Phaedrus
The Phaedrus ( Greek Φαῖδρος Phaídros , Latinized Phaedrus ) is a work of the Greek philosopher Plato written in dialogue form . A fictional, literary conversation between Plato's teacher Socrates and his friend Phaedrus , after whom the dialogue is named, is reproduced .
The theme is the art of linguistic expression, which comes into its own in rhetoric . It is about the relationship between rhetorical persuasiveness and philosophical finding of truth. The contrast between oral and written communication is also discussed. The concrete reason for the discussion is provided by a rhetorical text by Lysias , a famous speech writer, which Phaedrus brought and reads out. Lysias takes the view that love is a bad prerequisite for friendship; therefore it is better to be friends with someone who is not in love. Socrates impromptu made an alternative statement in which he also warns of the harmful effects of being in love. But then he distances himself from this point of view and urges the opposite view. Now he promotes a deeper understanding of erotic passion, which he defines as an irrational state of mind of divine origin. Such “madness” should not be assessed negatively. Rather, it is a matter of being moved by the soul . The soul is driven by the tremendous power of its longing for the beautiful.
Socrates illustrates his interpretation of erotic desire with a mythical tale of the fate of the immortal soul in the hereafter . According to the myth, the winged soul steers its soul chariot through the heavens. The carriage is pulled by two winged horses, one obedient and one stubborn, the diversity of which makes it very difficult to steer the carriage. Unless the soul falls or fails in any other way, it can reach a “heavenly place” where it perceives the “ platonic ideas ”, including the idea of the beautiful, that is, the archetype of all beautiful. When she later assumes a human body in the course of the transmigration of souls , she remembers this formative experience vaguely when she sees beautiful figures and is therefore seized by erotic desire. The real, unconscious goal of their longing is not a single beautiful body, but the divine beauty beyond the sky, which the physical eye does not see.
Phaedrus was already widely received in ancient times . In the intellectual history of modern times, the description of erotic emotion and the mythical portrayal of the fate of the soul found strong echoes. In more recent research, Plato's fundamental considerations on the transfer of knowledge are of particular interest.
place and time
A framework plot is missing, the fictitious dialogue begins immediately and is consistently communicated in direct speech. The conversation begins in Athens , the hometown of the two men, and then continues in the vicinity of the city. Phaedrus heard Lysias' remarks in the house of the tragedy poet Morychos near the Olympieion , the great temple of Olympian Zeus , and now wants to go for a walk in the country. On the street he happened to meet Socrates, who decided to accompany him. They settle down on the banks of the Ilissos river south of the city wall; this is where the philosophical dialogue takes place. The location can be determined more precisely because the nearby sanctuary of the god Pan , to which Socrates refers indirectly at the end of the dialogue, has been identified; there was a relief from the 4th century BC in 1759. Found.
The timing of the dialogue action is unclear. It can only be roughly determined, as only a few chronologically relevant information is available, some of which are not easy to reconcile with one another. Plato placed no value on historical consistency; here - as in other works - he made use of his literary freedom of design. Since Phaedrus from 415 BC BC was not in Athens for about a decade and Socrates in 399 BC. BC was executed either before 415 or one of the last years of Socrates' life. The famous tragedy poets Sophocles and Euripides , who both died in 406, are mentioned in the dialogue in such a way that the impression arises that they are still alive. This could indicate a date before 415. Remarks by Socrates about the orator Isokrates, who was born in 436/435, are difficult to reconcile with this . Although this is described as still young, it has evidently already emerged with considerable achievements. In addition, Lysias, whom Phaedrus had listened to on the day of the dialogue, did not live in Athens until 412/411. Hence, consistent dating is difficult. The approaches considered in research vary between approx. 420 and the end of the 5th century BC. BC, whereby discrepancies are accepted.
The participants
The dialogue figure Socrates shows features in Phaedrus that are familiar to readers of other dialogues of Plato: He is very interested in the erotic - that is, in his milieu: homoerotic - topic and has considerable experience in this area. Since he is philosophically superior to Phaedrus, he steers the conversation in his own way and, as usual, likes to throw in ironic comments. As an ascetic , he is barefoot as always. He is a city dweller distant from nature; in the open landscape outside the city walls, which he hardly ever visits, he behaves like a stranger. Although he finds words of praise for the loveliness of nature at the resting place, he shows no real interest in it. He only went with us because of the prospect of a fruitful conversation; he describes himself as eager to learn and states: "The landscape and the trees do not want to teach me anything, but the people in the city do." He is interested in his favorite topics, to which he purposefully steers: the nature of the human soul, its immortality and its fate after death, the pursuit of beauty, the acquisition and transmission of philosophical knowledge as well as the role of eloquence and its relationship to the search for truth. As in other dialogues, he uses the opportunity to encourage his interlocutor to make unremitting efforts in the search for real knowledge and to encourage a consequent philosophical way of thinking and living. In doing so, he takes the limited insight of Phaedrus into consideration by avoiding too demanding questions.
Here, Plato lets his Socrates represent the doctrine of ideas that has also been thematized in other dialogues, which are Platonic ideas that were alien to the historical Socrates. From the point of view of the history of philosophy, it should be noted that in general the views that Plato puts into the mouth of his dialogue figure Socrates do not have to agree with those of the historical model. Some peculiarities of the literary figure, however, should correspond to those of the historical, such as their distance from nature and ascetic attitude and the concentration of their attention on spiritual and interpersonal, especially erotic issues.
Phaedrus is also attested outside of Plato's works. It is about a historical person, a distinguished Athenian from the Demos Myrrhinous , who actually belonged to the circle of Socrates. He was born around the middle of the 5th century, so he was around two decades younger than Socrates. His wife, a granddaughter of the general Xenophon , was also his cousin.
The historical Phaedrus caused an unpleasant sensation when he was involved in a scandal that shook the political life of Athens in 415. Young men had parodied the mysteries of Eleusis in private homes and thereby profaned them. This has been prosecuted as a grave crime against religion. Phaedrus was one of the people who were accused of participating in the religious outrage. Like other suspects, he did not wait for a trial but fled into exile. His conviction in absentia is attested in writing. His property was confiscated. However, he later benefited from an amnesty and was allowed to return.
Phaedrus is philosophically interested in Plato's dialogue, but apparently he has little experience and competence in this area. He viewed the myths of the Greek popular belief with skepticism. His admiration for the rhetoric of Lysias shows that he is receptive to the power of eloquence and therefore manipulable. He is enthusiastic, prone to rash enthusiasm and uncritical admiration for what has impressed him. The authority of recognized professionals means a lot to him. His concern for his health is striking; he takes the walk on medical advice. Socrates wants to make him take care not only of physical but also of mental health.
Plato also had Phaedrus appear in his famous Dialog Symposium . There Phaedrus is one of the speakers who try to illuminate and appreciate the essence of Eros . His explanations show his mastery of rhetoric and his good education.
content
The introduction
By chance, Socrates met his friend Phaedrus on the street, who had previously heard a rehearsal of the oratory of the famous logographer (speechwriter) Lysias and is now taking a walk. Socrates decides to go with the friend. As Phaedrus now reports, Lysias talked about love relationships, that is, about the homoerotic ties that are customary in the upper class of Athens. On this subject, Lysias has argued that it is not advisable to give in to a lover's solicitation. It is better to befriend someone who is free from love passion. Phaedrus, an avid admirer of Lysias' eloquence, had the manuscript handed over to him. The two walkers leave the city. They rested under a plane tree in a charming environment, and Phaedrus reads the text of Lysias.
The text of Lysias
The fictional speaker Lysias puts his rhetorically designed statement in the mouth is someone who advertises the friendship of a teenager or young man without being in love with him. He tries to convince the courted person that a friendship without erotic desire is preferable to a love affair. His main arguments are: love passion will grow cold one day, and then you will regret the favors you have shown your loved one. On the other hand, those who are not ruled and controlled by eros will not change their attitude, because they have promoted their friend of their own free will, not under the compulsion of a temporary erotic urge. He is therefore more reliable than a lover. The person in love first makes sacrifices and endures efforts and disadvantages in order to please the desired person. In doing so, he does not act unselfishly, because he derives claims from his performance. A person not in love has no reason for such a demanding and calculating attitude. In addition, the erotic can fall in love with someone else at any time and is then even ready to treat his former lover badly if the new lover so wishes. In addition, if you want to have a friend in love, you only have a relatively small selection from the start; whoever prefers a not in love as a friend, has the choice of many and can choose the most suitable of them. In addition, love affairs are observed in public, especially since lovers like to impress others with their erotic success; this can easily offend and lead to gossip and defamation. A lover is sensitive and jealous; he wants to own his lover to himself and therefore tries to alienate him from the familiar environment, which must lead to isolation or quarrels. The lover easily gets into violent excitement over little things. Since his power of judgment is clouded by his passion, he does not express himself impartially and appropriately, but speaks to his lover by the mouth. He praises him for no reason and does not dare to contradict him. But he doesn't encourage him with that. Therefore, he is a bad advisor and not a real friend.
Socrates' first speech and his self-criticism
While Phaedrus is enthusiastic about the text of Lysias, Socrates came to a critical assessment. He thinks he has heard better things on the subject and finally declares himself ready to improvise an alternative "speech". This is a rhetorical text, but fictitiously intended only for a single listener. Socrates lets a clever lover appear as a speaker. He pretends not to be in love and describes the advantages of a non-erotic friendship to the young guy he desires.
As the fictional speaker first notes, one can only talk meaningfully about the evaluation of something if one has understood what it is and if there is agreement on it. So when it comes to the benefits or harms of being in love, the first thing to understand is what being in love is. Undoubtedly, it is a desire aimed at the beauty of the loved one. But even those not in love desire beautiful things. The difference is that the lover is overwhelmed by the innate urge that draws him to the desired pleasure and thereby succumbs to excess; he loses control over himself. The situation of the not in love is different: he retains his self-control and therefore does not lose his power of judgment, but can rationally assess what is best and decide on it.
Another disadvantage of eroticism arises from the possessive nature of lovers. Those who are addicted to eros want to have the desired person under their control. To this end he tries to keep them in a state of ignorance, inferiority and lack of independence. From the lover's point of view, therefore, it is desirable that the beloved be weak and dependent in all respects. He should rather be poor than rich, rather soft and incompetent than hardened and efficient and best of all without a family, since family members could get in the way of the lover. The erotic wants to be with his lover all the time, which narrows him and becomes annoying to him in the long run. When the love passion - a form of madness - ends, the lover is only embarrassed by his former promises and oaths and he tries to escape the commitments made. Then there is a bad rift. The lover is not really benevolent, but he loves the beloved as the wolf loves the lamb.
With this, Socrates ends his speech, although Phaedrus would have liked to hear something about the virtues of not in love. Socrates wants to leave, but then decides to stay because his daimonion - an inner voice - has suddenly told him that he has made a mistake which he should correct immediately. He portrayed all lovers as selfish, envious and foolish and thus wronged the generous and noble among them. He also described the influence of eros as consistently harmful; Eros, however, is a deity, and Socrates is convinced that all gods are good and never authors of bad. Thus, like Lysias, Socrates sinned against the deity. He now wants to make up for this by making a plea for the contrary view and glorifying love.
The second speech of Socrates
The reassessment of eros
Socrates continues to stick to the designation of erotic affect as manía (“madness”). But what fundamentally changes is his assessment of this state. The manía as the opposite of sobriety, understanding and dispassion is, as Socrates now explains, by no means always to be judged negatively. The term denotes not only insanity, madness and frenzy in a pejorative sense, but also a rapture and enthusiasm, which is a sign of divine favor. For example, the rapt state of the prophets and priestesses who prophesy, preach oracles and advise, is a form of manía . Such divine manía reveals hidden knowledge and shows the sick the way to healing. Another manifestation of this is the inspiration that enables gifted poets to perform extraordinarily well. The enthusiasm that this divine gift brings about is superior to the sober mind, which is of human origin. This can be seen, for example, in the fact that a poet who only has “technical” knowledge, “manual” skills, never produces anything significant; all great poets are divinely inspired. Thus, a differentiated, unbiased assessment of the extraordinary states of mind is required.
The eternity of the soul
Since we are talking about psychological phenomena, one must first obtain clarity about the nature of the soul. The soul is able to move ceaselessly on its own; it does not need external impetus like inanimate objects. It is itself the origin of one's own movement and that of others and thus the origin of its own expressions of life. She lives not because something else is animating her, but because of her own nature. From this it can be seen that it is immortal, that is, that it - like everything original and self-sufficient - belongs to the realm of the immortal and immortal.
The myth of the chariot of the soul
As for the essence of the soul, Socrates uses a mythical parable for illustration. He compares the soul to a team of two winged horses pulling a chariot with an equally winged charioteer. The driver roams the whole vault of heaven with his car. This is the activity of human souls who move freely in heaven without bodies. The souls of the gods can also be imagined in this way. The difference between them and human souls is that with the gods both charioteers and horses are of impeccable quality, whereas with humans one of the horses is efficient and the other is bad and unruly. This creates great difficulties for the human charioteer.
The decisive factor is the quality of the wings, the strength of which lifts the heaviness. If the human soul does not properly nourish its plumage, it will lose it, with the result that it will tumble down from heaven and fall to earth. There she receives an earthly body as a dwelling place, and so a person emerges as an animated being. For the soul this means “effort and struggle to the extreme”, since it has to assert itself in this strange environment. It is quite different for souls who manage to keep their plumage. You can travel through the sky in the wake of the gods and enjoy the sight of everything there is to see. A host of gods, led by Zeus, the father of the gods, take their chariots on a great journey through the heavenly realms. The human souls join the divine train as far as they are able to do so. In the wake of the gods they reach the top of the heavens after a steep journey. This is understood here as a hollow sphere, permeable at the edge, with the earth as the center. At the highest point of the globe, the gods stand with their harnesses on the surface of the sky. The human charioteers are incapable of this, but at least they can stick their heads out of the globe. In this way, not only the divine but also the human souls are able to perceive that which is beyond heaven: the “heavenly place”, which no poet can ever sing about. It is the place of formless, inaccessible to the senses, purely spiritual being that cannot be changed. Only this area - not the world of changeable, perishable phenomena - is "being" in the real sense. This is where the “platonic ideas” can be found, such as the ideas of justice , prudence and knowledge. The soul is nourished by the supersensible perception of this reality - Socrates speaks metaphorically of “seeing”. The heavenly place is the "pasture" from which it takes the food that gives its plumage the necessary strength. On the ascent, however, the inadequacy of the human team proves to be a major obstacle. The stubborn horse resists if it is not well trained, it pushes in the wrong direction and confuses the team, so that the perception of the heavenly place is only inadequate or not at all. Many teams hinder each other, the horses become lame or the plumage breaks before the "look" of beings comes. The disobedience of the stubborn horse and the clumsiness of the charioteer are fatal for many souls: Since it cannot reach the nourishing pasture, it is so weakened that it loses its plumage and falls to the ground.
Socrates affirms that every soul who has seen something of the heavenly reality in the wake of a god is thereby enabled to remain intact in the world of gods. In principle, it is possible that it will remain in this state forever. However, this presupposes that she visits the heavenly place regularly in order to take in the nourishment she needs by “looking”. If she has a mishap on the way, it can happen that she loses her plumage and falls to the ground. There she is not spared existence in human form. It is then locked in the body like an oyster in its shell. With this the series of her incarnations begins in the context of the transmigration of souls. Depending on her level of knowledge and her behavior, certain earthly roles fall to her, which she takes on one after the other, whereby she also has a certain choice. The spectrum of possible human forms of life ranges from the philosopher as the highest form to the tyrant as the lowest. The second worst way of human existence is that of the sophist or demagogue. In the course of a soul wandering cycle, the fallen soul typically completes ten incarnations, ascending or descending depending on its merits or misdeeds. It may even happen that it gets into an animal life. The ten incarnations take place every thousand years; in the long interim times, the souls stay either in the underworld or in a certain area of the sky. Thus, an ordinary ten-life incarnation cycle lasts ten thousand years. Only at the end of the tenth millennium will the soul be revived and can make a new attempt to reach the heavenly place. The philosophical life is an exception to this law. The philosopher is always turned towards the divine. Therefore a soul that has chosen a philosophical life three times in a row can return from earthly exile after three incarnations, that is, after three thousand years.
The new understanding of eros
Against the background of this myth, Socrates now interprets the divine manía in man. Almost all super-heavenly perfections - for example justice or reason - are abstract in the sense that their earthly manifestations are not visible. They have no correlates in the realm of the visually perceptible. The only exception is beauty. It alone exists both - as a Platonic idea of beauty - beyond heaven and among visible earthly objects. Therefore it has a bridging function: The sight of earthly beauty, which is a reflection of the heavenly, reminds the soul trapped in the body of what it once saw in the heavenly place. When this soul sees a person of god-like beauty, it is first shaken by the experience, a shudder grips it. Then she begins to adore the beautiful figure. Such perceptions awaken the longing for the other world in the soul. In the figurative language of myth, that means that the soul grows wings. She is elated and wants to fly up like a bird. However, the power of their germinating wings is not sufficient for this. The germination of the wings is not only perceived as a happy event, but it also creates a feeling of discomfort, an itch like when children are teething. In addition, the separation from the longingly desired is associated with pain. The soul, touched by the sight of beauty, gets into an ambivalent state of mind: the beauty seen gives her a unique joy, excites her and makes her forget everything else, but the limited access to the object of her longing confuses and torments her. She is at a loss, the excitement robs her of sleep, she acts like mad. This is the state people call love passion, the erotic manía . The person affected by this no longer pays attention to what is appropriate and befitting, to his status and property. He is also ready to live the life of a slave if only he can stay close to the beautiful being that he makes the object of his worship.
The different effects of erotic emotion
Just like the gods, the people who follow the individual deities have different dispositions. Hence, when the power of eros breaks into their lives, they react in different ways. For example, those who are of the mind of Zeus, the father of the gods, try to help their lover develop royal qualities. Those who follow Ares , the god of war , become aggressive when they think that they are wronged as a lover. The erotics try to make both themselves and their loved ones as similar as possible to the gods; Eros spurs them on to strive for something higher. However, the difference between its two horses causes great difficulties for the loving soul. Here Socrates explains what he wants to illustrate with the metaphor of the team of horses. The charioteer and the two horses represent the three parts that make up the soul. The driver is the spiritual authority that chooses the path to take. He makes the decisions on which the future fate of the soul depends, and has to see to it that the horses - the psychic impulses - carry out his instructions. The good, obedient horse is the sane part of the soul that realizes what is really best for the soul and strives towards it. The bad, stubborn horse is the unreasonable part of the soul which only aims at the immediate satisfaction of needs, which rushes blindly towards its goal and thus tears the whole soul into ruin, since it lacks insight into the consequences of its impulsive behavior. The good horse willingly obeyed, the bad horse must be tamed and directed with a whip and sting. If two erotically connected people manage to get their stubborn horses well under control, they can lead a blissful philosophical life together.
Consequences
Phaedrus is deeply impressed by the persuasiveness of Socrates, he now values it more than that of Lysias, his previous role model. This raises the question of a reassessment of the activity of Lysias, who owes his fame to his power of speech. In the light of the new insights, his work may appear questionable, as his devaluation of eroticism has proven to be wrong. Socrates stresses, however, that writing rhetorical texts in and of itself cannot be a bad thing. It is not the writing or speaking activity as such that is disgraceful, only the writing of ugly things. It is therefore important to distinguish between “beautiful” writing and speaking from “ugly”. Socrates now wants to turn to this task.
The cicada myth
In the midday heat, the cicadas sing over the heads of the two discussants. Socrates warns that one should not be lulled to sleep by this natural sound. He wants to go on with the investigation undeterred instead of indulging in an afternoon nap. According to a myth that Socrates now casually recounts, the cicadas are descendants of enchanted people. When the Muses once brought song into the world, these people were so carried away by it that they forgot to eat and drink out of sheer joy. So they died without even realizing it. Then they were turned into cicadas. The cicadas received from the muses the ability to sing without food or drink until the end of their life. They are tasked with observing the goings-on of people and reporting to the muses what the individual people are doing in the muse arts. This is another reason why one should not fall asleep while singing the cicadas at lunchtime, but rather be mentally active.
The task of authors and the relationship between the art of language and truth
For Phaedrus, who is fascinated by rhetoric and who writes speeches himself, the question of the meaning and value of the art of language is of great importance. Here two opposing concepts collide. According to one idea, a very widespread, purely pragmatic approach, linguistic communication only has the purpose of persuading the listener or reader to do something. The question of an objective truth is irrelevant; it is only a question of influencing opinion-forming based on prejudices that already exist. According to the contrary view, which Socrates professes, one must first of all know the truth about what one wants to speak about. On the other hand, it could be argued that the mere knowledge of the truth is useless if the ability to persuade artfully is lacking. This raises the question of whether rhetoric is an “art” or a technique (téchnē) at all - that is, a subject, a science - or just a routine without factual justification, an unscientific procedure based on practice. If it is a technique, it can be used successfully for any purpose, regardless of the veracity of the opinion the speaker is advocating. In fact, an experienced speaker knows how to convince a court or a people's assembly of one point of view or even the opposite. In this regard, Socrates asserts that you not only need oratory skills, but also professional competence. If you want to mislead listeners, you have to lead them unnoticed in small steps from the truth to the untrue. That presupposes that the speaker knows the truth. Nobody can avoid the truth who wants to achieve something. According to Socrates' understanding, this applies not only to public speeches, but in general to every situation in which someone tries to convince others or someone else of something, including in private. Accordingly, rhetoric is “soul guidance” par excellence, in a popular speech as well as in a private conversation.
Proceeding from this, Socrates now turns to the exposition of Lysias and his own competing statements in order to examine the quality of these texts by way of example. He complains that Lysias failed to build up his argument in a meaningful way. A good text must form an organic whole like the body of a living being. That was not the case with Lysias' plea because he had not proceeded methodically. He himself - Socrates -, on the other hand, structured his statements logically. In doing so, he was methodically clean by first defining the subject of the investigation. Socrates recapitulates his approach: The starting point was the definition of erotic love as a kind of manía . There was a twofold division of the manía , the condition without rational consideration: it is either illness or being moved by a divine power. One type of erotic manía is a mental illness, the delusion of love, the evil consequences of which Socrates described in his first speech. The other type is divine enthusiasm, which takes people out of their usual living conditions. This phenomenon was the subject of Socrates' second speech. However one judges the individual arguments, the analytical procedure was methodologically correct. Analysis and synthesis together form the dialectic , the philosophical method of investigation that Socrates propagates. The synthesis consists in the correct classification of subordinate concepts (such as “love passion”) under a generic term (here manía ), the analysis is carried out by means of subdivision ( dihairesis ) of the generic term for the purpose of precise determination of the subordinate term to be defined.
Then Socrates deals in an ironic way with the rules of rhetoric, which represent a manual knowledge. It is important for him to show that the knowledge of individual tricks and techniques is useless if one cannot correctly place the details presented in the overall context of an objective truth. If someone came up as a teacher of medicine and could explain how certain drugs work in the body, but didn't know when, with whom and in what dosage they were to be used, they would be considered crazy. Likewise, someone would have to be assessed who would pretend to be a teacher of tragedy poetry and would know how to formulate plaintive, threatening or frightening utterances, but could not indicate how the entire work composed of the individual utterances could be shaped into a unit. Such a show-off would be ridiculous in front of real poets like Sophocles or Euripides . This is also how someone is to be judged who knows individual rhetorical means and writes pieces of text with them, but cannot combine them into a well thought-out whole. He only has previous knowledge. Just as a doctor has to know what is good for the body, a speaker who acts on the souls of his hearers must know what is good for souls. If rhetoric is a science, its foundation is soul science. A rhetoric teacher who appears as a professional with a scientific claim not only has to know about the nature of the human soul in general, but also about the individual types of soul to which he has to adapt his approach.
The evaluation of the oral and written form
Finally, as a further topic, Socrates raises the question under which conditions a written transfer of knowledge is appropriate. To this end, he tells the myth of the invention of writing by the Egyptian god Theuth . Theuth was the founder of various branches of knowledge: he invented mathematics, astronomy and also writing. He also devised board and dice games. With his inventions he went to Thamus, the king of Egypt, in order to teach him and through him the people the appropriate skills. He extolled writing as a means of preserving knowledge. Thamus didn’t want to accept anything unchecked. He was extremely skeptical about the script. He feared that it would weaken the memory because it was being lost from the exercise due to written notes. In addition, Scripture is unsuitable for imparting wisdom; this requires oral lessons. As a reader, imagine that you have understood something when you really don't understand it. This leads to a fatally wrong self-assessment. Such errors can only be prevented by a teacher who teaches orally.
Following on from this, Socrates presents his fundamental criticism of the written dissemination of knowledge. He thinks that what is written is not suitable for imparting knowledge, but only useful as a memory aid if you have already understood the content. Writing is only an inadequate reflection of speaking. The written text seems to speak, but in reality it is "silent" because it can neither answer questions of understanding nor defend itself against unjustified criticism. He cannot respond to the individual needs of the reader like a conversation partner. Wisdom cannot therefore be imparted in this way; they should not be recorded on writing material , but in the soul of the pupil who is receptive to it. There the teacher should sow the living seeds of knowledge like a good farmer who knows where to sow. Then the student will be able to represent, defend and spread what he has understood. Writing down is not wrong, but a philosopher only pursues it as an incidental, playful activity. The philosopher accomplishes his essential achievements, in which he is serious, in direct guidance of the soul. Socrates expresses his hope that the young Isocrates , a very talented speaker whom he prefers to Lysias, will find the way to a philosophy conceived in this way. Here Plato lets his Socrates express an expectation that has not been fulfilled: although the historical Isocrates - as predicted as a possibility in Phaedrus - developed a brilliant activity as a rhetorician, he rejected Plato's understanding of philosophy, with which he rivaled as the educator of the youth .
Finally, before the two friends leave, Socrates directs a prayer to Pan and the other deities of the place. He asks her to help him become beautiful inside and to harmonize the outside with the inside.
Philosophical content
In research on the history of philosophy, four aspects of dialogue have met with particular interest: first, Plato's, in comparison with Gorgia's early dialogue, apparently more positive and differentiated assessment of rhetoric; second, the question of how radical his criticism of writing is and what consequences it has for his relationship to his own works; third, the concept of a three-part soul set out in the myth; fourthly, the tension between Socratic-Platonic rationalism and the positive assessment of irrational conditions in Phaedrus .
The philosophical evaluation of rhetoric
The rhetoric that Plato's Socrates rejects is the rhetoric customary in Athens at the time for speakers of the people and courts of law; the one he approves is essentially the procedure of a philosophical inquiry. He emphasizes the need for the speaker to know and take into account the specific emotional state of the individual listener. From this it can be seen that he is not interested in public speaking in front of a larger audience, but in dialogues in private or in a small group. The approach recommended by him is hardly an option for public or court speeches. Thus, the more positive assessment of persuasion by rhetorical means in Phaedrus does not mean a departure from the criticism of the activities of the Athenian orators practiced in Gorgias . The art of persuasion is only approved here on the condition that it is used in a philosophical manner and for philosophical purposes. Plato's Socrates himself uses rhetorical means to influence the mind of his interlocutor. The aim of his efforts is to stimulate Phaedrus to turn to the world of ideas.
The scope of the scriptural criticism
When interpreting the written criticism, the question arises as to whether or to what extent Plato is thereby devaluing his own writing and the philosophical content of his works. In addition, there is a controversial discussion in research - sometimes with great sharpness - whether Plato's emphasis on the superiority of oral communication of philosophical knowledge is to be understood as an indication of his " unwritten teaching " ( doctrine of principles). This is particularly about the judgment of Plato's Socrates, who has nothing “more valuable” (timiōtera) than written texts, the formulation of which he has been working on for a long time, is not a philosopher, but only an author. The “more valuable” - the interpretation of this passage is very controversial - is taken by researchers from the “Tübingen and Milan Plato Schools” ( Konrad Gaiser , Hans Joachim Krämer , Thomas Alexander Szlezák , Giovanni Reale) as an indication of the unwritten teaching. Ernst Heitsch emerged as the spokesman for the opposing side in the German-speaking area , who vehemently denies that the Phaedrus section refers to content that is in principle only to be presented orally. His firm stance led to a violent controversy between him and Szlezák. Wolfgang Wieland , Wilfried Kühn and Margherita Isnardi Parente also oppose the interpretation of Phaedrus' written criticism in the sense of the "Tübingen Paradigm" . Rafael Ferber thinks that the writing criticism in Phaedrus does not concern the writing as such, but only the written publication for wider circles. The reason why Plato did not fix his "unwritten doctrine" in writing is not the inadequacy of the written form, but the fact that this doctrine did not meet his own scientific standards. It is significant that Lysias recorded his text in writing and worked on it for a long time, while Socrates gives his two speeches, which are better thought out, off the cuff. With this, Plato wants to illustrate the higher rank of free speech. Socrates is a master of the subject, so he can improvise and does not need a written construction of a linguistic work of art.
Another research debate revolves around the consequences Plato draws from his emphasis on the value of oral philosophizing together. The question here is whether oral dialogue is the appropriate approach not only for imparting knowledge, but also for philosophical research - i.e. for every kind of philosophical activity.
The interpretation of the Platonic theory of the soul
The doctrine of the soul presented in Phaedrus gave rise to extensive research discussions. This is about the question of a development in Plato's understanding of the soul. In the dialogue Phaedo , which is considered to be an early work and in any case originated before Phaedo , the soul is described as simple and uniform. Their nature is determined by their capacity for knowledge; Irrational mental processes are attributed to the influence of the body in which it temporarily resides. In the myth of Phaedrus, on the other hand, the source of the irrational is transferred to the soul itself. This is represented as three parts, whereby one part, the “bad horse”, through its bad disposition, is responsible for the misfortunes of the whole soul and leads it on wrong paths. Only strict disciplining of the inferior part of the soul can remedy this. The model of a tripartite soul, which is supposed to explain the irrational and harmful forces working in it, was set out earlier by Plato in his great dialogue Politeia . In the Phaedrus he apparently falls back on the concept presented there. The assumption of an inherently inferior part of the soul - not through the action of body and matter - raises a wealth of questions which are discussed in the research literature. If the inferior part is immortal, as is assumed in the myth, it must originally have been part of a harmoniously structured whole, since the original state of the soul was optimal. Then the worsening of this condition and the downfall of the soul cannot be traced back to a conflict between conflicting parts of the soul; rather, the possibility of such a conflict arising requires an explanation. Another problem is the fact that the stubborn horse cannot be induced to behave correctly through philosophical persuasion, but has to be tamed by force. Another problem is the question of how the self-movement of the soul, which represents change, can be reconciled with its immutability.
Plato's assessment of the irrational and the question of teaching development
Despite the consistent rationalism to which Plato's Socrates admitted in the dialogues, he praised the irrational state of a manía wanted by the gods in Phaedrus . There he not only approves of certain manifestations of the manía , but also regards the erotic emotion as a divine gift that a philosopher needs to achieve his goal. In research, this contrast has given rise to different interpretations of the relationship between the rational and the irrational in Plato's philosophy. The appreciation of the irrational is partly relativized or taken as not being taken seriously, partly emphasized and viewed as paradoxical. The remark of Gregory Vlastos is often quoted that it is a paradox that has been neglected in research that the “ultra-rationalist” Plato classified Eros as a form of manía and that this “madness” was closely linked to philosophy.
One possible explanation is the assumption that Plato initially represented a radical rationalism and later weakened or modified it. Martha Nussbaum accepts a clear change in Plato's opinion in the philosophical assessment of erotic desire, manía and poetry. In the Phaedrus he represents positions on basic questions in these areas that are incompatible with those in earlier dialogues. In Socrates' first speech, views are set out that correspond to Plato's earlier, now revoked positions. The criticism of Plato's Socrates in his second speech is a self-criticism of the author. The Phaedrus offers a fundamental reassessment of the irrational, which is now, under certain conditions, recognized as helpful and honorable. The erotic manía is even presented here as a necessary condition for important insights. With this, Nussbaum acknowledges the controversial question of whether or to what extent a development of Plato's teaching is recognizable, to the development hypothesis, that is, to a “revisionist” interpretation of Plato. "Revisionism" means the assumption of a serious change of opinion on the part of the philosopher. In the intensive, ongoing research debate on the question of teaching development, “revisionist” perspectives are opposed to “unitarian”. "Unitarians" are the names of philosophical historians who believe that Plato consistently advocated a coherent teaching on key issues in his philosophy. Nussbaum's interpretation is controversial; Christopher Rowe subjected them to extensive criticism.
Emergence
In ancient times, the view was widespread that Phaedrus was Plato's first work. As late as the 19th century, early dating had powerful proponents. The Plato translator Friedrich Schleiermacher believed it was the philosopher's first dialogue. In more recent research, however, the writing is mostly classified much later. They are now usually placed in Plato's middle creative period, mostly at the end of it, or even placed under the later works. Both language-statistical and content-related indicators speak in favor of classification in the last phase of the middle period. The Phaedrus seems argument at the Politeia presuppose. It is usually written around 370 BC. Or in the 360s. Holger Thesleff suspects that Plato created a shorter original version as early as the 380s or even earlier and then revised and expanded the dialogue in the 360s.
Text transmission
The direct ancient text transmission consists of some papyrus fragments from the 2nd and 3rd centuries. This tradition offers some readings that are relevant for textual criticism . The oldest surviving medieval Phaedrus manuscript was made in 895 in the Byzantine Empire for Arethas of Caesarea . Most of the medieval text witnesses have the alternative title Über das Schöne .
reception
The Phaedrus is considered to be one of the most important dialogues of Plato, in any case it is one of the most intensely received. Above all, the myth of the chariot of the soul has had a strong impact.
Antiquity
In ancient times the Phaedrus was eagerly read. An abundance of quotes and allusions in works of different literary genres shows that the dialogue was familiar to the educated. In addition to philosophers, rhetoricians and grammarians were particularly interested in it. Plato's writing was often used in rhetoric treatises. Motifs from the dialogue were also taken up in poetry and fictional prose. Particularly popular motifs were the plane tree, in whose shadow Socrates and Phaedrus rested, the song of cicadas and the train of the divine and human souls through the sky.
From the 4th to the 1st century BC Chr.
Plato's student Aristotle tied in his rhetoric to individual considerations on the art of speech in Phaedrus , but did not start from the concept of a philosophical rhetoric presented there. His understanding of rhetoric shows little agreement with the Platonic one. The philosopher Dikaiarchos , a student of Aristotle, criticized the style of Phaedrus for being pompous. He disliked Plato's poetic pathos in this work.
The influential philosopher Poseidonios , who in the 1st century BC Taught, dealt with the proof of immortality in Phaedrus . He said that the evidence did not refer to each individual soul, but to the world soul . With this point of view, Poseidonios followed the stoic theory of the soul.
Cicero was very interested in Plato's theory of the soul and its mythical portrayal and in this context, in addition to the Politeia and the Phaedo, also referred to the Phaedrus . He quoted from the afterlife myth of Phaedrus in his Tusculanae disputationes as well as in Somnium Scipionis , a story contained in the sixth book of his work De re publica . In the Somnium Scipionis , the elder Scipio Africanus puts forward an argument for the immortality of the soul, which is an almost literal translation of Socrates' argument from Phaedrus . In Cicero's dialogue De oratore , the design of the scenery and some of the details echo the Phaedrus . Other works by Cicero, including his Dialogue De Legibus , reveal the influence of Phaedrus .
In the tetralogical order of the works of Plato, which apparently in the 1st century BC Was introduced, the Phaedrus belongs to the third tetralogy.
The rhetorician and literary critic Dionysius of Halicarnassus took a critical position on the literary quality of Phaedrus . Although he praised that the work showed a lot of natural charm and the beginning was delightful and graceful, he complained that Plato had slipped into poetic tastelessness, in places he had produced a mere word bell and expressed himself verbosely.
From the 1st to the 3rd century AD
The historian of philosophy Diogenes Laertios counted Phaedrus among the “ethical” writings and gave “About Eros” as an alternative title. In doing so, he referred to a now lost script by the scholar Thrasyllos († 36).
In his work On the Creation of the World (De opificio mundi), the Jewish Platonist Philo of Alexandria adopted elements of the myth of the afterlife depicted in Phaedrus . He sprinkled allusions to the myth in numerous parts of his works. The motif of the heavenly journey of the soul impressed him strongly.
The stoic Herakleitos, a sharp critic of Plato, was indignant in his work Homeric Questions (Quaestiones Homericae) about the homoerotic aspect of Phaedrus . Furthermore, Herakleitus claimed that Plato did not devise the doctrine of the three-part soul himself, but derived it from the verses of Homer .
The historian and philosopher Plutarch , who professed the tradition of Platonism , remarked casually that the argument for the immortality of the soul in Phaedrus was commonplace. In Plutarch's dialogue with Amatorius , the influence of Phaedrus is clearly noticeable in terms of content and language. His contemporary Dion Chrysostomos , an important rhetorician, used motifs from the dialogue in two speeches.
In the year 139 the famous grammarian and rhetorician Marcus Cornelius Fronto wrote a letter about Eros in Greek to the later emperor Mark Aurel , who followed up the speeches in Phaedrus . Marcus Aurelius replied with a Latin letter in which he on the one hand expressed his doubts about the historicity of Phaedrus and on the other hand compared the relationship between Socrates and Phaedrus with his relationship with Fronto.
The rhetorician and sophist Aelius Aristides wrote three speeches in which he dealt with Plato's Gorgias . He wrote the first in the 140s; it served to defend the rhetoric against Plato's criticism presented in Gorgias . For this purpose he played the Phaedrus against the Gorgias .
Among the Platonists, Phaedrus was the starting point of reading in some schools of philosophy in the period of Middle Platonism , probably because of its protreptic character ( promoting philosophy) and probably also because it was considered Plato's first dialogue. The Middle Platonists liked to take quotations from the dialogue or allude to individual passages. She was particularly interested in the soul-science explanations. The Middle Platonic commentary apparently only started in the second half of the 2nd century. The first Middle Platonist to write a Phaedrus commentary was Attikos . Harpokration von Argos , a pupil of Attikos, treated Phaedrus in his 24-book, only fragmentary commentary on the works of Plato (Hypómnēma eis Plátōna) . The Roman writer Apuleius , who as a philosopher was one of the Middle Platonists, tied in with the afterlife myth of Phaedrus with his remarks on the invisible gods . The Middle Platonist Maximos von Tire , who lived in the late 2nd century and a well-known speaker, referred several times in his lectures (dialéxeis) to the heavenly journey of the soul.
Christian writers also knew and appreciated the dialogue. In the 2nd century, the apologist Athenagoras of Athens claimed that Zeus, named in Phaedrus as the leader of the journey to the soul, was in reality the (Christian) god of creation; Plato meant the Creator and only used the name Zeus, familiar from mythology, because this was the name customary at the time for God. An excellent expert on Phaedrus was the well-known theologian Clemens of Alexandria , in whom the influence of Plato's writing can be seen in many ways. The church writer Origen , whose way of thinking was strongly influenced by Platonism, said that Plato's depiction of the heavenly journey was divinely inspired.
Plotinus († 270), the founder of Neoplatonism , relied on the afterlife myth of Phaedrus , which he interpreted in the sense of his worldview , when explaining his metaphysics and theory of the soul . In particular, he resorted to the metaphor of the deflowering of the soul to illustrate its descent into the world of the body. However, he did not refer to the distinction between heaven and the heavenly place. He redesigned the mythical idea of the collapse of the soul because he did not assume a complete separation of the soul from its homeland on the other side, but was convinced that a part of it would always remain there. He identified this part - the spiritual in the soul - with the head of the charioteer in Phaedrus , which towers above the sky. In Plotinus, seeing the heavenly place is not a temporary experience for the spiritual part of the soul, but an eternal state. Only the non-spiritual in the soul will fall and get into the material world.
The respected philologist Longinos († 272) dealt critically with the literary quality of Phaedrus . He considered the speech of Plato's Lysias to be a real work of the speechwriter, which was superior to the competing text of Plato's Socrates as a rhetorical achievement. Longinos regarded Lysias as a model author. He was evidently not alone in making this judgment. A number of critics of Phaedrus , whose works are now lost and whose names have not even survived, thought similarly. They took the side of Lysias, whom Plato had slandered as incompetent and against whom he had argued in a contentious manner. Plato's lofty style has been criticized as grandiose; he used a tasteless, swollen and inappropriately poetic language. The sober style of Lysias creates a pleasant contrast.
Late antiquity
In late antiquity , Neoplatonism was the dominant philosophical trend. The first Neoplatonist who - as far as is known - commented on Phaedrus was Iamblichus († around 320/325). Only a few fragments of his commentary have survived. Iamblichos, who founded a very influential school, did not treat Phaedrus in beginner classes. He saw in it material suitable only for more advanced students, a "contemplative" dialogue on a theological topic. As can be seen from a surviving fragment of his commentary, Iamblichus was of the opinion that the irrational soul is incapable of moving on its own, for he believed that it was only an instrument of the rational soul. He identified the mythical charioteer Zeus with the supernatural Demiurge (world creator). Iamblichos interpreted the cicada myth allegorically : The human ancestors of the cicadas meant non-incarnated, i.e. free souls who had stayed in the intelligible world . Later, after their descent into the world of material bodies, these souls would have refused to eat, that is, they would have rejected the world of sensory perception. So they died and returned to their homeland on the other side.
Two well-known directors ( Scholarchen ) of the Neoplatonic school of philosophy in Athens, Syrianos († around 437) and Proklos († 485), interpreted the Phaedrus in class. Syrianos perhaps only presented his interpretation orally, Proklos wrote a comment that has now been lost. The Phaedrus commentary by his pupil Hermeias (Hermias) of Alexandria, based on his teaching, gives an impression of Syrianos' treatment of dialogue . Proklos also went into the fourth book of his work Platonic Theology (Peri tēs kata Plátōna theologías) on the afterlife myth of Phaedrus and interpreted it in the sense of Neoplatonic metaphysics.
The demand made in Phaedrus that a good text should be composed like the body of a living being, that is, should correspond to the ideal of the harmonious harmony of the parts of a whole, found a strong echo in late ancient Neo-Platonism . This requirement resulted in the criterion by which the quality of a literary or philosophical work was judged. In this respect, too, Plato's dialogues were considered exemplary.
The only ancient Phaedrus commentary that has been fully preserved is that of Hermeias of Alexandria. The majority of research assumes that Hermeias hardly communicates his own views; rather, it is a recording from the lessons of his teacher Syrianos, which thus only reproduces his Phaedrus commentary. However, a minority thinks that they are less dependent on Syrianos than traditionally assumed. The commentary is strongly influenced by the Iamblichus' method of interpretation, especially with regard to the attempt to show metaphysical backgrounds. The decision between allegorical and literal interpretation of a text passage is made dependent on the weighing of the respective circumstances. Tying up to Plato's demand that every text, like the body of a living being, must be structured in a coherent manner, Hermeias emphasizes that Phaedrus is designed with a single goal (skopós) in mind, which must therefore be the relevant point of view for the interpretation. This dominating topic is "the beautiful in every sense". Hermeias refers to Iamblichus. Socrates is portrayed as a messenger from a divine world who was sent down to redeem the fallen souls of men. Accordingly, he does not belong to the souls who fell through the loss of their plumage, but has voluntarily taken on human life. Hermeias defends Plato's style against the accusations of unnamed literary critics who criticized him as grandiose and inadequate. The traditional scholias on Phaedrus are largely based on the commentary of Hermeias.
Damascius († after 538), the last scholarch of the Neoplatonic school in Athens, treated Phaedrus in his lessons and possibly wrote a commentary on the work.
Even outside the Neoplatonic schools of philosophy, Plato's dialogue was received by educated people from late antiquity. The church father Ambrose of Milan took up the metaphor of the heavenly journey of the chariot in his work De Isaac vel anima , written around 391, and modified it in his sense. With him the soul has good horses, the virtues, and bad, the passions of the body. The good must be encouraged, the bad curbed and held back. The good horses fly ahead, rise to heaven and lift up the soul. The right charioteer is Christ. In his commentary on Cicero's Somnium Scipionis , the philosopher Macrobius went into the argument put forward in Phaedrus and adopted by Cicero for the immortality of the soul and tried to refute the contrary view of Aristotle. He expressly pointed out the origin of the thought from the Phaedrus . The scholar Calcidius quoted this famous argument in his Latin Timaeus commentary, quoting Phaedrus as the source.
Middle Ages and Early Modern Times
In the Middle Ages Phaedrus was unknown to Latin-speaking scholars of the West. However, the argument for the immortality of the soul was known from the extremely influential writings of Macrobius and Calcidius, where Phaedrus is named as the source.
There is no proof of direct reception in Arabic-speaking countries. In the Byzantine Empire, however, the dialogue received some attention. In the 11th century, the Byzantine scholar Michael Psellos dealt with the Phaedrus criticism of Longinos, which he sharply rejected. Psellos made Plato's goal, formulated in the dialogue, of an ideal combination of philosophy and rhetoric his own. He said that Plato was the only person who ever moved at the highest level, both philosophically and rhetorically. Longinos' judgment that the speech of Lysias was superior to the reply of Socrates is laughable. Apparently Psellos held the speech for an authentic text by Lysias. However, Psellos did not share Plato's positive assessment of the divine manía .
In the West, the Phaedrus was rediscovered in the age of Renaissance humanism , when humanists brought a Byzantine manuscript to Italy in 1423. The following year the Italian humanist and statesman Leonardo Bruni completed a Latin translation. However, it only included the first part of the work (up to the beginning of the discussion of the rhetoric). Bruni hushed up the homoerotic statements because, as a Christian, he disapproved of them. He was impressed by Plato's concept of divine inspiration and agreed with him on manía . In the years that followed, the homoeroticism of dialogue also caused offense. The sharply anti-platonic humanist Georgios Trapezuntios scourged this “Socratic vice” in his pamphlet Comparatio philosophorum Platonis et Aristotelis (comparison of the philosophers Plato and Aristotle) . The Platonist Bessarion responded with a vehement reply, the text In calumniatorem Platonis published in 1469 (Against the slanderer of Plato) . He argued that Plato presented love as a purifying power, not from a sexual point of view.
The humanist Marsilio Ficino made a new Latin translation of the dialogue, the first to be printed. He published it in Florence in 1484 in the complete edition of his Plato translations. He also translated the Phaedrus commentary by Hermeias paraphrasing into Latin and wrote his own commentary on Plato's work. Ficino took over the inaccurate ancient view that Phaedrus was the first writing of the philosopher. He was enthusiastic about the poetic style of the dialogue in parts. In terms of the Neoplatonic tradition, which he followed, he regarded Phaedrus as a theological work. He established a harmony between Plato's account of the fate of the soul and the Christian history of salvation. According to his interpretation of the myth, the driver of the soul wagon symbolizes the truly liberated and thus deified human being. According to the understanding of the humanist, Zeus, the leader of the heavenly journey of the soul, represents Christ the Redeemer from a theological point of view.
The first edition of the Greek text appeared in Venice in September 1513 by Aldo Manuzio as part of the first complete edition of Plato's works. The editor was Markos Musuros . In 1544, Felice Figliucci published an Italian translation in Rome based on Ficino's Latin text. In the 16th century, the Phaedrus was one of the most popular ancient texts. In France, motives and thoughts from dialogue were common in love poetry and in love treaties. The motif of the soul wings, which grow under the influence of eros, was particularly widespread. The representation of the various forms of manía (French fureur ) in Phaedrus also made a strong impression. In the love theory of Symphorien Champier († 1538), the educational function of eros played an important role; Champier took up Plato's demand that the lover should make the loved one better.
Friedrich Hölderlin was influenced by Phaedrus' ideas . In 1794 he was working on an essay "about aesthetic ideas" in which he wanted to comment on the passage from the dialogue where Socrates explains how the relationship between idea and appearance is unique in the case of beauty. It is not known whether Hölderlin realized his plan. In his comments on the Antigonae he wrote that “holy madness is the highest human appearance, and here more soul than language”. In doing so, he took up the concept of manía in Plato's dialogue.
Johann Gottfried Herder valued Phaedrus . In 1800 he quoted Socrates' closing prayer from the dialogue in his art-theoretical text Kalligone and remarked: "Always, friends, let us (...) Socrates prayer (...) remain our prayer."
Modern
The modern Phaedrus reception was initially dominated by the idea that it was a youth work that stood at the beginning of Plato's literary activity and should be seen as an introduction to his works. Hence, both the literary quality and the philosophical content were judged from this point of view. Since late dating prevailed in the 19th century, the assessment of style and content has changed considerably.
Philosophical reception until the middle of the 20th century
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel dealt in detail with Phaedrus in his lectures on the history of philosophy . To manía he remarked: "The true is here in the way of feeling". In this way one makes arbitrariness to determine what is true. The true content is not given by feeling. It is true that the highest content must also be in the feeling, but this is not "the true way of truth", because the feeling is the entirely subjective consciousness. Hegel complained about the myth of the hereafter that it was “a bit colorful and inconsistent”. The heavenly journey of the soul and its fall should be understood as a parable. According to Hegel, what is true about it is that “consciousness in itself is the divine being and life in reason; that man looks at it in his pure thought and recognizes it ”. The heavenly abode and the movement of the soul consist in this knowledge.
The Neo-Kantian Paul Natorp found in 1903 that the Phaedrus initially made an enchanting and almost intoxicating impression, but on closer inspection it turned out to be unusually difficult and complicated. Plato carried out the motif of philosophy here as the art of love in all consistency. The problem is that the Phaedrus does not offer "sufficient protection" against the "danger of transcendence". The “purely logical sense” of the show of ideas represented in the myth could not be sought in anything other than “in the pure replacement of the content set in thought and originally through thought”. This confirms that the term is not only an instrument for processing ideas given elsewhere, but, as a pure own creation of thought, is the object of a separate science, namely the only pure kind of science or knowledge.
Nicolai Hartmann went into the ideas show in 1909, emphasizing the aspect of "activity or spontaneity". The unity of the concept is not to be read from things, but stands opposite them as something else and must therefore be looked into into them. Hartmann emphasized that looking at the idea as dealt with in Phaedrus should not be understood as passive perception, but rather represents an achievement. Something is seen that is nothing outside of looking itself, and what is seen is the sought-after unity of the concept. Looking should be understood as “looking together” that creates unity in its activity. The myth of the vision of the Eternal contained thoughts of rare depth. He tells of the existence of the idea "with all the naivety of free imagination": It is presented like something self-evident, although that is where the greatest difficulty lies.
Martin Heidegger dealt with Phaedrus in his lecture on the dialogue of Sophistes , which he gave in Marburg in the winter semester of 1924/25, and in his Freiburg lecture Nietzsche: The Will to Power as Art in the winter semester of 1936/37. He said that Plato did not want to give a psychology - not even a metaphysical one - in the dialogue, but rather to emphasize the basic determination of the existence of man, "namely the existence of man seen in its basic relationship to beings par excellence". The love, of which his Socrates speaks, is nothing other than the urge to be oneself. It is about the passion for self-knowledge, about the logos as a right “expression of oneself”, which for Socrates a right “self-there- Uncover "is. Plato's interest in “speaking” is not limited to rhetoric and its possibilities, but is a matter of the existence of man himself. From this point of view, the criticism of scripture should be interpreted as Plato's skepticism towards a certain logos. It concerns an isolated “free-floating” Logos that is gossip. For Heidegger this logos is that in the being of the human being "which obstructs his ability to see things". This keeps man away from access to beings. The beautiful is discussed in Phaedrus in the context of the question of the relationship between man and being in general. It is about the contrast between the "view of being", the view of being, and the "forgetfulness of being" in the everyday life of most people, to whom being is hidden and who therefore only deal with an appearance of it. The beautiful come towards us "in sensual glow" and rapture us "away into looking at being". This enables the regaining and preservation of the view of being. The relationship between beauty and truth is determined by the fact that truth is the unconcealment of beings, that is, beings in their unconcealment. The view of being is the opening of the hidden to the unhidden, the basic relationship to the true.
Philosophical reception since the middle of the 20th century
In the philosophical discourse since the middle of the 20th century, Phaedrus has attracted attention mainly because of Plato's considerations on written and oral communication. The criticism of writing has gained new topicality in connection with the criticism of " logocentrism ". Occasionally, explanations by Plato's Socrates on other topics have also been recognized as stimulating.
Karl Jaspers found in the first volume of his work The Great Philosophers , published in 1957 , that Phaedrus was unique among Plato's writings, an old work "of youthful vitality and perfect maturity of philosophizing". Josef Pieper published his essayistic work Enthusiasm and divine madness in 1962 , an interpretation of Phaedrus . In the dialogue he found "a lot of information, of answers, of illuminating human reality"; with careful reading one can gain insight into "some fundamental existential facts".
In his essay, published in 1983, Hans-Georg Gadamer said, On the way to writing? Understanding of the criticism of writing in Phaedrus . This work “powerfully in the way of the transition from artful speech to artful writing”. This is "a radical commitment to dialogue and the inner dialogue of the truth-seeking soul, which we call 'thinking'". In doing so, Plato does not generally reject the invention and use of writing, but only its abuse and the seduction that lies in the written fixation of speeches and thoughts. He turns against the "decline into the dogmatism of writing". For Gadamer, Plato's assertion applies that "philosophy does not have its duration in texts, but that texts can only be a means of memory, that is: for those who know".
Emmanuel Lévinas referred particularly often to Phaedrus in his intensive preoccupation with Plato's thinking . He was particularly interested in the subject of eros as a power that leads people out of the usual frame of reference of their other experiences. Lévinas emphasized the distinction between a need that can be fulfilled and an insatiable, increasingly deepening desire. The desire is directed towards the other who encounters the experiencing subject as something foreign. The otherness has the consequence that the encounter between the subject and the other is always determined by an asymmetrical relationship between them. Lévinas found starting points for his concept of asymmetry in Phaedrus . In view of the radical, fundamental otherness of the other, he understood Plato's criticism of the written form. The encounter with the other in his otherness, which Lévinas is concerned with, takes place face to face, i.e. beyond written communication. Living speech is more immediate and more essential to Lévinas than any fixed statement.
Among the thinkers who have dealt with Phaedrus since the middle of the 20th century , Jacques Derrida achieved the greatest impact with his work La pharmacie de Platon (1968). The focus of his considerations is Plato's criticism of the written form and its representation in the Theuth myth. “Pharmacy” means the “administration of the pharmakon , the drug” - the remedy and / or the poison. Derrida is referring to a remark by Plato's Socrates, who compares the text of Lysias brought by Phaedrus with a drug. Derrida examines the connection between writing and pharmakon . He thematizes, understanding Plato's trains of thought from his perspective, the “un-truth” of scripture. This should not be understood in such a way that the essence of Scripture is mixed with non-truth. Rather, Scripture has no essence, no value of its own, be it positive or negative; it takes place in the illusion. The typeface “imitates memory, knowledge, truth, etc.”. According to Derrida's interpretation, Phaedrus' conclusion is less a condemnation of scripture in the name of contemporary speaking than the preference for one script over another. A fertile trace is preferred to a sterile one, a fertile trace, because seeds deposited inside, compared to one outside, wasted in pure loss. This scheme, the distinction between a "good" (natural, living, knowing, intelligible , internal, speaking) script from a "bad" (artificial, doomed, ignorant, sensual, external, silent) script dominated the entire western philosophy. However, the good writing can only be described in the metaphor of the bad, the bad is "at the same time a model of linguistic designation" for the good. If the network of opposites of predicates, which relate one script to the other, contains all the conceptual opposites of Platonism - the dominant structure in the history of metaphysics - then one could say that philosophy was played out in the game of two scripts.
Derrida's analysis of Phaedrus' ideas and his new way of dealing with the challenges contained therein met with a wide range of echoes. A wealth of further considerations can be traced back to his approach.
Literary aspects
In literary terms, the Phaedrus has found a lot of recognition in the modern age. Friedrich Schleiermacher already called it a beautiful and ingenious work in 1804 and defended it against the accusation of a lack of unity in the composition. Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff saw in Phaedrus a high point of Plato's work, originated in a happy moment, “when all this that was in his soul merged into one, into a feeling and a knowledge at the same time”. "Joy, well-being, satisfaction pervades the whole"; this is not to be felt in any other work of the philosopher. Therefore Wilamowitz gave the chapter of his great Plato monograph, in which he treated Phaedrus , the title "A happy summer's day". It is a wonderful work; "With every new reading you discover new wonders". Kurt Hildebrandt considered the Phaedrus to be Plato's most poetic work, the structure of which can only be understood if one starts out “from human-poetic experience”. Werner Jaeger said that Phaedrus showed Plato's deep insights into the essence of literary composition. His own literary creative activity is also fully affected by his sovereign position on the definition of thoughts through the written word. The subsequent distance from the entire own literary work reveals its size.
Plato's literary achievement has also been praised in recent times. Ernst Heitsch sees Plato as "at the height of his literary skills" when composing Phaedrus . Michael Erler calls the dialogue an “artistically designed masterpiece of great thematic and stylistic diversity”.
In addition, critical voices have also been heard since the 19th century. Friedrich Nietzsche's judgment was devastating . He described the Phaedrus as "overflowing, bloated, still fantastic in the manner". Some philologists praised certain aspects and criticized others. So Eduard Norden thought the composition of Phaedrus was wrong, but highly valued Socrates' second speech. It is "the greatest imaginable prose hymn". In addition, Norden remarked: “(...) the lyrical momentum of thoughts brings everything with it into the sphere where the sex of the gods and the blessed sight are.” This shows the highest art of Plato as a writer. Olof Gigon also expressed himself ambiguously : The external scenery is beautifully designed, but the dialogue lacks inner unity. It is a deeply restless, unbalanced work and it is difficult to read. However, Gigon also found an abundance of passages in it that "belong to the most perfect poetic power that Plato wrote".
The philological research of Phaedrus only intensified in the second half of the 20th century. In 1955, the Graecist Willem J. Verdenius described him as “one of the stepchildren of classical philology”.
The question of the "unity" of Phaedrus is often discussed and answered in different ways. In a dialogue, Plato has his Socrates demand that a successful text, like the body of a living being, must be structured in such a way that it forms an organic whole. The parts should be well coordinated. It is disputed whether Plato himself lives up to this claim with Phaedrus . Opinions differ widely on this. Critics consider the work to be disparate, since an internal connection between the first part, dealing with eros and the soul, and the second part, devoted to the theory of rhetoric, is not evident. In addition, there is a change of style in the transition from the first to the second part. Martin Heidegger is one of the well-known supporters of the unity, who has taken a particularly firm position on this question. For him, the content of the dialogue is “not a confused variety”, but an abundance that is designed in a unique way, “so that this conversation must be addressed as the most perfect in all essential respects”.
The question of the author of the “Erotikos”, the speech that Phaedrus reads out loud, has been the subject of controversy since the early 19th century. It is disputed whether it is an authentic text by Lysias, which Plato inserted into his dialogue, or whether it is an imitation of Lysias' expression and argumentation from Plato. There is no doubt that the speech is closely related to real works by Lysias, which is evident in both style and vocabulary as well as in the line of thought. The question remains open.
In research on the history of literature, the portrayal of the idyllic scenery on the riverbank receives special attention. The graceful natural beauty described by Plato is characterized by topical features that have become an integral part of the notion of a lovely place ( locus amoenus ) in European fiction . The devotion to sensory impressions from nature and their description in an enthusiastic tone is assessed in research as conspicuous and in need of interpretation, since it is actually alien to Plato's way of thinking. An interpretation in the sense of a romantic feeling for nature would be wrong. Michael Erler and Holger Thesleff believe that nature in the Phaedrus is perceived as more of a hindrance and seductive. Herwig Görgemanns states that the natural scenery not only forms an atmospheric background, but also contributes to the development of ideas in the dialogue. Some associations are obvious, but the symbolic interpretations suggested for individual motifs are partly speculative and problematic.
Rhetoric theory
In modern theoretical literature on rhetoric, the Phaedrus is assessed differently. In 1953, the English scholar Richard M. Weaver, who teaches in Chicago, published his work The Ethics of Rhetoric , in which he went into detail on Phaedrus , to which he attested timeless relevance. Weaver presented a concept based on Plato's ideas, which received a very divided echo in the professional world. Around the middle of the 20th century, under the impression of Karl Popper's criticism of Plato's political stance , a number of communication scientists took the view that the ancient philosopher's concept of rhetoric was totalitarian and therefore irrelevant for modern discourse; rather, a fruitful approach can be found in Aristotle. Regardless of this, some theorists of rhetoric of the 20th century judged Phaedrus very critically, since Plato made unrealistic, unrealistic expectations of the philosophically oriented rhetoric he advocated. This amounts to eliminating rhetoric and replacing it with the philosophical search for truth. The topics discussed in the more recent specialist discourse include the relevance of Plato's dialectic for the theory of rhetoric and the question of whether Plato should be regarded as a rhetoric theorist at all. Also discussed is the concept of Plato's Socrates, according to which rhetoric is to be understood simply as the art of persuasion or soul guidance, i.e. not just the special case of appearing in front of an audience.
Fiction
The English writer Edward Bulwer-Lytton understood his novel Zanoni, written in 1842, as an allegory on a central Phaedrus passage. In the foreword he quoted the four types of mania mentioned there (music, mysticism, prophecy, love) and explained in a (probably fictional) conversation about the present work: “That is the motto for your book, the thesis for your topic. "
In his novella Death in Venice , published in 1912, Thomas Mann developed a psychology of love, with which he took up a thought from Socrates' second speech in Phaedrus : The fate of the lover depends on which god he imitates due to his character.
In 1922 the novel Jacob's Room by Virginia Woolf was published . The protagonist Jacob Flanders withdraws into his room in search of a holistic view of the world. There he reads works of classical literature that offer him an alternative to modern civilization. The nightly reading of Phaedrus , which he finds very difficult, impresses him greatly. In it he finds an unswerving force that is pushing forward and, as he believes, has been driving darkness before him since Plato's time. Jacob joins this movement in spirit. He marches along while reading and, as it seems to him, becomes part of Plato's strength himself.
In the novel Stefan Rott or The Year of Decision (1931) by Max Brod , the title hero, a Prague high school student and an enthusiastic admirer of Plato, is particularly deeply impressed by Phaedrus .
Editions and translations
Editions (partly with translation)
- Wolfgang Buchwald: Plato: Phaidros . Heimeran, Munich 1964 (with translation)
- Gunther Eigler (ed.): Plato: Works in eight volumes , Vol. 5, 4th edition. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2005, ISBN 3-534-19095-5 (reprint of the critical edition by Léon Robin ; next to it the German translation by Friedrich Schleiermacher, 2nd, improved edition, Berlin 1817)
- Léon Robin, Claudio Moreschini, Paul Vicaire (eds.): Plato: Œuvres complètes , vol. 4, part 3: Phèdre . Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1985, ISBN 2-251-00379-7 (critical edition by Moreschini, introduction by Robin, translation by Vicaire)
- Harvey Yunis (Ed.): Plato: Phaedrus . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2011, ISBN 978-0-521-61259-3 (critical edition with commentary)
Translations
- Ludwig Georgii : Phaidros . In: Erich Loewenthal (Ed.): Platon: All works in three volumes , Vol. 2, unchanged reprint of the 8th, revised edition, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2004, ISBN 3-534-17918-8 , pp. 409–481
- Ernst Heitsch : Plato: Phaedrus. Translation and commentary (= Plato: Works , edited by Ernst Heitsch and Carl Werner Müller , Vol. III 4). 2nd, extended edition, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1997, ISBN 3-525-30437-4
- Kurt Hildebrandt : Plato: Phaedrus or Of the Beautiful . Reclam, Stuttgart 2012 (reprint of the 1957 edition), ISBN 978-3-15-005789-6
- Arthur Huebscher : Plato: Phaedrus or Vom Schönen . 2nd edition, Piper, Munich / Zurich 1989, ISBN 3-492-10952-7
- Constantin Ritter: Plato's Dialogue Phaedrus . In: Otto Apelt (Ed.): Platon: Complete Dialogues , Vol. 2, Meiner, Hamburg 2004, ISBN 3-7873-1156-4 (with introduction and explanations; reprint of the 2nd, revised edition, Leipzig 1922)
- Rudolf Rufener: Plato: Meisterdialoge (= anniversary edition of all works , vol. 3). Artemis, Zurich / Munich 1974, ISBN 3-7608-3640-2 , pp. 183-267 (with introduction by Olof Gigon S. LX – LXXXVI)
literature
Overview representations
- Michael Erler : Platon ( Outline of the history of philosophy . The philosophy of antiquity , edited by Hellmut Flashar , Vol. 2/2). Schwabe, Basel 2007, ISBN 978-3-7965-2237-6 , pp. 215-223, 628-633
- Peter Gardeya: Plato's Phaedrus. Interpretation and bibliography . Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg 1998, ISBN 3-8260-1384-0
- Franz von Kutschera : Plato's Philosophy , Vol. 2: The middle dialogues . Mentis, Paderborn 2002, ISBN 3-89785-265-9 , pp. 121-137
Comments
- Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaedrus. Translation and commentary (= Plato: Works , edited by Ernst Heitsch and Carl Werner Müller, Vol. III 4). 2nd, extended edition, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1997, ISBN 3-525-30437-4
- Christopher J. Rowe: Plato: Phaedrus . Aris & Phillips, Warminster 1986, ISBN 0-85668-314-0 (Greek text with English translation and commentary)
- Gerrit Jacob de Vries: A Commentary on the Phaedrus of Plato . Hakkert, Amsterdam 1969
- Harvey Yunis (Ed.): Plato: Phaedrus . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2011, ISBN 978-0-521-61259-3 (critical edition with commentary)
Investigations
- Marcel van Ackeren : Knowledge of the good. Significance and continuity of virtuous knowledge in Plato's dialogues . Grüner, Amsterdam 2003, ISBN 90-6032-368-8 , pp. 213-226
- Ronna Burger: Plato's Phaedrus. A Defense of a Philosophic Art of Writing . The University of Alabama Press, Alabama 1980, ISBN 0-8173-0014-7
- Giovanni RF Ferrari: Listening to the Cicadas. A Study of Plato's Phaedrus . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1987, ISBN 0-521-26778-1
- Charles L. Griswold, Jr .: Self-Knowledge in Plato's Phaedrus . Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park 1986, ISBN 0-271-01618-3
- Thomas Alexander Szlezák : Plato and the written form of philosophy. Interpretations of the early and middle dialogues . De Gruyter, Berlin 1985, ISBN 3-11-010272-2 , pp. 7-48
- David A. White: Rhetoric and Reality in Plato's Phaedrus . State University of New York Press, Albany 1993, ISBN 0-7914-1234-2
Collections of articles
- Livio Rossetti (Ed.): Understanding the Phaedrus. Proceedings of the II Symposium Platonicum . Academia Verlag, Sankt Augustin 1992, ISBN 3-88345-630-6
reception
- Richard Hunter : Plato and the Traditions of Ancient Literature. The Silent Stream . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2012, ISBN 978-1-107-01292-9
- Henry D. Saffrey, Leendert G. Westerink (ed.): Proclus: Théologie platonicienne . Vol. 4, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1981, ISBN 2-251-00287-1 , pp. IX-XLV
- Michael Burney Trapp: Plato's Phaedrus in Second-Century Greek Literature . In: Donald Andrew Russell (Ed.): Antonine Literature . Clarendon Press, Oxford 1990, ISBN 0-19-814057-6 , pp. 141-173
Web links
- Phaedrus , Greek text after the edition by John Burnet , 1901
- Phaedrus , German translation after Ludwig von Georgii, 1853, edited
- Phaedrus , German translation after Ludwig von Georgii, 1853
- Phaedrus , German translation by Friedrich Schleiermacher
- Phaidros , German translation by Kurt Hildebrandt
Remarks
- ↑ See for the determination of the promenade and the resting place Luc Brisson (translator): Plato: Phèdre , Paris 1989, pp. 29–32 (and map p. 70); Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 217 f .; Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaedrus. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, extended edition, Göttingen 1997, p. 72, p. 226 and note 538; William KC Guthrie : A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 4, Cambridge 1975, p. 397; Léon Robin: Notice . In: Léon Robin, Claudio Moreschini, Paul Vicaire (eds.): Plato: Œuvres complètes , vol. 4, part 3: Phèdre , Paris 1985, p. VII – CCV, here: XVII – XX (with sketch p. XVIII) .
- ↑ Joachim Dalfen : Literary fiction - function of literature. To the "Lysia text" in Plato's Phaedrus . In: Grazer Contributions 12/13, 1985/1986, pp. 101–130, here: 104–107; Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 216; Debra Nails: The People of Plato , Indianapolis 2002, p. 314; Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaedrus. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, extended edition, Göttingen 1997, p. 231 f.
- ↑ See on the erotic background of the constellation between the interlocutors Michael Enßlen: Vom Schöne Phaedrus - Aesthetics and Pedagogy in Plato . In: Gregor Fitzi (Ed.): Platon im Diskurs , Heidelberg 2006, pp. 169–177.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 230d. Cf. Michael Erler: Nature and Knowledge Transfer . In: Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 132, 1989, pp. 280–293, here: 281–287.
- ↑ Thomas Alexander Szlezák: Plato and the writing of philosophy , Berlin 1985, pp. 24–27, 44, 46–48.
- ↑ See for example Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaidros. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, extended edition, Göttingen 1997, p. 92.
- ↑ Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaidros. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, extended edition, Göttingen 1997, p. 72 f.
- ↑ See on the historical Phaedrus Luc Brisson: Phèdre de Myrrhinonte . In: Richard Goulet (Ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Vol. 5, Part 1, Paris 2012, pp. 286 f .; Debra Nails: The People of Plato , Indianapolis 2002, pp. 232-234.
- ↑ Andokides , On the Mysteries 15.
- ↑ Russell Meiggs, David Lewis (eds.): A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC , 2nd Edition, Oxford 1988, pp. 244, 246. For background, see Debra Nails: The People of Plato , Indianapolis 2002, pp. 17-20; Martin Ostwald : From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law , Berkeley 1986, pp. 537-550.
- ↑ Luc Brisson: Phèdre de Myrrhinonte . In: Richard Goulet (Ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Vol. 5, Part 1, Paris 2012, pp. 286 f.
- ↑ On the literary figure of Phaedrus in Plato see Michael Stoeber: Phaedrus of the 'Phaedrus': The Impassioned Soul . In: Philosophy & Rhetoric 25, 1992, pp. 271-280; Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaedrus. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, extended edition, Göttingen 1997, p. 74 f .; Charles L. Griswold: Self-Knowledge in Plato's Phaedrus , 2nd, supplemented edition, University Park 1986, pp. 18-25.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 227a-230e.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 230e-234c. See David Levy: Eros and Socratic Political Philosophy , New York 2013, pp. 56–65, 111.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 234c-237b. Cf. Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaidros. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, extended edition, Göttingen 1997, pp. 81–84.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 237b-238e. Cf. Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaidros. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, extended edition, Göttingen 1997, pp. 84–86; David Levy: Eros and Socratic Political Philosophy , New York 2013, pp. 67–73.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 238e-241d. Cf. Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaidros. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, extended edition, Göttingen 1997, p. 86 f .; David Levy: Eros and Socratic Political Philosophy , New York 2013, pp. 65–67, 73–80.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 241d-244a. Cf. Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaidros. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, extended edition, Göttingen 1997, pp. 88–90; David Levy: Eros and Socratic Political Philosophy , New York 2013, pp. 81–83.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 244a – 245c. Cf. Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaidros. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, extended edition, Göttingen 1997, p. 91 f .; Stefan Büttner: The theory of literature in Platon , Tübingen 2000, pp. 353–355; David Levy: Eros and Socratic Political Philosophy , New York 2013, pp. 83–87.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 245c-246a. Cf. Peter M. Steiner: Psyche bei Platon , Göttingen 1992, pp. 85-89; Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaedrus. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, extended edition, Göttingen 1997, pp. 105–109; Richard Bett: Immortality and the Nature of the Soul in the Phaedrus . In: Phronesis 31, 1986, pp. 1-26; Robert J. Hankinson: Implications of Immortality . In: Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 6, 1990, pp. 1-27; David Levy: Eros and Socratic Political Philosophy , New York 2013, pp. 87-89; Margot Fleischer: Hermeneutische Anthropologie , Berlin 1976, pp. 104-106.
- ↑ See on the motif of the soul wings and the soul team Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaedros. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, extended edition, Göttingen 1997, pp. 93-100.
- ^ Plato, Phaedrus 246a-b.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 246b-248c. Cf. Dietmar Koch: On the movement of the divine and the human soul in Plato's dialogue Phaedrus . In: Dietmar Koch et al. (Ed.): Platon und das Götigte, Tübingen 2010, pp. 98–111.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 250c.
- ↑ See the opposing views of Richard S. Bluck: The Phaedrus and Reincarnation . In: American Journal of Philology 79, 1958, pp. 156-164 and Donal McGibbon: The Fall of the Soul in Plato's Phaedrus . In: The Classical Quarterly 14, 1964, pp. 56-63.
- ^ Plato, Phaedrus 248c-249d. Cf. Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaidros. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, extended edition, Göttingen 1997, pp. 103-105.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 249d-252b.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 252c-257b. On the inner soul conflict, see Jacqueline de Romilly : Les conflits de l'âme dans le Phèdre de Plato . In: Wiener Studien Neue Episode 16, 1982, pp. 100–113; Giovanni RF Ferrari: The Struggle in the Soul: Plato, Phaedrus 253c7-255a1 . In: Ancient Philosophy 5, 1985, pp. 1-10.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 257b-258E.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 258E-259d. Cf. Irmgard Männlein-Robert : The muse art of the philosopher or Socrates and the cicadas in Plato's Phaedrus . In: Dietmar Koch et al. (Eds.): Platon and die Mousiké , Tübingen 2012, pp. 83-103; Bruce Gottfried: Pan, the Cicadas, and Plato's Use of Myth in the Phaedrus . In: Gerald A. Press (Ed.): Plato's Dialogues. New Studies and Interpretations , Lanham 1993, pp. 179-195.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 259E-262c. Cf. Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaidros. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, extended edition, Göttingen 1997, pp. 126–135; Harvey Yunis: Eros in Plato's Phaedrus and the Shape of Greek Rhetoric . In: Arion 13, 2005, pp. 101-125, here: 103-106.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 262c-266c. See William KC Guthrie: A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 4, Cambridge 1975, pp. 427-431; Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaedrus. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, extended edition, Göttingen 1997, pp. 135–151.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 266d-274b. Cf. Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaidros. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, extended edition, Göttingen 1997, pp. 151–187.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 274b-275c. See John J. Mulhern: Socrates on Knowledge and Information (Phaedrus 274B6-277A5) . In: Classica et Mediaevalia 30, 1969, pp. 175-186, here: 175-183; Christopher Moore: The Myth of Theuth in the Phaedrus . In: Catherine Collobert et al. (Ed.): Plato and Myth , Leiden 2012, pp. 279–303; Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaedrus. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, expanded edition, Göttingen 1997, pp. 188–191.
- ↑ See Michael Erler: Nature and knowledge transfer . In: Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 132, 1989, pp. 280–293, here: 287–293; John J. Mulhern: Socrates on Knowledge and Information (Phaedrus 274B6-277A5) . In: Classica et Mediaevalia 30, 1969, pp. 175-186, here: 183-186; Thomas Alexander Szlezák: Read Platon , Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1993, pp. 60–63.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 275c-278e. Cf. Giovanni Reale: To a new interpretation of Plato , 2nd, extended edition, Paderborn 2000, pp. 85–98, 658 f .; Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaedrus. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, extended edition, Göttingen 1997, pp. 191–218.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 278e-279b.
- ↑ Gerrit J. de Vries: A Commentary on the Phaedrus of Plato , Amsterdam 1969, pp. 15-18; Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaedrus. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, expanded edition, Göttingen 1997, pp. 221–225, 257–262; Marcelle Laplace: L'hommage de Platon à Isocrate dans le Phèdre . In: Revue de philologie, de littérature et d'histoire anciennes 62, 1988, pp. 273-281.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 279b-c. See the detailed study by Konrad Gaiser : The Gold of Wisdom . In: Konrad Gaiser: Gesammelte Schriften , Sankt Augustin 2004, pp. 501-530. See Diskin Clay: Socrates' Prayer to Pan . In: Glen W. Bowersock et al. a. (Ed.): Arktouros , Berlin 1979, pp. 345-353; Thomas G. Rosenmeyer : Plato's Prayer to Pan (Phaedrus 279B8-C3) . In: Hermes 90, 1962, pp. 34-44; David Bouvier: Socrate, Pan et quelques nymphes: à propos de la prière finale du Phèdre (279b4 – c8) . In: Francesca Prescendi, Youri Volokhine (ed.): Dane le laboratoire de l'historien des religions , Genève 2011, pp. 251–262.
- ^ Daniel Werner: Rhetoric and Philosophy in Plato's Phaedrus . In: Greece & Rome 57, 2010, pp. 21-46; Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaedrus. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, extended edition, Göttingen 1997, pp. 180–182; Marina McCoy: Plato on the Rhetoric of Philosophers and Sophists , Cambridge 2008, pp. 167-196; William KC Guthrie: A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 4, Cambridge 1975, pp. 412-417; James S. Murray: Disputation, Deception, and Dialectic: Plato on the True Rhetoric ("Phaedrus" 261-266) . In: Philosophy & Rhetoric 21, 1988, pp. 279-289.
- ↑ See also Giovanni RF Ferrari: Listening to the Cicadas , Cambridge 1987, pp. 204–222; William KC Guthrie: A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 4, Cambridge 1975, pp. 56-64; Michel Narcy: La leçon d'écriture de Socrate dans le Phèdre de Platon . In: Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé u. a. (Ed.): Sophies maietores, “Chercheurs de sagesse”. Hommage à Jean Pépin , Paris 1992, pp. 77-92; Thomas Alexander Szlezák: Does Plato's written criticism also apply to your own dialogues? In: Journal for Philosophical Research 53, 1999, pp. 259–267; Christopher J. Rowe: Plato's Use of Irony: A Case Study . In: Toivo Viljamaa et al. (Ed.): Sprachaspekte als Experiment , Turku 1989, pp. 83–97, here: 83–91.
- ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 278d-e.
- ^ Konrad Gaiser: Gesammelte Schriften , Sankt Augustin 2004, pp. 31–33; Hans Joachim Krämer: Arete in Platon and Aristoteles , Heidelberg 1959, pp. 392–400; Hans Joachim Krämer: The fundamental questions of the indirect Plato tradition . In: Hans-Georg Gadamer, Wolfgang Schadewaldt (Eds.): Idea and Number , Heidelberg 1968, pp. 124–128; Hans Krämer: New literature on the new image of Plato . In: Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie 14, 1989, pp. 59–81, here: 59–72; Hans Krämer: To new books about Plato . In: Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie 22, 1997, 49–68, here: 51–59; Thomas A. Szlezák: Form of dialogue and esotericism . In: Museum Helveticum 35, 1978, pp. 18–32; Thomas Alexander Szlezák: On the context of the Platonic τιμιώτερα . In: Würzburg Yearbooks for Classical Studies New Series 16, 1990, pp. 75–85; Thomas Alexander Szlezák: Read Platon , Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1993, pp. 67–76, 86; Giovanni Reale: On a new interpretation of Plato , 2nd, expanded edition, Paderborn 2000, pp. 85–98, 658–661.
- ↑ Ernst Heitsch: ΤΙΜΙΩΤΕΡΑ . In: Ernst Heitsch: Gesammelte Schriften , Vol. 3, Munich 2003, pp. 338–347; Ernst Heitsch: πλημμελούμενος καὶ οὐκ ἐν δίκῃ λοιδορηθείς . In: Würzburg Yearbooks for Classical Studies New Series 17, 1991, pp. 143–151, here: 150 f.
- ↑ Wolfgang Wieland: Plato and the forms of knowledge , Göttingen 1982, pp. 27, 41 f.
- ↑ Wilfried Kühn: What criticism of whose writings? In: Journal for philosophical research 52, 1998, pp. 23–39; Wilfried Kühn: La fin du Phèdre de Platon. Critique de la rhetorique et de l'écriture , Firenze 2000, p. 7 ff. Cf. the reply by Thomas Alexander Szlezák: Does Plato's criticism of writing also apply to his own dialogues? In: Journal for philosophical research 53, 1999, pp. 259–267.
- ↑ Margherita Isnardi Parente: Phdr. 274c ss., O Il discorso orale come autoelenchos . In: Livio Rossetti (Ed.): Understanding the Phaedrus , Sankt Augustin 1992, pp. 108–121.
- ↑ Rafael Ferber: The ignorance of the philosopher or why did Plato not write the “unwritten teaching”? , Sankt Augustin 1991, pp. 22-30.
- ↑ Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaidros. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, expanded edition, Göttingen 1997, p. 83.
- ↑ Alex G. Long: Conversation and Self-Sufficiency in Plato , Oxford 2013, pp. 10-12, 24.
- ^ William KC Guthrie: A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 4, Cambridge 1975, pp. 421-425; Marcel van Ackeren: The knowledge of the good , Amsterdam 2003, pp. 215–226; Andreas Graeser : Problems of the Platonic theory of division of the soul , Munich 1969, pp. 41–50; Martin Holtermann: The search for the structure of the soul in Plato's Phaedrus . In: Manuel Baumbach et al. (Ed.): Mousopolos stephanos , Heidelberg 1998, pp. 426–442; Myles F. Burnyeat: Explorations in Ancient and Modern Philosophy , Vol. 2, Cambridge 2012, pp. 249-258.
- ↑ Mary P. Nichols: Socrates on Friendship and Community , Cambridge 2009, pp. 91-93; Dominic Scott: Philosophy and Madness in the Phaedrus . In: Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 41, 2011, pp. 169–200; Daniel Werner: Plato on Madness and Philosophy . In: Ancient Philosophy 31, 2011, pp. 47–71.
- ^ Gregory Vlastos: The Individual as an Object of Love in Plato . In: Gregory Vlastos: Platonic Studies , 2nd, corrected edition, Princeton 1981, pp. 3–42, here: p. 27 and note 80.
- ↑ Martha Craven Nussbaum: The fragility of goodness , Cambridge 1986, pp. 200-233.
- ↑ Christopher Rowe: Philosophy, Love, and Madness . In: Christopher Gill (Ed.): The Person and the Human Mind , Oxford 1990, pp. 227-246. See also Paul W. Gooch: Has Plato Changed Socrates' Heart in the Phaedrus? In: Livio Rossetti (Ed.): Understanding the Phaedrus , Sankt Augustin 1992, pp. 309-312.
- ^ Heinrich Dörrie , Matthias Baltes : The Platonism in antiquity , Vol. 2, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1990, p. 364; Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 216.
- ↑ Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 216; William KC Guthrie: A History of Greek Philosophy , Vol. 4, Cambridge 1975, pp. 396 f .; Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaedrus. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, extended edition, Göttingen 1997, p. 232 f .; Gerrit J. de Vries: A Commentary on the Phaedrus of Plato , Amsterdam 1969, pp. 7-11; Gerard R. Ledger: Recounting Plato , Oxford 1989, pp. 209 f. Julius Tomin, on the other hand, advocates the old early dating in a series of essays; see Julius Tomin: Plato's disappointment with his Phaedran characters and its impact on his theory of psychology . In: The Classical Quarterly 50, 2000, pp. 374-383 (p. 374 note 2 compilation of Tomin's earlier relevant publications).
- ↑ Holger Thesleff: Platonic Patterns , Las Vegas 2009, pp. 318-321, 326, 495 f.
- ^ Corpus dei Papiri Filosofici Greci e Latini (CPF) , part 1, vol. 1 ***, Firenze 1999, pp. 231-284. Cf. Otwin Vinzent: Text-critical investigations of the Phaidros-Papyri , Saarbrücken 1961, pp. 7-10, 153-156.
- ↑ Oxford, Bodleian Library , Clarke 39 (= "Codex B" of the Plato textual tradition).
- ^ Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Longin. Philologist and philosopher , Munich 2001, p. 399 f .; Michael B. Trapp: Plato's Phaedrus in Second-Century Greek Literature . In: Donald A. Russell (ed.): Antonine Literature , Oxford 1990, pp. 141-173, here: 141, 145, 165; Harvey Yunis (Ed.): Plato: Phaedrus , Cambridge 2011, pp. 26-28; Richard Hunter: Plato and the Traditions of Ancient Literature. The Silent Stream , Cambridge 2012, pp. 1-18, 36f., 52-54, 58, 82, 88, 149f., 151-184, 192-222, 240; František Novotný: The Posthumous Life of Plato , Den Haag 1977, pp. 259 f., 266 f.
- ↑ Christof Rapp : Aristoteles: Rhetorik (= Aristoteles: Works in German Translation , Vol. 4/2), Darmstadt 2002, p. 215, 679–681.
- ↑ Diogenes Laertios 3.38. Cf. Fritz Wehrli (Ed.): The School of Aristoteles , Book 1: Dikaiarchos , Basel 1944, p. 54 f.
- ↑ Poseidonios, fragment 290; see Ian G. Kidd : Posidonius , Vol. 2: The Commentary , Vol. 2: Fragments 150-293 , Cambridge 1988, pp. 979-981.
- ↑ See on this Henry D. Saffrey, Leendert G. Westerink (ed.): Proclus: Théologie platonicienne , Vol. 4, Paris 1981, pp. XI f.
- ↑ See Woldemar Görler : From Athens to Tusculum: Gleaning the Background of Cicero's De oratore . In: Rhetorica 6, 1988, pp. 215-235, here: 215-228; František Novotný: The Posthumous Life of Plato , Den Haag 1977, pp. 65, 67-71.
- ↑ Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Demosthenes 7; Greek text with translation by Heinrich Dörrie, Matthias Baltes: Der Platonismus in der Antike , Vol. 2, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1990, pp. 140–145.
- ↑ Diogenes Laertios 3.57 f.
- ^ Henry D. Saffrey, Leendert G. Westerink (ed.): Proclus: Théologie platonicienne , Vol. 4, Paris 1981, pp. XII – XV; Willy Theiler : Philo of Alexandria and the beginning of the Imperial Platonism . In: Kurt Flasch (Ed.): Parusia , Frankfurt 1965, pp. 199–218, here: 199–202; Anita Méasson: You char ailé de Zeus à l'Arche d'Alliance. Images et mythes platoniciens chez Philon d'Alexandrie , Paris 1986, pp. 29-51, 141-149, 160-176, 188-192, 203-210, 238-240, 246-262, 281 ff., 329-338 , 353 f.
- ↑ Herakleitos, Quaestiones Homericae 17-18 and 77-78. See Heinrich Dörrie, Matthias Baltes: Der Platonismus in der Antike , Vol. 2, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1990, pp. 44–47, 122–125, 282 f., 387.
- ^ Plutarch, De animae procreatione in Timaeo 1016a.
- ↑ Michael B. Trapp: Plato's Phaedrus in Second-Century Greek Literature . In: Donald A. Russell (ed.): Antonine Literature , Oxford 1990, pp. 141-173, here: 157-161.
- ↑ Michael B. Trapp: Plato's Phaedrus in Second-Century Greek Literature . In: Donald A. Russell (ed.): Antonine Literature , Oxford 1990, pp. 141–173, here: 141–155.
- ↑ Fronto, Epistula acephala ad M. Aurelium Caesarem (= Additamentum epistularum Nr. 8; the response Mark Aurels is no. 7). See Michel PJ van den Hout: A Commentary on the Letters of M. Cornelius Fronto , Leiden 1999, pp. 557-568.
- ↑ Aelius Aristides, To Plato on Rhetoric 52–60, 459–462.
- ^ Heinrich Dörrie, Matthias Baltes: The Platonism in the Ancient World , Vol. 2, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1990, pp. 100 f., 360, 364 and Vol. 3, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1993, p. 197; Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 221.
- ^ John Dillon : Harpocration's Commentary on Plato: Fragments of a Middle Platonic Commentary . In: John Dillon: The Golden Chain , Aldershot 1990, No. XIV, pp. 139-142; Heinrich Dörrie, Matthias Baltes: Platonism in antiquity , Vol. 3, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1993, p. 197.
- ↑ John F. Finamore: Apuleius on the Platonic Gods . In: Harold Tarrant, Dirk Baltzly (eds.): Reading Plato in Antiquity , London 2006, pp. 33–48, here: 40–42.
- ^ Henry D. Saffrey, Leendert G. Westerink (ed.): Proclus: Théologie platonicienne , Vol. 4, Paris 1981, pp. XV f .; Willy Theiler: Philo of Alexandria and the beginning of the Imperial Platonism . In: Kurt Flasch (ed.): Parusia , Frankfurt 1965, pp. 199–218, here: 200–202. See Michael B. Trapp: Plato's Phaedrus in Second-Century Greek Literature . In: Donald A. Russell (ed.): Antonine Literature , Oxford 1990, pp. 141-173, here: 161-164, 167 f.
- ^ Athenagoras, Legatio 23.
- ↑ Michael B. Trapp: Plato's Phaedrus in Second-Century Greek Literature . In: Donald A. Russell (ed.): Antonine Literature , Oxford 1990, pp. 141-173, here: 154, 168-170.
- ^ Henry D. Saffrey, Leendert G. Westerink (ed.): Proclus: Théologie platonicienne , Vol. 4, Paris 1981, p. XVII.
- ↑ See on Plotin's interpretation of Phaedrus Henry D. Saffrey, Leendert G. Westerink (Ed.): Proclus: Théologie platonicienne , Vol. 4, Paris 1981, pp. XVIII – XXV.
- ^ Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Longin. Philologist and philosopher , Munich 2001, pp. 398–403.
- ↑ The fragments are critically edited, translated into English and commented on by John M. Dillon: Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis dialogos commentariorum fragmenta , Leiden 1973, pp. 92–99, 248–256. See Bent Dalsgaard Larsen: Jamblique de Chalcis. Exégète et philosophe , Aarhus 1972, p. 56 f .; Henry D. Saffrey, Leendert G. Westerink (eds.): Proclus: Théologie platonicienne , Vol. 4, Paris 1981, pp. XXVII-XXIX.
- ↑ Prolegomena to the Philosophy of Plato 26, ed. von Leendert G. Westerink: Prolégomènes à la philosophie de Platon , Paris 1990, p. 40.
- ↑ John M. Dillon (Ed.): Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis dialogos commentariorum fragmenta , Leiden 1973, pp. 94 f., 98 f., 249-251, 255 f.
- ^ Henry D. Saffrey, Leendert G. Westerink (ed.): Proclus: Théologie platonicienne , Vol. 4, Paris 1981, pp. XXIX-XLV; Christina-Panagiota Manolea: The Homeric Tradition in Syrianus , Thessaloniki 2004, pp. 47–51.
- ↑ Dominic J. O'Meara: Pythagoras Revived , Oxford 1989, pp. 124-128; Karl Praechter : Hermeias from Alexandreia . In: Pauly-Wissowa (RE) Vol. 8/1, Stuttgart 1912, Col. 732-735.
- ↑ Gyburg Radke : The smile of Parmenides , Berlin 2006, pp. 151–154; John M. Dillon: Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis dialogos commentariorum fragmenta , Leiden 1973, p. 248 f.
- ^ Edited critically by Carlo M. Lucarini, Claudio Moreschini: Hermias Alexandrinus: In Platonis Phaedrum scholia , Berlin 2012.
- ↑ This opinion u. a. Karl Praechter: Hermeias. In: Pauly-Wissowa (RE) Vol. 8/1, Stuttgart 1912, Col. 733 f .; Rosa Loredana Cardullo: Siriano, esegeta di Aristotele , vol. 1: Frammenti e testimonianze dei commentari all'Organon , Firenze 1995, pp. 25–28 and Christina-Panagiota Manolea: The Homeric Tradition in Syrianus , Thessaloniki 2004, p. 47– 58.
- ↑ Hildegund Bernard: Hermeias von Alexandrien: Commentary on Plato's “Phaidros” , Tübingen 1997, pp. 4–23; Claudio Moreschini: Alcuni aspetti degli Scholia in Phaedrum di Ermia Alessandrino. In: Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé (ed.): Sophies maietores, “Chercheurs de sagesse”. Hommage à Jean Pépin , Paris 1992, pp. 451-460.
- ↑ See Hildegund Bernard: Hermeias von Alexandrien: Commentary on Plato's “Phaidros” , Tübingen 1997, pp. 47–50, 55 f.
- ^ Plato, Phaedrus 264c.
- ↑ Hermeias, In Phaedrum 9 and 11 (translated by Hildegund Bernard: Hermeias von Alexandrien: Commentary on Plato's “Phaidros” , Tübingen 1997, pp. 87 and 89 f.).
- ↑ Dominic J. O'Meara: Pythagoras Revived , Oxford 1989, pp. 125-128.
- ^ Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Longin. Philologist and philosopher , Munich 2001, p. 402 f.
- ↑ Amandus Bielmeier: Die Neuplatonische Phaidrosinterpretation , Paderborn 1930, pp. 36–38. Cf. Carlo M. Lucarini, Claudio Moreschini: Hermias Alexandrinus: In Platonis Phaedrum scholia , Berlin 2012, pp. XXVII – XXXII.
- ↑ Leendert G. Westerink (Ed.): The Greek Commentaries on Plato's Phaedo , Vol. 2: Damascius , Amsterdam 1977, p. 11.
- ^ Ambrosius of Milan, De Isaac vel anima 8: 65-67.
- ^ Macrobius, Commentarii in somnium Scipionis 2, 13-16.
- ↑ Calcidius, In Platonis Timaeum chap. 124-126.
- ^ Irmgard Männlein-Robert: Longin. Philologist and philosopher , Munich 2001, pp. 398–406.
- ^ František Novotný: The Posthumous Life of Plato , Den Haag 1977, p. 289 f.
- ↑ On this translation and its dating see James Hankins: Plato in the Italian Renaissance , 3rd edition, Leiden 1994, pp. 66–72, 383, 396–399. For Bruni's attitude see Sabrina Ebbersmeyer: Sinnlichkeit und Vernunft , Munich 2002, pp. 59–62.
- ↑ Michael JB Allen (Ed.): Marsilio Ficino: Commentaries on Plato , Vol. 1, Cambridge (Massachusetts) 2008, pp. XII f .; Sabrina Ebbersmeyer: Sinnlichkeit und Vernunft , Munich 2002, pp. 63–67.
- ↑ See on this and on the question of Hermeias' influence on Ficino's thinking Anne Sheppard : The Influence of Hermias on Marsilio Ficino's Doctrine of Inspiration. In: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 43, 1980, pp. 97-109; Michael JB Allen: Two Commentaries on the Phaedrus: Ficino's Indebtedness to Hermias. In: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 43, 1980, pp. 110-129.
- ↑ Michael JB Allen (ed.): Marsilio Ficino: Commentaries on Plato , Vol. 1, Cambridge (Massachusetts) 2008, pp. XI – XXXV.
- ↑ Michael JB Allen (ed.): Marsilio Ficino: Commentaries on Plato , Vol. 1, Cambridge (Massachusetts) 2008, p. XIII.
- ↑ Vanessa Kayling: The Reception and Modification of the Platonic Concept of Eros in French Literature of the 16th and 17th Centuries with Special Consideration of the Ancient and Italian Tradition , Bonn 2010, pp. 148, 150, 152–155, 161, 163 f., 169, 173, 175, 178, 182, 184, 186, 195, 204.
- ^ Johann Kreuzer (Ed.): Hölderlin-Handbuch , Stuttgart 2002, p. 225.
- ^ Friedrich Hölderlin: Notes on the Antigonae . In: Hölderlin: Complete Works , Vol. 5, Stuttgart 1952, p. 267. See also Pierre Bertaux : Friedrich Hölderlin , Frankfurt am Main 1978, pp. 595–597.
- ↑ Johann Gottfried Herder: Kalligone . In: Herder: Complete Works , ed. by Bernhard Suphan , vol. 22, Berlin 1880, p. 93 f.
- ↑ Werner Jaeger: Paideia , Berlin 1989 (reprint of the 1973 edition in one volume), p. 1131 f.
- ^ Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: Lectures on the History of Philosophy II , ed. by Eva Moldenhauer , Karl Markus Michel (= works , vol. 19), Frankfurt 1986, p. 57.
- ^ Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: Lectures on the History of Philosophy II , ed. by Eva Moldenhauer, Karl Markus Michel (= works , vol. 19), Frankfurt 1986, pp. 48, 51 f.
- ^ Paul Natorp: Plato's theory of ideas , 2nd edition, Hamburg 1994 (first published in 1903), pp. 53, 57 f., 72, 87. Cf. on Natorp's interpretation of Phaidros Alan Kim: Plato in Germany , Sankt Augustin 2010, p. 100-104.
- ^ Nicolai Hartmann: Plato's Logic of Being , 2nd edition, Berlin 1965 (first published in 1909), pp. 186–192.
- ↑ Martin Heidegger: Plato: Sophistes (= Gesamtausgabe , Vol. 19), Frankfurt am Main 1992, pp. 308–351.
- ^ Martin Heidegger: Nietzsche: The will to power as art (= complete edition , vol. 43), Frankfurt am Main 1985, pp. 231–248.
- ↑ Martin Heidegger: Plato: Sophistes (= Gesamtausgabe , Vol. 19), Frankfurt am Main 1992, pp. 315 f., 319 f., 339 f.
- ↑ Martin Heidegger: Nietzsche: The Will to Power as Art (= complete edition , vol. 43), Frankfurt am Main 1985, pp. 236–247.
- ^ Karl Jaspers: The great philosophers , vol. 1, 3rd edition, Munich / Zurich 1981, p. 237.
- ↑ Josef Pieper: Enthusiasm and divine madness , Munich 1962, p. 16 f.
- ↑ Hans-Georg Gadamer: On the way to writing? In: Hans-Georg Gadamer: Gesammelte Werke , Vol. 7, Tübingen 1991, pp. 258–269, here: 262–267.
- ↑ Tanja Stähler: Plato and Lévinas. Ambiguity this side of ethics , Würzburg 2011, pp. 21 f., 31–36.
- ↑ Jacques Derrida: La pharmacie de Plato. In: Jacques Derrida: La dissémination , Paris 1972, pp. 69–198; German: Plato's pharmacy . In: Jacques Derrida: Dissemination , Vienna 1995, pp. 69–192.
- ↑ Jacques Derrida: Dissemination , Vienna 1995, pp. 76, 78, 80, 118, 168.
- ↑ See, for example, Jay Farness: Missing Socrates. Problems of Plato's Writing , University Park 1991, pp. 171-196; Yoav Rinon: The Rhetoric of Jacques Derrida II: Phaedrus . In: Review of Metaphysics 46, 1992/1993, pp. 537-558; Charles L. Griswold: Self-Knowledge in Plato's Phaedrus , 2nd, supplemented edition, University Park 1986, pp. 230-241; Paul Allen Miller: Postmodern Spiritual Practices. The Construction of the Subject and the Reception of Plato in Lacan, Derrida, and Foucault , Columbus 2007, pp. 144-151.
- ^ Friedrich Schleiermacher: Phaedrus. Introduction . In: Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher: About the philosophy of Plato , ed. by Peter M. Steiner, Hamburg 1996, pp. 69-92. See Yvon Lafrance: F. Schleiermacher, lecteur du Phèdre de Platon . In: Revue de philosophie ancienne 8, 1990, pp. 229–261, here: 243–259.
- ^ Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff: Platon. His life and his works , 5th edition, Berlin 1959 (1st edition Berlin 1919), pp. 361, 384.
- ↑ Kurt Hildebrandt: Plato: Phaidros or Vom Schönen , Stuttgart 2012, p. 3.
- ↑ Werner Jaeger: Paideia , Berlin 1989 (reprint of the 1973 edition in one volume), pp. 1139, 1145.
- ↑ Ernst Heitsch: Dialectics and Philosophy in Plato's 'Phaedros' . In: Hermes 125, 1997, pp. 131–152, here: 140.
- ↑ Michael Erler: Platon , Munich 2006, p. 81.
- ^ Friedrich Nietzsche: Studies from the conversion period 1882–1888 . In: Friedrich Nietzsche: Gesammelte Werke , Vol. 16, Munich 1925, p. 7.
- ^ Eduard Norden: The ancient art prose , Vol. 1, 2nd edition, Leipzig 1909, p. 111 f.
- ↑ Olof Gigon: Introduction . In: Platon: Meisterdialoge (= anniversary edition of all works , vol. 3), Zurich / Munich 1974, pp. V – LXXXVI, here: LXI, LXXXVI.
- ^ Willem J. Verdenius: Notes on Plato's Phaedrus . In: Mnemosyne 8, 1955, pp. 265-289, here: 265.
- ↑ See Gerrit J. de Vries: A Commentary on the Phaedrus of Plato , Amsterdam 1969, pp. 22–24; Elizabeth Asmis : Psychagogia in Plato's Phaedrus . In: Illinois Classical Studies 11, 1986, pp. 153-172; Léon Robin: Notice . In: Léon Robin, Claudio Moreschini, Paul Vicaire (eds.): Plato: Œuvres complètes , vol. 4, part 3: Phèdre , Paris 1985, pp. VII – CCV, here LXXI – LXXIII; Thomas A. Szlezák: Plato and the writing of philosophy , Berlin 1985, p. 47 f .; Malcolm Heath : The Unity of Plato's Phaedrus . In: Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 7, 1989, pp. 151-173, 189-191; Christopher Rowe: The Unity of Plato's Phaedrus. A Reply to Heath . In: Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 7, 1989, pp. 175-188.
- ↑ Martin Heidegger: Nietzsche: Der Wille zur Macht als Kunst (= Complete Edition , Vol. 43), Frankfurt am Main 1985, p. 236.
- Jump up for the authorship of Plato: Michael Erler: Platon , Basel 2007, p. 219 (cautious); Gerrit J. de Vries: A Commentary on the Phaedrus of Plato , Amsterdam 1969, pp. 11-14; Gustav Adolf Seeck : Bad and good love in Plato's Phaedrus . In: Würzburg Yearbooks for Classical Studies New Series 22, 1998, pp. 101–121, here: 102 f .; Joachim Dalfen: Literary Fiction - Function of Literature. To the "Lysia text" in Plato's Phaedrus . In: Grazer contributions 12/13, 1985/1986, pp. 101–130, here: 119 f. Plead for Lysias as an author: Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaedros. Translation and Commentary , 2nd, extended edition, Göttingen 1997, pp. 77–80; Siegmar Döpp : The author of the erotic in Plato's 'Phaedrus' . In: Glotta 61, 1983, pp. 15-29; Herwig Görgemanns: A new argument for the authenticity of the Lysian erotic . In: Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 131, 1988, pp. 108–113.
- ^ Michael Erler: Nature and knowledge transfer . In: Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 132, 1989, pp. 280–293, here: 286 f .; Holger Thesleff: mood painting or burleke? In: Arctos 5, 1967, pp. 141-155.
- ↑ Herwig Görgemanns: On the interpretation of the scene at Ilissos in Plato's Phaedrus . In: Glenn W. Most et al. (Ed.): Philanthropia kai eusebeia , Göttingen 1993, pp. 122-147.
- ^ Richard M. Weaver: The Ethics of Rhetoric , Chicago 1953.
- ↑ See also David Allen Gilbert: Plato's Ideal Art of Rhetoric. An Interpretation of Phaedrus 270b-272b , Dissertation Austin 2002, pp. 23-27, 244 f.
- ^ David Allen Gilbert: Plato's Ideal Art of Rhetoric. An Interpretation of Phaedrus 270b-272b , Dissertation Austin 2002, pp. 27-30.
- ^ David Allen Gilbert: Plato's Ideal Art of Rhetoric. An Interpretation of Phaedrus 270b-272b , Dissertation Austin 2002, pp. 3-5, 233-235; Donald C. Stewart: The Continuing Relevance of Plato's Phaedrus . In: Robert J. Connors et al. (Ed.): Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse , Carbondale 1984, pp. 115–126, here: 118 f. and note 12.
- ^ David Allen Gilbert: Plato's Ideal Art of Rhetoric. An Interpretation of Phaedrus 270b-272b , Dissertation Austin 2002, pp. 30-45.
- ^ Edward Bulwer-Lytton: Zanoni , Bergisch Gladbach 1984, p. 13 f.
- ↑ Manfred Dierks: Studies on Myth and Psychology with Thomas Mann , Bern 1972, p. 26 f.
- ↑ See Brenda Lyons: Virginia Woolf and Plato: The Platonic background of Jacob's Room . In: Anna Baldwin, Sarah Hutton (eds.): Platonism and the English Imagination , Cambridge 1994, pp. 290-297, here: 293-297.
- ↑ See František Novotný: The Posthumous Life of Plato , Den Haag 1977, pp. 611–615.
