i happen to own a translation of Alcibiades by Schleiermacher and in the preface he argues as follows: precisely because it is an introductory text that touches on many platonic themes but only very briefly it stands out in the platonic corpus, that is why it must have been created by some other student or member of the academy.
It is the only dialogue that might be considered non-authentic because of its contents and not the writing style, atleast that i know off
He complains about the writing style as well, it's his first explicit point (pg. 330 in the English translation I'm looking at). The substance of that complaint is that the passages that, to him, resemble the beauty of Plato's style, are dispersed and interrupted by passages he finds tedious, and he finds the style of the longish speech at the end "thoroughly unsocratic." On page 334, he takes issue with the length of the first speech, referring to either Gorgias, Protagoras, or both, by referring to how Socrates hates long speeches. But one could counter on that point that Socrates gives the longest speeches in Gorgias, and that literally right after complaining about the length of Protagoras' speeches in the Protagoras, he gives the longest speech of the dialogue (longer than Protagoras' longest speech by a few pages); Schleiermacher doesn't notice or care to notice on those occasions.
>and that literally right after complaining about the length of Protagoras' speeches in the Protagoras, he gives the longest speech of the dialogue (longer than Protagoras' longest speech by a few pages); Schleiermacher doesn't notice or care to notice on those occasions
Imagine having a worse understanding of irony than a fricking German
I understand the irony perfectly well, but Schleiermacher offers no comment about such an irony in his Protagoras introduction, and he can't say that the long speeches in the Alcibiades are "unsocratic" because of length when he accepts long speeches elsewhere at face value.
I mean... Ye, it is good but to me it is not such a "kino" as many of pp here claim to be. It was just fine, and it's such a pity 'cause I really expected something more from this to be
Why do you think so?
Nobody ever questioned its authenticity except a single german guy from the 19th century
All it takes is one German guy to change the world.
Scholars today dismiss his criticisms
>Le appeal to authority
>ze appeal aus authoritaten
Why does it always win?
You say this, meanwhile you cant name a single one of his dubious criticisms
Cry about it b***h
I accept your surrender
So do what you claim I cant or concede; alcibiades is authentic and has been taught as such for centuries
can`t prove it
You are the one who made a statement without backing it up in your own words
>10/10 sheep agree that the shepherd is our friend according to Herd Animal Weekly magazine
The history of bible criticism.
>He still thinks “Plato” was a real person
i happen to own a translation of Alcibiades by Schleiermacher and in the preface he argues as follows: precisely because it is an introductory text that touches on many platonic themes but only very briefly it stands out in the platonic corpus, that is why it must have been created by some other student or member of the academy.
It is the only dialogue that might be considered non-authentic because of its contents and not the writing style, atleast that i know off
He complains about the writing style as well, it's his first explicit point (pg. 330 in the English translation I'm looking at). The substance of that complaint is that the passages that, to him, resemble the beauty of Plato's style, are dispersed and interrupted by passages he finds tedious, and he finds the style of the longish speech at the end "thoroughly unsocratic." On page 334, he takes issue with the length of the first speech, referring to either Gorgias, Protagoras, or both, by referring to how Socrates hates long speeches. But one could counter on that point that Socrates gives the longest speeches in Gorgias, and that literally right after complaining about the length of Protagoras' speeches in the Protagoras, he gives the longest speech of the dialogue (longer than Protagoras' longest speech by a few pages); Schleiermacher doesn't notice or care to notice on those occasions.
>and that literally right after complaining about the length of Protagoras' speeches in the Protagoras, he gives the longest speech of the dialogue (longer than Protagoras' longest speech by a few pages); Schleiermacher doesn't notice or care to notice on those occasions
Imagine having a worse understanding of irony than a fricking German
I understand the irony perfectly well, but Schleiermacher offers no comment about such an irony in his Protagoras introduction, and he can't say that the long speeches in the Alcibiades are "unsocratic" because of length when he accepts long speeches elsewhere at face value.
Give me a single reason to care whether the authorship is authentic or inauthentic if the arguments inside are sound
because plato is a very important figure and people want to know what he wrote and what he didnt write
One of the best platonic dialogues
idk, just some gays (and a woman for some reason) are discussing twinks anathomy
yeah and thats kino
I mean... Ye, it is good but to me it is not such a "kino" as many of pp here claim to be. It was just fine, and it's such a pity 'cause I really expected something more from this to be