What do you think?
Rate this book
Guides for the Perplexed
Plato: A Guide for the Perplexed
It is widely agreed that Plato laid the foundations for the whole history of western thought and, well over 2000 years later, his work is still studied by every student of philosophy. Yet his thought and writings continue to evoke perplexity in readers; and perplexity ( aporia ) is itself a characteristic of many of his writings, a recurrent motif of his thought, and apparently an important stage one must pass through along the path to wisdom that Plato presents.
A Guide for the Perplexed is a clear and thorough account of Plato's philosophy, his major works and ideas, providing an ideal guide to the important and complex thought of this key philosopher. The book offers a detailed review of all the major dialogues and explores the particular perplexities of the dialogue form. Geared towards the specific requirements of students who need to reach a sound understanding of Plato's thought, the book also provides a cogent and reliable survey of the whole history of Platonic interpretation and his far-reaching influence. This is the ideal companion to the study of this most influential and challenging of philosophers.
A Guide for the Perplexed is a clear and thorough account of Plato's philosophy, his major works and ideas, providing an ideal guide to the important and complex thought of this key philosopher. The book offers a detailed review of all the major dialogues and explores the particular perplexities of the dialogue form. Geared towards the specific requirements of students who need to reach a sound understanding of Plato's thought, the book also provides a cogent and reliable survey of the whole history of Platonic interpretation and his far-reaching influence. This is the ideal companion to the study of this most influential and challenging of philosophers.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
250 pages, Paperback
First published October 24, 2007
6 people are currently reading
75 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 21, 2008
Warning - long review - as much my notes to help comprehend, place in context and critique as a review. If anyone's interested (unlikely) ....
This is a very good book, appropriately titled a “guide” rather than an “introduction.” Although it has an introductory character and generally avoids (or explains) technical terms, etc., it tends to assume familiarity with Plato’s dialogues and to some extent their historical and intellectual context and background. I can imagine someone who’s read a few “early” dialogues (with interest) profiting from this book, but it probably wouldn’t be my first suggestion to someone unfamiliar with Plato.
I put “early” in quotes because Press considers the traditional “developmental” approach to Plato interpretation (e.g. Vlastos) mistaken. He doesn’t provide much detail, but after a decent, brief history of interpretation he says the “developmental” approach, built on stylometry, was undone by computerized stylometry (though he acknowledges it supports a late group). The other major approach he discounts is the “esoteric” (e.g. Tubingen, the “unwritten doctrines”). His approach is “dramatic” (apparently influenced by Sayre’s Plato’s Literary Garden), central to which are contextualism (historical, cultural, regarding characters and setting), organicism (all parts of a dialogue are integral parts of a complex whole), and holism (all dialogues are interrelated parts of an integrated corpus). Press prefers to view the dialogues arranged by dramatic date, beginning with Parmenides and ending with Phaedo.
I’m not convinced the traditionalists have been as thoroughly refuted as Press seems to believe, and in addition to the Seventh Letter he dismisses The Laws as spurious without much explanation. A reasonable case could possibly be made for this, but his arguments seem a bit weaker if The Laws is genuine. There are also disadvantages as well as advantages to viewing the dialogues arranged by dramatic date (e.g. it suppresses the close relationships between Parmenides, Theaetetus, Sophist and Politicus; and detailed stylometry aside, there seem to be similarities of composition, content and approach in the traditional groupings, for whatever reasons, which merit consideration).
Regardless, Press makes a very reasonable and compelling case that context, characters, scene, action, digressions, allusions and correspondences with history, stories and myths are highly relevant to interpretation, and that the dramatic and philosophical are inextricably interwoven in Plato. He also makes a reasonable case that the Platonic corpus forms a whole which is important to interpretation of individual dialogues. Although attempts have often been made to extract the philosophy from the drama (e.g. translations that delete interlocutors’ names), he’s convincing in arguing that this can only hinder our understanding of the dialogues.
Press sees Platonic interpretation as typically either dogmatic (presenting systematic doctrines) or skeptical (suggesting knowledge isn’t possible). In contrast to both, he sees Plato as a great dramatist - a master of irony, paradox, authorial anonymity, use of myths, play, and an array of other literary devices – which he uses to “enact” his open-ended philosophy, causing the reader to be deeply engaged in it. This is a more pleasurable approach to philosophy than reading a treatise, and it draws us in both emotionally and intellectually, giving us impetus to think through the questions rather than merely assenting to or disagreeing with presented statements. We’re also shown the correspondences or lack thereof between statements and actions of the characters in the dialogues. This attracts us to Socrates, the hero of the dramas and a type of the philosopher. It attracts us to his way of life and his ideas, and so to philosophy as represented by him. At the same time we’re repelled by the unpleasant characters, and so disinclined towards their behavior and ideas (sophistry, political demagoguery and self-seeking). Being neither dogmatic nor skeptical, Press argues that this open-ended philosophy has persistent themes constituting (in part) Plato’s philosophical vision.
He considers that, for Plato, philosophy is an activity rather than a set of doctrines, and that “the examination of propositions and arguments is not a philosophical end in itself, but a means of character formation.” Plato “seeks to inculcate orientations, attitudes and practices, not specific beliefs,” meaning philosophy for Plato is “provisional rather than final.” It “has a wider scope than modern conceptions of philosophy, but it is also different in its orientation. Its central questions are moral, ethical and political, rather than questions of logic, epistemology and metaphysics.” The suggestion that epistemology is not a central question for Plato is debatable. In light of that statement it might be no surprise that Press tends to focus on the “earlier” dialogues, but the tendency isn’t excessive and he certainly doesn’t ignore Platonic epistemology.
Press says that Plato doesn’t offer propositional, or discursive, knowledge, but a vision, which is like a theory (e.g. of evolution) which is synoptic rather than propositional, and synthetic rather than analytical. This vision is “complete in a moment,” i.e. intuitive. A fundamental part of it is Plato’s two-level conception of reality (e.g. Forms vs. things), but rigid propositions don’t serve the vision. It’s seen in general principles expressed consistently throughout the dialogues (the body-soul composite, the primary importance of caring for the soul). Philosophy is a way of life, and one of joint enquiry through dialectic. Critical to dialectic, besides being social, is its frequently resulting in aporia (lack of resolution or failure to reach conclusion), which has both “therapeutic and pedagogical value.” Realizing one has an incorrect belief, held unreflectively, is a disturbing but important step towards knowledge.
Press recommends reading each dialogue at least three times: a logical reading first, then a dramatic and literary reading, then an integrative one. He illustrates this approach with a selection from Meno. Needless to say, there’s some controversial material here, but that seems to be true of virtually anything written about Plato. The book is very well-written, thought-provoking and valuable. It also has a very good brief glossary of Greek terms, good, brief summaries of the dialogues (actually nineteen of the twenty-four or so Press considers genuine), and a good bibliography and suggestions for further reading. I recommend it pretty highly, but suggest also reading Platonic introductions or overviews by interpreters with other approaches (e.g. Taylor [qualified due to an implausible view of the “Socratic problem”], Grube, Melling, Rowe, Vlastos; also Allan Bloom’s essay on Republic, which may be considered “esoteric” but has much in common with Press’ approach).
This is a very good book, appropriately titled a “guide” rather than an “introduction.” Although it has an introductory character and generally avoids (or explains) technical terms, etc., it tends to assume familiarity with Plato’s dialogues and to some extent their historical and intellectual context and background. I can imagine someone who’s read a few “early” dialogues (with interest) profiting from this book, but it probably wouldn’t be my first suggestion to someone unfamiliar with Plato.
I put “early” in quotes because Press considers the traditional “developmental” approach to Plato interpretation (e.g. Vlastos) mistaken. He doesn’t provide much detail, but after a decent, brief history of interpretation he says the “developmental” approach, built on stylometry, was undone by computerized stylometry (though he acknowledges it supports a late group). The other major approach he discounts is the “esoteric” (e.g. Tubingen, the “unwritten doctrines”). His approach is “dramatic” (apparently influenced by Sayre’s Plato’s Literary Garden), central to which are contextualism (historical, cultural, regarding characters and setting), organicism (all parts of a dialogue are integral parts of a complex whole), and holism (all dialogues are interrelated parts of an integrated corpus). Press prefers to view the dialogues arranged by dramatic date, beginning with Parmenides and ending with Phaedo.
I’m not convinced the traditionalists have been as thoroughly refuted as Press seems to believe, and in addition to the Seventh Letter he dismisses The Laws as spurious without much explanation. A reasonable case could possibly be made for this, but his arguments seem a bit weaker if The Laws is genuine. There are also disadvantages as well as advantages to viewing the dialogues arranged by dramatic date (e.g. it suppresses the close relationships between Parmenides, Theaetetus, Sophist and Politicus; and detailed stylometry aside, there seem to be similarities of composition, content and approach in the traditional groupings, for whatever reasons, which merit consideration).
Regardless, Press makes a very reasonable and compelling case that context, characters, scene, action, digressions, allusions and correspondences with history, stories and myths are highly relevant to interpretation, and that the dramatic and philosophical are inextricably interwoven in Plato. He also makes a reasonable case that the Platonic corpus forms a whole which is important to interpretation of individual dialogues. Although attempts have often been made to extract the philosophy from the drama (e.g. translations that delete interlocutors’ names), he’s convincing in arguing that this can only hinder our understanding of the dialogues.
Press sees Platonic interpretation as typically either dogmatic (presenting systematic doctrines) or skeptical (suggesting knowledge isn’t possible). In contrast to both, he sees Plato as a great dramatist - a master of irony, paradox, authorial anonymity, use of myths, play, and an array of other literary devices – which he uses to “enact” his open-ended philosophy, causing the reader to be deeply engaged in it. This is a more pleasurable approach to philosophy than reading a treatise, and it draws us in both emotionally and intellectually, giving us impetus to think through the questions rather than merely assenting to or disagreeing with presented statements. We’re also shown the correspondences or lack thereof between statements and actions of the characters in the dialogues. This attracts us to Socrates, the hero of the dramas and a type of the philosopher. It attracts us to his way of life and his ideas, and so to philosophy as represented by him. At the same time we’re repelled by the unpleasant characters, and so disinclined towards their behavior and ideas (sophistry, political demagoguery and self-seeking). Being neither dogmatic nor skeptical, Press argues that this open-ended philosophy has persistent themes constituting (in part) Plato’s philosophical vision.
He considers that, for Plato, philosophy is an activity rather than a set of doctrines, and that “the examination of propositions and arguments is not a philosophical end in itself, but a means of character formation.” Plato “seeks to inculcate orientations, attitudes and practices, not specific beliefs,” meaning philosophy for Plato is “provisional rather than final.” It “has a wider scope than modern conceptions of philosophy, but it is also different in its orientation. Its central questions are moral, ethical and political, rather than questions of logic, epistemology and metaphysics.” The suggestion that epistemology is not a central question for Plato is debatable. In light of that statement it might be no surprise that Press tends to focus on the “earlier” dialogues, but the tendency isn’t excessive and he certainly doesn’t ignore Platonic epistemology.
Press says that Plato doesn’t offer propositional, or discursive, knowledge, but a vision, which is like a theory (e.g. of evolution) which is synoptic rather than propositional, and synthetic rather than analytical. This vision is “complete in a moment,” i.e. intuitive. A fundamental part of it is Plato’s two-level conception of reality (e.g. Forms vs. things), but rigid propositions don’t serve the vision. It’s seen in general principles expressed consistently throughout the dialogues (the body-soul composite, the primary importance of caring for the soul). Philosophy is a way of life, and one of joint enquiry through dialectic. Critical to dialectic, besides being social, is its frequently resulting in aporia (lack of resolution or failure to reach conclusion), which has both “therapeutic and pedagogical value.” Realizing one has an incorrect belief, held unreflectively, is a disturbing but important step towards knowledge.
Press recommends reading each dialogue at least three times: a logical reading first, then a dramatic and literary reading, then an integrative one. He illustrates this approach with a selection from Meno. Needless to say, there’s some controversial material here, but that seems to be true of virtually anything written about Plato. The book is very well-written, thought-provoking and valuable. It also has a very good brief glossary of Greek terms, good, brief summaries of the dialogues (actually nineteen of the twenty-four or so Press considers genuine), and a good bibliography and suggestions for further reading. I recommend it pretty highly, but suggest also reading Platonic introductions or overviews by interpreters with other approaches (e.g. Taylor [qualified due to an implausible view of the “Socratic problem”], Grube, Melling, Rowe, Vlastos; also Allan Bloom’s essay on Republic, which may be considered “esoteric” but has much in common with Press’ approach).
May 27, 2020
ایده اصلی کتاب بر آن است که نظام فلسفی افلاطون نه آموزهمحور بلکه بینشی فکری و یک راه است.
در ابتدا نویسنده خوانشها و تفاسیر مفسران تا قبل از این را بررسی میکند و آنها را به سه دسته تقسیم میکند: رهیافت تکوینگرایانه، رهیافت وحدتگرایانه و رهیافت باطنگرایانه.
رهیافت تکوینگرا برآنست که رسالههای افلاطون به سه دوره متقدم که بیشتر اندیشههای سقراط تاریخی هستند، متوسط که در آن آشکارا آموزه مُثُل، یادآوری یا فیلسوف-فرمانروا مطرح میشود و متاخر که آموزههای قبلی در آن کنار گذاشته میشوند، تقسیم میشود.
رهیافت وحدتگرا مبتنی بر این عقیده است که در بطن دیالوگها نظامی جامع و واحد هستیشناختی وجود دارد. و رهیافت باطنگرا بر آنست که آموزههای حقیقی افلاطون نه در متن دیالوگها بلکه در آموزههای شفاهیای است که از اعضای آکادمی به ما رسیده است. مبنای استدلال این دسته سوم آنست که سقراط در دیالوگها نوشتن را محکوم میکند.
در ایران بیشترین تفسیرهای انتشاریافته تحت تاثیر مفسران تکوینگراست، مثلا تاریخفلسفه نویسانی مانند کاپلستون، گاتری، یگر و گمپرتس و... همه متاثر از رهیافت تکوینگرا هستند.
مشکل هر سه خوانش بالا از نظر نویسنده در این است که توجه نمیکنند دیالوگها "رساله" نیستند بلکه به صورت "دیالوگ" با رویکردی روایی و دراماتیک نوشته شدهاند. این مسئله باعث شده است که آنان غالبا صحبتهای سقراط را همان عقاید افلاطون در نظر بگیرند و وجه دراماتیک دیالوگها را کاملا نادیده بگیرند.
نویسنده با توجه به این مسئله، به وجه آیرونیک دیالوگها تاکید میکند و آن را صرفا آرایهای ادبی نمیداند بلکه به نظر او، مبنای فلسفهورزی افلاطون آیرونیست. آیرونی در افلاطون دربردارنده این دریافت است که: "اشیا چونان که گفته میشود یا به نظر میرسد، نیستند."
علاوه بر آیرونی، زمان و مکان دیالوگها، اشخاص و پسزمینه تاریخی هر شخصیت در فراروند کلی دیالوگها بسیار مهم تلقی میشود. بنابراین در انتهای کتاب تویسنده بر اساس همین رویکرد نوعی خوانش برای فهم بهتر دیالوگها عرضه میکند:
خوانش منطقی، خوانش ادبی و دراماتیک و خوانش یکپارچهساز.
در خوانش منطقی سعی باید بر آن باشد که در خلال دیالوگ استدلالها و مقدمات و نتایج دنبال شود. دیالوگهای افلاطون ساختاری سنتوری دارند؛ به این معنا که در ابتدا با طرح سوالی در پیشگفتار و اظهار نادانی سقراط، مخاطب سقراط در دیالوگ شروع به طرح جوابهایی برای سوال مطرحشده میکند. سقراط همه جوابهای مخاطب را در فرآیندی پرسش و پاسخی رد میکند. به اینصورت غالبا بعد از این مرحله مخاطب دچار سرگشتگی(آپوریا) میشود که هدف اولیه سقراط است و از ادامه دادن گفتوگو ناامید میشود. در این مرحله سقراط با انحرافی کوچک از بحث سعی میکند، مخاطب را دوباره به بحث ترغیب کند و در مرحله بعد بحث را در سطحی بالاتر و پیچیدهتر با راهنماییهایی که به مخاطب میدهد، ادامه دهد. ولی غالبا در پایان به سوال مطرحشده جواب پایانی و بستهای داده نمیشود.
در خوانش ادبی و دراماتیک به ساختار روایی، شخصیتهای نمایشی و پیوندهای تاریخی شخصیتها و وقایع روایت، زمان و مکان درام، عمل فیزیکی، حرکات روی صحنه و... میپردازد.
در خوانش یکپارچهساز ایدهها و استدلالهایی را که در خوانش نخست کشف شده با ویژگیهای ادبی خوانش دوم ترکیب میشود.
در آخر با توجه به این که به نظر نویسنده، افلاطون آموزهای ارائه نمیدهد، تاکید بر گشودگی دیالوگها و این است که دیالوگها روش و تربیتی را برای جستجوی حقیقت ارائه میدهد.
در ابتدا نویسنده خوانشها و تفاسیر مفسران تا قبل از این را بررسی میکند و آنها را به سه دسته تقسیم میکند: رهیافت تکوینگرایانه، رهیافت وحدتگرایانه و رهیافت باطنگرایانه.
رهیافت تکوینگرا برآنست که رسالههای افلاطون به سه دوره متقدم که بیشتر اندیشههای سقراط تاریخی هستند، متوسط که در آن آشکارا آموزه مُثُل، یادآوری یا فیلسوف-فرمانروا مطرح میشود و متاخر که آموزههای قبلی در آن کنار گذاشته میشوند، تقسیم میشود.
رهیافت وحدتگرا مبتنی بر این عقیده است که در بطن دیالوگها نظامی جامع و واحد هستیشناختی وجود دارد. و رهیافت باطنگرا بر آنست که آموزههای حقیقی افلاطون نه در متن دیالوگها بلکه در آموزههای شفاهیای است که از اعضای آکادمی به ما رسیده است. مبنای استدلال این دسته سوم آنست که سقراط در دیالوگها نوشتن را محکوم میکند.
در ایران بیشترین تفسیرهای انتشاریافته تحت تاثیر مفسران تکوینگراست، مثلا تاریخفلسفه نویسانی مانند کاپلستون، گاتری، یگر و گمپرتس و... همه متاثر از رهیافت تکوینگرا هستند.
مشکل هر سه خوانش بالا از نظر نویسنده در این است که توجه نمیکنند دیالوگها "رساله" نیستند بلکه به صورت "دیالوگ" با رویکردی روایی و دراماتیک نوشته شدهاند. این مسئله باعث شده است که آنان غالبا صحبتهای سقراط را همان عقاید افلاطون در نظر بگیرند و وجه دراماتیک دیالوگها را کاملا نادیده بگیرند.
نویسنده با توجه به این مسئله، به وجه آیرونیک دیالوگها تاکید میکند و آن را صرفا آرایهای ادبی نمیداند بلکه به نظر او، مبنای فلسفهورزی افلاطون آیرونیست. آیرونی در افلاطون دربردارنده این دریافت است که: "اشیا چونان که گفته میشود یا به نظر میرسد، نیستند."
علاوه بر آیرونی، زمان و مکان دیالوگها، اشخاص و پسزمینه تاریخی هر شخصیت در فراروند کلی دیالوگها بسیار مهم تلقی میشود. بنابراین در انتهای کتاب تویسنده بر اساس همین رویکرد نوعی خوانش برای فهم بهتر دیالوگها عرضه میکند:
خوانش منطقی، خوانش ادبی و دراماتیک و خوانش یکپارچهساز.
در خوانش منطقی سعی باید بر آن باشد که در خلال دیالوگ استدلالها و مقدمات و نتایج دنبال شود. دیالوگهای افلاطون ساختاری سنتوری دارند؛ به این معنا که در ابتدا با طرح سوالی در پیشگفتار و اظهار نادانی سقراط، مخاطب سقراط در دیالوگ شروع به طرح جوابهایی برای سوال مطرحشده میکند. سقراط همه جوابهای مخاطب را در فرآیندی پرسش و پاسخی رد میکند. به اینصورت غالبا بعد از این مرحله مخاطب دچار سرگشتگی(آپوریا) میشود که هدف اولیه سقراط است و از ادامه دادن گفتوگو ناامید میشود. در این مرحله سقراط با انحرافی کوچک از بحث سعی میکند، مخاطب را دوباره به بحث ترغیب کند و در مرحله بعد بحث را در سطحی بالاتر و پیچیدهتر با راهنماییهایی که به مخاطب میدهد، ادامه دهد. ولی غالبا در پایان به سوال مطرحشده جواب پایانی و بستهای داده نمیشود.
در خوانش ادبی و دراماتیک به ساختار روایی، شخصیتهای نمایشی و پیوندهای تاریخی شخصیتها و وقایع روایت، زمان و مکان درام، عمل فیزیکی، حرکات روی صحنه و... میپردازد.
در خوانش یکپارچهساز ایدهها و استدلالهایی را که در خوانش نخست کشف شده با ویژگیهای ادبی خوانش دوم ترکیب میشود.
در آخر با توجه به این که به نظر نویسنده، افلاطون آموزهای ارائه نمیدهد، تاکید بر گشودگی دیالوگها و این است که دیالوگها روش و تربیتی را برای جستجوی حقیقت ارائه میدهد.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews