I love things about plato

Mi másért vettem meg tavaly ezt a könyvet, mint az első harmadában elmesélt apokalipszis-mítoszért. A többi része is érdekes, de mítoszmesélésben még mindig Platón a legmenőbb. Még akkor is jól csinálja, ha rosszul csinálja. 

Tavaly szeptemberben ugyanis apokalipszistörténetekről hallgattam előadást a Trefort-kertben, és ámulva-bámulva tudtam meg, hogy a visszafelé forgó idő ötletét vagy Platón találta ki, vagy ő jegyezte le először. Mint a Hyperionban, csak itt az egész emberiségre érvényes az, hogy egyszer csak elkezd visszafelé élni, egyre fiatalodni, majd eltűnni – sőt, még az összes halott is visszatér a földből, szép sorban, amíg el nem fogynak.

Részletes értékelésem a blogon:
https://gyujtogeto-alkoto.blog.hu/202...

What is a Statesman? Obviously a type of herdsmen for bipedal animals that oversees his charges with consent and sole authority.

The end of this book was full of fireworks. The balancing of courage (which, in its extreme, can be too warlike) and moderation (too lethargic in its extreme) has implications in everything from running a government to building a company to understanding a partner. As always, I pick up Plato fearing that the topics may be a bit dusty and require a fair amount of translation to become practical in modernity...and by the end of the book, am scribbling notes nonstop relevant to my day to day life.

Devlet ve Yasalar ile birlikte Platon'un siyaset teorilerini tamamlayan bir kitap. Sorgulayıcı bu sefer Sokrates değil adını bilmediğimiz bir yabancı. Ayrıca Platon'un Filozof diye kayıp bir diyalogu olduğunu da öğreniyoruz.

Statesman lacks the mystery of Theaetetus and the rigor of Sophist, but it is the natural conclusion to the trilogy. The first dialogue is a critique of Protagoras and Heraclitus, a careful examination of the faults of relativism. The second dialogue is a critique of Parmenides and the faults of monism. Statesman demonstrates that neither one accurately describes practical human existence, which is ultimately a weaving together of both interpretations. The difficulty is that the two interpretations contradict each other in a very fundamental way, which to my mind calls into question the entire approach. The Stranger is no Socrates, who would no doubt have serious issues with the contradictions inherent in this weaving. But where the Stranger is successful is in outlining these competing schools of thought, both of which have their merits -- and perhaps that was Plato's goal here, or at least one of his goals.

The Brann/Kalkavage/Salem translation is clear and consistent. One of the best things about the Focus Philosophical translations is that nearly all of them include glossaries, so the reader can see how the translators choose to translate particular words, in this case with explanations why. The interpretive essay is also very good, though perhaps not entirely necessary.

Thank you.

One mistake I did was reading this before Theaetetus, Parmenides and Sophist. I am sure to give this text another chance after going through those.

The first half of this dialogue was difficult to plough through. Discussion seems to go over all over the place and yet arrive nowhere. It was interesting seeing Plato use the concept of the time "when gods ruled the world" (paraphrasing).

The second part is the one most people remember and it is as thought provoking as what I have come to expect from Plato's dialogues. Controversial, for sure, but that's quite a fascinating feat for a work written almost 2500 years ago.

This has to be the most pretentious thing I’ve ever logged on here. This was bad. Baaaaddd!!!! Inspired some cool conversations though

I think I'll have to read this one again down the track because it is the third part of a trilogy. I found this translation difficult to read. It might be good for someone who wants a literal account of the original, but for a philosophical beginner like me it was too wordy. I'm thinking that I might read another translation.

Continuação do Sofista, mas menos tedioso e ao meu ver com mais implicações pro futuro. O método de subdivisões, apesar de induzir muitas vezes ao erro, é uma ferramenta curiosa, que tenta reduzir em classes as definições até chegar ao ponto desejado. O Estrangeiro traz discursos que induzem a reflexão para nosso cotidiano, como a regulação por leis de artes que não são compatíveis com essa deliberação forçada e não otimizada de alocação de recursos. Há pontos de alusão aos benefícios da autocracia, que nos faz pensar na atualidade. "A democracia é a pior forma de constituição quando as leis são respeitadas, e a melhor quando elas são violadas. O contrário para a monarquia"

A few highlights, in no particular order:

1. The Stranger's division of things into categories at the beginning is kind of awesome. There are some good points about methodology that contemporary metaphysicians might want to take note of (e.g., it seems awfully anthropocentric to divide the the world into human/nonhuman). The fact that this all ends with the definition of politics that's somewhat hard to take seriously (as the tending of featherless bipeds) is even better.

2. Plato's discussion of the way that character traits (such as aggressiveness and docility) can be either virtues or vices, depending on the political structure in which they are realized, foreshadows Aristotle's doctrine of the mean. And while the presentation is much shorter, I think there's actually a lot to be said for Plato's discussion: he avoids ranking one class of people as inherently better than the other (as Aristotle likes to do, on occasion), and the sorts of outcomes he is worried about (a state that slowly becomes either too aggressive or too timid) don't seem to require any wacky beliefs about genetics--the worry is rather that culture can be "pushed" too far one way or the other. This might be reading too much into a (relatively short) discussion, but it is (so far as I know) one of the few places Plato wades into these sorts of issues.

3. I think there's a serious case for teaching the Statesman as an "introduction" to Plato's political philosophy (especially when compared to the much weightier Republic and Laws). The beginning provides a defense of Plato's methodology, and the conclusions the Stranger reaches (regarding the permissiblity of paternalism, the justification of the laws, the relative merits of democracy and rival forms of government) are pretty straightforward. OTOH, the Statesman's modest ambitions do make it a bit less *fun* (philosophically speaking) than these other dialogues.