Harmonia

Washington D.C.

2011-12-31T22:45:00.023+01:00

A beautiful glimpse in Washington D.C., New Year's Eve, National Gallery of Art: It seems as if the landscape has grown only in order to accommodate Ginevra di Benci, painted by da Vinci (the only da Vinci in the U.S.). Check in comparison another, totally different relation between background and foreground in El Greco's Laocoon:

The background, so at least it seemed to my staring eyes, is being formed at the very moment of the composition, in order to integrate, or rather not to integrate the foreground. This was one interest and focus during our visit today. We were disappointed not to find the Cézanne room but four out of his six paintings, which were supposed to be on display, scattered in this impressive museum, the National Gallery of Art. And there were many surprises, pearls that emerged unexpectedly, like Correggio's Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine:

Happy New Year, dear friends.
PS: I also like the American Landmark Theaters. We watched Cronenberg's "A Dangerous Method" (to be screened in German cinemas under the misleading title: "Eine dunkle Begierde", whereas not the desire is here at stake, but the method). I would prefer a more "European" direction though, with more content on the dialogue and the hot debates between Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, beyond what we read in wikipedia. The film was fine nonetheless.
Back to Plato and Aristotle and my seminar on the concept of pleasure. I could not have wished a better start for 2012!

Chora in Plato's Timaeus

2011-08-17T22:06:00.014+02:00

I am excited about the meeting we are organizing together with Jonathan (Beere), which will take place on September 19 and 20. This is one way in which Berlin undertakes dialogue, discusses and reconsiders debates, and promotes present and future research; this is one way in which Berlin realizes an ideal of dialogue under the aegis of TOPOI Excellence Cluster.

Here is the official announcement of our goals: The aim is to discuss some prominent and some new answers to the question: How should we understand the third entity which Timaeus introduces and labels receptacle or ‘chora’? This Platonic notion has been a bone of contention in both ancient and modern debates. Admittedly there have been some valuable contributions in Plato research. Nonetheless the problem of how we can work against the very influential Aristotelian exegesis has not been adequately focussed on.

Speakers:

Jonathan Beere
The Explanatory Role of Chora

Sarah Broadie
The Receptacle: an Ontological or a Cosmological Requirement?

George Karamanolis
The Reception of the Receptacle: Platonists on the Chora

Edward N. Lee
Mother CHORA and Her Children

Georgia Mouroutsou
Reading Plato Backwards: from Timaeus 52d to 48e.

Commentators:

Andreas Anagnostopoulos
Jenny Bryan
Pieter Sjoerd Hasper
Christopher Noble
Jacob Rosen

For further details you may consult: www.topoi.org/event/platos-chora/
If you wish to ask more about, or attend our workshop on chora, feel free to contact me.

Terrence Malick screened in Berlin

2011-06-16T16:46:00.007+02:00

Just a few words: Watch the film "The Tree of Life". It is a gem. Malick is not going downhill, not in the least. The film would not be worse without the bridge at the very end, but never mind. More I shall be able to say after surviving the summer semester with the Philebus, Aristotle, Alcinous and other pure pleasures.

Tristan-und-Isolde

2011-04-13T21:16:00.018+02:00

Tristan
…Stürb’ ich nun ihr (der Liebe),
Der so gern ich sterbe,
Wie könnte die Liebe
Mit mir sterben,
Die ewig lebende
Mit mir enden?
Doch stürbe nie seine Liebe,
Wie stürbe dann Tristan
Seiner Liebe?
Isolde
Doch unsere Liebe,
Heißt sie nicht Tristan
und – Isolde?
Dies süße Wörtlein: und,
Was es bindet,
Der Liebe Bund,
Wenn Tristan stürb’,
Zerstört’ es nicht der Tod?

Anfang April bin ich zur Oper gegangen und habe die letzte Aufführung von Tristan und Isolde an der Deutschen Oper Berlin miterlebt. Obgleich die Regie sehr kritisch beurteilt wurde, und der weltberühmte, britische Regisseur, Graham Vick, nach der Premiere sogar ausgebuht wurde, war ich begeistert, wenn auch zu Anfang zugegebenermaßen in Erstaunen versetzt. Das Theater ist mir vertrauter als die Oper. Bis jetzt habe ich die Theater-Regie eher mit der Gestaltung des Raumes verbunden und die Gestaltung der Zeit als die Aufgabe der Film-Regie betrachtet. Am 3. April wurde ich aber tiefst überrascht und sollte zum ersten mal die Sauberkeit meiner gerade erwähnten “Arbeitsverteilung” in Frage stellen: Graham Vick hat es meines Erachtens geschafft, “Zeit” auf der Bühne zu gestalten: das war menschliche Zeitlichkeit, Lebenszeit, ohne Zeitpfeil dennoch, weil der Tod sowohl rechts als auch links lag. Er hat weder gelauert; noch ist er plötzlich aufgetreten, sondern war die ganze Zeit, die durch die Musik ermessen wurde, da. Und mitten in dieser, menschlichen Zeitlichkeit klingen die Worte der zwei Liebenden, die die Präsenz von einander eine Ewigkeit lang “haben” wollen. Was für ein Besitz ist das? Was für eine Präsenz und was für eine Ewigkeit?
Sehr selten haben wir das Glück, ein klassisches Stück mitzuerleben, das auf eine ebenfalls grandiose Weise übertragen oder aufgeführt wird. Wie oft erlebt man Regisseure beim Scheitern, die großen Wert darauf gelegt haben, ihre Aufführung sehr stark auszuprägen und die geehrten Stücke zu aktualisieren!
Es ist eine unermesslich schwere Last auf den Schultern der Regisseure, ein autoritatives Kunstwerk zu interpretieren. Die interpretierende Haltung, die ich am meisten ehre, nenne ich “mimetisch”, wobei das Mimetische nicht als bloß passiv, sondern einerseits außerordentlich aufnehmend andererseits innovativ (um)gestaltend verstanden werden sollte. Nach meinen bisherigen Erfahrungen gelingt es meistens, wenn der Regisseur einen Weg entdeckt, um sich auf der Ebene des Allgemeinen zu bewegen.
Wie Graham Vick.
Bei diesem Tristan habe ich am seltenen Glück einer solchen “mimetischen Aneignung” teilgenommen.
P.S.: Es gab gewisse Momente bei der Regie, die ich nicht vertragen konnte und hier auf sich beruhen lasse, weil die Errungenschaft von keinem negativen Detail überschattet werden darf oder kann.

2011-03-16T15:50:00.016+01:00

Japan's Stroke of Fate

2011-03-15T12:09:00.017+01:00

What should I write? That I am doing quite fine and coping with Middle Platonism and I finally found my appropriate start with this era? And that the work on Alcinous is developing well? And that I am happy that I will soon experience „Tristan und Isolde“ in Berlin's Deutsche Oper?
The entire world catches its breath because of Japan’s stroke of fate. Last summer I encountered the hospitality of Japanese people and enjoyed the chats with Japanese Plato scholars. Professor Noburu Notomi confirms that he and his family, and most colleagues are safe. They are hoping to hear good news from the ones who had bad luck and were at the wrong place at the wrong time. We are all hoping for good news.
The situation at the nuclear plants keeps on escalating, as you all know.
What can I say and how can I write? An opinionated and demanding Greek „kid“ would stare at its dear, present Divine, and would speak as follows: „I wish to have some arguments for divine providence: here and now. Right away. It is high time that you steer again.“
For my part, I will remain silent in my blog for a while, as I find this is the only appropriate thing to do.

Plato and Friends, and Aristotle

2011-02-09T10:47:00.025+01:00

In this winter term, I am attending Jonathan Beere's lecture on Aristotle's Natural Philosophy. He just went through the second book of the Physics. I had some difficulties to cope with Aristotle against my Plato-background (the Timaeus and above all Laws X). But the initial awkwardness has given way to my admiration. And the more I understand the second book, the more I appreciate what but mostly how Aristotle learned from Plato.
The following is mere fiction, needless to say. My blog is the appropriate place also for sharing such "amazing" pleasure, which is "not to be repented of" (a playful combination of ἀμήχανος ἡδονή, PA I5, and ἀμεταμέλητος ἡδονή, Tim. 59d2):

A bunch of people, among them Plato and other friends, have been listening attentively to Aristotle's lecture. Plato had an aversion to partisans and had only friends instead. At the end, Plato addresses Aristotle with the following words:

It was lovely to follow your lecture. We did not want to interrupt you for many reasons. One of them was that it is only now, after you elucidated how necessity appears in nature, that we are able to say something. Your argument is complete. And how you have learnt from my writing! But now I have to distance myself from my admiration! You know how vehemently I could critisize you, had I intended to. I could just draw upon my tenth book of the Laws and characterize you a materialist: the simple bodies without soul?! But no, no, you know I want to receive your argument and understand you in your difference. You want to put the matter-form dualism to the fore whereas I highlight the body-soul dualism by the end of my career. Go for it! You know we are open-minded here. And how I can tell that the understanding of my philosophy will suffer because of your decisions and distinctions! But how could I blame you for this? To come to think of it, I even like improving my opponents. But what about you? I could turn you into an opponent only because of our most intimate agreement. But no, let me do it my own way. Let us start with a couple of basic agreements: We are both against reductionism, right? We are also both against disjunctions: Oh, how you have learnt from me!
You are my friend. But more than friendship I appreciate accuracy. D'accord, you are right, of course truth is even prior, but let us stick to accuracy for now. You recall that even my cave dwellers raise claim on truth and being. Dear me, we do not have to worry about this science-fiction scenario; for this chat accuracy is sufficient. You have always accused me of not expressing myself adequately, right? But I didn't take it personally. You even sometimes dared to call me "the Eternal Female" that is out of grasp for anyone. Admittedly I took this personally, dear fellow, but as long as we at least agree that I am not a Sceptic nor a sophist, I can live with that! Let me cut the long story short: I enjoyed your lecture but I have to confess, I am still at sea. Let me go to the gist. I would like to raise one single question: Where from does the distinction "proteron-husteron" come into nature if not from your anthropocentrism? At least we positioned soul into the center of the universe and not human beings. And do not tell me God is in the center and you have two kinds of final cause, which you always have up your sleeve. Do I recall rightly? Didn't you appeal to this distinction somewhere in your lecture? If you ask me, theocentricism is the other side of the coin, a single coin.

Well, I can easily foretell that you are going to provoke puzzlement but also serious philosophical aporia to generations of students and scholars. They will debate on your missing accuracy. But spell it out please. Put your cards on the table for me, and I promise not to pin your secrets down, nor to publish any notes on these Unwritten Doctrines of yours. You do not like secrets, which is another convergence. I brought you up in my Academy, remember? Now I shall remain silent and lend you my ears, my dearest fellow.

...Not to be continued.

PS: Just for the record: Second sunny day in a row in Berlin. A third one will persuade me that winter is calling it a day!
PPS: Last but not least, greetings Michael.

Τη γλώσσα μου έδωσαν ελληνική. Το σπίτι φτωχικό στις αμμουδιές του Ομήρου.

2011-01-31T23:16:00.009+01:00

ΙΘΑΚΗ

Σὰ βγεῖς στὸν πηγαιμὸ γιὰ τὴν Ἰθάκη,
νὰ εὔχεσαι νά ῾ναι μακρὺς ὁ δρόμος,
γεμάτος περιπέτειες, γεμάτος γνώσεις.

Τοὺς Λαιστρυγόνας καὶ τοὺς Κύκλωπας,
τὸν θυμωμένο Ποσειδῶνα μὴ φοβᾶσαι,
τέτοια στὸν δρόμο σου ποτέ σου δὲν θὰ βρεῖς,
ἂν μέν᾿ ἡ σκέψις σου ὑψηλή, ἂν ἐκλεκτὴ
συγκίνησις τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ σῶμα σου ἀγγίζει.

Τοὺς Λαιστρυγόνας καὶ τοὺς Κύκλωπας,
τὸν ἄγριο Ποσειδῶνα δὲν θὰ συναντήσεις,
ἂν δὲν τοὺς κουβανεῖς μὲς στὴν ψυχή σου,
ἂν ἡ ψυχή σου δὲν τοὺς στήνει ἐμπρός σου.

Νὰ εὔχεσαι νά ῾ναι μακρὺς ὁ δρόμος.
Πολλὰ τὰ καλοκαιρινὰ πρωινὰ νὰ εἶναι
ποῦ μὲ τί εὐχαρίστηση, μὲ τί χαρὰ
θὰ μπαίνεις σὲ λιμένας πρωτοειδωμένους.

Νὰ σταματήσεις σ᾿ ἐμπορεῖα Φοινικικά,
καὶ τὲς καλὲς πραγμάτειες ν᾿ ἀποκτήσεις,
σεντέφια καὶ κοράλλια, κεχριμπάρια κ᾿ ἔβενους,
καὶ ἡδονικὰ μυρωδικὰ κάθε λογῆς,
ὅσο μπορεῖς πιὸ ἄφθονα ἡδονικὰ μυρωδικά.

Σὲ πόλεις Αἰγυπτιακὲς πολλὲς νὰ πᾷς,
νὰ μάθεις καὶ νὰ μάθεις ἀπ᾿ τοὺς σπουδασμένους.
Πάντα στὸ νοῦ σου νά ῾χεις τὴν Ἰθάκη.
Τὸ φθάσιμον ἐκεῖ εἶν᾿ ὁ προορισμός σου.

Ἀλλὰ μὴ βιάζεις τὸ ταξίδι διόλου.
Καλλίτερα χρόνια πολλὰ νὰ διαρκέσει.
Καὶ γέρος πιὰ ν᾿ ἀράξεις στὸ νησί,
πλούσιος μὲ ὅσα κέρδισες στὸν δρόμο,
μὴ προσδοκώντας πλούτη νὰ σὲ δώσει ἡ Ἰθάκη.

Ἡ Ἰθάκη σ᾿ ἔδωσε τ᾿ ὡραῖο ταξίδι.
Χωρὶς αὐτὴν δὲν θά ῾βγαινες στὸν δρόμο.
Ἄλλα δὲν ἔχει νὰ σὲ δώσει πιά.

Κι ἂν πτωχικὴ τὴν βρεῖς, ἡ Ἰθάκη δὲν σὲ γέλασε.
Ἔτσι σοφὸς ποὺ ἔγινες, μὲ τόση πεῖρα,
ἤδη θὰ τὸ κατάλαβες οἱ Ἰθάκες τὶ σημαίνουν.

Κωνσταντίνος Καβάφης (Αλεξάνδρεια, 1863-1933)

Χαιρετισμούς στην Αλεξάνδρεια. Ας ξεχυθούν στους δρόμους οι λέξεις του ποιητή. Και τόσων άλλων ποιητών και φιλοσόφων, επιστημόνων και θεολόγων. Σε όλες τις γλώσσες στις οποίες εκφράσθηκαν. Καμιά βία. Μόνον λέξεις που θα συνωστισθούν η μια δίπλα στην άλλη και θα αναγκάσουν τη βία να παραιτηθεί.

29.1.2011: Sonne in Berlin. Nacht in Alexandrien.

2011-01-29T10:00:00.046+01:00

Sonne in Berlin

Today Berlin woke up in sunlight. Such days (or moments) have to be kept in record. They are so rare in winter. How I do miss the light! Despite the weather, my love for Berlin is gradually deepening and the evolving Academia here nurtures my hope. More on this when the time is due.
May the New Year help you, if not define happiness, enrich your own happiness. We are all patiently waiting for "The Tree of Life", Terrence Malick's new film, an American guy I highly esteem. He first travelled to Oxford to write his thesis on "The World in Wittgenstein and Heidegger" under the supervision of Ryle, he then gave up philosophy (at least with Ryle) and made a new start creating films ("Badlands", "Days of Heaven", "The Red Thin Line", "The New World"). I divine his new one can be as good as "The Red Thin Line". There are many things I grant you, Michael, but not your opinion about his development: Malick is not going downhill. Let us wait and see. The ones who take "waiting" to be passive are blatantly wrong. There are sooo many things to be done in the meanwhile.
Now I shall delve into my busy-ness, or just continue my blog winter sleep. Just before the Aristotelian "sea-battle", I am writing on "The Reception of the Platonic Chora: Aristotelian Traces (?) in Alcinoic Physics". The question mark is at the appropriate place. Before the sea-battle I dare to claim the following two sentences are true and have always been true (?!):
Ed N. Lee is going to come over to Berlin this autumn.
The snow in Minneapolis is going to melt sooner this spring.
Que Sera, Sera... Warm greetings to Paris, my dear Georgiana: you happen to be the only one who knows how to read my ellipsis ;)

Nacht in Alexandrien

My dearest greetings I direct to you dear Riham and to dear Alexandria. While I am complaining about the weather and playing around in my warm chamber with necessities and freedoms and contingencies, you are revolting against the most repulsive compulsion you have been experiencing for real. I wish you the best possibility for tomorrow. I am afraid we are going to get acquainted with what had always been necessary for your tomorrow after some decades. My heart beats only for you all day long. My dearest melting pot of cultures, wake up in peace and freedom, find the power from within and show us further on what it means to integrate Otherness. May your past necessitate (sorry Aristotle) the future you deserve. For no-one and nothing in the world would I become a Stoic, not even for the sake of my education. But for you, dear Alexandria, for you I shall, I shall. Please make me believe in fate. Do so please. For you, I will.

Learn to live well, my friends, and live well, as far as this is possible.

Das Meer und die reine Lust des Augenblickes

2010-08-19T05:30:00.014+02:00

Πόντος δὲ καὶ θάλασσα καὶ κλύδων καὶ παρὰ Πλάτωνι ἡ ὑλικὴ σύστασις (Fr. 33 Noumenios, DES PLACES).

Right now I am spending a week in Alonnisos, a picturesque island Northern of Euboea, which I visit for the second time. I am busy preparing my Politicus seminar and, when I take a break (and I take often a break here), I try to relate the sea to pure pleasure, departing from the Platonic view: We recall the Politicus myth to which the above quotation refers.
Perhaps I shall fail to do so or will not dare even to address the kind of “presence” with which I would like to connect the sea. In any case, I just wanted to wish nice remaining summer days and an equally beautiful start of the coming autumn. I am not so sure whether I shall write in my blog soon as there are quite many tasks waiting (im)patiently to be fulfilled …

In Search of Japanese Otherness: Cultural Moments in Tokyo

2010-08-18T10:05:00.014+02:00

I did not want to experience Tokyo as a mere tourist but I had unfortunately not plenty of time at my disposal to initiate myself into Japanese culture. I purchased a ticket for Noh theater, the oldest among the four famous forms of Japanese theater, beside Kyogen (the slapsticks that take place between Noh acts), Kabuki and Buncaru or puppet theater.
It was difficult to decipher at what time the play should begin. I was pleased to be informed that there was some time before the performance, which I could spend in the National Museum. In my first visit I could cherry-pick some Japanese old paintings I thought. I had visited a very impressive exhibition of Japanese paintings in Zurich in 2003. What struck me above all, were the many uncovered surfaces on the canvas or the sliding doors, although the painting was not non-finito: this is another treatment and approach of the vacuum, if I am allowed to characterize those clean surfaces as „vacuum“. As if the Japanese painters did not bother to cover all surfaces but did want to invite empty surfaces as well and just let them be there, surrounded and respected by the painted areas. The first brief encounter with Japanese painting had prompted me to long for further encounters. I did not expect to find the same paintings I had encountered in Zurich. But there they were in the rooms of the National Museum in Tokyo. In Zurich the exhibition was small and the atmosphere was almost catanyctic. As if the cultural fragments need to leave the country of their origin time and again, and be presented somewhere else.
After the museum I bumped into Rodin’s Gates of Hell! I had forgotten there is a copy in Tokyo. Thanks to very polite, or Japanese, passengers, I could afterwards find my way to the subway station and finally reach the Noh theater.

The Noh play I attended had the title „Kasumikai“. I was the only non-Japanese among the audience. I encountered enough of the otherness I had eagerly anticipated to receive as far as this is possible. Not a single English word, no introduction for „beginners“ like myself was provided. Noh acts have often a comical intermezzo. I was unable to understand what was going on in the dramatic three parts but at least I could laugh at some moments of this comical scene. Extremely slow movements, psalmodic singing and dancing, and a lot of silence. I was alienated, but that was exactly what I wanted: an unmediated encounter of otherness in Japanese culture. Could someone of our Japanese friends give me some clue for the second and third acts of this play? Ms Maki Kajiyama (the IPS travel agent in Tokyo) kindly informed me of the story that takes place in the first act, which is called "The Wooden Cradle" (Izutsu), a classic Noh play written by Zeami, the dominant figure in the early history of Noh theatre. I recalled the three different narrations in Kurosawa’s „Rasomon“ as I read the Noh plot. In this Noh act, we observe a similar interest in different narrative perspectives. The same story (in the case of this Noh play a love story) is narrated twice by the ghost of the dead woman. For the ones who would have the leisure to delve into the Japanese Theater: Karen Brazell (ed.), Traditional Japanese Theater: An Anthology of Plays, New York 1998.

My brief cultural report ends with a tip for theater lovers: If you wish to contemplate peacefully a Noh experience, do avoid Shibuya Square afterwards: It must have been the Sunday rush hour; I haven’t been among such crowds in my entire life.

The Ninth IPS Conference on Plato's Republic (Tokyo 2010): Agenda and One Riddle

2010-08-18T08:48:00.033+02:00

There were two questions on my agenda for Tokyo: How did the land named Japan give birth to a scholar like Norio Fujisawa? How did Japan produce the film director Akira Kurosawa? The latter is well-known among all cinema lovers. The former has been a very important Platonist (1925-2004) and professor at Kyoto University. He promoted considerably the studies of ancient philosophy in Japan. I have read only one text of his: ἔχειν, μετέχειν and Idioms of "Paradeigmatism" in Plato's Theory of Forms, Phronesis XIX (1974), pp. 30-58. It is admirable how critical he could be when trying to make the best out of the Aristotelian critique of methexis. Moreover he considered it is necessary to unveil the prevailing hermeneutics that is confined to the Aristotelian framework. The Japanese Platonist fulfilled crucial steps upon this path, for the sake of a genuine understanding of Plato. This contribution of his may be a rather small piece, better to say a treasure. There he provides enough evidence for his agreement with the principle of harmony (between Plato and Aristotle) this blog defines and promotes. Just read his article and you will see my deep appreciation is well-grounded.

Needless to say, I had no illusion I would be able to answer the two above questions in my one-week stay in Tokyo. Still it was important for me to ask these two questions and appropriately direct my attention in search of possible answers.

The organisation of the International Plato Society Conference was absolutely flawless. It was splendid to observe the entire organising team at work and experience the results of the excellent coordination. Pisa (2013) and Brasilia (2016) will have to try pretty hard in order to live up to the high standards Tokyo just set. Every one, myself included, was happy to be a guest in Tokyo.

I learned as far as I could during the conference. Admittedly I was concerned with my own paper until Friday because I should shorten it. Now I know, it is advantageous to give your paper at the beginning of such an international conference. Then you are able to concentrate on the following papers with no distraction. Moreover I had another task to fulfill: I tried to find two words to say on my Plato book. I wanted to say something substantial despite the fact that I was allowed to speak only for two minutes: an almost impossible task. During the conference and thanks to interesting, challenging and encouraging chats, I realised what I will be working on for the written version of my paper and beyond: dunamis-phusis-ananke. To be a little bit more precise, I have to elaborate the meanings of the notion of necessity that becomes crucial for the philosopher’s descent but, nonetheless, has not received the adequate attention in the relevant secondary literature so far as I see it. For the first time in my blog, I shall give it a go and mention a concrete textual riddle that caused my aporia, which I gladly shared with best listeners. The text (R. VII, 540a4-b7) runs (in translation) as follows:

Then, when they are fifty years old, those who have survived (the tests) and gained every highest distinction in every field, both in actions and studies, should now be brought at last to the goal. We should compel them [ἀναγκαστέον] to lift up the bright light of the soul and gaze steadfastly at that which provides light for everything. And when they have seen the good itself, they have [(to be compelled to), ἀναγκαστέον] to order the city, the citizens and themselves using that as a model, throughout the rest of their lives, when the turn comes for each. They can spend most of their life in philosophy, but when their turn comes, then each one must labour at the business of politics and be ruler for the sake of the city. They will regard the task not as something fine but as necessary. And after educating others like themselves in this way, and leaving them behind as the city’s guardians, they have [to be compelled!! ἀναγκαστέον] to live in the islands of the blest after their departure.

In my paper I decided to quote the above passage because it indicates that Plato uses the concept of “necessity” quite often (in the seventh Book and not only). The passage shows that he is not extremely careful when he uses the word ἀνάγκη, which happens to be an especially important concept for the problem of descent. I underline the three infinitives that depend on ἀναγκαστέον (540a8). In the case of the first infinitive, we may understand that the educators of the ideal city compel the philosophers to reach the goal of the program. In the second case, compulsion is also relevant for the philosophers’ coming back to the cave, even if I regard it as derivative in my paper. But what about the third case? How can the dead philosophers be compelled, and by whom, to live in the islands of the blest?
Up to now, there have been two helpful reactions to this baffling passage. At first go, David Sedley tried to save Plato from nonsense in that he suggested the notion of compulsion doesn't really extend all the way through. In English, one may say to a child "I am going to force you to do your homework first, and to watch television afterwards", without meaning that one is going to force her to watch television. Christopher Rowe suggested that in this case Plato playfully alludes to a former instance regarding the islands of the blest. “The philosophers will be compelled to depart for the islands of the blest” means that they really have to be compelled to do so whereas they themselves prefer to do philosophy.
All I intended to do myself was not to blame Plato for such a mindless slip but to utter my reservations toward everyone who bases arguments (and every one does in the framework of the philosopher's descent and not only) on passages in which "necessity" occurs. Now I have to draw and elaborate my picture. Let us try and solve together the above riddle for the start.

Does anyone come up with any suggestion ad loc?

Fragments of Love: Peter Stein and other Demons

2010-07-18T19:54:00.042+02:00

As I was taking my regular evening walk, I realised I love Berlin. In Gendarmenmarkt various concerts take place since Thursday, this evening is devoted to swing. And so I circled the beautiful square for a couple of times as the tickets are not inexpensive.

I love Berlin; to come to think of it, without having fallen in love with the city. There was no spell. I just loved Berlin from the first encounter. What was it? How did this happen? Did the seminar on "Nietzsche and the Greeks" initiate my sympathy or the very well-hidden chapel I discovered in the center of the city or the avant-garde corners that the capital has to offer in abundance?

I shall not gather any fragments or cherry-pick elements that aroused my interest, gradually increased my sympathy or provoked my fascination. But I shall provide one quite special and crucial reason for my love for Berlin: Peter Stein, the authority of German theater direction. Although I have experienced very good productions in Residence Theater (Munich), no direction stood out. In comparison to all these marvelous Strindbergs, Becketts and Ibsens, Peter Stein's excellent work transformed von Kleist's famous Lustspiel "Der zerbrochne Krug" into a theater feast. This summer he ventured a twelve-hour adaptation of Dostojewski's "Demons": www.welt.de/kultur/article7911323/Peter-Stein-und-seine-Zwoelf-Stunden-Daemonen.html
How do I wish the play would reach Berlin! Unfortunately it does not seem to be the case despite the fact that the Demons travelled all around the globe (Vienna, Amsterdam, Napoli, Ravenna, Athens and New York). On the 25th of August, the Berliner Ensemble will celebrate the premiere of Stein's Oedipus at Colonus.

How can I love this city? What do I love in this city?

3rd July 2010: Was this one single day?

2010-07-05T17:13:00.008+02:00

Everything is wonderful in Berlin apart from the weather which reminds of Greek summer midst in the German capital. Berlin is not beautiful, but this does not mean the city is ugly either. It is always under construction, which raises the hope that it is transforming itself into even better surroundings. It is a capital where one can live: even in the centre, there is no suffocation like in Athens for instance.

My seminar on the Platonic Timaeus is doing fine and is gradually coming to an end. My students prompt me to develop even better reasons and explanations in “the game of giving and asking for reasons”. Some problems have caught my interest that I had never had the opportunity to immerse into before. Some among them are: the sensible παθήματα (against the background of the Theaetetus), Plato’s implicit dialogue with Democritus, “heavy” and “light” as sensible πάθημα and the difference to the Aristotelian concept of weight, and above all and throughout the Timaeus: ἀνάγκη. In contrast to his seventh book of the Republic, Plato has done his homework on the πολλαχῶς λέγεσθαι of necessity.

Unfortunately there is not enough time for updating my blog. This lack of leisure accords at least with my general aim not to inform on fashionable trends.

I am willing to write some notes on the 3rd of July.

The most important happening of the day was that I realized I am a Platonist. This is not a big deal you may think for someone who has been working on Plato, but I will reply it is well indeed. Delving into the Timaeus and fathoming the philosophical paideia in Plato’s written work, it has been so difficult to begin with the aftermath in my Berlin project. I pondered different strategies so as to proceed with my authority named Plato (my philosophical psychoanalysis) and accomplish my “Kehre von Platon zum Platonismus”. What happened on the 3rd of July? I realised I interpret the philosopher’s descent in the Republic (my paper for the Tokyo-IPS-conference, 1.-7. August 2010http://phil.flet.keio.ac.jp/ips2010/abstracts.html) in a manner that Alcinous, the middle Platonist, would have apparently welcomed! This was the πάθημα of my morning, which needless to say would be sufficient to provide afterthoughts for the entire day.

In the afternoon, the German football-team beat the Argentineans. The team spirit of the young German footballers turned me into a football fan and as such I encountered the capital that was awkward in its celebration of the unexpected result.

The day accomplished its course with Bizet and his Carmen (Deutsche Oper, Charlottenburg, http://www.deutscheoperberlin.de/). This day could not have ended differently. The bond that binds my day is still the notion of ἀνάγκη. Now we are not in first, second or even third philosophy but rather in the realm of human action where we have to broach necessity in relation to freedom.

I shall need some days to reflect on the 3rd of July. For sure, now I shall willingly devote myself to Alcinous’ Didaskalikos. Only now may I speak of innate and not external necessity: Ἀνάγκη ἐστι.

P.S: Unlike the German young football player Thomas Müller, I cannot send my greetings to my grandparents as they unfortunately are not alive any longer.
Let me send my greetings to you, dear Peter, on the other side of the Channel. Finish your book on Pindar that we all await. And then we will experience Peter Stein’s direction and Klaus Maria Brandauer, the actor you are so right to deeply appreciate.

Sonntag, den 21.2: War es „Warten auf Arturo Ui“ oder „Der aufhaltsame Aufstieg des Godot“?

2010-02-22T08:12:00.020+01:00

Der Sonntag bricht erst an. Man begegnet der Stadt, bevor sie aufwacht. Wobei Berlin nach dem langen Sonnabend noch schlummert, erwacht die Spree von ihrem eisigen Schlaf. Der langandauernde Tag ist mit Arbeit und gutem Gespräch erfüllt.

Das Berliner Ensemble findet sich zwischen meinem Arpeitsplatz und meiner Wohnung. Ein Umweg ist deswegen nicht mal nötig. Solch einen Luxus hatte ich in Athen nicht, nämlich so zentral zu wohnen, was vielleicht besser so in Athen war. Heute wird Brechts Aufhaltsamer Aufstieg des Arturo Ui aufgeführt. Eine Athener Aufführung im Nationaltheater mit Georgios Michalakopoulos in der Hauptrolle prägt noch das Gedächtnis und regt mich an, auf meinem Weg zurück beim Theater aufzuhalten, mit der Hoffnung, ich werde eine deutsche Regie erfahren und vor allem das Stück auf der deutschen Sprache hören. Zum ersten Mal warte ich in der Schlange vor der Abendkasse. Man muss warten, ohne ahnen zu können, ob man am Ende eine Karte bekommt. Ich lächle bei der Überlegung, ob ich Beckett oder Brecht miterleben werde. Am Ende ergibt sich, dass ich die Aufführung verpassen muss, es sei denn ich werde einen Stehplatz haben wollen. Jetzt weiss man, dass der Vorverkauf in Berlin vorzuziehen ist. Oder sollte man nicht aufgeben, auf seinem Weg nach Hause sein Glück auszuprobieren? Makron to prooimion…

Athen-Tübingen-Cambridge-Berlin

2010-02-19T14:59:00.035+01:00

Nach langer Zeit bin ich wieder in der Hauptstadt gelangt. Das ist nicht Athen, sondern Berlin. Ich erlaube mir, meine "Rückkehr" auf Deutsch auszudrücken.
Hier wird keine Bilanz über meinen akademischen Aufenthalt in Cambridge gezogen werden. Die höchst fruchtbaren Gespräche mit besten Angelsachsen werden sich beim Elaborieren von gegenwärtigen sowie beim Verfassen von kommenden Beiträgen widerspiegeln. Mein Buch über die Metapher der Mischung bei Platon, das schon darstellt, wie ich mir das Gespräch zwischen Deutschen und Angelsachsen vorstelle, ist gerade im Druck (International Plato Studies 28, Sankt Augustin, April 2010). Inzwischen habe ich erfahren, dass der Autor tatsächlich über seine Schrift hinaus gewachsen sein wird, bis sie publiziert worden ist. Das platonische Kriterium für den philosophos (Schriftkritik im Phaidros) zeigt sich erneut von Relevanz: Verfügt der Autor über Besseres als sein Geschriebenes?

Die Humboldt Universität beeindrückt, was meinem Anliegen gemäß den Aufbau von Brücken zwischen deutscher und angelsächsischer Welt im Rahmen der Philosophie der Antike anbetrifft. Ich fühle mich schon zu Beginn gut integriert in der Topoi-Exzellenz Initiative an Humboldt Universität. Erste schwerwiegende Gespräche richten sich auf die Frage, wie die Philosophie die Einheit bei einem so großen und bunten Projekt über das Konzept des Raums stiften kann. Es ist die Philosophie, die damit beauftragt wird, obwohl wir nicht im Zeitalter oder im Kontext der alten Akademie sind. Die Philosophie wird unter anderem versuchen, das genuine Gespräch zwischen dem platonischen und aristotelischen Modell über den Raum darzustellen. Wenn sie ihre Aufgabe erfüllt, werden eventuell auch die anderen Wissenschaften davon profitieren können. Man muss henologische Konzeptionen mit Vorsicht gestalten und genießen. Ich habe Deutschland vermisst.

Ich abonniere wieder meine beliebte Zeitung und lerne die Stadt langsam zu Fuß kennen. Die Berlinale ist bald vorbei. Hannah Schygulla erhält heute den Ehren-Preis. Wir werden demnächst die neue, längere Version von Fritz Langs Metropolis in Zoo Palast miterleben können, wo die Karten nicht ausverkauft sind.

Es dauert, bis ich mich im Herzen der großen Stadt einlebe. Es geht um die nötige Dauer der Aneignung, die sich Schritt für Schritt vollzieht. Auf diesem Weg bin ich geduldig, wobei meine letzten Spuren von Geduld mit IKEA oder Telekom ausgeschöpft worden sind. Das Kennenlernen dieser Stadt bestimmt seinen eigenen Rhythmus. Die erste Vertrautheit wird von der unüberschaulichen Dynamik verunsichert, die es einem schwindelig macht, aber vielseitiges Schaffen verspricht und ermöglicht.

Nach zwei Umzügen hinter mir fühle ich mich zu Hause in Berlin und wünsche allen Lesern ein gutes und produktives neues Jahr 2010.

Mayweek 2009: The Politicus

2009-06-01T12:24:00.041+02:00

The last week of May is famous as Mayweek: A workshop interprets an ancient philosophical text through close and intensive reading. This Mayweek was organized by Malcolm Schofield and was devoted to the Platonic Politicus. The speakers who presented the entire dialogue were: Dimitri El Murr, Sylvain Delcomminette, Christopher Rowe, David Sedley, Sarah Broadie, Nicholas Denyer, Melissa Lane, Robert Wardy, Malcolm Schofield.

The following are some of the issues that were broached and some of the questions that were raised:
-What are we looking for when looking for "Plato"?
-Broader framework of hermeneutics: a. General: Should we pursue an inner-dialogue or inter-dialogue hermeneutics? b. On the basis of the concrete object of inquiry: Should we regard the Politicus as a transition from the Republic to the Laws (developmentalistic reading)?
-Form of the dialogue (dialectics as dialogue) and various literary aspects. Among other themes: a. The disposition of the dialogue partner joung Socrates. b. The Visitor as Platonic dramatis persona The (in)famous Straussian hostility between the Eleatic Visitor and Socrates was not represented. c. Why didn't Plato write down a dialogue on the nature of the philosopher? That Plato deliberately refrained from composing such a dialogue becomes clear in 257b8. Whenever the leading interlocutor postpones the discussion of a subject with the aid of εἰς αὖθις, he never fulfils our expectation.
-As far as methodos is concerned, we may ask: Can we unify the diversity of methods applied in the Politicus? Should "διαλεκτικώτερον περὶ πάντα" (285d) refer exclusively to the method of division?
-Differences between Platonic division and Aristotelian approach
-Should the Myth be divided into two or three phases? What is the background against which a threefold division is proposed? Does the myth entail good paradigms? Is the myth a good paradigm after all?
- Does Plato become a precursor of the Aristotelian concept γνωριμώτερον ἡμῖν when the Eleatic Visitor demonstrates the role of παραδείγματα?
-The digression on the two kinds of measurement: What should we start with αὐτὸ τἀκριβές (284d1f.)?
-Method and Object: Do dialectics and the inquiry into statesmanship come into conflict? Sayre, who stresses methodology and dialectics, and Skemp, who points out the inquiry on the statesman, represent two possible extremes. Can/Should the methodos abstract from its pertinent object? Does it become formal? So as to reformulate our question with the help of two modern cases: Should we take the Hegelian or the New-Kantian approach on methodos?
- How does the weaving art creep in when we define the statesmanship (305e3f.)? Is this legitimate?
- Mimesis in the discussion about the different constitutions and problems related to these obscure passages.
-The discussion boiled down to the appropriate question: Which dialogue is διαλεκτικώτερος: the Sophist or the Politicus? After such an enriching week, the Politicus was rehabilitated as it deserves. The above question remains open because we then have to ask with which measure we are going to compare the two dialogues so as to make our judgement concerning dialectics. They offer to some extent similar but also different aspects of Platonic dialectics. How longer would each of these two dialogues be, had (the) Plato(nic Guest) wanted to talk more on the issues that he deliberately and explicitly left aside? How longer would the Politicus be, had the Eleatic Guest been willing to say more on the ἀπόδειξις αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀκριβοῦς? How longer would the Sophist become, if Plato had chosen more than five greatest kinds? And what about the discussion on Non-Being as contrary to Being? With how many scenarios can we come up? In the worst case, would the Sophist grow into something like the second part of the Parmenides? I speak of likeness because it would make quite a difference that the interlocutor is Theaetetus and not Aristoteles. Second scenario: would we encounter the second chapter of the fourth book of Aristotelian metaphysics as a dialogue? Third, but not last possible, scenario: A talk on the Philosophos? There is a second crucial question that suggests itself after the one we ask about the appropriate measurement of the dialogues' (possible) lengths: Which is the whole against the background of which we are going to compare the different parts and aspects, the bits and pieces of dialectics that the Platonic dialecticians perform in each dialogue? How are we going to judge which dialogue is διαλεκτικώτερος?

Such a successful meeting is going to provoke various (after)thoughts and the discussions on Plato are to be continued.
I found it particularly interesting to experience how an idealistic approach (or rather tendency in the case of a given paper) was welcome and cross-examined in Cambridge. Needless to say, we ought to do so with arguments of any origin and irrespective of their origin but, in this case, I was happy to experience a genuine dialogue and a remarkable openness in the Anglo-Saxon context that in general remains sceptical to idealistic readings of Plato. I may take an opportunity to recall the following: a. Myles Burnyeat's seminal lecture "Idealism and Greek Philosophy: What Descartes Saw and Berkeley Missed" (Philosophical Review 91, 1982) and b. Paul Natorp's "Platons Ideenlehre" (1903, 1921 with a very important epilogue) was translated into English only some time ago (2004, International Plato Studies 18, edited, translated and introduced by Vassilis Politis).
-

Tracing Hitchcock: Rebecca. A Thrilling Fairy Tale

2009-05-12T16:09:00.038+02:00

There are very few directors who know how to film children: Truffaut's 400 Blows happens to manifest this virtue (cf. Tarkovsky and Angelopoulos as counter-examples of rather depicting symbols of childhood: a different approach). After having this nouvelle vague intermezzo, the Cambridge Cine-Gang decided to delve into Hitchcock's art and devote a retrospective to his masterpieces: This time we watched Rebecca (1940), which belongs - as well as Notorious - to the period in which he collaborated with the producer David Selznick. This is his first Hollywood film but apart from the American Studio everything else was British: both the mystery novel written by Daphne du Maurier (1938) and the cast. Joan Fontaine plays the young woman without name, who literally takes Rebecca's place after falling in love with Maxim de Winter. Sir Laurence Olivier is Maxim de Winter, who "saves" the young lady from the hands of her intolerable female boss in Monte Carlo only to locate her under Mrs. Danvers' reign, who is the housekeeper in Manderley. It is eight years before Olivier's Hamlet: He is already a delight to watch, directed by another film genius.
During half of the screening I kept whispering: Both are not real persons! They are so pure. They are unreal. How is it possible to bring them into dialogue? In the second half, I was praising Hitchcock to the skies, as we all did: He is splendid! He is brilliant! We get to know Maxim's background story while we begin to encounter the anonymous lady: She initiates her story and we witness this beginning. At the end we are startled when trying to recall her name to no avail. She has no name. The house is the third person, as Hitchcock himself revealed to Truffaut. There is no suggestive threefold division of the house like in the following Notorious (wine-cellar, ground floor and first floor) but the psychoanalytical elements are present nonetheless.
As Hitchcock was engaged further on in Daphne du Maurier (Jamaica Inn and The Birds), he prompts us to read her novels and stories, even if afterwards.
A special offer in Amazon for the ones interested:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitchcock-14-Disc-Box-Set/dp/B000BND224/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1242235897&sr=8-1

Back to Business: The Phaedrus in Cambridge

2009-05-11T15:46:00.017+02:00

Against the background of catchy sounds and rhythms, it is time to return to the business (so ἐπιτήδευμα) of philosophy. As I promised, here is a picture I can draw of the past Colloquium on the Phaedrus:
Plato has taught us to philosophize on types and thoughts rather than on persons. I will thus allow myself to avoid any references to living scholars. We should express though our special thanks to Jenny Bryan and Helen van Noorden for organizing this meeting.

So as to sum up the moral of the conference in my own words and according to my understanding: There are no absolute boundaries between the hermeneutics on the different sides of the Channel, although there are still proponents of two-world theories or rather prejudices. As I happen to be neither harmonist nor harmonizer, I do not want to level any differences. I am just asserting that this conference may have been held in Germany as well. The reading sessions were, as expected, very fruitful, on some occassions even stronger than given papers.
Schleiermacher was present, as always in current Anglo-Saxon context. Once more it proved to be problematic and intriguing to integrate the relation of philia and eros as well as mania into their cultural environment and to fathom the relation between rhetoric and dialectics.
Surprisingly for me, even one kind of Derrida's reading was represented. I remind that a number of academics from Cambridge University tried to stop the granting of his Cambridge doctoral degree (1992). They were out-numbered when it was put to a vote, which happens very rarely indeed in such a procedure. As far as interesting political gestures concern, it seems to me that the following question suggests itself: Are we able to, and, if we are, should we put Dadaism into a museum? The answer I am inclined to give is a negative one I am afraid.

The weather is all Greek to me for the time being and the Sun-days spent in the famous orchard in Grantchester are recreative...

Alkinoos Ioannidis: Rainfall

2009-04-26T10:58:00.004+02:00

Another gem of a different genre in modern Greek music.

Αλκίνοος Ιωαννίδης released his new album (Νεροποντή), which we patiently awaited the last five years. His lyrics are more songs than poems this time (in comparison to his last works "Ανεμοδείκτης" and "Οι Περιπέτειες ενός Προσκυνητή"), his orchestration even more mature and richer in various elements. His voice can, as always, follow all rhythms, may they be rock, jazz or traditional appropriated in a deeply personal manner.
Dearest greetings to the friends in Athens who enjoyed his concert.
One piece extracted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5EE4UuUjY4&feature=related

For the instrumentally fuller version of the same song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8s4hcRE8Ow&feature=related

Eleni Karaindrou. Dust of Time.

2009-04-24T14:03:00.002+02:00

As we are in the field of music, let me introduce a small piece of Eleni Karaindrou's new release, which I highly recommend. The more "Greece's tenth muse" composes, the more she confirms this characterisation that Time International assigned to her. Above all, she is extremely capable of turning into music all colours and shades of nostalgia. Her collaboration with the film director Theodoros Angelopoulos has been proved very fruitful: two reasons for my modern Greek pride!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56wm6mNe1WI

Love Minus Zero

2009-04-24T13:14:00.010+02:00

...And for a break (after an update of the never out-of-date pieces: thanks Jakub!)...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9sH5UHC11w

Appeal to whom it may concern

2009-04-03T16:22:00.000+02:00

Dear all,

According to my very last posts, I should be postponing my decisions on how to write about vexed issues on Platonic philosophy. But here I come, a couple of hours afterwards, so as to share my question on Plato-exegesis:

You will see that I am coming into the matter at a snail's pace. For now I am beginning with a question on method and hermeneutics rather than on content. The general background against which this question suggests itself or, to be sincere, disturbs my peace in the last days: It is often used as an argument in support of a (Plato-)interpretation that it provides economy of expression or it avoids a more complex story. The concrete context: I am learning a lot right now from Anglo-Saxon literature on the Sophist (John Ackrill, Michael Frede, G.E.L. Owen, Lesley Brown so as to mention only some of the most indeed dedicated contributors to the Sophist's minefields).

I am far from seeking an argument against this exegetical principle as I always appreciate interpreters who have a story to tell or, even better, a theory to provide. But still I am underlying the necessity of our continuous reflecting on and challenging our principles, and asking where from we approach Plato’s texts each time.

May we let Ockham rest and ask “Plato”? Even if we are not allowed to repeat Plato's written word and in this way have the illusion we have found Plato, let us ask the question, bearing in mind that he himself prompts us to interpret and (re)construct. Would he plead for more economical solutions and exegeses rather than more complex? The answer I would initially tend to give is a negative one, based upon his digressions accompanied by his reflection on the proper length of argumentation and his distinction between two different kinds of measure (Plt.). Of course, it is not easy to discern how long each argument and explanation should last in each case.
On the other hand, isn't Plato the one who presents his theory of the greatest kinds as the one that should offer an answer not only to the Parmenidean ontology but also the late-learners' riddles and various sophistical paradoxes and triffles? You may say he failed and it is indeed an arduous endeavour to present that he did not. But even if he failed, he attempted to solve all these problems at once with the aid of his peirastike dialektike.
And moreover, isn't he the philosopher who provided a theory of an "Über"-science of dialectics and of two principles which prevail all parts of reality? Aristotle wanted himself to mediate between this too economical theory and Speusippus's proposal, who introduced different principles for each field of reality and thus composed its very bad tragedy (cf. Met.XII)!
Not only Cherniss praised Plato's economical theory of ideas but the Tübingen School as well. Am I bringing the German School and the Anglo-Saxons closer than I should? I can reassure that provocation was not my intention.

Could you help me overcome this dilemma of mine or enrich its dialectics, and contribute to “my” Plato becoming more argumentative on this issue?
Struggling with the Sophist in my chamber, I desperately needed some gasp for dialogue. Thank you for even listening to my question.

Yours sincerely

Notorious

2009-04-02T11:02:00.000+02:00

While postponing decisions on philosophical (internet) writing, I would still like to give account of more playful issues. A cine-gang is being formed in Cambridge and I am happy to be one of its members. In our attempt to go beyond, or just have a break from, Plato and other dear fellows, we end up finding ourselves caught up in discussions on whether the dialectician should be not only the best rhetorician and dramatist but also an exquisite cinema director! Not to mention the question which ontological status we should attribute to the cinematic images: Should we degrade them into the shadows the imprisoned people watch in the infamous cave? Or should we allow the later Plato to draw a distinction between good and bad cinema?
We are thankful to "Arts Picturehouse" in Cambridge for screening some gems in the history of cinema. Last Sunday it was Hitchcock's "Notorious" (1946): A simple plot of a spy-thriller combined with a love-story that has a happy ending (the prince saving the princess in peril of her life). Hitchcock created his masterpiece upon a clear-cut story and thus inspired the entire French nouvelle vague.
It was a rare joy to watch this film and at the same time recognize some of the mental "children" that stemmed from it. The introductory scene in "Vivre sa vie" (Godard, 1962) was not something revolutionary after all, at least not without ancestors. There Godard places his protagonists with their backs against the camera and it takes quite a while till we are allowed to see them. Hitchcock had already dared to produce such an amazing effect: Grant observes the party-atmosphere in Bergman's house in the initial scene, turning his back upon us. Every great artist knows how to learn from and appropriate tradition in interesting and genuine ways. Another reason for watching this film time and again is the way the director activates Bergman and Grant's entire potential and transforms them. Let us be tempted to compare other more popular moments of theirs so as to discern the difference. Not to mention the movement of the camera: decisively focussing and nonetheless descent, not pointing out but letting you free to draw your connections.

PS1: Francois Truffaut wrote a book on the contribution of Alfred Hitchcock, which includes most valuable interviews on his films (1966, Le cinéma selon Hitchcock). The German edition is to be found in Amazon:
http://www.amazon.de/Mr-Hitchcock-wie-haben-gemacht/dp/3453861418
PS2: I happen to depart from the widespread sympathy for the film that was awarded with the Golden Palm at the Cannes Films Festival 2008 (Entre les mures/The Class). I can regard it as a very good documentary. But a film should have to offer the unity of a cosmos (sorry for not being enough post-modern) and not just reproduce reality so closely as possible. Neither reality nor the art of cinema need this kind of mirroring that rather leads itself back to the tenth book of the Republic. But after Hitchcock, everything comes to its own place.

Cambridge: Colloquium on the Phaedrus

2009-03-31T12:15:00.001+02:00

I am pondering a lot both on the form in which and the extent to which I should discuss in my blog the problems I currently encounter in Plato. While deliberating about these matters, I am more than happy to inform that a colloquium on the Phaedrus is going to take place in Cambridge in the middle of April. The programm can be downloaded from the Faculty of Classics:

http://www.classics.cam.ac.uk/faculty/seminars_conferences/plato_phaedrus/

As the contributors' names speak for themselves, it is redundant to add that the standards are pretty high. I am therefore anticipating to delve deeper into this dialogue, this time availing myself of best research on the other side of the channel. For the time being, I can appreciate the well-balanced programm of the colloquium: There will be not only papers but also close readings of the beginning, the middle and the end of the dialogue. According to my experience in "Plato Tübingen-Days", such readings may stimulate fruitful dialogue between younger and more experienced scholars and hence essentially contribute to the subject. So much for the structure. On the content afterwards.

Hopefully I will have undertaken some steps in between with regard to how and to what extent I should write on Platonic philosophical problems in this blog. Suspending any decisions for now, the time is ripe to get back to the Phaedrus! To come to think of it, the reconsideration of this Platonic dialogue might even lead to or at least prompt some appropriate decisions about writing in internet...

At home in Cambridge again. Goodbye to the Bad Soul?

2009-02-20T13:23:00.000+01:00

And so I am back in Cambridge this time for longer. I missed the celebrations of Darwin's 200th anniversary, as I was still battling with or against the Bad Soul that snows into (the Laws X). But I could finally do my best and disconnect the Bad Soul from the "real existence" of the bad World-Soul, which has enchanted the Platonic research ever since antiquity. I emphasised instead its relation to the "real possibility" of World-Soul qua soul. On the contrary to soul, body and matter are neither good nor bad in themselves according to Plato. Thus let us take Aristotle's account of Plato once more with a pinch of salt, correcting our wrongly-put question: "is body or matter bad or principle of the bad/evil in Plato?" My argument enjoys now its peace in the unmoveable and unchangeable written word. Even if "condemned" to be published, at least it is content not to be any longer disturbed by my sometimes desperate, disentagling attempts. I can myself immerse into the next depth afresh: the exegetical Gigantomachia in the Sophist. More haste, less speed: easy to say but how to do?
Still wondering, whether Plato was responsible, or even to blame, for such a bulk of different, if not opposed, interpretations he himself provoked,I try to make the case of his brilliant writing as strong as possible, which brings all of us to ourselves. In this manner, Plato imitated Socrates, although he himself wrote more than enough. At the same time, I tend to avoid critisizing the successors and modern interpreters who projected their own conceptions of philosophy upon him. I rather lead back this mirroring to Plato's art of writing again, which compels us to find and justify noone but ourselves, despite its being so often irritatingly buffling. In any case, Πλάτων ἀναίτιος.
The British spring seems to be approaching - or at least heralded - in Cambridge.

Symposium in Athens: "Deaths of Ancient Philosophers"

2009-01-08T22:18:00.000+01:00

It is difficult to speak about (your) being Greek while doing research on Greek philosophy outside Greece for a longer period of time. You start conceiving Greekness as a hospitable assimilation of otherness qua otherness, gradually beginning to feel at home as xenos in a place that embraces your research as your own topos.
The last events that occured all around Greece and were broadly transmitted and, above all, the persistent reluctancy to promote education in all its forms and current institutions make me neither happy nor proud.
Here I would like to choose to inform you of a positive moment: the symposium "Deaths of Ancient Philosophers" that I would have attended with great pleasure. It was held at the Danish Institute in Athens (20.12.2008) and was devoted to Michael Frede. Distinguished Greek scholars from Greek and foreign Universities took part, with contributions on Plato's Crito and Phaedo, Philodemus, Epicurian and Stoic but also Christian "melete thanatou". I am attaching the program in Greek (from philosophica et critica: another promising attempt in Greek University education at the present time, inspired by the University of Thessaloniki):
www.philosophica.gr/thanatoi.pdf

Friedrich Solmsen: German and Anglo-Saxon Virtue

2009-01-01T10:18:00.000+01:00

My first 2009-post is devoted to one of the last giants of the German tradition of classical humanism: Friedrich Solmsen (1905-1989). There is no particular anniversary occasion but I just wish to salute the entrance of the New Year recalling the work of someone who embodies what I label mediation between German and Anglo-Saxon virtue. I got to know Ulrich von Wilamowitz' and Werner Jaeger's student through his work on Plato (Plato's Theology, 1942) and Aristotle (Aristotle's System of the Physical World: A Comparison with His Predecessors, 1960). The second work offers exquisite hermeneutics of the Platonic and Aristotelian physics, keeping an extremely fine balance which we miss in latest research on the Platonic Chora or the Aristotelian Topos (an exemption being Benjamin Morison's monograph On Location, Oxford 2002): Without turning into a Plato's or Aristotle's partisan, Solmsen manages to stress both similarities and differences between their "systems".
Having escaped from Nazism in Germany in the mid-thirties and after spending some time in England, the German scholar taught in Cornell University and became celebrated for his weighty contributions on Hesiod, Homer, and both Greek tragedy and philosophy (including Hellenistic philosophy). Both his vision and argument are still inspiring and his work provokes admiration due to his analytic and constructive virtue, deep insight and sagacious hermeneutics.
A happy, creative and healthy New Year 2009!

Hamlet and Hamlets

2008-12-16T12:26:00.000+01:00

Hamlet is currently sold-out in London's Novello Theater. I had bought my ticket in August and on Monday I realized once more how outstanding performances this play needs so as to be good; and how Shakespeare's heritage is heavy for all of us, including the British actors. David Tennant (one reason for this performance being sold-out) was replaced by Edward Bennett because of an injury. The direction was good, with elements borrowed by Branagh's filmed Hamlet (i.e. the huge mirrors onstage reflecting the players' word and act; or Ophelia's grave scene). I found the performance intriguing for a special reason: After a rather disappointing first part, I noticed Bennett's transformation in the second, from the grave scene onwards: as if he then actually started immersing into Hamlet's role! A very good Gertrude's moment is worth mentioning as well, after the closet scene and as her husband approaches her.
I have to admit that my exalted expectations were due to a series of past famous Hamlets I had watched before. All the precious moments of the exquisite performances and directions awoke in my memory and often thrust aside less strong moments of the current performance: Laurence Olivier kissing Gertrude (1948), Richard Burton hinting at his self-directing of his madness through one single gesture (1964; a most interesting experiment to film the actors' last rehearsal), the most expressive Innokenty Smoktunovsky as Hamlet in Grigori Kozintsev's adaptation (1964), the scene of Ophelia's madness in Branagh's hyper-production which brought to the surface the enormous difficulties of turning such a play into a film (1996): all films available in Amazon.
Now, and before my blog turns into a cultural diary, I am back for good in the problems of the bad soul in the Laws as the deadline is for the end of January. No culture break till then! Enough philotheasthai for 2008! Merry Christmas dear all, accompanied by the famous Christmas Carols at King's College and the melody of Berlioz' L' enfance du Christ (LSO live 2007 conducted by Sir Collin Davis: thanks Francisco)!

Travelling with the British railway

2008-12-09T00:53:00.000+01:00

Choosing the British train can be sometimes baffling! As I tried to read the schedule for my journey to Stratford-upon-Avon this week-end, I found it quite startling that I had to change my train at 12:41 in Birmingham New Street as I would get off the train exactly at the same time. My curiosity was satisfied by the employee who told me that I had to cover the distance on foot. Thus I would not jump from train to train. But still something unsolved remained. The train changes should be two, so at least in print. But there was only one change indeed. Or should we consider our body the second vehicle we will change so as to catch the third train? Anyway, under the train company, "walk" was written: the most inexpensive travel company!

O be some other name! What's in a name? Shakespeare in Stratford-upon-Avon

2008-11-24T18:13:00.000+01:00

It was due time for a break from the mediation between Oxford and Cambridge on Plato's Sophist. So as to explore another aspect of the British qua British, καθόλου being the object both of philosophy and poetry, I payed my visit to Shakespeare's birthplace in the heart of England: Stratford-upon-Avon. Having experienced a wonderful performance of Richard III in a Cambridge college's courtyard in summer, I looked extremely forward to another home production, this time by the distinguished Royal Shakespeare Company (www.rsc.org.uk). Neil Bartlett, the director of the play Romeo and Juliet, had accomplished exquisite work with his team (outstanding contribution by the movement director, Leah Hausman). Bartlett sealed the performance with his genuine direction, his interpretation being subtle but vividly present throughout the play. Sweet anticipation is growing for next week's Hamlet.

Southern Association for Ancient Philosophy 2008: Michael Frede

2008-09-02T16:58:00.000+02:00

The 2008 annual meeting of the Southern Association for Ancient Philosophy will be held in Cambridge on Thursday 18 to Saturday 20 September. It will be dedicated to the work of Michael Frede in various ways, with a number of the speaker’s former pupils.

Further information and the programme can be found in:

http://www1.uea.ac.uk/cm/home/schools/hum/philosophy/SAAP

Back in Tübingen

2008-09-02T16:18:00.000+02:00

After coming back to Tübingen, I am recollecting memories of England while feeling familiar with the German context again. On my last day I spent my time in London where I could give some glimpses at fragments from all around the world: among others two Fra Angelico's paintings: heavenly music sung by his special type of angels: material, not yet individualized though; and of course the exquisitely preserved Acropolis' marble in the British Museum, in a room monumental and discrete at the same time. A column from Erechtheion as well as one Karuatis carry nothing more any longer than the inquiring gazes of the passing visitors.
In order to draw some conclusions with regard to the different philosophical types that the Germans and the British represent I need to take distance from Great Britain for some time before I approach it again. The first impressions wait patiently so as to be deepened.

Plato in Tübingen. "Tübinger Platon-Tage 2008: Über das Göttliche"

2008-08-10T19:12:00.001+02:00

Tübingen has become popular since H.-J. Krämer's ground-breaking publication "Arete bei Platon und Aristoteles" (1959) and Gaiser's following "Ungeschriebene Lehre Platons" (1962 and 1968). We do not have to agree with G. Reale's exaggerated declaration that the Tübingen School (Hans Joachim Krämer, Konrad Gaiser and Thomas Alexander Szlezák among others) introduced "a new paradigm" in the Platonic interpretation because the debate between a systematic and a non-systematic Plato was alive at least since Hegel's time. The Tübinger School became known in the Anglo-Saxon world because of the hot debate between Vlastos and Krämer in the early sixties, starting with Vlastos' review of Krämer's dissertation that caused latter's reaction and subsequent chain reactions that included others as well (Th. Szlezák).
This is far from being the first Plato Conference that takes place in Tübingen, but what is Tübingen aiming at now, in 2008, with this first conference labeled "Tübinger Platon-Tage"? Dietmar Koch, Prof. Dr. Männlein-Robert and Niels Weindtmann, who organize the Conference that will take place every two years in Tübingen, intend to revive the Tübingen Plato-tradition in Germany and abroad, and to make Tübingen a forum for dialogue on Plato anew.
In the context of this conference I will discuss an extremely contentious passage in Nomoi, which became very famous, if not infamous, the one on the "bad soul". But at first there are some steps to be fulfilled in my attempt to free the receptacle in the Timaeus from the charge of being bad: A topic for another occasion.
General information (in German) and the subjects of the following conferences on Plato (2010 and 2012) can be found in the link:
http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/philosophie/platontage/index.htm
The program and timetable of the conference in which I will learn a lot from all these profound and experienced Professors can be downloaded:
http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/philosophie/platontage/programm.pdf

PS: Wolfgang Rainer Mann wrote an article entitled "Plato in Tübingen" (OSAP 2006). He started to write a review of Gaiser's "Gesammelte Schriften" (ed. by Th. Szlezák, Academia Verlag 2004) but ended composing a forty-pages general critique against Tübingen Plato interpretation. We should take his rather superficial critique of the so-called Tübinger School with a grain of salt. I expected something philosophically more interesting and objective from such a sagacious philosopher who had composed a very challenging book on the Aristotelian Categories (The Discovery of Things). That will be the subject of another post. Here it is just a post scriptum.