La division et l'unité du politique de Platon
El Murr, Dimitri
La division et l'unité du politique de Platon - 2005.
51
Considering the Theaetetus and Statesman together – as the two dialogues explicitly said to flank the Sophist – both raises and suggests answers to questions about the relationship between philosopher and statesman, and the relationship between Socrates and the Eleatic Stranger. It is argued that aspects of the Theaetetus « Digression » on the nature of philosophers serve to criticise the questions raised and answers given about philosophy and statecraft in The Republic (in particular, the question « Is a king happy ? ») and so to introduce the different analysis of these matters which will be given in the Statesman, which separates its inquiry into kingship or statecraft from its reflections on happiness in just the way called for by Socrates’ philosopher in the « Digression ». It is then argued that the ideal of a true statesman is one which Socrates could not have advanced, although aspects of the Theaetetus signal the need for such an ideal. And that ideal is one which may be lived out by a philosopher, but in becoming a statesman, crucial aspects of that philosopher are redefined (he loses leisure, he becomes essentially oriented to ruling in the city) such that the Statesman suggests that it is more correct to define him as a statesman than as a philosopher. Finally, it is suggested drawing on aspects of the preceding that the relationship between Socrates and the Eleatic Stranger is complementary in that both are committed to philosophy, although neither can define or exhibit it fully.
La division et l'unité du politique de Platon - 2005.
51
Considering the Theaetetus and Statesman together – as the two dialogues explicitly said to flank the Sophist – both raises and suggests answers to questions about the relationship between philosopher and statesman, and the relationship between Socrates and the Eleatic Stranger. It is argued that aspects of the Theaetetus « Digression » on the nature of philosophers serve to criticise the questions raised and answers given about philosophy and statecraft in The Republic (in particular, the question « Is a king happy ? ») and so to introduce the different analysis of these matters which will be given in the Statesman, which separates its inquiry into kingship or statecraft from its reflections on happiness in just the way called for by Socrates’ philosopher in the « Digression ». It is then argued that the ideal of a true statesman is one which Socrates could not have advanced, although aspects of the Theaetetus signal the need for such an ideal. And that ideal is one which may be lived out by a philosopher, but in becoming a statesman, crucial aspects of that philosopher are redefined (he loses leisure, he becomes essentially oriented to ruling in the city) such that the Statesman suggests that it is more correct to define him as a statesman than as a philosopher. Finally, it is suggested drawing on aspects of the preceding that the relationship between Socrates and the Eleatic Stranger is complementary in that both are committed to philosophy, although neither can define or exhibit it fully.
Réseaux sociaux