The Other Plato: The Tübingen Interpretation of Plato's Inner-Academic Teachings (SUNY series in Ancient Greek Philosophy)
Language: English
Pages: 232
ISBN: 1438444109
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
Collected writings on Plato’s unwritten teachings.
Offering a provocative alternative to the dominant approaches of Plato scholarship, the Tübingen School suggests that the dialogues do not tell the full story of Plato’s philosophical teachings. Texts and fragments by his students and their followers—most famously Aristotle’s Physics—point to an “unwritten doctrine” articulated by Plato at the Academy. These unwritten teachings had a more systematic character than those presented in the dialogues, which according to this interpretation were meant to be introductory. The Tübingen School reconstructs a historical, critical, and systematic account of Plato that takes into account testimony about these teachings as well as the dialogues themselves. The Other Plato collects seminal and more recent essays by leading proponents of this approach, providing a comprehensive overview of the Tübingen School for English readers.
constitute all the even and odd numbers within the decad (cf. Aristotle, Met. Μ.8, 1084a33–34). Thus, 3 x 2 = 6, 4 x 2 = 8, and 4 + 1 = 5, 6 + 1 = 7, 8 + 1 = 9, and 5 x 2 = 10. In this way, all the numbers within the decad are derived. As has been mentioned, Alexander does not make an explicit distinction between ideal and mathematical numbers. However, the very way his deduction goes suggests that he is speaking about the derivation of ideal numbers as incommensurable wholes, which are paradigms
πολλά ἕν ————— ————— ὄν οὐκ ὄντα πολλά ὄντα Zeno Plato However, for Plato the opposition between the ἕν and πολλά remains. But since the πολλά have now become ὄντα, the ἕν therefore necessarily appears in opposition to the ὄντα. The ἕν is thus no longer an ὄν, but rather a nonbeing. But because the πολλά = ὄντα partake in the ἕν and can only exist because of that participation, the ἕν therefore appears not only as non-being, but also as beyond being. By ontologically raising the value
thesis, however, will prefer the “monistic” theory of “Socrates,” insofar as an “authentic” text of Plato is opposed to an (allegedly) distorted secondary report. We do not need to choose between these three possibilities (i.e., Plato’s development [1.a], the greater authenticity of the ἄγραφα [1.b.1], or the greater authenticity of the Republic [1.b.2])—all three of which have their difficulties—provided the following possibility be true: (2) Considering the intention of the textual
[question]” [64b28]). One example of a circular argument presented in the passage reads (65a4f.): ὅπερ ποιοῦσιν οἱ τὰς παραλλήλους οἰόμενοι γράφειν: λανθάνουσι γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἑαυτοὺς τοιαῦτα λαμβάνοντες ἃ οὐχ οἷόν τε ἀποδεῖξαι μὴ οὐσῶν τῶν παραλλήλων (“This is what those persons do who suppose that they are constructing parallel lines; for they fail to see that they are assuming facts which it is impossible to demonstrate unless the parallels exist” [trans. Jenkinson]). As Tóth has shown,10 the
to an achievement of his doctrine of principles within the context of a largescale crisis in the foundation of mathematics. We can assume that, following the despair that resulted from grasping the unprovability, i.e., the hypothetical character, of the fifth αἴτημα and the angle sum theorem (which, given the passages from Aristotle, must have occurred at that time), there was probably an attempt to refer to intuition. Plato’s achievement most likely consisted in dismissing this attempt as