Platonic Love and the One Unforgivable
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PLATONIC LOVE AND THE ONE UNFORGIVABLE SIN A dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy Stephen Foster Sharp University of Cant erbury 2002 To Catherine Scott Supposing truth to be a woman ... Nietzsche I cannot come to terms with the fact that my mother will die, I cannot agree with this. I will protest and show that my mother is immortal. I want to convince others of her striking individuality, of her uniqueness. The internal premise is to analyse her character with the claim that she is immortal. I want to pose the question 'why is she immortal?' Tarkovsky The aim of art is to prepare a person for death Tarkovsky CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................................................ i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................................................... ii PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................................................. iv PART I LOVE .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 EUTHYPHRO PIETY and INVENTING THE DIVINE .................................................................................................................................. 2 PROTAGORAS (NOTE) UNDERSTANDING UNDERSTANDING and THE SEARCH FOR BEAUTY............................................................... 10 APOLOGY BEAUTY AS THE LANGUAGE OF THE DIVINE and IMPIETY AS DIRECT COMMUNICATION ........................ 13 REPUBLIC SUMMONERS and THE CRAFT OF COMMUNICATION ............................................................................................... 22 PHAEDO FABLES and ARGUMENTS ................................................................................................................................................. 37 PHAEDRUS TRUTH AS BEAUTY and BACKLOVE AS RECIPROCITY ............................................................................................ 46 PART II SIN ........................................................................................................................................................................... 56 INTRODUCTION SUPPOSING METHOD MATTERS ..................................................................................................................................... 59 KRAUT SUPPOSING PLATO TO BE ARTLESS .............................................................................................................................. 62 RYLE SUPPOSING PLATO TO BE CONFUSED .......................................................................................................................... 68 CIDLDCARE ACTION PROJECT (NOTE) SUPPOSING ARTIS ANALYZABLE ................................................................................................................................. 74 DAWKINS (NOTE) SUPPOSING PEOPLE TO BE MECHANISMS .................................................................................................................. 76 DREYFUS (NOTE) SUPPOSING PLATO TO HAVE HAD ANALYTIC AMBITIONS .................................................................................. 78 KUHN SUPPOSING SCIENCE INVESTIGATES A WORLD ....................................................................................................... 80 KANT SUPPOSING ALL EDUCATION IS IMITATIVE .............................................................................................................. 88 WORKS CITED .................................................................................................................................................................... 96 ABSTRACT Nietzsche contradicts himself. He revels in that manner; so, we clearly invite ridicule upon ourselves if we earnestly pull him up on his manifest inconsistencies. In cornering us in this way Nietzsche gives us something only we can do. Suppose Plato revels in the same kind of appearance of ridiculousness (compare the conclusion to his Republic image of the cave 7.517a; also Symposium 221e). Now forgo the comfort of pulling him up on that appearance. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I In large part, this thesis owes its existence to Philip Catton. He along with Bob Stoothoff first showed me what it is to be a philosopher. As well as playing an inspirational role, Philip also played the multiple roles of sounding board, editor, councillor, mountain guide, philosophical mid-wife and wet-nurse. Philip and Bob are responsible for converting me from being an anti philosopher to the only slightly more philosophically respectable position of anti-theorist. Those ideas contained in this work that pass muster owe their appearance to Philip's vigilancej his resistance to their initial wayward and convenient form, and to his guidance, until they finally took on a more respectable aspect. In a more direct way, Philip has done his very best to keep me on track not only grammatically but also in those places where I venture into areas - of science and philosophy of science - to which I have no authority to speak. In this regard, I know that he is still dissatisfied or disappointed with the ceiling to his influence over me. Though, (I would like to claim that) my shabbiness in this regard adds some weight to the core thesis of this work (for I am not a scientist). I would also like to thank David Gunn (one of Philip's past students) for our many helpful and lively discussions; some of the outcomes of which appear in various guises in this work. My thanks are also due to Paul Studtmann for donning his analytic cap and offering some valuable criticism on the Apology chapter. II Thanks, also to those many good-humoured and inspirational office mates I have had over the years, starting with Jonathon Bywater and David Gunn, and reaching to Nick Guy. Also my thanks are due to· those religious studies neighbours wh<;> did their best to disrupt the earnestness: (the cheerful) Dorothy Mcmenamin, (the wayward, but now frighteningly respectable) Jarrod Whitaker and (the record holder for the most hours spent in the department) Shayne Clarke. III Thanks also especially to Catherine Scott for her many kindnesses, thoughtfulness and longsuffering after my mother's death. IV More generally, my thanks are due to the philosophy department for keeping me in work over the extended period of my graduate sojourn, for handing me a teaching scholarship and for mis advertising it - according to regulations one cannot require someone to work for a scholarship (so without a quibble philosophy paid extra for the teaching quotient). My thanks should also go to the University of Canterbury for the doctoral scholarship. V With regard to the two-year suspension of my enrolment, in addition to Philip's tolerance, I would also like to acknowledge (the then head of department) David Novitz's good-humoured support and his offer to explain something about the essential nature of the university to the university's Registrar. Regarding the action that precipitated my suspension I would like to thank the then head of the law school, David Rowe, for sending (unbeknownst to me at that time) those stern emails to the Registrar explaining to him the unequivocal wording of the relevant sections of the Education Act, the New Zealand Bill of Rights and the Charter of the University of Canterbury. (Neither of the Davids had the desired impact on the Registrar.) Regarding the increasingly tempting option to litigate, I would like to thank my lawyer Paul Mcmenamin for his sage pro bono advice for me first to read The Pickwick Papers; also, I would like to thank him for his further pro bono threatening letter to the Registrar explaining to him the university's stated obligations under the Education Act. My thanks are also due to Nick Guy for his support throughout the viciousness and for accompanying me to a particularly ugly meeting with Burrows and Guthardt, where it was made very clear to him that his presence was not at all appreciated. That meeting was facilitated by the Ombudsman's Office and came after my third formal complaint to the University (a complaint of harassment against the Registrar). Of course, that meeting came to nothing. At that juncture, the Ombudsman's Office took over the battle. The Assistant Ombudsman Robin 1. Wilson confidently assessed the case in the following terms: 'nothing is this black and white.' However, after three months of wrangling Burrows dismissed the Chief New Zealand Ombudsman Sir Brian Elwood's proposed resolution for the matter as inconsistent (see Protagoras chapter). VI The above issue now clocks in as a four-year unresolved dispute. For that I would like to thank the Vice Chancellor Daryl Le Grew, the Registrar Alan Hayward, the Chancellor Phyllias Guthardt, and the then Deputy Vice Chancellor John Burrows. PREFACE This work is in two parts: Part I briefly surveys a number of dialogues. In those chapters, I attempt to illustrate an approach to understanding Plato that portrays him as an indirect rather than a direct communicator. I argue that Plato cannot directly state what he genuinely communicates. According to this reading, in order to get a handle on Plato, we must recognise a necessary connection