Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Plato’s Gorgias has typically not garnered the careful analysis that other Platonic dialogues, such as the Republic or the Apology of Socrates, have received. Regardless, this should not be interpreted as saying that no thoughtful commentary on Plato’s Gorgias exists. Plato’s Gorgias, however, contains some of the same arguments, topics, and characters that are found in the more “popular” Platonic dialogues. In particular, Plato’s Gorgias, notwithstanding its substantial focus on the criticism of rhetoric as it was traditionally understood in ancient Athens, also contains important discussions on the superiority of the philosophical way of life in comparison to the political way of life, on death and an afterlife, and on the meaning of justice. Chaerephon, a companion of Socrates, plays a critical role in Plato’s Gorgias. These topics, arguments, and characters also occur in Plato’s Apology of Socrates. Based upon this observation, one may question whether an important and/or a necessary connection exists between Plato’s Gorgias and Plato’s Apology of Socrates. But in order to develop this thesis, one must first offer a framework which leads one to a proper understanding of a Platonic dialogue, then summarize the basic themes of Plato’s Gorgias, and finally compare the presentation of the similar topics, arguments, and characters which occur in both of these Platonic dialogues. After these steps are completed, this paper will then evaluate its thesis-whether Plato’s Gorgias is intertwined with Plato’s Apology of Socrates.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Since Plato based the theory of the Forms on mathematics many believe they were a product of rational deduction. I argue that the Forms were based on a kind of perception and consider the implications of this for his insistence on philosophic rule.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper argues that "Beyond Good and Evil" is a part by part reply to Plato's "Republic." What Plato does with eros in the "Republic," Nietzsche does with will to power in "Beyond Good and Evil." Awareness of this relation between the two texts provides clearer access to the meaning and significance of will to power.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: As Ralph Lerner argues persuasively in his introduction to Averroes’ text, Averroes is well aware of the differences between Plato’s utopia and any existing Islamic polity. Plato’s teaching is a standard by which to judge the Islamic reality. But does Averroes in the end simply give the same answer as Plato to the question of the best regime? Or is the “question of realization” as central for Averroes as Mahdi thinks it is for Alfarabi? Our study of Averroes’ epitome of Plato’s Republic will attempt to explore Averroes’ view of the relation between wisdom and power, particularly as this relation bears upon the “question of realization” of the best regime. Our inquiry will necessarily pursue the larger question of how Averroes’ own synthesis combines Platonic, Alfarabian, and Quranic elements and to what extent his own position is or is not a return to Plato.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Plato does not only impersonate/represent Socrates, however. He also impersonates/represents Socrates impersonating/representing Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, Adeimantus, and Glaucon. Embedding the participants in the dialog in this way, to say nothing of thus embedding its author, invites readers to lose sight of who is truly speaking. Not only is identity thus destabilized but character is too for, insofar as Socrates’ account includes only a small portion of narrative in third-person form and a lot of narrative through mimesis, Socrates is depicted as acting not in the manner of a good man (396e) but of a common one (397a). With Plato impersonating/representing Socrates impersonating/representing his interlocutors, this observation redounds back on to Plato as well. What, if anything, does Plato risk in these representations? What is gained? To answer these questions, this essay stays with the material of Book I to orient the “Plato or Socrates” question away from verisimilitude and/or the pursuit of the factual identity of an author and toward a politics of authorship and authority.