What do you think?
Rate this book
Plato and Platonism: A Series of Lectures
'The lectures of which this volume is composed were written for delivery to some young students of philosophy, and are now printed with the hope of interesting a larger number of them. By Platonism is meant not Neo-Platonism of any kind, but the leading principles of Plato's doctrine, which I have tried to see in close connexion with himself as he is presented in his own writings.' — Walter Pater
259 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1893
52 people are currently reading
297 people want to read
About the author
Walter Pater
125 books126 followersPeople know British writer Walter Horatio Pater for his volumes of aesthetic criticism, including
Appreciations
(1889).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 21, 2020
I’m fairly sure that Pater makes no clear, single argument about Plato in this book. Rather, it showcases Pater working through some of the themes which pervade his work: Cyrenaicism/Epicureanism, Stoicism, art, etc.
Pater is right, surely, that in Plato one finds the seeds of so much that came after him. Lovers of Plato, past and present, merely select what they like and give their own interpretations; this is why aesthetes and ascetics can both claim Plato as their own. And this, Pater asserts, is to be lauded; for him, Plato was the only philosopher who suggested that the procurement of a particular temperament was the goal of philosophy, rather than the development of a dogma — a trend which Pater sees in a lineage running through Aristotle, Aquinas, Spinoza, and Hegel. As ever with Pater, this suggests a kind of balancing act that needs to be done between extremes; scholars need to question and suspend judgement where no finality is possible, yet they also must try to reach towards, and grasp, the Truth of things. Still, as Donoghue notes, the impassioned discussion of Heraclitan flux in the first chapter leaves a long shadow over the book, leaving the reader unsure about Pater’s commitment to this latter notion.
I love the themes of this book, and the prose is as supreme as it always is. I persist in impassioned subjugation to my dear W.P.
Pater is right, surely, that in Plato one finds the seeds of so much that came after him. Lovers of Plato, past and present, merely select what they like and give their own interpretations; this is why aesthetes and ascetics can both claim Plato as their own. And this, Pater asserts, is to be lauded; for him, Plato was the only philosopher who suggested that the procurement of a particular temperament was the goal of philosophy, rather than the development of a dogma — a trend which Pater sees in a lineage running through Aristotle, Aquinas, Spinoza, and Hegel. As ever with Pater, this suggests a kind of balancing act that needs to be done between extremes; scholars need to question and suspend judgement where no finality is possible, yet they also must try to reach towards, and grasp, the Truth of things. Still, as Donoghue notes, the impassioned discussion of Heraclitan flux in the first chapter leaves a long shadow over the book, leaving the reader unsure about Pater’s commitment to this latter notion.
I love the themes of this book, and the prose is as supreme as it always is. I persist in impassioned subjugation to my dear W.P.
June 11, 2023
Pater nicely stresses both: (i) Plato's belief in order; and (ii) the open fluidity of his method and style. Pater thus uses him to balance classicism and romanticism.
April 30, 2015
Much of what Pater says on Plato is familiar. A question is whether or to what degree Pater (his book was first published in 1893) influenced other Plato scholars.
Emerging from an earlier poetic format, Plato’s “distinctive” dialogue Pater states is expressed as an essay, a literary form that does not “teach” but rather “reveals.” The dialogue is a method “not only of conveying truth to others, but of coming by it” for oneself. Truth is there, but it’s a journey of discovery, filled with uncertainty and error. And this Pater writes is Plato’s paradox, “a reconciliation of opposed tendencies: on one side, the largest possible demand for infallible certainty in knowledge…yet, on the other side, the utmost possible inexactness, or contingency, in the method by which actually he proposes to attain it.” This stands in contrast, Pater says, to the dogmatic treatise (Aristotle, Spinoza) that “begins with a truth, or a clear conviction of truth.”
Pater argues that Plato was a “lover” of this world who fused transcendental spirit with the empirical world through his “ladder of love” and our ascension toward “perfect knowledge.” This fusion of two worlds occurs in the development of Plato’s thought that Pater’s distinguishes as Plato and Platonism (“By Platonism is meant not Neo-Platonism of any kind, but the leading principles of Plato’s doctrine, which I have tried to see in close connexion with himself as he is presented in his own writings”). Under the Socrates model, Plato’s objective was to free thought from the body to obtain a purified spirit. For Platonism, the objective was to perfect the body and to bring about the “redemption of matter, of the world of sense, by art, by all right education, by the creeds and worship of the Christian Church – towards the vindication of the dignity of the body.” Hence, The Republic, the “Platonic City of the Perfect,” “a reproduction of the earlier and vaguer Pythagorean brotherhood,” “an ideal republic, or rather a religious brotherhood, under a rule outwardly expressive of that inward idea of order or harmony….”
Though his sentences are elaborate and difficult, Pater presents a strong and comprehensive picture of Plato’s philosophy. In doing so, it is striking how many of the Platonic concepts that we commonly understand as applicable to our material world – reality, knowledge, truth, wisdom, virtue, good, science – have a transcendent standing, to be understood only by a select few. With such Absolutes there’s no place for doubt. Socrates’ famed claim of ignorance was about the content, the “inexactness,” of the Absolute, not the existence of the Absolute itself. The certainty of the Absolute was never in question, which is why Socrates felt it his prerogative to tell others they were ignorant of the Truth. When translated into action, that perspective tends to become imposition. The Republic and The Laws become transformative vehicles, feedlots for perfection and the divine, and Plato’s Idea becomes dangerous.
Emerging from an earlier poetic format, Plato’s “distinctive” dialogue Pater states is expressed as an essay, a literary form that does not “teach” but rather “reveals.” The dialogue is a method “not only of conveying truth to others, but of coming by it” for oneself. Truth is there, but it’s a journey of discovery, filled with uncertainty and error. And this Pater writes is Plato’s paradox, “a reconciliation of opposed tendencies: on one side, the largest possible demand for infallible certainty in knowledge…yet, on the other side, the utmost possible inexactness, or contingency, in the method by which actually he proposes to attain it.” This stands in contrast, Pater says, to the dogmatic treatise (Aristotle, Spinoza) that “begins with a truth, or a clear conviction of truth.”
Pater argues that Plato was a “lover” of this world who fused transcendental spirit with the empirical world through his “ladder of love” and our ascension toward “perfect knowledge.” This fusion of two worlds occurs in the development of Plato’s thought that Pater’s distinguishes as Plato and Platonism (“By Platonism is meant not Neo-Platonism of any kind, but the leading principles of Plato’s doctrine, which I have tried to see in close connexion with himself as he is presented in his own writings”). Under the Socrates model, Plato’s objective was to free thought from the body to obtain a purified spirit. For Platonism, the objective was to perfect the body and to bring about the “redemption of matter, of the world of sense, by art, by all right education, by the creeds and worship of the Christian Church – towards the vindication of the dignity of the body.” Hence, The Republic, the “Platonic City of the Perfect,” “a reproduction of the earlier and vaguer Pythagorean brotherhood,” “an ideal republic, or rather a religious brotherhood, under a rule outwardly expressive of that inward idea of order or harmony….”
Though his sentences are elaborate and difficult, Pater presents a strong and comprehensive picture of Plato’s philosophy. In doing so, it is striking how many of the Platonic concepts that we commonly understand as applicable to our material world – reality, knowledge, truth, wisdom, virtue, good, science – have a transcendent standing, to be understood only by a select few. With such Absolutes there’s no place for doubt. Socrates’ famed claim of ignorance was about the content, the “inexactness,” of the Absolute, not the existence of the Absolute itself. The certainty of the Absolute was never in question, which is why Socrates felt it his prerogative to tell others they were ignorant of the Truth. When translated into action, that perspective tends to become imposition. The Republic and The Laws become transformative vehicles, feedlots for perfection and the divine, and Plato’s Idea becomes dangerous.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews