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)

RESUMEN El siguiente artículo tiene como objetivo destacar el carácter polifónico del pensamiento platónico y poner en cuestión el sentido de la autoría de Platón. Suponer, a partir de obstinados prejuicios modernos, que Platón, tal como cualquier escritor moderno, habría expuesto su propia doctrina, es ignorar la importancia de la forma dramática de su pensamiento. El testimonio de la variedad de interlocutores y de puntos de vista que se suceden en los diferentes diálogos, nos invita a prestar atención a la (...) compleja trama del pensamiento platónico, cuya variedad de funciones corresponde a los límites y al alcance del discurso de quienes en un determinado momento y situación cooperan en el diálogo. ABSTRACT The following paper aims to highlight the polyphonic character of Platonic thought and to question the meaning of Plato's authorship. To assume, from obstinate modern prejudices, that Plato, like any modern writer, would have exposed his own doctrine, is to ignore the importance of the dramatic form of his thought. The testimony of the variety of interlocutors and points of view that take place in the different dialogues, invites us to pay attention to the complex plot of Platonic thought, whose variety of functions corresponds to the limits and scope of the discourse of those who, in a given moment and situation, cooperate in the dialogue. (shrink)

In the 'Hippias Major' Socrates uses a counter-example to oppose Hippias‘s view that parts and wholes always have a "continuous" nature. Socrates argues, for example, that even-numbered groups might be made of parts with the opposite character, i.e. odd. As Gadamer has shown, Socrates often uses such examples as a model for understanding language and definitions: numbers and definitions both draw disparate elements into a sum-whole differing from the parts. In this paper I follow Gadamer‘s suggestion that we should focus (...) on the parallel between numbers and definitions in Platonic thought. However, I offer a different interpretation of the lesson implicit in Socrates‘s opposition to Hippias. I argue that, according to Socrates, parts and sum-wholes may share in essential attributes; yet this unity or continuity is neither necessary, as Hippias suggests, nor is it impossible, as Gadamer implies. In closing, I suggest that this seemingly minor difference in logical interpretation has important implications for how we should understand the structure of human communities in a Platonic context. (shrink)

Recientemente, Gerson y Catana proponen el destierro de la categoría “neoplatonismo” de las historias de la filosofía a partir del análisis de la génesis histórica de su surgimiento como término peyorativo. En este artículo sostengo, por el contrario, que no basta con un mero análisis historiográfico para desactivar la marginalización de los neoplatónicos, sino que es necesario atacar, más que la noción de “neoplatonismo”, la de “originalidad”. Esta noción ha sido importada de modelos externos a los filosóficos y guarda semejanzas (...) importantes con la concepción de originalidad de algunas propuestas de los teóricos de los derechos de autor. (shrink)

It has become commonplace in introductions to Indian philosophy to construe Plato’s discussion of forms (εἶδος/ἰδέα) and the treatment in Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika of universals ( sāmānya/jāti ) as addressing the same philosophical issue, albeit in somewhat different ways. While such a comparison of the similarities and differences has interest and value as an initial reconnaissance of what each says about common properties, an examination of the roles that universals play in the rest of their philosophical enquiries vitiates this commonplace. (...) This paper draws upon the primary texts to identify the following metaphysical, epistemological, semantic and soteriological roles that universals play in the philosophy of Plato and of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika: Metaphysical: causal of the existence of x Metaphysical: constitutive of the identity/essence of x Epistemological: cognitively causal (i.e. of the cognition of one over many) Epistemological: epistemically causal (i.e. of knowledge of x) Semantic: necessary condition of speech and reason Epistemological: vindicatory of induction (Nyāya only) Metaphysical: explanatory of causation (Nyāya only) Soteriological: cathartic contemplation (Plato only) These roles provide us with motivations or reasons to believe that universals exist. As we examine these motivations, we find pressures mounting against our assimilating Platonic forms and the universals of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika in the discourse about common properties. It is especially when we appreciate the utterly different contribution that universals make in securing our highest welfare that we realize how Plato and the two sister schools are not so much talking somewhat differently about the same thing, but talking somewhat similarly about different things. This better understanding of this difference in these philosophies opens a route for our better understanding of their unique contributions in the ongoing dialogue of philosophy. (shrink)