| COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES |
 |
PHILOSOPHY HOME PAGE |
|
CHAIR'S STATEMENT |
|
COLLOQUIA & CONFERENCES
John Dillon Trinity College, Dublin March 20, 2008 Thursday, 4:00pm-5:00pm Clarion Hotel The philosopher Plato, as all his friends would agree, was a man of strong views on most subjects, but it is a notable fact that, in his published works, he chooses to present these views in a distinctly devious way. The Platonic dialogue, after all, is a literary form designed to advance philosophical positions aporetically and dialectically, not dogmatically. If we derive doctrines from them, it is, so to speak, at our own risk. Nonetheless there is indubitably a body of doctrine associated with the Platonic School. Even within Plato's own lifetime, we have the (admittedly tendentious) testimony of Aristotle as to the existence of certain philosophical principles of Plato which he on occasion1 terms agrapha dogmata, and which have come to be known as the "unwritten doctrines." I have taken up a certain position on these myself,2 seeking to strike a judicious balance between what I would regard as the extreme views of Harold Cherniss and his followers, such as Leonardo Tarán, on the one hand, and the "Tübingen School" of Konrad Gaiser, Hans-Joachim Krämer, and their followers (such as Giovanni Reale), on the other. To summarize my position here, I see no problem about there being a body of doctrines, or at least working hypotheses, which do not find their way into the dialogues, except in devious and allusive forms, and that these doctrines, such as that of the derivation of all things from a pair of first principles, a One and an Indefinite Dyad, should be of basic importance to Plato's system; but I see no need, on the other hand, to hypothesise a full body of secret lore, present in the Academy from its inception, which is preserved as a sort of "mystery" for the initiated. Short of this, however, it seems to me entirely probable that a great deal of philosophical speculation went on in the Academy which does not find its way into a dialogue. After all, Plato never promises to reveal his whole mind in writing — very much the opposite, indeed, if one bears in mind such a text as Phaedrus 275DE, or in a notable passage of the Seventh Letter (341C-E).3 Plato, I should say, never really gave up on the Socratic idea that philosophy must always be a primarily oral activity, and also an open-ended process. So talk and argumentation prevailed in the groves of the Academy. And the members of the Academy of whom we have any knowledge — figures such as Speusippus, Xenocrates, Aristotle, Eudoxus of Cnidus, or Heraclides of Pontus — were a pretty talkative and argumentative bunch; not the sort of people to sit around as mute as cigar-store Indians until Plato had completed another dialogue! At any rate, whatever the status of these "unwritten doctrines," we are, it seems to me, left with the interesting problem that, from the perspective of the later Platonist tradition, beginning with Antiochus of Ascalon in the first century B.C.E., a firm conviction arose that Plato and the Old Academy had put forth a consistent and comprehensive body of doctrine on all aspects of philosophy, and this belief continued throughout later antiquity. Not that Platonism was ever seen to be a monolithic structure; there was room for a fairly wide spectrum of positions on most ethical and physical questions. But there was a solid consensus that Plato did dogmatize, and did not, as the New Academicians, from Arcesilaus to Carneades, maintained, simply raise problems and suspend judgement. What I would like to enquire into on this occasion is (a) whether there might be any justification for this belief, and (b), if there is, at what stage might this dogmatism have arisen. 1 E.g., Met, A 6, 987b29ff. A useful collection both of Aristotelian passages and of Neoplatonic commentaries on them is to be found in H.-J. Krämer, Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik, Amsterdam, 1964. 2 The Heirs of Plato (Oxford, 2003), Ch. 1: "The Riddle of the Academy." 3 Which I would certainly regard as authoritative (that is to say, emanating from sources in the Old Academy who knew what they were talking about), even if its provenance from the hand of Plato himself is disputed.  |
|
Last updated 4/8/08 10:33 PM
•
burke@sc.edu
|
© 2006 University of South Carolina Board of Trustees |