/lit/ - Literature

Alongside

>>19166374
>Lloyd Gerson

>>18453308
>Lloyd Gerson

Have you said your daily prayers to the reborn Plotinus?

>>15785041
for proof about the companion to plotinus, he's releasing a new one.
(Gerson)
>The New Cambridge Companion to Plotinus, with James Wilberding, forthcoming (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021).

>>15778062
>by the gods, Socrates, you are right!
>Apology
>Meno
>Protagoras (ends with socrates and the other guy each changing their opinion to what the other held at the beginning)
>Gorgias
>Republic
>CLITOPHON (guy shit talks socrates for 5 pages)

>I respectfully decline to take the predictable approach to the topic of this book as it pertains to my subject, Plato. That approach would begin with a citation of Whitehead’s endlessly quoted remark in Process and Reality that the history of European philosophy is nothing but a series of footnotes to Plato. QED, as it were. I am also going to eschew the patronizing acknowledgment of Plato as a most ‘edifying’ philosopher, great to the extent that the positive content of his philosophy is ignored and his high-minded intellectualism is embraced.1 My alternative approach is actually somewhat more ambitious. I aim to show that the history of philosophy contains four streams: (a) Platonism, (b), anti-Platonism (which I will call ‘Naturalism’), (c) various concessions made by Platonists to anti-Platonists, and (d) various concessions made by anti-Platonists to Platonists. If this is true, or even close to being true, then Plato’s greatness is of an order of magnitude somewhat beyond that of anyone else treated in this book. In the first part of this chapter, I shall try to say what I think (a) and (b) are. In the second part of the chapter, I shall try to illustrate (c) and (d). My conclusion will mirror the position of the late Richard Rorty to the effect that Platonism is, in fact, identical with systematic (as opposed to edifying) philosophy and that, accordingly, to reject the one is necessarily to reject the other.2 The history of philosophy is not, like the bad tragedies that Aristotle disdained, a series of disconnected intellectual ‘episodes’. It is, rather, the history of the arguments of those who do, and those who do not, regard philosophy as a source of knowledge independent of the natural sciences. The ‘concessions’ that I mentioned are, for the most part, strategic attempts to ‘have one’s cake and eat it, too.’ As richly confirmed by the history of philosophy itself, the latent inconsistencies contained in any attempt to be a Platonist and a little bit of an anti-Platonist, or an anti-Platonist and a little bit of a Platonist, do not remain latent for long.

>>15140374
>early dialogues
I'm sure you mean: introductory dialogues before the advanced dialogues

>>14940546
proof of immaterialism?

>>14915345
>That's Plato not Socrates.