exactly what do you mean @gigantomachia? I understand Plato's context. Which is why, at the onset, I indicate that the Republic is a critique of Greek Democracy. I understand too that his Critique of art is a critique of the excesses of Greek art. But that is not the thesis and focus of this write-up. What i intend to do is to exploit a possible convergence between Plato's prescription on art and the essence of abstract art, which I think is quite striking. Had my focus been Plato's political philosophy, I would have touched on in detail about his critique of greek worldview and practice of his time. thanks for dropping by. Appreciate the input, Seriously.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
The point is that you appear to simply assume the traditional account of Plato, regardless of how you use said account. My point was that if you rethought your thesis in light of the possibility that the traditional view was perhaps mistaken, it might push your account of art as well. It has nothing to do with politics per se, it is about to what extent what Plato makes Socrates say can be attributed to what Plato actually believed. I get this requires pushing what it easily read in most history of Philosophy texts, but again, there is a strong and solid argument against that traditional reading. Are you aware of this challenge to the traditional reading of Plato? If not, I believe it would behoove you to check it out.
@gigantomachia, Can you please elucidate exactly how a traditional reading of Plato is "mistaken"? To judge that it is mistaken is a serious evaluation. Worse, you did not provide qualification. Are you pointing out a hermeneutic problem in approaching the text, which is resolvable only by philologists? But I am supposing here (since you did not qualify your objections) that the "challenge to the traditional reading" that you are referring to considers a split between Socrates and Plato, whether what Socrates says in the Republic are authentic expressions of what Plato believes. I am aware that there's still a long-standing study whether Socrates was sheer mouthpiece to Plato in the Dialogues. BUT, I DO NOT think that such an inconsequential and trivial historical distinction would readily render the traditional reading as ultimately mistaken. Personally, I don't make distinctions even between Socrates and Plato. To me, Platonic Philosophy is embodied in the figure of Socrates in the Dialogues of Plato. Yet, that does not stop me from appreciating the value of the traditional reading (which you have yet to define btw). Also, I don't see it as a genuine philosophical undertaking to split hairs and to judge that a particular and long-standing reading of a philosophical text is just, without qualification, mistaken. It think it would behoove us both if you will qualify your objections, define your terms, and explain them clearly.
Are you not aware of Plato's Seventh Letter? There Plato is pretty darn clear, "No where is my philosophy written".
As to qualifying, I did actually by citing Heidegger and Gadamer, who give a DETAILED account of how the tradition took way too many liberties in assuming exactly what you assume. If you have not read them, then I am not sure you are in a position to challenge the claim. I did my Masters Thesis on Heidegger and my Dissertation discusses how William James embodies similar tendencies as we see in rereading Plato through the lenses of the anti-traditional view. I can give you links to them if you want to read them.
ETA: and I find it somewhat ironic that you have a quote from Nietzsche in your profile, since he and Jacob Burckhardt really started the movement to reread Plato in light of the possibility that Plato was NOT writing down HIS philosophy per se. In fact, as Plato argued, philosophy is not something that can be captured by writing in the first place. Paging Phaedrus . . .