Anyhow, it amused/frustrated me, and I figured this audience would be one of the few places where that feeling might resonate!
Yeah, this is one of the most irritating, but in a way also the most interesting, parts of reading Plato: The way that "scholars" have gone out of their way for 200 years to deliberately misunderstand him. The Republic contains some of the most important spiritual teachings in the history of the Western world, but if you read
That's why I also recommend to people that when you buy a collection of Plato's writings, as you'll inevitably need to, ignore any introductory essays that come with it. The only exception is if these are written by Thomas Taylor, which is only going to happen if you shill out the money for Taylor's translations. But in most cases, the introductions are worse than useless.
None other than C.S. Lewis himself commented on this issue. In a talk given to Anglican clergy on contemporary misinterpretation of the Gospels, he remarked that he had been inoculated against them by seeing that the same bad hermeneutics applied to Plato's writings:
One was brought up to believer that the real meaning of Plato had been misunderstood by Aristotle and wildly travestied by the neo-Platonists, only to be recovered by the moderns. When recovered, it turned out (most fortunately) that Plato had really all along been an English Hegelian, rather like T.H. Green.
I used to find this all fairly irritating. Lately, though, I'm starting to find it fascinating. Whitehead's remark that "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato" is well known. Even people who don't like Plato understand his importance. So why is it that we've done our best to ignore the things he actually said? It really looks like desperation.
no subject
Yeah, this is one of the most irritating, but in a way also the most interesting, parts of reading Plato: The way that "scholars" have gone out of their way for 200 years to deliberately misunderstand him. The Republic contains some of the most important spiritual teachings in the history of the Western world, but if you read
That's why I also recommend to people that when you buy a collection of Plato's writings, as you'll inevitably need to, ignore any introductory essays that come with it. The only exception is if these are written by Thomas Taylor, which is only going to happen if you shill out the money for Taylor's translations. But in most cases, the introductions are worse than useless.
None other than C.S. Lewis himself commented on this issue. In a talk given to Anglican clergy on contemporary misinterpretation of the Gospels, he remarked that he had been inoculated against them by seeing that the same bad hermeneutics applied to Plato's writings:
I used to find this all fairly irritating. Lately, though, I'm starting to find it fascinating. Whitehead's remark that "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato" is well known. Even people who don't like Plato understand his importance. So why is it that we've done our best to ignore the things he actually said? It really looks like desperation.