PLATO’S DIFFERENT DEVICEPain in Plato’s Philebus,” in The Cambridge Companion to Plato, ed. Richard Kraut
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 425– 63.
- Benardete renders the name as “Lover of Youth” (Tragedy and Comedy
of Life, 1); Gosling understands it as “an invention of Plato’s, translatable as
‘Loveboy’ ” (Philebus, trans. J. C. B. Gosling [London: Oxford University Press,
1975], x). - As Frede notes, “one cannot reform a Callicles or a Philebus, so it is bet-
ter not to try. But one can get far with those who, like Protarchus, are ready to
listen” (“Introductory Essay” to the Philebus, lxxi). Sayre renders the name Pro-
tarchus as “priority of principle” (Plato’s Late Ontology: A Riddle Resolved [Prince-
ton: Princeton University Press, 1983], 118). Moes suggests that Plato presents
the two characters “as personifi ed powers or components of a typical self,” with
Philebus as the appetitive part of the soul and Protarchus as the spirited part,
open to reasoning (Plato’s Dialogue Form, 156). - Guthrie suspects that with this assumption, “Protarchus has given away
his case from the start, and one can imagine a satirical smile on the face of the
listening Philebus” (History of Greek Philosophy, 215). - Later, Socrates will assert against Philebus that Aphrodite “imposes law
and order and limit” on our excessive, boundless pleasures (26b– c). - Gadamer describes the Parmenides as the aporia of the mixture of the
one and the many, and the Philebus as the euporia of this mixture (Plato’s Dialecti-
cal Ethics, 118 – 19). - “Introductory Essay” to the Philebus, trans. Frede, lxx.
- Frede describes “immortal and ageless” as a customary epithet of the
gods and cites Homer, Iliad, 8.539 (Philebus 5d8n1). - As Frede notes, “the repetitions indicate not only that Protarchus is
not much used to such debates, but that the distinction itself is a novel one”
(Philebus 31c– dn1). - For more on the gift in Greek philosophy, see Gary Alan Scott’s
“Socrates as Student: The Contrast Between a Market and a Gift Economy” in
his Plato’s Socrates as Educator (A lbany: State University of New York Press, 2000).
See also my essay “The Ethics of Generosity and Friendship: Aristotle’s Gift to
Nietzsche?” in The Question of the Gift, ed. Mark Osteen (New York: Routledge,
2002), 118– 31. - The sophists and rhetoricians of the time seized upon the ambiguities
of language without defi ning the terms in between the one and the many. Since
Protarchus was interested in Gorgias, this infl uence is probably a target of this
passage. - The mention of the Egyptian god Theuth in this passage (18b– d)
invites comparison with the passage on Theuth as the inventor of writing in
the Phaedrus (274c ff.), the occasion for Plato’s famous (and ironic) critique of
writing. - As Gadamer discusses, this notion of mixture is meant metaphorically,
not literally as a recipe or techne ̄ of l iv i ng (Idea of the Good, 110 – 11). Crombie notes
the odd sense of blending here: intelligence seems to be both an ingredient in
the mixture, and the measure of it (Examination of Plato’s Doctrines, 1:254). - For more on the relation between these two methodological passages,