The present account – conducted in the paradigm of the recent approach to Plato – comprises a new translation with a short introduction and source bibliography. It consists of three major parts: I. Plato’s own testimonies: arguments against writing; II. References within the dialogues to the dialectic of principles ; III. Testimonia Platonica. Apart from the relevant parts of Plato’s dialogues, the testimonies of Aristotle, Theophrastus and Sextus Empiricus have been taken into account. The translation of the testimonies has been (...) arranged in a more systematizing manner than it was in the previous editions. The idea is to provide the Polish reader with reliable sources on the widely discussed hermeneutics of the written and unwritten Plato. (shrink)

The present paper is the first Polish translation of the following excerpts from the Author’s original and innovative book entitled Platon : IV 4. a) Kritik der Schriftlichkeit; b) Hören des Richtiges, Verfehlen der Wahrheit: Platons Kritik der Mündlichkeit; IX 1. Schriftlicher Dialog und mündliches Prinziepiendenken; 2. Einheit und Vielheit: Ein Rekonstruktionsversuch; 3. Mündliche Lehre als Ergänzung des schriftlichen Dialogs. The book represents a new paradigm in research on Plato and the topics developed in it constitute a concise and coherent (...) account of Plato’s critique of writing and orality as well as the related theory of principles. While these issues continue to be an area of scholarly debate, the authors groundbreaking proposals provide an invaluable point of reference for anyone truly interested in Plato’s philosophy. We are extremely grateful to the Author as well as the Publisher for their permission to publish a Polish translation of the aforementioned parts of this excellent book. (shrink)

With the late Author’s kind permission, the present text is published here in a somewhat abbreviated and modified translation that has been given appropriate subheadings and supplemented with an extensive bibliography. Its German original from 1996 has been translated into French and English. The purpose of the present translation is to make the Polish reader acquainted with the important and innovative account of Plato’s philosophy that has been put forward by the Tübingen School whose one of the most prominent co-founders (...) was Hans Joachim Krämer. While this text is devoted to Plato’s critique of writing, it also presents Plato’s agrapha dogmata as an important supplement to the written dialogues. A fuller overview of the major assumptions of this new interpretation is to be found in the recently published Gesammelte Ansätze zu Platon. (shrink)

With the use of a particular metaphor, which appears at the end of the Cratylus and is taken up with perfect symmetry at the beginning of the Theaetetus, Plato certainly wanted to indicate the succession of Cratylus–Theaetetus as an order for reading the two dialogues, which Trasillus faithfully reproduced in structuring the second tetralogy of Platonic dialogues. The claim of the theory of ideas, with which the Cratylus ends, must therefore be considered the background in which to place not only (...) the analysis of the name carried out in the Cratylus, but also the discussion and criticism of the epistemological theories examined and refuted in the Theaetetus. The transition from the discussion of the name to that of the logos is another important theoretical element that connects the two dialogues. Another one is the theory of knowledge, already precisely elaborated in the Cratylus, and taken up and deepened in the Theaetetus. Finally, the theme of false and error is a third theoretical element common to the two dialogues, which, starting from Euthydemus, finds its solution in the Sophist. (shrink)

It is a recurring pattern in Plato´s dialogues that the dialectician leads the discussion to a certain point where he identifies further, more fundamental problems, on which he claims to have his own view, which he does not communicate. Such passages are briefly analyzed from five dialogues. It is shown that this seemingly strange behaviour of the dialectician corresponds exactly to the way a philosopher should behave according to the Phaedrus. The recurring cases of reticence of the leading figure in (...) dialogue have to be understood as Plato´s written reference to his own unwritten philosophy. (shrink)