Abstract
Plato is accused by some of being a totalitarian, “top-down” thinker, a claim that is linked not just to his politics but to his philosophical proclivities more generally. This essay will argue that Plato’s method and metaphysics collectively provide a few avenues for questioning this outcome. I think Plato’s Socratic-style provides resistance to a hegemonic and carapaced metaphysics, and moreover I would argue that there is a greater coherence between Plato’s method and his positive teaching than is allowed for by some. Through an engagement with central Platonic doctrines, namely his account of philosophical dialogue, the transcendental Good, as well as participation, and recollection, it is argued that Plato’s relational metaphysics does not fit seamlessly into an “ideological” or “naïve” rendering of intellectual intuition, an exclusionary dualism of material and spiritual substance, or an uncritical evocation of “innate ideas,” and, moreover, that it allows for a greater plurality of perspectives, all ordered towards a deeper realism and unity within the Good Beyond Being.
Highlights
On the one side, Plato gestures towards the heavens, furnishing a translation of the Timaeus, which describes the creation of the universe, the providence of the craftsman, and its gradual development in accordance with mathematical principles
Through an engagement with central Platonic doctrines, namely his account of philosophical dialogue, the transcendental Good, as well as participation, and recollection, it is argued that Plato’s relational metaphysics does not fit seamlessly into an “ideological” or “naïve” rendering of intellectual intuition, an exclusionary dualism of material and spiritual substance, or an uncritical evocation of “innate ideas,” and, that it allows for a greater plurality of perspectives, all ordered towards a deeper realism and unity within the Good Beyond Being
A material world? Are we not alienated from our physical senses in our contemplation of the transcendent Forms that remain independent and separate from visible reality? And does this not legitimate a dubious mode of politics that sanctions “top-down” totalitarian visions that exclude real difference? One might argue that this primacy of ideation over-against materiality ushers in a violent confrontation, at the expense of the latter.[4]
Summary
The School of Athens and Its Pre-Text.” Critical Inquiry 23 (Autumn 1996): 145–182. if this was merely a methodological choice, one might suggest that this is just a question of complementarity. To adapt Althusser’s language, on this reading Plato’s metaphysics would be one more ideological gambit devoid of a reflective historicity.[10] As such, it would be a discourse that failed to disclose its material site of production, and its claims for an absolute discernment of truth would be a reified deception, a power-play disguised as a “totalizing” perspective.[11] In Marxist terms, it would be an intellectual superstructure that mystified its material base.[12] And so it would not be about rationality as such – which needs to display its workings and be open to amendments – but would rather be implicated in a regime of violence, rhetorical or otherwise It would be doing something different from what it says it is doing.[13]. We will begin with the question of dialogical method before moving onto Plato’s more substantive metaphysics, while hinting at their entanglements along the way
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
