Platos Dialogues One by One CB

Platos Dialogues One by One CB Plato S Dialogues One By One Interprets And Contextualizes Each Of Plato S Dialogues Victorino Tejera Analyzes And Explains The Content And Intellectual Quality Of The Dialogues, Highlighting Their Dramatic Aliveness And Historico Political Allusiveness He Treats Each Dialogue According To Its Own Integrity, Not Imposing Any System Outside Of Their Individual Composition, And With An Even Handedness That Does Not Place Too Much Emphasis On Any Aspect Or Neglect Any Included Concept With This Approach, Tejera Seeks To Free Plato From The Constraints Constructed By Academia And To Treat Him As The Open Minded Intellectual Son Of Socrates, Releasing The Free Flying Swan That In The Myth Became The Home Of The Soul Of The Master

Is a well-known author, some of his books are a fascination for readers like in the Platos Dialogues One by One CB book, this is one of the most wanted Victorino Tejera author readers around the world.

➿ [Download] ➽ Platos Dialogues One by One CB By Victorino Tejera ➵ – Webcamtopladies.info
  • Hardcover
  • 477 pages
  • Platos Dialogues One by One CB
  • Victorino Tejera
  • English
  • 19 February 2019
  • 9780761809937

10 thoughts on “Platos Dialogues One by One CB

  1. says:

    09 24 2004An intelligent attempt to rescue Plato from PlatonismTejera is a very intelligent close reader of Plato He has no patience for the Neoplatonic, Idealist, epistemological or developmental readings of Plato He is also, I think, against the wooden scholarly treatment that poor Plato so often got in the previous century Though over the last generation or two this has begun finally to change This means that no part of a dialogue may be given emphasis than is warranted by its position in relation to just that dialogue in which it occurs, and no part of a dialogue including the ordinarily isolated and downgraded myths may be neglected because it is of no doctrinal or epistemological interest It has also required attention to the tone of the conversations at all points in their development and attention to the personal interaction between the characters, hitherto dismissed as byplay by many commentators I find nothing to object to here So then, are we to explain the text by the text Unfortunately, this method of immersion in the text would only be infallible if the commentator were also and only a character in the text But he is not and we are not What are the presuppositions and purposes that we interpreters of texts invariably bring to those texts What are the extra textual assumptions Tejera brings to the texts of Plato Tejera has a story to tell, of how the ancient Academicians, Neopythagoreans, Neoplatonists, Idealists and traditionalists Straussian esotericists all have conspired, from the time of Plato til today, to keep the liberal and liberating Platonic dialogues from us all But, of course, this story is not exactly found in the texts of Plato Tejera is aware of this and tries to show that this second move on his part is required by the texts themselves in order to explain the various misinterpretations that have plagued and continue to plague Plato s texts But every commentator introduces his own prejudices Tejera wants to show that Socrates is the privileged speaker, the real center of the dialogues One suspects, comes to suspect, that Tejera, in the end, doesn t really like Plato he likes Socrates And every time that Plato shows us that he Plato is not Socrates Tejera recoils in horror Thus he treats the Eleatic Stranger or Visitor that we meet in Sophist Statesman as a sophist and he treats these two dialogues as merely parodies of sophistry which, of course, in part they are But if the Stranger is merely a Sophist why does he refuse to discuss the delicate subject of the comparison definition of and relations between the Sophist, Statesman and Philosopher before they Stranger, Theaetetus, Theodorus, etc hook up with Socrates Don t the Sophists talk about anything Also, as Stanley Rosen somewhere observed, this notion Stranger as Sophist would be persuasive if Tejera had faced up to the sophistical component within philosophy He also takes the Laws to be a product of the neopythagorean academy A neat trick this any dialogue that does not fit in with what one wants Plato to stand for is dismissed Not that there aren t textual problems with the Laws But saying that when we see that Laws is not by Plato, we can also see what its real importance is it must be taken, and should be studied, as a major founding document of the ecumenical, Syrianized, Romanized and anguished Hellenistic age is to be in danger of tossing out baby with bathwater I really should add that to follow Tejera in an adequate fashion, one really should have read either his Rewriting the History of Ancient Greek Philosophy or The City State Foundations of Western Thought or The Return of the King The Intellectual Warfare Over democratic Athens and if one can only get one I would say read the Return of the King I would also recommend that one also check out Eric Havelock, Preface to Plato While I disagree with Tejera most strongly in his treatment of the non Socratic dialogues I still highly recommend this book He is always informative, intelligent, provocative and sensitive to the nuances in the text and he forces us to work our way through the texts his and Plato s as we read along with him.

  2. says:

    09 24 2004An intelligent attempt to rescue Plato from PlatonismTejera is a very intelligent close reader of Plato He has no patience for the Neoplatonic, Idealist, epistemological or developmental readings of Plato He is also, I think, against the wooden scholarly treatment that poor Plato so often got in the previous century Though over the last generation or two this has begun finally to change This means that no part of a dialogue may be given emphasis than is warranted by its position in relation to just that dialogue in which it occurs, and no part of a dialogue including the ordinarily isolated and downgraded myths may be neglected because it is of no doctrinal or epistemological interest It has also required attention to the tone of the conversations at all points in their development and attention to the personal interaction between the characters, hitherto dismissed as byplay by many commentators I find nothing to object to here So then, are we to explain the text by the text Unfortunately, this method of immersion in the text would only be infallible if the commentator were also and only a character in the text But he is not and we are not What are the presuppositions and purposes that we interpreters of texts invariably bring to those texts What are the extra textual assumptions Tejera brings to the texts of Plato Tejera has a story to tell, of how the ancient Academicians, Neopythagoreans, Neoplatonists, Idealists and traditionalists Straussian esotericists all have conspired, from the time of Plato til today, to keep the liberal and liberating Platonic dialogues from us all But, of course, this story is not exactly found in the texts of Plato Tejera is aware of this and tries to show that this second move on his part is required by the texts themselves in order to explain the various misinterpretations that have plagued and continue to plague Plato s texts But every commentator introduces his own prejudices Tejera wants to show that Socrates is the privileged speaker, the real center of the dialogues One suspects, comes to suspect, that Tejera, in the end, doesn t really like Plato he likes Socrates And every time that Plato shows us that he Plato is not Socrates Tejera recoils in horror Thus he treats the Eleatic Stranger or Visitor that we meet in Sophist Statesman as a sophist and he treats these two dialogues as merely parodies of sophistry which, of course, in part they are But if the Stranger is merely a Sophist why does he refuse to discuss the delicate subject of the comparison definition of and relations between the Sophist, Statesman and Philosopher before they Stranger, Theaetetus, Theodorus, etc hook up with Socrates Don t the Sophists talk about anything Also, as Stanley Rosen somewhere observed, this notion Stranger as Sophist would be persuasive if Tejera had faced up to the sophistical component within philosophy He also takes the Laws to be a product of the neopythagorean academy A neat trick this any dialogue that does not fit in with what one wants Plato to stand for is dismissed Not that there aren t textual problems with the Laws But saying that when we see that Laws is not by Plato, we can also see what its real importance is it must be taken, and should be studied, as a major founding document of the ecumenical, Syrianized, Romanized and anguished Hellenistic age is to be in danger of tossing out baby with bathwater I really should add that to follow Tejera in an adequate fashion, one really should have read either his Rewriting the History of Ancient Greek Philosophy or The City State Foundations of Western Thought or The Return of the King The Intellectual Warfare Over democratic Athens and if one can only get one I would say read the Return of the King I would also recommend that one also check out Eric Havelock, Preface to Plato While I disagree with Tejera most strongly in his treatment of the non Socratic dialogues I still highly recommend this book He is always informative, intelligent, provocative and sensitive to the nuances in the text and he forces us to work our way through the texts his and Plato s as we read along with him.

  3. says:

    09 24 2004An intelligent attempt to rescue Plato from PlatonismTejera is a very intelligent close reader of Plato He has no patience for the Neoplatonic, Idealist, epistemological or developmental readings of Plato He is also, I think, against the wooden scholarly treatment that poor Plato so often got in the previous century Though over the last generation or two this has begun finally to change This means that no part of a dialogue may be given emphasis than is warranted by its position in relation to just that dialogue in which it occurs, and no part of a dialogue including the ordinarily isolated and downgraded myths may be neglected because it is of no doctrinal or epistemological interest It has also required attention to the tone of the conversations at all points in their development and attention to the personal interaction between the characters, hitherto dismissed as byplay by many commentators I find nothing to object to here So then, are we to explain the text by the text Unfortunately, this method of immersion in the text would only be infallible if the commentator were also and only a character in the text But he is not and we are not What are the presuppositions and purposes that we interpreters of texts invariably bring to those texts What are the extra textual assumptions Tejera brings to the texts of Plato Tejera has a story to tell, of how the ancient Academicians, Neopythagoreans, Neoplatonists, Idealists and traditionalists Straussian esotericists all have conspired, from the time of Plato til today, to keep the liberal and liberating Platonic dialogues from us all But, of course, this story is not exactly found in the texts of Plato Tejera is aware of this and tries to show that this second move on his part is required by the texts themselves in order to explain the various misinterpretations that have plagued and continue to plague Plato s texts But every commentator introduces his own prejudices Tejera wants to show that Socrates is the privileged speaker, the real center of the dialogues One suspects, comes to suspect, that Tejera, in the end, doesn t really like Plato he likes Socrates And every time that Plato shows us that he Plato is not Socrates Tejera recoils in horror Thus he treats the Eleatic Stranger or Visitor that we meet in Sophist Statesman as a sophist and he treats these two dialogues as merely parodies of sophistry which, of course, in part they are But if the Stranger is merely a Sophist why does he refuse to discuss the delicate subject of the comparison definition of and relations between the Sophist, Statesman and Philosopher before they Stranger, Theaetetus, Theodorus, etc hook up with Socrates Don t the Sophists talk about anything Also, as Stanley Rosen somewhere observed, this notion Stranger as Sophist would be persuasive if Tejera had faced up to the sophistical component within philosophy He also takes the Laws to be a product of the neopythagorean academy A neat trick this any dialogue that does not fit in with what one wants Plato to stand for is dismissed Not that there aren t textual problems with the Laws But saying that when we see that Laws is not by Plato, we can also see what its real importance is it must be taken, and should be studied, as a major founding document of the ecumenical, Syrianized, Romanized and anguished Hellenistic age is to be in danger of tossing out baby with bathwater I really should add that to follow Tejera in an adequate fashion, one really should have read either his Rewriting the History of Ancient Greek Philosophy or The City State Foundations of Western Thought or The Return of the King The Intellectual Warfare Over democratic Athens and if one can only get one I would say read the Return of the King I would also recommend that one also check out Eric Havelock, Preface to Plato While I disagree with Tejera most strongly in his treatment of the non Socratic dialogues I still highly recommend this book He is always informative, intelligent, provocative and sensitive to the nuances in the text and he forces us to work our way through the texts his and Plato s as we read along with him.

  4. says:

    09 24 2004An intelligent attempt to rescue Plato from PlatonismTejera is a very intelligent close reader of Plato He has no patience for the Neoplatonic, Idealist, epistemological or developmental readings of Plato He is also, I think, against the wooden scholarly treatment that poor Plato so often got in the previous century Though over the last generation or two this has begun finally to change This means that no part of a dialogue may be given emphasis than is warranted by its position in relation to just that dialogue in which it occurs, and no part of a dialogue including the ordinarily isolated and downgraded myths may be neglected because it is of no doctrinal or epistemological interest It has also required attention to the tone of the conversations at all points in their development and attention to the personal interaction between the characters, hitherto dismissed as byplay by many commentators I find nothing to object to here So then, are we to explain the text by the text Unfortunately, this method of immersion in the text would only be infallible if the commentator were also and only a character in the text But he is not and we are not What are the presuppositions and purposes that we interpreters of texts invariably bring to those texts What are the extra textual assumptions Tejera brings to the texts of Plato Tejera has a story to tell, of how the ancient Academicians, Neopythagoreans, Neoplatonists, Idealists and traditionalists Straussian esotericists all have conspired, from the time of Plato til today, to keep the liberal and liberating Platonic dialogues from us all But, of course, this story is not exactly found in the texts of Plato Tejera is aware of this and tries to show that this second move on his part is required by the texts themselves in order to explain the various misinterpretations that have plagued and continue to plague Plato s texts But every commentator introduces his own prejudices Tejera wants to show that Socrates is the privileged speaker, the real center of the dialogues One suspects, comes to suspect, that Tejera, in the end, doesn t really like Plato he likes Socrates And every time that Plato shows us that he Plato is not Socrates Tejera recoils in horror Thus he treats the Eleatic Stranger or Visitor that we meet in Sophist Statesman as a sophist and he treats these two dialogues as merely parodies of sophistry which, of course, in part they are But if the Stranger is merely a Sophist why does he refuse to discuss the delicate subject of the comparison definition of and relations between the Sophist, Statesman and Philosopher before they Stranger, Theaetetus, Theodorus, etc hook up with Socrates Don t the Sophists talk about anything Also, as Stanley Rosen somewhere observed, this notion Stranger as Sophist would be persuasive if Tejera had faced up to the sophistical component within philosophy He also takes the Laws to be a product of the neopythagorean academy A neat trick this any dialogue that does not fit in with what one wants Plato to stand for is dismissed Not that there aren t textual problems with the Laws But saying that when we see that Laws is not by Plato, we can also see what its real importance is it must be taken, and should be studied, as a major founding document of the ecumenical, Syrianized, Romanized and anguished Hellenistic age is to be in danger of tossing out baby with bathwater I really should add that to follow Tejera in an adequate fashion, one really should have read either his Rewriting the History of Ancient Greek Philosophy or The City State Foundations of Western Thought or The Return of the King The Intellectual Warfare Over democratic Athens and if one can only get one I would say read the Return of the King I would also recommend that one also check out Eric Havelock, Preface to Plato While I disagree with Tejera most strongly in his treatment of the non Socratic dialogues I still highly recommend this book He is always informative, intelligent, provocative and sensitive to the nuances in the text and he forces us to work our way through the texts his and Plato s as we read along with him.

  5. says:

    09 24 2004An intelligent attempt to rescue Plato from PlatonismTejera is a very intelligent close reader of Plato He has no patience for the Neoplatonic, Idealist, epistemological or developmental readings of Plato He is also, I think, against the wooden scholarly treatment that poor Plato so often got in the previous century Though over the last generation or two this has begun finally to change This means that no part of a dialogue may be given emphasis than is warranted by its position in relation to just that dialogue in which it occurs, and no part of a dialogue including the ordinarily isolated and downgraded myths may be neglected because it is of no doctrinal or epistemological interest It has also required attention to the tone of the conversations at all points in their development and attention to the personal interaction between the characters, hitherto dismissed as byplay by many commentators I find nothing to object to here So then, are we to explain the text by the text Unfortunately, this method of immersion in the text would only be infallible if the commentator were also and only a character in the text But he is not and we are not What are the presuppositions and purposes that we interpreters of texts invariably bring to those texts What are the extra textual assumptions Tejera brings to the texts of Plato Tejera has a story to tell, of how the ancient Academicians, Neopythagoreans, Neoplatonists, Idealists and traditionalists Straussian esotericists all have conspired, from the time of Plato til today, to keep the liberal and liberating Platonic dialogues from us all But, of course, this story is not exactly found in the texts of Plato Tejera is aware of this and tries to show that this second move on his part is required by the texts themselves in order to explain the various misinterpretations that have plagued and continue to plague Plato s texts But every commentator introduces his own prejudices Tejera wants to show that Socrates is the privileged speaker, the real center of the dialogues One suspects, comes to suspect, that Tejera, in the end, doesn t really like Plato he likes Socrates And every time that Plato shows us that he Plato is not Socrates Tejera recoils in horror Thus he treats the Eleatic Stranger or Visitor that we meet in Sophist Statesman as a sophist and he treats these two dialogues as merely parodies of sophistry which, of course, in part they are But if the Stranger is merely a Sophist why does he refuse to discuss the delicate subject of the comparison definition of and relations between the Sophist, Statesman and Philosopher before they Stranger, Theaetetus, Theodorus, etc hook up with Socrates Don t the Sophists talk about anything Also, as Stanley Rosen somewhere observed, this notion Stranger as Sophist would be persuasive if Tejera had faced up to the sophistical component within philosophy He also takes the Laws to be a product of the neopythagorean academy A neat trick this any dialogue that does not fit in with what one wants Plato to stand for is dismissed Not that there aren t textual problems with the Laws But saying that when we see that Laws is not by Plato, we can also see what its real importance is it must be taken, and should be studied, as a major founding document of the ecumenical, Syrianized, Romanized and anguished Hellenistic age is to be in danger of tossing out baby with bathwater I really should add that to follow Tejera in an adequate fashion, one really should have read either his Rewriting the History of Ancient Greek Philosophy or The City State Foundations of Western Thought or The Return of the King The Intellectual Warfare Over democratic Athens and if one can only get one I would say read the Return of the King I would also recommend that one also check out Eric Havelock, Preface to Plato While I disagree with Tejera most strongly in his treatment of the non Socratic dialogues I still highly recommend this book He is always informative, intelligent, provocative and sensitive to the nuances in the text and he forces us to work our way through the texts his and Plato s as we read along with him.

  6. says:

    09 24 2004An intelligent attempt to rescue Plato from PlatonismTejera is a very intelligent close reader of Plato He has no patience for the Neoplatonic, Idealist, epistemological or developmental readings of Plato He is also, I think, against the wooden scholarly treatment that poor Plato so often got in the previous century Though over the last generation or two this has begun finally to change This means that no part of a dialogue may be given emphasis than is warranted by its position in relation to just that dialogue in which it occurs, and no part of a dialogue including the ordinarily isolated and downgraded myths may be neglected because it is of no doctrinal or epistemological interest It has also required attention to the tone of the conversations at all points in their development and attention to the personal interaction between the characters, hitherto dismissed as byplay by many commentators I find nothing to object to here So then, are we to explain the text by the text Unfortunately, this method of immersion in the text would only be infallible if the commentator were also and only a character in the text But he is not and we are not What are the presuppositions and purposes that we interpreters of texts invariably bring to those texts What are the extra textual assumptions Tejera brings to the texts of Plato Tejera has a story to tell, of how the ancient Academicians, Neopythagoreans, Neoplatonists, Idealists and traditionalists Straussian esotericists all have conspired, from the time of Plato til today, to keep the liberal and liberating Platonic dialogues from us all But, of course, this story is not exactly found in the texts of Plato Tejera is aware of this and tries to show that this second move on his part is required by the texts themselves in order to explain the various misinterpretations that have plagued and continue to plague Plato s texts But every commentator introduces his own prejudices Tejera wants to show that Socrates is the privileged speaker, the real center of the dialogues One suspects, comes to suspect, that Tejera, in the end, doesn t really like Plato he likes Socrates And every time that Plato shows us that he Plato is not Socrates Tejera recoils in horror Thus he treats the Eleatic Stranger or Visitor that we meet in Sophist Statesman as a sophist and he treats these two dialogues as merely parodies of sophistry which, of course, in part they are But if the Stranger is merely a Sophist why does he refuse to discuss the delicate subject of the comparison definition of and relations between the Sophist, Statesman and Philosopher before they Stranger, Theaetetus, Theodorus, etc hook up with Socrates Don t the Sophists talk about anything Also, as Stanley Rosen somewhere observed, this notion Stranger as Sophist would be persuasive if Tejera had faced up to the sophistical component within philosophy He also takes the Laws to be a product of the neopythagorean academy A neat trick this any dialogue that does not fit in with what one wants Plato to stand for is dismissed Not that there aren t textual problems with the Laws But saying that when we see that Laws is not by Plato, we can also see what its real importance is it must be taken, and should be studied, as a major founding document of the ecumenical, Syrianized, Romanized and anguished Hellenistic age is to be in danger of tossing out baby with bathwater I really should add that to follow Tejera in an adequate fashion, one really should have read either his Rewriting the History of Ancient Greek Philosophy or The City State Foundations of Western Thought or The Return of the King The Intellectual Warfare Over democratic Athens and if one can only get one I would say read the Return of the King I would also recommend that one also check out Eric Havelock, Preface to Plato While I disagree with Tejera most strongly in his treatment of the non Socratic dialogues I still highly recommend this book He is always informative, intelligent, provocative and sensitive to the nuances in the text and he forces us to work our way through the texts his and Plato s as we read along with him.

  7. says:

    09 24 2004An intelligent attempt to rescue Plato from PlatonismTejera is a very intelligent close reader of Plato He has no patience for the Neoplatonic, Idealist, epistemological or developmental readings of Plato He is also, I think, against the wooden scholarly treatment that poor Plato so often got in the previous century Though over the last generation or two this has begun finally to change This means that no part of a dialogue may be given emphasis than is warranted by its position in relation to just that dialogue in which it occurs, and no part of a dialogue including the ordinarily isolated and downgraded myths may be neglected because it is of no doctrinal or epistemological interest It has also required attention to the tone of the conversations at all points in their development and attention to the personal interaction between the characters, hitherto dismissed as byplay by many commentators I find nothing to object to here So then, are we to explain the text by the text Unfortunately, this method of immersion in the text would only be infallible if the commentator were also and only a character in the text But he is not and we are not What are the presuppositions and purposes that we interpreters of texts invariably bring to those texts What are the extra textual assumptions Tejera brings to the texts of Plato Tejera has a story to tell, of how the ancient Academicians, Neopythagoreans, Neoplatonists, Idealists and traditionalists Straussian esotericists all have conspired, from the time of Plato til today, to keep the liberal and liberating Platonic dialogues from us all But, of course, this story is not exactly found in the texts of Plato Tejera is aware of this and tries to show that this second move on his part is required by the texts themselves in order to explain the various misinterpretations that have plagued and continue to plague Plato s texts But every commentator introduces his own prejudices Tejera wants to show that Socrates is the privileged speaker, the real center of the dialogues One suspects, comes to suspect, that Tejera, in the end, doesn t really like Plato he likes Socrates And every time that Plato shows us that he Plato is not Socrates Tejera recoils in horror Thus he treats the Eleatic Stranger or Visitor that we meet in Sophist Statesman as a sophist and he treats these two dialogues as merely parodies of sophistry which, of course, in part they are But if the Stranger is merely a Sophist why does he refuse to discuss the delicate subject of the comparison definition of and relations between the Sophist, Statesman and Philosopher before they Stranger, Theaetetus, Theodorus, etc hook up with Socrates Don t the Sophists talk about anything Also, as Stanley Rosen somewhere observed, this notion Stranger as Sophist would be persuasive if Tejera had faced up to the sophistical component within philosophy He also takes the Laws to be a product of the neopythagorean academy A neat trick this any dialogue that does not fit in with what one wants Plato to stand for is dismissed Not that there aren t textual problems with the Laws But saying that when we see that Laws is not by Plato, we can also see what its real importance is it must be taken, and should be studied, as a major founding document of the ecumenical, Syrianized, Romanized and anguished Hellenistic age is to be in danger of tossing out baby with bathwater I really should add that to follow Tejera in an adequate fashion, one really should have read either his Rewriting the History of Ancient Greek Philosophy or The City State Foundations of Western Thought or The Return of the King The Intellectual Warfare Over democratic Athens and if one can only get one I would say read the Return of the King I would also recommend that one also check out Eric Havelock, Preface to Plato While I disagree with Tejera most strongly in his treatment of the non Socratic dialogues I still highly recommend this book He is always informative, intelligent, provocative and sensitive to the nuances in the text and he forces us to work our way through the texts his and Plato s as we read along with him.

  8. says:

    09 24 2004An intelligent attempt to rescue Plato from PlatonismTejera is a very intelligent close reader of Plato He has no patience for the Neoplatonic, Idealist, epistemological or developmental readings of Plato He is also, I think, against the wooden scholarly treatment that poor Plato so often got in the previous century Though over the last generation or two this has begun finally to change This means that no part of a dialogue may be given emphasis than is warranted by its position in relation to just that dialogue in which it occurs, and no part of a dialogue including the ordinarily isolated and downgraded myths may be neglected because it is of no doctrinal or epistemological interest It has also required attention to the tone of the conversations at all points in their development and attention to the personal interaction between the characters, hitherto dismissed as byplay by many commentators I find nothing to object to here So then, are we to explain the text by the text Unfortunately, this method of immersion in the text would only be infallible if the commentator were also and only a character in the text But he is not and we are not What are the presuppositions and purposes that we interpreters of texts invariably bring to those texts What are the extra textual assumptions Tejera brings to the texts of Plato Tejera has a story to tell, of how the ancient Academicians, Neopythagoreans, Neoplatonists, Idealists and traditionalists Straussian esotericists all have conspired, from the time of Plato til today, to keep the liberal and liberating Platonic dialogues from us all But, of course, this story is not exactly found in the texts of Plato Tejera is aware of this and tries to show that this second move on his part is required by the texts themselves in order to explain the various misinterpretations that have plagued and continue to plague Plato s texts But every commentator introduces his own prejudices Tejera wants to show that Socrates is the privileged speaker, the real center of the dialogues One suspects, comes to suspect, that Tejera, in the end, doesn t really like Plato he likes Socrates And every time that Plato shows us that he Plato is not Socrates Tejera recoils in horror Thus he treats the Eleatic Stranger or Visitor that we meet in Sophist Statesman as a sophist and he treats these two dialogues as merely parodies of sophistry which, of course, in part they are But if the Stranger is merely a Sophist why does he refuse to discuss the delicate subject of the comparison definition of and relations between the Sophist, Statesman and Philosopher before they Stranger, Theaetetus, Theodorus, etc hook up with Socrates Don t the Sophists talk about anything Also, as Stanley Rosen somewhere observed, this notion Stranger as Sophist would be persuasive if Tejera had faced up to the sophistical component within philosophy He also takes the Laws to be a product of the neopythagorean academy A neat trick this any dialogue that does not fit in with what one wants Plato to stand for is dismissed Not that there aren t textual problems with the Laws But saying that when we see that Laws is not by Plato, we can also see what its real importance is it must be taken, and should be studied, as a major founding document of the ecumenical, Syrianized, Romanized and anguished Hellenistic age is to be in danger of tossing out baby with bathwater I really should add that to follow Tejera in an adequate fashion, one really should have read either his Rewriting the History of Ancient Greek Philosophy or The City State Foundations of Western Thought or The Return of the King The Intellectual Warfare Over democratic Athens and if one can only get one I would say read the Return of the King I would also recommend that one also check out Eric Havelock, Preface to Plato While I disagree with Tejera most strongly in his treatment of the non Socratic dialogues I still highly recommend this book He is always informative, intelligent, provocative and sensitive to the nuances in the text and he forces us to work our way through the texts his and Plato s as we read along with him.

  9. says:

    09 24 2004An intelligent attempt to rescue Plato from PlatonismTejera is a very intelligent close reader of Plato He has no patience for the Neoplatonic, Idealist, epistemological or developmental readings of Plato He is also, I think, against the wooden scholarly treatment that poor Plato so often got in the previous century Though over the last generation or two this has begun finally to change This means that no part of a dialogue may be given emphasis than is warranted by its position in relation to just that dialogue in which it occurs, and no part of a dialogue including the ordinarily isolated and downgraded myths may be neglected because it is of no doctrinal or epistemological interest It has also required attention to the tone of the conversations at all points in their development and attention to the personal interaction between the characters, hitherto dismissed as byplay by many commentators I find nothing to object to here So then, are we to explain the text by the text Unfortunately, this method of immersion in the text would only be infallible if the commentator were also and only a character in the text But he is not and we are not What are the presuppositions and purposes that we interpreters of texts invariably bring to those texts What are the extra textual assumptions Tejera brings to the texts of Plato Tejera has a story to tell, of how the ancient Academicians, Neopythagoreans, Neoplatonists, Idealists and traditionalists Straussian esotericists all have conspired, from the time of Plato til today, to keep the liberal and liberating Platonic dialogues from us all But, of course, this story is not exactly found in the texts of Plato Tejera is aware of this and tries to show that this second move on his part is required by the texts themselves in order to explain the various misinterpretations that have plagued and continue to plague Plato s texts But every commentator introduces his own prejudices Tejera wants to show that Socrates is the privileged speaker, the real center of the dialogues One suspects, comes to suspect, that Tejera, in the end, doesn t really like Plato he likes Socrates And every time that Plato shows us that he Plato is not Socrates Tejera recoils in horror Thus he treats the Eleatic Stranger or Visitor that we meet in Sophist Statesman as a sophist and he treats these two dialogues as merely parodies of sophistry which, of course, in part they are But if the Stranger is merely a Sophist why does he refuse to discuss the delicate subject of the comparison definition of and relations between the Sophist, Statesman and Philosopher before they Stranger, Theaetetus, Theodorus, etc hook up with Socrates Don t the Sophists talk about anything Also, as Stanley Rosen somewhere observed, this notion Stranger as Sophist would be persuasive if Tejera had faced up to the sophistical component within philosophy He also takes the Laws to be a product of the neopythagorean academy A neat trick this any dialogue that does not fit in with what one wants Plato to stand for is dismissed Not that there aren t textual problems with the Laws But saying that when we see that Laws is not by Plato, we can also see what its real importance is it must be taken, and should be studied, as a major founding document of the ecumenical, Syrianized, Romanized and anguished Hellenistic age is to be in danger of tossing out baby with bathwater I really should add that to follow Tejera in an adequate fashion, one really should have read either his Rewriting the History of Ancient Greek Philosophy or The City State Foundations of Western Thought or The Return of the King The Intellectual Warfare Over democratic Athens and if one can only get one I would say read the Return of the King I would also recommend that one also check out Eric Havelock, Preface to Plato While I disagree with Tejera most strongly in his treatment of the non Socratic dialogues I still highly recommend this book He is always informative, intelligent, provocative and sensitive to the nuances in the text and he forces us to work our way through the texts his and Plato s as we read along with him.

  10. says:

    09 24 2004An intelligent attempt to rescue Plato from PlatonismTejera is a very intelligent close reader of Plato He has no patience for the Neoplatonic, Idealist, epistemological or developmental readings of Plato He is also, I think, against the wooden scholarly treatment that poor Plato so often got in the previous century Though over the last generation or two this has begun finally to change This means that no part of a dialogue may be given emphasis than is warranted by its position in relation to just that dialogue in which it occurs, and no part of a dialogue including the ordinarily isolated and downgraded myths may be neglected because it is of no doctrinal or epistemological interest It has also required attention to the tone of the conversations at all points in their development and attention to the personal interaction between the characters, hitherto dismissed as byplay by many commentators I find nothing to object to here So then, are we to explain the text by the text Unfortunately, this method of immersion in the text would only be infallible if the commentator were also and only a character in the text But he is not and we are not What are the presuppositions and purposes that we interpreters of texts invariably bring to those texts What are the extra textual assumptions Tejera brings to the texts of Plato Tejera has a story to tell, of how the ancient Academicians, Neopythagoreans, Neoplatonists, Idealists and traditionalists Straussian esotericists all have conspired, from the time of Plato til today, to keep the liberal and liberating Platonic dialogues from us all But, of course, this story is not exactly found in the texts of Plato Tejera is aware of this and tries to show that this second move on his part is required by the texts themselves in order to explain the various misinterpretations that have plagued and continue to plague Plato s texts But every commentator introduces his own prejudices Tejera wants to show that Socrates is the privileged speaker, the real center of the dialogues One suspects, comes to suspect, that Tejera, in the end, doesn t really like Plato he likes Socrates And every time that Plato shows us that he Plato is not Socrates Tejera recoils in horror Thus he treats the Eleatic Stranger or Visitor that we meet in Sophist Statesman as a sophist and he treats these two dialogues as merely parodies of sophistry which, of course, in part they are But if the Stranger is merely a Sophist why does he refuse to discuss the delicate subject of the comparison definition of and relations between the Sophist, Statesman and Philosopher before they Stranger, Theaetetus, Theodorus, etc hook up with Socrates Don t the Sophists talk about anything Also, as Stanley Rosen somewhere observed, this notion Stranger as Sophist would be persuasive if Tejera had faced up to the sophistical component within philosophy He also takes the Laws to be a product of the neopythagorean academy A neat trick this any dialogue that does not fit in with what one wants Plato to stand for is dismissed Not that there aren t textual problems with the Laws But saying that when we see that Laws is not by Plato, we can also see what its real importance is it must be taken, and should be studied, as a major founding document of the ecumenical, Syrianized, Romanized and anguished Hellenistic age is to be in danger of tossing out baby with bathwater I really should add that to follow Tejera in an adequate fashion, one really should have read either his Rewriting the History of Ancient Greek Philosophy or The City State Foundations of Western Thought or The Return of the King The Intellectual Warfare Over democratic Athens and if one can only get one I would say read the Return of the King I would also recommend that one also check out Eric Havelock, Preface to Plato While I disagree with Tejera most strongly in his treatment of the non Socratic dialogues I still highly recommend this book He is always informative, intelligent, provocative and sensitive to the nuances in the text and he forces us to work our way through the texts his and Plato s as we read along with him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *