Plato und die Dichter. Front Cover. Hans-Georg Gadamer. Vittorio Klostermann verlag, – 36 Bibliographic information. QR code for Plato und die Dichter. Get this from a library! Plato und die dichter,. [Hans-Georg Gadamer]. ON THE PURPORTED PLATONISM OF HEIDEGGER’S RECTORAL ADDRESS Hans-Georg Gadamer, “Plato und die Dichter” (), in Gadamer
|Published (Last):||1 July 2008|
|PDF File Size:||5.22 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.92 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In the dialogue, Socrates discusses with various Athenians and foreigners about the meaning of justice and whether the just man is happier than the unjust man. They also discuss the theory of formsthe immortality of the souland the role of the philosopher and of poetry in society. While visiting the Piraeus with GlauconPolemarchus asks Socrates to join him for a celebration.
Socrates then asks CephalusPolemarchus, and Vadamer their definitions of justice. Cephalus defines justice as giving what is owed. Polemarchus says justice is “the art which gives good to friends and evil to enemies. The first book ends in aporia concerning its essence. Socrates believes he has answered Thrasymachus and is done with the discussion of justice.
Socrates’ young companions, Glaucon and Adeimantuscontinue the argument of Thrasymachus for the sake of furthering the discussion. Glaucon gives a speech in which he argues first that the origin of justice was in social contracts aimed at preventing one from suffering injustice and being unable to take revenge, second that all those who practice justice do so unwillingly and out of fear of punishment, and third that the life of the unjust man is far more blessed than that of the just man.
Glaucon would like Socrates to prove that justice is not only desirable, but that it belongs to the highest class of desirable things: After Glaucon’s speech, Adeimantus adds that, in this thought experiment, the unjust should not fear any sort of divine judgement in the afterlife, since the very poets who wrote about such judgement also wrote that the gods would grant forgiveness to those humans who made ample religious sacrifice.
Adeimantus demonstrates his reason by drawing two detailed portraits, that the unjust man could grow wealthy by injustice, devoting a percentage of this gain to religious sacrifices, thus rendering him innocent in the eyes of the gods.
Socrates suggests that they look for justice in a city rather than in an individual man. After attributing the origin of society to the individual not being self-sufficient and having many needs which he cannot supply himself, they go on to describe the development of the city. Socrates first describes the “healthy state”, but Glaucon asks him to describe “a city of pigs”, as he finds little difference between the two. He then goes on to describe the luxurious city, which he calls “a fevered state”.
This begins a discussion concerning the type of education that ought to be given to these guardians in their early years, including the topic of what kind of stories are appropriate.
They conclude that stories that ascribe evil to the gods are untrue and should not be taught. Socrates and his companions Adeimantus and Glaucon conclude their discussion concerning education.
Socrates breaks the educational system into two. They suggest that guardians should be educated in these four virtues: They also suggest that the second part of the guardians’ education should be in gymnastics. With physical training they will be able to live without needing frequent medical attention: Socrates asserts that both male and female guardians be given the same education, that all wives and children be shared, and that they be prohibited from owning private property. Socrates and his companions conclude their discussion concerning the lifestyle of the guardians, thus concluding their initial assessment of the city as a whole.
gadmer Socrates assumes each person will be happy engaging in the occupation that suits them best. If the city as a whole is happy, then individuals are happy.
In the physical education and diet of the guardians, the emphasis is on moderation, since both poverty and excessive wealth will corrupt them a1. Without controlling their education, the city cannot control the future rulers. Socrates says that gadaemr is pointless to worry over specific laws, like those di to contracts, since proper education ensures lawful behavior, and poor education causes lawlessness ac. Socrates proceeds to search for wisdom, courage, and temperance in the city, on the grounds that justice will be easier to discern in what remains e.
They find wisdom among the guardian rulers, courage among gaadmer guardian warriors or auxiliariestemperance among all classes of the city in agreeing about who dichrer rule and who should be ruled. Finally, Socrates defines justice in the city as the state in which each class performs only its own work, not meddling in the work of the other classes b.
The virtues discovered in the city are then sought in the individual soul. For this purpose, Socrates creates an analogy between the parts of the city and the soul the xichter analogy. He argues that psychological conflict points to a divided soul, since a completely unified soul could not behave in opposite ways towards the dichtr object, at the same time, and in the same respect b.
Having established the dchter soul, Socrates defines the virtues of the individual. Socrates, having to his satisfaction defined the just constitution of both city and psyche, moves to elaborate upon the four unjust constitutions of these. Adeimantus and Polemarchus interrupt, asking Socrates instead first to explain how the sharing of wives and children in the guardian class is to be defined and legislated, a theme first touched on in Book III.
Socrates is overwhelmed at their request, categorizing it as three “waves” of attack against which his reasoning must stand firm. These three waves challenge Socrates’ claims that. Socrates’ argument is that in the ideal city, a true philosopher with understanding of forms will facilitate the harmonious co-operation of all the citizens of the city.
This philosopher-king must be intelligent, reliable, and willing dir lead a simple life. However, these qualities are rarely manifested on their own, and so they must be encouraged through education and the study of The Good.
Just as visible objects must be illuminated in order to be seen, so must also be true of objects of knowledge if light is cast on them. Just as light comes from the Sun, so does truth come from goodness.
Goodness as the source of truth makes it possible for the mind to know, just as light from the Sun makes the eyes able to see. He continues in the rest of this book by further elaborating upon the curriculum which a would-be philosopher-king must study. This is the origin of the quadrivium: Next, they elaborate on the education of the philosopher king. Until age 18, would-be guardians should be engaged in basic intellectual study and physical training, followed by two years of military training.
However, a correction is then introduced where the study of pltao martial arts and warfare – 3 plus 2 years, respectively – are supplanted by philosophy for dichtee years instead. Next, they receive ten years of mathematics until age 30, and then five years of dialectic training.
Guardians then spend the next 15 years as leaders, trying to “lead people from the cave”.
Plato und die Dichter – Hans-Georg Gadamer – Google Books
This refers to “the Allegory of the Cave ” Upon reaching 50, they are fully aware of the form of good, and totally mature and ready to lead. Socrates discusses four unjust constitutions: He argues that a society will decay and pass through each government in succession, eventually becoming a tyranny, the most unjust regime of all. The starting point is an imagined, alternate aristocracy ruled by a philosopher-king ; a just government dominated by the wisdom-loving element.
When its social structure breaks down and enters civil war, it is replaced by timocracy. The timocratic government is dominated by the spirited element, with a ruling class of property-owners consisting of warriors or generals Ancient Sparta is an example.
As the emphasis on honor is compromised by wealth accumulation, it is replaced by oligarchy. The oligarchic government is dominated by the desiring element, in which the rich are the ruling class. The gap between rich and poor widens, culminating in a revolt by the underclass majority, establishing a democracy.
Democracy emphasizes maximum freedom, so power is distributed evenly. It is also dominated by the desiring element, but in an undisciplined, unrestrained way. The populism of the democratic government leads to mob rule, fueled by fear of oligarchy, which a clever demagogue can exploit to take power and establish tyranny.
In a tyrannical government, the city is enslaved to the tyrant, who uses his guards to remove the best social elements and individuals from the city to retain power since they pose a threatwhile leaving the worst. He will also provoke warfare to consolidate his position as leader.
Sorry, your browser doesn’t support frames…
In this way, tyranny is the most dicher regime of all. In parallel to this, Socrates considers the individual or soul that corresponds to each of these regimes. He describes how an aristocrat may become weak or detached from political and material affluence, and how his son will respond to this by becoming overly ambitious. The timocrat in turn may be defeated by the courts or vested interests; his son responds by accumulating wealth in order to gain power in society and defend himself against the same predicament, thereby becoming an oligarch.
The oligarch’s son will grow up with wealth without having to practice thrift or gaamer, and will be tempted and overwhelmed by his desires, so di he becomes democratic, valuing freedom above all. Having discussed the tyrannical constitution of a city, Socrates wishes to discuss the tyrannical constitution of a psyche.
This is all intended to answer Thrasymachus’ first argument in Book I, that the life of the unjust man here understood as a true tyrant is more blessed than that of the just man the philosopher-king. First, he describes how a tyrannical man develops from a democratic household. The democratic man is torn between tyrannical passions and oligarchic discipline, and ends up in the middle ground: The tyrant will be tempted in the same way as the democrat, but without an upbringing in discipline or moderation to restrain him.
Therefore, his most base desires and wildest passions overwhelm him, and he becomes driven by lust, using force and fraud to take whatever he wants.
The tyrant is both a slave to his lusts, and a master to whomever he can enslave. Vie of this, tyranny is the regime with the least freedom and happiness, and the tyrant is most unhappy of all, since the regime and soul correspond. His desires are never fulfilled, and he always must live in fear of his victims. Because the tyrant can only think in terms of servant and master, he has no equals whom he can befriend, and with no friends the tyrant is robbed of freedom.
This is the first proof that it is better to be just than unjust. The second proof is derived from the tripartite theory of soul. The wisdom-loving soul is best equipped to judge what is best through reason, and the wise individual judges wisdom to be plzto, then honor, then desire. This is the fichter proportion for the city or soul and stands opposite to tyranny, which is entirely satiated on base desires. The third proof follows from this.
He describes how the soul can be misled into experiencing false pleasure: True plto is had by being fulfilled by things that fit one’s nature. Wisdom is the most fulfilling and is the best guide, so the only way for the three drives of the soul to function properly and experience the truest pleasure is by allowing wisdom to lead.
To conclude the third proof, the wisdom element is best at providing pleasure, while tyranny is worst because it is furthest removed from wisdom. He then dje the example of a chimera to further illustrate justice and the tripartite soul.
The discussion concludes by refuting Thrasymachus’ argument and designating the most blessed life as that of the just man and the most miserable life as that of the unjust man. Concluding a theme brought up most explicitly in the Analogies of the Sun and Divided Line in Book VI, Socrates finally rejects any form of imitative art and concludes that such artists have no place in the just city.
He continues on to argue for the immortality of the psyche and even espouses a theory of reincarnation. He finishes by detailing the rewards of being just, both in this life and the next. Artists create things but they are only different copies of the idea of the original.