ÿþ<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><!-- InstanceBegin template="/Templates/Base.dwt" codeOutsideHTMLIsLocked="false" --> <head> <!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="head" --> <link href="../../SpryAssets/SpryCollapsiblePanel.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /> <link href="tabs.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /> <link href="cpstyl.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /> <script src="../../SpryAssets/SpryCollapsiblePanel.js" type="text/javascript"></script> <link href="base.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /> <link href="ovr.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /> <!-- InstanceEndEditable --> <!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="doctitle" --> <title>PLATO HODIE - " !/</title> <!-- InstanceEndEditable --> <style type="text/css"> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:"Arial Black"; panose-1:2 11 10 4 2 1 2 2 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0mm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1A1A1A;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:saddlebrown; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:saddlebrown; text-decoration:underline;} table.MsoNormalTable td p a { text-decoration:underline !important; } table.MsoNormalTable td p a { ; } p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate {mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char"; margin:0mm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:8.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; color:#1A1A1A;} span.BalloonTextChar {mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char"; mso-style-link:"Balloon Text"; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; color:#1A1A1A;} p.msochpdefault, li.msochpdefault, div.msochpdefault {mso-style-name:msochpdefault; margin-right:0mm; margin-left:0mm; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; color:#1A1A1A;} .MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} @page WordSection1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:20.0mm 42.5pt 20.0mm 30.0mm;} div.WordSection1 {page:WordSection1;} p.LPar { font-family:Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:11pt; } div.MsoNormal1 {margin:0mm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; text-align:center; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";} div.aff1 {mso-style-name:!5:F8O; margin-top:18.0pt; margin-right:0mm; margin-bottom:6.0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; font-variant:small-caps;} div.aff2 {mso-style-name:>45@0B>@K; margin-top:0mm; margin-right:0mm; margin-bottom:6.0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; font-variant:small-caps;} li.MsoNormal1 {margin:0mm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";} li.aff1 {mso-style-name:!5:F8O; margin-top:18.0pt; margin-right:0mm; margin-bottom:6.0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; font-variant:small-caps;} li.aff2 {mso-style-name:>45@0B>@K; margin-top:0mm; margin-right:0mm; margin-bottom:6.0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; font-variant:small-caps;} p.MsoNormal1 {margin:0mm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";} p.aff1 {mso-style-name:!5:F8O; margin-top:18.0pt; margin-right:0mm; margin-bottom:6.0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; font-variant:small-caps;} p.aff2 {mso-style-name:>45@0B>@K; margin-top:0mm; margin-right:0mm; margin-bottom:6.0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"; font-variant:small-caps;} --> </style> <link href="../2014/tabs.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /> <link href="../../design/plato.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /> </head> <body> <!-- SPBU top panel loader --> <script type="text/javascript"> (function(){ var sc = document.createElement('script'); sc.type = 'text/javascript'; sc.async = true; sc.src = '//topbar.spbu.ru/loader.js'; var ls = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; ls.parentNode.insertBefore(sc, ls); })(); </script> <!-- /loader --> <table class="Pwrapper"> <thead> <tr> <td colspan="2"> <a href="../../index.htm">;0B>=>2A:>5 D8;>A>DA:>5 >1I5AB2></a></td> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td class="Pmenu"> <a href="../../index.htm"><img src="../../design/logo.gif" width="166" height="74" alt="Plato" /></a> <div><a href="../../ABOUTUS/index1.htm"> =0A</a></div> <div><a href="../../AKADEMIA/index2.htm">:045<88</a></div> <div><a href="../index3.htm">>=D5@5=F88</a></div> <div><a href="../../SUMMERSCHOOL/index4.htm">5B=85 H:>;K</a></div> <div><a href="../../PROJECTS/index5.htm">0CG=K5 ?@>5:BK</a></div> <div><a href="../../DISSERTATION/index6.htm">8AA5@B0F88</a></div> <div><a href="../../TEXTS/index7.htm">"5:ABK ?;0B>=8:>2</a></div> <div><a href="../../RESEARCH/index8.htm">AA;54>20=8O ?> ?;0B>=87<C</a></div> <div><a href="../../COMPANIONS/index11.htm">!?@02>G=K5 8740=8O</a></div> <div><a href="../../PARTNERS/index9.htm">0@B=5@K</a></div> <!-- <div><a href="../../INFO/index10.htm">=B5@=5B-@5AC@AK</a></div> --> <hr width="70%" /> <div><a href="../../pfsforms/index.html"> &laquo;;0B>=>2A:>5 D8;>A>DA:>5 >1I5AB2>&raquo;</a></div> </td> <td> <script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> function SetBodyProps() { document.body.onresize="BodyResized()"; document.body.onload="BodyResized()"; } var tInit = SetBodyProps(); </script> <!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="MainContent" --> <blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'> <p align="right" style='text-align:right'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;'><a href="../index3.htm">  !!# $ &</a></span></b></p> </blockquote> <div style="text-align: center;"> <center> <table> <tr> <td> <img src="IMAGES/PPhS.png" border="0" alt="" /> </td> <td style="text-align: center; white-space: nowrap; vertical-align: middle;"> <span style="text-align: center; font: Georgia; font-size: 40px; font-weight: bold; font-variant: small-caps;">The Universe of Platonic Thought<br /> #=825@AC< ?;0B>=>2A:>9 <KA;8</span><br /> <span style="text-align: center; font: Georgia; font-size: 20px; font-weight: normal; font-variant: small-caps;">26th International Conferecne&nbsp;&nbsp;&middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;XXVI 564C=0@>4=0O :>=D5@5=F8O</span><br /> <span style="text-align: center; font: Georgia; font-size: 14px; font-weight: normal">28&ndash;30 August 2018&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;St Petersburg, Russia&nbsp;&nbsp;&middot;&nbsp;&nbsp;28&ndash;30 023CAB0&nbsp;2018&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;!0=:B-5B5@1C@3, >AA8O</span> </td> <td> <img src="IMAGES/pla150.png" border="0" alt="" /> </td> </tr> </table> </center> </div> <hr /> <div class="d1"> <table class="ovrBtn"> <tr> <td class="c1" style="vertical-align:bottom !important;"> <img src="IMAGES/ovrbrd_11.png" alt="" /> </td> <td class="c1"> <img src="IMAGES/ovrbrd_12.png" alt="" /> </td> <td class="c7"> </td> <td class="c1"> <img src="IMAGES/ovrbrd_15.png" alt="" /> </td> <td class="c1" style="vertical-align:bottom !important;"> <img src="IMAGES/ovrbrd_16.png" alt="" /> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="c1"> <img src="IMAGES/ovrbrd_18.png" alt="" /> </td> <td colspan="3" class="c8" > <a href="upt26en.htm">Back to the Conference Program</a> </td> <td class="c1"> <img src="IMAGES/ovrbrd_19.png" alt="" /> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="c1"> <img src="IMAGES/ovrbrd_23.png" alt="" /> </td> <td class="c1"> <img src="IMAGES/ovrbrd_24.png" alt="" /> </td> <td class="c9"> </td> <td class="c1"> <img src="IMAGES/ovrbrd_26.png" alt="" /> </td> <td class="c1"> <img src="IMAGES/ovrbrd_27.png" alt="" /> </td> </tr> </table> </div> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"> <tr> <td><img src="tabs/tii_48.png" border="0" /></td> <td style="background:url(tabs/tii_45a.png) repeat-x"></td> <td><img src="tabs/tii_56.png" border="0" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td style="background:url(tabs/tii_68.png) repeat-y"></td> <td width="100%" bgcolor="#F0FFF0"> <div style="text-align:right;font-family:Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif;font-size:16px;"><span style="color:#555">5B @CAA:>9 25@A88</span></div> <div style="font-family:Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif;font-size:14px;"><p class='pcAuthor'><span class='pcName'>José Antonio Giménez</span><span class='pcAffil'>, Universidad de Los Andes, Chile</span><span class='pcPosition'>, Assistant Professor</span></p> <p class='pcTitleD'>Plato and Gadamer on Practical Knowledge</p><p class='tcSumma'>The  rehabilitation of practical philosophy , a movement that took place in the  60s and  70s in Germany, revived the old dispute between Plato and Aristotle. According to the different incumbents of this debate, these philosophers differed fundamentally in the evaluation of the practical knowledge (<i>praxis</i>): while Aristotle would have <i>correctly</i> recognized the specificity of this issue in contrast to theoretical and technical knowledge, Plato would have reduced ethics and politics to a theoretical-technical knowledge. However, in this context, Hans-Georg Gadamer held a different opinion. For this author, if one understands correctly the Platonic  dialectics , there is no real tension between them. The dialectical method  even in the sophisticated form of the late dialogues  must be actually understood as  the art of carrying on a conversation , an art that  as we know it from the early dialogues  is not only based on an <i>ethos</i>, but also oriented to a practical goal, namely,  reaching a good life .<br />This paper suggests that the Gadamerian defense of Plato s  practical dialectics is right, even though it is not necessary to postulate that Plato s thought has exclusively a practical orientation. By examining closely Gadamer's interpretation, this text will show (i) what Gadamer grounds Plato s praxis-oriented dialectics upon and (ii) how this conception concurs with Plato s metaphysics, in order to finally argue that (iii) Plato s defense of dialectics practical dimension does not automatically necessitate the elimination of his theoretical dimension.</p><br /> <p class='hcAbstract'>The  rehabilitation of practical philosophy , a movement that took place in the  60s and  70s in Germany, revived the old dispute between Plato and Aristotle. According to the different incumbents of this debate, these philosophers differed fundamentally in the evaluation of the practical knowledge (<i>praxis</i>): while Aristotle would have <i>correctly</i> recognized the specificity of this issue in contrast to theoretical and technical knowledge, Plato would have reduced ethics and politics to a theoretical-technical knowledge. However, in this context, Hans-Georg Gadamer held a different opinion. For this author, if one understands correctly the Platonic  dialectic , there is no real tension between them. The dialectical method - even in the sophisticated form of the late dialogues - must be actually understood as  the art of carrying on a conversation , an art that - as we know it from the early dialogues - is not only based on an <i>ethos</i>, but also oriented to a practical goal, namely,  reaching a good life (1989, 125-126).&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> This paper suggests that the Gadamerian defense of Plato s  practical dialectic is right, even though it is not necessary to postulate that Plato s thought has exclusively a practical orientation. By examining closely Gadamer s interpretation, this text will show (i) what Gadamer grounds Plato s praxis-oriented dialectic upon and (ii) how this conception concurs with Plato s metaphysics, in order to finally argue that (iii) Plato s defense of dialectic s practical dimension does not automatically necessitate the elimination of his theoretical dimension.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'><b>1. Dialogue and Ethos&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'></b>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>In his analysis of Platonic thought, Gadamer does not seem to establish a strict distinction between form and content. Following this hermeneutic criteria, Gadamer is in step with Schleiermacher and, in general, with the romantic understanding of the Platonic dialogues. Against a purely didactic interpretation of the dialogues, Gadamer suggests they should be read as conversations that are dependent on the concrete situation of the  life-world, such that the arguments' unfolding necessarily requires agreement (<i>homologia</i>) between interlocutors. This intersubjective agreement, for its part, presupposes the question-answer structure motivated by Socratic questioning (1957, 55). On the one hand, Socrates reveals his mastery in conducting a conversation (<i>dialegesthai</i>). On the other, by being the one who effectively leads the argument with questions, the interlocutor allows the conversation to advance (1970, 90; 1985, 107).&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Dependence on the life-world implies, for Gadamer, that Platonic dialogue cannot be reduced to its procedural aspects. This type of reduction would focus merely on  what is said, disregarding  what is shown through the action of the dialogue (1985, 171-174). The dialogues' dramatic action foregrounds (i) that an <i>ethos</i> underlies the dialoguing speakers' attitude and (ii) that the dialogues always revolve around an <i>ethical</i> issue. Socrates s ethos as a questioner is revealed, above all, through his trial and condemn to death, with contrast strongly with the fact that he was  for Plato   the most just man of that time (cf. <I>Ep. VII </i>324e1-2). The injustice he suffered and his noble mission justify the prominent role Socrates attains in the various dialogues and confer authority to his commitment in searching for the truth. In a more specific sense, we see the Socratic ethos in his acknowledgement of <i>ignorance</i>. Gadamer believes that even when Socrates no longer feigns ignorance, his attitude continues to be, above all, a  hermeneutic, that is to say, the attitude of someone who  opens a field of discussion by from the very question and who s aware of the limits of his knowledge (1960, 369). The interlocutor s ethos, for its part, emerges from his predisposition to allowing himself to be guided by the argument (<i>logos</i>). In this sense, the dialogues give an account of various attitudes that enable or hinder the conversation to unfold (1931, 33-38; 1983, 330-360). Ultimately, Gadamer argues that what truly makes dialogue possible is openness to the possibility that the other may be right, which implies the interlocutor s willingness to being contradicted. The  aporia, as the unmasking of the self-deception to which Socratic refutation leads, is effective only if the interlocutor has not only <i>put forth and at stake</i> a  thesis, but also put<i> </i>his own self forth and at stake (<i>exposed</i> himself) by identifying himself with that thesis. For this reason, Socrates always demands from his interlocutors their own testimonies and commitment to truth (1960, 370).&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> The possibility of the interlocutor s exposedness demands that we think about the  object of the dialogue. Dialogic commitment is only possible if <I>I care</i> about what I'm discussing. The early Platonic dialogues are particularly clear in this respect: they ask about virtue and, ultimately, about how to live well. Gadamer has no doubt that the middle and late dialogues are concerned about the same thing, even if they have lost the dialogic vitality of the early dialogues (1991, 340). Renaud aptly calls Gadamer s tendency to interpret the middle and late dialogues under the lens of  dialogic vitality exhibited by the early dialogues a  resocratization of Plato. The absence of dogmatism from the Socratic dialogues cannot, however, be easily extrapolated to the dialogues in which Plato develops a more systematic thinking, the foremost manifestation of which is his theory of Forms. Aware of this problem, Gadamer attempts to conjure up a  socratized Plato with the dogmatism of the middle and late dialogues.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'><b>2. Gadamer s Solution to the  Separation of Ideas&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'></b>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> Gadamer interprets the theory of Ideas influenced by the Neo-Kantian interpretation set forth by Natorp in his <I>Platons Ideenlehre </i>(1921). According to this work, ideas are the  condition of possibility for dialogue and, ultimately, for knowledge. Analogously, Gadamer understands that ideas are, first and foremost,  points of departure rather than  points of arrival, and that they open up the path of research via the mode of questioning. The Idea of the Good, in particular, as the end (<i>telos</i>) of the human soul is the condition for both thought and action to unfold. Nonetheless, how can Gadamer make this interpretation compatible with the Platonic affirmation of Ideas as  separate (<i>chôrista</i>) existences?&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> Gadamer will seek to cleanse Plato from historic Platonism. In order to do this, he will, in addition to  socratizing the middle and late dialogues,  aristotelize the main doctrines found in those dialogues. He achieves this operation, on the one hand, by accepting the fundamental aspects Aristoteles' critique of the  separate aspect of the Platonic Idea of the Good; yet, on the other hand, he does so by negating that this critique entails a correct understanding of Plato s intention.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> Two objections stand out from Aristotle s objections to a Platonic ethics: (i) the Idea of the Good is advocated univocally and not analogically, that it won't allow for an adequate predication of the particular goods and according to each of the categories; (ii) inasmuch as the Idea of the Good is  separate, it turns out to be, <i>for us</i>, neither practicable nor attainable. These objections wouldn't affect Plato, according to Gadamer, if we consider the continuity of the Platonic <i>corpus</i> as well as the  turn toward praxis found in the late dialogues. On the one hand, despite the abstraction of the dialectic ascension found in the <I>Republic</i>, we undeniably find here also a continuation of the Socratic preoccupation for the good life of the early dialogues. On the other hand, Plato develops in the late dialogues a strategy of mediation between the separate Ideas and the sensible particulars that would erase the  separation (<i>chôrismos</i>) between the two levels of reality. This strategy of mediation, which is set forth, for example, in the <I>Philebus</i> s third genus (i.e. <i>genesis eis ousian</i>), would enable us to understand the Platonic Good as an immanent reality we can identify, as with Aristotle, with the very self-realization of the human agent. In this way, the identification of each entity s end (<i>telos</i>) with its realization (<i>entelecheia</i>) would not only have been anticipated by Plato, but would also correspond with the philosopher s most authentic intention. &nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> Thus, Gadamer interprets the Platonic dialectic as a  practical philosophy that anticipates Aristotelian prudence (<i>phrônesis</i>), making Plato s metaphysical observations less weighty while simultaneously highlighting the continuity between both Greek philosophers. In what follows, I would like to consider to what extent it is possible to safeguard Gadamer s project of revalidating Plato as a practical philosopher without simultaneously necessitating the abandonment of the metaphysical suppositions of Platonism that have proved to be so influential for the history of philosophy.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'><b>3. The Practical Orientation of Dialectics&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'></b> The fundamental value of Gadamer s interpretation of the Platonic dialogues lies, on the one hand, in the fact that he recognized the implicit presence of a  practical dimension, even in the Platonic dialogues' most theoretical digressions --for example, the persistent quarrel with the Sophists with respect to the abstract question of  non-being within the <I>Sophist--</i>. On the other hand, the value of Gadamer s interpretation lies in his foregrounding the potential paths of continuity between late Platonic and Aristotelian thought.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> Notwithstanding its value, the radicalness of Gadamer s interpretation makes it difficult, on the one hand, to establish an adequate balance between Socratic dialogue and Platonic dialectic; on the other, it makes it difficult to recognize the extent of the purported practical turn in late Platonic thought. In what follows, I will try to define the reaches of a  practical dialectic within Plato, with the aim of manifesting both the contributions and limits of Gadamer s interpretation.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'> Gadamer makes the <I>Philebus</i> the guiding thread of his attempt to rehabilitate practical Platonic philosophy, dedicating to it considerable parts of his two monographs on Plato. In his <I>Platons dialektische Ethik</i> (1931)<i>, </i>Gadamer attempts to show the dialogic, intersubjective, and practical character of Socrates s dialectic process. The force of  the dialogic is shown, first of all, in Socrates s <i>return</i> to the spotlight and, secondly, in the relevance attained by his interlocutor, Protarchus, as he moves the discussion forward. As Davidson has also noted (1997, 274), Plato recognizes in the <I>Philebus</i> the necessity that intersubjective compromise has in fostering cooperative dialogue. Furthermore, the practical orientation of this dialogue is evident in its object of discussion. Socrates does not ask here about the Idea of the Good, but about the wellbeing of human existence ("our wellbeing") (1989: 125-126). This is why Gadamer calls the dialectic in the <I>Philebus</i> an  ethical dialectic. Despite this, one could object that both the recognition of  dialogic and ethical conditions and the practical character of the object of thinking do not entail that the methodological pursuit of this dialogue is fundamentally different than the pursuit of a dialogue that would take any other topic as the object of its thinking: just as some dialogues attempt by means of  division (<i>dihairesis</i>) to determine the nature of an idea (e.g. the politician s or the sophist's), here the attempt is to determine, via the division of different species of pleasure and knowledge, which ones belong to the good life. Gadamer suggests, however, that the dialectic of the <I>Philebus</i> not only undertakes the task of dividing (<i>unterscheiden</i>), but also that of selecting or choosing (<i>entscheiden</i>). The dialectician here (i.e., Socrates) must not only determine the possible species of each genus, but also decide, according to axiological criteria, which species should be admitted or not into the good life.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>In his essay <I>Die Idee des Guten zwischen Platon und Aristoteles</i> (1978), Gadamer develops the same idea, identifying here the same  art of dividing found in the <I>Philebus</i> with Aristotelian <i>prohairesis</i>. The mixture metaphor that concludes the dialogue (59e ss.) should be interpreted allegorically, in such a way that  pleasure and  knowledge would correspond only to  abstract moments that only truly exist in the  third genus, that is to say,  in mixed life. The model of mixed life could, according to Gadamer, allow us to comprehend in a different way the composition of all beings starting off from the  unlimited (<i>apeiron</i>) and the  limit (<i>peras</i>): these components would equally be abstract moments of the realization of the genus of the mixture (27b8), which would make it plausible to assume that  participation (<i>methexis</i>) ontologically precedes  separation (<i>chôrismos</i>) (1978, 191-192). In this way, by identifying the good with  the mixtures, both human and cosmic teleology could be justified without having recourse to the transcendence of the Idea of the Good.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Generally speaking, we could raise two objections to Gadamer s interpretation: first of all, it is highly debatable whether the pair <i>apeiron-peras</i> means the same thing when it refers to the composition of Ideas as when it is considered in view of the constitution of the mixtures of the visible cosmos. In the latter case, Plato fundamentally gives us the same outline of cosmology in the <I>Timaeus</i>, according to which sensible beings are composed of matter and mathematical structures. On the contrary, when Socrates affirms that the  limit and the  unlimited are inherent to forms, he is referring to the dialectician s task of reaching a  number or limit --and thus knowledge-- that would mediate between the unity of the generic idea and the infinitude of particular cases falling under the same idea. While it is possible to elaborate a strategy to connect these respective uses of the pair <i>apeiron-peras</i> --as Neo-Platonism itself has done-- at the very least it does not seem interpretatively appropriate to understand the use of this pair of concepts in a univocal way.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Secondly, with respect to the operation of the dialectical method and, more appropriately, the method of division, it is equally necessary to distinguish between the idea of the differentiation of concepts and the determination of the due measure in <i>life itself</i>. While the division undertaken in the <I>Philebus</i> presupposes a particular axiological standard, as pleasures are divided according to their purity and knowledges are divided according to their precision --which differentiates this division from that of other dialogues where it is not necessary to hierarchize the divided species (cf. <I>Sophist </i>227a7-b6) -- the task of the  practical philosopher should not be confused with the determination of the  practical good in contingency. Plato refers in several passages of the late dialogues to this  measure of praxis (particularly in the <I>Statesman</i> 284-c), without identifying this knowledge with the dialectical process of division. Neither does this  practical knowledge appear to replace the more theoretical task of dialectics of comprehending the structure of reality nor found itself on pure existence without having recourse to theory. The  practical dimension of dialectics developed in the <I>Philebus</i>, <I>Statesman</i>, and the <I>Laws</i> --and enabled by the revaluation of the ontological status of contingency of the <I>Timaeus</i> s cosmology-- need not entail either modifying the ontology of Ideas in the middle dialogues nor that this practical dimension cease, in a way, to be theoretical. With respect to this point, I would like to make three observations by way of conclusion: (i) the primacy of mixed life found in the <I>Philebus</i> does not mean that the model of practical life will cease to exist alongside the model of contemplative life (cf. <I>Theaetetus </i>176b1-2) as a possibility for some people. In order to reverse the traditionally accepted Neo Platonic conception of the good life as a purely intellectual life it is not necessary to deny this possibility; rather, it is enough to recognize that in Plato --as in Aristotle-- different possibilities of realized life can exist; (ii) the recognition of a mixed life of pleasure and knowledge as the properly human good in the <I>Philebus</i> and of the  due measure of political action in the <I>Statesman</i> does not eliminate the paradigm of the Idea of the Good, insofar as this  practical knowledge is not the mere accumulation of experiences, but is rather the knowledge of application of a paradigm that, as such, is beyond experience. While it s true that the application of the paradigm does not here entail an intellectual and philosophical formation as we find in <I>Republic</i> VII, it is also clear in these dialogues that  the good can only be perceived in the particular when the universality of the good makes itself manifest here --that is, it s perfection, sufficiency, and eligibility. This occurs even after having accepted the  second navigation in the <I>Statesman</i> and <I>Laws</i>: if there is no subject capable of applying the measure of what is always identical to itself to a concrete case, laws must  imitate, <i>to the extent that this is possible</i>, the stability of absolute models; (iii) finally, despite this practical orientation evident in some of the late dialogues --a turn  transformed towards the Socratic ethos of the early dialogues-- we cannot deny that  dialectics as such is still philosophical and, in this sense, a form of theory. In this way, Gadamer is right to highlight the Platonic development of a  practical philosophy, understanding the latter as the philosophical discipline that differentiates itself methodically from theoretical philosophy by considering the specificity of its object of study. This entails, nonetheless and as Gadamer suggests, that one is able to identify the dialectical process itself with Aristotelian  deliberation and  election (<i>prohairesis</i>), that is to say, with  practical knowledge as such. In this way, it would be more reasonable to differentiate between the dialectical method and  practical knowledge itself, as what allows human beings in general and politicians in particular to determine, respectively, the  due measure of the components of mixed life and the characters of citizens. &nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'><B>Bibliography&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'></b>Bubner R. (1989),  Theorie und Praxis bei Platon , <I>Antike Themen und ihre moderne Verwandlung</i>, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, 22-36. &nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Davidson D. (1997),  Gadamer and Plato s Philebus , <I>Truth, Language, and History</i>, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 261-275.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Gadamer, H. G. (1931), Platos dialektische Ethik: Phanomenologische Interpretationen zum Philebos. Meiner, Hamburg 2000.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Gadamer, H. G. (1957),  Was ist Wahrheit? , <I>WM II.</i>&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Gadamer, H. G. (1993) <I>Warheit und Methode. Ergänzungen  Register</i>, <I>GW II</I>, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen (=1986) (<I>WM II</I>).&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Gadamer, H. G. (1960), <I>Wahrheit und Methode: Grundz</i>u<i>ge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik</i>, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Gadamer, H. G. (1970),  Begriffsgeschichte als Philosophie , <I>WM</I> <I>II</I>.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Gadamer, H. G. (1978),  Die Idee des guten zwischen Plato und Aristoteles , <I>GW</I> 7, 128-227.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Gadamer, H. G. (1983),  Text und Interpretation , <I>WM II</I>.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Gadamer, H. G. (1985),  Sokrates Frommigkeit des Nichtweissens , <I>GW 7</i>.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Gadamer, H. G. (1989),   Platos dialektische Ethik  beim Wort genommen , <I>GW</I> 7, 121-127.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Gadamer, H. G. (1991),  Dialektik ist nicht Sophistik. Theatet lernt das im Sophistes ,<i> GW</I> 7.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Gadamer, H. G. (1986-1995), <I>Gesammelte Werke</i>, J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen (<I>GW</I>).&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Gadamer, H.-G. (1985),  Logos und Ergon im platonischen <I>Lysis</i> , <I>GW 6</i>, 171-186 (=1972). &nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Natorp P. (1921), Platos Ideenlehre. Eine Einfuhrung in den Idealismus. Leipzig: Meiner.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Renaud F. (1999), <I>Die Resokratisierung Platons</i>. <I>Die platonische Hermeneutik Hans-Georg Gadamers</i>, International Plato Studies 10, Sankt Augustin.&nbsp;</p> <p class='hcAbstract'>Wieland, W. (1982), <I>Platon und die Formen des Wissens</i>, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Gottingen.</p> </div> </td> <td style="background:url(tabs/tii_69.png) repeat-y"></td> </tr> <tr> <td><img src="tabs/tii_72.png" alt="" /></td> <td style="background:url(tabs/tii_74.png) repeat-x"></td> <td><img src="tabs/tii_79.png" alt="" /></td> </tr> </table> <p class="MsoNormal" align="right" style='text-align:right'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;'>© ;0B>=>2A:>5 >1I5AB2>, 2018 3. </span></p> <p align="right" style='margin-top:0mm;margin-right:3pt;margin-bottom: 0mm;margin-left:-36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:right'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&quot;Tahoma&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;'><a href="../index3.htm">  !!# $ &</a></span></b></p> <!-- InstanceEndEditable --> </td> </tr> </tbody> </body> <!-- InstanceEnd --></html>