds of τέχναι and demonstrate that, across the corpus, there does not seem to be a good-directedness requirement. I then address the evidence of the Gorgias, where most commentators find a connection between τέχνη and good-directedness. I argue that this interpretation is incorrect, and that rhetoric in fact fails to be a τέχνη in the Gorgias solely because it is unable to give a rational account. A close reading of the Gorgias shows that this is a plausible interpretation, and comparison with the Phaedrus reinforces the point: in both dialogues, whether rhetoric will be a τέχνη or not hinges only on the question of rationality, not a good-directedness condition. (shrink)

Since the appearance of Plato’s Dialogues, philosophers have been preoccupied with the identity of Socrates and have maintained that successful interpretation of the work hinges upon a clear understanding of what thoughts and ideas can be attributed to him. In Descent of Socrates, Peter Warnek offers a new interpretation of Plato by considering the appearance of Socrates within Plato’s work as a philosophical question. Warnek reads the Dialogues as an inquiry into the nature of Socrates and in doing so opens (...) up the relationship between humankind and the natural world. Here, Socrates appears as a demonic and tragic figure whose obsession with the task of self-knowledge transforms the history of philosophy. In this uncompromising work, Warnek reveals the importance of the concept of nature in the Platonic Dialogues in light of Socratic practice and the Ancient ideas that inspire contemporary philosophy. (shrink)

The aim of the book is to make Socrates' investigation and resolution of the questions that still concern us as human beings more accessible to serious contemporary readers.

The central Platonic concept of the mixture is to be situated in the entire transmission of Methexis: ascending from the level of the participation of the sensible things in the forms to the participation of the forms and finally to the participation of the two Platonic Principles. “Mixture” designates on the one hand the relation between the μέγιστα γένη in the Sophist and on the other hand the one between the Limit and the Unlimited in the Philebus . (...) Thereupon the essence of the Mixture is to be examined and rehabilitated as metaphor, namely as transformation of a sensible image in a philosophical one . Our guiding question will be: W hy can the Mixture be legitimated as a better candidate than the Methexis in the frame of the Sophist? The Mixture is to be regarded as well-founded transformation of Methexis in the context of the equioriginal “greatest kinds” . In our interpretation of the Philebus that restores the disputed unity of this Platonic dialogue, we are about to show how the philosopher Plato “saves” the beautiful phenomena: The fourfold division is to be construed as the place where the beautiful appearances are generated. To them does the philosopher return after his ascent to the σύμφυτον two Platonic Principles. They are no longer degraded as “rolling about in the midregion between being and not-being” , but are rather reevaluated as “procreation” .Der in den späteren platonischen Dialogen zentrale Begriff der Mischung wird zunächst in die ganze Übertragung der Methexis eingeordnet: von der Ebene der Teilhabe des W ahrnehmbaren an der Idee zu der innerideellen Teilhabe aufsteigend und von daher zu der Teilhabe der zwei platonischen Prinzipien. Einerseits wird die Beziehung der μέγιστα γένη untereinander, andererseits diejenige zwischen der Grenze und der U nbegrenztheit im Philebos als Mischung bezeichnet . Daraufhin wird ihr W esen als Metapher behandelt und rehabilitiert, nämlich als Transformation eines sinnlichen Bildes in ein philosophisches . Zur Leitfrage unserer Ausführung wird: W arum kann die im Rahmen des Dialogs Sophistes eingeführte Mischung der größten Gattungen miteinander als ein besserer Kandidat als derjenige der Teilhabe gerechtfertigt werden? Die Mischung wird als eine wohlbegründete Verwandlungsform derTeilhabe in den ideellen Zusammenhängen der gleichursprünglichen größten Gattungen betrachtet . Bei unserer die umstrittene Einheit des Philebos wiederherstellende Interpretation wird aufgezeigt, wie der Philosoph Platon die schönen Phänomene rettet: Die vierfache Einteilung des Ganzen wird als Ort der Genese der schönen Erscheinungen interpretiert. Ihnen wendet sich der Philosoph nach dem Aufstieg zum σύμφυτον der zwei platonischen Prinzipien zu, nicht länger sie als “zwischen dem Sein und dem Nicht-Sein herumschweifend” degradierend , sondern als “Zeugung” würdigend .Pojam miješanja, koji je središnji u kasnijim Platonovim dijalozima, ponajprije se smješta u cjeloviti kontekst transponiranja methexisa: od ravni sudjelovanja osjetilnog u ideji uzlazno k sudjelovanju među idejama te odatle k sudjelovanju dvaju platoničkih principa. S jedne strane se kao miješanje označava međusobni odnos μέγιστα γένη, s druge pak onaj između granice i neograničenosti u Filebu . U tu se svrhu razmatra i rehabilitira bit miješanja kao metafore, naime kao transformacija osjetilne slike u filozofijsku . Glavnim pitanjem našeg izvođenja postaje: zašto se uzajamno miješanje “najviših rodova”, koje se uvodi u okviru dijaloga Sofist, može opravdati kao bolji kandidat od sudjelovanja? Miješanje se razmatra kao dobro utemeljena forma preinake sudjelovanja u odnošenjima jednako izvornih “najviših rodova” . U našoj se interpretaciji, koja nanovo uspostavlja osporavano jedinstvo Fileba, prikazuje kako filozof Platon spašava lijepe fenomene: četvorostruka podjela cjeline interpretira se kao mjesto nastajanja lijepih pojava. Njima se filozof vraća nakon uspona k onom σύμφυτον dvaju platoničkih principa, ne degradirajući ih više kao one koji se “potucaju između bitka i ne-bitka” , već ih cijeni kao “rađanje”. (shrink)