Mayweek 2009: The Politicus

The last week of May is famous as Mayweek: A workshop interprets an ancient philosophical text through close and intensive reading. This Mayweek was organized by Malcolm Schofield and was devoted to the Platonic Politicus. The speakers who presented the entire dialogue were: Dimitri El Murr, Sylvain Delcomminette, Christopher Rowe, David Sedley, Sarah Broadie, Nicholas Denyer, Melissa Lane, Robert Wardy, Malcolm Schofield.

The following are some of the issues that were broached and some of the questions that were raised:
-What are we looking for when looking for "Plato"?
-Broader framework of hermeneutics: a. General: Should we pursue an inner-dialogue or inter-dialogue hermeneutics? b. On the basis of the concrete object of inquiry: Should we regard the Politicus as a transition from the Republic to the Laws (developmentalistic reading)?
-Form of the dialogue (dialectics as dialogue) and various literary aspects. Among other themes: a. The disposition of the dialogue partner joung Socrates. b. The Visitor as Platonic dramatis persona The (in)famous Straussian hostility between the Eleatic Visitor and Socrates was not represented. c. Why didn't Plato write down a dialogue on the nature of the philosopher? That Plato deliberately refrained from composing such a dialogue becomes clear in 257b8. Whenever the leading interlocutor postpones the discussion of a subject with the aid of εἰς αὖθις, he never fulfils our expectation.
-As far as methodos is concerned, we may ask: Can we unify the diversity of methods applied in the Politicus? Should "διαλεκτικώτερον περὶ πάντα" (285d) refer exclusively to the method of division?
-Differences between Platonic division and Aristotelian approach
-Should the Myth be divided into two or three phases? What is the background against which a threefold division is proposed? Does the myth entail good paradigms? Is the myth a good paradigm after all?
- Does Plato become a precursor of the Aristotelian concept γνωριμώτερον ἡμῖν when the Eleatic Visitor demonstrates the role of παραδείγματα?
-The digression on the two kinds of measurement: What should we start with αὐτὸ τἀκριβές (284d1f.)?
-Method and Object: Do dialectics and the inquiry into statesmanship come into conflict? Sayre, who stresses methodology and dialectics, and Skemp, who points out the inquiry on the statesman, represent two possible extremes. Can/Should the methodos abstract from its pertinent object? Does it become formal? So as to reformulate our question with the help of two modern cases: Should we take the Hegelian or the New-Kantian approach on methodos?
- How does the weaving art creep in when we define the statesmanship (305e3f.)? Is this legitimate?
- Mimesis in the discussion about the different constitutions and problems related to these obscure passages.
-The discussion boiled down to the appropriate question: Which dialogue is διαλεκτικώτερος: the Sophist or the Politicus? After such an enriching week, the Politicus was rehabilitated as it deserves. The above question remains open because we then have to ask with which measure we are going to compare the two dialogues so as to make our judgement concerning dialectics. They offer to some extent similar but also different aspects of Platonic dialectics. How longer would each of these two dialogues be, had (the) Plato(nic Guest) wanted to talk more on the issues that he deliberately and explicitly left aside? How longer would the Politicus be, had the Eleatic Guest been willing to say more on the ἀπόδειξις αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀκριβοῦς? How longer would the Sophist become, if Plato had chosen more than five greatest kinds? And what about the discussion on Non-Being as contrary to Being? With how many scenarios can we come up? In the worst case, would the Sophist grow into something like the second part of the Parmenides? I speak of likeness because it would make quite a difference that the interlocutor is Theaetetus and not Aristoteles. Second scenario: would we encounter the second chapter of the fourth book of Aristotelian metaphysics as a dialogue? Third, but not last possible, scenario: A talk on the Philosophos? There is a second crucial question that suggests itself after the one we ask about the appropriate measurement of the dialogues' (possible) lengths: Which is the whole against the background of which we are going to compare the different parts and aspects, the bits and pieces of dialectics that the Platonic dialecticians perform in each dialogue? How are we going to judge which dialogue is διαλεκτικώτερος?

Such a successful meeting is going to provoke various (after)thoughts and the discussions on Plato are to be continued.
I found it particularly interesting to experience how an idealistic approach (or rather tendency in the case of a given paper) was welcome and cross-examined in Cambridge. Needless to say, we ought to do so with arguments of any origin and irrespective of their origin but, in this case, I was happy to experience a genuine dialogue and a remarkable openness in the Anglo-Saxon context that in general remains sceptical to idealistic readings of Plato. I may take an opportunity to recall the following: a. Myles Burnyeat's seminal lecture "Idealism and Greek Philosophy: What Descartes Saw and Berkeley Missed" (Philosophical Review 91, 1982) and b. Paul Natorp's "Platons Ideenlehre" (1903, 1921 with a very important epilogue) was translated into English only some time ago (2004, International Plato Studies 18, edited, translated and introduced by Vassilis Politis).
-

Tracing Hitchcock: Rebecca. A Thrilling Fairy Tale

There are very few directors who know how to film children: Truffaut's 400 Blows happens to manifest this virtue (cf. Tarkovsky and Angelopoulos as counter-examples of rather depicting symbols of childhood: a different approach). After having this nouvelle vague intermezzo, the Cambridge Cine-Gang decided to delve into Hitchcock's art and devote a retrospective to his masterpieces: This time we watched Rebecca (1940), which belongs - as well as Notorious - to the period in which he collaborated with the producer David Selznick. This is his first Hollywood film but apart from the American Studio everything else was British: both the mystery novel written by Daphne du Maurier (1938) and the cast. Joan Fontaine plays the young woman without name, who literally takes Rebecca's place after falling in love with Maxim de Winter. Sir Laurence Olivier is Maxim de Winter, who "saves" the young lady from the hands of her intolerable female boss in Monte Carlo only to locate her under Mrs. Danvers' reign, who is the housekeeper in Manderley. It is eight years before Olivier's Hamlet: He is already a delight to watch, directed by another film genius.
During half of the screening I kept whispering: Both are not real persons! They are so pure. They are unreal. How is it possible to bring them into dialogue? In the second half, I was praising Hitchcock to the skies, as we all did: He is splendid! He is brilliant! We get to know Maxim's background story while we begin to encounter the anonymous lady: She initiates her story and we witness this beginning. At the end we are startled when trying to recall her name to no avail. She has no name. The house is the third person, as Hitchcock himself revealed to Truffaut. There is no suggestive threefold division of the house like in the following Notorious (wine-cellar, ground floor and first floor) but the psychoanalytical elements are present nonetheless.
As Hitchcock was engaged further on in Daphne du Maurier (Jamaica Inn and The Birds), he prompts us to read her novels and stories, even if afterwards.
A special offer in Amazon for the ones interested:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitchcock-14-Disc-Box-Set/dp/B000BND224/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1242235897&sr=8-1

Back to Business: The Phaedrus in Cambridge

Against the background of catchy sounds and rhythms, it is time to return to the business (so ἐπιτήδευμα) of philosophy. As I promised, here is a picture I can draw of the past Colloquium on the Phaedrus:
Plato has taught us to philosophize on types and thoughts rather than on persons. I will thus allow myself to avoid any references to living scholars. We should express though our special thanks to Jenny Bryan and Helen van Noorden for organizing this meeting.

So as to sum up the moral of the conference in my own words and according to my understanding: There are no absolute boundaries between the hermeneutics on the different sides of the Channel, although there are still proponents of two-world theories or rather prejudices. As I happen to be neither harmonist nor harmonizer, I do not want to level any differences. I am just asserting that this conference may have been held in Germany as well. The reading sessions were, as expected, very fruitful, on some occassions even stronger than given papers.
Schleiermacher was present, as always in current Anglo-Saxon context. Once more it proved to be problematic and intriguing to integrate the relation of philia and eros as well as mania into their cultural environment and to fathom the relation between rhetoric and dialectics.
Surprisingly for me, even one kind of Derrida's reading was represented. I remind that a number of academics from Cambridge University tried to stop the granting of his Cambridge doctoral degree (1992). They were out-numbered when it was put to a vote, which happens very rarely indeed in such a procedure. As far as interesting political gestures concern, it seems to me that the following question suggests itself: Are we able to, and, if we are, should we put Dadaism into a museum? The answer I am inclined to give is a negative one I am afraid.

The weather is all Greek to me for the time being and the Sun-days spent in the famous orchard in Grantchester are recreative...

Alkinoos Ioannidis: Rainfall

Another gem of a different genre in modern Greek music.

Αλκίνοος Ιωαννίδης released his new album (Νεροποντή), which we patiently awaited the last five years. His lyrics are more songs than poems this time (in comparison to his last works "Ανεμοδείκτης" and "Οι Περιπέτειες ενός Προσκυνητή"), his orchestration even more mature and richer in various elements. His voice can, as always, follow all rhythms, may they be rock, jazz or traditional appropriated in a deeply personal manner.
Dearest greetings to the friends in Athens who enjoyed his concert.
One piece extracted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5EE4UuUjY4&feature=related

For the instrumentally fuller version of the same song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8s4hcRE8Ow&feature=related

Eleni Karaindrou. Dust of Time.

As we are in the field of music, let me introduce a small piece of Eleni Karaindrou's new release, which I highly recommend. The more "Greece's tenth muse" composes, the more she confirms this characterisation that Time International assigned to her. Above all, she is extremely capable of turning into music all colours and shades of nostalgia. Her collaboration with the film director Theodoros Angelopoulos has been proved very fruitful: two reasons for my modern Greek pride!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56wm6mNe1WI

Love Minus Zero

...And for a break (after an update of the never out-of-date pieces: thanks Jakub!)...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKoV1yJnqAI

Appeal to whom it may concern

Dear all,

According to my very last posts, I should be postponing my decisions on how to write about vexed issues on Platonic philosophy. But here I come, a couple of hours afterwards, so as to share my question on Plato-exegesis:

You will see that I am coming into the matter at a snail's pace. For now I am beginning with a question on method and hermeneutics rather than on content. The general background against which this question suggests itself or, to be sincere, disturbs my peace in the last days: It is often used as an argument in support of a (Plato-)interpretation that it provides economy of expression or it avoids a more complex story. The concrete context: I am learning a lot right now from Anglo-Saxon literature on the Sophist (John Ackrill, Michael Frede, G.E.L. Owen, Lesley Brown so as to mention only some of the most indeed dedicated contributors to the Sophist's minefields).

I am far from seeking an argument against this exegetical principle as I always appreciate interpreters who have a story to tell or, even better, a theory to provide. But still I am underlying the necessity of our continuous reflecting on and challenging our principles, and asking where from we approach Plato’s texts each time.

May we let Ockham rest and ask “Plato”? Even if we are not allowed to repeat Plato's written word and in this way have the illusion we have found Plato, let us ask the question, bearing in mind that he himself prompts us to interpret and (re)construct. Would he plead for more economical solutions and exegeses rather than more complex? The answer I would initially tend to give is a negative one, based upon his digressions accompanied by his reflection on the proper length of argumentation and his distinction between two different kinds of measure (Plt.). Of course, it is not easy to discern how long each argument and explanation should last in each case.
On the other hand, isn't Plato the one who presents his theory of the greatest kinds as the one that should offer an answer not only to the Parmenidean ontology but also the late-learners' riddles and various sophistical paradoxes and triffles? You may say he failed and it is indeed an arduous endeavour to present that he did not. But even if he failed, he attempted to solve all these problems at once with the aid of his peirastike dialektike.
And moreover, isn't he the philosopher who provided a theory of an "Über"-science of dialectics and of two principles which prevail all parts of reality? Aristotle wanted himself to mediate between this too economical theory and Speusippus's proposal, who introduced different principles for each field of reality and thus composed its very bad tragedy (cf. Met.XII)!
Not only Cherniss praised Plato's economical theory of ideas but the Tübingen School as well. Am I bringing the German School and the Anglo-Saxons closer than I should? I can reassure that provocation was not my intention.

Could you help me overcome this dilemma of mine or enrich its dialectics, and contribute to “my” Plato becoming more argumentative on this issue?
Struggling with the Sophist in my chamber, I desperately needed some gasp for dialogue. Thank you for even listening to my question.

Yours sincerely