This paper discusses the rhetorical problems teachers face in presenting Socratic activity to students, and it then argues that parallel problems arise in presenting liberal education to many academic colleagues. Given the nature of philosophy and the nature of expertise in today’s academy, most academics will not understand, and perhaps be hostile to, philosophy, and philosophers may sometimes seem to them both arrogant and ignorant. The contemporary academy, dominated by assumptions Weber articulates in "Science as a Vocation," does not make (...) room for philosophical activity and practitioners of philosophy in the classroom (in various departments) must adopt rhetorically appropriate postures in order to create safe spaces for Socratic activity. (shrink)

To speak of Socrates’ pre-Socratism is puzzling. It suggests that there was a time at which Socrates was not Socrates. That is not entirely misleading. There was something special about Socrates, special enough so that Nietzsche, for one, thought it appropriate to name a problem after him. Plato and Nietzsche agree that there was something uncommon about Socrates; yet in this very uncommonness was revealed something fundamental about what it means to be human. Still, out of the mouth of (...) Plato’s Socrates in the Phaedo we learn that there was a time at which Socrates was not special. His pre-Socratism refers to that time, a time which we may call Socrates’ "first sailing," a time when he inquired into the causes of the coming to be, perishing, and being of each thing. Obviously this way of inquiry can be first only from the perspective of Socrates’ famous "second sailing." It is this second sailing which makes Socrates special. For that reason it has been legitimately the object of more attention than the first sailing. Truth has a greater claim on us than error, even Socrates’ error. Nevertheless, the need for a second sailing can become clear only as a result of an awareness of the deficiencies of the first. If we are to understand specialness we must understand its origins in commonness. With that in mind it is to the deficiencies of Socrates’ first sailing that I would now like to turn. (shrink)

Whether or not Rousseau's _Social Contract_ is a utopian text is a matter of longstanding debate. This article suggests that the answer to this question is not a simple one. Rousseau's text contains different levels of meaning, and while some of them are utopian, others are not. Specifically, the article focuses on three levels of meaning in the book and concludes that while there is a utopian level in the text, it is not where most interpreters find it, and it (...) is not simply political. Instead, it is a multifaceted utopia pointing at the same time back to Socrates and forward to Kant. (shrink)

My concern in this paper will be to explore and develop a version of nonsocratic skepticism about weakness of will. In my view, socratism is incorrect, but like Socrates, I think that the common understanding of weakness of will raises serious problems. Contrary to socratism, it is possible for a person knowingly to act contrary to his or her better judgment. But this description does not exhaust the common view of weakness. Also implicit in this view is the (...) belief that actions which are contrary to one's better judgment are free in the sense that the agent could have done otherwise. To take seriously the possibility of acting contrary to one's better judgment is at the same time to raise problems about the distinction between weakness and compulsion. I argue that the common view, according to which the differentiating feature is that the weak are able to conform their behavior to their practical judgments, is unjustified. Instead, I have proposed that weakness of will involves the failure to develop certain normal capacities of self-control, whereas compulsion involves desires which even the possession of such capacities would not enable one to resist. (shrink)

This paper begins by summarizing the chief, original contributions to technology ethics in Shannon Vallor’s recent book, Technology and the Virtues: A Philosophical Guide to a Future Worth Wanting, highlighting especially the book’s distinctive inclusion of not only the western virtue ethics tradition but also the analogous traditions in Buddhist and Confucian ethics. But the main point of the paper is to suggest that the theoretical framework developed in the book be extended to include an analysis of the distinctive civic (...) virtues that are crucial to the well functioning of communities of makers, marketers, consumers, and regulators of technology, constituting, as it were, technomoral civic virtue ethics. It is suggested that prominent among these civic virtues is what is dubbed “Socratism,” the habit of regular querying of community aims and practices for the purpose of keeping community action focused on the goods internal to community practice, and the goods of the larger communities in which these local communities are embedded. (shrink)

Nietzsche sometimes praises the drive to order—to simplify, organize, and draw clear boundaries—as expressive of a vital "classical" style, or an Apollonian artistic drive to calmly contemplate forms displaying "epic definiteness and clarity." But he also sometimes harshly criticizes order, as in the pathological dialectics or "logical schematism" that he associates paradigmatically with Socrates. I challenge a tradition that interprets Socratism as an especially one-sided expression of, or restricted form of attention to, the Apollonian: they are more radically disparate. (...) Beyond strengthening the case for this basic point, I develop a distinctive account of what, exactly, distinguishes the Apollonian-classical and Socratic forms of order. To this end, I advance interrelated interpretations of Apollonian-classical simplicity and the "cold" calm that it elicits, by contrast to superficially similar Socratic phenomena. This illuminates Nietzsche's broader ambivalence toward science, in part by clarifying the nature and value of an idealized Apollonian science. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:From Death to Life: Key Themes in Plato’s Phaedo by Franco TRABATTONIAthanasia A. GiasoumiTRABATTONI, Franco. From Death to Life: Key Themes in Plato’s Phaedo. Boston: Brill, 2023. 190 pp. Cloth, $143.00In his comprehensive study of the Phaedo, Franco Trabattoni challenges the conventional interpretation of Plato’s thought by denying that Plato was ever a dogmatist or a skeptic. The opening chapter proposes that Plato employs a “third way” standing (...) on the Parmenidean distinction between dôxa (belief) and epistēme (knowledge). According to Trabattoni, the Phaedo (together with all other dialogues dealing with the distinction between sensible and intelligible reality) implies that knowledge of the forms can be obtained only after the separation of body and soul and only without the assistance of intermediaries. He contends that humans have no better instrument than lôgos to discover the intelligible realities (forms) that philosophy seeks. However, because lôgos serves as an intermediary, he believes that the mediation of lôgos introduces an unavoidable fault into the cognitive process, which is directly linked to the concept of dôxa. He maintains that this hypothesis is essential for the arguments presented in the Phaedo’s first part to make sense.Trabattoni delves into the Phaedo not just philosophically but also linguistically, particularly in passage 60c, where Cebes brings up the question of suicide. Notably, in chapter 2, Trabattoni provides a new translation of this passage that contrasts with the readings supplied by Dorter, Gallop, and Boter. Trabattoni claims that Plato responds to the problem of suicide by adhering to the eudaemonistic stance that no obligation that goes against the happiness of the individual subject to it is of any value.Chapter 3 features a counterargument to the predominant viewpoint positing an inconsistency between the Phaedo and the Republic. Trabattoni asserts that these dialogues agree in maintaining that true virtue can be ascribed only to those who believe in metaphysical realities and possess an exclusive desire to acquire knowledge of them. He posits that the disparities between the two dialogues can be attributed primarily to differing perspectives rather than a significant theoretical divide.In my opinion, chapter 4 is the book’s most interesting and original portion. Here, Trabattoni argues that Plato’s contrast in the Phaedo between genuine and false philosophers is directed at Antisthenes, specifically, that Plato opposes his Socratism to Antisthenes’ by depicting the Platonic Socrates as a genuine philosopher (philōsophos) in contrast to Antisthenes’ Socrates, who is portrayed as a false one (philōdoxos). According to Trabattoni, Plato endeavors to provide what Antisthenes’ portrayal of Socrates does not, namely, a metaphysical perspective that differentiates between opinion and truth. Though novel and charming, Trabattoni’s interpretation is not supported by the text since the Phaedo makes no direct allusion to Antisthenes’ Socrates, mentioning Antisthenes only at the beginning (58b) as someone present at Socrates’ last moments. Thus, the book’s strongest section could also be considered its weakest.Chapter 5 argues that the recollection theory is not intended to establish the possibility of a complete retrieval of the knowledge of the forms. [End Page 163] Trabattoni disagrees with Scott’s and others’ assertion that recollection is a method of inquiry on the grounds that Socrates never explains how the alleged “method” of recollection should be applied. Rather, Trabattoni contends, the function of recollection is to explain why human intellective knowledge cannot exceed the boundary of dôxa. Trabattoni argues further that the recollection theory indicates that only when the soul is separated from the body, that is, when a person dies, is it possible to gain knowledge of the forms.Chapters 6 and 7 examine in depth the philosophical, methodological, and linguistic aspects of the objections raised by Cebes and Simmias as well as Socrates’ ensuing arguments regarding the immortality of the soul. Additionally, Trabattoni explores the historical background of Plato’s Phaedo and the impact on it of Pythagoreanism, Orphism, and Eleatic philosophy.Chapter 8 is another particularly captivating section. It offers a fresh perspective on the concept of the “second voyage” (deũteros ploũs), challenging the prevailing interpretation, on which the second voyage signifies the triumph of the... (shrink)

This study explores Nietzsche's political education as a means of understanding his wider political thought. Incorporating biographical details of Nietzsche's own education, it outlines the course of political education that Nietzsche recommends as an antidote to the crisis in Western European culture. Heilke begins by examining Nietzsche's formulation of this crisis, especially his conceptions of "Romantic Pessimism," "Socratism," and Christianity. For Nietzsche, only a properly ordered education could resolve the problem of how one can transform a society whose fundamental (...) cultural and political premises one rejects. Through education Nietzsche sought to establish a new political and social system founded upon the principles of tragedy and grounded in the aesthetic tradition of German Romanticism. Nietzsche's Tragic Regime focuses on Nietzsche's political philosophy until his resignation from his post as professor in 1876, with attention also to the later writings. (shrink)

The volume Socrates and the Socratic Dialogue, recently edited by Ch. Moore and A. Stavru (Brill, 2018), favours the pluralistic approach to the sources that has gained increasing acceptance over the last decades, and thus shares the choice not to limit the study of Socrates to the canonical ‘quartet’ Aristophanes, Plato, Xenophon, and Aristotle. Indeed, the volume partly continues an existing trend, but at the same time proves to reinforce it by further refining and scrutinising this field of research. The (...) very welcome result is a collection of essays that provides a rich and nuanced picture of Socrates from the Old Comedy to Neoplatonism, based on Socratic literature as well as non-Socratic material – the latter including both non-Socratic authors and non-Socratic passages by Socratic authors. Because of the variety of themes and the number of contributions, which present a vast range of methodological approaches, the work offers a privileged point of view for investigating the ongoing advancements in our understanding of Socratism. Rather than providing a thorough presentation of all chapters, which would inevitably oversimplify their content, this paper attempts to highlight – also through the comparison with the existing literature – the main results of the analysis conducted and their specific contribution to the field. (shrink)

This paper, studies the way how St. Bonaventure deepens to the “Christian Socratism” . St. Bonaventure through the philosophical, theological and Franciscans sources understands that the soul is united with the Good. The anthropology is not only philosophical, and the Good is not only a concept of the philosophy. San Buenaventura adds to the schemes of Plato and Aristotle, the Biblical scheme who understand that the soul is “image of God”. In Itinerarium mentis in Deum an alternative motto to (...) the self knowledge sets out to us. It is invited to us to watch the soul that is loved itself, which supposes one of the sources of voluntarism.El artículo estudia el modo cómo san Buenaventura profundiza el “socratismo cristiano” . San Buenaventura a través de las fuentes filosóficas, teológicas y franciscanas entiende que el alma se une con el Bien. Pero ni la antropología es sólo filosófica, ni el Bien es sólo un concepto de la filosofía. San Buenaventura añade a los esquemas de Platón y Aristóteles, el bíblico que muestra que el alma es “imagen de Dios”. En el Itinerarium mentis in Deum se nos propone un lema alternativo al autoconocimiento. Se nos invita a mirar el alma que se ama a sí misma, lo que supone una de las fuentes del voluntarismo. (shrink)

The paper deals with a series of writings on Plato and Platonism issued by Jan Patočka in the immediate post-war period. In Eternity and Historicity, he contrasts Platonism as metaphysics of being with Socratism as questioning the meaning of human existence, and criticizes modern forms of Platonism of ethical values interpreted as objectively valid norms. In lectures on Plato, he explains Plato’s theory of Forms in terms of Husserl’s theory of horizontal intentionality and Heidegger’s theory of ontological difference. Similarly, (...) in Negative Platonism he interprets Plato’s theory of Forms in terms of a distinction he makes between between the eidetic contents and the transcendental character of the Platonic Idea. The latter is the necessary condition of the former but it does not constitute an intelligible object of its own. Patočka suggests retaining the Platonic notion of transcendence while dissociating it from the metaphysics of intelligible Forms. The paper puts these post-war writings on Plato and Platonism into the context of Patočka’s search for his own position as a phenomenologist. (shrink)

This article discusses Nietzsche's response in The Birth of Tragedy to what he calls the wisdom of Silenus, that “the very best thing is utterly beyond your reach: not to have been born, not to be, to be nothing. However, the second best thing for you is to die soon.” I begin by analyzing the view that Silenus expresses a proto-Schopenhauerian truth about the world as “Will.” I then review Bernard Reginster's interpretation of the wisdom of Silenus as an early (...) form of Nietzschean nihilism. As an alternative to these readings, I argue that, for Nietzsche, Silenus's wisdom addresses a crucial, existential dimension of ancient Greek tragic culture. I conclude by pointing out that, in BT, Nietzsche locates nihilism not in the wisdom of Silenus, but in the advent of Socratism. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Birth of The Birth of TragedyDennis SweetIntroductionNietzsche’s first book, The Birth of Tragedy, is ostensibly an account of the psychological motives behind the creation and modifications of Greek drama, but it is really much more than this. It is the author’s first attempt to understand the dynamic processes of human creativity in general—a concern that would occupy him throughout his career. When we look at his own estimation (...) of the value of his first book, however, we see that he maintained something of a love-hate relationship to it. In the second edition, published in 1886, Nietzsche included a prefatory “Attempt at a Self-Criticism,” in which he castigates the style of his first literary effort:[T]oday I find it an impossible book: I consider it badly written, ponderous, embarrassing, image-mad and image-confused, sentimental, in places saccharine to the point of effeminacy, uneven in tempo, without the will to logical cleanliness... disdainful of proof, mistrustful even of the “propriety” of proof... an arrogant and rhapsodic book.... 1Yet Nietzsche was convinced that the book, despite its stylistic flaws, did indeed have its merits. In Ecce Homo he evaluated the positive value of The Birth of Tragedy in the following way:The two decisive innovations of the book are, first, its understanding of the Dionysian phenomenon among the Greeks: for the first time, a psychological analysis of this phenomenon is offered, and it is considered as one root of the whole of Greek art. Secondly, there is the understanding of Socratism; Socrates is recognized for the first time as an instrument of Greek disintegration, as a typical decadent. “Rationality” [End Page 345] against instinct. “Rationality” at any price as a dangerous force that undermines life. 2Since its appearance in 1872 The Birth of Tragedy has been the object of both intensely negative and strongly positive assessments among classical scholars. Either it is dismissed out of hand as a piece of unscholarly romanticism, or it is praised as a unique contribution to the study of Greek art and life, a book of seminal importance for modern classical scholarship. 3 Among those who judge the book to be valuable and original, most follow the author in regarding the “two decisive innovations” spoken of in the above quotation as the heart of the book’s value and originality. Yet few of Nietzsche’s advocates have gone on to show clearly how or in what sense these innovative insights are innovative and insightful.To understand the significance and to appreciate the originality of The Birth of Tragedy it is important to see it against the background of some of the established theories of art and tragedy which preceded it. I shall begin, therefore, by characterizing, in broad strokes, two such theories that emerged in the eighteenth century; then I shall consider how the theory of tragedy that Nietzsche offers in his first book grew out of his dissatisfaction with these earlier views. Finally I shall show how the “two decisive innovations” expressed in The Birth of Tragedy developed during the years preceding the book’s publication. [End Page 346]The Theoretical BackgroundDuring the middle decades of the eighteenth century there emerged a keen interest in providing a theoretical account of the beauty expressed in the works of classical Greek art in general and in the literary achievements of the Attic tragedians in particular. Among German writers the person most responsible for bringing about this interest was the art historian, Johann Joachim Winckelmann. According to Winckelmann, the dominant characteristics of beauty found in ancient Greek works of art are expressed in terms of their “noble simplicity and quiet grandeur [edle Einfalt und stille Grösse].” 4 The ideal qualities of harmony and composure characteristic of classical Greek sculpture reflect and embody the serene and happy world-view of the Greek artists and of classical Greek culture in general. The two best examples of this character are found in the famous “Apollo Belvedere” statue and in the equally well-known statue depicting the Trojan priest Laocoön and his sons’ being devoured by twin serpents—an example of “classical” art that would be utilized by... (shrink)

In chapter 12 ofBirth of Tragedy, Nietzsche describes Socrates as the new Orpheus, who rises up against Dionysus and murders tragedy:… in league with Socrates, Euripides dared to be the herald of a new kind of artistic creation. If this caused the older tragedy to perish, then aesthetic Socratism is the murderous principle; but in so far as the fight was directed against the Dionysiac nature of the older art, we may identify Socrates as the opponent of Dionysos, the (...) new Orpheus who rises up against Dionysos and who, although fated to be torn apart by the maenads of the Athenian court of justice, nevertheless forces the great and mighty god himself to flee. As before, when he fled from Lycurgus, King of the Edonians, Dionysos now sought refuge in the depths of the sea, namely in the mystical waters of a secret cult which gradually spread across the entire world., 64. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to show that an introductory step to the Neoplatonic exegesis of the dialogue was to redefine the figure of Socrates and Socratism, so as to offer aspiring Platonists a correct interpretation of Plato and of the Neoplatonic metaphysical system. In the final stages of a long tradition, Socrates became the teacher par excellence not only of Plato but of all Platonists. In particular, by focusing on the Prolegomena to Platonic philosophy I wish to (...) highlight the fact that, when it comes to teaching, there is no Socrates but Plato’s teacher, a teacher whose many voices – universalised according to well-defined criteria – can also be attributed to Plato. If Plato came to be seen as polyphonic and always self-consistent, this is probably because it was possible to show that Socrates’ hallmark was his ability to remain consistent while expressing many different opinions in the dialogues. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Birth of The Birth of TragedyDennis SweetIntroductionNietzsche’s first book, The Birth of Tragedy, is ostensibly an account of the psychological motives behind the creation and modifications of Greek drama, but it is really much more than this. It is the author’s first attempt to understand the dynamic processes of human creativity in general—a concern that would occupy him throughout his career. When we look at his own estimation (...) of the value of his first book, however, we see that he maintained something of a love-hate relationship to it. In the second edition, published in 1886, Nietzsche included a prefatory “Attempt at a Self-Criticism,” in which he castigates the style of his first literary effort:[T]oday I find it an impossible book: I consider it badly written, ponderous, embarrassing, image-mad and image-confused, sentimental, in places saccharine to the point of effeminacy, uneven in tempo, without the will to logical cleanliness... disdainful of proof, mistrustful even of the “propriety” of proof... an arrogant and rhapsodic book.... 1Yet Nietzsche was convinced that the book, despite its stylistic flaws, did indeed have its merits. In Ecce Homo he evaluated the positive value of The Birth of Tragedy in the following way:The two decisive innovations of the book are, first, its understanding of the Dionysian phenomenon among the Greeks: for the first time, a psychological analysis of this phenomenon is offered, and it is considered as one root of the whole of Greek art. Secondly, there is the understanding of Socratism; Socrates is recognized for the first time as an instrument of Greek disintegration, as a typical decadent. “Rationality” [End Page 345] against instinct. “Rationality” at any price as a dangerous force that undermines life. 2Since its appearance in 1872 The Birth of Tragedy has been the object of both intensely negative and strongly positive assessments among classical scholars. Either it is dismissed out of hand as a piece of unscholarly romanticism, or it is praised as a unique contribution to the study of Greek art and life, a book of seminal importance for modern classical scholarship. 3 Among those who judge the book to be valuable and original, most follow the author in regarding the “two decisive innovations” spoken of in the above quotation as the heart of the book’s value and originality. Yet few of Nietzsche’s advocates have gone on to show clearly how or in what sense these innovative insights are innovative and insightful.To understand the significance and to appreciate the originality of The Birth of Tragedy it is important to see it against the background of some of the established theories of art and tragedy which preceded it. I shall begin, therefore, by characterizing, in broad strokes, two such theories that emerged in the eighteenth century; then I shall consider how the theory of tragedy that Nietzsche offers in his first book grew out of his dissatisfaction with these earlier views. Finally I shall show how the “two decisive innovations” expressed in The Birth of Tragedy developed during the years preceding the book’s publication. [End Page 346]The Theoretical BackgroundDuring the middle decades of the eighteenth century there emerged a keen interest in providing a theoretical account of the beauty expressed in the works of classical Greek art in general and in the literary achievements of the Attic tragedians in particular. Among German writers the person most responsible for bringing about this interest was the art historian, Johann Joachim Winckelmann. According to Winckelmann, the dominant characteristics of beauty found in ancient Greek works of art are expressed in terms of their “noble simplicity and quiet grandeur [edle Einfalt und stille Grösse].” 4 The ideal qualities of harmony and composure characteristic of classical Greek sculpture reflect and embody the serene and happy world-view of the Greek artists and of classical Greek culture in general. The two best examples of this character are found in the famous “Apollo Belvedere” statue and in the equally well-known statue depicting the Trojan priest Laocoön and his sons’ being devoured by twin serpents—an example of “classical” art that would be utilized by... (shrink)

The object of my dissertation is to demonstrate that the conceptual thrust of Nietzsche's philosophical activity is a sustained endeavor to negate the Socratic basis of Western ontology through the re-implementation of the Aeschylean tragic paideia. Nietzsche's most consequential objection against Socrates is the latter's neutralizing of Hellenic mythos with the "cold edge" of reason and the "naive optimism" of science. Accordingly, we may most properly understand Nietzsche's effort as a movement against aesthetic Socratism, since it is with its (...) "supreme law," "To be beautiful everything must be intelligible," that Socrates--from behind his "Euripidean mask"--quelled the Dionysian spirit in Attic aesthetics, ipso fact put into operation an impulse-taming didacticism, and thus made ready the social climate for the institutionalization of the Judeo-Christian moral system. ;Nor, as I urge, is this a mere intellectual position, a philosophical exercise for Nietzsche. Just as the Platonic Socrates saw the need for a new moral and aesthetic direction, so does Nietzsche regard the culturo-political reformulation of Western society as a practical goal. Two interrelated themes of his appear to speak in favor of this observation: his regard of the composer Richard Wagner as the new Aeschylus who would reanimate the Dionysian spirit within German culture, and his persistent call for the somato-intellectual overcoming of humankind as we know it. That is, Wagner's musical dramas would at once transform Western/Socratic aesthetics and prepare the socio-cultural mentality for the rise and establishment of the Ubermensch as a new and profoundly "superior" "species" of human beings. That the younger Nietzsche did indeed regard Wagner as useful toward the achievement of such an artistic and cultural inversion may be noticed from the fact that he terminated their friendship virtually immediately after the composer signalled that he was turning to a more traditional and acceptable subject--Christianity. ;Despite this loss, Nietzsche ineluctably presses on his vision of the future "masters" of the earth. Indeed, in The Will to Power he implicitly offers at least two dissimilar "blueprints" whereby that goal could be realized. Only one of these plans of action, however, could ultimately prove useful in the establishment of the Ubermensch, while the other could at best permit only isolated communities of Ubermenschen to exist for a relatively short time, before succumbing to the rabble's socio-cultural levelling tendency. Only after the rabble's lifestyle would have become intolerable even to themselves, such that they would collectively rise up to transcend their mass-identity in all its manifestations, could the emergence and future of the Ubermensch as a phenomenal being be assured. (shrink)

The paper considers the legacy of Empedocles as it bears upon the difficulty confronted by Hölderlin in his Death of Empedocles: how are we to understand Hölderlin’s failure to complete this ‘mourning play’ despite his continued and repeated efforts? This difficulty is elaborated through a reading of Hölderlin’s own understanding of “elemental tragedy” as it is presented and developed in the three dense so-called Homburg essays on tragedy. It is evident that the understanding of tragedy that emerges here entails a (...) dramatic poetry that would break with the prevailing tradition and its determination of poetry according to a mimetic operation. Aristotle’s own account of Empedocles and his apparent refusal to consider Empedocles as a poet is considered alongside other ancient accounts of Empedoclean poetry, notably those provided by Plutarch, Diogenes Laertius, and Lucretius. In this context, Nietzsche’s account of the end of tragedy through his interpretation of another philosophical death, that of Socrates, is introduced as a counterpoint to help elucidate the difficulties faced by Hölderlin. This Nietzschean account of ‘the image of the dying Socrates’ also proves to be related to Nietzsche’s own brief but provocative statements concerning what is eclipsed with the loss of Empedoclean tragic philosophy and emergence of Socratism. The paper concludes by returning to Hölderlin’s letters to Böhlendorff as these letters make thematic an ‘elemental’ difference in the impossible recovery of the tragic in our time. (shrink)

Nietzsche praised Kant for having "annihilated Socratism," for exhibiting all ideals as essentially unattainable, and for having exposed himself to the despair of truth--all essential traits Nietzsche claimed for his own thinking. At the same time, the existentialist philosopher remained highly critical of Kant. This volume of Reiner Schürmann's lectures unpacks Nietzsche's ambivalence towards Kant, in particular positioning Nietzsche's claim to have brought an end to German idealism against the backdrop of the Kantian transcendental-critical tradition. Rather than simply compare (...) the two philosophers, Schürmann's lectures help us to understand the consequences Nietzsche derived from Kantian concepts, as well as the wider horizon within which Nietzsche's ideas arose and can best be shown to apply. According to Schürmann's trenchant reading: if Nietzsche was indeed "fatal" to Western philosophy, as he claimed, he was so in large part because of the Kantian transcendental thinking from which he inherited the very elements and tools of his criticism. (shrink)

This work is intended to offer to anyone still intending to devote himself to the Socratic problem a reliable means of approach by providing, first of all, a complete history of the problem itself, from its first appearance during Socrates' lifetime up to the present day. The book provides not only the history of the problem, but also the essential documents, accompanied by brief explana-tory and bibliographical contextual notes, to be read in counterpoint with the chapters of its history. These (...) documents consist of 61 extracts from 54 authors, from Fréret onwards, in other words, from the beginning of the history of the problem of the socratic sources, which arose in the Age of Enlightenment, down to the present day. These extracts are not intended to form a collection of the various representations, interpretations or images of Socrates which succeeded each other in the history of socratic historiography; instead, the aim is to present, in a logically and chronologically consistent order, the various ways in which the problem of the sources of Socratism was presented and resolved in the course of two hundred years of study and research on the 'case' of Socrates. (shrink)

Babich implicitly takes as her starting point a statement from the 1886 preface to The Birth of Tragedy, where Nietzsche praises his first book for having raised "a new problem--... the problem of science itself," and for having "dared... to look at science from the point of view of the artist, but at art from that of life." Indeed, though she focuses on the later texts, particularly the later Nachla, the interpretive framework of Babich's book is drawn from The Birth (...) of Tragedy. There, Nietzsche sought to reveal how the "Socratic optimism" that eclipsed the "tragic pessimism" of the early Greek dramatists was, in reality, a profound form of decadence, the sign of a sickly and declining culture. Babich argues that the descendent of "Socratism," modern techno-science, is also decadent, seeing life and nature as needing to be corrected. On this view, science is essentially reactive and conservative insofar as it seeks to halt and to master the ceaseless becoming, change, suffering, and death that characterizes natural life. Moreover, instead of granting its status as a pragmatic function in the service of a reactive form of life, science takes its perspective to be absolute, to reveal the way the world really is, and thus denies the irreducible ambiguity and multiplicity of the world. By contrast, the "aesthetic," "tragic," or "Dionysian" world-view suppressed by science remains the truly life- and world-affirming perspective. Acknowledging its status as Apollinian illusion, the aesthetic perspective simultaneously reveals the Dionysian chaos, the fundamental ambiguity and multiplicity that lies at the heart of what Babich, following Jacques Lacan, calls "the Real". Just as Nietzsche's book is not simply a study of Greek culture but a polemic against the present age, so too is Babich's book not simply an exposition of Nietzsche's philosophy of science but a call for a new tragic culture. (shrink)

Many people claim that music is a universal language considering the impact and beneficial results that it usually triggers, whereas others reject the idea due to contextual or cultural sentiments and parameters that must be considered. Both sides’ arguments make sense but, despite skepticism, music should be considered as a universal language, which becomes clear by depicting it in the context of peacebuilding and by exploring its linguistics and therapeutic effects, through various domains such as philosophy, music theory and the (...) contemporary world. The author argues that considering the counter-arguments and balancing it with this central claim, it is possible to reach an inspiring and complementary common ground between performing arts as music and philosophy. (shrink)