Abstract. The Noble Lie proposed by Plato for the Just City in Republic III has been much misunderstood. Its agenda is twofold: to get the citizens of the City to see their society as a natural entity, with themselves as all ‘family’ and akin; and to get the Guardians in particular to make class mobility, on which the justice of the City depends, a top priority. Since the second is taken to depend on the first, the Lie passage amounts to an argument (1) that the survival of a just community depends on the existence of social solidarity between elite and mass, which allows for full class mobility and genuine meritocracy; (2) that this solidarity in turn depends on an ideology of natural unity; and (3) that such ideologies are always false. So the Lie really is a lie, but a necessary one; as such it poses an awkward ethical problem for Plato and, if he is right, for our own societies as well.
Presented by SWIP-NYC
Socrates’ close association of madness and philosophy from the Phaedrus’ Palinode has puzzled interpreters. How can philosophy be equated to irrationality? In this paper I argue against interpretations that either deny that the association of madness and philosophy ought to be taken seriously or downplay this association by considering madness as akin to the unreflective inspiration characterizing only the first stages of philosophizing but subsequently overcome by the mature philosopher. I show that the association of madness and philosophy is an integral part of Socrates’ polemics against what he calls “human moderation”, characterized by a cold calculation of costs and benefits. And, moreover, that madness is an ongoing feature of philosophy and of the philosopher, who is never fully in possession of all his rational and cognitive processes but has to constantly work on them in an effort of self-clarification.
External visitors must comply with the university’s guest policy as outlined here: https://www.newschool.edu/covid-19/campus-access/?open=visitors.
Audience members must show proof of a full COVID-19 vaccination series (and booster if eligible), ID, and remain masked at all times.
What makes right acts right? A Stoic answer to Ross’s question.
When W.D. Ross poses the question, “what makes right acts right?” (The Right and the Good ch. 2), he is asking a question that is prior to the deliberative question, “how do I determine the right thing to do?” The Stoics recognize this: in De Officiis 1.7, Cicero says that every inquiry about duty has two parts: (1) a theoretical part concerned with the end of goods and evils, which addresses such matters as whether all duties are perfect, whether some are more important than others, and what are the kinds of duties, and (2) a practical part which sets out rules (praecepta) by which our conduct can be made to conform with the end. This paper focuses on (1) and in particular asks Ross’s question about Stoic right actions (kathêkonta).
The endpoint of Stoic deliberation is determining what token action is the right action. The paper begins with the Stoic distinction between a thing’s choiceworthiness, its intrinsic disposition to elicit a choice response in a suitable subject, and its possession being to-be-chosen. The determination of what is to-be-done is made by weighing against each other all the values of the relevant action types specified by their content (the so-called ‘intermediate actions’) that are in accordance with nature, as Stoic value theory says that according with nature is an objective reason to do an action. What constitutes the rightness of the token right action, and is given in its reasonable defense, is the same as what constitutes the rightness of a perfect (katorthôma) action. The Stoic distinction between right and perfect action depends on the action’s moral goodness—not rightness—which is due to its causal origin.
Presented by Professor Rachana Kamtekar (Cornell University)
Book discussion on Gwenda-lin Grewal’s, Thinking About Death in Plato’s Euthydemus. A Close Reading and New Translation (OUP 2022)
Speakers:
Gwenda-lin Grewal (NSSR)
Cinzia Arruzza (NSSR)
Nicholas Pappas (CUNY)
Thinking of Death places Plato’s Euthydemus among the dialogues that surround the trial and death of Socrates. A premonition of philosophy’s fate arrives in the form of Socrates’ encounter with the two-headed sophist pair, Euthydemus and Dionysodorus, who appear as if they are the ghost of the Socrates of Aristophanes’ Thinkery. The pair vacillate between choral ode and rhapsody, as Plato vacillates between referring to them in the dual and plural number in Greek. Gwenda-lin Grewal’s close reading explores how the structure of the dialogue and the pair’s back-and-forth arguments bear a striking resemblance to thinking itself: in its immersive remove from reality, thinking simulates death even as it cannot conceive of its possibility. Euthydemus and Dionysodorus take this to an extreme, and so emerge as the philosophical dream and sophistic nightmare of being disembodied from substance. The Euthydemus is haunted by philosophy’s tenuous relationship to political life. This is played out in the narration through Crito’s implied criticism of Socrates-the phantom image of the Athenian laws-and in the drama itself, which appears to take place in Hades. Thinking of death thus brings with it a lurid parody of the death of thinking: the farce of perfect philosophy that bears the gravity of the city’s sophistry. Grewal also provides a new translation of the Euthydemus that pays careful attention to grammatical ambiguities, nuances, and wit in ways that substantially expand the reader’s access to the dialogue’s mysteries.
Conceptual misalignment is a pervasive phenomenon in the studies of Non-Western philosophy and the History of Philosophy (NW&HP). However, conceptual misalignment is often undetected, unsuspected, or seen as a hurdle that NW&HP materials need to overcome to contribute to contemporary discussions. Specifically, conceptual misalignment refers to the following: In the process of crystalizing NW&HP materials, a linguistic coordination of concepts is formed between the speaker, i.e., NW&HP, and its context of contemporary anglophone philosophy. However, in philosophically meaningful ways, the original NW&HP concept and its anglophone counterpart misalign. This misalignment is particularly intricate and hard to detect when it comes to emotion concepts, as they are thought to involve phenomenal and/or intentional features. Through investigating the concept of emotion in Chinese philosophy, I propose a refocusing on conceptual misalignment as a method of cross-cultural comparative and history of philosophy. Moreover, I argue that conceptual misalignment is an important resource for contemporary conceptual engineering and amelioration projects.
With responses from Andrew Lambert (College of Staten Island, CUNY)
RSVP is required for dinner. Dinner will take place at a nearby restaurant. Please contact Lucilla at lm3335@columbia.edu for further information.
We are embarking on an innovative adaptation of J.P. Sartre’s timeless masterpiece, “No Exit.” Infused with elements inspired by Plato’s Dialogues, our play aims to explore the depths of existentialism, dark absurdity, and musical comedy while delving into the realms of speech and movement improvisation.
Through this innovative production, we aim to challenge and provoke audiences, encouraging deep introspection and dialogue about our existence and the choices we make. We believe that the combination of Sartre’s piercing insights and Plato’s philosophical foundations will create a unique theatrical experience that will resonate with both enthusiasts of classic literature and fans of contemporary performance art.
We are embarking on an innovative adaptation of J.P. Sartre’s timeless masterpiece, “No Exit.” Infused with elements inspired by Plato’s Dialogues, our play aims to explore the depths of existentialism, dark absurdity, and musical comedy while delving into the realms of speech and movement improvisation.
Through this innovative production, we aim to challenge and provoke audiences, encouraging deep introspection and dialogue about our existence and the choices we make. We believe that the combination of Sartre’s piercing insights and Plato’s philosophical foundations will create a unique theatrical experience that will resonate with both enthusiasts of classic literature and fans of contemporary performance art.
We are embarking on an innovative adaptation of J.P. Sartre’s timeless masterpiece, “No Exit.” Infused with elements inspired by Plato’s Dialogues, our play aims to explore the depths of existentialism, dark absurdity, and musical comedy while delving into the realms of speech and movement improvisation.
Through this innovative production, we aim to challenge and provoke audiences, encouraging deep introspection and dialogue about our existence and the choices we make. We believe that the combination of Sartre’s piercing insights and Plato’s philosophical foundations will create a unique theatrical experience that will resonate with both enthusiasts of classic literature and fans of contemporary performance art.
We are embarking on an innovative adaptation of J.P. Sartre’s timeless masterpiece, “No Exit.” Infused with elements inspired by Plato’s Dialogues, our play aims to explore the depths of existentialism, dark absurdity, and musical comedy while delving into the realms of speech and movement improvisation.
Through this innovative production, we aim to challenge and provoke audiences, encouraging deep introspection and dialogue about our existence and the choices we make. We believe that the combination of Sartre’s piercing insights and Plato’s philosophical foundations will create a unique theatrical experience that will resonate with both enthusiasts of classic literature and fans of contemporary performance art.
We are embarking on an innovative adaptation of J.P. Sartre’s timeless masterpiece, “No Exit.” Infused with elements inspired by Plato’s Dialogues, our play aims to explore the depths of existentialism, dark absurdity, and musical comedy while delving into the realms of speech and movement improvisation.
Through this innovative production, we aim to challenge and provoke audiences, encouraging deep introspection and dialogue about our existence and the choices we make. We believe that the combination of Sartre’s piercing insights and Plato’s philosophical foundations will create a unique theatrical experience that will resonate with both enthusiasts of classic literature and fans of contemporary performance art.