Once upon a time I read a paper on Plato's "Cratylus" and one member of the audience complained that what I had done was not ancient philosophy at all, mainly because (as I gathered) because I had devoted too little time to analyzing Plato's Greek. And, that is an important aspect of the study of Plato, to be sure.
I had, in fact, raised a philosophical objection to one interpretation of that text.
My objection was roughly that: according to the then reigning view about the theory of reference, the theory being put forward by Plato (on this interpretation) was patently false.
My opponents found descriptivism there. I didn't see how there could be descriptivism there since Plato seemed to say that the original name-givers were Heracliteans, a view Plato himself rejected.... (Later at another meeting one proposer of this interpretation defended it by pointing out an older and more distinguished interpreter had proposed it. I should have laughed..) The descriptions backing referring terms belonged to a false theory.....So why should Plato himself think that terms manage to make contact with reality via theories? Something like that was (as I dimly recall) my thought......
Well, maybe Plato held a false theory. Fine, but if so, who cares? What's the point of studying it? Why bother working out the details of a bad theory? Unless of course you are going to find out that Plato was defending a theory people reject today for bad reasons? What's wrong with using a modern theory in an ancient context? Why can't it be like rubbing two stones together to make a spark?
Why bother if there's nothing to be learned beyond making a catalogue of what a famous person believed? Just to keep the historical record straight? But, then who cares if something is just wrong? Why not find a better way to spend your time than by making a list of what a famous person believed?
This recollection occurred to me because recently I read a review of a book by another student of Terry Penner, a student who was also writing about Plato. As I recall, the reviewer closed the review with a bit of psychoanalysis, saying something like: apparently these interpreters of Plato are afraid that Plato's ideas might not be philosophically true..... (something along that line)...
Well, at one level, that's a patent ad hominem. If the interpreters have got no textual support, then they deserve criticism because they are just making things up and pinning Plato's name on them.... But, as the texts themselves may very well be ambiguous on many levels and at various points, one might like to try to find a philosophically interesting interpretation which is consistent with the texts such as they are.
But I don't understand why anyone would want to read and study Plato if you didn't think there was something true there.
This thought occurred to me once when I read a famous Aristotle scholar explaining that while Aristotle's biology might, ultimately not make sense.... it represents something like an alternative universe...
But, to put my reaction in the crudest terms: doesn't studying the history of philosophy then become a sort of freak show?
If Plato's got no insights into how to live or whatever.... Well, maybe Aristotle is describing an alternative life-form? a way biology might have turned out but didn't? That's not exactly a freak show.
As I recall the reviewer said something about "historicity". Plato, I suppose, is so much a man of his day that... what? His views are incomprehensible to us? He has a different "logic"?
You can hardly read a bit of Plato or Aristotle without noticing that these guys come at things differently. You may think their ethical approach is quaint or innocent, but it is plainly not contemporary..... but that it might amount to something like a theory or view, that we can formulate in our own language, and that we might need to notice unstated assumptions, or puzzle about how the pieces fit together.... while also wondering if it could be true that you can't gain happiness through injustice, e.g., Well, all that is about wondering what is true and what is true (or false) in Plato (or Aristotle or whoever) ..... and it seems to me to be a coherent and sensible method which need not in and of itself damage the historical and cultural and linguistic differences. It is, however, an attempt to find something of relevance to us, while simultaneously attempting to recognize that the thoughts in question have a different origin....So, I continue to be mystified by what some people imagine they are doing... and I'll just continue in my own way until I hear a clear explanation of what exactly my error is......Perhaps those who talk of historicity have in mind a strong relativism... a sort of irreducibly different time.... but then, again, I don't see the point.... if the time-period is so irreducibly then and not now, maybe we should just let it be....
But the review I read recently also seemed to me to be unnecessarily antagonistic.....if you don't care about truth, then what do you care about? Does reading Plato stimulate one of your glands or what? "Truth" is, of course, a rather ostentatious word, but I don't need to use it. Do you get some kind of insight from reading Plato? Does he go wrong, at least, in interesting and revealing ways?
I'm puzzled. But I do think I've now discovered a phrase which nicely captures my reaction: If the history of philosophy is just some sort of freak show, then why bother?
An After-Thought: After writing the above words, it occurred to me that there is a comparison to be made with method in the study of Ancient Philosophy and the practice we find in two well-known anthropological works studying emotion, Catherine Lutz's ""Unnatural Emotions", and J.L. Briggs, "Never in Anger". I hope to add a note on this soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment