Skip to main content

Plato study group?

I'm currently reading the book "Finitude and transcendence in Plato's dialogues" by Drew Hyland. It's not very long and fairly easy to read - so if some of you feel like reading along with me we could create a study group dedicated to that book.

Hyland shows that one of the most essential themes in Plato's dialogue is how we humans try to deal with the basic human limitation of finitude. Some resign and accept it - such as those who stop caring about what's it all about or those who cling to old, unlikely worldviews because they think nothing better is available. Some try to overcome it by desperate and/or agressive claims about human nature - such as the Greek sophists. Socrates - as we meet him in Plato's dialogues - tries to turn limitation into possibility: We are human beings and we can think. Let's find out what we can know about what it means to be a human being.

 This both humble and sensitive strategy seems to be contradicted by Socrates ambitions in Plato's dialogue "The Republic" - so Hyland spend a good deal of the book to show that "The Republic" has been heavily misunderstood and that it is really completely aligned with the basic socratic project. In the course of this discussion Hyland heavily criticizes the idea that  Plato developed from being a "Socratic" into being a "Platonist". In Hyland's opinion, every element in Plato's thinking in all the dialogues is completely Socratic.


Comments

  1. Dont have the boock.
    Where can I get, because I would like to be part of the study group.
    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's available on Google Play Book and on Amazon, for example.

      https://books.google.dk/books/about/Finitude_and_Transcendence_in_the_Platon.html?id=tkP9dgKHbmIC&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y

      https://www.amazon.com/Finitude-Transcendence-Platonic-Dialogues-Philosophy/dp/0791425096

      Delete
  2. It's available on Google Play Book and on Amazon, for example.

    https://books.google.dk/books/about/Finitude_and_Transcendence_in_the_Platon.html?id=tkP9dgKHbmIC&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y

    https://www.amazon.com/Finitude-Transcendence-Platonic-Dialogues-Philosophy/dp/0791425096

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Stoicism and Evil Governments

This article claims that a Stoic has no reason to get depressed by bad political conditions since an evil government is not really a bad thing for a Stoic - since nothing can be bad for a Stoic except his own bad choices. Even so, the article claims, a Stoic acknowledges that an evil government is capable of doing "terrible things" to people. To make this line of thinking work we have to think of ourselves as Stoics who can't be harmed by an evil government - since nothing can be bad for us as Stoics except our own bad choices - and other people as non-Stoics who will suffer terribly if they are oppressed by the evil government. In my opinion, this interpretation of Stoicism is flat out wrong. First of all, an evil government is indeed a bad thing. The Stoics distinguish between internal good/bad things such as our own good or bad choices and external good/bad things such as other people's happiness or unhappiness: "some bad things are in the sou

Aristotle on happiness and external goods

According to popular opinion both in ancient Greece and today, happiness requires things such as wealth, good health, good looks, friends, family and good reputation. In Plato's dialogue Euthydemus Socrates challenges those beliefs by claiming that none of those things are good, if they are not used wisely. In fact, Socrates claims that a person who has wisdom doesn't need any of those things at all since he or she can turn any situation into something beneficial for him- or herself. "If wisdom is present, the one for whom it is present has no need of good fortune". - Socrates in Euthydemus, 279E In other words, Socrates claims that wisdom is a sufficient requirement for happiness (and a necessary requirement too, of course). Aristotle famously challenges that claim. But what exactly does he say? Let's have a look. "we suppose happiness is enduring and definitely not prone to fluctuate, but the same person’s fortunes often turn to and fro. For clearly

A few quick notes on committing injustice vs suffering it

Let's suppose that person A is entitled to, say, one piece of cake. If person B knowingly causes person A to not have that piece of cake without the consent of person A, then person B has done person A wrong - which is what the Stoics mean by committing an injury. But it doesn't follow from this that person A has suffered an injury. If person A doesn't mind that his or her piece of cake was given to someone else or was eaten by person B, then person A hasn't suffered an injury - even though person B have commited an injury. Now, let's imagine that person A is completely wise. This would mean that he or she is completely indifferent to things like bodily harm, poverty, sickness, reputation, insults, abuse and whatever else life or other human beings can throw at us. Obviously, it would still be possible to commit an injury in relation to a person like that - since this would simply require having the intention to harm that person. However, it would be impossible to