François Tanguay-Renaud

Plato's famous and infamous criticism of Homer was the climax of a series of attacks by early thinkers on the first and greatest Greek poet Homer. It triggers an even longer series of responses attempting either to justify further "the old quarrel between philosophy poetry" (Pl. Resp. 607b-c), or, in most cases, to reconcile the two great authors. The so-called Plato-Homer problem is in broad outline twofold, with numberless ramifications and sub-issues. Why does Plato's Republic repeatedly attack and even exile the greatest cultural authority of the Greeks? And why does he do so while quoting Homer abundantly - more than any other author - and even adapting many artistic features of Homeric poetry? This volume concentrates on the various responses to the controversy among Platonically minded writers, while including a few other reactions from just outside that circle. Strategies of reconciliation are many, including both allegorical and non-allegorical approaches, involving the notions of myth, mimesis, inspiration, wisdom, theology, etc. The volume presents original treatments of major figures, such as Porphyry and Proclus, as well lesser-known authors or texts (e.g. Platonic Spuria), and non-Platonists (Xenophon, Aristotle, scholiasts, etc.) who serve as enlightening comparative figures. While recent literature on these questions usually concentrates on single authors, this book details its reception in the Platonic tradition overall.

Some recent studies have shown that the critique of rhetoric in the Gorgias itself has a rhetorical dimension. The following analysis deals only with the first part of the dialogue, in which Socrates questions Gorgias, from two complementary perspec­tives. First, since it is ad hominem in character, Socrates’ argumentation mimics and transforms the techniques of contemporary rhetoric, but its goals are protreptic and ethical rather than eristic. Secondly, insofar as he is the controlling author of the dialogue,, Plato displays strategies that of course are to be distinguished from Socrates’ argumentative strategies - just as the historical Gorgias is to be distinguished from the figure represented by Plato. The distinction here focusses on the problem of interpreting the different ways in which both the character Socrates and the author Plato employ irony and indirect communication.

The commentary of Plato’s Gorgias by Olympiodorus of Alexandria (ca. 505-after 565) is the only ancient commentary of the dialogue that has survived. This little-known and neglected commentary is truly of historical and hermeneutical interest. Beyond its value for our understanding of late Neoplatonism, Olympiodorus’ interpretation can renew in some respects our reading of the Platonic text and can contribute to current methodological debates, as presuppositions traditionally dominant in Plato scholarship (about chronology, dialogue form, dialectic, etc.) are being increasingly questioned. This study concentrates on two fundamental theses of the commentary: (1) the unity of dramatic form and doctrinal content in the Gorgias as read in the light of the Phaedrus and the Republic, and (2) the basis of dialectical agreement (in refutation and maieutics alike), namely the « common notions (koinai ennoiai) ». The last section of this study identifies some strengths and weaknesses of Olympiodorus’ use of the Phaedrus and the Republic, and of the « common notions ».

Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics rests largely on the concept of the classical. According to Gadamer, the classical stands for the continuity and the truth claim of the tradition, as transmitted by the written word. The normative character of the classical is directed against the neutrality and relativism of historicism: understanding does not occur primarily through distancing or methodological reconstruction but through belongingness to, and participation in, the past. The article shows how, given the central importance of dialogue and otherness in Gadamer's theory, the philosopher does not seem to fully do justice to the critical intention of its own dialogical and philological dimensions. On the other hand, it shows also how Gadamer's hermeneutical practice, notably in his rehabilitation of Plato, stresses the learning from otherness more explicitly than does his own theory, thus correcting, as it were, the latter. The article aims, finally, at demonstrating how, by unduly emphasizing the continuity in the encounter between past and present, Gadamer's theory undermines the importance of reconstructing the otherness and specificity of the classical text. /// A hermenêutica filosófica de Gadamer, entendida como uma defesa das humanidades, assenta essencialmente sobre o conceito de clássico. Segundo Gadamer, o clássico representa a continuidade e a pretensão à verdade da tradição tal como nos é transmitida pela palavra escrita. O carácter normativo do clássico em Gadamer constitui assim uma resposta crítica à neutralidade e ao relativismo do historicismo: a compreensão não acontece primariamente graças a um processo de distanciação ou reconstrução metódica, mas sim pelo facto de, desde logo, reconhecermos que temos pertença activa no passado. O presente artigo demonstra como, dada a importância central do diálogo e da alteridade na teoria de Gadamer, ofilósofo acaba por não fazer inteiramente justiça à intenção crítica inerente à dimensão dialógica e filológica do seu próprio pensamento. Mostra-se também, por outro lado, até que ponto a práctica hermenêutica de Gadamer, nomeadamente no que se refere à sua reabilitação de Platão, acaba por sublinhar a nossa aprendizagem da alteridade de uma forma muito mais explícita do que a sua própria teoria parece capaz de fazer. O artigo mostra ainda como, ao sublinhar de forma indevida a continuidade e, com ela, a identidade no encontro entre opassado e opresente, a teoria de Gadamer parece comprometer a importância que se deve dar ao esforço de reconstrucção da alteridade e especificidade do próprio texto clássico

Jeff McMahan rejects the relevance of desert to the morality of self-defense. In Killing in War he restates his rejection and adds to his reasons. We argue that the reasons are not decisive and that the rejection calls for further attention, which we provide. Although we end up agreeing with McMahan that the limits of morally acceptable self-defense are not determined by anyone’s deserts, we try to show that deserts may have some subsidiary roles in the morality of self-defense. We suggest that recognizing this might help McMahan to answer some unanswered questions to which his own position gives rise.

This volume of new essays by an international group of scholars examines the response of Hans-Georg Gadamer to Plato, especially to the Philebus. The book studies Gadamer's interpretative approach to the dialogues and unwritten doctrines of Plato. It also shows how, for Gadamer, reading Plato was intimately interconnected with formulating his own philosophical views. The volume also brings out how Gadamer influenced Donald Davidson in his reading of Plato and his philosophical thought. The volume thus explores a fascinating case-study of the creative reception of Plato by two major twentieth-century philosophers, Gadamer and Davidson, while also clarifying Gadamer's relationship to Heidegger. It will be of interest to scholars and students of Plato, especially on the Philebus, and also to scholars of twentieth-century thought.

This paper examines Plato’s views about the unity of argument and drama, and asks why Plato never made his views on this unity fully explicit. Taking the Gorgias as a case study it is argued that unity rests on the conception of refutative dialectic as justice and on the principle of self-consistency of thought and desire. As compared to the treatise, the dialogue form has the advantage of being able to defend these substantive views in action and thus to demonstrate the performative contradictions in the ideas of one’s opponents.

Similar to parasites, cancer cells depend on their hosts for sustenance, proliferation and reproduction, exploiting the hosts for energy and resources, and thereby impairing their health and fitness. Because of this lifestyle similarity, it is predicted that cancer cells could, like numerous parasitic organisms, evolve the capacity to manipulate the phenotype of their hosts to increase their own fitness. We claim that the extent of this phenomenon and its therapeutic implications are, however, underappreciated. Here, we review and discuss what can be regarded as cases of host manipulation in the context of cancer development and progression. We elaborate on how acknowledging the applicability of these principles can offer novel therapeutic and preventive strategies. The manipulation of host phenotype by cancer cells is one more reason to adopt a Darwinian approach in cancer research.

From an evolutionary perspective, both atavism and somatic evolution/convergent evolution theories can account for the consistent occurrence, and astounding attributes of cancers: being able to evolve from a single cell to a complex organized system, and malignant transformations showing significant similarities across organs, individuals, and species. Here, we first provide an overview of these two hypotheses, including the possibility of them not being mutually exclusive, but rather potentially representing the two extremes of a continuum in which the diversity of cancers can emerge. In reviewing the current literature, we also discuss the criteria that should be applied to discriminate between the two competing theories and to determine their relevant contributions to oncogenesis and cancer progression. Finally, we deliberate on the potential applications of this conceptual framework in developing novel treatment strategies.

Although it was influential for several hundred years after it first appeared, doubts about the authenticity of the Platonic Alcibiades I have unnecessarily impeded its interpretation ever since. It positions itself firmly within the Platonic and Socratic traditions, and should therefore be approached in the same way as most other Platonic dialogues. It paints a vivid portrait of a Socrates in his late thirties tackling the unrealistic ambitions of the youthful Alcibiades, urging him to come to know himself and to care for himself. François Renaud and Harold Tarrant re-examine the drama and philosophy of Alcibiades I with an eye on those interpreters who cherished it most. Modern scholars regularly play down one or more of the religious, erotic, philosophic or dramatic aspects of the dialogue, so ancient Platonist interpreters are given special consideration. This rich study will interest a wide range of readers in ancient philosophy.

What authority do Plato and Aristotle possess in Late Antiquity, specifically for Olympiodorus of Alexandria? According to a current widespread view, the relationship of all Neoplatonists to the two Greek philosophers can be captured by two assumptions : the harmony between the two thinkers and the superiority, even the infallibility, of Plato. The present study first clarifies this notion of harmony in the light of the pedagogical context of the late commentaries and the principle of truth as unity underlying them, and secondly shows that the notion of infallibility hardly applies to Olympiodorus, given the Socratic conception he has of his own exegetical practice and some features of his actual practice.

Die 4. Auflage bringt zunächst die Kommentierung der Präambel und der Art. 1 bis 19 auf den aktuellen Stand von Judikatur und Literatur. Die grundlegende Struktur des Kommentares wurde beibehalten und um neuere Entwicklungen wie die Implikationen der Europäisierung und Digitalisierung sowie der Corona-Pandemie ergänzt.Die Herausgeberschaft des Kommentares hat ab der 4. Auflage Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf übernommen. Auch im Autorenkreis sind personelle Veränderungen zu verzeichnen: Mit Ausnahme von Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, Alexander Thiele und Ferdinand Wollenschläger, die bereits an der 3. Auflage mitgewirkt haben, liegen die Kommentierungen in den Händen neuer Autorinnen und Autoren.Der Kommentar erscheint in drei Bänden und wird nur geschlossen abgegeben.Der Grundgesetz-Kommentar ist Bestandteil des Moduls Verfassungsrecht PREMIUM, das bei beck-online.de erhältlich ist.