Speaking Truth to ‘Platonism’? Some Thoughts on Alcibiades and Erôs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a very interesting contribution, whose major element of originality regarding the Symposium is in the reading of the speeches (which precede that of Socrates) in praise of Eros not as a climax but as elements of a sort of terrestrial gravity. The attempt to read Alcibiades' speech is also interesting with the reference to Alcibiades’ physicality and the weakness of non-philosophical eros. The use of Foucault, Lacan, Kierkegaard and Strauss is pertinent. I have some doubts about the title, namely the reference to tradition with the use of the term ‘Platonism’ (generally, this term refers to the ancient and late ancient tradition)

The essay is well organised even though there is no division into paragraphs: the author sets the aims, explains the centrality of Plato’s text, and the need to mention all the speeches in praise of Eros before getting to Alcibiades’s. The Platonic bibliography is somewhat neglected: the Author could make a note about this, explaining his/her choice or explaining that in the introduction: e.g. although it concentrates on Plato, his/her reading takes into account some suggestions coming from Foucault, Lacan, Kierkegaard and Strauss.

The Author should add to bibliography:

Tulli, M. Erler (eds.), Plato in Symposium: Selected Papers from the Tenth Symposium Platonicum Pisa, Sankt Augustin 2016.

Atack, C., “Plato, Foucault and the conceptualization of parrhesia.” History of political thought, 2019, 40 (1), p.23-48

Author Response

I am very grateful for the helpful remarks.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I am very grateful for the scrupulous attention given to the paper.

I was happy to try to adjust the structure of the paper, to clarify my intention. The paper was submitted as part of a special edition, which concentrates largely on treatments of love in the European (or 'Continental') tradition; this is the context for my various reference points and for my central claim - namely, that Plato should not be 'reduced' to a kind of proto-Hegelian.

I found F. Sheffield's text highly engaging and was happy to reference it. I am not wholly convinced, however, that the 'sharp ends' of Alcibiades' speech can be resolved within an overall, synthetic, vision.

Re. the point about ethical, political and epistemological issues - this seems to me an imposition on the Platonic text that separates what Plato sees in terms of relation. 

I have added some references to help elucidate my claims regarding the Great Speech and Hegelian Aufhebung. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thought of Michel Foucault and his crusade against the "tyranny of homonyms" when reading the first pages of this essay, and sure enough the author draws on Foucault's College de France seminars toward the end of the essay, on the topic of parrhesia.

The author wants to demonstrate that eros is an inherently pluralistic notion that cannot be subjected to a regime of univocal conceptual transparency. This is a challenge to the Neoplatonic discourse on eros (from the hugely influential Enneads I 6 of Plotinus down to Ficino -- maybe something should be added about this). Neoplatonism makes much of Diotima's vision of a ladder of love in the Symposium, but the author argues that the other speeches preceding this climax show the pluralism of eros which remains unmastered by the Platonic vision represented by DIotima. Thus pluralism is show to reside not only in modern discourses on eros but in the foundational text of the entire tradition.

But, more interestingly, the author takes very seriously the drunken explosion of parrhesia from Alcibiades, whose sudden entry is often seen as a sort of satyr play after the main philosophical issue has been authoritatively settled. My main criticism of the essay is that it is too short, finishing suddenly, and that the significance of the Alcibiades episode needs to be spelt out more fully, with reference to the general theme of the pluralism of eros and the impossibility of integrating it into a system.

The author uses Kierkegaard well, again showing that the Diotima viewpoint cannot dialectically sublate all the other viewpoints. But does Kierkegaard say nothing about the Alcibiades episode?

A theme of the essay is the way physical incidents, such as Aristophanes' hiccups and Alcibiades' drunkenness, interrupt the philosophical idealization of eros. Perhaps this might be developed further?

Also, I would like to see the author give some more prescriptions about how a discourse of eros can be developed philosophically. Do other forms of love, such as philia and agape, exhibit the same pluralism and irreducibility to conceptual uniformity? 

The author pays due attention to the literary character of the Symposium. An enriching tension between literature and philosophy comes to light. This topic could also be pursued farther. The points the author is making are intimately connected with this attention to the literary texture of a philosopher's thought. 

I would recommend the author to articulate his reflection on these issues more fully, adding a paragraph here and there to his essay and thus giving it a more sternly philosophical cast, with no loss to its literary swing.

Author Response

I'm very grateful for these thoughtful and helpful comments.

I hope that the conclusion to the piece reflects the central points made by the reviewer. I've tried to make more explicit my contention that Plato's own text may not quite fit the standard (and perhaps casual) assumption of what 'Platonism' amounts to: in this respect, the suggestion to locate my claims within wider 'Platonic' discourse were especially helpful, and I think the piece is significantly improved as a result. 

I decided not to pursue the suggestion about interrogating the relationship between philosophy and literature: it's a massive topic, and one which I felt I couldn't do justice to. This 'refusal' on my part was not meant dismissively, I should stress. 

I mention Kierkegaard on Alcibiades in the footnotes; again, I'm grateful for this suggestion. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See comments in red, appended to the comments made in the original review.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

 

I'm very grateful for these thoughtful and helpful comments.

I hope that the conclusion to the piece reflects the central points made by the reviewer. I've tried to make more explicit my contention that Plato's own text may not quite fit the standard (and perhaps casual) assumption of what 'Platonism' amounts to: in this respect, the suggestion to locate my claims within wider 'Platonic' discourse were especially helpful, and I think the piece is significantly improved as a result. 

I decided not to pursue the suggestion about interrogating the relationship between philosophy and literature: it's a massive topic, and one which I felt I couldn't do justice to. This 'refusal' on my part was not meant dismissively, I should stress. (As it happens, I think Plato’s texts undermine the very distinction: what he presents us with is a philosophical literature.)

I mention Kierkegaard on Alcibiades in the footnotes; again, I'm grateful for this suggestion.