Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:05:21.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plato's Critique of Hedonism in the Philebus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2008

ROBERT C. BARTLETT
ROBERT C. BARTLETT*
Affiliation:
Emory University
*
Robert C. Bartlett is Professor, Department of Political Science, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

No one can claim to have thought seriously about the question “How ought I to live?”, the guiding question of political philosophy, without having confronted the powerful answer to it supplied by hedonism. In thinking about hedonism today, we may begin from that thinker who was both very important to and early in its history: Plato. Of the dialogs that have come down to us as Plato's, only the Philebus takes as its direct aim the examination of pleasure's claim to be the human good. The Philebus culminates in the suggestions that the need for self-awareness or self-knowledge may finally be more fundamental to all human beings (and hence to hedonists) than is even the desire for pleasure, and that the experience of at least some pleasures constitutes a great obstacle to precisely the self-knowledge we seek. The Philebus is important today not only because it contains a searching analysis of hedonism but also because it compels us to raise the crucial question of the precise nature of “the good” with which we are justly most concerned—our own or that of others—a question whose centrality to self-knowledge we are in danger of forgetting.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 102 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 141 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bartlett, Robert C. 2003. “Political Philosophy and Sophistry: An Introduction to Plato's Protagoras.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (4): 612–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benardete, Seth. 1993. The Tragedy and Comedy of Life: Plato's Philebus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bolotin, David. 1985. “Socrates' Critique of Hedonism: A Reading of the Philebus.” Interpretation 13 (1): 1–13.Google Scholar
Bruell, Christopher. 1993. “Gadamer on Plato: The Art of Interpretation.” Review of Politics 55: 1 (Winter 1993), 167–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnet, John. 1986 [originally published 1901]. Platonis Opera Volume II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bury, R. G. 1973 [originally published 1897]. The Philebus of Plato. New York: Arno Press.Google Scholar
Crisp, Roger. 1997. Mill on Utilitarianism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Feldman, Fred. 2001. “Hedonism.” In The Encyclopedia of Ethics. 2nd Edition. Lawrence Becker and Charlotte Becker. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Feldman, Fred. 2004. Pleasure and the Good Life: Concerning the Nature, Varieties, and Plausibility of Hedonism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frede, Dorothea. 1993. Philebus, . ed. and Trans. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1991. Plato's Dialectical Ethics: Phenomenological Interpretations Relating to the Philebus. Trans. Wallace, Robert M.. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gosling, J. C. B. 1975. Philebus. ed and trans. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackforth, R. 1958. Plato's Examination of Pleasure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hampton, Cynthia. 1990. Pleasure, Knowledge, Being: An Analysis of Plato's Philebus. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Klein, Jacob. 1972. “About Plato's Philebus.” Interpretation 2: 157–82.Google Scholar
Liddell, Henry, Scott, Robert, Henry Jones. 1968. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1969. Utilitarianism. In Collected Works Vol. 10. ed. Robson, J. M. et al. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1972. The Later Letters 1849–1873. In Collected Works. Vol. 16. ed. Mineka, Francis E. and Lindley, Dwight N.. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Rudebusch, George. 1999. Socrates, Pleasure, and Value. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Dan. 2005. Plato on Pleasure and the Good Life. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, Alan. 1974. J.S. Mill. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1973 [originally published 1836]. Introductions to the Dialogues of Plato. Trans. Dobson, William. New York: Arno Press.Google Scholar
Shiner, Roger A. 1974. Knowledge and Reality in Plato's Philebus. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Sidgwick, Henry. 1962. The Methods of Ethics. 7th Edition.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Striker, Gisella. 1970. Peras und Apeiron. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Van Riel, Gerd. 2000. Pleasure and the Good Life: Plato, Aristotle, and the Neoplatonists. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughn, Frederick. 1982. The Tradition of Political Hedonism: From Hobbes to J. S. Mill. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.