Sunday, September 20, 2009
Plato Blogging: Poll
Wondering where everybody stands on my Plato theory, namely, that The Republic is simultaneously about the soul and a cautionary tale about using politics to rightly order society, as we move onto The Republic in two weeks. As I see it, Alpheus and Andrew are skeptical and George thinks I'm nuts. Miss Self-Important is skeptical and thinks I'm nuts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
I might have a post on this later - I have difficulty entering whole-heartedly into the belief that anyone can discern the one, True meaning of Plato or any other philosopher. It's interesting to sketch out plausible interpretations - more interesting, perhaps, to discover what, historically, have been the ways people have interpreted Plato, to study the different arguments about how to interpret Plato, and perhaps at the end assent to one school of argument, or even (heavens!) make a tentative argument oneself, based on a full knowledge of the historical arguments about how to interpret Plato. But to commit to the truth of what Plato thought? - even assuming I actually knew Plato well enough? That's more than I would venture.
Withy:
I don't quite understand. Do you doubt you can discern the one true meaning of what I write? Or Alpheus? Or whomever?
Or is it the topic or the span of years in between that make it impossible to discern?
My next question, then, is what to make of revelation? It's at least as difficult and old as Plato, and there are countless arguments about its meaning. Are we to stop searching for its True meaning and simply go back and look at varying interpretations throughout the centuries because it's interesting?
I'm confused.
“Are we to stop searching for its True meaning and simply go back and look at varying interpretations throughout the centuries because it's interesting?”
By all means continue searching and continue to invite others to search. As long as conclusions are couched in “I think” and “I believe”, as yours are, the worst can be said of anyone is “eccentric” (not nuts BTW). It’s the EUREKA! moment one must guard against.
I certainly think it's possible to discern what Plato meant and I don't insist that I know what Plato meant, since I can't even really read him in his original language and tons of context have probably been lost over time.
My skepticism over your interpretation of Plato is principally because you seem to be cherry picking bits of the text to make your case and ignoring the main thrust of what Plato actually said. Perhaps Plato did intend The Republic to be primarily a metaphor (and that metaphor is unquestionably present in The Republic), but since it makes perfect sense to read it literally, I don't know why we would prefer the metaphorical interpretation only.
I am reminded of a talk I went to as an undergraduate where a leftist professor made the claim that all the "diversity" in The Republic meant that Plato couldn't possibly be serious about his totalitarian message. Nobody in the room bought it. It's hard for admirers of Plato (and I am, occasionally, one myself) to realize that he was a totalitarian, but that's where the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence lies.
My short answer is: yes, skeptical (for reasons Andrew has given) but think it's an interesting idea that might produce other interesting ideas. I think in the end you might be better off aiming at a philosophical deconstruction of Plato than at a new conception (basically historical) of his intentions in writing the Republic.
However, it cannot be stressed enough that the metaphor FLG sees in The Republic is unquestionably there. It was definitely also about how to order one's soul as well as one's society. I don't doubt that.
FLG:
1) Yes.
2) Doubly so because it was in another country, and besides the Greek is dead.
3) I'm also more interested in the history of Biblical interpretation than in asserting what the Bible Really Means. Which, incidentally, is another way of saying I'm not a Believer. And why should I be a Believer in Plato? Your Plato, Kant's Plato, anybody's Plato?
As Leo Strauss notes, being a historian and having a direct intellectual engagement with a thinker can be mutually exclusive.
the Greek is dead.
Withy, you break my heart and stomp on the fragments.
Post a Comment