Philosophy Now Forum

Has anyone found a list of readings / commentaries by 'significant' philosophers grouped by dialogue?

I'm looking for a list of things like these but listed by dialogue.

- Heidegger's essay "Plato's Doctrine of Truth" on the Allegory of the Cave in Republic
- Michel Foucault (1982 lectures "L'Hermeneutique du Sujet") reading of Alcibiades.
- Jacques Derrida. “Plato’s Pharmacy" on Phaedrus
- J S Mill writing on Protagoras

Other "readings" of Plato or books about more recent receptions of Plato that I have found:

- Plato and the Simulacrum - Gilles Deleuze an extract from Logic of Sense

- Postmodern Platos, NIETZSCHE, HEIDEGGER, GADAMER, STRAUSS, DERRIDA by CATHERINE H. ZUCKERT



There also seem to be quite a bit in the Analytic Philosophy tradition which I"m not as interested in
- Gregory Vlastos - Vlastos’ study of the Third Man Argument (TMA) in Plato’s Parmenides (Vlastos 1954)

- David Sachs (1963) Plato's Republic

- Richard Ketchum -

- Wittgenstein in Philosophical Investigations (Secs 48 ff.) - on Theatetus

In the Continuum Companion to Plato is a little section actually -

CONTINENTAL APPROACHES
Francisco Gonzalez
‘Continental approaches’ to Plato are best understood by tracing them back to their source, arguably Friedrich Nietzsche (1844– 1900), because Nietzsche (1999, 2005) first articulates the principal traits that characterize most readings of Plato in continental philosophy despite the great diversity they otherwise exhibit....

in which more contemporary philosophers engage not with the arguments or conclusions of Plato but with the unspoken assumptions within the text...

Nietzsche, (anti-platonist)
Heidegger
Levinas
Derrida (anti-platonist)

Leo Strauss (more sympathetic to plato)
Gadamer

Stanley Rosen
Drew Hyland
John Sallis

lukasecho wrote:Has anyone found a list of readings / commentaries by 'significant' philosophers grouped by dialogue?

I'm looking for a list of things like these but listed by dialogue.

- Heidegger's essay "Plato's Doctrine of Truth" on the Allegory of the Cave in Republic
- Michel Foucault (1982 lectures "L'Hermeneutique du Sujet") reading of Alcibiades.
- Jacques Derrida. “Plato’s Pharmacy" on Phaedrus
- J S Mill writing on Protagoras

The best thing is to get hold of Jowett's 1892 translation with the complete commentaries, 5 vols, Oxford, 1892.

Melchior wrote:
The best thing is to get hold of Jowett's 1892 translation with the complete commentaries, 5 vols, Oxford, 1892.

Do Jowetts Commentaries discuss Plato's influence / and debate within the Moderns? - Descartes, Hume, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Schelling etc?

It's not really going to help with anything after 1892 though. Heidegger, Foucault Derrida etc.

lukasecho wrote:

Melchior wrote:
The best thing is to get hold of Jowett's 1892 translation with the complete commentaries, 5 vols, Oxford, 1892.

Do Jowetts Commentaries discuss Plato's influence / and debate within the Moderns? - Descartes, Hume, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Schelling etc?

It's not really going to help with anything after 1892 though. Heidegger, Foucault Derrida etc.

You don't need to know about anything after 1892 to study Plato. He wrote in ca 350BC.

Here is the set online:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/166

But if I were a serious student of Plato, I would buy my own set. As Jowett says in the introduction, it is a mistake to try to understand Plato in modern terms.

"For example, in translating Plato, it would equally be an anachronism to intrude on him the feeling and spirit of the Jewish or Christian Scriptures or the technical terms of the Hegelian or Darwinian philosophy."

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/plato ... lato-vol-1

Melchior wrote: You don't need to know about anything after 1892 to study Plato. He wrote in ca 350BC.

Why do you presume that I want to study Plato? I'm really not that interested in just studying Plato. I"m interested in studying the canon/tradition of "western philosophy" which happens to include a lot of writing that occurred AFTER Plato but engaged with various aspects of his writings and thought.

This self-righteous nonsense that one only needs to read Plato is absurd.
If you are reading Phaedrus anyway why not also read Derrida's "Plato's Pharmacy" while it is still fresh in your mind? Given that I will probably want to read the Derrida at a later date anyway?

lukasecho wrote:

Melchior wrote: You don't need to know about anything after 1892 to study Plato. He wrote in ca 350BC.

Why do you presume that I want to study Plato? I'm really not that interested in just studying Plato. I"m interested in studying the canon/tradition of "western philosophy" which happens to include a lot of writing that occurred AFTER Plato but engaged with various aspects of his writings and thought.

This self-righteous nonsense that one only needs to read Plato is absurd.
If you are reading Phaedrus anyway why not also read Derrida's "Plato's Pharmacy" while it is still fresh in your mind? Given that I will probably want to read the Derrida at a later date anyway?

I don't understand your comments. What I was saying is that little of importance regarding Plato was written after Jowett's work. If you want to learn about Plato, get that set or read it online. If you don't want to learn about Plato, why are you even asking? Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I never said you have to read only Plato. Quite the contrary! But, why the hell would you read Derrida, Heidegger, or Foucault anyway? They are all assholes. Calling them 'philosophers' is a joke. If you were to read the entire third edition of the dialogues by Jowett, with the commentaries he wrote, you would know more than 99% of so-called 'Plato' scholars in academe. Contemporary 'scholarship' is crap. Jowett trumps them all.

lukasecho wrote:Has anyone found a list of readings / commentaries by 'significant' philosophers grouped by dialogue?

I'm looking for a list of things like these but listed by dialogue.

- Heidegger's essay "Plato's Doctrine of Truth" on the Allegory of the Cave in Republic
- Michel Foucault (1982 lectures "L'Hermeneutique du Sujet") reading of Alcibiades.
- Jacques Derrida. “Plato’s Pharmacy" on Phaedrus
- J S Mill writing on Protagoras

Again, you're going about this all wrong. The list you provide...fuck that list. Those people are worthless. Why would you even consider reading that crap?

Well, anyway .. .... thanks for derailing my question with your rather extremist attitudes towards contemporary philosophy. Its not really helpful. If anyone has more useful recommendations I would appreciate it.

lukasecho wrote:Well, anyway .. .... thanks for derailing my question with your rather extremist attitudes towards contemporary philosophy. Its not really helpful. If anyone has more useful recommendations I would appreciate it.

There is nothing 'extremist' in the least about suggesting you read Jowett if you want to understand Plato. That's the bloody point!

Asking about Heidegger, Derrida or Foucault marks you as being extremely naïve and unfit to study philosophy. If you don't want to understand Plato, why are you even asking these questions?

Melchior wrote: There is nothing 'extremist' in the least about suggesting you read Jowett if you want to understand Plato. That's the bloody point!

It wasn't the suggestion that I read Jowett that was extreme. Sure there are different translations. What was extreme was this ungrounded assertion regarding Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida etc that:

Those people are worthless. Why would you even consider reading that crap?

Why? Well, because they are actually quite representative of "philosophy" this century, well "continental philosophy" at least.

So what philosophy post-plato is not "crap" according to "Melchoir" ?
Who would you cite as worth reading from the last 500 years?

The irony is that without the centuries of philosophy that you so despise then Plato's works themselves probably wouldn't have been preserved at all - such that you could enjoy them

lukasecho wrote:

Melchior wrote: There is nothing 'extremist' in the least about suggesting you read Jowett if you want to understand Plato. That's the bloody point!

It wasn't the suggestion that I read Jowett that was extreme. Sure there are different translations. What was extreme was this ungrounded assertion regarding Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida etc that:

Those people are worthless. Why would you even consider reading that crap?

Why? Well, because they are actually quite representative of "philosophy" this century, well "continental philosophy" at least.

So what philosophy post-plato is not "crap" according to "Melchoir" ?
Who would you cite as worth reading from the last 500 years?

My points were these:

You seem to think that philosophers are the ones to turn to for 'significant readings of Plato's dialogues'. I wish to inform you that this is not the case (or not necessarily the case).

1) If you want to read Plato, don't start with the people you mentioned. Read Jowett's translations of Plato and Jowett's commentaries before you read anything else. Why? Because he translated all of Plato's dialogues (three times!) and wrote commentaries about all of them. It is a monumental work of scholarship, never equaled.

2) If you regard Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida et al. (not 'etc.') as 'representative' philosophers in any sense of that term, you need to be corrected. They certainly are not. Where did you ever get such a ridiculous idea?

Melchior wrote: My points were these:

You seem to think that philosophers are the ones to turn to for 'significant readings of Plato's dialogues'. I wish to inform you that this is not the case (or not necessarily the case).

So perhaps my initial phrasing was not the best. However, I think the OP is relatively clear that I am looking for a list of commentaries on Plato, in which the 'significance' of any is clearly a contentious issue. Your suggestions so far have been "Jowett, Jowett and Jowett". Yes ok, I accept that he has written a commentary and I do actually have a two volume Jowett translations.

Melchior wrote: 1) If you want to read Plato, don't start with the people you mentioned. Read Jowett's translations of Plato and Jowett's commentaries before you read anything else. Why? Because he translated all of Plato's dialogues (three times!) and wrote commentaries about all of them. It is a monumental work of scholarship, never equaled.

See the problem here is that this has nothing to do with my original post. I did NOT ask for commentaries to read INSTEAD of reading Plato. I just asked for a list of commentaries. It is really beside the point of whether I am reading or am not also reading Plato's dialogues themselves.

As it happens I am reading the dialogues themselves. However, I am interested in ALSO reading, just AFTER reading the dialogue itself, where and what has been taken up as a focal point in later philosophy - much as one does in a Philosophy class / seminar.

- First you read read the Primary Text

- Second, you skim-over /read a few contemporary commentaries or interpretations. Personally I find it interesting to know what particular points / ideas have served as focal points for later philosophy and thinkers, whether you agree or disagree with their focal points it can be useful as a foil against which you can interrogate your own understanding of the text.

Melchior wrote: 2) If you regard Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida et al. (not 'etc.') as 'representative' philosophers in any sense of that term, you need to be corrected. They certainly are not. Where did you ever get such a ridiculous idea?

OK - so who would you cite as more representative of 20th Century Philosophy? ( although I did suggest I meant "Continental Philosophy").