PLATO SURVEY
Philosophy 5313 900
2006 CALENDER
(Tentative)
WEEK #1 [1/17]
Introduction
Required reading: Seventh Letter (pp.
1646-1667) & Kraut 1992, “Introduction to the Study of Plato”
in Kraut 1992,
WEEK #2 [1/24]
Intellectual Background & The Socratic
Plato’s Apology is (prima facie) a defense of Socrates’ life as a philosopher. How does Socrates characterize that life? What is his goal? And, how does he intend to achieve it?
Required primary reading: Apology & Crito.
Required secondary reading: Vlastos 1985, “Socrates’ Disavowal of Knowledge,” Philosophical Quarterly 35, 1-31. (on reserve in department library and JSTOR).
Recommended reading: Irwin 1992, “Plato: The Intellectual Background,” in Kraut 1992, pp. 51-90.
Nussbaum 1980, “Aristophanes and Socrates on Learning and Practical Wisdom,” Yale Classical Studies 26, pp. 43-97.
Brickhouse and Smith 1989, Socrates on Trial, esp. pp. 87-108.
Other good stuff: Reeve 1989, Socrates in the Apology.
Kraut 1984, Socrates and the State.
WEEK #3 [1/31]
The Socratic Elenchos
These three dialogues are paradigmatic of Socrates’ philosophical method - known as the elenchos. How does this method proceed and what does it aim to achieve?
Required primary reading: Laches, & Charmides (I assume you have already read Euthyphro.)
Required secondary reading: Vlastos 1994, “The Socratic Elenchus: Method is All,” in Vlastos 1994, Socratic Studies, pp. 1-38 (on reserve in department library).
Recommended secondary reading: Wolfsdorf 2003, “Socrates’ Pursuit of Definitions,” Phronesis 271-312
Benson 2000, Socratic Wisdom, Chapters 2-7, pp. 17-167.
Brickhouse and Smith 1994, Plato’s Socrates, “Socrates Method” and “Socrates Epistemology,” pp. 3-29 & 30-72.
Other good stuff: Kahn 1996, Plato and the Socratic Dialogue.
Vlastos 1991, Socrates, Ironist and Moral Philosopher.
Santas 1979, Socrates: Philosophy in Plato’s Early Dialogues.
Irwin 1977, Plato’s Moral Theory.
Beversluis 2000, Cross-examining Socrates: a defense of the interlocutors in Plato’s early dialogues.
Prior 1998, “Plato and the ‘Socratic Fallacy’” Phronesis 97-113
Dancy 2004, Plato’s Introduction of Forms.
WEEK #4 [2/7]
The Unity of Virtue
In the Protagoras Socrates argues for his unity of virtues doctrine. What does this doctrine amount to? How is it argued for and how successful is the argument? Can philosophers/non-philosophers be virtuous?
Required primary reading: Protagoras (esp. 328d-334c & 348c-362a)
Required secondary reading: Penner 1992, “The Unity of Virtue,” in Benson 1992, Essays on the Philosophy of Socrates, pp. 162-184. (on reserve in department library and JSTOR).
Recommended secondary reading: Vlastos 1981, “The Unity of Virtues in the Protagoras,” ed. Vlastos, Platonic Studies, pp. 221-265.
Other good stuff: Taylor 1976, Plato’s Protagoras.
Devereux 1992, “The Unity of Virtues in the Protagoras and Laches,” Philosophical Review, 765-790.
Penner 1992, “What Laches and Nicias Miss - and Whether Socrates Thinks Courage is Merely a Part of Virtue,” Ancient Philosophy, 1-27.
Beversluis 2000, Cross-examining Socrates: a defense of the interlocutors in Plato’s early dialogues, 257-291
.
WEEK #5 [2/14] -
Virtue, Knowledge, and Happiness
In the Gorgias Socrates refutes Polus’ view that the virtuous are most unhappy and the vicious the happiest. What is Socrates argument and how plausible is it? Can philosophers/non-philosophers be happy?
Required primary reading: Gorgias (esp. 461b-481b) maybe 506
Required secondary reading: Brickhouse and Smith 1994, “Socratic Ethics,” 103-136. (on reserve in department library).
Recommended secondary reading: Kahn 1983, “Drama and Dialectic in Plato’s Gorgias,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, pp. 75-121.
Vlastos 1991, “Does Socrates Cheat?” in Vlastos 1991, pp. 132-156.
Other good stuff: Irwin, Plato’s Gorgias 1979.
McTighe 1992, “Socrates on Desire for the Good and the Involuntariness of Wrongdoing: Gorgias 4661-468e,” in Benson 1992, pp. 263-297.
Beversluis 2000, Cross-examining Socrates: a defense of the interlocutors in Plato’s early dialogues, 291-376.
WEEK #6 [2/21]
The Theory of Recollection & the Method of Hypothesis
Plato introduces the theory of recollection and the method of hypothesis in response to Meno’s paradox. What is Meno’s paradox? How do the theory of recollection and the method of hypothesis purport to resolve it?
Required primary reading: Meno (esp. 80a-100c)
Required secondary reading: Fine 1992, “Inquiry in the Meno,” in Kraut 1992, pp. 200-226 (on reserve in department library.)
Recommended secondary reading: Benson 1990, “Meno, the Slave-boy, and the Elenchos,” Phronesis, 128-158.
Benson 2003, “The Method of Hypothesis in the Meno,” BACAP, pp.95-126.
Nehamas 1992, “Meno’s Paradox and Socrates as a Teacher,” in Benson 1992, pp. 298-316.
Irwin 1974, “Recollection and Plato’s Moral Theory,” Review of Metaphysics, pp. 752-772.
Scott 1995, Recollection and experience: Plato’s theory of learning and its successors.
Other good stuff: Bluck 1964, Plato’s Meno.
Vlastos 1965, “Anamnesis in the Meno,” Dialogue, pp. 143-167.
White 1974, “Inquiry,” Review of Metaphysics, 289-310.
Sharples 1999, “More on Anamnesis in the Meno,” Phronesis, 353-357.
Dimas 1996, “True Belief in the Meno,” OSAP 1-32.
Gentzler 1996, “Recollection and ‘the problem of the Socratic elenchus’,” BACAP, 257-295.
Weiss 2001, Virtue in the Cave: Moral Inquiry in Plato’s Meno.
WEEK #7 [2/28]
Recollection, Hypothesis and Forms in the Phaedo
In the Phaedo Plato argues for the immortality of the soul. In the course of these arguments he refers to the theory of recollection, the method of hypothesis, and the theory of Forms. What are Forms? And why does Plato think that they exist? How, if at all are they related to the theory of recollection and the method of hypothesis?
Required primary reading: Phaedo
Required secondary reading: Cherniss 1971, “The Philosophical Economy of the Theory of Ideas,” in Vlastos 1971, Plato: A Collection of Critical Essays, pp. 16-27. (on reserve in department library).
Recommended secondary reading: White 1992, “Plato’s Metaphysical Epistemology,” in Kraut 1992, pp. 277-310.
Vlastos 1965, “Degrees of Reality in Plato,” in Vlastos, Platonic Studies, pp. 58-75.
Other good stuff: Bostock 1986, Plato’s Phaedo.
Gallop 1975, Plato, Phaedo.
Patterson 1985, Image and Reality in Plato’s Metaphysics.
Prior 1985, Unity and Development in Plato’s Metaphysics.
Ross 1953, Plato’s Theory of Ideas.
Vlastos 1969, “Reasons and Causes in the Phaedo,” Philosophical Review, pp. 291-325.
Penner 1987, The Ascent from Nominalism.
Moravcsik 1992, Plato and Platonism.
Dancy 2004, Plato’s Introduction of Forms.
Franklin, Lee. 2005. “Recollection and Philosophical Reflection in Plato’s Phaedo.” Phronesisá50(4):á289-314.
Rowe, Christopher. 1993. “Explanation in Phaedo 99c6-102a8.”
Rowe, Christopher. 2005. “What Difference Do
Forms Make for Platonic Epistemology?” In Virtue,
Norms and Objectivity, ed. Christopher Gill.
van Eck, Job. 1994. “******** *** *******: On Phaedo 99d-103c.” Ancient Philosophyá14:21-40.
van Eck, Job. 1996.
“Resailing Socrates’ ********* ******: A
Criticism of Rowe’s ‘Explanation in Phaedo
99c6-102a8.’”
WEEK #8 [3/7]
More on Recollection, Hypothesis, and Forms
In the Symposium, Plato discusses the ascent of the soul to the Form of Beauty and in the Phaedrus, Plato introduces the analogy of the chariot and the souls vision of the Forms. What, if anything, do these passages indicate about Plato’s classical theory?
Required primary reading: Symposium (esp. 210-212) and Phaedrus (esp. 243e-257b)
Recommended secondary reading: Moravcsik, 1971, “Reason and Eros in the ‘Ascent’ Passage of the Symposium,” ed. Anton & Kustas, pp. 285-302.
Reeve, 1994, “Telling the Truth about Love: Plato’s Symposium,” in BACAP 8, pp. 89-133.
Ferrari, 1987, Listening to the Cicadas: A Study of Plato’s Phaedrus.
Griswold, 1986, Self-Knowledge in Plato’s Phaedrus.
WEEK #9 [3/21] [Western APA]
Structure of the Republic & Definition of Justice
In Book IV of the Republic Plato defines justice in the city and justice in the individual. What is the point of this discussion and how successful is it? Can philosophers/non-philosophers be virtuous?
Required primary reading: Republic I-IV
Required secondary reading: White 1984, “The Classification of Goods in Plato’s Republic,” Journal of the History of Philosophy, pp. 393-421. (on reserve in department library).
Recommended secondary reading: Kirwin 1965, “Glaucon’s Challenge,” Phronesis, pp. 162-173.
Cooper 1977, “The Psychology of Justice in Plato,” APQ, pp. 151-
Other good stuff: Annas 1981, An Introduction to Plato’s Republic.
Reeve 1988, Philosopher-Kings: The Argument of Plato’s Republic.
Irwin 1995, Plato’s Ethics.
[3/14] [SPRING BREAK]
WEEK #10 [3/28]
The Argument from Opposites (475-480) and the Analogies
In Books VI and VII Plato relates three analogies - the Sun, the Line, and the Cave. How do these analogies fit together? What is their point? How successful are they in achieving their point? What, if anything, do they tell us about Plato's classical theory?
Required primary reading: Republic V-VII
Required secondary reading: Fine 1990, “Knowledge and Belief in Republic V-VII,” in Everson 1990, Companions to Ancient Thought: Epistemology, pp. 85-115. (on reserve in department library).
Recommended secondary reading: Smith 1996, “Plato’s Divided Line,” Ancient Philosophy, pp. 25-46.
Karasmanis 1988, “Plato’s Republic: The Line and the Cave,” Apeiron, pp. 147-171.
Strang 1986, “Plato’s Analogy of the Cave,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, pp. 19-34.
WEEK #11 [4/4]
Dialectic and Philosophers-Rulers
What is the nature of the nature of the philosophical method recommended in book VI - known as dialectic?
Required primary reading: Republic VIII-X
Required
secondary reading: Annas 1981, An Introduction to Plato’s
Republic, pp. 272-293. (on
reserve in department library).
Recommended
secondary reading: Gonzalez, Francisco J. 1998. Dialectic and
Dialogue: Plato’s Practice of Philosophical Inquiry.
WEEK #12 [4/11]
Knowledge as Perception
The first definition of knowledge proposed by Theaetetus is that knowledge is perception. How is this definition related to Protagorean relativism and Heraclitean flux? Why does Plato reject this definition? What if anything does this tell us about the nature of classical Platonism and the nature of philosophy?
Required primary reading: Theaetetus 142a-186e
Required secondary reading: Burnyeat 1976, “Protagoras and Self-Refutation in Plato’s Theaetetus,” Philosophical Review, pp. 172-195. (on reserve in department library and JSTOR).
Recommended secondary reading: McDowell 1973, Plato Theaetetus.
Bostock 1988, Plato’s Theaetetus.
Burnyeat 1982,
“Idealism and Greek Philosophy: What Descartes Saw and
Burnyeat 1990, The Theaetetus of Plato, pp. 7-65.
Burnyeat 1976, “Protagoras and Self-Refutation in Later Greek Philosophy,” Philosophical Review, pp. 44-69.
Armstrong, John. 2004. “After the Ascent:
Plato on Becoming Like God.”
WEEK #13 [4/18]
Knowledge & True Belief
What are Theaetetus’ second and third definitions of knowledge? What are Plato’s reasons for rejecting them?
Required primary reading: Theaetetus 187a-end.
Required secondary reading: Fine 1979, “Knowledge and Logos in the Theaetetus,” Philosophical Review, pp. 367-397. (on reserve in department library and JSTOR).
Recommended secondary reading: Benson 1992, “Why is there a discussion of false belief in the Theaetetus?” JHP, 171-199.
Nehamas 1983, “Episteme and Logos in Plato’s Later Thought,” Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie, pp. 11-36.
Burnyeat 1980, “Socrates and the Jury, Part I,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, pp. 173-191.
Barnes 1980, “Socrates and the Jury, Part II,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, pp. 193-206.
Shields 1999, “The logos of ‘logos’: the 206c-210b,” Apeiron, 107-124
WEEK #14 [4/25] [Central APA]
The Third Man Argument and Late Plato
In the Parmenides Plato gives an argument that has come to be called the Third Man Argument. How does the argument go, and what does in indicate about Plato’s view of the Forms?
Required primary reading: Parmenides (esp. 130d-135d)
Required secondary reading: Meinwald 1992, “Good-bye to the Third Man,” in Kraut 1992, pp. 365-397. (on reserve in department library).
Recommended secondary reading:
Meinwald 1991, Plato’s Parmenides.
Cherniss, H. 1957. “The Relation of the Timaeus to Plato’s Later Dialogues.” Journal of Philologyá78:225-66.
Geach, P. 1956. “The Third Man Again.” Philosophical Reviewá65:72-82.
Owen, G. E. L. 1953. “The Place of the Timaeus in Plato’s Dialogues.” Classical Quarterlyá2 <ns>:79-95.
Rickless, Samuel. 1998. “How Parmenides Saved the Theory of Forms.” Philosophical Reviewá107:501-54.
Sellars, Wilfrid. 1955. “Vlastos and
the ‘Third
Sellars, Wilfrid. 1967. “Vlastos and
the ‘Third Man’: A Rejoinder.” In Philosophical
Perspectives.
Vlastos, Gregory. 1955. “Addenda to the Third Man Argument: A Reply to Professor Sellars.” Philosophical Reviewá64:438-48.
Vlastos, Gregory. 1956. “Postscript to the Third Man: A Reply to Mr. Geach.” Philosophical Reviewá65:83-94.
Vlastos, Gregory. 1965.
“The Third Man Argument in the Parmenides.” In Studies in Plato’s Metaphysics, ed. R. E. Allen.
WEEK #15 [5/2]
Open
COURSE REQUIREMENTS
Papers
Length: You may write either two short (7 to 10 page) papers or one longer (15 to 20 page) paper (with reasonable margins and font sizes).
Topics: I will not formally suggest specific topics. Part of the point of these assignments is for you to practice coming up with topics on your own. Acceptable sorts of papers include, but are not limited to, any of the following (taken alone or in some combination): [a] interpretation of Plato’s terminology (e.g., showing that it is more or less perspicuous than it seems); [b] interpretation of Plato’s argument (e.g., an effort to illuminate the argument’s premises, structure, conclusion, purpose, importance, etc.); [c] evaluation of Plato’s argument or position on some issue; [d] “reconstruction” of Plato’s argument (e.g., at attempt to remedy a lacuna in the argument by introducing premises Plato would likely hold); [e] “explanation” of how Plato came to propound some weak argument, or to hold some implausible position; and [f] location of an inconsistency or “tension”, or dissolution of an apparent inconsistency or “tension” in Plato.
Additional reading (whether in secondary or primary sources) over and above the required reading is not required, but highly recommended especially for the long paper. Two qualifications, however, are in order: First, these are well-researched textual studies. You should know the assigned primary texts very well. Consequently, in the vast majority of cases I expect numerous citations of Plato’s text. Second, if you are having trouble coming up with a topic, I have always found the secondary literature quite helpful in this regard. Indeed, I have found it to be generally an invaluable resource in coming to understand Plato as well as other historical figures. If you want to know what a history of philosophy paper looks like - its form, its typical thesis statement, etc. - read the history literature.
Due Dates: The papers may be handed in any time during the semester. BUT I will not accept more than one paper of the short papers after spring break, nor will I accept a long paper if I do not have a thesis statement, bibliography, and rough argument structure of the paper before spring break.
Seven Outlines
A one page outline of the argument structure of one of the dialogues (or portions of dialogues) required each week is due 7 of the 14 weeks of the semester. You may chose any 7 weeks you would like, but no more than 3 can come from the first 6 weeks. These outlines should be typed and handed in at the beginning of the class for which the primary reading is required. (Late outlines will not be accepted.) They will be graded on a satisfactory/unsatisfactory basis. The course grade will be dropped half a grade for each unsatisfactory outline.
Ten
Ten short 100 to 200 word paragraph are due for the required secondary reading on the date for which the reading is required. State the thesis of the paper in one sentence and then outline the general argument for the thesis in a few sentences. (Late paragraphs will not be accepted.) They will be graded on a satisfactory/unsatisfactory basis. The course grade will be dropped half a grade for each unsatisfactory outline.
1