Alan Wood
wrote in his Bertrand Russell: ‘One
point is worth mentioning: the kind of life led by Russell obviously depended
on a small but sufficient independent income. In fact almost all the great
philosophical advances of this epoch came from men who did not have to work for
a living: this applied to Moore and Wittgenstein as well. How philosophical
advances are to continue in Britain, under changed economic circumstances, is a
question which nobody can answer. It is certainly no answer to point to
scholarships and research grants from wealthy foundations: for it is often the
mark of new work in philosophy, and much creative work in science, that
established orthodoxy regards it at first as rather foolish. It is hard, for
example, to imagine Russell going to a local education authority, explaining
that “I feel uneasy about the foundation of mathematics”, and getting enough
money to live on for fifteen years while he investigated them’. (Simon and
Schuster, New York, 1958, p. 44).
***
At Oxford,
in the autumn of 1981 I asked Justin Gosling for a permission to present
Plato’s Phaedrus at the Sub-faculty
of Philosophy. I remember telling him: ‘I do not maintain that the Phaedrus was Plato’s first dialogue, but
according to an ancient tradition it was the first dialogue, and I think it is
the duty of philosophers to ask what would Plato’s dialogues look like if they
were read on the basis of that ancient tradition.’ Justin Gosling replied: ‘But
Julius, nobody has time for such an undertaking.’
***
On the 2nd
of December 2015 I wrote to Nicholas Deneyer:
“Seven years
ago I put on my website The Lost Plato.
On that occasion I wrote to you and to other classicists and classical
philosophers: ‘The Lost Plato focuses
on the Phaedo plus the nine dialogues
that I view as written before Socrates died. What remains to be done from the
perspective opened by The Lost Plato
is a systematic study of the dialogues written after the death of Socrates. In
your view, should this work be undertaken? If so, what can be done that it is
undertaken in conditions worthy of the work it requires? If you think that such
work should not be undertaken, could you tell me why?’
To the
question ‘In your view, should this work be undertaken?’ you replied ‘No’; to
the question ‘If you think that such work should not be undertaken, could you
tell me why?’ you replied ‘You do not name the nine dialogues you view as
written before Socrates’ death. But whichever nine dialogues you were to name,
there is no reason to suppose that your view about their dating is correct.
Amplifying a view which there is no reason to suppose correct is not a good use
of your time and talents.’
I commented
on your replies in my next letter to classicists and classical philosophers (it
figures in the ‘Preface to The Lost Plato’
on my website as No. III): ‘Denyer “knows” that there is no reason to suppose
that my view about the dating of the nine dialogues in question is correct
without taking the pains of at least opening the short “Introduction” to The Lost Plato to find out of which nine
dialogues I speak. And yet, Denyer is very well aware that our putative dating
of the dialogues of Plato may profoundly influence our view of them. In the
“Introduction” to his Cambridge edition of Plato’s Alcibiades he says that we do not know when the dialogue was
written, but that there are reasons to believe that it was written in the early
350s (p. 11). This allows him to view the dialogue on two levels: In connection
with the charge against Socrates that he “corrupts young men” and in connection
with Plato’s unsuccessful attempt to turn to philosophy the Syracusan tyrant
Dionysius.’
I have
devoted the last year to Plato’s Parmenides,
which I view, as you view his Alcibiades,
in connection with Plato’s unsuccessful attempt to turn to philosophy the
Syracusan tyrant Dionysius. I date the dialogue between Plato’s second and the
third journey to Sicily. May I tempt you to read four items on my blog: ‘Plato’s staging of the greatest difficulty
concerning the Forms in the Parmenides’
(Nov. 7), ‘Allen’s
misrepresentation of Plato’s Parmenides’
(Nov. 12), ‘1 A year on my blog with Plato’s Parmenides’ (Nov. 24), and ‘2 A year on my blog with Plato’s Parmenides’ (Nov. 28).
As you will
see, my dating of Plato’s Parmenides
is linked to my dating of Aristotle’s 1st and 3rd book of
Metaphysics. I date Met. A as written during Plato’s third
journey to Sicily (Plato went to Sicily to stay there); Met. B as written after Plato’s return from Sicily.
This dating
of these three works makes it imperative – for me, at any rate – to read
Plato’s post-Parmenides works (Timaeus, Sophist, Politicus, Philebus, Laws)
hand in hand with Aristotle’s 4th – 12th book of Metaphysics. For I am tempted to view
these 8 books as written during the remaining twelve years of Plato’s life,
viewing Plato’s Forms, in so far as he reflects on them, in the light of the 3rd
book, as a problem deserving serious consideration, as an aporia that deserves to be thought through. In the 13th
book, written after the death of Plato, he demolishes the Forms as he did in
the 1st book, in identical terms, with one important difference. In the
1st book he speaks of himself as one of the Platonists, in the 13th
book he distances himself from them. (A 990b2-991b9 is almost identical with M
1078b34-1079b3, 1079b12-1080a8; deiknumen,
oiometha, phamen, boulometha in Met.
A is replaced by deiknutai, oiontai, phasin,
boulontai in Met. M).
My immediate
task is to accomplish the review of ‘A year on my blog with Plato’s Parmenides’, and to write a paper on
‘Plato’s defence of the Forms in the Parmenides
in the light of Aristotle’s criticism of the Forms’. When I finish it, then I
will devote myself to the task I have specified as imperative: to read Plato’s
post-Parmenides works hand in hand
with Aristotle’s 4th – 12th book of Metaphysics.
In your
view, should this work be undertaken? If so, what can be done that it is
undertaken in conditions worthy of the work it requires? If you think that such
work should not be undertaken, could you tell me why?
What
conditions I consider as worthy of the work this task requires? To have a
regular contact with students and academics involved in classics and classical
philosophy (a two hours slot a week, allowing for a talk, paper, or lecture and
discussion in one of the leading universities, Cambridge or Oxford would be
great), a decent accommodation, and a salary worthy of that work.”
***
Concerning
my proposal ‘to read Plato’s post-Parmenides
works (Timaeus, Sophist, Politicus,
Philebus, Laws) hand in hand with Aristotle’s 4th – 12th
book of Metaphysics’ Denyer replied:
“I am sure there will be interesting comparisons and
contrasts to be made.”
Concerning
my specifications of the conditions which I would ‘consider as worthy of the work this task requires’ he
replied:
“It sounds as if the conditions that you consider as
worthy would be provided by a research grant or a research fellowship or
something of the sort. To get such things you would need to apply for them in
the same way as anyone else.”
***
Did ‘anyone
else’ spend almost fifty years studying Plato, I wondered. But I made a try so
far as the Philosophy Faculty at Charles’ University and the Institute of
Philosophy in Prague were concerned; concerning the results see ‘1-3 My recent
Prague venture’ on my blog.
In the
mean-time I wrote and put on my website ‘Plato’s defence of the Forms in the Parmenides’. I hoped someone would invite
me to present it at their University. No invitation has come so far, and so
again, with a heavy heart, I shall have to offer the paper to the Master of
Balliol. What reply can I hope for?
No comments:
Post a Comment