Suchergebnisse

In Plato's Symposium eros and paideia draw the fabric of dramatic and rhetorical speeches and, especially, the picture of the relation between Socrates and Alcibiades. This paper will focus, firstly, on two important facts, which are essential for the correct understanding of the dialogue, both of which appear at the beginning. First, it is said that Socrates, Alcibiades and the others (172 b) were present at the famous banquet, and second, that the banquet and the erotic speeches of the participants were so celebrated as to attract the attention for several decades to come. So, the memory of that symposium is thus the memory, far beyond the other symposiasts, and through the erotic speeches, of something precise: that is, a particularly significant relationship, that between Socrates and Alcibiades. What matters most for the aim of this paper is the fact that Alcibiades is considered one of the major reasons for the defeat of Athens and the main cause of the crisis into which the city was plunged during the last years of 5th century BC. Due to the distrust of the city towards the groups of 'philosophers' that remitted to Alcibiades' group, it is no surprise that the so-called Socratics committed themselves to refuting the accusation of Socrates having been Alcibiades' mentor, to the point of reversing the charge. In the same way as the others Plato, also a Socratic, concerns himself with what might be called the 'Alcibiades' Connection'. Realizing there obviously was no way to deny the deep connection between Socrates and Alcibiades, he uses a clever dramatic construction with the intention of operating a political intervention upon the memory of this relationship, that is, of rewriting history, with the intent of relieving him of a more precise charge, which must have especially weighed upon Plato andupon Socrates' memory: of him having been Alcibiades' lover/mentor. This Platonic apology is based, ultimately, in a clever rhetorical strategy, which emphasizes the now traditional sexual paranomia of Alcibiades, in order tomake him guilty of an attempted excessive and outrageous seduction not only of Socrates, but of the polis itself. Reusing comic and oratorical/rhetorical motifs of his time, therefore, Plato deepens the J'accuse against Alcibiades, trying to withdraw him from the orbit of Socrates and the Socratics. ; In Plato's Symposium eros and paideia draw the fabric of dramatic and rhetorical speeches and, especially, the picture of the relation between Socrates and Alcibiades. This paper will focus, firstly, on two important facts, which are essential for the correct understanding of the dialogue, both of which appear at the beginning. First, it is said that Socrates, Alcibiades and the others (172 b) were present at the famous banquet, and second, that the banquet and the erotic speeches of the participants were so celebrated as to attract the attention for several decades to come. So, the memory of that symposium is thus the memory, far beyond the other symposiasts, and through the erotic speeches, of something precise: that is, a particularly significant relationship, that between Socrates and Alcibiades. What matters most for the aim of this paper is the fact that Alcibiades is considered one of the major reasons for the defeat of Athens and the main cause of the crisis into which the city was plunged during the last years of 5th century BC. Due to the distrust of the city towards the groups of 'philosophers' that remitted to Alcibiades' group, it is no surprise that the so-called Socratics committed themselves to refuting the accusation of Socrates having been Alcibiades' mentor, to the point of reversing the charge. In the same way as the others Plato, also a Socratic, concerns himself with what might be called the 'Alcibiades' Connection'. Realizing there obviously was no way to deny the deep connection between Socrates and Alcibiades, he uses a clever dramatic construction with the intention of operating a political intervention upon the memory of this relationship, that is, of rewriting history, with the intent of relieving him of a more precise charge, which must have especially weighed upon Plato andupon Socrates' memory: of him having been Alcibiades' lover/mentor. This Platonic apology is based, ultimately, in a clever rhetorical strategy, which emphasizes the now traditional sexual paranomia of Alcibiades, in order tomake him guilty of an attempted excessive and outrageous seduction not only of Socrates, but of the polis itself. Reusing comic and oratorical/rhetorical motifs of his time, therefore, Plato deepens the J'accuse against Alcibiades, trying to withdraw him from the orbit of Socrates and the Socratics.

The following essay presents a close reading of the Platonic dialogueAlcibiades I. In the text, Socrates is depicted as a young teacher approachingyoung Alcibiades, a future prominent and hubristic ruler of post-Pericleandemocratic Athens. In his propadeutic task, Socrates appeals to Alcibiades'unlimited self-love in order to gain his confdence and attention, rousinghis spirited ambition and keen intellect, trying to tempt him into becominga philosopher. We explore the roots of Alcibiades' character, his desirefor primacy intermingled with his fear of failure. For motives that will beexplored in this essay, the mayeutic education of Alcibiades towards thelife of wisdom not only failed, but also had undesired political outcomes.Would a more powerful Socrates have been able to procure Alcibiades'ultimate allegiance? The Alcibiades I sheds light on the roots and potentiallimitations of the study of Platonic political philosophy. ; Este ensayo propone una lectura del diálogo platónico Alcibíades I. En eltexto, vemos a Sócrates como joven maestro aproximándose al tambiénjoven Alcibíades, quien sabemos se convertirá en un prominente y hubristicogobernante de la Atenas democrática post-Periclea. En su tarea propedéutica,Sócrates apela al amor propio ilimitado de Alcibíades con el fn de ganar suconfanza y atención, incitando su espíritu de ambición y su agudo intelecto,tratando de tentarlo hacia la vida flosófca. En el texto exploramos las raícesdel carácter de Alcibíades, su deseo de primacía enlazado con su temoral fracaso. La educación mayéutica de Alcibíades hacia la vida flosófcano sólo falló, sino que además tuvo indeseables consecuencias políticas.¿Habría sido un Sócrates más poderoso capaz de procurarse la lealtad últimade Alcibíades? El Alcibíades I arroja luz sobre las raíces y limitacionespotenciales del estudio de la flosofía política platónica.

This paper offers a case for recognizing the Alcibiades i as a contribution to political philosophy. In so doing, it also shows that the dialogue is much more unified than it is usually considered to be in the scholarly literature. The paper focuses on the connection between two passages: the apparently aporetic passage of 124e1–127d5, in which Socrates questions Alcibiades about the content of political expertise; and Socrates' exhortation to Alcibiades to get to know himself as his soul (127e9–133c6). The section on self-knowledge provides central conceptual tools that help us articulate the political philosophy that is implicit in the aporetic passage. First, knowledge of one's humanity is key to politics, understood as an expertise that has people as its proper object. Second, politics deals with human beings qua human beings, not in accidental specialisations. Third, the section on self-knowledge instantiates political rule in the conversation between Socrates and Alcibiades. Fourth, the later section helps resolve the dilemma between friendship as unanimity and friendship as justice that brought 124e-127d to its aporetic close. Finally, the combination of the two passages yields two scenarios of political rule: one of education and one of cooperation. It shows, in essence, what is involved in Alcibiades' description of politics as an expertise that deals with people: it is rule of fellow rulers.

Abstract
Modifying the conjecture of Wolfgang Helbig (1861) by means of the distinction between Xenophon and his various narrators introduced by Benjamin McCloskey (2017), this paper uses the insights of Hartvig Frisch (1942) to show how drawing a distinction between the first-person speaker in pseudo-Xenophon's Constitution of the Athenians and its author indicates that the former is Alcibiades and the latter is Xenophon himself.

"Politics of the Soul in the Alcibiades is an important book that develops an interpretation of the essence of the political (politics of the soul) as eluci-dated through the analysis of Socrates' practice of "self-cultivation" or care for the soul. In the process, it also confronts the issue of the problematic relationship between philosopher and statesman that is present to Plato's dialogues. The analysis contributes the following to ongoing scholarship: (1) It offers a detailed and critical discussion of the neglected and oft times ma-ligned dialogue the Alcibiades; (2) It contributes to the reinterpretation of the traditional view of the Socratic method arguing for elenchus as an expres-sion and instantiation of the normative politics it seeks to define; (3) In de-veloping a unique account of Socratic participatory democracy, it has the subordinate aim of demonstrating the value of Socratic practice over our own impoverished practice of impoverished political discourse. The text is suita-ble for scholars working in the fields of philosophy, ancient Greek philoso-phy, and classical studies. It would serve as an excellent secondary text for graduate level courses reading Plato's dialogues because it contains an ex-tensive and sustained discussion of Socratic method. In addition to graduate students, it is appropriate for college students pursuing courses in philoso-phy in their 3rd or 4th year of study. Laypersons who are intellectually curious about philosophy, particularly those interested in Socrates, will be attracted to this text"--

En El Banquete de Platón, al elogiar Alcibíades a Sócrates, hace pública su loca pasión por éste. En 1961 Jacques Lacan estudiará exhaustivamente ese Diálogo, afirmando que es la descripción de la transferencia más antigua y larga que se conozca; trabaja la erótica de la paiderastía (erastès-erómenos) y revela al agalma, como antecedente de su concepto de objeto a. Philippe Julien (1985) y Danielle Arnoux, actualmente, retoman y despliegan valiosos aspectos de esa original elaboración lacaniana.