Philosophy
Hassan Fathi
Abstract
In this book Plato: Deconstruction of a Philosophical Myth, Shervin Vakili tries to show that the portrait of Plato drawn by the so-called scholars of Plato (both western and Iranian) is verily unreal. In nine sections of this book, Vakili completes a portrait of Plato which lacks ethical and Political ...
Read More
In this book Plato: Deconstruction of a Philosophical Myth, Shervin Vakili tries to show that the portrait of Plato drawn by the so-called scholars of Plato (both western and Iranian) is verily unreal. In nine sections of this book, Vakili completes a portrait of Plato which lacks ethical and Political vices; a person who learned everything from Persians and turned everywhere against them. Vakili’s Plato is a stony aristocrat, an ambitious treacherous, and deviator of the Persian theoretical and practical teachings. Vakili introduces very historical pieces of evidence from Greek-Persian relations to validate his portrait, but after reading his book, it is not hard to say that he lacks a comprehensive, original, and deep understanding of Plato’s teachings. Most of his comments and analyses are unscholarly, and some are notoriously mistaken. Some critical points have been said here, about this amassed book.
Philosophy
Hassan Fathi
Abstract
Leo Straus with his writing on Xenophon revives this classical writer’s fame and station, as a Socratic writer, in relation to Plato. According to Straus, we must see Xenophon as more important than Plato as a source for learning about historical Socrates. His Xenophon’s Socratic Discourse ...
Read More
Leo Straus with his writing on Xenophon revives this classical writer’s fame and station, as a Socratic writer, in relation to Plato. According to Straus, we must see Xenophon as more important than Plato as a source for learning about historical Socrates. His Xenophon’s Socratic Discourse (including the English translation of Xenophon’s oeconomicus) does increase our knowledge about both Socrates and Xenophon; moreover, it is an instance of applying Straus’s views on reading philosophical writing by himself in his old age and maturity. Jeyrani’s Persian translation of this work is of acceptable quality. It is an original text accompanied by a valuable interpretation in the classical and modern philosophical literature. His translation can be made better than what it is; and we have proposed something about this, by the way of comparing a few fragments of the text and its translation.
