My computer does not allow me to send this mail to dr Jirsa

 

“Vážený pane Jirso,

děkuji Vám za dopis ze dne 2.6. Píšete:

Vážený pane Tomine,

děkuji za Váš obsáhlý email. Dovolím si zopakovat své dva dotazy z odpovědi na Váš email ze dne 28. srpna 2024.

Pokud se Váš argument ohledně datace vzniku dialogu Menón opírá o dva body, které v emailu zmiňujete, mám k nim následující dotazy:

1. Pasáž z Diogéna Laertského: proč by Platón nemohl sepsat dialog s Anytem kdykoli po soudu a Sókratově smrti, aby – mimo jiné – ukázal, že za soudem byly osobní nevraživosti a typově jaké situace soudu předcházely? Z textu v Životopisech se nedozvíme, že by Platón zachytil reálné setkání, je to nabízeno jako ukázka toho, co má DL na mysli.
2. 
   Poslední věta v dialogu Menón: opět, proč je nutné předpokládat, že Platón píše před Menónovým mučením a před expedicí? Stejně jako na jiných místech se nabízí, že v celém závěrečném odstavci Platón posluchači/čtenáři sděluje, že kdyby se Menón staral více o sebe sama (o své ctnosti a poznání) a k tomu samému by přesvědčil Anyta – prospěl by Atéňanům: asi nejen tak, že náležitě přesvědčený Anytos by možná nepoňoukal Meléta k žalobě (a Sókratés by dále mohl žít, první „prospěch“ Atéňanům), ale z Menóna i Anyta by se zřejmě stal lepší člověk (další prospěch).

Prosím, berte to jako součást diskuse o dialogu Menón. Proč se na tyto věci ptám? V emailu jste uvedl dvě výše zmíněné pasáže, které podle Vás dokládají, že dialog byl napsán před Sókratovou smrtí. Podle mne – viz výše – ani jedna z těchto pasáží nic takového nedokládá. Pokud se pletu, prosím o odpověď, ve které my vyjasníte, proč pasáži z Diogéna Laertského, resp. konci dialogu Menón rozumět jako dokladu datace vzniku dialogu Menón. Pokud to není možné a o dataci dialogu Menón nejsou další doklady, pak nejsou ani důvody pro uskutečnění dané přednášky.”

 

Musím začít pasáží z Diogena Laertského: “Socrates would take to task those who thought highly of themselves, proving them to be fools, as to be sure he treated Anytus, according to Plato’s Meno. For Anytus could not endure to be ridiculed by Socrates, and so in the first place stirred up against him Aristophanes and his friends; then afterwards he helped to persuade Meletus to indict him on a charge of impiety and corrupting the youth”

Překládám: “Sokrates bral na potaz ty, kdo měli o sobě velké mínění; ukazoval, že jsou hlupáci, jak to nepochybně učinil s Anytem v platonově Menonu. Anytus se nemohl smířit se Sokratovým posměchem, a tak proti němu nejprve popouzel aristofana a  lidi v jeho okruhu (tedy Pisatele komedií), pak pomohl přesvědčit meleta, aby sokrata obvinil z bezbožnosti a z kažení mládeže.“

Pane Jirso, Mohl byste mi objasnit na čem se zakládá Vaše Domněnka, že DL nabízí tento text jako ukázku toho, co má na mysli?

Věc se stane jasnější, podíváte-li se na text v Menonu, k němuž se DL vztahuje:

Sokrates s Menonem diskutují o tom, zda je možné ctnosti (areté) učit. Sokrates uvádí, že o věci diskutuje s každým, kdo se domnívá, že o tom něco ví. V tom přichází Anytos, který si k nim Přisedne. Sokrates jeho příchod vítá slovy: ”A tu, právě vhod, si k nám přisedl anytus, kterěho k naší diskusi přizveme. bude správné, když ho přizveme. protože je synem muže bohatého a moudrého anthemiona, … dále pak, tohoto svého syna dobře vychoval a vzdělal, jak se zdá athénskému lidu, protože ho volí do nejvýznamnějších vládních funkcí. Je správné s takovýmito lidmi zkoumat ohledně učitelů ctnosti, zda nějací jsou nebo ne, a jsou-li nějací, pak kteří.” (90ab)

Následuje dlouhý a stále ostřejší rozhovor mezi sokratem a anytem, který anytus končí slovy: „sokrate, lehkomyslně očerŇuješ lidi. já bych ti radil, chceš-li mě poslechnout, aby sis dal pozor. protože zajisté i v jiných obcích je snadnější lidem činit zlo než dobro, v této obci zejména, myslím, že to i ty sám víš.”

Překladatel poznamenává: “Anytus odchází (anytus goes away). Nesouhlasím ”V řeckém originále není nic, co by sokratův odchod naznačovalo. Naopak, v závěrečné části dialogu jak menon (99e2) tak i Sokrates mluví o Anytovi jako o člověku přítomném, anytos hode (100b).

Závěrem pár slov k Vaší otázce

„proč by Platón nemohl sepsat dialog s Anytem kdykoli po soudu a Sókratově smrti, aby – mimo jiné – ukázal, že za soudem byly osobní nevraživosti a typově jaké situace soudu předcházely?“

Tu je třeba vzít v úvahu Platonovu Obranu Sokrata. V úvodní pasáži Sokrates zmiňuje Anyta a lidi okolo něho jako své bezprostřední žalobce (18b). Sokrates se k Anytovi jako svému žalobci vrací v 23e, a opět v 25b, opět v 28a, 28c, 30b, 34a. Sokrates tedy o Anytovi jako svém žalobci mluví sedmkrát, počítám-li to dobře.

Ještě poznamenám, že Sokrates v Obraně naznačuje, že obžaloba, která na něho byla Meletem podána, nebyla z Meletovy hlavy. Když totiž Sokrates Meleta vyslýchá, chce, aby svou žalobu přesně znovu formuloval: “Tvrdíš, že mládež kazím tím, že je učím neuznávat bohy státem uznávané a uznávat božstva jiná, nová?“ Když s tím Meletos souhlasí, Sokrates se táže, zda podle jeho soudu Sokrates učí, že jsou božstva jiná, než ta uznávaná, že tedy není ateistou, nebo si myslí, že je Sokrates ateistou a neuznává bohy žádné. Meletos odpovídá: “Toto tvrdím, že naprosto žádné bohy neuznáváš“.

Srdečně,

Julius Tomin

Proč teď?

Zásah do mého počítače se neomezuje na to, že mi znemožňuje cokoli dát na můj blog; moje webová stránka je drasticky zmenšena; místo plné stránky před sebou vidím na levém horním rohu obdélník dlouhý 20cm a široký 13.5cm. To bolí, rád si poslouchám hudbu, jakož i anglické, francouzské, a ruské populární písničky. Otázka je, co jsem provedl, čím jsem si takový trest vysloužil.

Pracovník a pracovnice z místní ordinace NHS mě navštívili; chtěli vědět, jak se mám, zda něco nepotřebuju. Po chvilce zaváhání jsem je pozval do svého bytečku. Přiměl jsem je, aby si ověřili, jak to vypadá s mou ¨horkou¨ vodou; voda je sotva vlažná. Pak jsem jim vysvětlil, jak se to stalo. Před třemi lety jsem trávil Nový rok s dcerou a synem, kteří bydlí nějakých 10 minut rychlé chůze přes kopec. Domů jsem se vrátil tak asi ve tři ráno; chtěl jsem se umýt; namísto teplé vody voda studená. Na druhý den jsem zavolal údržbáře, kterého jsem znal ještě z doby před rozvodem; místního údržbáře jsem nezval, protože jsem se domníval, že to byl on, kdo mi znemožnil pustit si teplou vodu. Údržbář trávil svátky u známých mimo Dursley. A tak jsem byl týden bez teplé vody. Když pozvaný údržbář konečně přišel, dával jsem mu pozor na prsty, protože jsem nepochyboval, že mi po jeho odchodu bude znovu znemožněno teplou vodu si pustit. A skutečně, když jsem si chtěl za pár minut horkou vodu pustit, voda tekla studená. A tak jsem odšrouboval dřevěnou přikrývku elektrického mechanismu, který proměňoval vodu studenou ve vodu horkou, respektive teplou, podle potřeby. Stiskl jsem puntík, tak jak to učinil údržbář; hurá, fungovalo to. Elektrický mechanismus jsem znovu řádně přikryl dřevěnou pokrývkou; k mému nemilému údivu, voda opět tekla studená. Přikrývku jsem odšrouboval a znovu stisknul puntík na teplou vodu, a hle, opět voda tekla teplá. Jakmile jsem však znovu elektrický mechanismus uzavřel dřevěnou pokrývkou, voda opět jen studená. Zkusil jsem to několikrát; nechat mechanismus otevřený se mi zdálo být nebezpečné. Nic se však nedalo dělat; teplou vodu jsem potřeboval; koupal jsem se takřka denně; to byl můj luxus.

Z teplé vody jsem se však netěšil dlouho. Za pár dní, kdykoli jsem si pustil teplou vodu, voda tekla sotva vlažná; konec mým luxusním večerním koupelím.

Před nějakými třemi měsíci jsem šel z ložnice do obyváku; ve dveřích mě polila voda. Voda zřejmě tekla z bytečku nade mnou. Zašel jsem k vedoucí, která má kancelář pode mnou. Když ta viděla, co se děje, hned se spojila s majitelkou bytu nade mnou. Voda téct přestala. Pak jsme se pro jistotu podívali do přístěnku s elektrickým mechanismem. Tam také tekla shora voda, která na štěstí o pár centimetrů minula ten otevřený elektrický mechanismus. Vedoucí hned povolala místního údržbáře. Ten mechanismus přikryl dřevěnou pokrývkou; udělal to tak, že ‘teplá‘ voda tekla i s pokrývkou, zůstávala však sotva vlažná.

Když jsem svým návštěvníkům tohle všechno popovídal, bylo potřebí, abych jim pověděl, kdo za tím vším podle mého soudu stojí. Zajisté někdo, kdo je takových zásahů schopen a mocen; kdo jiný než tajná policie? Samozřejmě, tajná policie se musí pod něčím skrývat. Vysvětil jsem, že mám důvod k domněnce, že v tomto případě britská tajná policie vystupuje pod přikrývkou oxfordských klasicistů.

Svým dvěma návštěvníkům jsem ukázal destičku s nápisem LET US DISCUSS PLATO, s níž, pověšenou okolo krku, jsem z času na čas protestoval před Balliol College od počátku let osmdesátých; jakmile se stalo jasným, že se oxfordští klasicisté rozhodli mě z univerzitních kruhů vyšachovat, místo toho, aby se naučili řečtině rozumět řecky, tedy bez složitého překládání z řečtiny do angličtiny.

Povídání jsem zakončil svými posledními třemi protesty, k nimž jsem se rozhodl poté, co jsem oxfordské klasicisty seznámil s tím, že Platonův dialog Menon byl prokazatelně napsán několik let před Sokratovou smrtí, na internetu však Platon zůstal být presentován jako autor, který začal své dialogy psát až po Sokratově smrti.

Když jsem se vrátil z Oxfordu po svém protestu, můj záchod byl zablokován. Nezákonné zablokování jsem šel oznámit na policii zde v Dursley. Policie je vzdálená asi půl hodiny od místa, kde bydlím; když jsem se vrátil domů, záchod byl odblokován. Den poté jsem znovu jel do Oxfordu protestovat před Balliolem. Když jsem se vrátil, záchod byl znovu zablokován. Chodit na policii v Dursley nemělo cenu; zřejmě jim bylo jasně řečeno “ruce pryč od Tomina.“ A tak jsem jel nezákonné zablokování oznámit na policii do Stroudu. Když jsem se vrátil domů, záchod byl odblokován. Protože Platon na internetu zůstal být presentován jako autor, který začal své dialogy psát až po Sokratově smrti, znova jsem jel do Oxfordu před Balliolem protestovat. Když jsem se vrátil, záchod znovu zablokován. To byla sobota a já se rozhodl zatelefonovat do policejního ústředí v Gloucestershire. Sobota proběhla, neděle, pondělí – záchod zůstával zablokován. V pondělí, kolem poledne, jsem zašel za vedoucí a požádal ji o schůzku. Sešli jsme se v místnosti na poschodí nad mým bytečkem. Bylo nás tam nějakých pět lidí; místnost je obecná, pro všechny. V krátké promluvě jsem oznámil, že nebude-li můj záchod odblokován do středy, pojedu do Oxfordu a budu tam až do chvíle, co můj záchod bude odblokován. Po té krátké promluvě jsem se odebral domů. Zašel jsem na záchod; záchod byl odblokován.

Vedoucí v té chvíli byla stále ještě v té místnosti o poschodí výš; zřejmě, v jejím úřadě seděl někdo, kdo byl o věci dobře informován a záchod rychle odblokoval při pomyšlení, že bych do Oxfordu jel a před Balliolem protestoval den za dnem.

Rozhovor se svými dvěma návštěvníky jsem zakončil poukazem na mé setkání s Dr. Opherem, který byl mým doktorem, než se stal poslancem Labour Party.

Před nějakým rokem jsem dostal email, kterým jsem byl předvolán k doktorovi. Bylo to krátce poté, co se lidé mohli vrátit k normálnímu bytování po údobí zasaženém kovidem. Potěšilo mě to; během kovidového šílení lékaři byli dosažitelní pouze po telefonu. Domníval jsem se, že se to pokoušeli napravit tím, že si začali na prohlídku pacienty předvolávat. Když jsem však přišel do ordinace a začal se svlékat, Dr. Opher mě zastavil: „Prý si stěžujete na zablokovaný záchod. Až se vám to zase stane, obraťte se na mě, já vás nechám předvést k psychiatrovi.” Doktora Ophera jsem ujistil, že k zablokování mého záchodu už nikdy nedojde. Dr.  Opher mě propustil s opakovaným: „Až zase budete mít zablokovaný záchod, obraťte se na mě; předvedu vás k psychiatrovi.“

***

Když se nad svým rozhovorem s těmi dvěma pracovníky NHS zamýšlím, nedivím se, že oxfordští klasicisté pocítili potřebu mně život znepříjemnit, snad v naději, že zmoudřím, od podobných hovorů upustím.

Na další protesty před Balliolem nepomýšlím. Na svůj blog jsem dal “Plato’s Phaedrus and his Laws,” kde ukazuji, že Menon není jediným dialogem napsaným před Sokratovou smrtí. V detailním srovnáním Faidra se Zákony ukazuji, že Platon před Sokratovou smrtí napsal již svůj dialog první.

V článku “Plato’s Phaedrus and his Laws” ukazuji, že svým nepromyšleným odmítnutím starověké tradice, podle níž byl Faidros Platonovým prvním dialogem, platonisté odhodili cenný klíč k pochopení Platonova filozofování. Jak Platon upozorňuje v Zákonech, člověk, který chce být šťastným, musí pravdu poznat na samém počátku (ex archés euthys), aby v pravdě žil co nejdéle (hina hós pleiston chronon aléthés ón diabioi, 730c). Platonovi šlo o to, aby jeho čtenáři poznali, že základní pravdu, kterou čtenářům nabídl ve Faidru, svém dialogu prvním, čtenářům jako základní pravdu nabídl i  ve svém dialogu posledním. Tu bych jen rád upozornil, že jsou ve Faidru myšlenky, které Platon k stáru odmítl. Tu uvedu jen to nejdůležitější. Ve Faidru Platon píše, že před svou první inkarnací každý člověk viděl Ideje, které Platon ve Faidru nazývá prostě pravdou: “duše, která neviděla pravdu, na sebe nemůže vzít lidskou podobu“ (psyché … ú gar hé ge mépote idousa tén alétheian eis tode héxei to schéma, 249b5-6). V pozdním Timaiu Platon prohlašuje, že Ideje (eidé), zraku nepřístupné (anaisthéta), jsou poznatelné pouze rozumem (nooumena monon), na kterém se podílejí bohové a jen malá částečka lidí (nou de metechein theous, anthrópón de genos brachy ti, Timaios 51e).

Nan Sheperd’s correspondence – Alexander Gray – cataract

 Alexander Gray, translator of Danish Ballads, wrote to Nan Shepherd on 10 November 1959: ‘I have cataract in both eyes, though it is not really bad.’ On 26 November 1960 he wrote: ‘My latest escapade was an operation for Cataract in the beginning of Sept, & since then I have been unable to get glasses, especially reading glasses, that suit me. The result is that I can only read with dis-pleasure & for a short time at one go.’

These lines remind me of my own experience with ‘cataract’. Some four years ago my eyesight got worse. I asked the optometrist to order for me good reading glasses; at the time I was still cycling and had bifocals. The optometrist said I had cataract and should be operated. Overwhelmed by all his prolonged, invasive, unpleasant measurements, I could not but agree. The optometrist suggested that I should come the next day: ‘I will then more properly measure your eye bulbs, preparing you for the operation. It is a very safe operation, in fact the safest operation on NHS.’  We agreed to meet the next day.

It was only when I left that I began to think: ‘But I do not have any cataract; nothing flows from my eyes. Why is my failing eyesight diagnosed as cataract? ‘

Then I realised: ‘Cataract must refer to the operation; when the doctor pricks the bulb of the eye to remove its content, there must occur a flow of fluid, which can be quite precipitous, since the fluid is under pressure.’

I could not see how the operation could improve my eyesight; I cancelled the appointment.

Let me return to Alexander Gray. In November 1959 he wrote to Nan Shepherd that his ‘cataract’ i.e. his eyesight ‘is not really bad’. After the ‘operation for Cataract’ his eyesight got worse: ‘The result is that I can only read with dis-pleasure & for a short time at one go’

Plato’s Phaedrus and his Laws

 

Since the early twentieth century the Platonic studies have adhered to the doctrine according to which Plato began to write his dialogues after the death of Socrates. But the comparison of the Meno with the Apology indicates that the Meno was written during Socrates’ lifetime. This means that all that has been written since then – since Max Pohlenz’s Aus Platos Werdezeit, published in 1913 – requires rethinking. This rethinking concerns not only the dialogues in which Socrates figures as a spokesman, but even the Laws. This claim requires a thorough argument, for in the Laws Socrates is not even mentioned.

In Laws V, 730c1-4 Plato says that ‘Truth heads the list of all things good, for gods and men alike. Let anyone who intends to be happy be its partner from the start, so that he may live as much of his life as possible a man of truth’. (Translation Trevor J. Saunders)

This leads us to the question, what was Plato’s first dialog. The ‘Life of Plato’ in Diogenes Laertius mentions a story (lo/goj) ‘that the Phaedrus was Plato’s first dialog’. This logos has been rejected by modern Platonists, without proper consideration. The ancient admirers and followers of Plato had undoubtedly well inscribed in their minds the passage in the Laws, in which Plato maintains that ‘whoever is to be blessed and happy should take part in truth from the beginning’. They undoubtedly believed that Plato derived these words from the reflection on his own life; in this light we should read the logos that the Phaedrus was Plato’s first dialogue.

Furthermore, we may believe Plato viewed it as important that his readers should view the Phaedrus in this light; accordingly, in the Laws he proposed as the most important item the most important announcement he made in the Phaedrus.

In the Phaedrus Plato writes: ‘All soul is immortal. For that which is always in movement is immortal; that which moves something else and is moved by something else, in ceasing from movement, ceases from living. Only that which moves itself, because it does not abandon itself, never stops moving. It is also source and first principle of movement for the other things which move. A first principle is something which does not come into being. For all that comes into being comes into being must come into being from a first principle, but a first principle itself cannot come into being from anything at all; for if a first principle came into being from anything, it would not do so from a first principle. Since it does not come into being, it must also be something which does not perish. For if a first principle is destroyed, neither will it ever come into being from anything nor anything else from it, given that all things must come into being from a first principle. It is in this way, then, that that which moves itself is first principle of movement. It is not possible for this either to be destroyed or to come into being, or else the whole universe and the whole of that which comes to be might collapse together and come to a halt, and never again have a source from which things will come to be moved. And since that which is moved by itself has been shown to be immortal, it will incur no shame to say that this is the essence and the definition of soul. For all body which has its source of motion outside itself is soulless, whereas that which has it within itself and from itself is ensouled, this being the nature of soul; and if this is so – that that which moves itself is nothing other than soul, soul will be necessarily something which neither comes into being nor dies.(Phaedrus 245c6-246a2, translation C. J. Rowe)

In the Laws An Athenian Stranger proclaims: ‘No one wo believes in gods as the law directs ever voluntarily commits an unholy act or lets any lawless word pass his lips. If he does it is because of one of three possible misapprehensions: either he believes (1) the gods do not exist, or (2) that they exist but take no thought for the human race, or (3) that they are influenced by sacrifices and supplications and can easily be won over.’

Cleinias, his Cretan interlocutor, asks: ‘Well sir, don’t you think that the god’s existence is an easy thing to explain?’

Athenian: ‘How?’

Cleinias: ‘Well, just look at the earth and the sun and the stars and the universe in general; look at the wonderful processions of the seasons and its articulation into years and months! Anyway, you know that all Greeks and all foreigners are unanimous in recognising the existence of gods.’

Athenian: ‘When you and I present our proofs for the existence of gods and adduce what you have adduced – sun, moon, stars and earth – and argue they are gods and divine beings, these clever fellows will say that these things are just earth and stones, and are incapable of caring for human affairs.’

The Athenian proves that the heretics are wrong. He begins his investigation on their ground, considering movements and rests observable in the universe, such as the movement of objects from place to place, such as the circular motion of those objects that are moving in one location, such as collisions of objects that meet, which may result in their coalescence and thus in an increase of their bulk, or in their destruction.

After having inspected eight such occurrences, the Athenian asks: ‘Haven’t we now classified and numbered all forms of motion except two?’ Cleinias: ‘Which two?’ Athenian: ‘The two which constitute the real purpose of our investigation.’ Cleinias: ‘Try to be more explicit.’ Athenian: ‘ What we really had in view was soul, wasn’t it?’ Cleinias: ‘Certainly.’  Athenian: ‘The one kind of motion is that which is permanently capable of moving other things but not itself; the other is permanently capable of moving both itself and other things. Let these stand as two further distinct types in our complete list of motions. So we shall put ninth the kind which always imparts motion to something else and is itself changed by another thing. Then there is motion that moves both itself and other things, the source of change and motion in all things that exist. I suppose we’ll call that the tenth.’  Cleinias: ‘Certainly.’  Athenian: ‘Shouldn’t we correct one or two inaccuracies in the points we’ve just made? It wasn’t quite right to call that motion the ‘tenth’. Cleinias: ‘Why not?’ Athenian: ‘It can be shown to be first, in ancestry as well as in power; the next kind – although a moment ago we called ‘ninth’ – we’ll put second.’

Athenian: ‘Now let’s put the point in a different way. Suppose the whole universe were somehow to coalesce and come to a standstill – the theory which most of our philosopher-fellows are actually bold enough to maintain – which of the motions we have enumerated would inevitably be the first to arise in it? Self-generating motion, surely, because no antecedent impulse can ever be transmitted from something else in a situation where no antecedent impulse exists. Self-generating motion, then, is the source of all motions, and the primary force in both stationary and moving objects, and we shan’t be able to avoid the conclusion that it is the most ancient and the most potent of all changes. This is the definition of soul: ‘motion capable of moving itself’. The entity which we all call soul is precisely that which is defined by the expression ‘self-generating motion’. (Plato Laws, 893a-896a, translation T. J. Saunders; the text is  abbreviated)

QUESTIONS

On October 22, 1924 I wrote: ‘Those who turn to internet for information on Plato are directed to 'PLATONIC CHRONOLOGY AND WRITINGS'. There they 'learn' that Plato began to write his dialogues after 399, that is after Socrates' death. The dialogue Meno figures there among dialogues written in 'Plato's second writing period', from 388 to 367.

Today, May 1, 2025, I looked in vain for 'PLATONIC CHRONOLOGY AND WRITINGS'. This is a welcome change, but still, if one googles Plato’s Meno one is ‘informed’ that the dialog was ‘written by Plato around 385 BC’, that is some 15 years after Socrates’ death, and if one googles Plato, under Chronology one reads:

‘No one knows the exact order Plato's dialogues were written in, nor the extent to which some might have been later revised and rewritten. The works are usually grouped into Early, Middle, and Late period; The following represents one relatively common division amongst developmentalist scholars.^[91]

• Early: Apology, Charmides, Crito, Euthyphro, Gorgias, Hippias Minor, Hippias Major, Ion, Laches, Lysis, Protagoras
• Middle: Cratylus, Euthydemus, Meno, Parmenides, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Republic, Symposium, Theatetus’

The fact that the dialogues begin with the Apology means that the doctrine, according to which Plato began to write his dialogues only after Socrates’ death, which has dominated platonic studies since the German scholar Max Pohlenz in 1913 published ‘Aus Platos Werdezeit’, is still presented on Internet as given, i.e. as the introduction to Plato.

WHY?

Let me direct this question to Oxford classicists.

Before we (my ‘we’ encompasses all those, who are interested in Plato) receive the answer, I cannot but speculate.

If the classicists accept that Plato began to write his dialogues prior to Socrates’ death, they must thoroughly rethink the whole of Plato, including his Laws. Much of this rethinking may be done with the help of the existing translations of Plato’s dialogs, but it can be properly performed only on the Greek originals. Who can undertake the task?

But these questions point me to another question: Since the Oxford classicists appear to have given up the doctrine that Plato began to write his dialogues only after Socrates’ death, how is it possible that the Internet continues to ‘inform’ its readers that Plato began to write his dialogues after the death of Socrates?

A letter to the Master of Balliol College, University of Oxford

 

Dear Master,

More than a month ago, on Feb. 28, I sent a mail to Professor William Allen, the Head of the Faculty of classics, entitled ‘An information and requests’. Concerning the information I wrote: ‘Apology 18a7 - b3 Socrates says: 'First then it is right for me to defend myself against the first false accusations brought against me, and the first accusers. For many accusers have risen up against me before you, who have been speaking for a long time, many years already, and saying nothing true; and I fear them more than Anytus and his associates, though these also are dangerous.'

This text provides the shortest and most potent proof for dating the Meno prior to the Apology.

The Meno ends with Socrates' address to Meno: 'It is now time for me to go my way, but do you persuade our friend Anytus of that of what you are now yourself persuaded, so as to put him in a gentler mood; for if you can persuade him, you will do a good turn to the people of Athens also.' 

How could Plato make Socrates say these words about Anytus after he made him point to him as his accuser in the court? In other words: How could have been the Meno written after the Apology?’

Concerning the requests I wrote: ‘Let me end with two requests. The first concerns the Internet. May the wrong information about the dating of the Meno be removed from the Internet?
The second request: May I present a paper on the Meno at the Faculty of Classics?’

On March 31 I wrote to Professor Allan: ‘On February 28 I sent you an email entitled ‘An information and requests’. I have not received any reply. I have therefore decided to protest again at Balliol with LET US DISCUSS PLATO.

A few years ago, I read your ‘Euripides Helen’; ever since, your edition had been engraved in my mind; it is excellent; written to be read and discussed. Whenever I turned to it in my memory, I just could not understand your ‘response’ (no response is a powerful response) to my proposal to present under your auspices a paper on Plato’s Meno. After my email of February 28, I decided to read your ‘Euripides Helen’ again, and I was even more impressed than in my first reading. This second reading was the last straw that compelled me to resort once again to protesting at Balliol.’

Dear Master, may I apply to you with a polite request? Because of my old age I intend to bring with me a collapsible chair, although it will be awkward to transport it by bus to railway station in Dursley, by trains from Dursley to Oxford, and from railway station in Oxford to Balliol; it would be great if Balliol could lend me a chair.

With best wishes,

Julius Tomin

5 A letter to Barron Trump

 Dear Barron,

The second bone of contention between me and Oxford philosophers has become my dating of Plato's Phaedrus. These two are circumstantially linked.

Dr Kenny with his wife visited us in April 1980, Dr Wilkes visited us in May 1980; she wanted to know what happened. At that time I knew only what happened in our flat. I gave her the gist of my short discussion with Dr Kenny about Socrates and Plato. I said:

'Kathy, you know that passage in Diogenes Laertius' Life of Plato, which informs us that the Phaedrus was Plato's first dialogue? In all my reading of Plato I have not come across anything that contradicts that story.'

Kathy exclaimed: 'It can't be!'

And so I asked Kathy to come to Prague for a month and read with me the Phaedrus. Dr Wilkes got a stipend from the British Academy. During that reading we came across a passage which indicates that the Phaedrus was written several years before the execution of Socrates.

Socrates' second speech on love ends with a prayer to Eros: 'This, dear god of love, is offered to you as the finest and best palinode of which I am capable... Forgive what went before and regard this with favour... If in our earlier speech Phaedrus and I said anything harsh against you, blame Lysias as the instigator of the speech, and make him cease from speeches of that kind, turning him instead, as his brother Polemarchus has been turned, to philosophy.' (Translation C.J. Rowe)

Polemarchus was killed by the Thirty Tyrants during the rule of aristocrats at the end of the Peloponnesian war. It was a sordid affair, as we learn from Lysias' speech Against Eratosthenes: 'Polemarchus received from the Thirty their accustomed order to drink hemlock, with no statement made as to the reason for his execution: so far did he come short of being tried and defending himself. And when he was being brought away dead from the prison, although we had three houses among us, they did not permit his funeral to be conducted from any of them, but they hired a small hut in which to lay him out... They had seven hundred shields of ours, they had all that silver and gold, with copper, jewellery, furniture and women's apparel... also a hundred and twenty slaves, of whom they took the ablest, delivering the rest to the Treasury; and yet to what extremes of insatiable greed for gain did they go... For some twisted gold earrings, which Polemarchus' wife chanced to have, were taken out of her ears by Melobius as soon as he entered the house... And not even in respect of the smallest fraction of our property did we find any mercy in their hands; but our wealth impelled them to act as injuriously towards us as others might from anger aroused by grievous wrongs. This was not the treatment that we deserved at the city's hands, when we had produced all our dramas for their festivals ["Referring to the expensive duty, imposed on wealthy citizens, of equipping a chorus for a dramatic performance" notes the translator.], and contributed to many special levies; when we showed ourselves men of orderly life, and performed every duty laid upon us... when we had ransomed many Athenians from the foe...' (Translation W.R.M Lamb)

Lysias allows us to see why Plato presented to Lysias Polemarchus - Lysias' older brother and the head of the family - as a model, prior to Polemarchus' death, but not after Polemarchus died in the hands of the Thirty.

4 A letter to Barron Trump

 Dear Barron Trump,

There are two bones of contention between me and the classicists:

1 When I read a Greek text, I understand it directly, in Greek; Classicist all around the world must translate the Greek into their mother tongue, and only thus they can understand the given text.

How do I know this? When I began to learn Ancient Greek I did so with the help of German, English, and French text books and dictionaries. Thus I learnt that students all around the world learnt their Greek by translating chosen texts from their mother tongue into Greek, from Greek into their mother tongue.

When Dr Wilkes from St Hilda's came to my seminar, she could not believe that I understood Greek Greek, without translating it into English; she believed that I was quick thinking and translated the chosen sentence so quickly into Czech or English that I could maintain that I understood it directly, in Greek. But of course, if that were the case, I could have done it with a chosen sentence or two, I could not possibly do it with a whole paragraph, let alone a whole page. This is where Kenny's attempt to expose me as a fibber comes to the fore.

As I mentioned in the quotation from the 'Pursuit of Philosophy', Kenny's visit was expected with great expectations. Everybody in Prague and in Oxford expected that Kenny would put me to my place and  liberate the seminar from Tomin. Kenny was going to Prague with his wife, and to make his visit secure, he discussed it (on March 19th) with Minister-Counsellor Dr Telička, the second in command in Czechoslovak Embassy in London. (See Barbara Day The Velvet Philosophers, London, 1999)

Nobody expected that instead of exposing me as a fibber Kenny would provide me with an opportunity to excel in the last meeting with my students. Interestingly, the secret police who bugged my seminar did not interfere during my translation of the two pages from Aristotle's 2 Ethics. The police burst into my room only after I finished my translation and opened the discussion with a remark in support of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethic:

'Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics views philosophy as a key to good life, for it is independent of external circumstances, whereas the other virtues need something extra, e.g. generosity, justice... I believe that when Aristotle wrote that Nicomachean passage he had Socrates in mind.'

Kenny did not dispute my Socratic view of the passage; instead, he asked: 'Julius, Don't you agree that Socrates was a man of high moral principles, but a poor philosopher, whereas Plato was a morally dubious character, but a great philosopher?' I replied:

'Tony, you obviously make such a cut through Plato's dialogues, that you view as Socratic everything that falls below the line thus determined, and all that is above that line is genuinely Plato's. I do not draw any such dividing line through Plato's works.' 

At that point the police marched in.

***

Barbara Day wrote in The Velvet Philosophers:

'Anthony Kenny and his American-born wife had been the fist to be driven to Bartolomějská [the police headquarters], were held until three in the morning and interrogated in separate rooms... The Kennys were delivered to the border-crossing with West Germany, and, carrying their luggage, walked through the woods of Rozvadov in the frosty dawn of an April morning.

Tomin and his students remained locked  up for something over the statutory 48 hours.'

3 A letter to Barron Trump

2 continued

The Phaedrus opens with Socrates' 'My dear Phaedrus, where are you going, and from where do you come?' Phaedrus replies that he comes from Lysias and that he goes for a walk. With Lysias he spent the whole morning, for Lysias presented to his friends a talk in which he argued that favours should be presented to a man who is not in love rather than to one who is. Socrates wants to hear it, so Phaedrus finds a place under a plane-tree where he reads it to him. 

Having read Lysias' speech, Phaedrus maintained that Lysias left out nothing important that could be said on that subject, so that no one could make a better speech on it. Socrates disagrees and embarks on a rival speech, which he directs to a boy, imagining the boy in front of himself. He ends the denunciation of a lover by comparing him to a wolf: 'So these, boy, are the things you must bear in mind; the attentions of a lover do not come with good will; as wolf to lamb, so lover to the lad.'

With these words Socrates was about to end his speech: 'Not a word more shall you have from me, let that be the end of my discourse.' But Phaedrus objected, reminding Socrates that he was not only to denounce the lover, but as well point out good things about the non-lover. Unwilling to embark on a praise of the non-lover's intercourse with the boy, Socrates says: 'In one short sentence, to each evil for which I have abused the one party there is a corresponding good belonging to the other.'

Phaedrus pointed out that it was midday, the hottest part of the day, and begged him to stay under the shade of the plan-tree, and spend their time by discussing the two speeches. Socrates agreed; he praised Phaedrus' love of discussion, adding that just as he was to cross Ilissus/ the little river, he heard his inner voice that told him 'NO!': 

'A dreadful speech it was, Phaedrus, dreadful, both the one you brought with you, and the one you compelled me to make. Suppose we were being listened to by a man of generous and humane character who loved another such as himself; wouldn't he utterly refuse to accept our vilification of love?

And so Socrates embarks on a Palinode (recantation), which he ends with a prayer to Eros: 'This, dear god of love, is offered you as the finest and best palinode (recantation) of which I am capable: If, in our earlier  speech Phaedrus and I said anything harsh against you, blame Lysias as the instigator of the speech, and make him cease from speeches of that kind, turning him instead, as his brother Polemarchus has been turned, to philosophy.''

Polemarchus was put to death by the Thirty during their short reign of terror, with which ended the Peloponnesian war, that is in 404 BC. The death to which Polemarchus was subjected by the Thirty was a despicable death, described by Lysias in his speech Against Eratosthenes, which he delivered shortly after the victory of the democrats against the rule of the aristocrats. I cannot see how Plato could have written the Phaedrus with the advice to Lysias to follow the example of his older brother Polemarchus.

Reading the Phaedrus with DR Wilkes, in Prague, shortly before embarking on our journey to Oxford, Dr Wilkes fully agreed with me. Plato had to write the Phaedrus prior to the end of Polemarchus in the hands of the Thirty, that is some four years prior to Socrates' trial and death.

2 A letter to Barron Trump

 2 The second bone of contention between me and classicists concerned the dating of Plato's  Phaedrus. Dr Wilkes visited me on May 16, eager to know what actually happened with Dr Kenny. At that time I knew nothing about the expulsion of Dr Kenny from Czechoslovakia; for all knew they could still be in prison. And so I concentrated on the moment that triggered the police disruption of our meeting.

I explained to Kathy how Kenny opened his talk by explaining that he would speak about Aristotle's Eudemian and Nicomachean Ethics, focussing on a passage from each: 'He then asked me to translate those two passages in Czech. When I did so I opened the discussion with a few words in defence of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics: "Tony, I think that when Aristotle wrote our Nicomachean passage he had in front of his mind Socrates' days in prison, before his execution." Kenny retorted: "But Julius, don't you agree that Socrates was a man of high moral principles, but a poor philosopher, whereas Plato was a great philosopher but a questionable character?"

***

The big bold letters is an unwanted intervention. Obviously, anything I write on my computer is closely watched, but this is the first time that my writing on my blog was interfered with.

***

I replied: "Tony, you appear to make such a cut through Plato's dialogues that you find Socrates below the line which you draw between poor philosophy and great philosophy. I don't make any such cut through Plato's dialogues." As I said this, the Czech police marched in.'

My response to Dr Kenny was abrupt, and so I said: 'You know, Kathy, that passage in Diogenes Laertius that there was a story (logos) that the Phaedrus was Plato's first dialogue? In all my reading of Plato I haven't come across anything that might contradict that logos.' Kathy exclaimed: 'But it can't be.' And so I suggested to Kathy to come to Prague in July, for a month, so that we could read the Phaedrus together and see. 

Kathy came in July, we read the dialogue; Kathy could not think of anything in Plato that might contradict the logos of the Phaedrus being Plato's first dialogue, but we came across a passage that suggests that the Phaedrus was written several years prior to Socrates' trial and execution. 

Since the point is important and involves references to Lysias' speech favouring sex unaccompanied by love and a quotation from the speech in which Socrates refutes Lysias, I shall leave the corroboration of the ancient dating of the Phaedrus to the next entry in my blog.

1 A letter to Barron Trump

 Dear Barron Trump,

I am 86; profoundly influenced by your speech at your father's first inauguration as U S A President, I've devoted the last 4 entries on my blog to 'On Hope, inspired by Barron Trump; on Trust, inspired by Ivanka Trump.' I need your inspiration, for during the last 44 years I lost hope, with which I arrived in Great Britain.

What were the hopes with which I arrived to Britain in 1980? My main hopes were two; they both derived  from Dr Kenny's  - the Master of Balliol College, university of Oxford - visit in my seminar. 

Dr Kenny opened the seminar by announcing that he would talk about ethics in Aristotle's Eudemian  Ethics and in the Nicomachean Ethics. He informed us that these two works have three books in common, which have been in modern times commonly published only in the Nicomachean Ethics, which has been considered later of the two and viewed as Aristotle's mature ethics. Kenny with stylometric investigations proved that the three common books belonged originally to the Eudemian Ethics, which he consequently regarded as Aristotle's, while the Nicomachen Ethics he viewed as notes scribbled by Aristotle's students. Contrasting the difference between the two, Kenny said  'A person who organised his life entirely with a view to the promotion of philosophical speculation would not be wise but cunning, not phronimos but panourgos. The type of person whom many regard as the hero of the Nicomachean Ethics turns out, by the standards of the Eudemian Ethics, to be a vicious and ignoble character.' 

A thought went through my mind: 'Am I to be exposed by Kenny as a person who is not wise but cunning, not phronimos but panourgos?'

Kenny said that he wanted to focus his talk on a passage from the Eudemian Ethics and a passage from the Nicomachean Ethics. 

Then Kenny turned to me: 'Julius, would you translate these two passages for your students!'

I replied: 'I shall do so, reading each sentence aloud in Greek, then giving it in Czech.'

***

Translation is a laborious process; Kenny presented me with a task which no classicist and no classical philosopher could master. Why did he do so? What did he want to accomplish?

Toward 1970s the top men of the KGB realised that Communism was untenable and began to cooperate with the CIA and MI6 on its desmantling. By inviting western Academics to my seminar I unwittingly prepared a space within which this cooperation developed and thrived. Only one thing was wrong, my insistence on openness. I had to go.

In November 1979 Kenny invited me to Balliol, and .I was invited to Kings College Cambridge. I was honoured, but could not abandon my students. There was only one way to get me out, my philosophy seminar had to be destroyed. After the police intervention that destroyed Kenny's visit, I could not reopen my seminar. The police prevented it Wednesday by Wednesday.

4 On Hope, inspired by Barron Trump. On Trust, inspired by Ivanka Trump

Plato's dialogues are full of Socrates. The question is whether he wrote any dialogues during Socrates' life-time, or whether he began to write dialogues only after the death of Socrates. On this question the internet 'informs' his readers quite definitely: Plato began to write his dialogues after Socrates' death.

In Platonic Chronology and Writings the first period of Plato's writings begins in 399, the date of Socrates' death. The section on Meno is  introduced with the words 'Meno is a Socratic dialogue written by Plato around 385 BC., but set at an earlier date around 402 BC.'

This is wrong; Plato must have written the Meno before Socrates died.

There are few things or events, if any, that can be proved with as much certainty, as the fact that the Meno was written before Socrates died.

In the Meno there is a discussion between Socrates and Anytus - the man who will become Socrates' accuser at the trial - at which Socrates subjects Anytus, the leading politician of those days, to painful irony:

Meno reiterates the main subject of the discussion by asking Socrates: 'Do you think there are no teachers of virtue?' In his reply Socrates introduces Anytus into the discussion. 'But look, Meno: here, at the very moment when he was wanted, we have Anytus sitting down beside us, to take his share in our quest. And we may well ask his assistance; for Anytus is, firstly, the son of a wise and wealthy father, Anthemion, who became rich by his own skill and industry; and further, he gave his son a good upbringing and education, as the Athenian people think, for they chose him for the highest offices.'

This pained; some three years later, at the trial, 'Anytus and his associates' (hoi amphi Anyton, Plato Apology 17b3) stand behind Meletus' accusation of Socrates.

In the Apology Socrates points to 'Anytus and his associates' (tous amphi Anyton) as his present  accusers (18a-b). If Plato wrote the Meno after the death of Socrates, how could he possibly end it with the following words of Socrates: 'It is time now for me to go my way, but do you persuade our friend Anytus of that whereof you are now yourself persuaded, so as to put him in a gentler mood; for if you can persuade him, you will do a good turn to the people of Athens also'?

May I hope that now, in the reign of Donald Trump, the truth about the dating of the Meno will be put on the internet?

3 On Hope, inspired by Barron Trump. On Trust, inspired by Ivanka Trump

What happened to the Kennys after they were escorted by the police from my flat? Barbara Day writes in The Velvet Philosophers: 'Anthony Kenny and his American-born wife were driven off to Bartolomějská (the police head quarters), where they were held until three in the morning and interrogated in separate rooms. The Kennys were delivered to the border-crossing with West Germany, and, carrying their luggage, walked through the woods of Rozvadov in the frosty dawn of an April morning. Tomin and  his students, [after being driven to Bartolomějská, one by one] remained locked up for something over the statutory 48 hours.' (Barbara Day, The Velvet Philosophers, The Claridge Press, 1999, p. 58)

The brutal way in which the Kennys were expelled from Czechoslovakia contrasts with Kenny's preparation for their visit: 'Part of the purpose of Anthony Kenny's visit to the Czechoslovak Embassy on March 19 had been to ask for clear guidelines as to what was and was not permitted to academic visitors to Czechoslovakia. Dr Kenny also needed to know on his on behalf, as he and his wife were due to leave for Prague in the second week of April.' (Barbara Day, p. 56)

Let us now view all this within a broader political framework. Roger Scruton wrote in 'A catacomb culture' (TLS February 16-22 , 1990): 

'Following the example  set by Kathleen Wilkes - an Oxford philosopher of intrepid character - academics began to visit their Czechoslovak colleagues, many of whom they met in the seminar 0rganized by Julius Tomin. The visiting continued for little more than a year, during which period many people, including the Master of Balliol College, were summarily expelled from Czechoslovakia. The publicity-conscious Tomin then emigrated and, so far as the Western press and the majority of Western academics were concerned, that was the end of the matter. However, a small sum of money had been given for the relief of our Czechoslovak colleagues... We decided that, although our purpose was charitable, and in violation of neither English nor Czechoslovak law, it should not be openly pursued, and that we could henceforth best help our Czechoslovak colleagues by working secretly.

We were able to set up a network of secret classes - not only in Bohemia, but also in Moravia and Slovakia. We began with philosophy. Soon, however, we were providing courses in as many subject as our Czechoslovak colleagues demanded: social and political thought, theology, history, Hebrew, literature, art, music and architectural theory. Many of our visitors were extremely well known in their own countries... Each would travel with books, tapes, and transcripts while, through independent channels, we would smuggle printing equipment, photocopiers, binding machines, and the countless other requirements of the "catacomb culture".

In the mid 1980s, thanks to a generous grant from George Soros (who will surely be commemorated in future years as a great Hungarian patriot, but also as one of the saviours of Central Europe), we had expanded into Moravia... Last summer, however, the organizer of our work in Slovakia, Ján Ćarnogurský, was arrested, charged with "subversion in collaboration with foreign powers", and subjected to months of interrogation. Yet, by a miracle, the judge defied his instructions and passed a verdict of innocent... Two weeks later Ćarnogurský was made Deputy Prime Minister... By then another of our beneficiaries was President, and within weeks we were to see our friends occupying the highest offices in the land.

2 On Hope, inspired by Barron Trump. On Trust, inspired by Ivanka Trump

The last Oxford academic, who spoke in my philosophy seminar was Dr Anthony Kenny, the Master of Balliol College. I devoted to the event the 'Pursuit of Philosophy', published in History of Political Thought (Vol. V, No 3, Winter 1984). Let me quote: 'My discussion with Anthony Kenny on the right pursuit of philosophy took place in Prague in April 1980. At that time my philosophy seminar had been harassed by the Czech police, but we still managed to meet. The arrival of the Master of Balliol was anticipated with great expectations. Some expected a catastrophe which would definitely finish my seminar. I could not imagine the police interfering once Kenny was granted the visas. That is why I hoped for a breakthrough. If the police refrained from harassing us in this case they would hardly interfere on future occasions. My aspirations would have been fulfilled. Prague would have had a place where once a week young people could discuss philosophy. Our philosophy seminar would have been a step on the road towards society which would maintain the social and economic framework of socialism and would allow free development of individuals.

Kenny arrived at our department about half an hour before the actual beginning of the seminar. He said that in his talk he would concentrate on a passage from the Nicomachean Ethics and a passage from the Eudemian Ethics: 'Would you translate these two passages in Czech to your students at the beginning of our session?'

I was relieved when I saw the Nicomachean passage (10th book 1177a12-1177b5). In my text it was heavily underlined and marked by an exclamation mark. I began to sweat when I saw the lengthy passage in the Eudemian Ethics (1218b31-1219a39); I had never read the Eudemian Ethics. I excused myself and retired into the kitchen. I barely managed to read the passage once when my wife summoned me to open the seminar.

Kenny began by asking me to translate the two passages. I accepted the task, reading each passage sentence by sentence aloud in Greek before interpreting it in Czech. Kenny chose those two passages for he intended to talk about the pursuit of happiness in the Nicomachean and the Eudemian Ethics. He dealt with the problem in his recently published The Aristotelian Ethics (Oxford 1978), where he proved, against the dominant opinions of scholars, that the three books, which the Nicomachean and the Eudemian Ethics have in common, belonged originally to the Eudemian Ethics, which he viewed as genuinely Aristotle's, while the Nicomachean Ethics he saw as students' imitations. Let me quote from his book: 'A person who organised his life entirely with a view to the promotion of philosophical speculation would not be wise but cunning, not phronimos but panourgos. The type of person whom many regard as the hero of the Nicomachean Ethics turns out, by the standards of the Eudemian Ethics, to be a vicious and ignoble character.' (p. 214)

When Kenny got to this point, I had to exchange the role of an interpreter for that of a discussion partner: 'In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle puts forward reasons why philosophy is the accomplished source of good life. He points to its being most continuous and independent of external circumstances. It reminds me of Socrates who says in the Apology: 'As long as I live I will not stop doing philosophy.' Kenny did not oppose the 'Socratic' interpretation, but asked: 'wouldn't you consider Plato a much better philosopher than Socrates?' I replied: 'How can I accept that Plato was a better philosopher when he is full of Socrates?' - At this point dozens of policemen stormed into the room.

1 On Hope, inspired by Barron Trump. On Trust, inspired by Ivanka Trump

 I am 86, I wake up several times during the night. Two days ago I woke up around midnight; I turned on my computer, googled the YouTube, and there I found 'Barron Trump Speech Shocks the Entire World at His Father's Inauguration'; Barron was 10 years old. I listened: 'Today is a day of celebration, a day of change, a day of hope, a day of reflection, never losing the sight of future we are building together.'

Hope thus described can be very powerful. I experienced this kind of hope when I was somewhat younger than ten years old Barron. Born in December 1938, in July 1943 I was 5 years old, and I remember my aunt running downstairs and shouting with glee 'Mussolini was overthrown'; we celebrated that event. And of course, we celebrated the final capitulation of Germany in May 1945, our liberation. But in 1948, when I was 10, our hopes of going to live in freedom were crushed: the Communists took power, which they held until 1989.

Our hopes revived in the Spring 1968, when we attempted to reform the communist system, creating 'Socialism with Human Face'. This hope was crushed by the Soviet Red Army in August 1968.

In 1977 I opened a philosophy seminar for young people who were, like my son Lukas, barred from any form of higher education because of their parents' involvement in Prague Spring 1968. In May 1978 I invited Oxford Academics to our seminar: 'We live in Czechoslovakia, I and my friends and students. A year ago we decided not to respect any more the current illegal practice of state functionaries, who arrogate the right to decide who may study and what, who may teach and what he may teach. We decided to study philosophy together... In view of the fact that I do not get post and my telephone may be confiscated any day [my telephone was confiscated a few days after I sent the invitation to Oxford Academics] we cannot rely on normal means of communication. Allow me to make a suggestion which seems to be most practicable. We study philosophy together every Wednesday, from September to June, always at 6pm in my flat: Prague 7, Keramická 3. Whenever you come, you will be welcome. Dear friends, you will make us happy if you answer our request for cooperation and we are looking forward to having you with us.'

3 My correspondence with Octopus - clever octopus

The preceding entry on My correspondence with Octopus illustrates octopus' claim that they 'continually review my account balance and monthly payments to help keep my account on track'. I intended to send a photocopy of it to the Heads of the Departments at Charles University in Prague. I photocopied the piece; when I printed it, I've got the following:

'2  My correspondence with Octopus

January 2025:

Important: Let's get your monthly payments right."

my electricity supplier. 

of Money Expert informing me that they made the switch, as requested.

Thank you for using MoneyExpert powered by SimplySwitch to switch your Gas &

But back to octopus. In their letter of the beginning of January 2025 - their letter is

"We continually review your account balance and monthly payments to help keep your

We recommend monthly payments of £350.69. This includes:

* £69.11 per month until January 2026 to get your balance to a healthy position"

any notice of the fact that as of December 2nd 2024 I stopped having my daily baths in 7am, i.e. to the time when using electricity is cheaper).'

Needless to say, I cannot send this eviscerated version to the Heads of the Departments at Charles University.

Clever Octopus.

2 My correspondence with Octopus

Disregarding my email of December 2nd, octopus wrote to me at the beginning of January 2025:

"Hi,

Important: Let's get your monthly payments right."

Clearly, octopus took no notice of my email in which I informed them that I had changed my electricity supplier. 

More disturbingly, my change of electricity supplier did not take place, and that in spite of Money Expert informing me that they made the switch, as requested.

MoneyExpert emailed me on December 4, 2024: 'Dear Julius Tomin,

Thank you for using MoneyExpert powered by SimplySwitch to switch your Gas & Electricity.'

But back to octopus. In their letter of the beginning of January 2025 - their letter is undated - they write:

"We continually review your account balance and monthly payments to help keep your account on track.

We recommend monthly payments of £350.69. This includes:

* £281.58 per month to cover your future energy costs

* £69.11 per month until January 2026 to get your balance to a healthy position"

Obviously, in their 'continually reviewing my account balance' octopus have not taken any notice of the fact that as of December 2nd 2024 I stopped having my daily baths in day time, turning all electricity demanding activities to night time (from midnight to 7am, i.e. to the time when using electricity is cheaper).

In the meantime, my use of electricity use changed even further. I had a fall, badly injuring my right hand wrist, so that I can't use the bath tub.