Unwritten teaching

The archaeological site of the Platonic Academy, where Plato's students discussed the original principles

An unwritten teaching is a metaphysical teaching attributed to the ancient philosopher Plato (428 / 427–348 / 347 BC) . It is called the doctrine of principles in recent research , because it deals with two highest principles to which everything is reduced. The term "unwritten teaching" refers to the assumption that Plato presented his concept orally, but never fixed it in writing.

The credibility of the relevant sources is disputed. According to them, Plato was of the opinion that certain parts of his teaching were unsuitable for publication. Since this teaching content could not be presented in writing in a generally understandable way, disseminating it in a fixed written form would lead to misunderstandings. Therefore, Plato is said to have limited himself to explaining the unwritten teaching in his philosophy school, the academy , to advanced students. The traditional information about the content should come from the oral lessons.

From the middle of the 20th century, historians of philosophy made a large-scale attempt to systematically reconstruct the main features of the “unwritten doctrine”. This project by a research group called the “Tübingen Plato School” has met with approval from many scholars of antiquity. On the other hand, numerous researchers have made reservations or rejected the reconstruction altogether. Some critics consider the source basis of the Tübingen reconstruction to be inadequate, others even deny the existence of an unwritten teaching of Plato or at least doubt its systematic character and regard it as an unworked concept. The intense and sometimes sharp debate between proponents and opponents of the "Tübingen image of Plato" is being pursued with great vigor by both sides, and the proponents classify it as a paradigm shift in Plato research .

terminology

The expression "unwritten teachings" ( ἄγραφα δόγματα ágrapha dógmata ) to denote Plato's internal teaching content is first attested to by his pupil Aristotle . In his Physics Aristotle writes that Plato used a term differently in his dialogue Timaeus than "in the so-called unwritten teachings". The modern proponents of the authenticity of the doctrine of principles fall back on this ancient expression. Aristotle does not use the word "so-called" ironically here, but in a value-neutral manner.

In the research literature there is also talk of Plato's "esoteric teaching". However , this has nothing to do with esotericism in the current sense of the word, nor is it meant any secret doctrine. The term is only intended to express that the unwritten teaching was intended for an inner circle of philosophy students who had the necessary prior knowledge and had already dealt with the exoteric doctrine of ideas .

The modern proponents of the reconstructability of the unwritten doctrine are sometimes abbreviated and casually referred to as "esotericists", the representatives of skeptical opposing positions as "anti-esotericists". Since the reconstruction was primarily undertaken and defended by researchers from the University of Tübingen , one speaks of the "Tübingen", the "Tübingen School" or - to distinguish it from a theological Tübingen school - of the "Tübingen Plato School". The new image of Plato's metaphysics resulting from the reconstruction is called the “Tübingen Paradigm ”. Since the Tübingen interpretation of Plato found a committed advocate in the Milanese scholar Giovanni Reale , there has also been talk of the "Tübingen and Milan School". Reale introduced the term “ protology ” (doctrine of the first) for the doctrine of principles because it deals with the first principles.

Sources and evidence

The argument for the Tübingen paradigm takes place in two steps. The first step is to present the evidence and evidence for the existence of philosophically relevant special content from Plato's oral lessons. This is to show that Plato's dialogues , all of which have been preserved, do not represent his entire philosophy, but only the part intended for written dissemination. In the second step, the source finding for the presumed content of the unwritten teaching is evaluated and an attempt is made to reconstruct a coherent system.

Arguments for the Existence of an Unwritten Teaching

The following evidence and arguments are mainly given for the existence of an unwritten teaching:

• Places in the metaphysics and physics of Aristotle, especially a place in physics where he expressly refers to "so-called unwritten teachings" of Plato. In this regard, it is asserted that Aristotle was a long-time student of Plato and an expert on teaching at the Academy and can therefore be considered well informed.
• The report of Aristoxenus , a student of Aristotle, on Plato's public lecture “On the good”. As Aristoxenus reports, Aristotle used to say that the lecture contained mathematical and astronomical explanations and that Plato also addressed the one thing - the highest principle. The latter information and the title of the lecture show that it was about the doctrine of principles. After the presentation of Aristotle, the lecture met with incomprehension from the philosophically ignorant audience.
• Plato's “scriptural criticism” in the dialogues. In several undoubtedly genuine dialogues, Plato articulates his skepticism towards writing as a medium of knowledge transfer and expresses his preference for oral knowledge transfer. He offers a detailed explanation of his position in Dialogue Phaedrus . There he justifies the superiority of oral over written dissemination of philosophical teachings with the much greater flexibility of oral discourse, which is a decisive advantage. The author of a text cannot adapt to the level of knowledge and the needs of the individual reader, he can neither answer their questions nor respond to criticism. All of this is only possible in conversation; there the language is alive and animated. What is written is only an image of what is spoken. Writing and reading not only lead to a weakening of the memory, but are also unsuitable for imparting wisdom; this can only be done through oral lessons. Written words are only useful as a memory aid for those who already know. Literary activity is just a gimmick. The essential thing is the personal conversations with students, in which the words are written in the soul in an individual way. Only those who can teach in this way can be considered a philosopher. Those who, on the other hand, have nothing “more valuable” (timiōtera) than written texts, the formulation of which he has worked on for a long time, is only a writer. The “more valuable” - the interpretation of this passage is very controversial - is interpreted as a reference to the unwritten teaching.
• The writing criticism in the Seventh Letter , the authenticity of which is disputed, but is accepted by the Tübingen school. There Plato expresses himself - if he is actually the author - about his only orally conveyed teachings (that "what I am serious about"). He emphatically states that there is no writing from him and that there will never be one, because this material cannot be communicated in the same way as other learning subjects. Rather, the understanding in the soul arises from intensive common effort and from common life. This happens suddenly, like a jumped spark ignites a light. A written fixation is harmful, because it would only create illusions in the reader: either the contempt of what is not understood or the arrogance of pseudo-knowledge.
• The "cut-outs" in the dialogues. There are numerous places in the dialogues where a particularly important topic is addressed but not discussed in more detail. In some cases, the discussion stops just where it approaches the core of a problem. This involves questions that are of fundamental importance to philosophy. Proponents of the Tübingen paradigm interpret the cut-outs as references to the content of the unwritten teaching, which can only be hinted at in the dialogues.
• The fact that a distinction between “exoteric” knowledge intended to be disseminated in large circles and “esoteric” material only suitable for teaching in a school was not unusual. Aristotle also made such a distinction.
• The view widespread in antiquity that the content of those teachings of Plato that were reserved for oral communication went significantly beyond what was presented in the dialogues.
• The presumably consistent implementation of Plato's plans to reduce the individual to the general and to reduce the multiplicity to unity. With the doctrine of ideas he reduced the diversity of the phenomenal world to the lesser diversity of the ideas underlying the phenomena. Within the hierarchically ordered realm of ideas, he let the many more specific ideas depend on the less numerous, more general, comprehensive ideas. This leads to the assumption that the introduction of the ideas was only one stage on his way from the maximum multiplicity to the greatest possible unity. It would be the consequence of his thinking to bring the reduction from multiplicity to unity to a conclusion. This would have to have happened in an unpublished theory of the highest principles.

The source base of the reconstruction

Plato strongly disapproved of the written dissemination of the alleged contents of the unwritten teaching - if the Seventh Letter is genuine - but there was no duty of secrecy on the part of the “initiated”. The "esoteric" character of the teaching is not to be understood in the sense of a confidentiality regulation or a ban on recording. Rather, students in the academy made notes that they later published or used when writing their own works. This speaks for the reconstructability of Plato's only orally presented doctrine based on the "indirect tradition", the statements of other authors.

For the reconstruction of the unwritten teaching, the following sources in particular were used:

• The metaphysics (books Α, Μ and N) and the physics (book Δ) of Aristotle
• Fragments of Aristotle's Lost Writings On The Good and On Philosophy
• The metaphysics of Theophrastus , a pupil of Aristotle
• Two fragments of the lost scripture About Plato , Plato's pupil Hermodoros of Syracuse wrote
• A fragment of a lost work by Plato's disciple Speusippus
• The writing Adversus mathematicos of Sextus Empiricus (10th book). The teachings presented there are, however, not explicitly attributed to Plato by Sextus, but rather referred to as Pythagorean . That Plato is its author is a hypothesis based only on circumstantial evidence .
• Plato's dialogues Politeia and Parmenides . If one ascribes the doctrine of principles to Plato on the basis of the indirect tradition, some utterances and trains of thought appear in a different light in these two dialogues. The dialogue texts interpreted in this way then contribute to the sharper contouring of the picture of the doctrine of principles. Discussions in other dialogues - such as the Philebos and the Timaeus - can then be understood differently and classified in the system of the Tübingen paradigm. Allusions to the doctrine of principles have been suspected even in early dialogues.

The alleged content

The proponents of the Tübingen paradigm have tried hard to reconstruct the doctrine of principles based on the scattered information and evidence in the sources. You see in this teaching the core of Plato's philosophy and have come to a relatively closed picture of its basic features. However, many important details are unknown or in dispute. An important aspect of the Tübingen paradigm is the assumption that the unwritten doctrine does not stand incoherently next to the written teaching, but that there is a close and necessary connection between them.

If the Tübingen paradigm corresponds to the authentic teaching of Plato, he has broken new ground with the doctrine of principles in metaphysics. In his theory of ideas he had taken up some of the ideas of the eleatics , a tendency of the pre-Socratics . The doctrine of principles, on the other hand, breaks with the basic conviction of the eleat, according to which nothing stands above perfect, unchangeable being. It replaces this idea with the new concept of an absolute transcendence that leads beyond being. Beyond the existing things, an absolutely perfect realm of the “over-being” or “transcendent being” is assumed. This is where the origin of all existing things should be sought. “Transcendent being” is what one calls that which transcends being (transcends), that is: is on a higher level than the things that are. In such a model, everything being as such is in a certain sense imperfect, since the transition from the absolutely transcendent super-being to being already represents a limitation of the original absolute perfection.

The two original principles and their interaction

With his theory of ideas, Plato traces the sensually perceptible world back to perfect, unchangeable ideas . For him, the realm of “platonic” ideas is an objectively existing metaphysical reality that exists independently of the existence of the sense objects. The ideas, not the objects of sensory experience, represent actual reality. They are the things that are in the actual sense. As defining patterns of the individual perishable sense objects, they are the causes of their nature and give them their existence.

Just as the doctrine of ideas is supposed to explain the existence and diversity of the phenomenal world, the doctrine of principles serves as a uniform explanation for the existence and diversity of the realm of ideas. The merging of the two theories thus aims at a unified model of everything. With the doctrine of principles, the existence of ideas and thus also that of sense objects is traced back to only two original principles.

The two fundamental primal principles are the one as the principle of unity and determination and the “unlimited” or “indefinite” duality (ahóristos dyás) . The indefinite duality is said to have been described by Plato as “the big and the small” or “the big and small” (to méga kai to mikrón) . It is the principle of reducing and increasing, of ambiguity and indeterminacy and of multiplicity. This is not about infinity in the sense of a spatial or quantitative infinity, but the indeterminacy consists in the lack of a definition and thus a design. With the designation "undefined", the duality as the original principle is distinguished from the specific duality - the number two - and identified as meta-mathematical.

The unity and the indefinite duality are the starting points of everything, because the world of ideas and thus the overall reality result from their interaction. The whole variety of sensory phenomena is ultimately based on only two factors. The form-giving unity is the generating entity, the formless indefinite duality serves the effectiveness of the unity as a substrate. Without the substrate, the unit could produce nothing. All being is based on the fact that the one acts on the indefinite duality by setting limits to the formless, giving it form and characteristics and thus bringing the individual entities into existence as an individuation principle . There is a mixture of the two original principles in everything that exists.

Depending on whether one or the other primal principle prevails, order or disorder prevails in the entities. The more chaotic something is, the stronger the presence of the duality principle emerges.

According to the Tübingen paradigm, the concept of the two opposing original principles not only shapes ontology , but also logic , ethics , political philosophy , cosmology , epistemology and Plato's theory of the soul . In ontology, the opposition of principles corresponds to the opposition of being and non-being; the more the influence of the duality principle asserts itself in a thing, the more diminished its being and therefore the lower its ontological rank. In logic, the unity stands for identity and equality, the indefinite duality for difference and inequality. According to the ethical classification, the unity means "goodness" ( aretḗ ) , the indefinite duality means badness. In the state, the unity of the citizens is what makes it the state and enables its continued existence, while the duality makes itself felt as the dividing, chaotic and dissolving principle. In cosmology, unity shows itself in the rest, in the constancy and eternity of the world, but also in the liveliness of the cosmos and in the planned action of the Creator God ( Demiurge ); the indefinite duality there is the principle of movement and change, especially of transience and especially of death. Epistemologically, the unity stands for the philosophical knowledge based on the knowledge of the unchangeable Platonic ideas, the indefinite duality for the mere opinion that depends on the sensory impressions. In soul life, unity corresponds to reason, and indefinite duality corresponds to the realm of instincts and body-bound affects .

The dependence of the duality principle on the one, however, is not to be understood in the sense of a pure negativity of the second original principle, which, viewed in itself, does not establish a positive state of being. Only in transitory phenomena does the indefinite duality cause a lack of being by weakening the determinateness of being. In the world of ideas, on the other hand, it produces the opposite effect: abundance of ideas and thus richness in content. There the negativity of duality is transformed into positivity by the superiority of the one.

Monism and dualism

The assumption of two original principles raises the question of whether the doctrine of principles and thus, in the case of its authenticity, Plato's entire philosophy is monistic or dualistic . The model is monistic if the opposition between unity and indefinite duality is based on a single principle. This is the case when the multiplicity principle is reduced to the principle of unity and is thereby subordinated to it. Another monistic interpretation of the doctrine of principles consists in the assumption of a superordinate meta-unit which underlies the two opposing principles and unites them. If, on the other hand, the unlimited duality is understood as a primal principle that exists separately and is independent of any unity, it is a dualistic doctrine.

It is not clear from the information provided by the sources how one should imagine the relationship between the two original principles. At least it is clear that the one is assigned a higher rank than the indefinite duality and that only the one is regarded as absolutely transcendent. This speaks in favor of a monistic interpretation of the doctrine of principles and fits in with statements made by Plato in his dialogues, which reveal a monistic way of thinking. In the Menon dialogue he writes that everything in nature is related to one another, and in the Politeia it can be read that there is an origin ( archḗ ) of everything that reason can grasp.

Opinions on this question are divided among proponents of the Tübingen paradigm. According to the prevailing approach, Plato regarded the indefinite duality as an indispensable basic component of the world order, but accepted an overriding principle of unity and was therefore a monist. Jens Halfwassen , Detlef Thiel and Vittorio Hösle explained this position in detail. Halfwassen considers it impossible to derive the indeterminate duality from the One, since it would thereby lose its status as a primal principle and because the absolutely transcendent One could not contain any latent multiplicity in itself. The indefinite duality, however, is not equally original and equally powerful to the one, but depends on him. It is the principle of beings only in cooperation with the one, which alone posits being and determinacy. According to Halfwassen's interpretation, Plato's philosophy thus proves to be ultimately monistic. John Niemeyer Findlay also strongly advocates a monistic understanding of the doctrine of principles. For Cornelia J. de Vogel , the monistic aspect of teaching is the predominant one. Hans Joachim Krämer and Konrad Gaiser assume a system with partly monistic, partly dualistic features . Christina Schefer thinks that the contradiction of principles is logically irreversible and therefore points beyond itself. He refers to an “inexpressible” intuitive primal experience that Plato had: the experience of the god Apollo as the common ground behind the two primal principles. This approach also comes down to a one-tier overall concept.

Although the doctrine of principles is ultimately designed as a monistic system according to the prevailing research opinion, it also has a dualistic aspect. This is not disputed by the representatives of monistic interpretations, but they believe that it is subordinate to the overall monistic structure. The dualistic side of the concept consists in the fact that not only the unity but also the indefinite duality is understood as the original principle. Giovanni Reale emphasizes this originality of duality. However, he considers the term dualism to be inappropriate and prefers to speak of a “bipolar structure of the real”. But real also takes into account that the two poles are not balanced. He states that the unity “remains hierarchically superior to duality”. Heinz Happ , Marie-Dominique Richard and Paul Wilpert argue against any derivation of the duality from a superordinate principle of unity and thus for a consistent dualism of Plato . They believe that an original dualism of Plato was later reinterpreted as monistic.

If the doctrine of principles is authentic and its monistic interpretation correct, Plato's metaphysics takes on a character that is strongly reminiscent of the Neoplatonic models from the Roman Empire . In this case, the Neoplatonic understanding of his philosophy is historically correct in a central area. Then Neoplatonism is less novel than it would appear without the doctrine of principles. Representatives of the Tübingen paradigm point to this consequence. You see in Plotinus , the founder of Neoplatonism, the consistent continuation of a line of thought founded by Plato himself. The basic features of Plotin's metaphysical system were already familiar to the generation of Plato's students. This corresponds to Plotin's own point of view, because he did not see himself as an innovator, but as a faithful interpreter of Plato's teaching.

The good in unwritten teaching

An important research problem is the controversial question of the position of the idea of ​​the good in the metaphysical system that results from the combination of the theory of ideas and the reconstructed theory of principles. The clarification of this question depends on how one interprets the status that Plato assigned to the idea of ​​the good within the framework of the theory of ideas. In the Politeia he sharply demarcates it from the other ideas. He gives it a unique primacy because he believes that all other ideas owe their existence to that one idea. Thus they are ontologically subordinate to it.

The starting point of the research controversy is the controversial understanding of the Greek term Ousia - literally "beingness" - which is usually represented as "being" or "essence". In the Politeia it can be read that the good is “not the Ousia”, but “beyond the Ousia” and surpasses it in originality and power. If only the essence is meant here or if the passage is interpreted freely, the idea of ​​the good can be located within the realm of ideas, the realm of things that are. In this case it has no absolute transcendence. It is then not transcendent or overriding, but only takes precedence among things that are. According to this interpretation, it is not the subject of the theory of principles, but only of the theory of ideas. If, on the other hand, Ousia means being and the passage is interpreted literally, “beyond Ousia” is to be understood in the sense of being transcendence. According to this interpretation, Plato regarded the idea of ​​the good as absolutely transcendent. Then it must be placed in the area that the doctrine of principles deals with.

If Plato conceived the idea of ​​the good as transcendent in being, the problem of its relation to the one arises. Most of the supporters of the existence of unwritten doctrine hold that the One and the Idea of ​​the Good were identical to Plato. According to their argumentation, identity arises from the fact that in the area of ​​absolute transcendence there can be no determinations and thus no distinction between two principles. In addition, the representatives of the identity hypothesis rely on statements from Aristotle. Rafael Ferber has a different opinion . Although he affirms the existence of an unwritten doctrine whose object was the good, he rejects the equation of the good with the one.

The ideal numbers

The report of Aristoxenus on Plato's lecture “On the good” shows that explanations about the theory of numbers made up an essential part of the argument. This topic has therefore played an important role in unwritten teaching. It is not a question of mathematics, but a philosophy of numbers. Plato differentiates between mathematical numbers and metaphysical "ideal" (eidetic) numbers. In contrast to mathematical numbers, metaphysical numbers cannot be subjected to arithmetic operations. For example, when it comes to ideal numbers, the two does not mean the number 2, but the essence of duality.

The ideal numbers occupy a middle position between the original principles and the ideas. They represent the first entities that emerge from the original principles. As with all metaphysical creations, the emergence is not to be understood as an event in time, but only in the sense of an ontological dependence. For example, from the interaction of the one - the determining factor - and the indefinite duality - the multiplicity principle - the duality in the area of ​​ideal numbers arises. This is shaped as a product of the two opposing original principles of both: It is the definite duality. Its certainty is shown in the fact that it expresses the relationship between a certain surpassing (double) and a certain surpassed (half). It is not a number, but a relationship between two quantities, one of which is twice the other.

By acting as a determining factor on the indefinite duality, which is called “the great and the small” in the doctrine of principles, it eliminates its indeterminacy, which includes every relationship between the great and the small, the surpassing and the surpassed. Thus, by determining the indefinite multiplicity, the One creates the definite proportions that are understood as ideal numbers in the doctrine of principles. The result is a definite duality, which, depending on the perspective, appears as duality or half-length. Likewise, the remaining ideal numbers are also derived from the original principles. The spatial structure is laid out in the ideal numbers, from which the dimensions of the spatial arise. Essential details of these timeless "emergence processes" have not been handed down; How to imagine them is a controversial topic in research.

Epistemological aspects

Plato counted statements about the highest principle within the sphere of competence of the dialectician , the methodologically inferring philosopher. Thus he developed the doctrine of principles - if he is the author - discursively and substantiated it with arguments. It emerged for him that a supreme principle was necessary; the one can be inferred indirectly from its effects. Whether or to what extent Plato also considered direct access to the absolutely transcendent area of ​​the original unity to be possible or even claimed it for himself is a matter of dispute in research. The question arises whether, within the framework of his teaching, the transcendence of being had to result in a transcendence of knowledge or whether he considered the highest principle to be at least theoretically recognizable.

In a discursive way, Plato could only come to the insight that the highest principle is indeed a requirement of his metaphysics, but that the absolutely transcendent cannot be dealt with with the means of understanding - dialectics. Thus, for a grasp of the one - and the good, if he equated this with the one - only the possibility of an intuitive access remained. It is disputed whether he actually took this path. When he has done so, he renounced the claim to be able to give an account of every step in knowledge in the philosophical discourse. With regard to the idea of ​​the good, Michael Erler concludes from statements in the Politeia that Plato considered it to be intuitively recognizable. Peter Stemmer , Kurt von Fritz and Jürgen Villers , on the other hand, oppose an independent role of intuition in the cognitive process . Jens Halfwassen thinks that although intuition as a direct grasp through non-sensory perception plays a central role in the knowledge of the world of ideas, the highest principle is knowledge-transcendent. For Plato the one is the principle of knowability and the power of knowledge, but it itself remains withdrawn from all knowledge and sayability. Christina Schefer also assumes that Plato excluded any kind of philosophical access to the absolutely transcendent in both written and unwritten teaching. But he found this approach in a different way: in an "inexpressible" religious experience, the theophany of the god Apollo . At the center of his view of the world was neither the theory of ideas nor the doctrine of principles, but the Apollo experience, which did not constitute a teaching content. The Tübingen paradigm is indeed an important part of Plato's philosophy, but the doctrine of principles leads into aporias (hopelessness), into a paradox and thus into a dead end. However, it can be inferred from Plato's statements that he has found a way out that goes beyond the doctrine of principles. In this interpretation of Plato, the unwritten teaching also takes on the character of something preliminary.

With regard to the certainty with which Plato held the doctrine of principles to be true, there are wide differences in research. The Tübingen school assumes an epistemological optimism. Hans Krämer goes particularly far. He is of the opinion that Plato made a claim to knowledge of the truth of this doctrine for himself with the highest possible degree of certainty, that is, he was a "dogmatist" with regard to the unwritten doctrine. Other researchers, including Rafael Ferber in particular, take the opposite position, according to which the unwritten doctrine for Plato was just a possibly erroneous hypothesis. Konrad Gaiser believes that Plato formulated the unwritten doctrine coherently and presented it as a self-contained concept, but not as the “sum of dogmatically established, doctrinally represented, authoritarian tenets”, but as a critically verifiable, improvable, continuous development model.

For Plato, it is essential to link epistemology with ethics. He emphasizes that access to the orally imparted insights is only available to those souls who meet the character requirements. The philosopher who gives oral lessons has to check whether the student has the necessary character disposition. According to Plato, gaining knowledge is not about a mere comprehension with the intellect; rather, insight is acquired by the whole soul as the fruit of lengthy efforts. There must be an inner kinship between the soul to which something is to be conveyed and that which is to be conveyed to it.

The question of dating and the historical classification

It is disputed when Plato gave his public lecture on the good. For the proponents of the Tübingen paradigm, this is related to the question of whether the unwritten doctrine belongs to Plato's late work or was developed relatively early. In answering this question, the contrast between “Unitarians” and “revisionists” also plays a role. While the Unitarians believe that Plato consistently took a coherent position in metaphysics, the revisionists differentiate between different phases of development of his thinking and assume that problems that emerged forced him to change his conception seriously.

In older research, the opinion prevailed that “On the good” was an “age lecture” that Plato held at the end of his life. The emergence of the unwritten doctrine was usually set in the late phase of his philosophical activity. In more recent research, however, there are increasing voices for an early dating of unwritten teaching. This suits the approach of the Unitarians. It is controversial whether early dialogues contain allusions to the unwritten teaching.

Hans Krämer vigorously contradicts the conventional classification of the public lecture as a senior lecture. He thinks the lecture was given in the early days of Plato's teaching. In addition, “About the Good” was not just a one-time public lecture. Rather, it is a series of lectures, of which only the first, introductory lecture was given on a trial basis in front of a broader, unprepared audience. After the failure of the public appearance, Plato took the consequence that this material should only be submitted to philosophy students. The lectures on the good with discussion had formed a series of conversations with which Plato had regularly introduced his students to the unwritten doctrine for decades. He had already done this at the time of his first trip to Sicily (around 389/388), i.e. before the academy was founded.

The philosophical historians, who date the public lecture late, have suggested different time limits: the period 359/355 ( Karl-Heinz Ilting ), the period 360/358 ( Hermann Schmitz ), around 352 (Detlef Thiel) and the time between Dion's death 354 and Plato's death 348/347 (Konrad Gaiser). Gaiser emphasizes that he does not link his late dating of the public lecture with the assumption that the unwritten teaching came about late. Rather, this teaching was taught in the academy early on, probably at the time Plato's school was founded.

It is unclear why Plato publicly presented the demanding contents of the unwritten doctrine to a philosophically uneducated audience, where - as was to be expected - he encountered incomprehension. Gaiser suspects that he went before the public to counter distorted representations of the unwritten doctrine and to dispel rumors circulating at the time that the Academy was a refuge for subversive activities.

reception

Aftermath until the beginning of the modern age

In the generation of Plato's students, the memory of his oral lessons, recorded by some students, was still vivid. It influenced the now largely lost philosophical literature of that time. The unwritten doctrine met with decisive opposition from Aristotle, who dealt with it in two only fragmentarily preserved treatises - On the Good (three books) and On Philosophy - and also addressed the topic in his works Metaphysics and Physics . Aristotle's student Theophrast also dealt with this in his metaphysics .

As in the epoch of Hellenism of skepticism run up the academy, was principled theoretical teaching material - as far as it was known - barely find interest. This direction of interest changed in the period of Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism, but the philosophers of the time apparently knew little more about the doctrine of principles than the modern scholars.

After the rediscovery of the Middle Ages -lost original texts of Plato in the Renaissance dominated the early modern period , an embossed image of neo-Platonism metaphysics of Plato, which also includes the 'representation of Aristotle known Broad principles were teaching. The humanist Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) in particular contributed to the prevalence of the Neoplatonic interpretation of Plato with his translations and commentary. The influential popular science writer and Plato translator Thomas Taylor (1758–1835) still integrated himself into this tradition of the interpretation of Plato. Although the Neoplatonic paradigm was increasingly viewed as problematic in the 18th century, it was not possible to replace it with a consistent alternative. The existence of the unwritten teaching continued to be accepted; Wilhelm Gottlieb Tennemann stated in his study System der Platonischen Philosophie , published 1792–95, that Plato never intended to present his philosophy completely in writing.

19th century

In the 19th century, a research discussion, which continues to this day, began about the question of whether an unwritten doctrine that has a philosophical excess compared to the dialogues can actually be expected.

Friedrich Schleiermacher

After the Neoplatonic paradigm had prevailed until the beginning of the 19th century, Friedrich Schleiermacher brought about a radical change with the introduction to his Plato translation published in 1804, the consequences of which can still be felt today. Schleiermacher advocated the thesis of the material completeness of the dialogues. He was convinced that the entire content of Plato's philosophy was contained in the dialogues, and that there was no oral teaching that went beyond that. According to Schleiermacher, the form of dialogue is not a literary addition to Platonic philosophy, but form and content are inextricably linked; by its nature, Platonic philosophizing can only be represented in dialogue. This means that unwritten teaching with philosophically relevant special content is excluded.

Schleiermacher's view soon found broad approval and prevailed. One of its many proponents was Eduard Zeller , a leading historian of philosophy of the 19th century, who in his long-term influential handbook The Philosophy of the Greeks in their Historical Development put forward arguments against the “alleged secret doctrine”.

Although Schleiermacher's strict rejection of an oral teaching met with opposition from the start, the critics remained isolated. In 1808, the later famous Graecist August Boeckh announced in a review of Schleiermacher's Plato translation that he found the arguments against the unwritten doctrine unconvincing. There is a great probability that Plato “had something esoteric”, teachings about which he did not express himself openly in his writings, but only in dark waves; "What he had not brought up to the highest peak here, he put the summit and the keystone on it in oral lessons". Christian August Brandis collected and commented on the source statements on the unwritten doctrine, Friedrich Adolf Trendelenburg and Christian Hermann Weisse pointed out the importance of this tradition in their investigations. In a study published in 1849 on Plato's literary motives, Karl Friedrich Hermann also turned against Schleiermacher's thesis by taking the view that Plato only hinted at the core of his teaching in the writings and only presented it orally in a direct manner.

20th and 21st centuries

Until the second half of the 20th century, the “anti-isoteric” direction was clearly the predominant one in Plato research. However, even before the middle of the century, some researchers assumed that there was only an orally conveyed teaching of Plato. They included John Burnet , Julius Stenzel , Alfred Edward Taylor , Léon Robin, Paul Wilpert and Heinrich Gomperz . Since 1959 the detailed “Tübingen Paradigm” has been competing with the “anti-seoteric” interpretation.

Harold Cherniss

In the 20th century, the most prominent representative of the "anti-seoteric" direction was Harold Cherniss . He took a position as early as 1942, i.e. before the Tübingen paradigm was developed and published. His main concern was the debilitation of the credibility of Aristotle's statements, which he attributed to his anti-Platonic attitude and misunderstandings. Cherniss said that Aristotle, in the context of his polemics against Plato, misrepresents his view and contradicts himself. He flatly denied that Plato's oral teachings were in excess of the dialogues. Modern hypotheses about the philosophy lessons in the academy are unfounded speculations. There is a fundamental contradiction between the doctrine of ideas of the dialogues and the statements of Aristotle. Plato consistently represented the theory of ideas and there is no plausible argument for the assumption that he fundamentally modified it through the alleged content of an unwritten doctrine. The Seventh Letter is not considered as a source because it is spurious.

The anti-systematic interpretation of Plato's philosophy

In the 20th and early 21st centuries, Schleiermacher's “dialogical” approach became radicalized. Numerous researchers have advocated an "anti-systematic" way of interpreting, also known as "dialogue theory". This direction rejects any kind of “dogmatic” Plato interpretation and in particular the possibility of an “esoteric” unwritten teaching. It is fundamentally against the assumption that Plato possessed a certain systematic doctrine and proclaimed it as truth. The anti-systematic approaches agree that the essential thing about Platonic philosophizing is not the enforcement of individual content-related positions, but the common dialogical reflection and especially the testing of analytical methods. This philosophizing - as Schleiermacher had already emphasized - is characterized by its process-like nature, the dynamics of which encourage the reader to think further. It does not aim at dogmatically fixed final truths, but consists in questions and answers that never come to an end. This further development of Schleiermacher's dialogue theory finally turned against himself: he was accused of having wrongly read a systematic philosophy out of the dialogues.

Proponents of the anti-systematic interpretation do not see a contradiction between Plato's fundamental criticism of the scriptures and the assumption that he communicated his entire philosophy to the public in writing. They think that the criticism of writing only refers to textbooks. Since the dialogues are not textbooks, but rather present the material in the form of fictional conversations, they are not affected by the written criticism.

The emergence and spread of the Tübingen paradigm

Until the 1950s, the question of whether one can infer the actual existence of an unwritten doctrine from the source evidence was the focus of discussion. Since the Tübingen school presented its new paradigm, the lively and controversial debate has also revolved around the Tübingen hypothesis, according to which the unwritten teaching can be reconstructed in its basic features and the reconstruction reveals the core of Plato's philosophy.

The Tübingen paradigm was first formulated and explained in detail by Hans Joachim Krämer. He published his results in 1959 in a revised version of his dissertation from 1957, supervised by Wolfgang Schadewaldt . In 1963 Konrad Gaiser, who, like Krämer, was a pupil of Schadewaldt, completed his habilitation in Tübingen with an extensive monograph on the unwritten teaching. In the period that followed, the two Tübingen scholars explained and defended the paradigm in a series of publications.

Thomas A. Szlezák, a prominent representative of the Tübingen school

Other well-known representatives of the paradigm are Thomas Alexander Szlezák , who also taught in Tübingen from 1990 to 2006 and dealt in particular with the criticism of writing and the recessed areas, the Heidelberg philosophy historian Jens Halfwassen , who above all wrote the history of the doctrine of principles from the 4th century BC. BC to Neo-Platonism, and Vittorio Hösle . Michael Erler , Jürgen Wippern, Karl Albert , Heinz Happ , Willy Theiler , Klaus Oehler , Hermann Steinthal , John Niemeyer Findlay , Marie-Dominique Richard, Herwig Görgemanns , Walter Eder , Josef Seifert , Joachim Söder, Carl agreed to the Tübingen Plato picture Friedrich von Weizsäcker , Detlef Thiel and - with a new, more extensive approach - Christina Schefer, and with reservations also from Cornelia J. de Vogel, Rafael Ferber, John M. Dillon , Jürgen Villers, Christopher Gill, Enrico Berti and Hans-Georg Gadamer . Since the Milanese historian of philosophy Giovanni Reale further developed the Tübingen paradigm in a detailed study, one speaks today of a “Tübingen and Milan school”. In Italy, Maurizio Migliori and Giancarlo Movia have also spoken out in favor of the authenticity of unwritten teachings. Reales student Patrizia Bonagura strongly advocates the Tübingen paradigm.

The criticism of the Tübingen paradigm

Various skeptical opposing positions have found a response, particularly in the English-speaking, but also in German-speaking countries. In the USA, Gregory Vlastos and Reginald E. Allen took a stand against the Tübingen interpretation of Plato. Leo Strauss , who never explicitly dealt with the "Tübingen", is now also seen as a critic of the paradigm they developed. In Italy there was opposition to the paradigm from Franco Trabattoni and Francesco Fronterotta, in France from Luc Brisson , in Sweden from Eugène Napoléon Tigerstedt. The German-speaking critics include Theodor Ebert , Ernst Heitsch , Fritz-Peter Hager and Günther Patzig .

A radically skeptical position is that Plato did not teach anything orally that was not in the dialogues. Moderate skeptics assume that the teaching is unwritten, but criticize the Tübingen reconstruction as speculative, insufficiently justified and too far-reaching. Some critics of the Tübingen paradigm do not deny the authenticity of the doctrine of principles, but see in it a late idea of ​​Plato, which he did not work out systematically and not integrated into his earlier philosophy. They think that the doctrine of principles is not the core of Plato's philosophy, but only an immature concept from the final phase of his philosophical activity. He introduced this concept as a hypothesis, but did not combine it with the metaphysics of his dialogues to form a coherent whole. Representatives of this interpretation include Dorothea Frede , Karl-Heinz Ilting and Holger Thesleff . Andreas Graeser , who reduces the unwritten teaching to “internal discussion contributions”, and Jürgen Mittelstraß , who accepts “careful questions and hypothetical suggestions for answers” ​​from Plato, judge similarly . Rafael Ferber believes that one of the reasons why Plato did not put the doctrine of principles into writing was because he did not regard it as knowledge but as a mere opinion. Margherita Isnardi Parente does not deny the possibility of an unwritten teaching, but considers the tradition to be unreliable and considers the Tübingen paradigm to be incompatible with the philosophy of dialogues, in which the authentic view of Plato can be found. The representation of Aristotle refers to a systematization of Platonic ideas, not from Plato himself, but from academy members. Franco Ferrari does not attribute the systematisation to Plato either. Wolfgang Kullmann does not reject the authenticity of the two-principle doctrine, but sees a fundamental contradiction between it and Plato's philosophy in the dialogues. Wolfgang Wieland assumes that the unwritten doctrine can be reconstructed, but rates its philosophical relevance very low and believes that it cannot be the core of Plato's teaching. Franz von Kutschera considers the existence of an unwritten theory of principles by Plato to be hardly seriously contestable, but believes that the indirect tradition is philosophically so low that a meaningful attempt at reconstruction must start from the dialogues. Domenico Pesce affirms the existence of an unwritten doctrine whose object was good, but rejects its reconstruction by the Tübingen school and in particular the assumption that Plato considered reality to be bipolar.

A conspicuous side effect of the disputes about the Tübingen paradigm, which in some cases are very fiery, is that representatives of both sides have assumed an ideological bias on the other side. Concerning this aspect of the debate Konrad Gaiser remarks: “In this dispute, probably on both sides, their own modern ideas of what exemplary philosophy are unconsciously play a role; and therefore there is little hope of an agreement in this dispute. "

swell

• Margherita Isnardi Parente (Ed.): Testimonia Platonica (= Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, Memorie , Series 9, Volume 8, Book 4 and Volume 10, Book 1). Rome 1997–1998 (critical edition with Italian translation and commentary)
  • Book 1: Le testimonianze di Aristotele , 1997
  • Volume 2: Testimonianze di età ellenistica e di età imperiale , 1998
• Giovanni Reale (Ed.): Autotestimonianze e rimandi dei dialoghi di Platone all "dottrine non step" . Bompiani, Milano 2008, ISBN 978-88-452-6027-8 (compilation of relevant texts by Plato with Italian translation and extensive introduction, in which Reale also addresses criticism of his position)

literature

Overview representations

• Michael Erler : Platon (= Hellmut Flashar (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy . The philosophy of antiquity , Volume 2/2), Basel 2007, pp. 406–429, 703–707
• Franco Ferrari: Les doctrines non écrites . In: Richard Goulet (Ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Volume 5, Part 1 (= V a), CNRS Éditions, Paris 2012, ISBN 978-2-271-07335-8 , pp. 648-661
• Konrad Gaiser : Plato's esoteric teaching . In: Konrad Gaiser: Collected writings . Academia Verlag, Sankt Augustin 2004, ISBN 3-89665-188-9 , pp. 317-340
• Jens Halfwassen : Plato's Metaphysics of One . In: Marcel van Ackeren (Ed.): Understanding Plato. Topics and perspectives . Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 2004, ISBN 3-534-17442-9 , pp. 263-278

Investigations

• Rafael Ferber : Why didn't Plato write the “unwritten teaching”? 2nd edition, Beck, Munich 2007, ISBN 978-3-406-55824-5
• Konrad Gaiser: Plato's unwritten teaching. Studies on the systematic and historical foundation of the sciences in the Platonic school. 3rd edition, Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 1998, ISBN 3-608-91911-2 (contains p. 441-557 a compilation of source texts)
• Jens Halfwassen: The ascent on the one hand. Investigations on Plato and Plotinus. 2nd, extended edition, Saur, Munich and Leipzig 2006, ISBN 3-598-73055-1
• Hans Joachim Krämer : Arete with Plato and Aristotle. On the nature and history of the Platonic ontology . Winter, Heidelberg 1959 (basic investigation, but partly outdated state of research)
• Hans Joachim Krämer: Platone ei fondamenti della metafisica. Saggio sulla teoria dei principi e sulle dottrine non steps di Platone . 6th edition, Vita e Pensiero, Milano 2001, ISBN 88-343-0731-3 (better usable than the very poor English translation: Plato and the Foundations of Metaphysics. A Work on the Theory of the Principles and Unwritten Doctrines of Plato with a Collection of the Fundamental Documents . State University of New York Press, Albany 1990, ISBN 0-7914-0434-X )
• Giovanni Reale: On a new interpretation of Plato. An interpretation of the metaphysics of the great dialogues in the light of the "unwritten teachings" . 2nd, extended edition, Schöningh, Paderborn 2000, ISBN 3-506-77052-7 (generally understandable representation, therefore suitable as an introduction)
• Marie-Dominique Richard: L'enseignement oral de Plato. Une nouvelle interprétation du platonisme . 2nd, revised edition, Les Éditions du Cerf, Paris 2005, ISBN 2-204-07999-5 (contains pp. 243–381 a compilation of the source texts without a critical apparatus with a French translation)

Web links

• Lecture by Thomas Alexander Szlezák: Friedrich Schleiermacher and the Plato image of the 19th and 20th centuries

Remarks

1. ↑ Aristotle, Physics 209b13–15.
2. ↑ See on this terminology Hans-Georg Gadamer: Plato's unwritten dialectic . In: Hans-Georg Gadamer: Collected Works , Volume 6: Greek Philosophy II , Tübingen 1985, pp. 129–153, here: 130; Thomas Alexander Szlezák: Plato and the writing of philosophy , Berlin 1985, pp. 400–405; Detlef Thiel: The Philosophy of Xenokrates in the Context of the Old Academy , Munich 2006, p. 139f .; Michael Erler: Platon (= Hellmut Flashar (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of antiquity , Volume 2/2), Basel 2007, p. 409.
3. ↑ For example in Konrad Gaiser: Plato's esoteric teaching . In: Konrad Gaiser: Gesammelte Schriften , Sankt Augustin 2004, pp. 317–340, here: 324.
4. ↑ Aristotle, Physics 209b13–15.
5. ↑ Aristoxenos, Elementa harmonica 2.30–31. Text and German translation by Heinrich Dörrie , Matthias Baltes : Der Platonismus in der Antike , Volume 1, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1987, pp. 74–76 (Commentary, pp. 278–282).
6. ↑ Plato, Phaedrus 274b-278e. See Ernst Heitsch: Plato: Phaedros. Translation and Commentary , Göttingen 1993, pp. 188–218 and on the question of timiotera Thomas Alexander Szlezák: To 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. 69–76, 86; Ernst Heitsch: ΤΙΜΙΩΤΕΡΑ . In: Ernst Heitsch: Collected Writings , Volume 3, Munich 2003, pp. 338–347; Hans Joachim Krämer: The fundamental questions of the indirect Plato tradition . In: Hans-Georg Gadamer, Wolfgang Schadewaldt (ed.): Idea and Number , Heidelberg 1968, pp. 124–128. Hans Krämer: New literature on the new image of Plato criticizes Heitsch's interpretation of Phaedrus . In: Allgemeine Zeitschrift für Philosophie 14, 1989, pp. 59–81, here: 59–72.
7. ↑ Plato, Seventh Letter 341b – 342a. See the commentary by Rainer Knab: Platon's Seventh Letter , Hildesheim 2006, pp. 261–268. Cf. Hans Joachim Krämer: The fundamental questions of the indirect Plato tradition . In: Hans-Georg Gadamer, Wolfgang Schadewaldt (eds.): Idea and Number , Heidelberg 1968, pp. 117–124.
8. ↑ Hans Joachim Krämer: The Platonic Academy and the problem of a systematic interpretation of Plato's philosophy . In: Konrad Gaiser (Ed.): Das Platonbild , Hildesheim 1969, pp. 198–230, here: 208.
9. ↑ Michael Erler: Platon , Munich 2006, pp. 162–164; Detlef Thiel: The Philosophy of Xenokrates in the Context of the Old Academy , Munich 2006, pp. 143-148.
10. ↑ See also Michael Erler: Platon (= Hellmut Flashar (Hrsg.): Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike , Volume 2/2), Basel 2007, pp. 421-425.
11. ^ Text and German translation by Heinrich Dörrie , Matthias Baltes : Der Platonismus in der Antike , Volume 1, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1987, pp. 82–86, Commentary, pp. 296–302. See Heinz Happ: Hyle , Berlin 1971, pp. 137–140.
12. ^ Text and German translation by Heinrich Dörrie, Matthias Baltes: Der Platonismus in der Antike , Volume 1, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1987, pp. 86–89, Commentary, pp. 303–305. See Heinz Happ: Hyle , Berlin 1971, pp. 142f.
13. ↑ See Heinz Happ: Hyle , Berlin 1971, pp. 140–142; Marie-Dominique Richard: L'enseignement oral de Platon , 2nd edition, Paris 2005, pp. 163-168; Konrad Gaiser: Source-critical problems of the indirect Plato tradition . In: Konrad Gaiser: Gesammelte Schriften , Sankt Augustin 2004, pp. 205–263, here: 240–262; Detlef Thiel: The philosophy of Xenokrates in the context of the old academy , Munich 2006, pp. 343-348.
14. ↑ Jens Halfwassen: The rise to one. Studies on Plato and Plotinus , 2nd edition, Leipzig 2006, p. 31f. and note 73; Giovanni Reale: On a new interpretation of Plato , 2nd edition, Paderborn 2000, pp. 257-313.
15. ↑ Michael Erler gives an overview: Platon (= Hellmut Flashar (ed.): Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike , Volume 2/2), Basel 2007, pp. 425–429 and Konrad Gaiser: Gesammelte Schriften , Sankt Augustin 2004, pp. 295-340.
16. ^ Giovanni Reale: To a new interpretation of Plato , 2nd edition, Paderborn 2000, pp. 199–201; Michael Erler: Platon (= Hellmut Flashar (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of antiquity , Volume 2/2), Basel 2007, p. 425; Detlef Thiel: The Philosophy of Xenocrates in the Context of the Old Academy , Munich 2006, p. 190.
17. ↑ Aristotle, Metaphysics 987b; see. Physics 209b-210a.
18. ^ Giovanni Reale: To a new interpretation of Plato , 2nd edition, Paderborn 2000, pp. 205–207.
19. ^ Heinrich Dörrie, Matthias Baltes: The Platonism in the Ancient World , Volume 4, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1996, pp. 154–162 (sources with translation), 448–458 (commentary); Michael Erler: Platon (= Hellmut Flashar (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of antiquity , Volume 2/2), Basel 2007, p. 426f.
20. ^ Hans Joachim Krämer: Arete in Platon and Aristoteles , Heidelberg 1959, p. 144f .; Konrad Gaiser: Plato's unwritten teaching , 3rd edition, Stuttgart 1998, p. 18f .; Michael Erler: Platon , Munich 2006, p. 167.
21. ↑ Konrad Gaiser: Plato's unwritten teaching , 3rd edition, Stuttgart 1998, pp. 18f., 73–81; Vittorio Hösle: Truth and History , Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1984, pp. 490–506; Hans Joachim Krämer: Arete in Plato and Aristoteles , Heidelberg 1959, pp. 279f., 287f.
22. ↑ Jens Halfwassen: More or less a principle: Plato's indefinite duality. In: Thomas Kisser, Thomas Leinkauf (eds.): Intensity and Reality , Berlin 2016, pp. 11–30, here: 30.
23. ↑ Christina Schefer: Plato's unspeakable experience , Basel 2001, p. 186f.
24. ^ Plato, Meno 81c – d.
25. ^ Plato, Politeia 511b.
26. ↑ Michael Erler provides a research overview: Platon (= Hellmut Flashar (ed.): Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike , Volume 2/2), Basel 2007, p. 428f.
27. ↑ Jens Halfwassen: Monism and dualism in Plato's doctrine of principles . In: Thomas Alexander Szlezák (Ed.): Platonisches Philosophieren , Hildesheim 2001, pp. 67–85; Jens Halfwassen: More or less a principle: Plato's indefinite duality. In: Thomas Kisser, Thomas Leinkauf (Eds.): Intensity and Reality , Berlin 2016, pp. 11–30.
28. ↑ Detlef Thiel: The Philosophy of Xenokrates in the Context of the Old Academy , Munich 2006, pp. 197-208.
29. ^ Vittorio Hösle: Truth and History , Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1984, pp. 459–506.
30. ^ John N. Findlay: Plato. The Written and Unwritten Doctrines , London 1974, pp. 322-325.
31. ↑ Cornelia J. de Vogel: Rethinking Plato and Platonism , Leiden 1986, pp. 83f., 190-206.
32. ↑ Hans Joachim Krämer: Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik , 2nd edition, Amsterdam 1967, pp. 329–334; Hans Joachim Krämer: News on the dispute over Plato's theory of principles . In: Philosophische Rundschau 27, 1980, pp. 1–38, here: 27.
33. ^ Konrad Gaiser: Plato's unwritten teaching , 3rd edition, Stuttgart 1998, pp. 10, 12f., 200f., 352; Konrad Gaiser: Plato's esoteric teaching . In: Konrad Gaiser: Gesammelte Schriften , Sankt Augustin 2004, pp. 317–340, here: 330f.
34. ↑ Christina Schefer: Plato's unspeakable experience , Basel 2001, pp. 57–60.
35. ↑ Giovanni Reale: On a new interpretation of Plato , 2nd edition, Paderborn 2000, pp. 207f., 309-311.
36. ^ Heinz Happ: Hyle , Berlin 1971, pp. 141–143.
37. ^ Marie-Dominique Richard: L'enseignement oral de Platon , 2nd edition, Paris 2005, pp. 231f.
38. ^ Paul Wilpert: Two early Aristotelian writings on the theory of ideas , Regensburg 1949, pp. 173-174.
39. ↑ Detlef Thiel: The Philosophy of Xenokrates in the Context of the Old Academy , Munich 2006, p. 197f. and note 64; Jens Halfwassen: The ascent on the one hand. Studies on Plato and Plotinus , 2nd edition, Leipzig 2006, pp. 17–33, 183–210.
40. ↑ A summary of relevant statements in the Politeia offers Thomas Alexander Szlezák: The idea of ​​the good in Plato's Politeia , Sankt Augustin 2003, p. 111f. Rafael Ferber offers overviews of the positions in the research controversy: Isn't the idea of ​​the good transcendent or is it? Again Plato's ΕΠΕΚΕΙΝΑ ΤΗΣ ΟΥΣΙΑΣ . In: Damir Barbarić (Hrsg.): Platon über das Gute und die Gerechtigkeit , Würzburg 2005, pp. 149–174, here: 149–156 and Michael Erler: Platon (= Hellmut Flashar (Hrsg.): Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie The philosophy of antiquity , Volume 2/2), Basel 2007, pp. 402–404.
41. ↑ Greek presbeía " priority of age", also translated as "dignity".
42. ↑ Plato, Politeia 509b.
43. ↑ The transcendence of being of the idea of ​​the good is rejected by, among others, Theodor Ebert: Opinion and knowledge in Plato's philosophy , Berlin 1974, pp. 169–173, Matthias Baltes: Is the Idea of ​​the Good in Plato's Republic Beyond Being? In: Matthias Baltes: Dianoemata. Small writings on Plato and Platonism , Stuttgart 1999, pp. 351–371 and Luc Brisson: L'approche traditional de Plato par HF Cherniss . In: Giovanni Reale, Samuel Scolnicov (eds.): New Images of Plato , Sankt Augustin 2002, pp. 85–97.
44. ↑ Thomas Alexander Szlezák provides a summary of this position: The idea of ​​the good in Plato's Politeia , Sankt Augustin 2003, p. 67f. Cf. Rafael Ferber: Isn't the idea of ​​the good transcendent or is it? Again Plato's ΕΠΕΚΕΙΝΑ ΤΗΣ ΟΥΣΙΑΣ . In: Damir Barbarić (ed.): Plato on the good and justice , Würzburg 2005, pp. 149–174, here: 154–160 and Giovanni Reale: To a new interpretation of Plato , 2nd edition, Paderborn 2000, p. 275-281.
45. ↑ Jens Halfwassen: The rise to one. Investigations on Plato and Plotinus , 2nd edition, Leipzig 2006, pp. 21–23 and p. 221, note 4; Thomas Alexander Szlezák: The idea of ​​the good in Plato's Politeia , Sankt Augustin 2003, p. 70f .; Hans Krämer: The idea of ​​the good. Parable of the sun and lines (Book VI 504a – 511e) . In: Otfried Höffe (Ed.): Platon: Politeia , 3rd edition, Berlin 2011, pp. 135–153, here: 142–145; Giovanni Reale: On a new interpretation of Plato , 2nd edition, Paderborn 2000, pp. 258–280; Konrad Gaiser: Plato's enigmatic lecture 'On the Good' . In: Konrad Gaiser: Gesammelte Schriften , Sankt Augustin 2004, pp. 265–294, here: 265–268.
46. ↑ Rafael Ferber: Plato's idea of ​​the good , 2nd, expanded edition, Sankt Augustin 1989, pp. 76-78.
47. ↑ Aristoxenus, Elementa harmonica 30.
48. ^ Giovanni Reale: To a new interpretation of Plato , 2nd edition, Paderborn 2000, pp. 211, 219-221; Detlef Thiel: The Philosophy of Xenokrates in the Context of the Old Academy , Munich 2006, p. 210f .; Hans Joachim Krämer: Arete in Plato and Aristoteles , Heidelberg 1959, p. 250f.
49. ^ Giovanni Reale: To a new interpretation of Plato , 2nd edition, Paderborn 2000, p. 212f .; Rafael Ferber: Plato's idea of ​​the good , 2nd, expanded edition, Sankt Augustin 1989, pp. 162–206; Konrad Gaiser: Plato's unwritten teaching , 3rd edition, Stuttgart 1998, pp. 117–123.
50. ^ Giovanni Reale: To a new interpretation of Plato , 2nd edition, Paderborn 2000, pp. 211-218. For details see Detlef Thiel: The Philosophy of Xenokrates in the Context of the Old Academy , Munich 2006, pp. 212–217, 221–225. Cf. Rafael Ferber: Plato's idea of ​​the good , 2nd, extended edition, Sankt Augustin 1989, pp. 206–208; Konrad Gaiser: Plato's unwritten teaching , 3rd edition, Stuttgart 1998, pp. 81–88; Hans Joachim Krämer: Arete in Platon and Aristoteles , Heidelberg 1959, pp. 251-256, 261-265; Julia Annas : Aristotle's Metaphysics. Books M and N , Oxford 1976, pp. 42-62.
51. ↑ Michael Erler provides an overview of the relevant research debates: Platon (= Hellmut Flashar (ed.): Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike , Volume 2/2), Basel 2007, pp. 370–372.
52. ^ Konrad Gaiser: Plato's unwritten teaching , 3rd edition, Stuttgart 1998, p. 4f .; Konrad Gaiser: Plato's esoteric teaching . In: Konrad Gaiser: Gesammelte Schriften , Sankt Augustin 2004, pp. 317–340, here: 331–335.
53. ↑ Michael Erler: Platon (= Hellmut Flashar (Ed.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of antiquity , Volume 2/2), Basel 2007, pp. 370–372.
54. ↑ Peter Stemmer: Plato's Dialectic. The early and middle dialogues , Berlin 1992, pp. 214–225; P. 220 Note 116 List of other opponents of the intuition hypothesis.
55. ^ Kurt von Fritz: Contributions to Aristoteles , Berlin 1984, p. 56f.
56. ↑ Jürgen Villers: The paradigm of the alphabet. Plato and the Scripturality of Philosophy , Würzburg 2005, pp. 231–233.
57. ↑ Jens Halfwassen: The rise to one. Investigations on Plato and Plotin , 2nd edition, Leipzig 2006, pp. 224-234, 247-262, 400-404.
58. ↑ Christina Schefer: Plato's unspeakable experience , Basel 2001, p. 60ff.
59. ↑ Christina Schefer: Plato's unspeakable experience , Basel 2001, pp. 5–62.
60. ↑ Hans Joachim Krämer has a different opinion on this: Arete in Platon and Aristoteles , Heidelberg 1959, p. 464f.
61. ↑ Rafael Ferber: Did Plato represent a “dogmatic metaphysics and systematics” in the “unwritten teaching”? In: Méthexis 6, 1993, pp. 37-54; Christopher Gill: Platonic Dialectic and the Truth-Status of the Unwritten Doctrines . In: Méthexis 6, 1993, pp. 55-72.
62. ↑ Konrad Gaiser: Principle theory in Plato . In: Konrad Gaiser: Gesammelte Schriften , Sankt Augustin 2004, pp. 295–315, here: 295f.
63. ↑ Christina Schefer: Plato's unspeakable experience , Basel 2001, pp. 49–56.
64. ↑ An overview of the opposing positions is offered by Marie-Dominique Richard: L'enseignement oral de Platon , 2nd edition, Paris 2005, pp. 72–76.
65. ^ See on the history of research Michael Erler: Platon (= Hellmut Flashar (Hrsg.): Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike , Volume 2/2), Basel 2007, p. 419f.
66. ↑ Hans Joachim Krämer: Arete in Platon and Aristoteles , Heidelberg 1959, pp. 20–24, 404–411, 444. Later, Krämer confirmed this view; see his essays News on the dispute over Plato's theory of principles . In: Philosophische Rundschau 27, 1980, pp. 16–18 note 33, Aristoxenus on Plato's ΠΕΡΙ ΤΑΓΑΘΟΥ . In: Hermes 94, 1966, pp. 111–112 and The fundamental questions of the indirect Plato tradition . In: Hans-Georg Gadamer, Wolfgang Schadewaldt (eds.): Idea and Number , Heidelberg 1968, pp. 112–115. Philip Merlan disagrees : Was Plato's lecture “The Good” unique? In: Hermes 96, 1968, pp. 705-709. Cf. Margherita Isnardi Parente: La akroasis di Platone . In: Museum Helveticum 46, 1989, pp. 146–162 and Margherita Isnardi Parente: L'eredità di Platone nell'accademia antica , Milano 1989, pp. 34–36.
67. ^ Karl-Heinz Ilting: Plato's 'Unwritten Teachings': the lecture 'about the good' . In: Phronesis 13, 1968, pp. 1–31, here: 5, 30.
68. ^ Hermann Schmitz: The theory of ideas of Aristoteles , Volume 2: Platon and Aristoteles , Bonn 1985, pp. 312-314, 339f.
69. ↑ Detlef Thiel: The philosophy of Xenokrates in the context of the Old Academy , Munich 2006, p. 180f.
70. ↑ Konrad Gaiser: Gesammelte Schriften , Sankt Augustin 2004, pp. 280–282, 290, 304, 311. Gaiser's dating is supported with further arguments by Walter Eder: The unwritten teaching of Plato: On the dating of the Platonic lecture “About the good” . In: Hansjörg Kalcyk u. a. (Ed.): Studies on Ancient History , Vol. 1, Rome 1986, pp. 207–235, here: 222–235.
71. ^ Konrad Gaiser: Plato's enigmatic lecture 'On the Good' . In: Konrad Gaiser: Gesammelte Schriften , Sankt Augustin 2004, pp. 265–294, here: 282–291. Gaiser finds approval in Detlef Thiel: The Philosophy of Xenocrates in the Context of the Old Academy , Munich 2006, pp. 174–181.
72. ↑ On the difficulty of interpreting Theophrast's account, see Margherita Isnardi Parente: Théophraste, Metaphysica 6 a 23 ss. In: Phronesis 16, 1971, pp. 49-64. Cf. Marie-Dominique Richard: L'enseignement oral de Platon , 2nd edition, Paris 2005, pp. 103-105, 152-158.
73. ↑ Konrad Gaiser: Principle theory in Plato . In: Konrad Gaiser: Gesammelte Schriften , Sankt Augustin 2004, pp. 295–315, here: 297f.
74. ^ Giovanni Reale: To a new interpretation of Plato , 2nd edition, Paderborn 2000, p. 65f.
75. ^ Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher: About the philosophy of Plato , ed. and introduced by Peter M. Steiner, Hamburg 1996, pp. 21–119.
76. ↑ See Thomas Alexander Szlezák: Schleiermacher's "Introduction" to the Plato translation of 1804 . In: Antike und Abendland 43, 1997, pp. 46–62.
77. ^ Gyburg Radke : The smile of Parmenides , Berlin 2006, pp. 1–5.
78. ↑ August Boeckh: Critique of the translation of Plato by Schleiermacher . In: August Boeckh: Gesammelte kleine Schriften , Volume 7, Leipzig 1872, pp. 1–38, here: 6f.
79. ^ Christian August Brandis: Diatribe academica de perditis Aristotelis libris de ideis et de bono sive philosophia , Bonn 1823.
80. ^ Friedrich Adolf Trendelenburg: Platonis de ideis et numeris doctrina ex Aristotele illustrata , Leipzig 1826; Christian Hermann Weisse: De Platonis et Aristotelis in constituendis summis philosophiae principiis differentia , Leipzig 1828.
81. ^ Karl-Friedrich Hermann: About Plato's literary motifs . In: Konrad Gaiser (Ed.): Das Platonbild , Hildesheim 1969, pp. 33–57 (reprint).
82. ↑ The publications in which Cherniss explains his position are The Older Academy. A historical riddle and its solution , Heidelberg 1966 (translation from: The Riddle of the Early Academy , Berkeley 1945; contains three lectures from 1942) and Aristotle's Criticism of Plato and the Academy , Vol. 1, Baltimore 1944. In-depth criticism of Cherniss' Position is exercised by Hans Joachim Krämer: Arete in Platon and Aristoteles , Heidelberg 1959, pp. 380–447. Cornelia J. de Vogel is also critical: Problems of Plato's later philosophy . In: Jürgen Wippern (Ed.): The problem of the unwritten teachings of Plato , Darmstadt 1972, pp. 41–87.
83. ↑ On the aftermath of Schleiermacher's point of view, see Gyburg Radke: The smile of Parmenides , Berlin 2006, pp. 1–62. Thomas Alexander Szlezák gives a summary of the key points of modern dialogue theory: Platon and the writing of philosophy , Berlin 1985, pp. 332–336 (and criticism of it, pp. 337–375).
84. ^ Franco Ferrari: Les doctrines non écrites . In: Richard Goulet (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Volume 5, Part 1 (= V a), Paris 2012, pp. 648–661, here: 658. Cf. Hans Joachim Krämer: Retraktationen zum Problem des esoterischen Plato . In: Museum Helveticum 21, 1964, pp. 137–167, here: 148f .; Thomas Alexander Szlezák: Plato and the writing of philosophy , Berlin 1985, pp. 342–347, 376–400; Konrad Gaiser: Written Form and Oral Form . In: Konrad Gaiser: Gesammelte Schriften , Sankt Augustin 2004, pp. 29–41, here: 31–39.
85. ↑ Hans Joachim Krämer: Arete in Platon and Aristoteles , Heidelberg 1959, pp. 380-486.
86. ^ Konrad Gaiser: Plato's unwritten teaching , Stuttgart 1963, 2nd edition with a new afterword Stuttgart 1968.
87. ↑ The most important relevant works by Krämer are listed in Jens Halfwassen: Monism and dualism in Plato's doctrine of principles . In: Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter 2, 1997, pp. 1–21, here: pp. 1f. Note 1. Several of Gaiser's essays are compiled in the volume Konrad Gaiser: Gesammelte Schriften , Sankt Augustin 2004.
88. ^ Thomas Alexander Szlezák: Plato and the writing of philosophy , Berlin 1985, pp. 327–410; Thomas Alexander Szlezák: About the usual aversion to agrapha dogmata . In: Méthexis 6, 1993, pp. 155-174; Thomas Alexander Szlezák: The idea of ​​the good in Plato's Politeia , Sankt Augustin 2003, pp. 5–14, 133–146; Thomas Alexander Szlezák: Read Platon , Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1993, pp. 27–30, 42–48, 56–105, 148–155.
89. ^ Vittorio Hösle: Truth and History , Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1984, pp. 374–392.
90. ↑ Michael Erler: Platon , Munich 2006, pp. 162–171.
91. ↑ Jürgen Wippern: Introduction . In: Jürgen Wippern (Ed.): The problem of the unwritten teachings of Plato , Darmstadt 1972, pp. VII – XLVIII.
92. ^ Karl Albert: Plato and the philosophy of antiquity , part 1, Dettelbach 1998, pp. 380–398.
93. ↑ Heinz Happ: Hyle , Berlin 1971, pp. 85–94, 136–143.
94. ↑ Willy Theiler: Studies on ancient literature , Berlin 1970, pp. 460–483, here: 462f.
95. ↑ Klaus Oehler: The new situation of the Plato research . In: Thomas Alexander Szlezák (Ed.): Platonisches Philosophieren , Hildesheim 2001, pp. 31–46; Klaus Oehler: The demythologized Plato . In: Journal for Philosophical Research 19, 1965, pp. 393-420.
96. ^ Hermann Steinthal: Unwritten teaching . In: Christian Schäfer (Ed.): Platon-Lexikon , Darmstadt 2007, pp. 291–296. Steinthal does not consider it probable that the content of the unwritten teaching "can be reproduced in fixed theorems with more or less dry words"; it was not final, but contained incompetence; see Hermann Steinthal: On the form of the oral-personal teaching of Plato . In: Grazer contributions 23, 2000, pp. 59–70, here: 68f. See Hermann Steinthal: Seven considerations on Plato's unwritten teaching . In: Gymnasium 111, 2004, pp. 359–379.
97. ^ John N. Findlay: Plato. The Written and Unwritten Doctrines , London 1974, pp. 6f., 19-23, 80, 350f., 455-473.
98. ^ Marie-Dominique Richard: L'enseignement oral de Platon , 2nd edition, Paris 2005, pp. 235–242.
99. ↑ Herwig Görgemanns: Platon , Heidelberg 1994, pp. 113-119.
100. ↑ Walter Eder: The unwritten teaching of Plato: On the dating of the Platonic lecture "About the good" . In: Hansjörg Kalcyk u. a. (Ed.): Studies on Ancient History , Vol. 1, Rome 1986, pp. 207–235, here: 209.
101. ↑ See Seifert's afterword in Giovanni Reale: To a new interpretation of Plato , 2nd edition, Paderborn 2000, pp. 541–558, here: 558.
102. ↑ Joachim Söder: On Plato's works . In: Christoph Horn et al. (Hrsg.): Platon-Handbuch. Life - Work - Effect , Stuttgart 2009, pp. 19–59, here: 29f.
103. ^ Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker: The garden of the human , 2nd edition, Munich 1977, p. 337; Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker: Plato. An attempt . In: Enno Rudolph (Ed.): Polis and Kosmos. Natural philosophy and political philosophy in Plato , Darmstadt 1996, pp. 123–143, here: 123f., 127f.
104. ↑ Detlef Thiel: The Philosophy of Xenokrates in the Context of the Old Academy , Munich 2006, pp. 137–225.
105. ↑ Christina Schefer: Platon's unspeakable experience , Basel 2001, pp. 2–4, 10–14, 225.
106. ↑ Cornelia J. de Vogel: Rethinking Plato and Platonism , Leiden 1986, pp. 190-206.
107. ↑ Rafael Ferber: Why did Plato not write the “unwritten teaching”? , 2nd edition, Munich 2007 (with research report, pp. 80–84).
108. ↑ John M. Dillon: The Heirs of Plato , Oxford 2003, pp. VII, 1, 16-22.
109. ↑ Jürgen Villers: The paradigm of the alphabet. Plato and the Scripturality of Philosophy , Würzburg 2005, pp. 215–250. Villers sees in the doctrine of principles a working hypothesis of Plato that is afflicted with internal contradictions and therefore cannot be systematized.
110. ↑ Christopher Gill: Platonic Dialectic and the Truth-Status of the Unwritten Doctrines . In: Méthexis 6, 1993, pp. 55-72.
111. ↑ Enrico Berti: About the relationship between literary work and unwritten teaching in Plato in the view of more recent research . In: Jürgen Wippern (Ed.): The problem of the unwritten teachings of Plato , Darmstadt 1972, pp. 88–94; Enrico Berti: A new reconstruction of the unwritten teachings of Plato . In: Jürgen Wippern (Ed.): The problem of the unwritten teachings of Plato , Darmstadt 1972, pp. 240-258; Enrico Berti: Nuovi studi aristotelici , Vol. 2: Fisica, antropologia e metafisica , Brescia 2005, pp. 539-551.
112. ^ Hans-Georg Gadamer: Dialectics and Sophistics in the seventh Platonic letter . In: Hans-Georg Gadamer: Collected Works , Volume 6: Greek Philosophy II , Tübingen 1985, pp. 90–115, here: 111–113; Hans-Georg Gadamer: Plato's unwritten dialectic . In: Hans-Georg Gadamer: Collected Works , Volume 6: Greek Philosophy II , Tübingen 1985, pp. 11-13, 28. Cf. Giuseppe Girgenti (ed.): Platone tra oralità e scrittura. Un dialogo di Hans-Georg Gadamer con la Scuola di Tubinga e Milano e altri studiosi (Tubinga, 3 September 1996) , Milano 2001, pp. 9-15.
113. ↑ Rafael Ferber: Why did Plato not write the “unwritten teaching”? , 2nd edition, Munich 2007, p. 81; Michael Erler: Platon (= Hellmut Flashar (Hrsg.): Outline of the history of philosophy. The philosophy of antiquity , Volume 2/2), Basel 2007, p. 409. Giovanni Reales relevant main work Per una nuova interpretazione di Platone is also in German language before: To a new interpretation of Plato. An interpretation of the metaphysics of the great dialogues in the light of the "unwritten teachings" , 2nd edition, Paderborn 2000.
114. ↑ Maurizio Migliori: Dialettica e Verità , Milano 1990, pp. 69-90. Cf. Giovanni Reale (ed.): Autotestimonianze e rimandi dei dialoghi di Platone alle “dottrine non scritte” , Milano 2008, pp. 252-254.
115. ↑ Giancarlo Movia: Apparenze, essere e verità , Milano 1991, p 43, 60f.
116. ↑ Patrizia Bonagura: Exterioridad e interioridad. La tensión filosófico-educativa de algunas páginas platónicas , Pamplona 1991, pp. 33-54.
117. ↑ Some of these positions are summarized in Marie-Dominique Richard: L'enseignement oral de Platon , 2nd edition, Paris 2005, pp. 30–35. For the English-speaking “anti-seoterics” see Thomas Alexander Szlezák: Schleiermacher's “Introduction” to the Plato translation of 1804 . In: Antike und Abendland 43, 1997, pp. 46–62, here: 61f.
118. ^ Gregory Vlastos: Platonic Studies , 2nd edition, Princeton 1981, pp. 379-403; Reginald E. Allen: Plato's Parmenides , Oxford 1983, p. 272.
119. ↑ Hannes Kerber: Strauss and Schleiermacher on How to Read Plato. In: Martin Yaffe, Richard Ruderman (eds.): Reorientation: Leo Strauss in the 1930s , New York 2014, pp. 203–214; Hannes Kerber: Review by Arthur M. Melzer: Philosophy between the Lines. The Lost History of Esoteric Writing. In: Philosophisches Jahrbuch 123, 2016, pp. 278–281, here: 279.
120. ↑ Franco Trabattoni: Scrivere nell'anima , Firenze 1994th
121. ↑ Francesco Fronterotta: Une énigme platonicienne: La question des doctrines non-écrites . In: Revue de philosophie ancienne 11, 1993, pp. 115–157.
122. ↑ Luc Brisson: Premises, Consequences, and Legacy of an Esotericist Interpretation of Plato . In: Ancient Philosophy 15, 1995, pp. 117-134; Luc Brisson: Lectures de Platon , Paris 2000, pp. 43–110.
123. ↑ Eugène Napoléon Tigerstedt: Interpreting Plato , Stockholm 1977, pp. 63–91. Hans Krämer offers a counter-argument: News on the dispute over Plato's theory of principles . In: Philosophische Rundschau 27, 1980, pp. 1–38, here: 14–22.
124. ^ Theodor Ebert: Opinion and knowledge in Plato's philosophy , Berlin 1974, pp. 2-4.
125. ↑ Ernst Heitsch: ΤΙΜΙΩΤΕΡΑ . In: Ernst Heitsch: Gesammelte Schriften , Volume 3, Munich 2003, pp. 338–347.
126. ^ Fritz-Peter Hager: On the philosophical problematic of the so-called unwritten teaching of Plato . In: Studia philosophica 24, 1964, pp. 90-117. Hager considers the doctrine of principles to be incompatible with Plato's philosophy presented in the dialogues. Hans Joachim Krämer offers a counter-argument: The fundamental questions of the indirect Plato tradition . In: Hans-Georg Gadamer, Wolfgang Schadewaldt (Hrsg.): Idea and Number , Heidelberg 1968, p. 107f. Note 9.
127. ^ Günther Patzig: Plato's political ethics . In: Günther Patzig: Gesammelte Schriften , Volume 3, Göttingen 1996, pp. 32–54, here: p. 36 Note 3. See the criticism by Hans Krämer: Critical comments on the most recent statements by W. Wieland and G. Snappy about Plato's unwritten teaching . In: Rivista di Filosofia neo-scolastica 74, 1982, pp. 579-592, here: 586-592.
128. ↑ This is for example the opinion of Michael Bordt ; see Michael Bordt: Platon , Freiburg 1999, pp. 51–53.
129. ^ Dorothea Frede: Plato: Philebos. Translation and Commentary , Göttingen 1997, pp. 403-417. In particular, it denies that Plato asserted that all reality could be derived from the two original principles; see Dorothea Frede: The wondrous changeability of ancient philosophy in the present . In: Ernst-Richard Schwinge (Ed.): The ancient sciences at the end of the 2nd millennium AD , Stuttgart 1995, pp. 9–40, here: 28–33.
130. ^ Karl-Heinz Ilting: Plato's 'Unwritten Teachings': the lecture 'about the good' . In: Phronesis 13, 1968, pp. 1–31, here: 5, 29.
131. ↑ Holger Thesleff: Platonic Patterns , Las Vegas 2009, pp. 486-488.
132. ↑ Andreas Graeser: The philosophy of antiquity 2: Sophistics and Socratics, Plato and Aristoteles , 2nd edition, Munich 1993, pp. 130-132. Graeser criticizes individual arguments of Krämer in the essay Critical Retractations on the Esoteric Interpretation of Plato, dedicated to his teacher Harold Cherniss . In: Archive for the history of philosophy 56, 1974, pp. 71–87.
133. ↑ Jürgen Mittelstraß: Ontologia more geometrico demonstrata . In: Philosophische Rundschau 14, 1967, pp. 27–40, here: 39.
134. ↑ Rafael Ferber: Why did Plato not write the “unwritten teaching”? , 2nd edition, Munich 2007, pp. 19-27, 92-94. Cf. Thomas Alexander Szlezák: The idea of ​​the good in Plato's Politeia , Sankt Augustin 2003, pp. 135–146.
135. ^ Margherita Isnardi Parente: Il problema della “dottrina non scritta” di Platone . In: La Parola del Passato 41, 1986, pp. 5-30; Margherita Isnardi Parente: Platone e il problema degli ágrapha . In: Méthexis 6, 1993, pp. 73-93; Margherita Isnardi Parente: L'eredità di Platone nell'accademia antica , Milano 1989, pp. 31-48. Isnardi Parente's position is critical of Hans Krämer: News on the dispute over Plato's theory of principles . In: Philosophische Rundschau 27, 1980, pp. 1–38, here: 4–6.
136. ^ Franco Ferrari: Les doctrines non écrites . In: Richard Goulet (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Volume 5, Part 1 (= V a), Paris 2012, pp. 648–661, here: 660.
137. ↑ Wolfgang Kullmann: Plato's writing review . In: Hermes 119, 1991, pp. 1–21, here: 19–21.
138. ↑ Wolfgang Wieland: Platon and the forms of knowledge , 2nd edition, Göttingen 1999, pp. 40–50, 328–330, 340. Jürgen Mittelstraß: Platon assess the philosophical relevance similarly . In: Otfried Höffe (ed.): Klassiker der Philosophie , Vol. 1, Munich 1981, pp. 38–62, here: 59f. and Philip Merlan: Comments on the new Plato picture . In: Archive for the History of Philosophy 51, 1969, pp. 111–126, here: 123–126. Criticism of Wieland's view is from the point of view of the "Tübingen" Hans Krämer: Critical remarks on the most recent statements by W. Wieland and G. Patzig about Plato's unwritten teaching . In: Rivista di Filosofia neo-scolastica 74, 1982, pp. 579-592, here: 579-585.
139. ↑ Franz von Kutschera: Plato's Philosophy , Volume 3, Paderborn 2002, pp. 149–171, 202–206.
140. ^ Domenico Pesce: Il Platone di Tubinga , Brescia 1990, pp. 20, 46-49.
141. ↑ Such allegations were made mainly by the "Tübingen"; for their point of view see Thomas Alexander Szlezák: On the usual aversion to agrapha dogmata . In: Méthexis 6, 1993, pp. 155-174; Thomas Alexander Szlezák: Methodical remarks on the discussion about the oral philosophy of Plato . In: Philotheos 5, 2005, pp. 174–190; Hans Krämer: Old and new Plato picture . In: Méthexis 6, 1993, pp. 95-114, here: 112-114. Francesco Fronterotta suspects ideological bias of the “Tübingen”: Une énigme platonicienne: La question des doctrines non-écrites . In: Revue de philosophie ancienne 11, 1993, pp. 115–157, here: 156f.
142. ↑ Konrad Gaiser: Principle theory in Plato . In: Konrad Gaiser: Gesammelte Schriften , Sankt Augustin 2004, pp. 295–315, here: 299.

This article was added to the list of excellent articles on October 20, 2012 in this version .