DOCSLIB.ORG

Plato's Guide to Philosophical Preparedness

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Plato's Guide to Philosophical Preparedness View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by eCommons@Cornell PLATO’S GUIDE TO PHILOSOPHICAL PREPAREDNESS: THE DANGERS OF PHILOSOPHY AND HOW TO HANDLE THEM A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Marta Alexandra Heckel August 2017 © 2017 Marta Alexandra Heckel iii PLATO’S GUIDE TO PHILOSOPHICAL PREPAREDNESS: THE DANGERS OF PHILOSOPHY AND HOW TO HANDLE THEM Marta Alexandra Heckel, Ph. D. Cornell University 2017 Philosophy is dangerous business. At least, this is what Plato tells us. The literature on Plato’s metaphilosophy and methodology, however, has largely ignored this fact. In this dissertation, I show that an overemphasis on a narrow definition of Plato’s understanding of philosophy has meant we have missed an important account of how he proposes we navigate the dangers of rational inquiry. Framed as continuing the Platonic project of successfully and safely converting people to philosophy, this dissertation takes seriously the fact that Plato is wary of philosophy being done badly, and shows that this perspective sheds light not only on methods such as elenchus, but also on Plato’s psychology, epistemology, and metaphysics. iv BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Marta Heckel undertook the research and writing of this dissertation under perilous conditions. Deigning to practice philosophy before the age of thirty, Marta received her BSc in Botany and Philosophy from the University of Toronto in 2011, and her MA in Philosophy from Cornell University in 2014. With this dissertation, Plato’s Guide to Philosophical Preparedness: The Dangers of Philosophy and How to Handle Them, she completed her PhD in Philosophy from Cornell University in 2017. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank first and foremost Tad Brennan, without whose support and guidance I would not have this dissertation. I would also like to thank Charles Brittain and Michelle Kosch for their advice about the dissertation throughout its progress, Rachana Kamtekar for helping me formulate its topic, Joachim Aufderheide, Fiona Leigh, and MM McCabe for their guidance in its preliminary stages. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends, especially Caylen Heckel, Greg Heckel, Sandie Heckel, and Anna Thomas, as well as everyone in the Sage School of Philosophy at Cornell University. Finally finally, I would like to thank everyone I have ever spoken to about my dissertation or any chapters of my dissertation – every conversation I have had has shaped it in some way into what it is today. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 PART ONE ...................................................................................................... 7 The Fine Line Between Education and Corruption................................................... 8 1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 8 2 The Passages ....................................................................................................... 9 3 The Problem ...................................................................................................... 13 4 Rejected Solutions ............................................................................................. 16 5 Towards a Solution ........................................................................................... 23 6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 35 Antilogic and Misology ............................................................................................... 38 1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 38 2 Antilogic ............................................................................................................ 38 3 Misology ............................................................................................................ 47 4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 53 PART TWO ................................................................................................... 57 Myth and Argument as Epode ................................................................................... 58 1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 58 2 A Basic View of Argument and Reasoning ....................................................... 60 vii 3 Epodes: Magic Charms..................................................................................... 65 4 New Theory of Epodes ...................................................................................... 70 5 Analysis of Passages in Terms of the New Theory ........................................... 79 6 Objection: Different from Activating Reasoning? ............................................ 93 7 Objection: This seems strange .......................................................................... 98 8 Conclusion: Rationality .................................................................................... 99 Epode in the Charmides ........................................................................................... 101 1 Introduction..................................................................................................... 101 2 The Charmides and the Theory of Epodes ...................................................... 102 3 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 122 PART THREE ............................................................................................. 124 Corruption, Education, and Correction ................................................................. 125 1 Introduction..................................................................................................... 125 2 Parallel Texts: The Fineness Passage and Laws X ........................................ 126 3 Application: Charmides .................................................................................. 144 4 Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 151 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 153 References .................................................................................................................. 156 1 INTRODUCTION Imagine a hypothetical reader of Plato. He cannot help but notice that throughout Plato’s works, there are exhortations to philosophy – powerful protreptics that praise philosophy’s virtues. Philosophy can make us better skilled at thinking (Phaedrus 239b), it can make us more virtuous (Phaedo 83e), it can help us discover the secret to happiness (Republic 473e), and allow us to experience the truest pleasures of this life (Republic 586e-7a), as well as be rewarded in life after death (Gorgias 526c, Phaedrus 249c, Phaedo 114c). Philosophy, in short, is “a gift from the gods to the mortal race whose value neither has been nor will be surpassed” (Timaeus 47b).1 This reader should also notice that with this praise comes warning, and that philosophy, according to Plato, is dangerous. False beliefs are harmful to one’s soul, and one main danger of practicing philosophy is acquiring false beliefs.2 More serious is the danger of corrupting one’s soul to the point of preventing any further philosophizing and becoming lawless and immoral. One might think that these dangers are easily avoided, but according to Plato, this is not the case.3 There are wrong ways of doing philosophy that are so close in appearance to the right way that a person can go wrong without realizing it; someone could have good reason to see himself as a philosopher but in reality fail to be one – with harmful consequences.4 Our aspiring philosopher would therefore do well to be on guard in his pursuits. 1 Trans. DJ Zeyl. 2 The Protagoras brings this out most starkly (312c-314d). 3 For examples of how easy it is to fall into the bad results, as well as what’s bad about these results, see Republic 454a-b, 537e-539d; Philebus 15d-16a, 48e-50a; Phaedo 90b-91a, 101e; Sophist 229e-231b; Timaeus 88a-b; Theaetetus 164c. I will be discussing this in more detail in the rest of this dissertation (especially with respect to the Republic). 4 “Philosophy” seems to be sometimes used as a success term, sometimes not. At Sophist 216c and Theaetetus 164c- d, for instance, it seems like bad philosophers are not really philosophers (or at least, there are some people who are thought to be philosophers (by ignorant people, as we’re told in the Sophist), but who really are not philosophers)). 2 This dissertation, Plato’s Guide to Philosophical Preparedness: The Dangers of Philosophy and How to Handle Them, investigates Plato’s metaphilosophy and methodology from the perspective of this hypothetical reader of Plato. This reader wants to become a philosopher, and is encouraged by all the benefits Plato says come along with that way of life. However, heeding Plato’s many warnings, he is cautious to begin his foray into philosophy - he doesn’t want to harm anyone in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Cynicism of Diogenes
    DON‟T SHOOT THE MESSENGER! RETHINKING CYNICISM AND THE VALUE OF POLITICAL CRITIQUE by Suvi Maaria Irvine A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland December 2014 ©2014 Suvi Irvine All Rights Reserved Abstract: That Americans have become cynical about politics is often taken for granted in both popular and scholarly discourse. But what does it mean to be cynical? The answer to this question is far from simple and requires an investigation into the concept‟s origins, which reside in the ancient Greek philosophy known as classical Cynicism. Diogenes of Sinope, who remains the paradigmatic Cynic, was an abrasive figure in ancient Athens whose sneers and sarcasm where essential to his commitment to „living according to nature.‟ And for Diogenes, this meant living in accordance with the truth. He distrusted the social and political motivations of his fellow Athenians, and he called them out on their hypocrisy in ways that both amused and aggravated them. But what Diogenes did, above all, was demand room for honesty and the truth in the public sphere. I propose that his example is valuable in the context of contemporary American political culture, where honesty is rare and the truth is regularly disregarded. This dissertation presents an analysis of what cynicism can do for American political culture. I first address the question of what it means to be cynical and assess how much cynicism has changed since the days of Diogenes. While it may not mirror the original in all of its aspects, I argue that at root what it means to be cynical has not changed significantly, and that we can still identify cynics in our midst through their commitment to seeking and sarcastically speaking the truth.
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle and Plato on Friendship by John Von Heyking
    Digital Commons @ Assumption University Philosophy Department Faculty Works Philosophy Department 2017 The Form of Politics: Aristotle and Plato on Friendship by John Von Heyking Nalin Ranasinghe Assumption College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.assumption.edu/philosophy-faculty Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Ranasinghe, N. (2017). The Form of Politics: Aristotle and Plato on Friendship by John Von Heyking. International Political Anthropology 10(1): 39-55. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy Department at Digital Commons @ Assumption University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Department Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Assumption University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Form of Politics: Aristotle and Plato on Friendship by John Von Heyking Nalin Ranasinghe Abstract Heyking’s ascent from Aristotle to Plato implies that something Platonic was lost in Aristotle’s accounts of friendship and politics. Plato’s views on love and soul turn out to have more in common with early Christianity. Stressing differences between eros and thumos, using Voegelin’s categories to discuss the Platonic Good, and expanding on Heyking’s use of Hermes, I show how tragic culture and true politics can be further enhanced by refining erotic friendship, repudiating Augustinian misanthropy, positing minimum doctrines about soul and city, and basing reason on Hermes rather than Apollo. Keywords: Plato, Aristotle, Voegelin, Eros, Thumos, friendship, soul, Von Heyking Introduction John von Heyking’s book on friendship is as easy to read as it is hard to review.
    [Show full text]
  • Plato's Phaedo As a Pedagogical Drama
    Ancient Philosophy 33 (2013) ©Mathesis Publications 333 Plato’s Phaedo as a Pedagogical Drama Sarah Jansen The Phaedo has long been recognized as dramatic in nature (see, e.g., Jowett 1892, 193). Indeed, the dialogue’s dramatic portrayal of a Herculean Socrates attacking the heads of a hydra naturally invites this assessment (89c). At the out- set of the dialogue Socrates and the fourteen named companions are juxtaposed with Theseus and the fourteen Athenian youth, on their way to defeat the Mino- taur (58a-c).1 Also, Socrates’ death scene is particularly dramatic. Fifteen com- panions, the exact number of a tragic chorus, surround the dying Socrates and lament (117c-d).2 Reflection on this scene has prompted scholars to speculate that it is intended to ‘lend moving force’ to the tragic perspective and to ‘rouse’ readers’ emotions (see Halliwell 1984, 57-58 and Crotty 2009, 87, respectively). Despite these scholarly observations and compelling evidence that the dia- logues were treated as dramatic performance literature in antiquity (see Charal- abopoulos 2012), a number of key questions have yet to be satisfactorily and systematically answered: What is drama?; What is the Phaedo a drama about?; What is the function, if any, of the dramatic elements of the Phaedo? I undertake to answer these questions. I conclude with some thoughts about Plato’s purpose in writing dramatic dialogues and Plato’s attitude toward poetry. One of my aims throughout will be to demonstrate how a proper understanding of the literary dimension of the Phaedo sheds light on the philosophical content of the dialogue.
    [Show full text]
  • Misanthropy and Misanthropes
    Pre-publication draft; please cite published version in Journal of Philosophical Research (forthcoming in 2021). MISANTHROPY AND MISANTHROPES Kathryn J. Norlock Trent University kathrynnorlock at trentu dot ca Norlock (2021) prepublication draft Page 2 of 20 In this paper, I argue that it is conceptually and ethically good to broaden the conception of misanthropy beyond that of hatred of humans, as philosophers such as David Cooper do. I concur with Cooper that misanthropy in the form of a negative critical verdict of humanity is apt and does not reduce to blame of individual humans. After all, as Claudia Card argues, evil institutions and practices are ubiquitous and systemic. They are both very bad and not simply imputable to individuals. So the judgment that evils are human-caused is not reducible to a judgment of particular individuals. However, I hope to persuade readers that not everyone with misanthropic thoughts is a misanthrope. Just as philosophers like Card and Kate Manne broaden the conception of misogyny but hold that most who contribute to environments hostile to women are not misogynists, I argue that many of us who hold misanthropic thoughts are not misanthropes; further, we should consider whether we want to be and we should consider when we find it ethically important to attribute the identity of a misanthrope to others. I propose holding the descriptive concept of a misanthrope to characterize anyone who appraises or expresses the moral perception — the negative critical verdict of humanity — to be appropriate, weighty, and governing of other aspects of one’s moral outlook or one’s character.
    [Show full text]
  • ON PLATO's CONCEPT of REASON by M. Cole Powers, BA, Philosophy
    ON PLATO’S CONCEPT OF REASON By M. Cole Powers, B.A., Philosophy (McGill 2013) A thesis presented to Ryerson University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of PHILOSOPHY Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2016 © M. Cole Powers 2016 AUTHOR'S DECLARATION FOR ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF A THESIS I, Cole Powers, hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I authorize Ryerson University to lend this thesis to other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research. I further authorize Ryerson University to reproduce this thesis by photocopying or by other means, in total or in part, at the request of other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii ON PLATO’S CONCEPT OF REASON MATHEW COLE POWERS MASTER OF ARTS ‐ PHILOSOPHY 2016 RYERSON UNIVERSITY ABSTRACT What is reason? A number of contemporary philosophical schools of thought have sought, implicitly or explicitly, to answer the question. That an answer to the question be found is of utmost importance for the practice of philosophy, and yet none seems to be forthcoming. In this thesis, we propose to examine Plato’s concept of reason. Our method in the thesis, however, is to proceed negatively: first, we examine the misology passage from the Phaedo 89d: why is the greatest evil to become a misologue (hater of reason)? What does this say about Plato’s conception of reason? What is the connection between reason, pleasure, and pain? Next, we move to the Phaedrus, where a more constructive account is offered.
    [Show full text]
  • Plato As a Philosophy Salesman in the Phaedo Marlon Jesspher B
    Philosophy for Business – Issue 80 – 11th February 2017 http://www.isfp.co.uk/businesspathways/ Plato as a Philosophy Salesman in the Phaedo Marlon Jesspher B. De Vera Introduction In this paper, I attempt to argue that Plato’s main intent in the Phaedo is not to build and present an argument for the immortality of the soul, but rather to elevate, promote, and in a sense “sell” philosophy as the highest pursuit of humanity. As an initial support for this argument, it is worth emphasizing that the Phaedo presents in a somewhat dramatic manner how Socrates spent the last day of his life philosophizing with his students. Thus, it can be said that the setting of the Phaedo in itself already sets an appropriate backdrop against which philosophy can be promoted as the ultimate human endeavour that is worth undertaking, in the sense that even in the face of death, the true lover of wisdom would still choose to spend his or her remaining time on earth practicing philosophy. However, it would not be sufficient to simply rely on this connection with the dialogue’s dramatic setting to assert that the dialogue’s main purpose is to promote and “sell” philosophy. Thus, I now attempt to strengthen this assertion further by presenting three supporting arguments. 1. Plato’s main intent is to promote philosophy to the Pythagoreans, and not to construct proofs for Pythagorean beliefs It is important to note that Socrates’ main discussants in the dialogue, Simmias and Cebes, are Pythagoreans who had core beliefs on the immortality of the soul, reincarnation, and the notion that the body contaminates the soul.
    [Show full text]
  • Nietzsche and Heraclitus: Notes on Stars Without an Atmosphere
    Sophia and Philosophia Volume 1 Issue 1 Spring-Summer Article 5 4-1-2016 Nietzsche and Heraclitus: Notes on Stars without an Atmosphere Niketas Siniossoglou National Hellenic Research Foundation, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.belmont.edu/sph Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons, German Language and Literature Commons, History of Philosophy Commons, Logic and Foundations of Mathematics Commons, and the Metaphysics Commons Recommended Citation Siniossoglou, Niketas (2016) "Nietzsche and Heraclitus: Notes on Stars without an Atmosphere," Sophia and Philosophia: Vol. 1 : Iss. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://repository.belmont.edu/sph/vol1/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Belmont Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sophia and Philosophia by an authorized editor of Belmont Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. S.Ph. Essays and Explorations 1.1 Copyright 2016, S.Ph. Press Nietzsche and Heraclitus: Notes on Stars without an Atmosphere Niketas Siniossoglou [The following was written in the summer of 2015 in a country oscillating between socio- economic disaster and a descent into a state of perpetual incomplete nihilism. The latter prevailed.] Nietzschean dream I awake estranged from everyone. Words have lost their meaning; they sound indifferent and homonymous. The word No appears to mean Yes, or rather: Yes and No are malleable, ephemeral, and transparent. A decades-old or perhaps centuries-old movement of miry clay has resulted in a miscarriage of words. I inquire whether anyone still holds the resources needed for a direct, sincere affirmation of life—a Yes that is definitively and essentially affirmative—or a No that is definitively and essentially negative—words bursting forth splendour like a crystal.
    [Show full text]
  • “Follow the Argument” and Two Other Socratic Principles for the Christian
    DRAFT VERSION ©2004 David H. Calhoun All rights reserved. “Follow the Argument” and Two Other Socratic Principles for the Christian Academic David Calhoun, Philosophy, Gonzaga University Gonzaga Socratic Club, September 10, 2004 “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” So asked the early church father Tertullian, who notoriously answered, Nothing good.1 What has philosophical reason to do with Christian faith? What has Socrates to do with Christ? Tertullian’s answer to the question has not been the majority position throughout Christian history, but it has a particular resonance for many people today. Thanks in large part to the perception of conflicts between science—especially evolutionary biology—and religion, many critics of Christianity,2 and indeed many Christians, have posited a radical distinction between reason, argument, and evidence on the one hand and Christian faith and practice on the other. Few Christians today are willing to embrace the austere anti-logic of Tertullian’s “I believe because it is absurd,”3 preferring instead to think of faith in existential-fideistic terms. I mean by “existential-fideistic” something like the standard contemporary account that faith is a matter of “just believing,” of passionately giving assent to beliefs that in principle cannot be justified rationally. Christian beliefs might not be absurd or crazy—after all, the story goes, each person is entitled to believe whatever he or she wants—but it would be mistaken to look for reasons to ground these beliefs. For anyone holding this view, Socrates makes a rather odd patron saint. Still worse, critics in the spirit of Tertullian might argue that Socrates’ philosophical mission was essentially anti-religious, insofar as he attacked the traditional religious mythology of his time and set up human rationality as a competing source of truth.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant on Misology and the Natural Dialectic
    volume 19, no. 47 1. Philosophy and Common Moral Cognition october 2019 Towards the conclusion of the First Section of the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant describes a process whereby a subject can undergo a certain kind of moral corruption. This process, which he calls a “natural dialectic”, can cause one to undermine one’s own or- dinary grasp of the demands of morality (4: 405).1 The threat of the natural dialectic is of particular interest since it not only gives a precise Kant on Misology and causal account of the phenomenon of moral corruption but also con- stitutes Kant’s case for the relevance of philosophy to everyday practi- cal life. The question as to whether and how philosophy can have any practical significance within our ordinary moral lives is one that Kant the Natural Dialectic himself had just raised at the conclusion of the section. According to his own account of “common moral cognition”, the cognitive capacity of ordinary human beings “is very well informed in all cases that occur, to distinguish what is good, what is evil, what conforms with duty or is contrary to it” (4: 404). This commitment stemmed from Kant’s reading of Rousseau in the 1760s.2 Rousseau had convinced him that the unreflective responses of ordinary uneducated human subjects are more reliable than those of philosophical experts. Kant’s previous prioritization of the improve- ment of the intellect and the thought that “this alone could constitute the honor of mankind” later struck him as constituting both a philo- John J.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Plato's Phaedo
    Sean Hannan The Examined Life Autumn 2015 Notes on Plato’s Phaedo 1. Background a. The Phaedo tells the story of Socrates’ final days. Taking place after the events depicted in the Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito, this dialogue serves as his swansong. b. Whereas the Apology had a fairly straightforward structure, consisting mainly of Socrates’ monologues to the citizens of Athens (with a bit of back-and-forth with Meletus thrown in), the Phaedo is a full-blown dialogue. In fact, it operates as a dialogue on multiple levels. First we have the framing dialogue, which consists of the eponymous main character Phaedo’s account of Socrates’ final words, which he gives to Echecrates and others on his way home from Athens. Then we have the dialogue recounted by Phaedo, which takes place between Socrates and those who were with him in his final hours. c. First, let’s take a closer look at the framing dialogue. Phaedo (the character) is on his way back from Athens after attending the trial and execution of Socrates. As he approaches his hometown of Elis in the Peloponnese, he runs into a group of Pythagoreans, the most vocal of which is Echecrates. These men are dubbed ‘Pythagoreans’ because they follow the teachings of Pythagoras. While most of us are familiar with his theorem, Pythagoras had much more to say on the topics of philosophy and mathematics. For our purposes here, we should only note these Pythagoreans would’ve been especially open to the mathematical examples Phaedo tells them Socrates made use of in his final conversation—e.g., the difference between odd and even numbers, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Christian Attitudes Toward the Jews in the Earliest Centuries A.D
    Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Dissertations Graduate College 8-2007 Christian Attitudes toward the Jews in the Earliest Centuries A.D. S. Mark Veldt Western Michigan University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations Part of the History of Christianity Commons, and the History of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Veldt, S. Mark, "Christian Attitudes toward the Jews in the Earliest Centuries A.D." (2007). Dissertations. 925. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/925 This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHRISTIAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE JEWS IN THE EARLIEST CENTURIES A.D. by S. Mark Veldt A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of History Dr. Paul L. Maier, Advisor Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan August 2007 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHRISTIAN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE JEWS IN THE EARLIEST CENTURIES A.D. S. Mark Veldt, PhD . Western Michigan University, 2007 This dissertation examines the historical development of Christian attitudes toward the Jews up to c. 350 A.D., seeking to explain the origin and significance of the antagonistic stance of Constantine toward the Jews in the fourth century. For purposes of this study, the early Christian sources are divided into four chronological categories: the New Testament documents (c.
    [Show full text]
  • I Am Your Brother Joseph: Ratzinger and the Rehabilitation of Reason
    Digital Commons @ Assumption University Philosophy Department Faculty Works Philosophy Department 2011 I Am Your Brother Joseph: Ratzinger and the Rehabilitation of Reason Nalin Ranasinghe Assumption College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.assumption.edu/philosophy-faculty Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Ranasinghe, Nalin. "I Am Your Brother Joseph: Ratzinger and the Rehabilitation of Reason." Gained Horizons: Regensburg and the Enlargement of Reason, edited by Bainard Cowan, St. Augustine's Press, 2011, pp. 49-60. This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy Department at Digital Commons @ Assumption University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Department Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Assumption University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. I Am Your Brother Joseph: Ratzinger and the Rehabilitation ofReason Na/in Ranasinghe The full significance of Pope Benedict XVI's controversial address at Regensburg in September 2006 has yet to be properly appreciated. The pontiff's main theme, a stirring call for the re-Hellenization of the West, was drowned out by a nearly unanimous chorus of criticism. Ironically, Western academics were so carried away by shallow outrage on behalf of the 'Other' that they inadvertently illustrated the pope's point regarding the breakdown of speech and rationality. Their unwillingness to appreciate the deep connection between Greek Reason and Hebrew Revelation that constitutes the very basis of our intellectual tradition strongly suggests that many academics are at least dangerously unaware of, and perhaps even consciously hostile to, their own origins.
    [Show full text]