Farrington has written a fascinating and provocative introduction to fourth-century Greece in the form of a cultural dispute between the Garden, the Academy, and the Lyceum. In the political and religious chaos of the late fourth century, Epicurus appears as a radical social reformer, not the recluse of earlier interpreters, bent on returning Greek society to its primitive ideal of friendship. While in agreement with Plato that Greek society was desperately sick, his remedy was antithetical to Plato's and (...) heavily dependent on the later Aristotle. Friendship not justice, freedom not authority, individuality not universality, sensory experience not a priori axioms--these were the hallmarks of Epicurus' desired reform. The practical, almost prophetic direction of Epicurus' philosophy emerges most clearly in his bitter opposition to political religion, used by the ruling class to keep the people in line and typified by Plato's insistence on religious orthodoxy in his republic. Against this background, Epicurus' theology, as well as his physics, serves as a polemical thrust designed to release men from superstition and irrational fear of would-be gods. Farrington's obvious delight in Epicurus, together with his desire to set right past misinterpretations of his thought, make the account all the more interesting to read. The final chapter traces Epicurean influence in later Roman thought, notably in the Platonist Cicero and the Stoic Seneca, its decline in the Middle Ages, and its rebirth in the Renaissance. The book concludes with a brief but adequate bibliography of ancient and modern works.--J. G. G. (shrink)

This book aims at remedying the deficiency which the author sees in the fact that not a single critical study of Heidegger's treatment of the history of philosophy has appeared in English. Magnus finds the basic theme of Heidegger's later works to lie in this treatment. He is concerned that "no sustained efforts have hitherto been made to come to grips with the methodological questions which Heidegger's hermeneutic occasions," and considers Heidegger's treatment of Nietzsche in order to make such an (...) effort. His ultimate motive in so doing is to present his conclusion that "to interpret the great philosophers from Heidegger's point of vantage... is ruinous to the history of philosophy as a discipline and is foreign to Heidegger's own thinking as well." The book is divided into two parts, the first clarifying Nietzsche's presentation of eternal recurrence; the second critically considering Heidegger's methodological approach in general and his conclusions vis-à-vis Nietzsche. The study will show a "partial and inadequate reading of Plato and Descartes" on Heidegger's part; the inadequacy of Heidegger's bald imputation of a "correspondence" epistemology reigning supreme throughout Western philosophy; and the textual evidence cited by Heidegger in his study of Nietzsche to be inadequate to his purposes. Chapter One of Part I points out the questionable nature of the material in Nietzsche's Nachlass; also, that much of the material consists of notes which Nietzsche abandoned or rejected as unfit for inclusion into the published works to which they refer. Nowhere in the published works or those designated for publication is the doctrine of eternal recurrence posited explicitly in "empirical-cosmological" terms. Magnus points out that Nietzsche scholars are unanimous in failing to draw the crucial methodological distinction between his published and unpublished works. To make this distinction is to come to recognize that the significance of eternal recurrence for Nietzsche is its existential imperative and not its empirical verification, which he mulled over as a "corroborative" hypothesis in his notes ; and which was attempted to confirm a doctrine which he had already embraced for other reasons. To understand this primary attraction to the doctrine one must consider Nietzsche's methodological challenging of the law of contradiction, his temperamental abhorrence of systematic, i.e. analytic philosophy. This latter methodology properly obtains in the empirical "proof" which was presented above as of derivative importance. To get at the existential significance of the doctrine, one might properly consider it "within the context of its opposition to three interpenetrating realities as Nietzsche understood them: Metaphysics, Christianity, and nihilism." This is the concern of the remainder of Chapter Three. Eternal recurrence emerges as the doctrine of becoming, and is seen to be "a critique [sic] and alternative to metaphysics." Part II illustrates how Heidegger reworked his understanding of Western philosophy from the period of Being and Time, when metaphysics was seen to begin with Aristotle and to have had its "decisive" phases with Descartes and Kant, to the subsequent consideration of its having begun with Plato and having had its "decisive" culmination with Nietzsche. Magnus argues that the contention that for Plato truth devolved from alétheia to orthotes is highly questionable; that the "humanistic" truth criterion of Western metaphysics pervades Heidegger's own Being and Time; and that the claim by Heidegger that Western philosophers have traditionally presupposed a subject/object correspondence conception of truth is patently false. He concludes that "[Heidegger's] interpretation is subordinated to a thesis which superimposes its meaning upon the history of philosophy." It remains the task of the concluding two chapters to elucidate how this "metahistory" of philosophy distorts Nietzsche's critique and alternative to metaphysics into the very embodiment of metaphysics. This project points out the disparity in the understanding of "nihilism" between the two thinkers; likewise, their variant understandings of the crucial notion of "revenge"; and, finally, Nietzsche's thoroughgoing rejection of Being as a precisely metaphysical notion. Magnus shows that the contexts from which Heidegger draws the quotations for his Nietzschean meditations themselves refute his distorted interpretation of Nietzsche's doctrine. A more careful consideration might not sacrifice thinking broadly in order to think deeply. Heidegger's metahistorical methodology Heideggerizes every philosopher to which he turns; hence, the Heideggerian virtue is "to comprehend and express not what another thinker thought/said, but what he did not think/say, could not think/say, and why he could not think/say it". To consider Nietzsche in terms of what he said regarding eternal recurrence rather in terms of the fundamentally contradictory words which Heidegger attributes to him, is to see the doctrine as the ultimate affirmation of becoming--and to see Heidegger as the last metaphysician. The serious alternative to metaphysics rests with Nietzsche.--R. J. G. (shrink)

In a long and important sentence in the Timaeus , Plato explains that, whereas that which truly or really is () cannot come to be in anything else, sensible things, being mere images, must necessarily come to be in something else, on pain of not existing at all.

In his discussion of the ethics of suicide Plato alludes to more than one traditional injunction against it:indicates a fairly general acceptance of its wickedness. Cebes has heard the Pythagorean Philolaus, among others, saying that suicide was immoral, but has gathered no satisfactory explanation as to why this should be so. One reason, impressive, but, Socrates admits, difficult is to be found.

A collection of essays exploring the relationship between Plato and the poet Hesiod. The volume covers a wide variety of thematic angles, brings new and sometimes surprising light to a large range of Platonic dialogues, and represents a major contribution to the study of the reception of archaic poetry in Athens.

A reconstruction based on previously unpublished notes, of Austin’s views of the Line and Cave allegories in Plato’s Republic. In these drafts, Austin discusses the prominent issues that arise in the context of Plato’s Line allegory, e.g. the questions of division and continuity, and shows how the different stages in the Cave allegory correspond to individual sections of the Line.

Les thèses, proposées par M. Krämer, dans son ouvrage Arete bei Platon und Aristoteles, marqueraient une révolution dans les études platoniciennes, si elles étaient acceptables. Selon lui, Platon a, dès le commencement de sa carrière philosophique, au moins dès l'ouverture de l'Académie, possédé un système élaboré d'ontologie. Ce système a été exposé aux membres de l'Académie, sous forme d'une doctrine ésotêrique. Les dialogues, qui sont entièrement des œuvres protreptiques, ne comportent que des allusions à cette doctrine; tout de même, sans (...) connaître ce fonds doctrinal, on ne peut vraiment comprendre les dialogues. Sans vouloir dresser un compte-rendu complet du livre en question, l'auteur du présent article voulait écrire quelques notes marginales. Ni le récit d'Aristoxène, ni les données plus tardives n'autorisent M. Kr. à déclarer que la fameuse conférence πεϱ τἀγαϑοῦ ait constitué une série de cours. En outre, le récit même n'est pas exempt d'invraisemblance, si l'on compare les fragments des poètes de la comédie moyenne. La dépréciation de l'œuvre écrite que contient la fin du Phèdre n'est pas absolue, comme le croît M. Krämer, mais relative. Dans la vue de M. Kr., il est difficile de comprendre pourquoi Platon a écrit. Surtout la composition des Lois est inexplicable. Dans la théorie d'un système ésotérique, l'héritage de Socrate ne reste plus reconnaissable. Si, comme dans les théories de M. Krämer, l'axiologie se confond avec l'ontologie, l'autonomie de la décision éthique disparaît, et la position priviligiée du Bien ne peut plus être comprise. Le refus de tout développement chez Platon contraint M. Krämer à donner des interprétations très forcées de plusieurs textes platoniciens. (shrink)

This initial volume in a series of new translations of Plato’s works includes a general introduction and interpretive comments for the dialogues translated: the _Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Gorgias, _and _Menexenus. _ _ _“Allen’s work is very impressive. The translations are readable, lucid, and highly accurate. The general introduction is succinct and extremely clear. The discussion of the dating of the dialogues is enormously useful; there has previously been no brief account of these issues to which one could refer (...) the student. Finally, the particular introductions are first rate: fine jobs of clear philosophical and historical explanation—succinct and yet sophisticated, both close to the text and philosophically incisive.”—Martha Nussbaum, _Brown University_ “This is an important work that deserves our respect and attention.”—_Ethics _ _ _“This and the promised succeeding volumes will probably become the standard English version of the complete dialogues…. The commentaries take advantage of the best scholarship, judge judiciously between divergent views, and often introduce new and brilliant interpretations. This is true both in the area of philosophy and in that of literary criticism.”—Anthony C. Daly, S.J., _Modern Schoolman_ _ _“Allen is a superb translator, whose elegantly simple yet precise language gives access to Plato both as a philosopher and as a literary artist.”—_Library Journal__ _ “An important event in the world of scholarship.”—_London Review of Books_ _ _R.E. Allen is professor of classics and philosophy at Northwestern University. (shrink)