Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T17:23:27.252Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Plato's Political Philosophy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Christopher Bruell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The article consists chiefly in an examination of the Republic, but that examination attempts to determine the place of the Republic in relation to Plato's other works (especially the Laws and the Statesman) as well as their place in relation to it. This comparative effort permits a more precise specification than would otherwise be possible of the most important questions which are raised in those works and of the intention of the author in treating those questions as he does.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , Spring 1994 , pp. 261 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1994

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

This article was written originally as a lecture to be given at the Siemens Foundation in Munich in the summer of 1995; the lecture will appear, in German translation, as part of a collection of lectures on political philosophy given at the Foundation, to be published by Serie Piper.

1. SirMore, Thomas, Utopia (New York: A. L. Burt Company, n.d.,) pp. 208–209.Google Scholar

2. All citations to Plato are to the standard Greek edition of Burnet (Oxford University Press). Unless otherwise noted, the passages cited in the text are to be found in the dialogue under discussion where the citation is made.

3. Republic 497d8–498d1 and 537c9–540b7; Laws 634d4–635a5, 952c5–d2 and context, and the regulations regarding the composition and conduct of the Nocturnal Council more generally: 951d4ff. and 961a1ff. One might consider in this light Socrates' eulogy of democracy, of life in a democracy in Republic 557c4ff., especially 557d1–2.

4. Cf. 369b5-e1 with Aristotle, Politics, bk 1, chap. 2.

5. Cf. 376c7–8 (in light of 373d4–374a2 and 375b9-c5) with 399e5–7; cf. 473b4-e2, toward the beginning of a section which runs through 502c5–9, with 543a1–6 and d1f. as well as with 496c5–497d6, which stands 473b4-e2 on its head.

6. Strauss, Leo, The Argument and the Action of Plato's LAWS (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), p. 38.Google Scholar

7. Phaedrus 257b3–4; see also Parmenides 126a-c and Symposium 172c3–173a3.

8. Cf. Timaeus 17c1–19b1 with 19e5.

9. Cf. Laws 679b7-e5 in the light of 678b1–4.

10. Phaedo 64a4–6.

11. Cf. Seventh Letter 341c5-d2.

12. Cf. Clitophon 410a7-b1.

13. My summary does not always take sufficient note of the very significant differences between the two brothers.

14. Cf. Aristotle Politics 1265a2–6.

15. But cf. Aristotle Politics, bk 2, chap. 5, as well as Strauss, Plato's LAWS., pp. 1–2.

16. Cf. Timaeus 40d6–41a5 with 39e3–40d5.

17. Cf. Sophist 248e6–249b1 regarding the theological—or anti-theological— implications of the Ideas.

18. For an indication as to where the chief obstacle lies, compare Republic 603d9–604a9 with 387d1-e10.

19. On this passage, and what is at stake more generally in the Protagorean challenge, see Bolotin, David, “The Theaetetus and the Possibility of False Opinion,” Interpretation, A Journal of Political Philosophy 15 (1987): 179–93.Google Scholar

20. Strauss, Leo, “Plato,” in History of Political Philosophy, ed. Strauss, Leo and Cropsey, Joseph, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), p. 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. Regarding the Laws, see especially 963a10–965c8.

22. The “Theory of Ideas” in the form in which it was presented by the young Socrates to Parmenides himself for criticism is properly included among the pre-Socratic positions (Parmenides 128e5–135d6).

23. Sophist 265c1-e2.

24. Statesman 261e8–262b7, 263c3-e1: in order to appreciate properly the Stranger's vehemence, one must ask oneself whether the hypothetical case he has in mind is truly that of thinking cranes.