What do we think we’re doing?

Constance Meinwald

doi:10.14195/2183-4105_16_2

Abstract

I suggest that there are no universally applicable principles (in the strong sense) for the study of Plato’s philosophy. Different students of Plato have different objects of interest (e.g. what the individual Plato ultimately thought vs what emerges from thinking about his texts) that can make different ways of proceeding appropriate. For me the dialogues are the main object of study; I think they are best approached by interpreting literary elements and obviously philosophical content as working together. The paper includes illustrations of how parts of my picture of the developing theory of forms emerge from this type of engagement.

Highlights

My title question brings out two points that are key for my observations
Gerson for our workshop was: ‘What in your opinion are the appropriate or correct principles for the study of Plato’s philosophy?’ One reading of ‘principles’ yields a very strong sense, in which we come by principles in some special way, the principles are inviolate, and everything else must proceed from them
The final element in our umbrella theme question seems to me to be open to different readings in a way that corresponds to variation in our goals and so turns out to be closely connected with why I don’t think there are principles in the strong sense that apply to everyone

Summary

Introduction

My title question brings out two points that are key for my observations. One is that how we proceed in our interpretative activity depends largely on what we take the purpose of that activity to be. (I do believe, Proclus-like, that Plato often uses what I call ‘literary elements’ to make such references, and I’ll give some examples later.) And once one has read a lot of different works, it will be natural for some picture of how they relate to each other to emerge.

Results

Conclusion