Outlines of Plato's Methodology: Application of the Elenchus in the Early Dialogues ; Platono metodologijos metmenys: elenktikos taikymas ankstyvuosiuose dialoguose
Description
VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY LITHUANIAN CULTURE RESEARCH INSTITUTE Tomas Saulius OUTLINES OF PLATO’S METHODOLOGY: APPLICATION OF THE ELENCHUS IN THE EARLY DIALOGUES Summary of Doctoral Dissertation Humanities, philosophy (01 H) Kaunas, 2010 The right of doctoral studies was granted to Vytautas Magnus University jointly with Lithuanian Culture Research Institute on July 15, 2003 by the decision No. 926 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. The Dissertation was prepared at Vytautas Magnus University in 2006-2010. Scientific Supervisor: Doc. dr. MINDAUGAS ROMUALDAS JAPERTAS (Vytautas Magnus University, humanities, philosophy, 01 H) Council of Defense of Doctoral Dissertation: Chairman: Prof. dr. GINTAUTAS MAŽEIKIS (Vytautas Magnus University, humanities, philosophy, 01 H) Members: Prof. habil. dr. ANTANAS ANDRIJAUSKAS (Lithuanian Culture Research Institute, humanities, philosophy, 01 H) Doc. dr. SKIRMANTAS JANKAUSKAS (Vilnius University, humanities, philosophy, 01 H) Prof. dr. DALIUS JONKUS (Vytautas Magnus University, humanities, philosophy, 01 H) Prof. dr. TOMAS SODEIKA (Kaunas University of Technology, humanities, philosophy, 01 H) Opponents: Doc. dr. TATJANA ALEKNIEN Ė (Vilnius Pedagogical University, humanities, philology, 04 H) Prof. dr. RITA ŠERPYTYT Ė (Vilnius University, humanities, philosophy, 01 H) The official defense of the dissertation will be held at 12 a.m.
Sujets
Informations
| Publié par | vytautas_magnus_university |
| Publié le | 01 janvier 2011 |
| Nombre de lectures | 26 |
| Langue | English |
Extrait
VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY LITHUANIAN CULTURE RESEARCH INSTITUTE Tomas SauliusOUTLINES OF PLATOS METHODOLOGY: APPLICATION OF THE ELENCHUS IN THE EARLY DIALOGUESSummary of Doctoral Dissertation Humanities, philosophy (01 H) Kaunas, 2010
The right of doctoral studies was granted to Vytautas Magnus University jointly with Lithuanian Culture Research Institute on July 15, 2003 by the decision No. 926 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. The Dissertation was prepared at Vytautas Magnus University in 2006-2010. Scientific Supervisor: Doc. dr. MINDAUGAS ROMUALDAS JAPERTAS (Vytautas Magnus University, humanities, philosophy, 01 H) Council of Defense of Doctoral Dissertation: Chairman: Prof. dr. GINTAUTAS MAEIKIS (Vytautas Magnus University, humanities, philosophy, 01 H)Members: Prof. habil. dr. ANTANAS ANDRIJAUSKAS (Lithuanian Culture Research Institute, humanities, philosophy, 01 H) Doc. dr. SKIRMANTAS JANKAUSKAS (Vilnius University, humanities, philosophy, 01 H) Prof. dr. DALIUS JONKUS (Vytautas Magnus University, humanities, philosophy, 01 H) Prof. dr. TOMAS SODEIKA (Kaunas University of Technology, humanities, philosophy, 01 H) Opponents: Doc. dr. TATJANA ALEKNIEN (Vilnius Pedagogical University, humanities, philology, 04 H) Prof. dr. RITA ERPYTYT(Vilnius University, humanities, philosophy, 01 H)The official defense of the dissertation will be held at 12 a.m. on January 28, 2011 at Vytautas Magnus University, Faculty of Humanities in Prof. Maria Gimbutass auditorium (room 211). Address: Donelaičio st. 52, Kaunas, Lithuania (LT-44244). Summary of the doctoral dissertation was mailed on December ........, 2010. The dissertation is available at Lithuanian National Martynas Mavydas Library, and also at the Libraries of Vytautas Magnus University and the Lithuanian Culture and Research Institute.
VYTAUTO DIDIOJO UNIVERSITETAS LIETUVOS KULTROS TYRIMINSTITUTAS Tomas SauliusPLATONO METODOLOGIJOS METMENYS: ELENKTIKOS TAIKYMAS ANKSTYVUOSIUOSE DIALOGUOSEDaktaro disertacijos santrauka Humanitariniai mokslai, filosofija (01 H) Kaunas, 2010
Doktorantros ir daktaro laipsni teikimo teis Vytauto Didiojo universitetui suteikta kartu su Lietuvos kultros tyrim institutu2003 m. liepos 15 d. Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybs nutarimu Nr. 926. Disertacija parayta Vytauto Didiojo universitete 20062010 metais. Mokslinis vadovas: Doc. dr. MINDAUGAS ROMUALDAS JAPERTAS (Vytauto Didiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, filosofija, 01 H) Daktaro disertacijos gynimo taryba: Pirmininkas: Prof. dr. GINTAUTAS MAEIKIS (Vytauto Didiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, filosofija, 01 H)Nariai: Prof. habil. dr. ANTANAS ANDRIJAUSKAS (Lietuvos kultros tyrim institutas, humanitariniai mokslai, filosofija, 01 H) Doc. dr. SKIRMANTAS JANKAUSKAS (Vilniaus universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, filosofija, 01 H) Prof. dr. DALIUS JONKUS (Vytauto Didiojo universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, filosofija, 01 H) Prof. dr. TOMAS SODEIKA (Kauno Technologijos universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, filosofija, 01 H) Oponentai: Doc. dr. TATJANA ALEKNIEN Pedagoginis universitetas, humanitariniai (Vilniaus mokslai, filologija, 04 H) Prof. dr. RITA ERPYTYT(Vilniaus universitetas, humanitariniai mokslai, filosofija, 01 H)Disertacija bus ginama vieame gynimo tarybos posdyje, kuris vyks 2011 metsausio 28 dieną, 12 valandą Didiojo universitete, Humanitarini Vytauto moksl fakultete, profesors Marijos Gimbutiens auditorijoje (Nr. 211). Adresas: K. Donelaičio g. 52, Kaunas, LT-44244. Disertacijos santrauka isista 2010 m. gruodio ........ d. Su disertacija galima susipainti Lietuvos nacionalinje Martyno Mavydo bibliotekoje, Vytauto Didiojo universiteto bei Lietuvos kultros tyriminstituto bibliotekose.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE DISSERTATION The Substantiation of the Problem of the Research Plato has become a symbol of the Western philosophy and the Western culture. Nowadays his name primarily associates with the so-called theory of forms and with the certain position in the diachronical dispute over universals. In the history of philosophy this position is labeled as ultra-realism. As we know it from the numerous publications on the topic, Platos ultra-realism is, first of all, an assertion of the independent existence of pure forms and anattribution of the highest epistemic value to them. It is a widely accepted idea that the theory of forms is the core of the whole Platonic corpus (including dialogues of early or Socratic period), and that Plato treats various specific problems (ethical, esthetical, epistemological etc.) only on the basis of the theory of forms. The idea was articulated and endorsed in works of prominent scholars in the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century. Although over the past six decades it was subjected to sharp critique, there are no indications that it will ever be renounced as an inadequate generalization. According to Eduard Zeller, nowhere in Platos dialogues his conceptions are conveyed systematically, nevertheless, the Platonic corpus taken as a whole reveals a gradual development of the system of his philosophy; ZellersOutlines of Greek Philosophytreats it as an evident and uncontestable fact that this development or growth presupposes the theory of forms, and the forms or ideas have a threefold significance - ontological, teleological and logical; as a whole, Platos philosophy is an idealistic system resting on a sharply defined dualism between mind and matter, God and the world, body and soul.1We can put it otherwise: to philosophize in the Platonic manner means averting from the material world (the world of senses) and seeking pure forms, i.e. eternal, nonmaterial essences of all things. In the middle books of theRepublicsuch practice is named dialectics (dialektiktechn). Harold Cherniss, another scholar of high esteem, points to the Platos interest in three different spheres ethics, epistemology and ontology (metaphysics); in the dialogues we can find clear evidences of Platos intense endeavor to find a single 1Zeller, E.Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy, transl. L. R. Palmer, New York: Meridian Books, 1959. P. 144-147.
5
hypothesis which would at once solve the problems of these several spheres and also create a rationally unified cosmos by establishing the connection among the separate phases of experience; of course only the theory of forms can serve Plato as such a highly universal and economical hypothesis.2 cannot imagine Plato tackling any We important philosophical problem and dispensing with such a principle. In other words, Cherniss does not stray too far from the line of the interpretation which runs through Zellers works and thinks of the development of Platonic philosophy only within the framework of the theory of forms. What we have here is a certain assumption or, to be more precise, a preconception which puts heavy constraints on an interpretation: any evident difference between the dialogues of the early period and the dialogues of the middle period appears to be (or must be considered as) nonessential; although early Plato concentrates on ethical issues, the treatment of such issues inevitably presupposes an affirmation of the objective, independent existence of pure forms. What makes us cling to such an unqualified conception? A tendency to read Platonic dialogues through the prism of the ultra-realism does not facilitate the clarification of these extremely sophisticated texts. On the one hand, this tendency can lead us to a hasty conclusion that the early dialogues are only rough sketches of a gifted artist and thinker. These works, of course, does not compare with such masterpieces asPhaedo,RepublicorPhaedrus. The early sketches of Plato are not primitive, they only lack perfection, completion, so to speak, lack tones that make contrast between material, sensible things and pure forms in his mature metaphysics. On the other hand, there is a temptation to set aside the important historical aspects of the Platonic corpus and claim that the dialogues do not show us how Aristocles the Athenian became the Divine Plato, in other words, we should not treat them as the sources of the biographical facts. They rather convey some aspects of the already formed system, and do not reflect the very process of formation. What we observe is not growth of Platonism, but variation of expression. In his fundamental studyPaideia,Werner Jaeger says: Since his very earliest works, starting from different points, all lead with mathematical certainty to the same center, it is evident that a fundamental feature of his thought is this architectonic awareness of the general plan He well 2Cherniss, H. The Philosophical Economy of the Theory of Ideas,American Journal of Philology57, 1936. P. 445-446.
6
knew the end towards which he was moving. When he wrote the first words of his first Socratic dialogue, he knew the whole of which it was to be a part. The entelechy ofThe Republiccan be quite clearly traced in the early dialogues.3 This approach to the Platonic corpus has been given a label of unitarism and is grounded on the hermeneutical assumption of the existence of certain (systematically connected) conceptions which remained unchangeable and fundamental during the years (perhaps more than a half century) of Platos literary activity. In recent scholarship Charles Kahn is a leading proponent of the unitarism. His comprehensive studyPlato and the Soratic Dialogueproposes a proleptic reading of the early or Socratic dialogues; according to Kahn, these dialogues are anticipation, preconception (prolepsisin Greek) of the later works, namelyRepublic; the differences between dialogues do not represent the different stages in Platos own thinking (differences on the conceptual level) what we have here is stylistic transformations, variety of an artistic equipment at Platos disposition.4 Plato chose the inclusive mode of expression to prepare readers to forthcoming exposition of the main metaphysical theory; he had acute sense of the psychological distance that separates his world view from that of his audience.5Naglis Kardelis studyThe Insight of Unity in Platos Philosophyrepresents the unitarian tradition in Lithuania; the author focuses on the objective to find an all-encompassing idea underlyingprima facievery different and diverse Platonic themes and problems as well as the main motive behind Platos way of thinking.6 can We easily predict that the basic idea lies in the sphere of metaphysics. There is an alternative to the unitarian reading of Platonic corpus; in modern scholarship this alternative is often referred to as developmentism and is almost unknown in Lithuania (at least, it is not properly presented in Lithuanian scholarship). There is no sufficient reason (no sufficient textual basis) for assertion that in all Platonic dialogues Greek nounseidos andideahave philosophical meaning of independently existing pure forms ad that in Plato the nounpsychalways means an eternal and 3 Jaeger, W.Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture. Vol. II: In Search of the Divine Centre, transl. G. Highet, New York: Oxford University Press, 1969. P. 96. 4Kahn, C. H.Plato and the Socratic Dialogue: The Philosophical Use of a Literary Form, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. P. 62-63, 329-332, 335-337. 5Ibid. P. 67-68. 6Kardelis, N.Vienovsvalga Platono filosofijoje, Vilnius: Versus aureus, 2007. P. 267.
7
divine substance which is akin to the pure forms and which, on the other hand, is determined to imprisonment in a material world for a shorter or longer period of time. We must pay attention to an important fact that Plato does not present the theory of forms (i.e. a set of certain propositions which are in a way interrelated) untilPhaedo; furthermore, Plato is not interested in the theory of metempsychosis untilMeno. The proponents of the unitarian view insist that absence of these theories in the Socratic dialogues cannot be taken as evidence that Plato has nothing of the kind in his mind at the time of writing these dialogues. Unfortunately we will never know what Plato actually had in mind, so the sound method of interpretation is based on bare facts (textual evidence) not on empathy. The theory of forms is not mere a belief in the existence of the supernatural world; if it is atheory, we are entitled to suppose that it is an outcome of sustained theoretical work (of critical thinking and discussion). In his early dialogues Plato concentrates on ethical issues; he never alludes that recognition of independent existence of pure forms is a necessary condition of philosophical inquiry as such (pace Cherniss); there is no hint that analysis of ethical concepts is the way leading to the realm of being (away from the illusory world of senses). In a word, there is no radical opposition of sensible things and objects of reason. Of course, he insists on the existence of common concepts, but he does not attempt to explain how and where they exist. He does not yet realize the need of such explanation; his theory and practice can yet dispense with it. On the other hand, the early Plato does not preach the merits of philosophy as a way to free immaterial and eternal soul from the prison of material and perishable body. Gregory Vlastos emphasizes these important aspects, proposing a new basis to the interpretation of Platonic corpus. Developmental tradition can be traced back to the nineteenth century (to the works of Karl Friedrich Hermann), but there is no doubt that Vlastos has become spiritus movensThe attempt to reconstruct philosophy of historical this tradition. of Socrates, to crystalize its essential aspects may be treated as the most important contribution of Vlastos. Of course, this is an incredibly difficult task, and until now scholars dispute to what degree it has been completed in Vlastos studies. Even if the results of his work are not quite credible from the historical point of view (as his opponents argue), they have undeniable value from the philosophical point of view; or to put it in other words: even if he did not succeed in conveying the authentic Socratic
8
teaching, nevertheless he quite succeed in uncovering and the elucidating hitherto hidden (or just ignored) side of Platonic philosophy. He gives us an opportunity to discover other Plato who is not already engaged in metaphysics as the first philosophy (using Aristotelian term). The grand methodological hypothesis of Vlastos interpretation is the claim that in any given dialogue Plato puts into the persona of Socrates only what at the time he himself considers true.7First and foremost it means that what Plato believes at the time of writing, for instance,Euthyphrodiffers from the beliefs he held at the time of writingPhaedoor theRepublic. Ideas expressed in Socratic dialogues are antitheses of the thoughts which Plato shares with his auditory in the mature dialogues;8and if this is a case, one is not justified in ascribing these different notions to the same general plan of the author, to the same meta-textual system. According to Vlastos, in the early period of his activity as a writer Plato devotes himself to reflecting Masters main doctrines and the very manner of Socratic thinking and teaching. We consider this claim to be correct and take it as a ground assumption of the dissertation. Vlastos emphasizes Platos concern with the ethical issues and persuasively shows that in the early dialogues these issues are treated alongside with the important aspects of the methodology of philosophical inquiry. Plato tries to elaborate the procedures for an explication of the content of the main ethical categories. He relates the possibility of theoretical ethics with a certain technics of discussion (which is quite often referred to aselenchein, to test or to refute), not with the so-called theory of forms (besides, even the term theory of forms is quite ambiguous, for until now there is no agreement what propositions belong to this theory and how they are interconnected). A statement that there are abstract concepts (such as beauty, goodness, justice etc.) does not necessary lead us to the dispute over universals or ultra-realism. Postulating the existence of justice and other virtues in Soctaric dialogues (e.g.Protagoras, 330c-e) Plato does not engages in metaphysics,9 likewise mathematician does nothing of the
7 Vlastos, G. Elenchus and Mathematics: A Turning-Point in Platos Philosophical Development, American Journal of Philology109, 1988. P. 373. 8 Vlastos, G.Socrates: Ironist and Moral Philosopher, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. P. 81, 91. 9E. g. Dancy, R. M.Platos Introduction of Forms, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. P. 18.
9
kind when he postulates the existence of ideal points, lines or circles. It is true to say that Plato is concerned primarily with logical interrelations of moral concepts, not with their ontological status; he is concerned primarily (not exclusively, of course) with the criteria for verification of the statements which we are tempted to take as self-evident or universally accepted principles, not with provision of such principles (ready-made truths). Plato poses questions which he very often leaves without convincing answers, but it does not mean that he leaves his audience without devices for seeking the answers. He is the first philosopher who decided to familiarize the audience with the process of philosophical inquiry (which he relates with a certain way of life) instead of merely publicizing its final results. He represents philosophy as the practice of great value even if its results appear to be not too impressing. In other words, Plato introduces the ideal ofbios theretikos, and it scarcely can be understood only on the basis of the middle period dialogues (e. g. on the visual metaphorics of theRepublicand Symposium). The Object of the Thesis In the dissertation the scope of investigation is confined to the dialogues preceding (traditionally are considered to be prior to) theRepublic.The group consists of these dialogues:Apology of Socrates,Charmides,Crito,Euthyphro,Hippias Minor,Ion, Laches,Protagoras(the works of the Socratic period), alsoEutydemus,Hippias Major,Lysis,Menexenus, the first book of the Republic(these are the latest among Socratic dialogues), and finallyMeno(a transitional dialogue),Phaedo(which belongs to the middle period) and maybeCratilus(the periodization of this dialogue remains problematic).10 The term Platos methodology refers to the principle assumptions and devices or procedures of the philosophical inquiry. In the dialogues we just mentioned Plato never discusses methodological issues at length, yet these dialogues, according to Vlastos and his followers, has the same logical pattern, the same
10R. Introduction to the Study of Plato, inKraut, The Cambridge Companion to Plato(ed. R. Kraut),Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1992. P. 5-9; Guthrie, W. K. C.A History of Greek Philosophy, Vol. IV: Plato, the Man and His Dialogues: Earlier Period, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. P. 53; Vlastos, G.Socrates, P. 46-47; Kahn, C. H.Plato and the Socratic Dialogue,P. 47-48.
10
strategy of treating ethical issues, and the dissertation focuses exactly on this strategy. The Aim and Tasks of the Thesis The aim of the dissertation is to expose and discuss the main principles of Platos early methodology. In order to achieve this aim six tasks are undertaken: (1) To discuss the main trends of the Platonic studies in the second half of the twentieth century; first of all we focus on these tendencies of interpretation, which were inspired by Vlastos works (i.e. constructivism and non-constructivism); (2) To assess critically the adequacy of the proposed model of Socratic argumentation (which is labeled as standard elenchus) to textual facts; (3) To ascertain how close the manner of debating over ethical issues (the manner common to the early dialogues) is to Greek sophistics; (4) To assess a philosophical significance of the method of hypothesis and its relation to the standard elenchus; (5) To consider the main aspects of the conception ofepistmwhich takes shape in the early dialogues; (6) To consider a significance of mathematics as a paradigm of deductive reasoning to the development of Platos philosophy. The Structure and Contents of the Thesis The dissertation consists of an introduction, three main parts, the conclusions and the list of references.The introductionarticulates and substantiates the main problem, defines the object of the dissertation, its aim and related tasks, discusses structural aspects, references of the thesis. The first part of the dissertation on Socratic conception of concentrates philosophy (which is originally represented in theApology of Socrates). In his defensive-speeches Socrates distances himself from the previous (Ionian) tradition of natural philosophy and makes it clear that precisely ethics is a matter of his concern. There are key notions viz.philosophia,sophia, phronsis,aret,psych which are used by Socrates to reflect and describe his lifetime investigations of a human matters and which, on the other hand, are the important categories of Greek mentality. In the
11
© 2010-2024 YouScribe